Final Report Merced County 2017/18 - 2021/22 Short Range Transit Plan
Prepared for the Merced County Association of Governments
Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. This page left intentionally blank. Final Report Merced County 2017/18 – 2021/22 Short Range Transit Plan
______
Prepared for the
Merced County Association of Governments 369 West 18th Street Merced, CA 95340
Prepared by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P. O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145
This plan development has been financed in part through a grant from the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and through other State and local funds made available to and through the Merced County Association of Governments.The findings and recommendations of this plan are solely those of the consultant team; they are not explicitly endorsed by Caltrans or the Federal Transit Administration.
June 30, 2017 LSC #167330 This page left intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1 Introduction ...... 1
2 Study Setting and Public Outreach ...... 3
3 Existing Transit Services ...... 29
4 Passenger Surveys ...... 77
5 Service Alternatives Analysis ...... 85
6 Capital Alternatives ...... 133
7 Financial Considerations ...... 151
8 Goals, Policies, Objectives and Performance Measures ...... 161
9 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan ...... 167
10 Marketing Plan ...... 191
Appendix A – G: Bound Separately
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Historic and Projected Population of Merced County ...... 3 2 Merced County Population Characteristics ...... 6 3 Population Projections by Age Groups for Merced County ...... 14 4 Merced County Commute Travel Characteristics ...... 16 5 Commuters Into and Out of Merced County ...... 17 6 Commuters from Merced County ...... 17 7 Top Merced County Employers ...... 18 8 The Bus Fares and Passes ...... 40 9 TJPA Operating and Capital Revenues ...... 42 10 TJPA Operating Expenses ...... 43 11 The Bus Operating Statistics, Fiscal Year 2015‐16 ...... 45 12 The Bus Performance Indicators by Route ...... 46 13 The Bus Ridership by Route and Year ...... 50 14 The Bus Ridership by Route and Month, Fiscal Year 2015‐16 ...... 52 15 Busiest Boarding and Alighting by Route and Stop ...... 53
Fiscal Year 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page i 16 Summary of Passenger Activity at Major The Bus Stops ...... 54 17 The Bus Ridership by Route and Day of the Week ...... 55 18 The Bus Average Weekday Passenger Boarding by Route by Time of Day ...... 60 19 Review of Weekday Ridership and Productivity ...... 62 20 The Bus Fixed Route Fleet Inventory...... 67 21 The Bus Paratransit Fleet Inventory ...... 68 22 CatTracks Service...... 74 23 YARTS Ridership by Month ...... 75 24 Transfers To and From Surveyed Routes ...... 78 25 Common Boarding Locations of Surveyed Passengers ...... 79 26 The Bus Service Alternatives Summary ...... 88 27 Weekday Vs. Weekend Ridership and Service Level on Routes Serving UC Santa Cruz Campus ...... 98 28 Existing Route W2 Weekday Ridership by Run ...... 104 29 Existing Rural Lifeline Services ...... 111 30 Proportion of The Bus Paratransit Trip‐Ends by Distance from Nearest Fixed Route ...... 119 31 Transit Service Alternatives Performance Analysis ...... 126 32 Merced The Bus SRTP Vehicle Needs ...... 134 33 Percentage of September, 2016 Boardings by Fare or Pass Type by Route ...... 155 34 Peer System Fare and Pass Analysis ...... 158 35 Current and Proposed Performance Standards ...... 163 36 Merced The Bus SRTP Estimated Operating Cost ...... 181 37 Merced The Bus SRTP Estimated Ridership ...... 182 38 Merced The Bus SRTP Estimated Farebox Revenues ...... 184 39 Merced The Bus SRTP Capital Plan ...... 185 40 Merced The Bus SRTP Financial Plan ...... 186 41 Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objective #1 ...... 211 42 Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objective #2 ...... 212 43 Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objectives #3 ...... 213 44 Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objective #4 ...... 213
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Study Location Map ...... 4 2 Merced County Population Trends: 2000 to 2030 ...... 5 3 Total Population Per Square Mile ...... 7 4 Youth Population (Ages 10 to 17) Per Square Mile ...... 8 5 Senior Population (Ages 65 and Over) Per Square Mile ...... 10 6 Persons Living Below the Poverty Level by Census Tract ...... 11 7 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract...... 12 8 Person with Disabilities Tract ...... 13
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Year 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page ii Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 9 Elderly and Youth Population ...... 14 10 Bus Regional Routes ...... 30 11 Organization Chart of Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County ...... 31 12 Merced Transit Routes ...... 34 13 Atwater Transit Routes ...... 35 14 Passengers per Service Hour by Route ...... 47 15 Subsidy per Passenger Trip by Route ...... 47 16 The Bus Annual Ridership ...... 51 17 Total Boarding and Alightings ...... 56 18 Regional Boarding and Alightings ...... 57 19 The Bus Ridership by Day of Week ...... 58 20 The Bus Weekday Ridership by Time of Day ...... 59 21 Impact of Recent Service Changes on Weekday Daily Ridership ...... 65 22 Impact of Recent Service Changes on Weekday Passenger per Vehicle Service‐Hour ...... 66 23 The Merced Transpo ...... 69 24 Please rate The Bus service for each of the following ...... 82 25 Desired Improvements Identified in onboarding Survey ...... 84 26 Desired Increased Span of Service from Passenger Surveys ...... 84 27 Potential Route M3 Alterative ...... 86 28 Potential Route M6 2‐way Alternatives ...... 93 29 Potential A1 Alternative ...... 101 30 Potential Route L Modifications ...... 107 31 Hourly Paratransit Boardings Vs. Service‐Hours ...... 116 32 Paratransit Passenger Boardings per Vehicle‐Hour of Service by Hour of Day ...... 118 33 Impact of Alternatives Annual Ridership ...... 123 34 Impact of Alternatives on Annual Operating Subsidy ...... 124 35 Alternatives Marginal Passengers per Vehicle‐Hour of Service...... 127 36 Alternatives Marginal Subsidy per Rider ...... 128 37 Service Alternatives: Annual Operating Subsidy vs. Annual Ridership Impact ...... 130 38 Proportion of September Boardings by Fare Media ...... 156 39 Percent of September Boardings by Regular Fare or Discount Type ...... 156 40 Merced Transit Plan: Merced Area ...... 168 41 Merced Transit Plan ...... 169
Fiscal Year 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page iii
This page left intentionally blank.
Chapter 1 Introduction
This document presents a five-year Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) developed for the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) and The Bus transit program. A SRTP is intended to provide a detailed business plan to guide the transit organization over the coming five years. It has been developed through the following study elements:
• An outreach plan was developed at the start of the project to ensure that the public had maximum opportunity to participate in the study. The results of outreach efforts are in this SRTP Plan report.
• The demographics and transit-related conditions of Merced County have been reviewed, and transit needs were evaluated with consideration for expected changes over the coming five years.
• A series of surveys, onboard observations, ridership counts, and site evaluations were conducted for The Bus transit services.
• A detailed evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing services was conducted.
• A wide range of service, capital, financial and institutional options were evaluated.
• Additional public input was generated through committee meetings, surveys, and review of study documents which aided in selection and development of the service plan.
• Detailed operational, capital and institutional plans, including an implementation plan have been prepared.
• A marketing plan was developed which evaluated current marketing efforts and proposes strategies to maximize marketing opportunities for the next five years.
These efforts were presented in a series of working papers which have been combined in this SRTP Report.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 1
This page left intentionally blank.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 2 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 2 Study Setting and Public Outreach
GEOGRAPHY OF MERCED COUNTY
Merced County is located in the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley in California (as shown in Figure 1). Merced County is bordered to the east by the Mariposa County, to the south by Madera County and Fresno County, to the west by San Benito County and Santa Clara County, and to the north by Stanislaus County.
Interstate 5 and SR 99 are the primary roadways that run north to south connecting the counties with the more urban areas of Stockton and Sacramento to the north, and Fresno and eventually Los Angeles to the south. SR 152 runs east and west through Merced, connecting it to towns located near the coast, such as Gilroy and Watsonville. SR 140 also runs east and west through Merced, connecting it to Yosemite National Park.
Merced is home to six incorporated cities, including Merced (the county seat), Los Banos, Atwater, Livingston, Gustine, and Dos Palos, in order from most populous to least. In addition, there are numerous Census-designated places within Merced.
POPULATION
General Population Trends: Historic and Projected Population
Table 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the population and projected population in Merced County from 1970 through 2040. As shown, Merced County’s population increased from 104,629 residents in 1970 to 256,800 in 2010. Per Table 1, the population in Merced County increased by 22.0 percent from 2000 to 2010.
TABLE 1: Historic and Projected Population of Merced County 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Merced County 104,629 134,558 178,403 210,554 256,800 288,991 337,798 Annual Percent Growth -- 2.5% 2.8% 1.7% 2.0% 1.2% 1.6% Over Previous Period -- 28.6% 32.6% 18.0% 22.0% 12.5% 16.9%
California Population 19,953,134 23,667,902 29,760,021 33,871,648 37,341,978 40,619,346 44,085,600 Annual Percent Growth -- 1.7% 2.3% 1.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% Over Previous Period -- 18.6% 25.7% 13.8% 10.2% 8.8% 8.5% Source: California Demographic Research Unit
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 3 Fresno Miles 145 U V Parksdale Biola 145 U V 145 145 U V U V 145 U V 99 U V Kerman M a r i pC o o s u a n t y M e r c e d Merced County 140 U V Madera MaderaAcres La La Vina Madera County 5 Fairmead I Le Le Grand 0 10 20 Planada Chowchilla Mendota University of CaliforniaMerced 140 U V B 152 ¥ ¢ U V Snelling 59 Merced U V 59 U V 59 El Nido El U V 33 U V 33 U V Atwater Dos Dos Palos NationalGeographic, Esri, UNEP-WCMC,DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN,GEBCO, NOAA, iPC Fresno County Cressey Winton Dos Dos Palos Y SouthDos Palos Ballico 140 U V Delhi Figure 1 Figure 99 Livingston U V 5 165 U V LosBanos § ¨ ¦ Study Location Map Location Study Stevinson Merced County Hilmar-Irwin Gustine Newman 33 U V Santa NellaSanta 140 U V Modesto 33 U V 130 U V 25 152 U V U V 156 U V San Benito County Santa CClara o u n t y 25 U V 156 U V
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 4 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan FIGURE 2: Merced County Population Trends: 2000 to 2030
337,798
288,991 2030 2020 2010 256,800 2000
210,554
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 Population
This population change is significantly higher than the 10.2 percent population growth rate in California during the same period. Within Merced County, the population is expected to increase by 12.5 percent between the years 2010 to 2020, and 31.5 percent between 2010 and 2030. Overall, between 2010 and 2030, population growth in Merced County is projected to have a growth rate of almost twice that of the State of California as a whole.
Existing Demographics
Table 2 and Figures 3 through 8 present key demographic data for Merced County at the US Census tract level. A review of this data indicates the following:
Total population of the County is 261,429, per the most recent Census data. Population density, as shown in Figure 3, is greatest in Merced (particularly the downtown area), Delhi, and Atwater. It should be noted, however, that though Delhi is denser than some areas, it constitutes only three percent of the County’s total population.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 5 Youth (persons under 18 years of age) total 36,698, or 14.0 percent of total population. Areas with relatively high concentrations of youth include the central Merced, Los Banos, Atwater and Delhi. Figure 4 presents the density of youth population.
TABLE 2: Merced County Population Characteristics Occupied With a Zero Vehicle 2 Census Tract Total Housing Youth (10-17) 4 Elderly (65+) 4 Disability5 Below Poverty 6 Households # Description Population1 Units2 #%#%#%#%#% 2.01 Cortez & Ballico 3,561 1,158 524 14.7% 334 9.4% 75 2.1% 721 20.3% 46 4.3% 2.02 S. of Delhi 1,886 524 264 14.0% 195 10.3% 33 1.7% 465 24.7% 48 9.4% 2.03 Delhi 8,911 2,600 1,423 16.0% 540 6.1% 281 3.2% 1,586 17.8% 44 1.8% 3.01 Livingston NE of 99 5,002 1,320 597 11.9% 378 7.6% 180 3.6% 862 17.3% 106 8.5% 3.03 Livingston Surrounds 2,055 700 378 18.4% 176 8.6% 12 0.6% 598 29.1% 41 6.5% 3.04 Livingston SW of 99 9,538 2,397 1,495 15.7% 906 9.5% 509 5.3% 2,106 22.5% 105 4.9% 4.01 Stevinson 1,793 588 143 8.0% 126 7.0% 85 4.7% 477 26.6% 17 3.6% 4.02 Hilmar 8,123 2,885 933 11.5% 1,493 18.4% 270 3.3% 783 9.7% 127 4.8% 5.03 Merced Co Airport 3,336 689 200 6.0% 326 9.8% 41 1.2% 448 22.2% 9 1.4% 5.04 Winton 6,879 1,908 1,016 14.8% 388 5.6% 83 1.2% 1,854 27.0% 160 9.4% 5.05 Winton 7,063 1,934 1,165 16.5% 645 9.1% 158 2.2% 1,606 22.7% 26 1.4% 6.01 Atwater 5,179 1,778 821 15.9% 440 8.5% 171 3.3% 1,415 27.3% 234 14.7% 6.02 Atwater 3,605 1,179 624 17.3% 432 12.0% 64 1.8% 990 27.5% 31 2.9% 6.03 Atwater 6,025 2,097 901 15.0% 682 11.3% 161 2.7% 2,402 38.9% 246 12.4% 7.01 Atwater 3,122 1,053 270 8.6% 446 14.3% 40 1.3% 1,105 36.1% 174 18.3% 7.02 Atwater 5,002 1,740 809 16.2% 683 13.7% 67 1.3% 294 5.9% 70 4.5% 8.01 Atwater 5,378 1,741 770 14.3% 564 10.5% 181 3.4% 742 14.0% 57 3.6% 8.02 Atwater 4,219 1,440 625 14.8% 498 11.8% 99 2.3% 706 16.7% 22 1.6% 9.01 El Nido 4,037 1,157 428 10.6% 245 6.1% 10 0.2% 603 17.8% 5 0.5% 9.02 Fergus 9,161 2,699 1,441 15.7% 796 8.7% 247 2.7% 2,342 25.7% 160 6.4% 10.02 Merced College 13,455 4,584 1,747 13.0% 1,051 7.8% 340 2.5% 2,031 15.1% 153 3.7% 10.03 Merced downtown 3,989 1,514 578 14.5% 340 8.5% 178 4.5% 1,535 38.8% 243 17.7% 10.04 Merced downtown 4,085 1,923 359 8.8% 815 20.0% 264 6.5% 1,132 29.0% 485 27.0% 10.05 Merced 2,297 945 126 5.5% 201 8.8% 44 1.9% 838 36.9% 203 24.7% 11.01 Merced 5,755 2,183 694 12.1% 666 11.6% 183 3.2% 1,367 23.9% 98 4.8% 12.00 Merced 5,148 1,987 492 9.6% 1,008 19.6% 203 3.9% 744 14.5% 71 3.7% 13.01 Merced downtown 2,887 1,385 283 9.8% 411 14.2% 134 4.6% 850 31.2% 236 20.3% 13.02 Merced downtown 3,334 1,323 462 13.9% 373 11.2% 156 4.7% 1,513 47.5% 243 21.5% 14.01 Merced 4,063 1,541 396 9.7% 339 8.3% 109 2.7% 1,202 29.8% 198 14.1% 14.02 Merced 4,906 1,710 412 8.4% 555 11.3% 107 2.2% 1,349 27.6% 76 4.9% 15.01 Merced Airport 3,105 780 567 18.3% 262 8.4% 92 3.0% 1,019 32.8% 32 4.2% 15.02 Merced 2,958 773 294 9.9% 211 7.1% 87 2.9% 1,244 42.1% 156 21.6% 15.03 Merced 4,743 1,254 860 18.1% 394 8.3% 109 2.3% 2,286 48.2% 132 11.1% 16.01 Merced 3,785 1,162 453 12.0% 216 5.7% 201 5.3% 2,103 58.3% 225 22.8% 16.02 Merced 8,212 1,946 1,725 21.0% 402 4.9% 187 2.3% 2,816 34.5% 75 4.0% 17.00 Merced 6,228 2,182 911 14.6% 588 9.4% 253 4.1% 2,422 39.1% 131 7.2% 18.01 UC Merced 4,507 1,103 304 6.7% 399 8.9% 76 1.7% 212 7.3% 67 6.2% 19.01 Planada 5,539 1,643 785 14.2% 468 8.4% 174 3.1% 1,822 32.9% 75 5.3% 19.02 Le Grand 2,545 889 380 14.9% 341 13.4% 82 3.2% 719 28.4% 59 7.7% 20 Gustine & surrounds 8,093 2,808 906 11.2% 827 10.2% 127 1.6% 2,164 26.8% 119 4.6% 21 Santa Nella, Volta 3,589 1,531 592 16.5% 227 6.3% 85 2.4% 832 23.2% 86 6.8% 22.01 Los Banos 5,690 2,024 741 13.0% 723 12.7% 112 2.0% 2,277 40.9% 269 14.6% 22.02 Los Banos 10,363 2,893 1,670 16.1% 652 6.3% 67 0.6% 2,185 21.2% 81 3.0% 23.01 Los Banos 6,424 2,280 729 11.3% 944 14.7% 217 3.4% 1,013 15.9% 77 3.6% 23.02 Los Banos 14,482 4,179 2,353 16.2% 1,220 8.4% 295 2.0% 3,423 23.8% 166 4.4% 24.01 Dos Palos Y 1,442 600 248 17.2% 179 12.4% 5 0.3% 311 21.8% 29 5.3% 24.02 Dos Palos South 3 8,390 2,660 1,452 17.3% 997 11.9% 167 2.0% 2,902 34.7% 185 7.8% 25 Snelling 2,104 830 321 15.3% 353 16.8% 52 2.5% 273 13.0% 45 6.3% 26 Bear Creek 5,436 1,684 1,031 19.0% 660 12.1% 126 2.3% 863 15.9% 22 1.4% Merced County 261,429 83,903 36,698 14.0% 26,115 10.0% 6,999 2.7% 65,552 25.6% 5,765 7.5%
Note 1: US Census Table B01003, ACS 2013 5 Year Estimates Note 5: US Census Table B18106: Sex by Age by Self-Care Difficulty, ACS 2010-14 Estimates Note 2: US Census Table B25044: Tenure by Vehicles Available Note 6: US Census Table S1701, Poverty in the Past 12 Months, ACS 2013 5 Year Estimates Note 3: US Census Table DP03: Selected Economic Characteristics, ACS 2013 5 Year Estimates (Workers 16+ Who Commute to Work Outside the Home) Note 4: US Census Table B01001, ACS 2013 5 Year Estimates
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 6 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 140 U V 26 140 U V Madera Madera Acres 26 17 14.02 12 18.01 11.01 19.02 Fairmead M a r i p o s a C o u n t y 14.01 Merced inset 10.04 16.01 13.02 Le Le Grand 59 U V 19.01 Madera County 13.01 10.02 10.03 15.02 Planada 16.02 15.03 59 U V 140 U V 26 10.05 15.01 140 U V 18.01 9.02 9.01 Snelling 59 U V Merced El Nido El 9.02 8.01 25 33 5.03 U V 6.03 9.01 24.02 7.02 5.04 Atwater Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community 59 U V 5.05 Winton 24.01 DosPalos Figure 3 Figure 3.01 201 DosPalos Y South South DosPalos 3.04 Ballico 3.03 2.03 Livingston 2.02 Total Population Per Mile Square Population Total 23.02 99 Delhi U V 165 U V 22.02 23.01 Merced County 4.01 Los Banos Los Stevinson Hilmar-Irwin 5 § ¨ ¦ 4.02 Volta C o u n t y S t a n i s l a u s Gustine Miles 20 21 140 U V Santa Santa Nella 6 - 6 99 100 -999 1000- 2599 2600- 4699 4700- 9881 Census Tract Number Tract Census 2.5 I 4.01 Persons SquarePer Mile 0 5 10
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 7 140 U V 26 140 U V Madera Madera Acres 26 17 14.02 12 18.01 11.01 19.02 Fairmead M a r i p o s a C o u n t y 14.01 Merced inset 10.04 16.01 13.02 Le Le Grand 59 U V 19.01 Madera County 13.01 10.02 10.03 15.02 Planada 16.02 15.03 59 U V 140 U V 26 10.05 15.01 140 U V 18.01 9.02 9.01 Snelling 59 U V Merced El Nido El 9.02 8.01 25 33 5.03 U V 6.03 9.01 24.02 7.02 5.04 Atwater Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community 59 U V 5.05 Winton 24.01 DosPalos Figure 4 Figure 3.01 201 DosPalos Y South South DosPalos 3.04 Ballico 3.03 2.03 Livingston 2.02 23.02 99 Delhi U V 165 U V 22.02 23.01 Youth Population (Ages 10 to 17) Per Square Mile Square to Per 17) 10 (Ages Population Youth Merced County 4.01 Los Banos Los Stevinson Hilmar-Irwin 5 § ¨ ¦ 4.02 Volta C o u n t y S t a n i s l a u s Gustine Miles 20 21 140 U V Santa Santa Nella 1 -9 1 150 - 10 - 359 151 - 574 360 - 1792 575 Census Tract Number Tract Census 2.5 4.01 I 4.01 Youth Per SquareYouth Mile 0 5 10
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 8 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Elderly persons age over 64 total 26,115 (10.0 percent). While there are many areas with elderly population, particular concentrations are found near in Merced, Atwater and Livingston. The density of elderly population is shown in Figure 5.
There are a total of 65,552 persons living in households below the federal poverty level (25.6 percent of total population). Some areas of Merced have extremely high concentrations of poverty with several tracts having between 40-58 percent of households living below the poverty level. Approximately a third of households in Planada and Dos Palos South live below poverty. This is shown in Figure 6.
There are a total of 5,765 households without vehicles, or 7.5 percent of the total. The percentage of zero-car households in census tract is shown in Figure 7. Areas with relatively high concentrations are found in Atwater and downtown Merced.
Persons who indicate they have a self-care limitation total 6,999, or 2.7 percent of the county’s population. This is shown in Table 2 and Figure 8. As indicated, areas of downtown Merced and Livingston have the highest proportions of individuals with self- care limitations.
Projections of Population by Age
Table 3 and Figure 9 illustrate population projections by age group between the years of 2010 and 2030, as estimated by the California Department of Demographic Research. This data grants insight into the future population trends of transit-dependent youth and elderly groups.
Per Table 3, the elderly populations are expected to significantly increase by the years 2020 and 2030. From 2010 to 2030, the population of young retirees (ages 62 through 74) is expected to rise by 105 percent, and the population of mature retirees (ages 75 through 84) is expected to rise by 115 percent. During this period, the population of seniors (ages 85 or more) is projected to grow by 102 percent. These substantial growth rates suggest an increased need for public transit options in the coming decades. Table 3 indicates that the School Age (ages 5-17) population will actually decrease in the decade from 2010 to 2020, but then increase by 11 percent between the years of 2020 and 2030 within Merced County.
Projections of Population by City/Community
The University of the Pacific’s Center for Business and Policy Research conducted the most recent available forecasts of population by census data place for Merced County.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 9 140 U V 26 140 U V Madera Madera Acres 26 17 14.02 12 18.01 11.01 19.02 Fairmead M a r i pC o o s u a n t y 14.01 Merced inset 10.04 16.01 13.02 Le Le Grand 59 U V 19.01 Madera County 13.01 10.02 10.03 15.02 Planada 16.02 15.03 59 U V 140 U V 26 10.05 15.01 140 U V 18.01 9.02 9.01 Snelling 59 U V Merced El Nido El 9.02 8.01 25 33 5.03 U V 6.03 9.01 24.02 7.02 5.04 Atwater Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community 59 U V 5.05 Winton 24.01 DosPalos Figure 5 Figure 3.01 201 DosPalos Y South South DosPalos 3.04 Ballico 3.03 2.03 Livingston 2.02 23.02 Delhi 99 U V 165 U V 22.02 23.01 Merced County 4.01 Los Banos Los Senior Population (Age 65 and Over) Per Square Mile Per Square 65 Over) (Ageand Population Senior Stevinson Hilmar-Irwin 5 § ¨ ¦ 4.02 Volta S t a n iC s o l u a n u t s y Gustine Miles 20 21 140 U V Santa Santa Nella 0 - 49 -0 14950 - -150 399 -400 699 -700 1045 Census Tract NumberTract Census 2.5 4.01 I 4.01 0 5 10 SeniorsPer SquareMile
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 10 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y I Mayfair Miles 140 U V 2.01 Fresno 2.01 145 U V 145 U V 6% 14%6% - 15% 20%- 21% 25%- 26% 30%- 31% 39%- 40% 58%- Census Tract Number Tract Census Parkwood Biola 145 145 Parksdale U V U V 145 U V 99 5 U V 2.01 the Poverty Level Persons Living Below Madera County 140 U V 0 10 20 59 Madera Madera Acres U V La La Vina 19.02 59 U V M a r i pC o o s u a n t y Le Le Grand 19.01 140 U V Merced inset Planada 140 U V 26 18.01 Snelling 59 U V Merced Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community El Nido El 9.02 8.01 25 33 5.03 U V 6.03 9.01 24.02 7.02 5.04 Atwater 59 Figure 6 Figure U V 5.05 Winton 24.01 Fresno County DosPalos 3.01 201 DosPalos Y 3.04 South South DosPalos Ballico 3.03 2.03 Livingston 2.02 99 23.02 Delhi U V 5 165 U V § ¨ ¦ 22.02 23.01 Merced County 4.01 Los Banos Los Stevinson Hilmar-Irwin 4.02 Volta S t a n iC s o l u a n u t s y Persons Living Below the Poverty Level by Census Tract Census Poverty by the Level Living Below Persons Gustine 20 21 140 U V Santa Santa Nella 33 U V 130 S a n BC e o n u i n t t o y U V S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 11 140 U V 26 140 U V Madera Madera Acres 26 17 14.02 12 18.01 19.02 11.01 Fairmead M a r i p o s a C o u n t y 14.01 Merced inset 10.04 16.01 13.02 Le Le Grand 59 U V 19.01 Madera County 13.01 10.03 10.02 Planada 15.02 16.02 15.03 59 U V 140 U V 26 10.05 15.01 140 U V 18.01 9.01 9.02 Snelling 59 U V Merced El Nido El 9.02 8.01 25 33 5.03 U V 6.03 9.01 24.02 7.02 5.04 Atwater Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community 59 U V 5.05 Winton 24.01 DosPalos 3.01 201 DosPalos Y Figure 7 Figure South South DosPalos 3.04 Ballico 3.03 2.03 Livingston 2.02 23.02 99 Delhi U V 165 U V 22.02 23.01 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract Census by Households Vehicle Zero Merced County 4.01 Los Banos Los Stevinson Hilmar-Irwin 5 § ¨ ¦ 4.02 Volta C o u n t y S t a n i s l a u s Gustine Miles 20 21 140 U V Santa Santa Nella Text 1% - 3% 1% - 6% 4% - 11% 7% - 20% 12% - 27% 21% Census Tract NumberTract Census 2.5 4.01 4.01 I 4.01 Zero Vehicle Households 0 5 10
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 12 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan I Mayfair Miles 140 U V 2.01 Fresno 2.01 0.2% - 1.7% 1.8% - 2.2% 2.3% - 2.9% 3% 3.8% - 3.9% - 5.3% 5.4% - 6.5% Census Tract CensusNumberTract 145 U V 2.01 Personswith Disabilities 145 U V Parkwood Biola 145 145 Parksdale U V U V 145 U V 99 5 U V Madera County 140 U V 0 10 20 59 Madera Madera Acres U V La La Vina 19.02 59 U V M a r i pC o o s u a n t y Le Le Grand 19.01 140 U V Merced inset Planada 140 U V 26 18.01 Snelling 59 U V Merced Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community El Nido El 9.02 8.01 25 33 5.03 U V 6.03 9.01 24.02 7.02 5.04 Atwater 59 Figure 8 Figure U V 5.05 Winton 24.01 DosPalos 3.01 201 DosPalos Y 3.04 South South DosPalos Ballico 3.03 2.03 Fresno County Livingston 2.02 99 23.02 Delhi U V 5 165 U V § ¨ ¦ 22.02 Persons with Disabilities by Census Tract by Census with Disabilities Persons 23.01 Merced County 4.01 Los Banos Los Stevinson Hilmar-Irwin 4.02 Volta S t a n iC s o l u a n u t s y Gustine 20 21 140 U V Santa Santa Nella 33 U V 130 S a n BC e o n u i n t t o y U V S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 13 TABLE 3: Population Projections by Age Groups for Merced County Preschool School College Working Young Mature Total Age Age Age Age Retirees Retirees Seniors (All (0-4 (5-17 (18-24 (25-61 (62-74 (75-84 (85 or Year ages) years) years) years) years) years) years) more) 2010 256,800 22,167 58,764 30,422 121,244 13,331 7,786 3,086 2020 288,991 22,756 58,105 32,876 140,197 20,492 10,298 4,267 2030 337,798 25,983 64,764 34,926 161,817 27,375 16,709 6,224 2010-20 Change # 32,191 589 -659 2,454 18,953 7,161 2,512 1,181 % 13% 3% -1% 8% 16% 54% 32% 38% 2010-30 Change # 80,998 3,816 6,000 4,504 40,573 14,044 8,923 3,138 % 32% 17% 10% 15% 33% 105% 115% 102%
Source: California Demographic Research Unit
FIGURE 9: Elderly and Youth Population Forecast
64,764
School Age (5 to 17) 58,105
58,764
2030
2020
2010 22,933
Elderly (Over 75) 14,565
10,872
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Population
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 14 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan The Merced County Forecast Summary (July 7, 2016) indicates a 7 percent countywide increase in population from 2015 to 2020, or from 272,716 to 291,056. The largest growth is expected to occur in Merced (5,594 additional residents) followed by Los Banos (2,957) and Atwater (2,009). On a percentage basis, the larger communities in Merced County are expected to all growth in the 7 percent to 8 percent range, though the UC Merced area is forecast to grow by 30 percent (850 persons).
COMMUTE PATTERNS
Commute Mode
Table 4 presents the commute travel characteristics for the cities and places within Merced County, drawn from the US Census 2014 and American Community Survey (ACS). As shown, the majority of employees in each place or city commute to work by driving alone, resulting in 78.0 percent of all Merced County commuters driving to work alone.
The areas with the largest percentage of employees who carpool to work are near the County airport in Merced, and in Los Banos, Dos Palos and Planada (ranging from 19.7 to 22.5 percent of employees). Relatively small proportions of Merced area commuters use public transit to get to work. As shown in Table 4, census tracts within Merced, Los Banos and Planada have the largest number of workers who use public transit. Areas with a relatively high number of workers who walk to work are in outlying areas including Hilmar, El Nido, Santa Nella and Volta, Livingston and near UC Merced.
County‐to‐County Commute Patterns
Table 5 illustrates the number of commuters in an out of Merced County, drawn from the US Census 2010 Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics. As shown, many Merced County residents (14.5 percent) commute to Stanislaus County. Other common commute destinations for Merced County residents include Santa Clara County (5.8 percent), Fresno County (4.8 percent) and San Joaquin County (3.3 percent). Also shown in Table 5, 12.1 percent of Merced County workers commute from Stanislaus County. Other counties that generate a relatively large number of commuters to Merced County include Fresno County (4.5 percent), Madera County (3.1 percent) and San Joaquin County (1.7 percent).
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 15
TABLE 4: Merced County Commute Travel Characteristics Public Worked Total Census Tract Drove Alone Carpooled Transit Walked Other at Home Work #Description # % # % #%#% #% #%Force 2.01 Cortez & Ballico 1,015 77.0% 110 8.3% 8 0.6% 60 4.6% 23 1.7% 102 7.7% 1,318 2.02 S. of Delhi 522 83.7% 52 8.3% 0 0.0% 38 6.1% 0 0.0% 12 1.9% 624 2.03 Delhi 2,746 79.1% 477 13.7% 0 0.0% 37 1.1% 75 2.2% 138 4.0% 3,473 3.01 Livingston NE of 99 1,465 74.5% 284 14.4% 0 0.0% 96 4.9% 77 3.9% 45 2.3% 1,967 3.03 Livingston Surrounds 489 74.8% 46 7.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.3% 0 0.0% 117 17.9% 654 3.04 Livingston SW of 99 2,119 67.0% 683 21.6% 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 127 4.0% 230 7.3% 3,161 4.01 Stevinson 391 66.2% 191 32.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 1.5% 591 4.02 Hilmar 2,796 81.5% 133 3.9% 0 0.0% 317 9.2% 21 0.6% 165 4.8% 3,432 5.03 Merced Co Airport 478 58.1% 188 22.8% 17 2.1% 66 8.0% 43 5.2% 31 3.8% 823 5.04 Winton 1,981 78.6% 201 8.0% 0 0.0% 7 0.3% 275 10.9% 55 2.2% 2,519 5.05 Winton 1,921 76.6% 344 13.7% 0 0.0% 44 1.8% 71 2.8% 128 5.1% 2,508 6.01 Atwater 1,405 82.2% 170 9.9% 33 1.9% 58 3.4% 36 2.1% 7 0.4% 1,709 6.02 Atwater 810 73.1% 173 15.6% 0 0.0% 19 1.7% 19 1.7% 87 7.9% 1,108 6.03 Atwater 1,671 84.7% 170 8.6% 18 0.9% 7 0.4% 50 2.5% 56 2.8% 1,972 7.01 Atwater 713 82.8% 96 11.1% 0 0.0% 5 0.6% 23 2.7% 24 2.8% 861 7.02 Atwater 1,678 81.1% 201 9.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 83 4.0% 107 5.2% 2,069 8.01 Atwater 1,886 86.9% 120 5.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 80 3.7% 85 3.9% 2,171 8.02 Atwater 1,457 78.7% 280 15.1% 0 0.0% 24 1.3% 33 1.8% 58 3.1% 1,852 9.01 El Nido 1,075 77.6% 57 4.1% 3 0.2% 103 7.4% 0 0.0% 148 10.7% 1,386 9.02 Fergus 2,696 85.0% 260 8.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 62 2.0% 153 4.8% 3,171 10.02 Merced College 4,333 80.0% 637 11.8% 89 1.6% 58 1.1% 70 1.3% 229 4.2% 5,416 10.03 Merced downtown 889 78.5% 102 9.0% 11 1.0% 11 1.0% 77 6.8% 43 3.8% 1,133 10.04 Merced downtown 1,173 80.2% 40 2.7% 19 1.3% 101 6.9% 48 3.3% 81 5.5% 1,462 10.05 Merced 583 75.3% 50 6.5% 22 2.8% 7 0.9% 55 7.1% 57 7.4% 774 11.01 Merced 1,961 79.3% 304 12.3% 0 0.0% 16 0.6% 55 2.2% 138 5.6% 2,474 12 Merced 1,955 83.7% 184 7.9% 0 0.0% 13 0.6% 41 1.8% 142 6.1% 2,335 13.01 Merced downtown 820 86.1% 47 4.9% 6 0.6% 16 1.7% 44 4.6% 19 2.0% 952 13.02 Merced downtown 683 72.7% 39 4.1% 7 0.7% 27 2.9% 119 12.7% 65 6.9% 940 14.01 Merced 1,030 80.0% 153 11.9% 0 0.0% 18 1.4% 86 6.7% 0 0.0% 1,287 14.02 Merced 1,391 79.3% 216 12.3% 21 1.2% 6 0.3% 82 4.7% 37 2.1% 1,753 15.01 Merced Airport 808 83.2% 117 12.0% 0 0.0% 10 1.0% 0 0.0% 36 3.7% 971 15.02 Merced 444 52.5% 95 11.2% 13 1.5% 45 5.3% 201 23.8% 47 5.6% 845 15.03 Merced 793 63.2% 141 11.2% 10 0.8% 59 4.7% 217 17.3% 34 2.7% 1,254 16.01 Merced 732 61.7% 79 6.7% 22 1.9% 48 4.0% 291 24.5% 15 1.3% 1,187 16.02 Merced 2,214 82.0% 174 6.4% 31 1.1% 23 0.9% 189 7.0% 69 2.6% 2,700 17 Merced 1,545 81.7% 217 11.5% 25 1.3% 34 1.8% 29 1.5% 42 2.2% 1,892 18.01 UC Merced 1,166 72.9% 110 6.9% 7 0.4% 136 8.5% 35 2.2% 146 9.1% 1,600 19.01 Planada 1,226 67.3% 360 19.7% 0 0.0% 54 3.0% 117 6.4% 66 3.6% 1,823 19.02 Le Grand 644 76.1% 97 11.5% 0 0.0% 54 6.4% 14 1.7% 37 4.4% 846 21 Santa Nella, Volta 1,122 69.0% 281 17.3% 0 0.0% 149 9.2% 32 2.0% 42 2.6% 1,626 22.01 Los Banos 1,423 74.8% 428 22.5% 0 0.0% 38 2.0% 13 0.7% 0 0.0% 1,902 22.02 Los Banos 3,182 84.0% 558 14.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 0.6% 28 0.7% 3,789 23.01 Los Banos 2,066 86.2% 265 11.1% 0 0.0% 13 0.5% 31 1.3% 22 0.9% 2,397 23.02 Los Banos 3,570 75.4% 978 20.6% 19 0.4% 19 0.4% 80 1.7% 71 1.5% 4,737 24.01 Dos Palos Y 403 75.9% 91 17.1% 0 0.0% 26 4.9% 0 0.0% 11 2.1% 531 24.02 Dos Palos South 3 1,751 70.8% 543 21.9% 0 0.0% 73 3.0% 33 1.3% 74 3.0% 2,474 25 Snelling 608 80.2% 61 8.0% 2 0.3% 26 3.4% 2 0.3% 59 7.8% 758 26 Bear Creek 1,744 79.6% 285 13.0% 26 1.2% 41 1.9% 82 3.7% 13 0.6% 2,191 Total 72,054 78.0% 11,182 12.1% 414 0.4% 2,098 2.3% 3,238 3.5% 3,440 3.7% 92,426 Source: US Census ACS 2010‐14 5‐Year Estimates, Table DP03: Selected Economic Characteristics
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 16 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 5: Commuters Into and Out of Merced County From Merced County To…. To Merced County From… Stanislaus County 11,706 14.5% Stanislaus County 7,694 12.1% Santa Clara County 4,689 5.8% Fresno County 2,868 4.5% Fresno County 3,915 4.8% Madera County 1,961 3.1% San Joaquin County 2,661 3.3% San Joaquin County 1,058 1.7% Other Counties 57,950 71.6% Other Counties 50,100 78.7% Total 80,921 100% Total 63,681 100.0% Source: US Census 2010, Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics
TABLE 6: Commuters from Merced County Where Residents Are Employed… # % Merced 15,383 19.0% Turlock 3,750 4.6% Los Banos 3,249 4.0% Modesto 3,206 4.0% Livingston 2,797 3.5% Atwater 2,544 3.1% Fresno 2,140 2.6% San Jose 1,958 2.4% Sacramento 968 1.2% Winton 860 1.1% Other Counties 44,066 54.5% Total 80,921 100% Source: US Census 2010, Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics
Merced County Resident Work Locations
Table 6 presents information on the major locations where Merced County residents work. As shown, 19.0 percent of all residents work within the City of Merced. Turlock, Los Banos, Modesto, Livingston, and Atwater are the next most popular work destinations for Merced County residents.
Top Employers
The top employers in Merced County are diverse and include agricultural, medical, educational and governmental entities, as shown in Table 7.
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 17 TABLE 7: Top Merced County Employers Employer Location Industry # Employees Foster Farms Livingston Poultry Processing Plants 1000‐4999 Mercy Medical Center Merced Merced Hospitals 1000‐4999 West Air Gases & Equipment Inc Merced Service Stations ‐ Gasoline & Oil 1000‐4999 Golden Valley Health Center Merced Clinics 500‐999 Hilmar Cheese Co Hilmar Cheese Processors 500‐999 J Marchini & Son Le Grand Farms 500‐999 Merced County Executive Office Merced Government Offices ‐ County 500‐999 Merced County Human Services Merced Government Offices ‐ County 500‐999 Quad/Graphics Inc Merced Printers 500‐999 University of California, Merced Merced Schools ‐ Universities & Colleges Academic 500‐999 Western Marketing & Sales Atwater Farms 500‐999 Gallo Cattle Co Atwater Cheese Processors 250‐499 Liberty Packing Co Los Banos Packing & Crating Service 250‐499 Live Oak Farms Le Grand Fruits & Vegetables ‐ Growers & Shippers 250‐499 Livingston Union School District Livingston School Districts 250‐499 Malibu Boats West Inc Merced Boat Dealers Sales & Service 250‐499 Mc Lane Pacific Merced Food Service‐Distributors (whls) 250‐499 Norcal Nursery Inc Turlock Fruits & Vegetables ‐ Wholesale 250‐499 Sensient Natural Ingredients Livingston Flavoring Extracts 250‐499 Walmart Merced Department Stores 250‐499 Walmart Supercenter Atwater Department Stores 250‐499 Atwater Elementary Teachers Atwater Professional Organizations 100‐249 E & J Gallo Winery Livingston Wineries 100‐249 Fineline Industries Merced Boat Building 100‐249 John B Sanfilippo & Son Gustine Confectionery Merchant / Wholesale 100‐249 Kagome Inc Los Banos Fruit and Vegetable Canning 100‐249 Label Technology Inc Merced Commercial printing 100‐249 Morningstar Foods Los Banos Fruit and Vegetable Canning 100‐249 Merced College Merced Schools ‐ Universities & Colleges Academic 100‐249 Scholle Packaging Inc Merced Paper bag and coated and treated paper mfg. 100‐249 Yosemite Wholesale Warehouse Merced Warehouses 100‐249 Source: California Department of Labor 2015
The top employers are Foster Farms, Mercy Medical, and West Air Gases & Equipment Inc., according to the California Department of Labor. While there is a concentration of major employers in Merced, there are other major employers in Atwater, Hilmar, Le Grand, Livingston, Los Banos, and Turlock. This pattern of large employers in many areas of Merced County increases the need for commute transit service in various corridors.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 18 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan EXISTING PLANNING DOCUMENTS
In order to understand the context of planning and development as it relates to this current Short Range Transit Plan, active or recent planning documents developed for Merced County and its communities were reviewed. Pertinent, transit‐related elements are discussed below.
Merced County 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment 1
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) provides a long‐term vision for all transportation modes in Merced County. The RTP provides the following short‐term plan for public transit:
Provide adequate fixed route transit system to serve the general public, including transit disadvantaged persons
Add additional routes and expand services as necessary to meet ridership demand to achieve established transit standards
Provide improved transit service through the county wide Consolidated Transit System
Provide 30 minute service on the urban routes and 60 minute service on the intercity routes
Provide expanded transit to serve UC Merced
The RTP long‐term vison includes:
Develop a Long Range Transit Plan
Continue to meet the transit needs of Merced County residents by closely monitoring changes in transit use and need
Make use of technological advances that will enhance transit service and improve efficiency
Continue to coordinate with area transit providers to prevent duplication of services
Continue to follow planning direction as identified in the Short Range Transit Plan
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 19 Merced The Bus Short Range Transit Plan (2012‐2017)
The SRTP recommended the following financially constrained elements to be implemented between FY 2012/13 and FY 2016/17:
Integration of The Bus and CatTracks (UC Merced)
High Frequency M Street Route – Establish 30 minute transit frequency along a transit corridor (incorporating two UC Merced routes)
Streamline Routes in Merced
Enhance local service in Atwater and Los Banos
Increase trips from 2 to 4 per day on rural deviated fixed routes
Extend evening service
Begin Sunday service
Increase frequency on local and inter‐community routes
Improved bus stop and bus arrival information
Limit PARATRANSIT to ADA paratransit eligible individuals
Replace the Car‐less Commute Program with a vanpool program
Improve passenger guides, website and Google Transit
Revise fare structure
Merced County General Plan
The 2030 Merced County General Plan identifies public transit as an increasingly important component of the Merced County transportation network and outlines the following goal for public transit:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 20 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Maintain a public transit system that provides an alternative to automobile travel, supports ridesharing and meets the needs of the entire community.
City of Merced General Plan
The Merced Vision 2030 General Plan contains policies to maintain a major “transitway” along M Street and possibly along Bellevue Road/Merced‐Atwater Expressway and Campus Parkway Corridors. M Street is a central corridor between the City and UC Merced and contains many significant land use destinations. The plan identifies preserving and expanding the Right of Way (ROW) of these corridors for potential light rail or other public transit use. The Bellevue Corridor would connect the City of Atwater to the regional job center at the Castle Airport.
The plan also encourages park and ride lots and securing facilities for bus stops at future transit routes. Lastly, the plan recommends further study to identify nodes to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) to occur in new growth and established areas.
California High Speed Rail Authority Plans
The California High Speed Rail project is beginning construction in the Central Valley. In the City of Merced a HSR station is planned to be located along 16th Street between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and G Street. A potential service plan would be for one route travelling between Merced and Anaheim, with five departures/arrivals per day during peak periods. The Central Valley stations may be constructed by 2020 with high speed rail operational between the Silicon Valley and Los Angeles Basin through the Central Valley by 2025.
California State Rail Plan 2007−2008 to 2017−2018
The California State Rail Plan 2007–2008 to 2017–2018 (Caltrans 2008) is implemented by Caltrans. The plan envisions capital and operational improvements that will increase San Joaquins service in Merced to eight daily roundtrips by 2018, carrying 1,430,000 passengers annually, with 90% on‐time performance.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Outreach efforts were conducted throughout the planning process for this SRTP. Early outreach efforts were focused on receiving input regarding the perception of current transit services and the general view of transit issues in the community, as described below.
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 21 Stakeholder Interviews
In September and October of 2016, key person interviews were conducted to gain perspective from elected officials, healthcare providers, nonprofit agencies, and others who have an interest or represent those with an interest in transportation in the study area. A list of potential stakeholders was developed at the study kick‐off meeting, and fourteen individuals were contacted to participate (up to three times). Ultimately, eight individuals participated in the interviews, consisting of the following:
Mike Villalta, Mayor of Los Banos, Board Member of MCAG
Rodrigo Espinoza, Mayor of Livingston, Vice Chairperson of MCAG
James Price, Mayor of Atwater, Board Member of MCAG
Josh Pedrozo, Merced City Councilperson, Board Member of MCAG
Alexandra Pierce, Deputy Director of Adult Aging Services in Merced County, Council Member on SSTAC
Albert Perez, National Express Transit Manager, Council Member on SSTAC
Margaret Buchmann‐Garcia, Director at Center for Vision Enhancement, Council Member on SSTAC
Hub Walsh, District 2 Supervisor, Board Member of MCAG
Major Transportation Issues
Throughout the process, stakeholders reiterated the following major transportation issues they perceive as impacting Merced County both currently and in the near future:
Significant Transit‐Dependent Population – Due to the dispersed development pattern of Merced County, most residents are not able to walk to key destinations (for grocery shopping, medical appointments, and other necessary trips). In addition, many of the county residents are transit‐dependent, either because they are college students, disabled, senior, or unable to afford a car. In the future, stakeholders are concerned that these transit‐dependent populations, particularly the UC Merced students and senior
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 22 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan citizens, will continue to grow, requiring expanded transit services. With respect to a growing UC Merced campus and student body, it was noted that an express bus between UC Merced and downtown Merced is desired. In addition, there is a need to particularly focus on addressing the needs of transit‐dependent commuters.
Rural Populations – With a relatively large portion of the population in rural areas, such as Hilmar and Los Banos, service is often needed outside of the ¾ mile barrier. In addition, these rural individuals could benefit from more comprehensive and more frequent transit. Some areas are unserved, and others only have access into Merced a couple of times per day. Several stakeholders believe that these rural populations are increasing at a steady rate, and this need will only become more pressing in the near future.
Informing the Public – While Merced residents know the bus exists, many stakeholders believe that there is a general apprehension about taking the bus. Individuals, especially those who do not have access to the internet, are intimidated by understanding the route system. This anxiety is particularly relevant for the blind population because the audio system on buses is not reliable. Because many of the transit‐dependent riders are riding to time‐sensitive destinations, there is further worry that misunderstanding the bus will lead to missed appointments.
Economic Burden – Fares are prohibitive for many of the transit‐dependent individuals, particularly those within the senior and disabled populations that require paratransit services.
Flag Stops – The high number of flag stops is seen as reducing on‐time performance and efficiency.
Infrastructure – Several of the stakeholders are concerned about the roadway infrastructure in Merced County. Numerous projects need to be completed, including the Atwater‐Merced Expressway, Campus Parkway, and overall road repair.
Overall Access – The routes, headways, and overall service could always be honed and refined.
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 23 Underserved Communities and Populations
When asked whether communities and populations were served well in Merced County, many stakeholders acknowledged that, while many communities are underserved, it could be due to low demand in these areas. In general, stakeholders believed that the City of Merced has adequate transit throughout. Stakeholder(s) believe there is need for a service between Los Banos, Turlock, and Stanislaus and that in general, Los Banos could be better served. A stakeholder noted that sometimes riders on the morning buses from Los Banos are forced to stand. Some identified a need for more runs between Los Banos and Merced in the early afternoon. Some stakeholders believe other areas, such as Hilmar, Livingston, Planada, Dos Palos, Le Grand, and Snelling could ideally use more service.
Coordination with Other Regional Service
Among the stakeholders who had input regarding The Bus’ coordination with other regional agencies, most believe that The Bus coordinates well with YARTS but there is little communication with CatTracks. Potential future transportation developments in the region (such as ACE, Amtrak expansion, and a High‐Speed Rail) will require further coordination.
Capital Equipment
According to stakeholders, The Bus could improve its capital equipment in the following ways:
Overall System – Desired expansion of services would increase the need for vehicles. The Bus needs to provide more signage, benches and shelters at stops. This not only benefits riders, but also increases system visibility throughout the region, leading to more use. The COVE stop needs a pole or sign to assist the visually‐impaired with understanding where to wait.
Bus Fleet ‐‐ The wheelchair ramps could be improved. They are designed to deploy onto a raise sidewalk, though many times they need to deploy onto a driveway, which results to a steep slope on the ramp. In some of the new buses, there is no hand rail, which becomes problematic when the bus comes to a quick stop. Many of the buses do not have an adequate turning radius. Citizens complain about the buses breaking down, which affects service times. The Bus should look into purchasing smaller buses to reach rural areas.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 24 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Technology ‐‐ Video monitors are not helpful for the visually‐impaired, who would benefit from improved auditory systems on the buses. A bus tracking system (like the one in the City of Merced) is needed in Los Banos.
Other Comments
In addition to the above, stakeholders included miscellaneous comments about the overall The Bus system. For the most part, the stakeholders are very happy with the service and several pointed out the courteousness of the drivers. Other areas in which the bus could improve are:
Implement senior passes on a per‐ride basis instead of a per week/month basis
Install a general public Dial‐A‐Ride on an on‐call basis to reach populations in unserved rural areas
Better communicate schedule and service changes to the vision‐impaired who cannot see the bus monitors
Ensure The Bus times match shift changes at places like Foster Farms
Monitor the computer system with the paratransit scheduling because oftentimes several buses will pick up a couple of individuals who are traveling to the same general area
Outreach Events to Identify Transit Issues and Ideas
In October of 2016, several outreach events were held to gain additional perspective from current transit users and potential users. These included visits to the following:
1. The Planada Senior Center: the Consultant and a Spanish interpreter visited the site during bingo and just prior to the congregate meal. The group was asked if they currently use transit, and what improvements they would like to see so they could use it. Responses (primarily provided in Spanish) from both current users and non‐users are summarized below: Several individuals stated that the bus stopped too far from their homes for them to be able to use it. One individual in particular said the bus used to pass directly in front of her house, but now it stops two blocks away. She has used the service for decades and rides several times per week.
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 25 Residents at Casa Sol wish the bus would enter the complex to pick up passengers. Individuals want more information on how to use the Dial‐a‐Ride. What are the eligibility requirements and process for being certified? DAR (Dial‐a‐Ride) is too expensive. The stop for Walmart in Merced is too far from the store and there is no shelter. The 99 Cent store has a bus stop sign, but no bus stops there. One person stated they liked the old route system better. The AAA/Senior Center on 23rd Street in Merced is too far from the bus stop, and the sidewalk condition to the facility is very poor.
2. The Senior Center, 15th Street, Merced: the Consultant and a Spanish interpreter visited the site during general activities. Only five individuals were available and only one provided comment. The commenter is a current, long‐time transit user who primarily uses the M1 Route every weekday. She is very happy with the service and stated that it works very well. She said there had previously been issues with on‐time performance, but now the bus is consistently on‐time almost to the minute. She attributes the improvement to a published schedule which better reflects times, and additional lay‐ over time built in at the Transpo in case the bus is running late.
Also, previously on weekends when she took a Tai Chi class, there was a three hour gap in service which required her to wait for hours at the stop, but the frequency is much better now. She likes the August 2016 changes.
This resident also stated that people do not respect the signs which identify seating for elderly and disabled, and perhaps the drivers should be firmer in enforcing the policy. She says the drivers are all excellent and very courteous. Finally, she noted that a lot of people rely on transit as their sole means to get around, including for shopping. There is an issue with people carrying grocery bags and carts onto the buses.
3. AAA/Senior Center on 23rd and P, Merced: the Consultant and a Spanish interpreter visited the site during the congregate meal. Approximately 30 individuals were in attendance, including an estimated 8 Spanish‐only speakers. They provided the following comments: The Bus is too expensive, especially DAR. Even with the pass, it is too expensive. One woman stated that for her and her husband to ride the DAR would cost $3.00 each way, or $12.00 per day—and that is too expensive (both were scooter‐bound).
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 26 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan One individual stated she would like a return of free transfers. When advised she could use a day pass, she indicated she had used the transfer all day previously. Shelters are lacking at some key locations, including 22nd and O Street and in front of the police station at M Street and 22nd. One individual stated she liked the old schedule better. Several others said they like the new schedule better and that there is more frequent service. Several stated that the stop on M Street is too far from the center and the sidewalk is in very poor condition. One woman said the sidewalk is a tipping hazard for scooters. One Spanish speaker said the bus is too far from her home near Buena Vista and San Anselmo (6 blocks from her home). Several said they would like to see income‐based fares. One blind elderly man said he has had to wait at the stop for more than an hour because the bus bi‐passed him. He missed his connection and was therefore very late to a doctor appointment.
4. Merced Community College: During the Blue Devil Days, the Consultant hosted an information table with a poster, give‐aways, and schedules. Passers‐by were asked if they had an interest in transit. Over several hours, despite a very busy location, only one individual offered comment. He stated the bus usually works quite well, but that trips take too long. He also stated the restroom at the Transpo is often dirty. He currently primarily uses Route M3 and occasionally the Turlock route.
In addition, onboard passenger surveys were conducted over several weeks in September, 2016. The surveys generated data on passenger demographics and trip patterns, as well as feedback on desired transit improvements and service quality. The survey analysis is provided in Chapter 4 of this report.
Outreach Events to Present and Solicit Feedback on Alternatives
After the Consultant Team had evaluated the transit services and gained feedback from the community and transit staff, a wide range of service alternatives were developed, as well as financial options and capital alternatives. These were presented to the public through the following activities:
TAC and SSTAC Meetings: The Consultant team presented a working paper which evaluated the service alternatives (including metrics to provide a comparison of alternatives) to both the TAC
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 27 and the SSTAC for feedback, and addressed comments received at these meetings and those received in writing.
Service Alternatives Vetting: A series of preferred service alternatives were presented in comprehensive one‐page questionnaires (presented in Appendix G) and presented to the public for feedback through the following outlets:
• Via on‐site circulation at the Transpo. The Consultant developed a series of questionnaires about proposed service alternatives, which Merced County TJPA staff circulated at the Transpo. • Online Survey: the questionnaires were posted online for people to review and comment on. • Through The Bus Facebook Page: Links to the questionnaire were posted on Facebook, as well as announcements about staff being available at the Transpo for feedback.
Feedback from these events facilitated selection and refinement of the service alternatives.
Presentation of Draft Final Report
The draft final report was presented to the JTPAMC on June 15, 2017. Comments were received from Board members, which have been addressed in this Final Report. While there was an opportunity provided for public comment, no public comments were made.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 28 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 3 Existing Transit Services
Merced County is served by several transit organizations, including the Joint Transit Powers Authority of Merced County’s “The Bus”, University of California, Merced’s “CatTracks”, and the Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS), as well as intercity and social service programs. The focus of this Short Range Transit Plan is on The Bus, though the importance of coordination and connectivity among all providers will be discussed as well.
“THE BUS”
The Bus is a transit program administered and governed by the Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County (TJPAMC or TJPA). The Bus was formed from the consolidation of four former local public transit service providers in July 1996. Regional fixed route, deviated fixed route and paratransit services are provided throughout the region, with local routes operating in Atwater and Merced. Figure 10 provides an overview of The Bus fixed route services.
The TJPA is made up of an 11 member board of elected officials: one each from the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced California, along with five members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Merced, California. The TJPA operates under the oversight and governance of the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG), which also operates with support and oversight from several entities, which have the following transportation-related roles:
Citizens Advisory Committee is a group of private sector individuals who are appointed by the Governing Board to serve based on the geographic location of their home or business and their work experience.
MCAG Governing Board The 11-member MCAG Governing Board includes a supervisor from each of the five county districts and an elected official from each of the six incorporated cities located within the political boundary of Merced County, California. Incorporated cities are: Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced.
Social Services Transportation Advisory Council The purpose of the SSTAC is to solicit the input of transit-dependent and transit disadvantaged persons, including the elderly, disabled, low income persons, and youths regarding transit needs in Merced County.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 29 A current organizational chart is shown in Figure 11. 145 U V
145 U V 145 U V 49 U V 99 U V 140 U V 140 U V G L DP P T UC LB W1 W2 Legend 152 U V M a r i pC o o s u a n t y 233 U V Le Le Grand M a d e rC a o u n t y Planada
` ` University of California Merced 152 U V 152 U V 140 U V 59 U V Snelling 59 U V 59 Æ a U V 59 U V 59 U V Merced El NidoEl 33 U V 33 U V 33 U V F r e s nC o o u n t y Atwater Winton Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community Dos Palos Dos Palos Y Figure 10 Figure M e r c eC d o u n t y Livingston 140 U V 99 U V Delhi 140 U V Bus Regional Routes Regional Bus 165 U V 5 § ¨ ¦ ` 99 U V 165 ` U V I Turlock Los BanosLos Hilmar-Irwin Miles 20 33 U V Gustine 140 U V Newman Santa Nella 33 U V 10 152 U V 5 § ¨ ¦ 5 33 U V 0 130 U V S t a n iC s o l u a n u t s y 130 U V S a n B e n i t o 152 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal YearsU V 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 30 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan FIGURE 11: Organization Chart of Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County
Transit JPA Board
5 Merced County Supervisors
1 Elected Official from each incorporated city:
Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, Merced
Executive Director
Chief Financial Officer Transit Manager Deputy Director
Accountant II Assistant Transit Manager Public Program Specialist I
Accountant I Grant Analyst I
Staff Services Analyst
Transit System Technician
Administration Assistant
Source: TJPAMC, compiled by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 31 OVERALL SERVICE DESCRIPTION
Merced’s The Bus operates a combination of Fixed Routes, Deviated Fixed Routes, Dial-a-Ride and Paratransit services, as described below.
Fixed Route Services
The fixed route services operated by The Bus include several regularly scheduled local services as well as commuter services. The services described below reflect service changes that were implemented as of August 1, 2016.
Merced Routes
There are six local Merced Routes identified as routes M1 to M6. The routes begin between 5:51 to 7:14 AM on weekdays and end between 7:54 and 8:16 PM, averaging around 12 hours of service per day. Headways are 30 minutes on weekdays, and 90 minutes on weekends. On weekends, service on these routes start between 8:04 and 8:53 AM. The Merced Routes are depicted in Figure 12.
UC Merced Route
The UC Route (UC) operates from 7:15 AM to 7:30 PM on weekdays only on half-hour headways. The route operates between the Transpo and the UC Merced campus, also serving Merced College and Mercy Medical Center. A separate transit program, CatTracks, is operated by UC Merced. CatTracks also operates two routes between downtown and the campus, just weekdays in summer, extending to Friday nights through Sunday evening during the school year (see description under “Other Transportation Providers” below).
Atwater Routes
There are two Atwater routes. The A1 Atwater Crosstown route is a local circulator route on hourly headways operating between 6:22 AM and 7:45 PM weekdays and from 8:43 AM to 6:05 PM on weekends. The A2 Atwater Winton Way operates between Atwater and Winton via Winton Way, also on hourly headways. Weekday hours are from 6:18 AM to 7:06 PM and from 8:42 AM to 6:11 PM weekends. The Atwater Routes are shown in Figure 13.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 32 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Winton Routes
Two commuter routes operate between Winton and Merced. W1 Winton Commuter serves communities north of the highway, as shown in Figure 10. A total of thirteen round trips between Merced and Winton are operated weekdays on hourly headways, plus two morning runs from Winton to Merced, and one evening run from Merced to Winton. Three round trips are made on weekends, plus one morning run from Atwater to Merced, and one evening run from Merced to Winton.
W2 Winton Commuter North also operates between Winton and Merced via Santa Fe Drive, starting from Merced College rather than the Transpo. Weekdays, nine round trips, plus a morning trip from Winton to Merced and two evening trips from Merced to Winton are operated on approximately hourly headways. Weekends, three round trips, plus a morning trip from Winton and evening trip from Merced are provided. The Winton routes are depicted in Figures 12 and 13.
Los Banos Routes
A commuter route serves Los Banos, with seven outbound trips from Los Banos to Merced, and five inbound trips from Merced to Los Banos on weekdays. On Saturdays and Sundays, a morning and midday bus operates from Los Banos to Merced, and a midday and early evening bus returns from Merced to Los Banos.
Within Los Banos, several routes contribute to a corridor service: the Los Banos Commuter, the Dos Palos Link and the Gustine Link. Combined, these routes provide cross-town service in Los Banos twelve times per day on weekdays, and four times per day on weekends.
Intercity Routes
In addition to the Los Banos and Winton Commuters, The Bus operates the following intercity routes:
Livingston Commuter (L): operates between Livingston and Merced, serving Atwater and Winton enroute. The route starts and ends at Merced College in Merced, except for the first run (of nine) which starts at Walmart. Arrivals at Merced College are provided from 7:38 AM to 8:19 PM with departures from 6:03 AM till 7:33 PM. Four round trips are made on weekends. The round trip takes approximately two hours and twenty minutes to make.
Planada Commuter (P): operates from Merced to Planada to Le Grand, and back. A total five westbound and six eastbound trips are made on weekdays. Three runs are operated Saturdays and Sundays, although Sunday runs are a few minutes shorter because the
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 33 UC M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 W1 W2 To To
_
b 140 140 UCMerced Bear Bear Creek
Legend b
Olive Ave Olive Childs Ave Childs
The GroveThe Apartments Parsons Ave Parsons
Santa Fe Ave b b
Yosemite Pky Yosemite
_ b
_ b
r
140 U V
D Glen Ave Glen
k
e
e _ r
_ C G St G r
a
e B aa h t
r
o N a Mercy Medical Center
Amtrak b
b a a Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community
Main St a
Yosemite Ave Yosemite
Target
Merced College 23rd St St M
City Hall
R St R Martin Luther King Jr Way Jr King Luther Martin Æ a 59
Figure 12 Figure
16th St 13th St St M
b
b
b b b
Merced Transit Routes Transit Merced Q St Q
Childs Ave Childs b
V St V ` b b St R I
2nd St Child Child SupportServices
V St V
140 140
8th St
59 59 GoldenValley HealthCenter
Miles X St X
West Ave West ` b Walmart 2 Home Depot Home
b
e
v
A n
a
g
o r McswainRd G Human Agency 16th St Services Wardrobe Ave Wardrobe 1
Santa Fe Ave To Winton To 0.5 99 e 0
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 34 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan
d
Santa Fe Ave d To Merced To To Merced To e
2 2 d
Santa Fe Dr
JuniperAve
Shaffer Rd Shaffer
1st St 1st Bellevue Rd Bellevue
` Atwater Blvd
Service LayerCredits: Esri, HERE,DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, andthe GIS usercommunity Æ a
5th St 5th d
d Winton Way Winton Applegate Rd Applegate Figure 13 Figure `
e e Atwater Transit Routes Transit Atwater I Miles 2 1 Walnut Ave Walnut A1 A2 W1 - Commuter W2 - Commuter North Transit Transit Stops Transfer toTransfer Location 0.5
99 Æ a Westside Blvd Westside 0
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 35 bus does not serve the Merced Flea Market. The route takes approximately two hours round trip.
Turlock Commuter (T): Weekdays, nine round trips are operated between Merced and Turlock (in Stanislaus County) serving Atwater, Livingston, and Delhi enroute. An additional morning run is operated from Turlock to Merced, and an evening run departs Merced, terminating in Turlock. The round trip takes two hours to operate. Two round trips are operated on weekends, plus a one-way run from Merced to Turlock in the evening.
Deviated Fixed Routes / Dial-A-Ride / Paratransit
In addition to the routes described above, there are two deviated fixed routes which stop within the communities of Los Banos, Dos Palos, Gustine, and Santa Nella. These routes serve both ADA eligible passengers (including deviations) as well as the general public. All deviated pick-ups require a next day reservation by calling ahead. The routes are as follows:
Dos Palos (DP): Five trips are operated from Los Banos to Dos Palos, and four from Dos Palos to Los Banos on weekdays. These runs take between 60 to 70 minutes to operate. Additionally, once the fixed route vehicle arrives in Dos Palos on the morning, midday and late afternoon run, the vehicle switches to Paratransit service for an hour before returning to Los Banos.
On weekends, a trip is made from Dos Palos to Los Banos in the morning; a round trip is made from Los Banos to Dos Palos at noon (with an hour of local Paratransit before returning to Los Banos); and an evening run is made from Los Banos which ends in Dos Palos. There are paratransit zones within Los Banos and Dos Palos where route deviations can be scheduled in advance, but no deviations are made outside of these zones between the two communities.
Gustine (G): The Gustine Link is a combination of Dial-a-Ride service within the communities of Gustine / Newman and Santa Nella, and fixed route service in Los Banos. Weekdays, three outbound trips and three inbound trips are made, starting with approximately half an hour of Paratransit before serving the fixed routes. This service is only provided on weekdays.
In addition, Los Banos is served by a general public Dial-A-Ride service. Up to two vehicles are used to provide curb-to-curb service in a defined service area from 5:30 AM – 7:30 PM on weekdays, and from 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM on weekends and holidays.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 36 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Paratransit is a complimentary curb-to-curb transit service that requires customers to make a reservation to get service. This service is available in every city, community and township in Merced County. Service in the western portion of the county is generally addressed through the two deviated fixed routes and the Los Banos Dial-A-Ride discussed above, while service in the eastern portion of the county requires operation of up to 11 vehicles at peak times. Paratransit service is available to persons with disabilities who are unable to navigate the fixed route services of The Bus without special assistance. Service is operated using lift-equipped vehicles. The service is curb-to-curb and ADA compliant.
RECENT SERVICE CHANGES
There have been a number of service changes made to fixed route services to eliminate unproductive routes, improve travel time, and to generally better accommodate passengers. Most recently, significant scheduling changes and minor route changes were implemented as of August 1, 2016. The description of current services, above, reflect those changes, but the data available for this report are primarily based on operations prior to the implemented changes. Service changes are discussed below.
Reduction of Evening Service: Prior to current changes, evening service was provided on the Merced Routes until as late as 11:05 PM (and now ends by 8:14 PM), and as late as 10:00 PM on the Los Banos route (which now ends at 9:10 PM). Ridership after 5:00 PM drops systemwide, with very low ridership in the latest evening hours.
Elimination of Hilmar Link: The town of Hilmar was served on a morning route from Los Banos to Merced, and an evening route from Merced to Los Banos. Due to low ridership, this route was eliminated.
Reduction of Atwater Routes: Atwater was served by two local circulators and an intercity route. One of the local circulators, the Castle Crosstown, was eliminated. This route covered much of the same area as the Atwater Loop. The new route has been renamed the Atwater Crosstown.
Winton Route Added: A second Winton Route has been added which serves a similar area to the original Livingston route and serves along Santa Fe Drive between Merced and Winton.
Livingston Route Streamlined: The Livingston Route now stays on Santa Fe after leaving Winton, with added service to Castle Airport.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 37
Restructuring of Los Banos Service: Los Banos previously was served by a commuter route and two local circulator routes. The local fixed route was replaced with Dial-a-Ride service, with local fixed route service available as a combination of three fixed routes which serve Los Banos (the Los Banos commuter route, the Dos Palos Link, and the Gustine Link). Under this new routing, less of the northeast area of Los Banos is served by fixed route, but more of the main corridor and east area are served.
OTHER SERVICE CHANGES SINCE THE 2012 SRTP
In addition to the most recent changes of August, 2016, there were a number of changes implemented in response to recommendations of the 2012 SRTP or in response to additional ridership analysis conducted for The Bus. These changes include the following:
Program trips for social services were provided on Dial-a-Ride, but were eliminated in 2012. ADA eligible passengers within these programs are still served, but others either use fixed route services or in-house transportation.
Fares were increased in 2013. Unlimited monthly Dial-a-Ride (DAR) passes were eliminated, which substantially reduced DAR use.
Paratransit eligibility requirements were implemented in 2014. Passengers must now be ADA eligible to use paratransit, except in Dos Palos and Gustine, where Paratransit service is available to the general public as Dial-a-Ride.
ROUTE OBSERVATIONS
LSC staff rode at least one run of each of The Bus fixed routes, observing route operations, rider/driver interactions, ridership patterns, and other factors. The full notes are presented in Appendix A. Overall, these “ride alongs” found that services are operated professionally and efficiently. Specific observations are as follows:
Flag stops were the most common issue. Drivers noted that passengers commonly wait at multiple locations within close proximity (within a few hundred feet of each other), requiring two stops where a signed stop would only require one. In addition, sometimes passengers complain that the driver does not stop exactly where they would prefer, or become upset when a driver does not stop immediately once the cord is pulled. In addition, drivers see an issue in making flag stops along busier streets, like along Childs
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 38 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Avenue in Merced. Furthermore, passengers do not always understand when it is safe and when it is not safe for a bus to make a stop.
Multiple stops were observed to be missing signs.
Annunciator announcements could be improved (they are sometimes difficult to understand).
Several route segments with low ridership (Route P, Route LB1 north of Pacheco between Ward and Mercy Springs)
Air conditioning sometimes works too well, with passengers uncomfortably cold.
Route L Livingston could potentially serve the clinic on the express run.
Passengers with groceries, strollers, child car seats, etc. sometimes create delays or block aisles. This may indicate a need to review policies.
The fare system sometimes causes issues, such as unreadable cards. However, drivers typically address these issues in a timely fashion.
FARE STRUCTURE
The fare structure for The Bus varies based on a number of factors, including the type of service (fixed route versus paratransit), the type of rider (general public riders, reduced fare riders, and students), distance traveled (local or intercity) and fare medium (single fare or multi-fare). Fares are shown in Table 8. The fares range from a base general public fare of $1.50 for a local single fare, to $3.00 from one community to another. Reduced fares offer a 50 percent discount and are available to seniors (over age 62), disabled riders, and Medicare card holders. Additionally passes may be purchased (daily, 7-day, 31-day or semester) which can result in discounted rates for frequent transit users (more than one round trip daily). Transfers were recently eliminated on the system and day pass prices were reduced. The day pass fare is now the equivalent of two one-way trip cash fares.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 39 TABLE 8: The Bus Fares and Passes Fixed Route Fares1,2 Within Single City or Community From City or Community to Another General Reduced General Reduced $1.50 $0.75 $3.00 $1.50 Day Pass Fixed Route Local Pass Intercity Pass General Reduced General Reduced $3.00 $1.50 $6.00 $3.00 Seven Day Pass - Local and Intercity Travel General Reduced $20.00 $10.00 31 Day Fixed Route Pass - Local and Intercity Travel General Reduced $60.00 $30.00 Student Passes3 31 Day Fixed Route Pass - Local and Unlimited Student Semester Pass $45.00 $180.00 Paratransit Fares 4 Within Single City or Community From City or Community to Another ADA Only Reduced ADA Only Reduced $3.00 $2.50 $6.00 $5.00 Note 1: All children under 46 inches ride for free if they are with paying adult Note 2: Reduced fares are for seniors (over age 62), disabled riders, and Medicare card holders. Note 3: Must have student ID card to purchase pass. Note 4: Fares are reduced through the use of a $50 monthly pass for ADA. Source: Merced The Bus Website
CURRENT FINANCIAL CONDITIONS
Operating Revenues
The TJPA operating revenues are presented in Table 9. Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding makes up more than half of operating funds, with 46 percent from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and 10 percent from State Transportation Assistance (STA) fund. Federal funding sources generate approximately a third (30 percent) of operating revenues.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 40 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Directly-generated sources make up approximately 14 percent of the TPJA transit operations revenue. Directly-generated sources include passenger fares and revenue for contracted services. Operating revenues increased approximately 5 percent between 2014-15 and 2015- 16, primarily as a result of an increase in LCTOP funds. However, a 22 percent drop in operating revenues is expected in 2016-17, largely due to drops in LTF and STA funds and because CMAQ demonstration funds will no longer be available (for night service).
Capital Revenues
Table 9 also lists capital revenues. The largest source of capital revenue in 2015-16 was from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program funds ($2.4 million) as well as Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) program funds ($5.4 million). Most of the PTMISEA funds have been or will soon be obligated. The TJPA has also used LTF funds toward capital projects ($1.8 million in 2015-16, and an anticipated $3.0 million in 2016-17 for the new operations and maintenance facility).
Existing Operating Costs
Operating expenses for the TJPAMC are presented in Table 10. The largest expense (62 percent of the total expenses in 2015-16, increasing to 75 percent in 2016-17) was for the professional and special services, which is primarily the contract cost for transit operations. This totaled $7.3 million in 2014-15, and $8.8 million in 2015-16, and will be $8.5 million in 2016-17. The increase in costs is primarily due to the service contract.
However, it should be noted that starting in 2016-17, the contract will include bus maintenance, which was a separate $2.2 million line item in 2015-16. The overall operating cost rose from $12.5 million in 2014-15 to $13.8 million in 2015-16, but is projected to be $11.3 in 2016-17 and $11.5 in 2017-18.
The contract costs are based on variable and fixed costs. Per the contract, the variable costs include operator and mechanics wages and benefits, and equate to $32.54 per service hour for FY 2015-16, increasing to $33.31 in FY 2016-17, and $34.10 the year after. Fixed costs include contract costs outside of operator wages and maintenance, such as management, road supervision, dispatch and administrative staff, as well as other administrative costs such as office supplies, transfer vehicles, etcetera. The contracted fixed cost equals $175,973 per month in FY 2015-16, decreasing slightly to $175,361 per month in 2016-17, and increasing to $179,686 per month in 2017-18.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 41 OPERATING PERFORMANCE
A performance analysis was conducted for Fiscal Year 2015-16 by applying the operating cost from the contract to operating statistics. The marginal operating cost of each route was calculated by applying the contract cost of $32.54 to each hour of service (variable costs) and by dividing the annual fixed contract cost by the number of hours operated each month to show the proportional fixed cost.
TABLE 9: TJPA Operating and Capital Revenues FY 2014-15 to 2017-18 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Budgeted Budgeted Approved Projected Operating Revenues Federal FTA 5311-Rural $600,000 $529,248 $502,309 $502,309 FTA 5307-Merced $2,700,000 $2,565,126 $2,893,687 $2,893,687 FTA 5307-Turlock $0 $0 $233,949 $233,949 CMAQ-Demo Extended Service $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $0 $0 CMAQ- Marketing Promo $100,000 $100,000 $92,000 $100,000 Subtotal $4,600,000 $4,394,374 $3,721,945 $3,729,945 State State Transit Assistance $1,400,000 $1,411,184 $1,161,597 $1,161,597 LCTOP - Travel & Training $91,000 $181,866 $271,109 $150,000 Interest $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 Subtotal $1,498,000 $1,600,050 $1,439,706 $1,318,597 Local Local Transportation Funds (LTF) $5,876,346 $6,732,536 $4,614,197 $4,114,620 Farebox Revenues $1,478,082 $1,463,448 $1,192,339 $1,313,448 UC Route Revenues $330,000 $339,900 $350,097 $360,600 Measure V - Sales Tax Revenue $0 $0 $0 $750,000 Subtotal $7,684,428 $8,535,884 $6,156,633 $6,538,668
Total Operating Revenues $13,782,428 $14,530,308 $11,318,284 $11,587,210
Capital Project Revenues CMAQ-Buses $2,447,692 $0 $0 PTMISEA $5,401,083 $3,830,748 $3,830,748 LTF-Bus Shelter Instal.-incl C/O $1,800,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LTF-Operations and Maintenance Facility $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 CALEMA (CMS) & C/O $412,578 $618,867 $618,867 Total Capital Project Reveneus $10,061,353 $7,449,615 $7,449,615 Total All Revenues $24,591,661 $18,767,899 $19,036,825
Source: TJPAMC staff
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 42 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 10: TJPA Operating Expenses FY 2014-15 to 2017-18 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 Category Budgeted Budgeted Approved Projected Professional & Special Services MCAG Staff $1,041,052 $1,169,103 $1,568,800 $1,694,304 Service Contractor (Transit Operations) $5,794,936 $7,304,000 $6,503,029 $6,659,347 Marketing/Advertising Consultant $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Auditing $24,200 $27,600 $24,000 $24,000 Bank Fee $250 $400 $1,500 $1,500 Legal Services $45,000 $45,000 $47,250 $48,000 Private Security $0 $100,000 $103,000 $111,240 Taxi Service $272,000 $0 $0 $0 Bus Stop Cleaning $40,000 $50,000 $55,000 $60,000 ADA Certification for ridership $18,200 $25,000 $28,000 $28,000 Alarm System & camera system $640 $640 $640 $640 Third party bus inspection $0 $0 $50,000 $0 MISC (consultants/contracts) $28,000 $70,000 $30,000 $30,000 Total Professional Services $7,364,278 $8,891,743 $8,511,219 $8,757,031 Other Operating Expenses Communications - IS $49,750 $28,950 $80,500 $80,500 Janitorial Expense $2,100 $2,100 $2,300 $49,814 Insurance - Gen Liability $13,400 $18,000 $24,000 $26,400 Maint Equipment $2,615,000 $2,300,000 $200,000 $200,000 Maint - Equip Fuel $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,711,850 $1,797,443 Maint - Structures $61,840 $35,920 $36,960 $13,008 Membership $3,600 $3,600 $1,760 $1,760 Marketing & Promotions (CMAQ) $100,000 $100,000 $92,000 $92,000 Office Expense $13,100 $13,900 $13,000 $13,000 Rents & Leases - Structure $46,260 $103,060 $118,760 $85,319 Utilities $55,400 $37,700 $33,000 $33,000 Transportation, Travel & Training $15,000 $16,100 $23,500 $23,500 Special Department $392,700 $447,700 $469,435 $414,435 Total Operating Expenses $12,582,428 $13,848,773 $11,318,284 $11,587,210
Source: TJPAMC staff
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 43 This is depicted in Table 11. The fare revenue, passenger trips, hours of service and miles of service is also shown in Table 11.
From this data, a number of performance measures were calculated, as shown in Table 12 and summarized below:
Passenger Trips per Hour and Per Mile: The passengers carried per hour of service averaged 6.0 systemwide, with a high of 10.9 passengers per hour on the UC route, and a low of 1.8 on the Dial-a-Ride. This is depicted in Figure 14 as well. In terms of passenger trips per mile of service, Route M2 performed best with 0.96 passenger trips per mile, while the Hilmar route carried just 0.03 passenger trips per mile.
Marginal Cost per Passenger Trip: The costs applied in Table 12 do not include all allocated costs, so they are considered marginal costs. They provide a relative measure of performance. As indicated in Table 12, the Hilmar route was the most expensive to operate at a marginal cost of $41.10 per hour, while the UC route was most cost effective at $2.98 per hour. The systemwide average was $7.22 per hour of service.
Relative Farebox: The relative farebox ratio was calculated by dividing the revenue collected on each route from the operating cost. The Turlock Route has the best relative farebox ratio at 27 percent, followed by the Livingston Route at 20.4 percent, as shown in Table 12.
Subsidy per Passenger Trip: The subsidy per passenger trip is one of the best indicators of cost effectiveness and in effect shows the public investment on each route. This is calculated by subtracting the revenue collected on the route from the operating cost, and dividing this by the number of passenger trips. As shown in Table 12 and Figure 15, the Hilmar service is most heavily subsidized at a relative subsidy of $39.38 per passenger trip, while Route M5 had the lowest per passenger subsidy at $2.51, followed by M2 at $2.65 per passenger trip. The average subsidy per passenger trip for the system was $6.47.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 44 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 11: The Bus Operating Statistics, Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating Costs Fare Passenger Service Service Routes Variable 1 Fixed 2 Total Revenue 3 Trips 3 Miles 3 Hours 3 A1 $148,934 $49,306 $198,241 $14,145 18,233 50,290 4,577 A2 $144,332 $47,783 $144,332 $12,304 15,368 45,058 4,436 A3 $150,129 $49,702 $150,129 $9,374 12,661 63,689 4,614 M1 $273,736 $90,623 $273,736 $28,441 57,562 91,823 8,412 M2 $361,799 $119,777 $361,799 $58,224 114,739 119,808 11,119 M3 $286,774 $94,940 $286,774 $45,189 77,093 88,295 8,813 M4 $371,484 $122,984 $371,484 $52,017 102,605 117,977 11,416 M5 $167,461 $55,440 $167,461 $31,587 54,332 64,615 5,146 M6 $160,950 $53,284 $160,950 $16,978 24,623 60,888 4,946 L $263,927 $87,376 $263,927 $53,970 56,271 144,663 8,111 P $140,191 $46,412 $140,191 $26,938 25,582 90,536 4,308 T $275,394 $91,172 $275,394 $74,342 60,918 239,253 8,463 W $292,690 $96,898 $292,690 $46,513 59,368 131,611 8,995 LB $264,890 $87,695 $264,890 $47,019 44,706 190,058 8,140 UC $207,621 $68,735 $207,621 $11,962 69,573 84,595 6,381 G $103,700 $34,331 $103,700 $8,142 4,226 99,263 3,187 H $47,307 $15,661 $47,307 $1,984 1,151 41,452 1,454 Specials $2,160 $715 $2,160 $0 222 935 66 Subtotal (Urban) $3,663,480 $1,212,835 $3,663,480 $539,128 799,233 1,724,809 112,584 LB1 $175,448 $58,084 $175,448 $12,937 16,020 68,676 5,392 LB2 $124,693 $41,281 $124,693 $9,963 12,549 57,875 3,832 DP $219,505 $72,669 $219,505 $24,700 20,333 117,072 6,746 Subtotal (Rural) $519,646 $172,035 $519,646 $47,600 48,902 243,623 15,969 Total Fixed Route $4,183,126 $1,384,870 $4,183,126 $586,728 848,135 1,968,432 128,553 Dial-a-Ride $600,753 $198,886 $600,753 $69,379 34,014 279,723 18,462 Total $4,783,879$ 1,583,756 $6,367,635 $656,107 882,149 2,248,155 147,015 Note 1: Variable cost based on contract cost of $32.54 per service hour, assuming 132,063 annual billable hours of service. Note 2: Fixed cost per contract: $1,583,576. Distributed by route by percentage of hours served by route. Note 3: From TJPA Monthly Statistics Reports, Fiscal Year 2015-16. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 45 TABLE 12: The Bus Performance Indicators by Route Fiscal Year 2015-16 Passengers per… Cost Measures Marginal Relative Subsidy Service Service Cost per Farebox per Psgr- Routes Hour Mile Psgr-Trip 1 Ratio 2 Trip 3 A1 4.0 0.36 $10.87 7.1% $10.10 A2 3.5 0.34 $9.39 8.5% $8.59 A3 2.7 0.20 $11.86 6.2% $11.12 M1 6.8 0.63 $4.76 10.4% $4.26 M2 10.3 0.96 $3.15 16.1% $2.65 M3 8.7 0.87 $3.72 15.8% $3.13 M4 9.0 0.87 $3.62 14.0% $3.11 M5 10.6 0.84 $3.08 18.9% $2.50 M6 5.0 0.40 $6.54 10.5% $5.85 L 6.9 0.39 $4.69 20.4% $3.73 P 5.9 0.28 $5.48 19.2% $4.43 T 7.2 0.25 $4.52 27.0% $3.30 W 6.6 0.45 $4.93 15.9% $4.15 LB 5.5 0.24 $5.93 17.8% $4.87 UC 10.9 0.82 $2.98 5.8% $2.81 G 1.3 0.04 $24.54 7.9% $22.61 H 0.8 0.03 $41.10 4.2% $39.38 Specials 3.3 0.24 $9.73 0.0% $9.73 Subtotal (Urban) 7.1 0.46 $4.58 14.7% $3.91 LB1 3.0 0.23 $10.95 7.4% $10.14 LB2 3.3 0.22 $9.94 8.0% $9.14 DP 3.0 0.17 $10.80 11.3% $9.58 Subtotal (Rural) 3.1 0.20 $10.63 9.2% $9.65 Total Fixed Route 6.6 0.43 $4.93 14.0% $4.24 Dial-a-Ride 1.8 0.12 $17.66 11.5% $15.62 Total 6.0 0.39 $7.22 10.3% $6.47 Note 1: Total Cost (variable plus fixed). Note 2: Percentage of Fare Revenue collected in relation to total cost per route. Note 3: Total Cost per trip minus revenue per trip. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 46 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan FIGURE 14: Passengers per Service Hour by Route 12 10.9 10.6 10.3 15) - 10 9.0 8.7
8 7.2 6.8 6.9 6.6 6.6 5.9 6.0 6 5.5 5.0
4.0 4 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.7
1.8 2 1.3
Passenger Trips per Hour of Service (FY 2014Service(FY of Hour per PassengerTrips 0.8
0
Route / Service
FIGURE 15: Subsidy per Passenger Trip by Route $45.00
$40.00
$35.00 16) - $30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00 Subsidy per Passenger Trip (FY 2015(FY PassengerTrip per Subsidy
$0.00
Route / Service
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 47 RIDERSHIP PATTERNS AND ANALYSIS
Operating data was compiled from multiple sources for this report with benefits from each source, as described below:
1. TJPA Monthly Reports: this data is provided by the contractor and compiled by the TPJA. The data includes monthly statistics compiled in spreadsheet format with detailed ridership, fare media details, hours and miles of operation, all by service and by route. This data is best for providing long-term trends. Monthly reports for the past five year were available. However, significant service changes implemented in August 2016 are not reflected in this data.
2. Boarding and Alighting Survey Data: Onboard surveys were conducted in September 2016 where passengers were counted on all fixed routes (except Dos Palos and Gustine) for the equivalent of nearly a day of service. This data provides a snapshot of activity on the newly implemented service plan. Additionally, onboard passenger surveys provided trip information as discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.
3. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Data: The AVL devices on each bus track vehicle location (longitude and latitude) by date, time of day and route. Additionally, drivers key in boarding and alighting and fare data, providing detailed ridership information. Two weeks of this data were analyzed.
Summaries of ridership patterns from these data sources are provided below.
RIDERSHIP PATTERNS AND ANALYSIS – TJPA MONTHLY REPORTS
Trends in Annual Ridership
Ridership by service and route for the past five years is shown in Table 13 and Figure 16. Annual ridership has ranged from a high of 1,032,420 in 2011-12, to a low 882,149 in 2015-16. The biggest drop in ridership has been in that classified as “Rural” as well as a drop in Dial-a-Ride service. In September 2012, the TJPA eliminated the "unlimited dial-a-ride" pass which resulted in a major decline in ridership since passengers were required to pay per trip. Additionally, from 2013 to 2014, DAR eligibility requirements were narrowed to allow only ADA-certified individuals to use the paratransit service. In terms of fixed routes, the Merced routes have been generally steady in ridership over the past three years, while the Planada and Livingston routes have shown small declines in ridership. Los Banos ridership has been restructured but has also shown growth.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 48 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Monthly Variation in Ridership by Route
Ridership by route and month for FY 2015-16 is depicted in Table 14. As shown, ridership is somewhat seasonal, with the lowest ridership in June (though DAR was highest then), followed by January. This is due in part to college schedules; ridership is highest in September and October, when the new school year begins, and February and March, when the second college session begins.
RIDERSHIP PATTERNS AND ANALYSIS – BOARDING AND ALIGHTING SURVEY COUNTS
Boarding and Alighting by Stop
Boarding and alighting counts were conducted in conjunction with onboard passenger surveys in September, 2016. Surveyors counted passengers as they boarded and alighted by stop on all fixed routes except Dos Palos and Gustine. The detailed data is provided in Appendix B. Approximately 85 percent of the equivalent of a full day of each route was surveyed. A total of 2,683 boardings and 2,491 alightings were counted.
A summary of the busiest stops by route is shown in Table 15. The Transpo Centers in Merced and Atwater and Merced College are among the busiest stops, as are the Gallo Rec Center at UC Merced, the Los Banos Community Center, the M Street Village Apartments, the Dos Palos Y and the Food 4 Less in Los Banos. The routes with the highest number of active stops in Table 15 generally are those routes that have more concentrated ridership (Los Banos, UC and Turlock), while other routes have ridership distributed over more stops (Atwater, Planada).
RIDERSHIP PATTERNS AND ANALYSIS – AUTOMATED VEHICLE LOCATION DATA
AVL data was compiled and analyzed for The Bus for dates from September 12 to September 23, 2016. This analysis provides insight into the operating characteristics of services implemented as of August 1, 2016. Unlike the survey data, above, this data provides boarding and alighting activity on all routes for two full weeks, providing a much more comprehensive picture of ridership. This data is provided in Appendix C.
Summary by Stop
AVL data was sorted to identify the average weekday boardings by stop by route. Table 16 presents a list of the stops with an average weekday activity of 20 or more passenger boardings and/or alightings at the stop.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 49
TABLE 13: The Bus Ridership by Route and Year
Annual Passenger Trips Routes FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 A1 17,148 16,459 18,233 A2 21,029 20,705 15,368 A3 11,320 10,699 12,661 M1 41,014 44,522 57,562 M2 82,476 98,573 114,739 M3 136,733 112,613 77,093 M4 93,768 98,037 102,605 M5 50,494 51,025 54,332 M6 23,315 28,334 24,623 L 63,262 63,338 56,271 P 28,940 27,841 25,582 T 56,104 60,943 60,918 W 58,092 60,404 59,368 LB 36,805 38,045 44,706 UC 74,270 86,591 69,573 G -- -- 4,226 H -- -- 1,151 Specials -- 208 222 Merced County Fair -- 307 -- Subtotal (Urban) 703,669 730,994 794,770 818,644 799,233 LB1 10,765 13,984 16,020 LB2 12,584 12,170 12,549 DP 6,873 4,743 20,333 Subtotal (Rural) 136,462 31,397 30,222 30,897 48,902 Total Fixed Route 840,131 762,391 824,992 849,541 848,135
CLC 103,926 89,405 ------Dial-a-Ride 88,363 47,857 112,052 101,379 34,014 Total 1,032,420 899,653 937,044 950,920 882,149 Source: TJPA Monthly Reports, summarized by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 50 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan FIGURE 16: The Bus Annual Ridership
900,000 840,131 849,541 848,135 824,992
800,000 762,391
700,000
600,000
500,000 Way Passenger Trips Passenger Way
- 400,000
300,000 Annual One Annual 200,000
112,052 101,379 100,000 88,363 47,857 34,014
0 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Fixed Route Paratransit Note: Does not include "CLC" Car-less-commute service in 2011-12 and 2012-13
Not surprisingly, the most active stops are those which also offer transfers, including the Merced Transpo (boarding/alighting in the south/west direction is busiest) and Merced College. Other stops with very high activity include the Gallo Rec Center on the UC Merced campus, Walmart, Target/Merced Mall, and the Atwater Target. This data was also mapped using scaled circles to show stops with the highest activity, as shown for Merced in Figure 17 and countywide in Figure 18. Detailed boarding and alighting data by route is included in Appendix C.
Summary by Day of Week
Ridership by day of week was also evaluated for the two week span in September 2016. As shown in Table 17 and Figure 19, overall ridership is relatively steady across the weekdays, with slightly higher ridership on Tuesday. Saturday ridership is about 26 percent of average weekday ridership, while Sunday ridership is 21 percent of average weekday ridership. AVL data was not available for paratransit services, but paratransit ridership data for Fiscal Year 2015/16 was reviewed to identify ridership by day of week on this service. Average weekday ridership totaled 110 passenger boardings, along with 50 on Saturdays and 26 on Sundays.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 51 222 4,226 1,151 15,368 12,661 12,549 882,149 Annual 0 990 790 964 170 2016 1,007 1,135 1,139 1,043 1,082 1,121 1,212 1,106 897 879 955 863 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 52 0 0 499152 386 87 357 89 426 409 90 277 61 157 88 273 78 313 85 422 98 421 286 97 111 115 July1,456 Aug1,311 1,520 1,383 Sept 1,502 1,539 1,616 Oct 1,489 1,533 Nov 1,163 1,357 1,536 1,333 Dec 1,033 1,549 Jan 1,086 1,608 1,269 Feb 1,836 1,251 1,651 Mar 1,318 1,272 April 18,233 May June 1,105 1,142 1,018 1,280 1,069 1,036 5,483 5,0566,530 5,2387,405 7,305 5,1504,209 8,232 7,0001,979 4,406 4,708 9,641 7,1873,407 2,716 4,839 10,892 5,2472,055 6,246 4,940 2,371 3,909 8,391 5,0904,613 2,357 6,069 6,276 2,506 4,8485,060 7,935 4,257 4,763 2,544 5,809 5,9573,676 7,605 1,909 5,536 4,529 4,906 6,008 2,548 6,8664,318 4,600 3,490 1,783 9,201 5,729 4,514 6,170 4,896 2,177 4,991 4,302 6,855 4,176 1,609 5,920 4,868 9,332 5,218 5,037 1,890 8,453 3,716 4,463 1,994 6,342 4,715 4,547 4,722 1,979 8,899 8,325 5,264 3,794 3,665 5,878 4,838 1,990 3,907 2,261 8,663 4,806 5,976 3,610 5,112 57,562 4,389 5,578 5,006 2,191 4,516 4,339 2,197 6,409 3,347 5,024 5,196 2,064 5,430 77,093 4,706 102,605 4,106 2,866 2,010 4,626 4,914 7,434 1,511 5,589 2,011 4,391 54,332 2,875 4,793 5,505 6,729 24,623 1,553 4,032 4,782 56,271 3,590 7,073 3,484 25,582 3,668 4,338 60,918 2,266 59,368 2,891 44,706 69,573 1,1541,004 1,7391,450 1,002 1,892 1,459 1,160 1,672 1,612 1,201 1,225 1,629 1,136 1,503 1,045 1,696 1,361 1,652 1,344 2,034 1,250 2,186 1,148 2,012 1,054 1,975 16,020 1,125 20,333 10,009 10,189 10,849 10,915 9,218 9,088 8,691 9,786 10,128 9,404 9,130 7,332 114,739 66,875 73,001 82,75369,618 84,526 75,702 68,620 65,850 85,350 61,239 87,196 75,707 71,033 75,780 68,663 63,718 74,450 78,326 68,977 78,710 50,357 77,209 848,135 71,482 55,142 TABLE 14: The Bus Ridership by Route and Month, Fiscal Year 2015-16 Fiscal Year Month, and by Route TABLE 14: Bus Ridership The A2 Routes A1 MonthlySource: TJPA Reports, summarized Transportation by LSC Consultants, Inc. A3 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 L P T W LB UC G H Specials LB1 LB2 DP Total RouteFixed Dial-a-RideTotal 2,743 2,701 2,597 2,670 2,413 2,813 2,479 2,619 2,930 2,759 2,505 4,785 34,014
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 52 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 15: Busiest Boarding and Alighting by Route and Stop Onboard Surveys, September 2016 Average per Run Route Stop On Off Total A1 Atwater Target 1.1 1.3 2.4 L Merced College 5.4 3.6 9.0 L Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 1.4 1.4 2.7 L Walnut Ave @ Francis St 1.6 0.4 2.1 LB Merced Transpo 10.7 4.2 14.8 LB Los Banos Community Center 3.8 5.3 9.2 LB Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 2.2 3.0 5.2 LB Merced College 0.2 4.0 4.2 LB Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 2.3 1.7 4.0 LB Merced College/Los Banos Campus 1.3 2.2 3.5 LB Walmart 1.3 1.8 3.2 M1 North Merced Transpo 1.8 2.9 4.7 M2 south Merced Transpo 5.6 3.0 8.6 M2 north Wal-Mart 2.1 1.2 3.3 M2 north Merced College 1.5 1.2 2.7 M2 south Human Services Agency (HSA) 1.3 1.0 2.3 M3 north Merced Transpo 5.5 1.6 7.1 M3 north M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1.7 1.4 3.1 M3 north Merced College 1.4 1.6 3.0 M3 north Meadows @ Olive 0.7 1.6 2.4 M3 north Loughborough @ Target/Mall 1.5 0.5 2.0 M4 north Merced Transpo 5.4 4.1 9.5 M4 north Merced College 2.2 1.0 3.2 M4 north G St @ Olive/Save Mart 1.9 1.3 3.2 M5 Merced Transpo 2.0 1.5 3.5 P Merced Transpo 6.1 2.9 9.0 T Merced Transpo 10.5 7.3 17.8 T Atwater Transpo 4.3 6.0 10.3 T W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 6.3 1.3 7.5 T Turlock Transpo 3.8 2.3 6.0 T 16th @ T st 0.5 2.0 2.5 T Monte Vista Ave @ Country Side - Turlock 1.5 1.0 2.5 T Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 0.5 2.0 2.5 T Stephens St @ Locust St 1.3 1.3 2.5 T Schendel Ave @ Mimosa Ave 0.0 2.3 2.3 UC Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 9.9 9.9 19.8 UC M St @ Village Apts 2.9 2.9 5.8 UC Yosemite Av @ Parsons 1.7 1.7 3.4 UC Merced College 1.4 1.4 2.8 UC Amtrak 1.3 1.3 2.6 UC Merced Transpo 1.2 1.2 2.5 W1 Merced Transpo 5.7 1.8 7.5 W1 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 1.3 1.2 2.5 W1 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 0.7 1.8 2.5 W1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1.7 0.7 2.3 W2 Merced College 2.3 6.3 8.7 W2 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 3.0 1.0 4.0 W2 Bellevue @ Secretariat 1.3 0.7 2.0 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 53 TABLE 16: Summary of Passenger Activity at Major The Bus Stops All Stops Serving 20 or More Passengers per Weekday - AVL Data Average Weekday Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total Transpo (south/west) 290.4 345.8 636.2 Merced College 179.2 193.5 372.7 Transpo (north/east) 185.2 172.7 357.9 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 117.5 118.9 236.4 Wal-Mart (northbound) 48.3 43.7 92.0 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall (westbound) 49.3 26.8 76.1 Atwater Target (to Winton) 29.9 33.0 62.9 Loughborough @ Target/Mall (eastbound) 32.4 27.5 59.9 Transpo - Small (Southbound) 23.7 32.2 55.9 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart (eastbound) 32.9 15.8 48.7 Transpo (small) 21.6 25.8 47.4 M St @ Villages Apts (southbound) 7.3 33.3 40.6 HSA 22.0 18.2 40.2 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd (eastbound) 17.5 22.2 39.7 Amtrak (westbound) 33.1 6.4 39.5 Atwater Transpo (eastbound) 25.5 12.8 38.3 Castle Clinic (to Atwater/Winton) 18.7 17.9 36.6 M St @ Village Apts (northbound) 33.7 2.9 36.6 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library (northbound) 20.7 15.4 36.1 Bellevue @ Winton (westbound) 7.3 27.2 34.5 Atwater Transpo (westbound) 14.2 19.0 33.2 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 20.9 12.2 33.1 G St @ Donna (northbound) 15.3 16.1 31.4 Mercy Medical Center 17.0 13.7 30.7 Social Security Office (southbound) 18.6 11.5 30.1 Merced College (To UC Merced) 13.9 15.8 29.7 Castle H.S.A. (to Atwater/Winton) 9.6 18.9 28.5 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 16.5 10.1 26.6 Meadows Ave @ Olivewood (northbound) 16.3 10.0 26.3 Atwater Transpo (Counter-Clockwise) 7.4 16.2 23.6 Parsons @ The Grove 11.4 11.6 23.0 Yosemite Av @ Parsons (eastbound) 20.4 1.0 21.4 Other Named Stops 1,694 1,916 3,610 Subtotal: Named Stops 1,378 1,348 2,726 Other Locations (Flag Stops) 1,042 1,256 2,298 Total 3,071 3,264 6,336 Note: 36% of all boardings and alightings occur at flag stops. Source: TJPA AVL Data summaries for September 12-23, 2016, sorted and summarized by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 54 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Summary by Time of Day
Ridership by time of day for the two week span in September 2016 is shown in Table 18 and Figure 20. As shown, the Turlock and Los Banos to Merced routes show a typical commuter pattern with highest ridership during the 6-7:00 AM and 5-6:00 PM hours. The UC Route reflects a typical “student commuter” pattern (with a later peak in the morning) but strong ridership throughout the day. Other routes show a combination of all trip purposes that generates relatively consistent ridership over the day.
Evaluation of Ridership and Productivity Impacts of Recent Fixed Route Changes
As discussed in Chapter 3, substantial changes to The Bus fixed routes and schedules were implemented August 1st, 2016. As a basis for evaluating additional service alternatives, it is important to review the current ridership of the revised routes, how the revisions have impacted ridership, and how the revisions have impacted productivity (as measured in the passengers per vehicle service hour). It should be noted that a few months is a short period to assess transit service changes, as the ultimate long-term impact of service changes – particularly major changes – typically does not occur for one to two years.
TABLE 17: The Bus Ridership by Route and Day of the Week AVL Data September 12 to September 25, 2016 Average Daily Boardings Route Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
A1 - Atwater Loop 110 123 100 120 90 35 34 A2 - Winton Way 5 30 3 50 37 5 22 L - Livingston Commuter 148 152 136 156 135 50 39 LB - Los Banos-Merced Commuter 191 207 159 183 154 45 46 M1 - Merced West 206 280 302 270 239 87 74 M2 - R Street Route 394 384 300 337 373 103 66 M3 - M Street Route 241 221 269 215 332 122 86 M4 - G Street Route 340 338 288 250 271 41 11 M5 - Merced South-East 179 251 219 209 226 65 52 M6 - Olive Loops 140 144 157 100 124 62 44 P - Planada Commuter 120 116 130 110 107 32 36 T - Turlock Commuter 265 288 232 259 265 71 66 UC Route 453 409 410 370 301 0 0 W1 - Winton Commuter 239 240 219 244 202 32 31 W2 - Winton Commuter North 57 66 111 117 125 47 38 Total Fixed Route 3,084 3,246 3,031 2,988 2,978 795 641
Source: TJPA AVL Data summarized by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 55
b 140 140
Olive Ave Olive b Childs Ave Childs 0 - 50 51 -100 101 - 300 301 - 500 501 - 636
Total Boardings and Alightings and Boardings Total
The GroveThe Apartments Parsons Ave Parsons
Santa Fe Ave b b
Yosemite Pky Yosemite
b b _ _
r
140 U V
D Glen Ave Glen
k
e
e
_ r
_ C G St G r
a
e B aa
h
t r o a
N Mercy Medical Center
Amtrak b
b a a a
Main St
Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community
Yosemite Ave Yosemite Merced College 23rd St St M Target
City Hall
R St R Æ a Martin Luther King Jr Way Jr King Luther Martin
Figure 17 59
16th St 13th St St M
b
b bb b
Q St Q
b
Childs Ave Childs
V St V R St R b b ` Total Boarding and Alightings and Boarding Total
2nd St I
V St V
140 140
8th St
59 59
X St X West Ave West GoldenValley HealthCenter Walmart Miles
` b
2 e b
HomeDepot
v
A n
a
g
o r McswainRd 16th St G Wardrobe Ave Wardrobe Human Agency Services 1
Santa Fe Ave
To Winton To 99 0.5 e 0
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 56 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 59 U V 15 2 U V 23 3 U V LeGrand I Miles C o u n t y M a r i p o s a Planada M a d e rC a o u n t y of California University Merced 15 2 U V 152 U V 14 0 U V 59 U V 3 Snelling 59 U V 59 Merced U V 59 U V 59 U V 0 6 12 El Nido 33 U V 33 U V 33 U V Atwater Winton Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community DosPalos M e r c eC d o u n t y DosPalos Y Figure 18 Figure G L DP P T UC LB W1 W2 Delhi 14 0 U V Livingston 99 U V 140 U V 16 5 U V 5 § ¨ ¦ Regional Boarding and AlightingsBoardingRegional and 99 U V 165 U V Turlock Los Banos 0 10- - 50 11 51 100- 101 300- 301 649- Hilmar-Irwin Total Boarding Alightings Boarding Total 33 U V Gustine 14 0 U V Newman Santa Nella 33 U V 152 U V
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Merced County Short Range Transit5 Plan Page 57 § ¨ ¦
In addition to the impacts of the service changes, ridership is also impacted by year-over-year trends in ridership (due to factors such as changes in the economy or changes in gas prices). The number of days of operation over a period can also impact ridership, as can the typical variation in monthly ridership over the year. To adjust for these factors, the following analysis steps were followed, as summarized in Table 19:
1. Monthly ridership and service (vehicle service hour) data was obtained. The analysis was focused on weekday ridership, as the large majority of ridership and service costs occur during weekdays.
2. Data was summarized for four two-month periods: June/July 2015, September/October 2015, June/July 2016 and September/October 2016. Data for August was not considered, to avoid any particularly unusual ridership impacts immediately after the August 1, 2016 service change as well as impacts from the annual “free fare” service offered each August.
3. For each two-month period, total weekday ridership was divided by the number of weekdays of operation to yield the average passengers per day and vehicle-hours of service per day.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 58 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 4. The year-over-year trend in ridership was identified by comparing the ratio of ridership in June/July 2016 divided by the ridership in June/July 2015. Overall, this year-over-year comparison indicated an 11 percent drop in ridership, consisting of a 12 percent drop on the urban routes and a 5 percent drop on the rural routes. This drop was particularly large on the Dos Palos rural route (26 percent drop), the Los Banos route (24 percent drop) and Gustine route (23 percent drop).
5. This trend factor was then applied to the September/October 2015 data in order to estimate what the September/October 2016 ridership would be in the absence of the route/schedule changes. As an example, the June/July data for Route M1 indicates an 8 percent drop between 2015 and 2016. Reducing the September/October 2015 daily ridership (220.4) by 8 percent, the September/October 2016 daily ridership in the absence of the changes is estimated to be 202.7 passengers per day.
FIGURE 20: The Bus Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 160
140
120
100
80
60
40 Average Weekday Boardings byHour Boardings Average Weekday
20
0
Merced Routes Atwater Routes Winton Routes Livingston Commuter Los Banos-Merced Commuter Planada Commuter Turlock Commuter UC Route
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 59
24 97 92
101 124 164 243 341 240 284 203 122 237 365 212 Total
8:00 PM 8:00
7:00 PM 7:00
6:00 PM 6:00
5:00 PM 5:00
4:00 PM 4:00
3:00 PM 3:00
2:00 PM 2:00
1:00 PM 1:00
12:00 PM 12:00 11:00 AM 11:00
Hour Passenger Boards Hour
10:00 AM 10:00
9:00 AM 9:00
8:00 AM 8:00
7:00 AM 7:00
6:00 AM 6:00 5:00 AM 5:00 0.0 11.90.0 8.3 1.6 6.6 2.40.0 5.8 1.5 10.30.0 8.1 3.1 13.0 8.3 15.9 6.8 1.3 23.60.0 21.9 11.7 18.8 1.6 11.6 18.5 6.7 38.0 16.3 15.9 2.60.0 35.0 19.6 26.9 5.4 0.0 32.3 19.6 1.5 19.5 7.9 39.1 11.3 18.7 23.1 1.4 32.4 31.0 10.4 20.4 8.40.0 26.1 30.7 2.2 22.3 3.9 0.0 8.5 28.1 22.5 13.2 1.2 4.8 22.1 24.6 10.0 22.4 15.3 29.6 16.7 1.8 28.3 9.6 2.7 7.1 24.4 13.0 36.8 0.7 0.0 9.7 0.0 38.7 15.1 5.1 28.7 1.5 7.0 7.1 0.0 25.2 0.0 9.0 4.3 27.4 25.0 13.5 0.0 27.3 12.3 35.9 9.8 40.2 6.6 20.8 19.7 6.5 0.0 0.0 7.0 139.6 232.3 219.3 237.2 208.6 220.1 231.3 231.4 208.7 240.1 244.9 190.3 122.1 105.1 11.6 2,850 3.8 51.1 131.7 126.6 155.3 151.1 154.5 161.5 146.2 139.9 155.3 169.4 121.1 78.2 52.1 0.0 1,798 Route Loop- Atwater A1 Way Winton A2- Commuter L- Livingston LB- Los Banos-MercedComm. 0.0West - Merced M1 24.3 0.0Route - R Street M2 18.3 9.3 22.2Route Street - M M3 13.6 8.1Route Street - G M4 7.3South-East - Merced 0.4M5 12.3 10.5Loops - Olive M6 4.6 0.0 8.0Commuter P-Planada 14.1 7.1 3.8T- Commuter Turlock 19.3 7.1 6.8 13.3 17.0UCRoute 26.1 5.0 9.5 26.4Commuter - W1 Winton 17.3 21.3 0.0 18.2 9.3 16.5North Commuter - W2 Winton 10.7 0.0 21.6 4.3 0.0 12.0 3.4 19.6 17.7 6.5 18.0 15.4 3.1 3.2 29.3 23.7 7.8 15.9 12.2 5.5 8.0 18.5 4.4 18.3 12.5 13.7 9.8 14.6 17.8 21.0 7.9 3.3 0.0 16.0 19.3 17.4 18.8 4.6 3.0 16.7 14.9 16.6 8.9 2.2 10.8 10.5 18.7 15.0 5.8 8.8 1.8 8.8 4.3 15.3 14.7 15.9 18.1 3.8 6.6 7.8 15.7 19.9 3.4 17.2 0.0 5.6 14.6 8.4 17.0 10.6 22.6 0.0 9.2 19.7 14.3 3.3 15.1 12.8 7.4 5.4 13.2 10.1 5.1 9.4 4.3 2.9 10.8 10.0 1.6 2.8 2.2 0.0 3.2 8.7 0.3 TABLE 18: The Bus Average Weekday Passenger Boarding by Route by Time of Day of Time by Route by Boarding Passenger Weekday Average Bus The 18: TABLE Routes Merced Subtotal: Route) UC (With Routes Rural Subtotal: TOTAL 3.2 88.5 100.6 92.7 81.9 57.5 65.6 69.8 85.2 68.8 84.8 75.5 69.2 43.9 53.0 11.6 1,052 Source: Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday AVL data for September 12 - 23, 2016. 23, - averageofweekdaySeptemberbasedonforalighting are and AVLdata 12 Boarding data Source:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 60 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 6. The actual observed daily ridership in September/October 2016 can then be compared to this “no service change” estimate to estimate the impact of the service changes. For the Route M1 example, the observed ridership is 246.5 passengers per day, indicating that the impact of the service change is an increase of 43.9 (246.5 minus 202.7), or a 22 percent increase over the “no service change” estimate.
7. Average daily vehicle-hours of service data were drawn from the monthly statistics spreadsheets. Dividing ridership by vehicle-hours yields the passengers per vehicle-hour (“productivity”) for each two-month period.
8. The productivity in September/October 2016 can be estimated by factoring the September/October 2015 value by the year-over-year trend in productivity, and compared against the actual September/October 2016 productivity to estimate the impact of the service changes on productivity.
A review of Table 19 indicates the following:
The overall estimated impact of the service changes was a slight (1 percent) reduction in total fixed route ridership. This consists of a 2 percent increase in urban route ridership offset by a 59 percent drop in rural route ridership (due in large part to elimination of the local Los Banos routes).
Service changes have yielded substantial ridership increases in some routes and service areas, including a 128.0 increase in total daily ridership in the Winton routes (61 percent) and a 114.3 increase in overall Merced route daily ridership (7 percent). The UC Route ridership has been improved by 22.6 (7 percent) and the Dos Palos ridership by 23.1 (44 percent). This data is also depicted in Figure 21.
At the other extreme, the impact of the service changes on the Livingston Route is estimated to be a reduction in daily ridership of 142.5 (55 percent). The Los Banos Route also had a relatively large ridership loss of 17.4 (12 percent). Interestingly, the changes in the Atwater Routes (including the elimination of Route A3) resulted in virtually no change in ridership.
Average daily fixed route vehicle-hours dropped by 2 percent overall, consisting of a 6 percent increase in urban route vehicle-hours and a 51 percent drop in rural vehicle- hours
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 61 3,700 28,300 15,700 29,500 60,200 84,900 45,400 30,200 22,000 Annual Annual 44,000 22,000 725,000 Forecast Forecast 703,000 Ridership (7 Days/Week) 5% 4% 8% 76% 33% 52% 20% 44% 29% 73% Service Service Changes #% Impact of Impact ------Estimated Estimated ------6.9 5.8 Oct Sep- 2016 ------Service Service Without Without Changes Oct 2016 Forecast Sep- Forecast 2016 Jun-Jul Jun-Jul Passengers VSH -- Weekday per Oct Sep- 2015 6.8 9.0 5.6 7.3 7.6 0.3 7.3 7.68.9 6.2 9.8 7.3 6.4 8.1 6.2 -0.2 8.5 -3% 0.4 62,200 8.2 11.34.9 7.2 6.4 9.9 3.86.6 7.7 9.6 4.97.0 5.0 -0.3 4.6 -3% 8.6 5.8 -0.3 5.4 87,600 -7% 5.6 6.7 28,000 -0.2 -3% 17,800 2.2 3.8 2.2 2.3 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.9 1.8 2.0 2.6 0.6 7.0 8.6 5.4 6.7 6.4 -0.2 -4% 75,600 8.7 10.4 7.1 8.4 7.8 -0.6 -7% 397,400 11.0 12.2 8.4 9.3 9.1 -0.2 -2% 85,200 10.1 13.5 7.7 10.4 7.6 -2.8 -27% 49,500 2015 Jun-Jul Jun-Jul ------6% 1% 3% 3% 37% 32% 68% 66% 19% 85% 25% Service Service Changes Impact of Impact #% ------Oct Sep- 2016 2016 Jun-Jul Jun-Jul Oct Sep- Vehicle Service Hours per Day Vehicle per Hours Service 2015 5.9 5.2 6.2 0.0 -5.2 -100% 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.1 23.8 29.1 23.8 13.2 13.7 14.9 13.4 -0.3 -2% 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.3 7.5 3.2 24.0 24.7 26.5 24.1 -0.6 -2% 7.5 15.8 5.9 12.3 14.8 2.5 13.2 13.5 14.5 12.9 -0.6 -4% 3.8 4.2 2.9 3.1 4.2 1.0 12.5 11.9 11.6 9.4 -2.6 -22% 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.8 0.6 28.1 28.929.7 30.7 30.3 39.8 32.0 10.8 40.1 9.8 29.3 28.5 32.6 0.0 -28.5 20.1 20.3 21.5 0.0 15.714.5 16.1 14.8 17.0 16.2 26.9 24.5 10.9 9.7 13.9 14.3 15.6 0.0 26.5 24.3 27.9 28.8 4.5 40.1 41.0 44.3 26.3 -14.7 -36% 3.6 3.9 3.2 3.4 5.929.3 2.5 28.5 32.6 52.9 24.4 2015 372.0 377.5 401.9 400.6 23.1 165.1 169.0 179.1 211.7 42.7 Jun-Jul Jun-Jul 7% 2% 0% 7% 52% 16% 23% 22% 29% 14% 38% 44% 61% Service Service Changes #% ------Impact of Impact Estimated Estimated ------2016 201.4 138.0 Sep-Oct Sep-Oct ------2.4 2016 Without Without 2016 Service ChangesService Forecast Sep-Oct Sep-Oct Forecast Passengers Day per 4.2 61.0 65.9 100.4 34.5 76.6 43.4 2015 258.0 261.7 216.9 -44.8 -17% 28.2 28.8 30.2 26.0 -2.8 -10% 6.3 9.0 5.9 8.5 8.3 -0.1 -2% 50,600 Sep-Oct Sep-Oct ------8% 1% Year Year Year- Over- Trend 2016 Jun-Jul Jun-Jul ------55.4 59.9 50.539.5 41.6 38.2 -18% -3% 56.2 42.7 46.3 41.3 53.5 0.0 7.3 -41.3 -100% 13.7 13.8 14.9 0.0 -13.8 -100%22.1 2.910.0 17.0 3.1 -23% 5.9 2.6 17.9 2.7 13.8 16.9 3.1 82.1 68.0 -17% 99.6 82.4 74.5 -7.9 -10%44.6 12.5 12.9 48.3 13.7 13.3 0.3 71.1 61.5 -13% 94.0 81.4 112.5 31.1 32.6 39.6 68.9 51.0 -26% 70.3 52.0 75.1 23.1 2015 180.8 155.1 -14% 390.2 334.6 357.2 22.6 138.7 105.4 -24% 188.1 142.9 125.5 -17.4 -12% 28.0 28.5 29.8 17.5 -11.0 -39% 5.0 6.6 3.5 4.7 7.2 2.5 205.8420.6 189.2264.5 345.0 -8%318.6 234.2 -18% 220.4 301.1 -11% 476.2 -5% 297.7 202.7 451.7136.4 390.6 263.6 133.0 246.5 427.1 -2% 356.9 43.9 339.0 -33.7 264.0 -9% 75.4 396.0 -31.1 257.4 38.2 -7% 39.0 41.1 38.9 114.9 39.3 39.9 -142.5 -55% 0.2 42.1 41.1 26.3 1.2 26.9 28.0 19.5 -7.4 -27% 5.2 9.8 4.8 9.0 5.9 -3.1 -35% 24,200 158.1 131.5 -17% 216.2176.6 179.8 179.2 205.4 176.6 204.8 -14% 25.0 246.0 211.4 146.1 139.0 -5% 190.3 181.0 75.1 -105.9 -59% 60.5 58.8 65.1 28.8 -30.0 -51% 2.4 3.2 2.1 2.9 2.6 -0.3 -9% Jun-Jul Jun-Jul 2,536.2 2,242.3 -12% 3,384.0 2,991.8 3,054.9 63.1 2,682.3 2,381.3 -11% 3,574.2 3,173.1 3,130.0 -43.1 -1% 432.5 436.3 467.0 429.4 -6.9 -2% 6.2 8.2 5.1 6.7 7.3 0.6 TABLE 19: Reviewof 19: Weekday TABLE Ridershipand Productivity Urban Fixed Routes A1 A2 A3 UC G H LB Urban Total: Subtotal: AtwaterSubtotal: 145.4M1 139.7M2 -4%M3 M4 159.9 153.6L P 154.0 0.4 W1 W2 WintonSubtotal: 205.4 176.6 -14% 246.0 211.4 Routes Fixed Rural LB1 339.4 128.0 M5 M6 MercedSubtotal: 1,438.6 1,262.6 -12% 1,756.2T W 1,541.3 1,655.6 114.3 LB2 Total: Rural Total: Rtes. Total Fixed statistics The Bus monthly Source: spreadsheets. DP
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 62 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Overall fixed route productivity was improved by 8 percent by the service changes, as the overall passengers per vehicle-hour figure in September/October 2016 of 7.3 compares favorably against the estimated value in the absence of the services changes of 6.7. The change in productivity is also shown in Figure 22.
Productivity in the Atwater area was increased by 73 percent, thanks to the large reduction in vehicle-hours accompanied by little change in total ridership. Overall productivity of the Merced route system was reduced by 7 percent as service levels were increased at a greater rate than ridership increased.
Los Banos Route ridership fell less than the reduction in service levels, resulting in a 52 percent increase in productivity. This reflects the conversion from fixed route to general public dial-a-ride service.
Dos Palos and Gustine services both saw substantial increases in productivity, reflecting the conversion to combined fixed route/dial-a-ride service.
It should be noted that there has been a general trend of reduced public transit ridership in the region over the last few years. Between 2015 and 2016, ridership trends at the following similar transit systems in the Central Valley occurred:
Fresno Area Express – 6 percent decline
Kings Area Rural Transit – 12 percent decline
Modesto Area Express – 9 percent decline
Yuba-Sutter Transit – 8 percent decline
In light of this trend, the 11 percent reduction in The Bus ridership is not surprising. There may well be other factors that have impacted ridership, such as plant closings, changes in school schedules, changes in fuel costs, etc. However, Table 19 provides the best available information regarding the current performance of the revised routes, and the impacts of the service changes.
Finally, these figures can be used to estimate annual ridership with the recent service changes, given that September and October tend to be relatively high transit ridership months (per Table 14). Applying the relative ridership in these months versus the total year to the 2016 September/October data indicates the annual ridership by route (all days of service) shown in the right-most column of Table 19.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 63 CAPITAL RESOURCES
This section presents an inventory of the TJPA’s capital resources, and discusses some of the impending plans for capital purchases and development. In the next chapters, the need for vehicle replacements, possible vehicle expansions, fueling choices, facility plans, and bus stop improvements are discussed in detail, followed by the Capital Plan for this SRTP.
Vehicle Fleet
The TJPA fixed route fleet is shown in Table 20 and the Paratransit fleet is shown in Table 21. The vehicle fleet list includes projected date of replacement of vehicles. As indicated, the fixed route fleet consists of a total of 42 vehicles, while the Paratransit program has a fleet of 22 vehicles.
The bulk of the fixed route fleet is heavy duty buses ranging from 29’ to 40’, with capacity ranging from 23 to 43 passenger seats. The fixed route fleet also includes gasoline-fueled 28’ cutaways with a seating capacity from 16 to 22 passenger seats. Fixed route vehicles include two or three bike racks on the front of every vehicle. In addition, every fixed route vehicle meets the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Bus fixed route services currently require an estimated 37 vehicles in operation at the peak time (with 7 spares). This equates to a spare ratio of 20 percent. The Bus paratransit services currently require an estimated 18 vehicles in operation at the peak time (with 4 spares available), or a spare ratio of 22 percent.
Per recommended replacement standards, 3 of the fixed route vehicles have exceed their useful life (four vehicles are on order to replace the 2003 buses, due for delivery in December 2017) and an additional 13 vehicles will need to be replaced within the time frame of this SRTP. The paratransit fleet has 10 vehicles which are already eligible or past due for replacement and up to 9 additional vehicles will also reach the end of their useful life before the end of the SRTP planning period.
Bus Stops
There are approximately 220 bus stops supporting The Bus transportation within Merced County. A bus stop inventory was completed in 2015.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 64 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 65
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 66 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 20: The Bus Fixed Route Fleet Inventory Eligible For Wheelchair Length No. Year Replacement Make/ Model Fuel Psgr Capacity spaces (Feet)
Heavy Duty Buses M-78 2003 9/1/2015 GILLIG ADB Diesel 37+20st's 2 35 M-79 2003 9/1/2015 GILLIG ADB Diesel 37+20st's 2 35 M-81 2003 9/1/2015 GILLIG ADB Diesel 37+20st's 2 35 M-150 2011 4/13/2023 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 23+20ST 2 29 M-151 2011 4/13/2023 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 23+20ST 2 29 M-152 2011 4/13/2023 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 23+20ST 2 29 M-153 2011 4/13/2023 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 23+20ST 2 29 M-154 2011 4/13/2023 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 23+20ST 2 29 M-155 2011 4/13/2023 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 23+20ST 2 29 M-156 2011 4/13/2023 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 23+20ST 2 29 M-157 2013 1/1/2025 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 40 2 40 M-158 2013 1/1/2025 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 40 2 40 M-159 2013 1/1/2025 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 40 2 40 M-160 2013 1/1/2025 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 40 2 40 M-161 2013 1/1/2025 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 40 2 40 M-162 2013 1/1/2025 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 40 2 40 M-163 2013 1/1/2025 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 40 2 40 M-164 2015 8/3/2026 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 32 2 35 M-165 2015 8/3/2026 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 32 2 35 M-166 2015 8/3/2026 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 32 2 35 M-167 2015 8/3/2026 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 32 2 35 M-168 2015 8/3/2026 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 32 2 35 M-169 2015 8/3/2026 GILLIG Low Floor Diesel 32 2 35 Cutaway Buses M-419 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-420 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-421 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-422 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-423 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-424 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-425 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-426 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-427 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-428 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-429 2014 7/1/2021 ARBOC Gasoline 16 3 28 M-430 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 M-431 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 M-432 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 M-433 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 M-434 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 M-435 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 M-436 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 M-437 2015 9/1/2022 ARBOC Gasoline 26 3 26 Source: The Bus, as of October 14, 2016
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 67 TABLE 21: The Bus Paratransit Fleet Inventory Eligible Psgr Wheelchair Length No. Year Replacement Make/Model Fuel Capacity Spaces (Feet)
-- 2015 2021 Brawnability Gasoline 3+1 1 -- -- 2015 2021 Brawnability Gasoline 3+1 1 -- -- 2015 2021 Brawnability Gasoline 3+1 1 -- M10 2012 3/30/2019 FORD GLAVAL PARATRANS Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M11 2012 3/30/2019 FORD GLAVAL PARATRANS Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M12 2012 3/30/2019 FORD GLAVAL PARATRANS Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M20 2011 8/31/2018 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M21 2011 8/31/2018 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M22 2011 8/31/2018 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M23 2011 8/31/2018 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M24 2011 8/31/2018 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M25 2011 8/31/2018 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M-213 2009 9/15/2016 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M-214 2009 9/15/2016 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M-215 2009 9/10/2016 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M-216 2009 10/15/2016 FORD GLAVAL PARATRANS Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M-217 2009 10/15/2016 FORD GLAVAL PARATRANS Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M-218 2009 10/15/2016 FORD GLAVAL PARATRANS Gasoline 16+2 2 26 M-407 2008 9/24/2015 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16 2 26 M-409 2008 9/24/2015 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16 2 26 M-410 2008 9/24/2015 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16 2 26 M-412 2008 9/24/2015 Ford Glaval Gasoline 16 2 26 Source: The Bus, as of October 14, 2016
According to the inventory of 187 stops, 98 had bus stop signs (although 18 of the stops had old signs); 41 had a bench or benches; and 42 stops had a shelter or shelters. Not all bus stops are ADA compliant. LSC further evaluated major bus stops.
Evaluations of Major Bus Stops
LSC staff evaluated a dozen major bus stops for The Bus transit system. The sites were selected because they were identified as having high activity and/or operational concerns. The full notes of the evaluations are presented in a series of tables in Appendix D. Specific observations are as follows:
Atwater Target: This stop, which serves both the Atwater Routes, is directly in front of the Target Store in Atwater. In general, it is not desirable for transit buses to negotiate private parking lots and driveways, due to the potential for conflicts with pedestrians and parking vehicles. However, this stop is important as it is convenient to both Target
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 68 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan
N St N
Parking Short Term and StaRT Bus Pull Out Bus Pull Shelter: LB, M4, T, W1 T, M4, Shelter: LB, YARTS Greyhound/ Merced Transpo Merced W. 16th St W. Figure 23 Figure The Merced Transpo Merced The Bus pull out Bus pull Out 72 Hour Parking
Shelter: M1, M2, M3, UC, P O St O
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 69 and Walmart, and the transit access is largely clear of adjacent parking spaces or speed humps. A bus stop sign and shelter would be good improvements.
Merced Transpo: This stop is the main hub of The Bus transit system. In addition to serving The Bus, the Transpo serves YARTS, Greyhound and StaRT. The site includes short-term and long-term parking, a shared-building (which includes a break room and information kiosk for The Bus, public restrooms, and a sitting area), bus pull-outs, and several shelters. A diagram of the Merced Transpo is shown in Figure 23.
The Transpo is generally well-designed with good passenger amenities, and it is a benefit to the community that this important facility remains in transportation use. However, there are several significant concerns about the site.
1. There is inadequate space for bus queuing. Ten The Bus routes use the Transpo, as does the StaRT Route 70. The three bus pull-outs are approximately 82 feet, 115 feet, and 124 feet and will accommodate a maximum of seven larger buses. If routes get off schedule, a queuing problem develops. Buses sometimes wait on O Street and then circle around through the YARTS/Greyhound stop. While observing routes, the M3 bus queued in the turning lane on W. 16th Street for four minutes while waiting for space to become available at the Transpo.
2. Pedestrian access is not ideal. There is a signalized crosswalk at O Street, and an unsignalized crosswalk at N Street. Both intersections experience a lot of turn activity, and drivers are not always attentive to pedestrian activity at N Street in particular. The sidewalks are in good shape with ADA access at the corners, however.
3. Despite having security on site, there is a sizeable population of vagrants wandering the site or waiting with shopping carts, particularly at the south side of the Transpo building. Bathrooms are regularly used by homeless people for bathing. While on site, LSC observed the women’s bathroom to be in relatively good condition, despite this kind of use.
The Bus program’s needs have exceeded the capacity of the Transpo. However, the TJPA is in negotiation to purchase the property and plans to redevelop the concourse to better accommodate the bus queuing, as well as to move administrative offices into the Transpo. In the next steps of this SRTP, the plans for the Transpo will be further discussed.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 70 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Merced Walmart Southbound: This appears to be a temporary stop as there is no sign and the stop is 400’ further south on Loughborough than www.thebuslive.com would indicate. The bus pulls over in an area widened for an inactive development, next to a concrete barrier and a large electrical box. While there is a sidewalk, the stop requires a long walk back to the driveway of the Walmart shopping area, and there is no crosswalk to access Walmart. At least until the adjacent development occurs, the volumes on Loughborough Drive south of the Walmart access are sufficiently low that the bus can simply block the travel lane during loading/unloading. Paving a short section between the sidewalk and curb just to the south of the southernmost Walmart Driveway would allow the stop to be better located just past this intersection. A striped crosswalk across Loughborough Drive on the south side of the intersection would also be appropriate, with crosswalk signage on both sides of the street. A shelter may also be warranted.
Merced Walmart Northbound: This stop has a bench and shelter, but no bus stop sign. The stop is in the travel lane. At various times, vagrants were observed encamping on the grass behind the stop, or occasionally in the shelter. There is adequate adjacent street lighting.
Dos Palos Y: This stop is located in a large dirt lot south of the Chevron located at Elgin Avenue and Highway 33. Buses pull onto the dirt and make a wide turn to face Elgin road before loading and unloading passengers. The lot is uneven with many holes, and particularly difficult for wheelchairs or strollers. The driver must travel extremely slowly to minimize jostling passengers. This stop is unsigned, and there is no designated no- parking area for buses. As transfers between the LB Commuter and the Dos Palos route occur here, this is an important location in the transit network. While current schedules allow direct transfers between the routes (and thus little need for bus stop amenities), if schedules were to change in the future such that waits would be required between buses, a shelter would be warranted.
Food 4 Less / Family Dollar, Los Banos: This stop is located on the east end of the Family Dollar. The bus enters the shopping mall parking lot at the east end and drives over multiple speed bumps in front of five stores in the lot before serving the stop. The landing pad has a curb with a dirt area behind it and no additional amenities. The dirt landing pad is adjacent to paved sidewalk for Dollar Tree, but no sidewalk access to stores east of stop.
This stop was recently relocated from a stop on Ward Road in front of the Sherwin Williams Paint Store. Passengers preferred this stop because it was signed and they
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 71 could wait under the eaves of the business for the bus to arrive. Drivers preferred this stop because it did not require entering the parking lot. However, access to this stop in the eastbound direction was by making a U turn on Ward Road.
A better long-term location for this stop would be along the south side of Food 4 Less, near the western end. This would allow passengers to wait under the broad awning (preferably provided with a bench), and the buses could exit at the signal on E. Pacheco Boulevard by circling clockwise around the supermarket. If this is not acceptable by Food 4 Less management, another option would be to carve a bus pullout in the landscaped area along the east side of the adjacent entry drive and provide a shelter and sidewalk access.
Merced College: This stop was evaluated due to the high level of activity, but stands as an example of an excellent bus stop. The stop is located on a median between M Street (a one-way, 2 lane street on which the buses stop) and Community College Drive. The bus pull-out is 165’ in length, giving adequate room for the nine routes served here (generally, no more than three buses queue at the stop, and usually no more than two). The sidewalk is in excellent condition extending north and south of the stop, and the crosswalk has a pedestrian-activated lighting system. There are four shelters and six benches, and an information kiosk. The one improvement that should be considered is the provision of street lighting (such as extension of the existing series of street light fixtures just to the south).
Olivewood Drive at R Street, Southbound: This stop is located on R Street just south of Olivewood Drive. The bus stop sign is just 48 feet from the corner, which does not allow stopping sight distance for oncoming traffic. Furthermore, the bus cannot fully get out of the travel lane, and there is not a paved loading platform pad between the curb and the sidewalk. Moving the bus stop sign approximately 30’ to the south and paving approximately a 10’ section between the sidewalk and curb would solve these issues.
Dan Ward at Beachwood: There are several bus stops at the intersection of Dan Ward and Beachwood which serve the Winton 1 and Winton 2 routes. The westbound and eastbound stops on Winton 2 are located on uneven dirt surfaces with very large potholes. Additionally, the intersection is just south of the train track, which can cause traffic queuing problems, and sometimes vehicles try to pass the bus before the train stops or when the bus stops at the railroad crossing.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 72 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan On the Winton 1 route, the bus stops in front of the M&A Market (this stop is not shown online), which has curb and sidewalk but blocks the travel lane.
H.S.A. / Castle Clinic: These two stops in the Castle area have adequate passenger amenities, but the access is not ideal. Both are served in a counterclockwise direction for northbound and southbound trips. For southbound Winton 2 trips, this requires an additional railroad crossing and merging into busy Santa Fe Drive. The H.S.A. stop requires the bus to enter a parking lot with tight turning radii, though there is little conflict with parking vehicles. Driving from this stop to the Castle Clinic requires circuitous driving in order to avoid additional tight turns. Serving the Castle Clinic stop also requires travel through a parking lot, but no better options are available.
Facilities
In addition to the facilities and amenities described above, the TJPA uses the following facilities:
Malibu Maintenance and Operations Facility
A maintenance and operations base is located at the corner of Thornton Road and Wardrobe Avenue in Merced. This site is leased from the City of Merced. The site includes a parking lot for the public and employees, portable office buildings (housing administrative offices, dispatch personnel, driver break and lockers, and general storage), and a fenced lot for vehicle storage.
Wardrobe Avenue Maintenance and Operations Facility
A new operations site located on Wardrobe Avenue across from Beechcraft Avenue is being developed for The Bus operations. Groundbreaking started in August, 2016, and construction is anticipated to be completed by June 2018.
American Self Storage, Los Banos
The Bus stores DAR vehicles at American Self Storage on Mercy Springs Road in Los Banos. This location is gated with a coded electric gate.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 73 OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
CatTracks
UC Merced’s Transportation and Parking Services Division provides “CatTracks” bus service between campus, downtown and student housing areas. Table 22 displays the different routes offered and service span. Many of the routes begin as early as 6:00 AM and end at 2:00 AM. Weekend service is available between downtown and campus but most routes operate only on weekdays. Several of the routes stop at “The Bus” Terminal.
TABLE 22: CatTracks Service Day of # Daily Route Session Week Service Span Roundtrips Area Served
A-B Line Fall/Spring, Summer Mon - Fri 6:13 AM - 8:40 PM 14 Castle Air Park C-1 Line Fall/Spring Mon - Fri 6:05 AM - 1:07 AM 24 Granville Apts. C-2 Line Fall/Spring Mon - Fri 5:45 AM - 6:13 PM 12 Village Appts, The Bus Terminal FastCat Fall/Spring, Summer Mon - Fri 6:15 AM - 12:01 AM 14.5 Moraga and Bellevue NiteCat Fall/Spring Fri-Sat 10:00 PM - 1:52 AM 3 Downtown E Line Fall/Spring Mon - Fri 7:05 PM - 2:50 AM 4 Downtown, The Bus Terminal E-1 Line Fall/Spring Sat-Sun 11:00 AM - 11:17 PM 9 Downtown, The Bus Terminal E-2 Line Fall/Spring Sat-Sun 11:00 AM - 9:20 PM 10 Student Housing G-Line Fall/Spring, Summer Mon - Fri 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM 10.5 Downtown, The Bus Terminal, Amtrak
Source: CatTracks
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS)
YARTS provides public transit to Yosemite National Park from various gateway communities on both the eastern and western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. YARTS Route 140 travels between Merced and Yosemite along Highway 140. Schedules and stops vary by season and time of day. In the Merced to Yosemite direction, three morning runs are operated between 6:00 AM and 10:30 AM with limited pick up locations and one evening run at 4:30 PM during the summer months. Merced pick up locations include:
Merced Airport UC Merced Merced College Merced Mall/Target
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 74 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Merced Transpo Merced AMTRAK In the Yosemite to Merced direction, four runs depart Yosemite throughout the day between 9:30 AM and 5:45 PM. One additional commuter run travels between Midpines and Merced on weekdays only. Fares vary depending on distance traveled. A roundtrip ticket from Merced to Yosemite is $25 (which includes the entrance fee into the park). Table 23 displays seasonal ridership trends for the YARTS Highway 140 route for the past three years.
TABLE 23: YARTS Ridership by Month Highway 140 Route (1) Change FY 13-14 to FY 15-16 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 # % July 6,689 7,209 6,727 38 0.6% August 6,617 7,223 6,381 -236 -3.6% September 5,127 5,342 5,075 -52 -1.0% October 2,626 3,457 3,803 1,177 44.8% November 3,364 3,195 3,559 195 5.8% December 3,803 3,952 6,673 2,870 75.5% January 3,184 2,966 4,420 1,236 38.8% February 3,132 2,785 3,547 415 13.3% March 3,667 3,837 4,623 956 26.1% April 4,270 4,257 4,309 39 0.9% May 5,319 5,201 6,827 1,508 28.4% June 6,080 6,178 7,759 1,679 27.6% Total 53,878 55,602 63,703 9,825 18.2%
Note 1: Does not include commuter passengers boarding outside of Merced. Source: YARTS
The Highway 140 route carries significantly more passengers than the other YARTS routes. Excluding ridership on the commuter runs (which do not board in Merced), the YARTS 140 route carried 63,703 one-way passenger-trips in FY 2015-16. This represents an increase of 18.2 percent or 9,825 trips from FY 2013-14. In the past ridership was greatest during the spring and summer months. This past December the Highway 140 Route had a 75 percent increase in
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 75 ridership from the previous year. The entire YARTS system followed this trend. In fact, total YARTS systemwide ridership in December 2015 was 100 percent greater than the year before. Several elements may have affected this increase: strong economy for tourism, growing California population, and a favorable water year. It is anticipated that these factors will continue to affect ridership in the future.
Greyhound
Greyhound buses stop at the Merced Bus Station on 16th St. There are six daily departures to Los Angeles and other destinations south as well as six daily departures north to destinations such as Sacramento.
Stanislaus Regional Transit
Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) operates commuter service, shuttles, dial-a-ride and regional fixed route transit services throughout Stanislaus County, and extending into San Joaquin, Alameda and Merced Counties. StaRT Route 70 is a commuter route which operates one round- trip in the morning and one the afternoon each weekday between Modesto and the Merced Transpo, with a stop in Turlock. Fares are $2.75 one-way for general public riders and $2.25 for elderly and disabled. This is considered a premium service and no other discounts or passes are offered.
Taxis
There are multiple taxi services in Merced which will provide service to all destinations.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 76 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 4 Passenger Surveys
INTRODUCTION
Onboard passenger surveys were conducted on the fixed route services of The Bus in order to gain a further understanding of the current service and the ridership it serves. The survey results provide information on trip-making patterns of existing transit ridership, as well as provide a demographic profile of current riders. Additionally, survey feedback provides insight into riders’ perception of existing services and their desires for service improvements.
The survey was a two-sided format of a single page in English on one side and Spanish on the opposite side. A total of 756 valid surveys were collected, 29 of which were completed in Spanish (3.8 percent). The survey instrument and detailed response data is presented in Appendix E. Key findings of this survey are as follows:
67 percent of riders were travelling roundtrip.
74 percent walked to or from the bus to get to their origin or destination and 16 percent transferred to or from another bus. Of those transferring, 60 percent were transferring to or from the Merced routes. Approximately 4 percent used a bike to get to and from the bus, and another 4 percent were dropped off or picked up. Only 2 percent drove themselves to or from the bus.
Table 24 presents a cross-tabulation of the route the passenger was on versus the route they transferred to/from as part of their trip. This is useful in reviewing rider trip patterns and evaluating scheduling options. As shown, Route M4 had the greatest number of transfers, with 33 people transferring to and 28 people transferring from this route. The greatest number of transfers between routes occurred from Routes M2 and M5 to Route M4.
Table 24 also shows the percentage of trips which included a transfer to or from the surveyed routes. Overall, approximately a quarter of the surveyed routes involved a transfer to the route or a planned transfer from the route. The highest proportion of passengers transferring was on Route M1 (56 percent to and 44 percent from the route were transfers), the Turlock Commuter (41 percent to, 30 percent from), Route M4 (39 percent to and 30 percent from) and the Winton 1 (36 to and 40 from). On the other
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 77 hand, the UC Route, which had the highest number of surveys completed, only had 9 percent transferring to and 9 percent from the route.
Table 25 displays the most common boarding locations of survey respondents. It is no surprise that the highest number of boardings originated at the Merced Transpo, the main transfer location for The Bus. Merced College and UC Merced produced the next highest number of boardings, followed by the Gallo Recreation and Wellness Center, Amtrak, and Walmart in Merced. (Note: a number of individuals listed “Walmart” without indicating in which community the store was located.)
TABLE 24: Transfers To and From Surveyed Routes
Transfers To
Transfers From M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 UC A1 A2 DP W1 W2 LB P L T G Unsp Total Number of Surveyed Passengers M1 - Merced West -- 4 3 2 1 1 11 M2 - Merced R St. Route 1 -- 2 7 3 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 26 M3 - Merced M St. Route 3 1 -- 3 3 1 1 12 M4 - Merced G St. Route 5 1 1 -- 5 2 1 4 1 1 1 7 29 M5 - Merced South-East 2 1 2 7 -- 3 3 2 2 22 M6 - Merced North 1 2 3 2 -- 1 1 1 2 13 UC - UC Merced Route 1 2 1 2 -- 1 1 1 2 11 A1 - Atwater Crosstown -- 1 1 2 A2 - Atwater Winton Way 1 -- 1 DP -- 5 5 W1 - Winton Commuter 2 3 3 1 -- 1 10 W2 - Winton Commuter 1 1 1 2 -- 1 6 LB - Los Banos Commuter 3 1 2 -- 1 1 3 11 P - Planada Commuter 1 3 1 1 1 1 -- 2 10 L - Livingston Commuter 2 1 2 3 -- 1 9 T - Turlock Commuter 2 1 2 1 2 -- 8 CatTracks 1 1 Gustine 1 -- 1 Paratransit 1 1 Unspecified 4 2 6 2 1 1 2 4 2 -- 24 Total 14 21 23 38 14 10 11 11 0 2 9 2 16 5 4 11 2 20 213 Percentage of Ridership On Each Route Transferring To/From Other Routes M1 - Merced West 0 20% 24% 28% 8% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 100% M2 - Merced R St. Route 7% 0% 4% 11% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 4% 4% 0% 8% 0% 8% 64% M3 - Merced M St. Route 9% 5% 0% 6% 8% 6% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3% 5% 0% 2% 0% 3% 55% M4 - Merced G St. Route 7% 8% 4% 0% 12% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 7% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 13% 69% M5 - Merced South-East 4% 7% 9% 21% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 7% 63% M6 - Merced North 2% 7% 7% 7% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 5% 41% UC - UC Merced Route 1% 0% 2% 1% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 18% A1 - Atwater Crosstown 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 11% 8% 0% 6% 36% A2 - Atwater Winton Way 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% W1 - Winton Commuter 0% 12% 12% 28% 12% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 76% W2 - Winton Commuter 3% 3% 0% 3% 0% 6% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% LB - Los Banos Commuter 2% 6% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 2% 2% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4% 13% 50% P - Planada Commuter 0% 12% 12% 8% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 58% L - Livingston Commuter 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 2% 5% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 30% T - Turlock Commuter 4% 22% 4% 11% 7% 0% 7% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 70%
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 78 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan A detailed listing of a cross tabulation by respondent’s trip origin and trip destination is shown in Appendix E. An analysis of this data indicated that travel between the Merced Transpo, Merced College, housing areas along M Street and UC Merced produced the highest number of trips. There were no other strong patterns of common origins/destinations.
TABLE 25: Common Boarding Locations of Surveyed Passengers Responses Boarding Location of Respondents #% Merced Transpo 105 15% Merced College 71 10% UC Merced 24 3% Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 18 3% Amtrak 16 2% Walmart, Merced 16 2% Bellevue 14 2% M St @ Village Apts 12 2% Target, Merced 12 2% Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 11 2% Winton Way 10 1% Human Services Agency 9 1% University Surgery Center 9 1% G St 8 1% Jack in the Box 8 1% M St 8 1% Castle Clinic 7 1% Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 7 1% Mercy Medical Center 7 1% Parsons @ The Grove 7 1% Savemart 7 1% 13th St (various locations) 6 1% 21st St (various locations) 6 1% 27th St (various locations) 6 1% Dollar General 6 1% Meadows Ave 6 1% Rancho San Miguel 6 1% Taco Bell 6 1% Other 261 38% Total Responses 689
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, September 2016 Surveys
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 79 Respondents were primarily coming and going for the purpose of either school or college (44 percent), work (14 percent) or multiple trip purposes (9 percent).
The majority of riders use The Bus nearly daily (58 percent ride 5 days per week or more), with almost 12 percent saying they use the service 7 days per week. Only 8 percent ride less than 2 days per week.
Asked how long they had been using The Bus services, the most prevalent response was less than a year (30 percent), followed by one to two years (26 percent). The short time frame may reflect the high use by students who have regular turn-over. Among Spanish speakers, however, 60 percent said they had been using The Bus for three years or more.
The riders were asked about their source of transit information. The most common sources of information is The Bus website (29 percent) followed by the bus driver (17 percent) and the printed guide (14 percent). Additionally, almost 11 percent get information from at the bus stops, and 9 percent get information from The Bus Live (onboard monitor). This reflects the importance of the website in providing information.
Just over a third of riders have a driver’s license, while a very large percentage (87 percent) did not have a car available for the trip.
Only 9.7 percent of passengers said they had a disability which limited their use of the fixed route service, but 30.7 percent said they use a mobility device. Given that wheelchair boardings are not that high, passengers may be interpreting this to include canes or other devices as well.
Surveyors were instructed to pass out surveys to individuals aged 12 or over. The responses by age were as follows:
12 - 18 11.5 percent 19 - 24 32.1 percent 25 - 44 30.7 percent 45 - 59 17.5 percent 60 - 72 7.2 percent 72 + 1.0 percent
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 80 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 44.6 percent of the riders were college students. Of that percentage, most of them were Merced College students (65 percent), and 35 percent were UC Merced students. Only 4 percent of riders identified themselves as K-12 students.
The majority of riders (84 percent) had an annual family income under $35,000, with 58 percent of them earning less than $15,000 annually.
The majority of riders (84 percent) had an annual family income under $35,000, with 58 percent of them earning less than $15,000 annually.
Passengers were asked to rank transit service characteristics of The Bus on a scale of “poor” (1) to “excellent” (5). The results are shown in Figure 24. Overall, passengers indicate a high opinion of The Bus, with 80 percent indicating that overall service rates an Excellent or Good response.
As indicated, “Driver Courtesy” received the highest rating of the individual factors, averaging 4.44 out of 5, with 85 percent of the riders rating it a “Very Good” to “Excellent.” Safety performance, vehicle cleanliness, value-received for the fare, and the overall service also received positive rankings with over 80 percent in the “Very Good” or “Excellent” category. Hours of service received the lowest ranking at 3.63. On-time performance also was rated lower at 3.82.
Riders were also asked to list improvements they would most like to see. A total of 417 riders answered the question. The results were provided as text responses and generally included one to three desired improvements. The responses have been categorized into the following areas of desired improvements:
Area (identifying specific areas or locations to serve) As Is (no improvements desired) Bus Condition Bus Size/Capacity Bus Stop Improvements Compliments Driver Issues/Policies Fares/Fare Issues Increased Frequency Improved Information/Information Services On-time Performance
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 81
Prefer fixed route in Los Banos Scheduling/Routing Suggestions Span of Service
The responses are summarized below:
As indicated in Figure 25, the most often identified improvement was for an increased span of service (180 comments or 37 percent of all desired improvements were for earlier and/or later service on weekdays and/or weekends). This response comes on the heels of the service changes implemented August 1st, 2016, and many of the comments were couched in terms of returning to the previous schedule before changes were implemented. A more detailed listing of these desired improvements is shown in Figure 26. As indicated, later service and night service account for more than half of the requests for an increase in the span of services.
Figure 25 also shows that 10 percent of the desired improvements were for increased frequency, and 10 percent were in regards to fares. The fare category includes such requests as lower fares, lower day passes, a return to free transfers, free youth fares
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 82 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan (toddlers to grade school ages), as well as a handful of requests for better fare media, fare handling, etcetera.
The next highest category of improvements was for better on-time performance (37 comments, or 8 percent of responses) and bus stop improvements (39 comments). A commonly listed improvement for bus stops was to provide signage, increase seating (benches), or address cleanliness.
Survey respondents also expressed a desire for better information or improved information services (5 percent).
Finally, 19 respondents provided accolades about their satisfaction with the transit service. Appendix E lists all of the desired improvements by category.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 83
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 84 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 5 Service Alternatives Analysis
A description of potential service alternatives, as well as their financial and ridership implications, is presented below.
Merced Services
Extend Route M3 and Eliminate Route M2 south of Transpo Center
At present, very little of Route M3 south of the Transpo Center is not also served by either Route M1 or Route M2. Only the loop formed by West 2nd Street, West Avenue, West Child Avenue and R Street is not also part of either Route M1 or M2. This area only generates 3 passenger-trips per day (or 800 per year). One option to reduce costs would be reduce Route M2 to serve only the existing north loop (north of the Transpo Center) and add a short 0.9 mile extension to Route M3 to serve the area currently only served by M2. This option is shown in Figure 27, and would have the following impacts:
The average running speed of Route M3 would increase from the current 10.0 miles per hour (the lowest of any of the Merced fixed routes) to 10.6 MPH, which is still a reasonable speed even considering the track crossings.
Route M2 could be operated on weekdays with half-hourly service using one less bus (two rather than the current three).
On weekends, this would allow M2 service frequency to increase from 90 minutes to 60 minutes, without adding vehicle-hours.
This would reduce the number of buses operating in the joint M2/M3 service area. However, these two routes currently operate with similar schedules. Both operate every half-hour on weekdays, with the Route M1 and Route M3 south loop departing only 5 minutes after the Route M2 departure. Route M3 serves the Golden Valley Health Center only 7 minutes after Route M2, while Route M1 serves the Human Services Agency only 5 minutes after Route M2. No current transfer opportunities at Transpo Center would be eliminated. This alternative would therefore have only a small impact on the overall service frequency as perceived by the passenger.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 85 r D k e re C r
a
e B St G
h t r o
Childs Ave Childs N
23rd St Serve RouteArea M2 Route 3Extension to the South Route M3 Extension to ExistingRoute M1 ExistingRoute M2 ExistingRoute M3
Main St Martin Luther King Jr Way Jr King Luther Martin
13th St M St M
Transpo 59 59
Æ a
R St R M St M _
16th St V St V 8th St
Childs Ave Childs Q St Q R St R
2nd St
Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community
140 St V
59 59
X St X Figure 27 Figure Ave West 99
_
16th St
99
I Grogan Ave Grogan Potential Route M3 Alternatives M3 Route Potential McswainRd Wardrobe Ave Wardrobe Miles 1 0.5 0.25 0
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 86 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan There is a potential that the reduced capacity to key stops such as the Human Services Agency would result in inadequate seating capacity. To evaluate this, the following data was reviewed:
o Boarding/alighting data for 20 runs of Route M2 indicated a maximum load of 12 passengers, with an average load of 3.5. The busiest run was observed in the afternoon. The maximum boarding at HSA on any one run was 5, and the maximum alighting was 4. At the Golden Valley Health Center, the maximum boarding was 2 and the maximum alighting was 3.
o Over 16 runs observed on Route M1, the maximum observed load was 20 passengers, with an average of 2.8. Only one run (in the 9 AM hour) was observed to have a maximum load exceeding 6. Maximum boarding on any one run at the HSA was 9, and maximum alighting.
o On Route M3, the maximum observed load over 15 runs was 16, with an average load of 2.7. The maximum boarding at the Golden Valley Health Center (the busiest stop along this south loop) was only 2, along with a maximum deboarding of 2.
Considering the typical capacity of the Merced route buses (32 to 40), the average loads on the three routes and the fact that the adding the M2 maximum load to the M1 maximum load does not exceed the bus capacity (even if both peaks were to occur at the same time), the data indicates that there is more than adequate capacity to accommodate Route M2 ridership on Routes M1 and M3.
As shown in Table 26, overall this alternative would reduce annual in-service vehicle-hours by 3,203 and reduce in-service vehicle-miles by 36,700. The impacts on the marginal operating cost in Fiscal Year 2017/18 can be estimated using the following equation, which is based upon the contractor’s negotiated cost structure ($34.10 per vehicle-hour) and the forecast total budgeted cost for fuel ($1,797,443) divided by the estimated base annual in-service vehicle- miles (2,013,700):
Marginal Operating Cost = $34.10 X vehicle-hours of service + $0.89 X vehicle-miles of service
Applying this formula to the quantities presented above, the impact of this alternative would be to reduce annual operating costs by an estimated $141,800 per year. The overall ridership impact would be the net change associated with two factors. The reduced effective frequency
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 87 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 Buses Change in Peak Peak in Change -$4,500 0 Subsidy Operating Fare Revenues 200 $300 Ridership Change In Annual Service -- 6,448 $14,600 1,600 $2,800 $11,800 1 13,986 $44,700 8,000 $2,600 $42,10014,912 0 $38,70010,663 6,600 $23,900 $5,100 1,700 $33,600 $2,300 0 $21,600 0 0 5,065 $4,500 1,0000 $1,000 -6,500 $3,500 -$5,800 0 -2000 -$200 -$5,600 -4,723 0 -$4,200 -- 945 746 423 260 -370 -6,251 -$18,400 3,900-455 $4,000-996 -6,377 -$22,400-305 -26,402 -$21,200-490 0 -6,786 -$57,500 -600 -9,180 -$16,500-187 2,200-235 -$24,900 -$700 -1,500 -7,063 $3,400 -$20,500 -1,901 -1,000 -$2,300 -$60,900 -$12,700 -$14,200 -$9,700 -$1,600 0 -800 0 -$23,300 0 -100 -$1,100 0 -$11,600 -$200 -$9,500 0 0 1,1021,350 10,004 19,980 $46,500 $63,900 10,200 $10,400 11,200 $36,100 $3,700 $60,200 0 0 -3,432 -40,040 -$137,600 -3,900 -$4,000 -$133,600 -3,203-7,459 -36,698 -84,549 -$142,000 -$329,800-2,988-2,070 -200 -17,700 -40,040 -25,864 -$18,000 -$200 -$137,600 -$311,800 -$93,700 -$141,800 -6,500 -4,100 -$7,000-4,442-1,026 -$130,600 -$4,200 -43,087 -$89,500-4,314 -11,734 -$189,900 0 -$45,500 -88,622 0 -4,800 -$226,200 -3,500 -$5,300 -10,300 -$184,600 -$3,700 -$12,100 -$41,800 -$214,100 -1,000 0 -16,370 -$48,700 -740 -$1,400 -$47,300 0 Service Hours Service Miles Operating Cost Revise M6 - SantaTranspo to Route Ave Fe Extend Route M3, Eliminate Route Extend M2 South of Transpo Route Eliminate M2 ofNorth Transpo Route M3 Gerard South to Route Extend Avenue CollegeMerced Revise& Transpo M6 Two-Way to Route Between M6 Weekday Route FrequencyReduce Hourly to Evening Runs Route Merced Reduce 0 EveningMerced Later Runs - Last Departure 8:38 PM EveningMerced Later Runs - Last Departure 9:15 PM Service Weekend Merced UC - Short Span -26,100 Service Weekend Merced Span UC - Long Flea -$23,300Make Atwater Market an On-Demand Stop FleaMake Atwater Market On-Demand Service Add Stop, AreasEliminate A2 Route 5,600 Service Weekend Reduce Frequency on Routes and A1 A2 Eliminate 0 Last W2 2 Route Weekday Runs $6,000Eliminate W2 Route Eliminate Hourly W2, L Make Route Route -$29,300Eliminate Castle -800 L Route Stops Expand in L Route Livingston 0 Service Weekend L Route Reduce -$700 P 140/KibbyRoute Eastbound Rd. On-Demand Stop P WeekdayRoute Mid-Morning Run Service P Weekend Route Reduce 2,900 Run LB Mid-AfternoonReduce Route Hilmar Shuttle $3,000 Service G Route 3 to Reduce Days W, F) (M, per Week -$3,700 0
5 4 1 2 3 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Alternative
Merced / UC Routes UC / Merced Routes Livingston / Winton Atwater/ TABLE 26: The Bus Service Alternatives Summary TABLE 26:Alternatives Bus Service The
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 88 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan of service in the south loop area is forecasted based on standard elasticity analysis1 to result in a reduction of 1,700 passenger-trips per year (or 7 per weekday of service). On the other hand, the increased frequency of service on the Route M2 north loop is forecast to increase ridership by 1,500 per year (or 14 per weekend day). The net impact would therefore be a reduction of 200 passenger-trips per year. At the typical average fare revenue per passenger-trip (including pass revenues), this would result in a reduction of fare revenues of $200. In total, operating subsidy would be reduced by $141,800.
Eliminate Route M2 North of Transpo
Much of Route M2 north of Transpo also is served by other routes. Only two stops are not also served in at least one direction by another route (at Loughborough Drive/Austin Avenue and at R/Buena Vista Drive). This route segment could potentially be eliminated with little overall loss of service coverage, though some key trips would be impacted. Specific impacts on service would be as follows:
Elimination of service along Loughborough Drive between West Olive Avenue and Meadow Avenue, including the stop at Austin Avenue. Total passengers boarding and alighting at this stop equal 3 per day.
Reduction in service along R Street between Olivewood Drive and West 18th Street from 4 southbound and 2 northbound runs per hour to 2 southbound runs per hour, with a similar reduction on W. 18th Street between N and R Streets. Route M2 serves 19 passengers per day.
Reduction in service on M Street from Loughborough to Yosemite Avenue from 4 northbound and 4 southbound runs per hour to 2 northbound and 4 southbound runs per hour. Route M2 only serves an average of 1 passenger per day along this segment.
Reduction in service from R St/Buena Vista Drive to Yosemite Avenue/M Street via the El Redondo/Pacific loop from 2 runs per hour in each direction to 2 runs northbound/eastbound (towards Merced College) only. While residents of this area would still have a short trip to Merced College, their return trip would require a clockwise trip on M1 to Transpo, and transfer to another M1 bus, and riding back north. This would turn a 7 minute trip into a 51 minute trip. (It would be relatively simple to establish a stop on Buena Vista Drive eastbound just west of R Street to replace the lost
1 Elasticity analysis is a standard means of assessing the ridership impact of a change in existing service. Based upon the principals of microeconomics, it considered the proportionate change in ridership compared with the proportionate chance in service or fare factor (in this case, the service frequency), as observed in similar transit services that have observed ridership changes associated with changes in the service factor in the past.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 89 stop to address a portion but not the majority of this impact). An average of 10 passengers per day use these stops on Route M2.
Reduction in service from Transpo to Walmart. While Route M1 also serves the Walmart stop, it requires a 37 minute travel time from Transpo compared with the 10 minute trip provided by Route M2. Route M2 currently serves 39 passengers per day, virtually all in the northbound direction.
Elimination of service to the stops along Devonwood Drive and Olivewood Drive west of R Street. Only Route M2 currently provides service between Transpo and these stops. However, relatively small modifications to M1 and/or M3 could alternatively serve these stops, which accommodate 35 passengers per day
Overall, this option would result in a relatively substantial loss of ridership, totaling an estimated 17,700 passenger-trips per year. However, it would reduce annual operating costs by $329,800 and reduce the number of buses required for operation by two. Considering the loss of $18,000 in fare revenues, this option would reduce operating subsidy needs by $311,800 per year.
Extend Route M3 South to Gerard Avenue
Route M3 currently travels as far south on South N Street as Trudy Way before turning east and then north on South M Street. As urban development within the City extends another ½ mile to the south, this leaves the neighborhood south of West Gerard Avenue more than a convenient quarter-mile walk to the nearest bus stop. It would be a relatively simple modification to extend Route M3 south on South N Street to Gerard Avenue, east on Gerard and returning north on South M Street. The existing northbound pullout on South M Street just north of Gerard would continue to be served. This would add 0.4 miles to the length of Route M3, but the overall running speed of the route would still be a relatively low 10.3 miles per hour.2 Total annual mileage would be increased by 5,100, which would result in an increase in operating cost of $4,500 per year. Ridership benefits can be estimated by comparing the observed daily ridership in the residential neighborhood between Childs Avenue and Gerard Avenue (8 per day) with the existing number of dwelling units within this service area (363). Applying the resulting rate of 0.025 transit trips per day per unit to the 142 additional homes that would be served by the extension, this extension would increase ridership by an estimated 3.6 passenger- trips per day, or 1000 per year. Including the associated increase in farebox revenues of $1,000 per year, this alternative would increase total operating subsidy by $3,500.
2 If combined with the previous alternative, overall route length would be increase by 1.3 miles. The resulting average operating speed would be 10.9 MPH, still substantially less than most of the Merced routes. Additionally, M3 is currently on time 90 percent of the time, second best performing route in the system.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 90 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Revise Route M6 to a 2-way Route between Merced College and Merced Transpo
The review of existing ridership and productivity presented previously in Table 19 reveals that Route M6 has substantially lower ridership and productivity than the other Merced fixed routes. With an average of 112 passenger boardings per weekday, it carries roughly 1/3 the ridership of the other Merced Routes. The passengers per vehicle-hour of service (4.6) is 45 percent lower than the average of the Merced routes (8.2).
Some of the low productivity of this route can be explained by the socioeconomic characteristics of the service area. As discussed in Chapter 2, the service area (particularly that area north of Bear Creek) has relatively high income and low proportion of zero vehicle households (though it does have relatively high numbers of seniors). In addition, only a relatively small portion of Route M6 is not also served by another route – specifically, only the areas along Parsons Avenue, Alexander Avenue east of Tahoe Drive and the area along 26th and 27th Streets east of 6th Avenue are not within a convenient walk of another route.
Another important consideration is that Route M6 is configured as a large one-way loop (other than the segment to the south of Alexander Avenue). Large one-way directional loops are typically found to be relatively inconvenient for riders, as they require a long in-vehicle travel time in one or both directions of a trip. As an example, a trip from Merced College to the neighborhood around Alexander Avenue/Parsons Avenue (a 2.6 mile direct distance) requires a 45-minute bus ride. In addition, Route M6 is also the only Merced route that does not serve the Transpo center.
An alternative configuration for Route M6 (that provides more convenient two-way service using the same two buses every 30 minutes) is shown in Figure 28. Rather than serving the western commercial centers in Merced, it travels between Merced College and the Transpo Center. As shown, the northern end of the route is consistent with the existing Route M6 between Merced College and the intersection of M Street/26th Avenue. After serving the existing loop using 27th Street and Santa Fe Avenue, it would travel south on M Street and follow the existing M4 round into the Transpo Center.
This route is 9.6 miles in length. Service every 30 minutes in both directions could be provided using two buses (no change from the current route). Operating over the current M6 span of service, the vehicle-hours of service would remain unchanged, though the shorter route would reduce annual vehicle-miles by approximately 26,100 annually. As a result, annual operating costs would be reduced by an estimated $23,300.
This alternative would impact ridership in the following ways:
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 91 Elimination of service west of G Street -- The only street segment not also served by another route is West Olive Avenue between G Street and M Street, which includes one stop at College Green Drive in the eastbound direction. This stop serves 6 passengers per day, but is within a 200-yard walk of Route M3 stops on M Street just to the south of West Olive Avenue. All other portions of existing Route M6 are served by other routes (M1, M2, and M3). Individual trips between the Route M6 service areas east of G Street and destinations such as Target and Walmart to the west would require a transfer at either Merced College or Transpo. To evaluate this, the passenger survey data was reviewed. This indicated that only 27 percent of Route M6 ridership travels between areas east of G Street and areas west of G Street (the larger portion travels between the Merced College area and the Santa Fe Avenue area, which would still be served with the revised route). Introducing the need for a transfer into these trips would reduce ridership by an estimated 1,700 annual passenger trips.
Improved 2-way Service for Existing Route Segments East of G Street -- In particular, providing direct service for the neighborhood between the BNSF rail tracks and Bear Creek east of G Street and the downtown area would be a benefit to these residents, who currently must transfer to complete this trip. Based on the observed trip patterns of M6 passengers and the impact of this alternative on travel times, this would increase ridership by an estimated 3,400 passenger-trips per year.
Improved service between the Santa Fe Avenue area (east of G Street between the BNSF tracks and Bear Creek) and downtown Merced -- At present, this requires a short trip on Route M6 to G Street, roughly a 20 minute wait for a southbound Route M4 bus, and a short ride on M4 to downtown, with an overall travel time of approximately 35 to 40 minutes. Instead, the revised route would provide a direct trip of 10 to 12 minutes. This reduced travel time and elimination of a transfer would increase ridership by an estimated 2,700 passengers per year.
In total, this alternative is forecast to yield a net increase of 5,600 passenger-trips per year (or 23 per day, on average). This is equivalent to a 28 percent increase over current Route M6 ridership. These additional riders would generate approximately $6,000 in additional fares, yielding a total reduction in operating subsidy requirements of $29,300 per year.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 92 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan
Kibby Rd Kibby
Childs Ave Childs 140 140 Bear Bear Creek
Olive Ave Olive Note:Not all routesshown
`
` Parsons Ave Parsons
Santa Fe Ave
Yosemite Pky Yosemite
r
140 U V
` D Glen Ave Glen
k
e
e r
C G St G r a e B h t r o
N
Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community `
` `
Main St
Yosemite Ave Yosemite
23rd St St M Figure 28 Figure
R St R Martin Luther King Jr Way Jr King Luther Martin
59 59
16th St 13th St St M Æ a Q St Q
Childs Ave Childs
V St V Transpo St R I
Potential Route M6 2-Way Alternative Potential Route M6 2-Way 2nd St
V St V
140 140
8th St
59 59
X St X West Ave West Miles
2
e
v
A n
a
g
o r McswainRd 16th St G Wardrobe Ave Wardrobe 1
Santa Fe Ave
99 0.5 Route M6 AlternativeRoute M6 ExistingArea ServiceTransit 0
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 93 Revise Route M6 to a 2-Way Route Between Transpo and the Santa Fe Avenue Area
Another option would be to simply connect the highest ridership portion of Route M6 (the neighborhood east of G Street between Santa Fe Avenue and Bear Creek) directly to the Transpo via G Street and 16th Street. This would allow 30-min service with one less bus, saving $137,600 in operating costs per year. The existing M6 ridership in the areas only served by M6 is 14% of total, while 58% is also served by other routes (M4, M3). Overall, and considering the benefits of connecting the high ridership area to Transpo, total ridership on this route would be increased by an estimated 1,000 per year. The other policy consideration would be the loss of all service along Alexander and Parsons.
Reduce Route M6 Weekday Frequency to Hourly
A straightforward way to address the poor performance of Route M6 would be to reduce service from half-hourly in one direction to hourly in one direction. This would reduce service levels by a total of 2,988 vehicle-hours and 40,000 vehicle-miles of service per year, yielding a reduction in operating cost of $137,600. An elasticity analysis of the impact of the headway change indicates that total ridership would be reduced by an estimated 6,500 passenger-trips per year (or 28 percent of existing ridership), equal to 27 passengers per weekday. The resulting loss of roughly $7,000 in fare revenues would yield a net reduction in annual subsidy requirements of $130,600. This would also raise issues of equity, as this northeastern portion of Merced would be the only area provided with hourly rather than half-hourly service. It could be considered, however, if ridership remains low and subsidy reductions are required.
Reduce Merced Route Weekday Evening Runs
Currently, weekday service ends at approximately 8:00 PM on Merced routes and 30 minute frequency is provided throughout the day. However, Merced Route ridership in the 6:00 PM hour is only approximately 60 boardings (4 percent of daily total), along with only approximately 30 boardings (2 percent) in the 7:00 PM hour. For the period after 6:00 PM, the overall productivity of the weekday Merced Routes is only 3.1 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour of service.
In light of this, options to reduce service in the weekday evenings were considered. Specifically, eliminating some (but not all) of the runs starting after 5:30 PM was assessed. One consideration is whether a reduced schedule would be able to maintain the current connections between the regional routes and Merced routes. Key regional connection times that could be potentially impacted are as follows:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 94 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Outbound
Route L departure from Merced College at 7:33 PM
Route LB departure from Transpo at 7:30 PM
Route W1 departure from Transpo at 6:35 PM and 7:35 PM
Route W2 departures from Merced College at 6:10 PM and 7:25 PM
Route P departure from Transpo at 7:40 PM
Inbound
Last Route L arrival at Merced College at 7:19 PM
Last Route LB arrival at Transpo at 5:30 PM
Route W1 arrivals at Transpo at 6:28 PM and 7:28 PM
Route W2 arrivals at Merced College at 5:53 PM and 7:08 PM
Last Route T arrival at Transpo at 6:55 PM
While avoiding the elimination of these key connections to regional sources, the following specific runs could be eliminated:
Route M1 – 6:35 PM south loop run, 7:05 PM north loop run
Route M2 – 6:30 PM south loop run, 7:00 PM north loop run
Route M3 – 6:35 PM south loop run, 7:00 PM north loop run
Route M4 – 5:45 PM and 7:15 PM north loop runs, 6:38 PM south loop run
Route M5 – 6:15 PM and 7:15 PM runs
Route M6 – 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM runs
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 95 These reductions would total 8.5 vehicle-hours of service and 106 vehicle-miles of service daily, totaling 2,070 vehicle-hours and 25,900 vehicle-miles over the course of a year. Elimination of these runs would reduce operating costs by $93,700 annually.
The ridership impacts were evaluated using the data on passenger activity by route by time of day (as shown in Table 18) and an elasticity analysis. Many evening passengers would either not be on the runs impacted, or would be able to shift to the remaining runs. The overall impact is forecast to be a reduction in ridership of 4,100 per year, or 17 per weekday.
Another evening service option initially considered was to simply eliminate Merced Route runs starting at or after 7 PM. However, this was concluded to be an inferior alternative as it would eliminate many important connections between the local Merced and the regional routes, thereby impacting the usefulness and ridership on the regional routes.
Reduce Merced Route Weekday Evening Runs – Extend To 8:38 PM Departures
Another option would be to reduce weekday evening service frequency (as discussed in the previous alternative) but use the hours and miles to extend the span of service at the lower frequency on weekdays. If departures were provided until 8:38 PM, the following runs would be added3:
Route M1: 8:05 PM north loop run, 8:35 PM south loop run
Route M2: 8:00 PM north loop run, 8:30 PM south loop run
Route M3: 8:00 PM north loop run, 8:35 PM south loop run
Route M4: 8:15 north loop run, 8:38 PM south loop run
Route M6: 8:30 PM run
Along with the reduction in evening frequency, this would yield a net reduction of 370 vehicle- hours per year, and a reduction in annual operating cost of $18,400. However, it would yield a net increase in ridership of 3,900 boardings per year, thereby reducing subsidy by $22,400 per year.
3 Some runs would be partial runs, per the current schedule for the last runs of the day.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 96 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Reduce Merced Route Weekday Evening Runs – Extend to 9:15 PM Departures
Alternatively, the following additional runs could be operated, in order to extend the schedule of final departures up until 9:15 PM on weekdays:
Route M1: 9:05 PM north loop run, 9:05 PM south loop run
Route M2: 9:00 PM north loop run, 9:00 PM south loop run
Route M3: 9:00 PM north loop run, 9:05 PM south loop run
Route M4: 9:15 north loop run, 9:08 PM south loop run
Route M5: 8:45 PM run
This yields a net increase in operating costs of $46,500 per year. The ridership increase would be relatively high, estimated to be 10,200 additional annual boardings. Overall subsidy needs would increase by $36,100 per year.
Weekend UC Route service
The only Merced The Bus service between the UC Merced campus and Merced consists of the UC Merced Route operated between 7:15 AM and 8:07 PM on weekdays only. While there is CatTracks service on weekends, it is relatively limited, consisting of 23 runs per weekend day versus 89 on weekdays (excluding the limited Heritage housing area service). Including the 20 daily UC Route weekday runs, the overall weekend service level is only 21 percent of the weekday service level. In addition to employee trips on weekends, there is also potential transit demand generated by students in on-campus housing. According to the Campus Housing Department, UC Merced currently houses around 2,400 students. Further, under the UC Merced 2020 Project, an additional 1,700 beds of new on-campus housing will be constructed over the next three years, which will bring the total up to 4,100 on-campus students.
To provide a quantitative basis for evaluating weekend service, ridership and service data for transit routes serving the UC Santa Cruz campus was reviewed. Similar to the UC Merced campus (and unlike the remaining UC campuses), the UC Santa Cruz campus is remote from other nearby development. Current public transit service is provided by Santa Cruz Metro on both weekdays and weekends.
Table 27 displays weekday versus weekend ridership figures on Santa Cruz Metro routes that service the UC Santa Cruz campus (drawn from the 2013 Santa Cruz Metro Short Range Transit Plan). The weekday to weekend ridership ratios on these routes can provide insight into the
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 97 potential ridership impact of weekend service on the UC Merced route. The routes included are as follows:
TABLE 27: Weekday Vs. Weekend Ridership and Service Level on Routes Serving UC Santa Cruz Campus
Ratio of Weekend Daily to Weekday Data Weekend Ridership Data Weekday Daily Ridership Average Revenue Ridership Average Revenue Ridership Average Revenue Ridership Route Ridership Hours per Hour Ridership Hours per Hour Ridership Hours per Hour
10 1,067 22.3 47.8 344.4 9.5 36.3 32% 43% 76%
15 (1) 1,123 22.9 49.1 ------0% 0% 0%
19 1,152 24.2 47.6 828.7 17.7 46.8 72% 73% 98%
20 738 16.8 43.9 543.5 14.6 37.2 74% 87% 85%
Total 4,080 86.2 47.3 1,717 41.8 41.1 42% 48% 87%
Source: Santa Cruz Metro 2013 Short Range Transit Plan Note 1: Operated during UCSC sessions only.
Route 10: Travels between downtown Santa Cruz and the UCSC Campus loop every 30 minutes on weekdays and every hour on weekends. While the route also serves a business district and junior high school, the majority of passengers travel between downtown and the UC campus.
Route 15: Travels between downtown Santa Cruz and the UCSC Campus loop every 15 minutes during peak periods and every 30 minutes mid-day and early evening, during UCSC school sessions only. No service is operated on weekends.
Route 19: Travels hourly between downtown Santa Cruz and the UCSC Campus, with the busiest stops at the downtown bus center and UCSC. Extended late-night hours are available during the school term.
Route 20: Serves downtown Santa Cruz and UCSC, with the majority of passengers boarding near residential complexes to reach UCSC. While Route 20 runs hourly, it is supplemented with an additional AM and PM trip during the school term.
As shown in Table 27, average daily ridership over all routes on weekend days was 42 percent of weekday ridership. Reflecting this, service levels are also lower (48 percent of weekday). As a result, the overall productivity is only 13 percent lower on weekends than on weekdays. This
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 98 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan data, along with the substantial weekday ridership on The Bus’ UC Route, indicates that there would be substantial ridership on weekend transit service to the UC Merced Campus.
To provide a range of potential options, two alternatives were considered varying by the span of service: a short span of service option consisting of service departing from Transpo starting and 9:45 AM and arriving at Transpo until 6:24 PM, and a long span of service operating over effectively the existing current weekday span of service from 7:15 AM to 7:30 PM. Both options would utilize a single bus to provide service every 75 minutes. To be consistent with the remainder of the transit system, it is assumed that identical service is provided on Saturdays and Sundays, year-round.4
The shorter span of service would incur an operating cost of $44,700 per year, while the longer span would require $63,900. Based on the relative weekend vs. weekday ridership at UC Santa Cruz and The Bus weekday UC Route ridership, it is estimated that the shorter span would serve 8,000 passenger-trips per year, versus 11,200 for the longer span. The modest level of non-UC ridership would generate $2,600 to $3,700 per year in fare revenues, resulting in operating subsidy requirements of $42,100 to $60,200. These alternatives would benefit on-campus residents through daily access to shopping and entertainment in Merced (and thus encourage more students to not bring a car to campus), while benefitting Merced through additional student spending and activity in the community.
Atwater, Winton, Livingston, Turlock Alternatives
Reduce Service to the Atwater Flea Market on Route A1
At present, a substantial portion of Route A1 is the loop west of Applegate Road that serves the Atwater Flea Market via Atwater Boulevard, returning via Bert Crane Road and Bell Drive. The flea market is only open on Thursdays and Sundays. This loop is 2.1 miles in length, and adds 1.8 miles to the total length of the route. Ridership on this loop is low. The boarding/alighting data collected as part of this planning study surveys indicated only 4 passenger boardings or alightings over 10 runs (all at the flea market, of which 3 occurred on a Thursday). The AVL data analysis (for two weeks of weekdays in mid-September) identified only 19 passenger boarding/alightings: 7 at the CHP office stop, and 6 each on both of the Thursdays at the flea market. All flea market ridership occurred on the 8:00 AM to 12:00 Noon runs. Passengers boarded or alighted on a total of 11 individual runs over the two-weeks, which indicates that 118 of the runs (91 percent) served no passengers.
4 Note that other options could be considered, such as weekend service only during the academic calendar.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 99 One option would be to simply eliminate service to this loop entirely. This would not reduce vehicle-hours of service, but would reduce vehicle-miles by 7,700 per year, resulting in a cost savings of $6,800. Approximately 600 annual passenger-trips would be eliminated.
Another option would be to serve the flea market loop on Route A2, rather than Route A1, but only on Thursdays and Sundays when the flea market is in operation (until the 2:40 PM run on Thursdays and the 3:20 run on Sundays). At present, Route A1 is 13.0 miles in length while Route A2 is 9.7 miles in length. Shifting this loop would increase the length of Route A2 to 11.5 miles, which is still a viable length to operate within an hourly schedule. This would result in a $5,300 reduction in annual operating costs, resulting from a reduction in mileage of 5,900 per year. The disadvantage of this option would be that Atwater residents not living along the Winton Way corridor would need to transfer to/from Route A1 at Transpo or Target, with 20 to 30 minute waits between buses. This would reduce ridership by an estimated 300 per year.
A third option would be to make the flea market an on-demand stop. This form of transit service is successfully used in similar low-demand areas by other transit services, such as El Dorado Transit and Gold Country Stage5. Passengers wishing to be dropped off at an on- demand stop can simply tell the driver as they board the bus. For pickups, passengers would need to call in advance (such as 60 minutes in advance of the scheduled time at 49 minutes past the hour). If a regular pattern of requests emerges (such as requests at least half of the time between 9 AM and 1 PM on Thursdays and/or Sundays), these times could be included in the fixed schedule. With these deviations, the cost savings would be reduced to $5,800 per year, but the ridership loss would amount to 200 passenger-trips per year. Including the small loss of revenue, subsidy requirements would be reduced by $5,600 per year. As this has the least impact on existing ridership, it is the sub-alternative that is carried forward.
The running time freed up by eliminating the scheduled service to the flea market could also expand opportunities to serve other portions of Atwater. A review of areas not currently within a quarter-mile of an existing bus route identified two areas with good ridership potential:
The area along East Broadway Avenue along the north side of Highway 99 between Almador Terrace on the west and Station Avenue on the east – This relatively dense residential area includes the Rancho Grande Mobile Home Park. As shown in Figure 29, it could be served with a new on-demand stop at East Broadway Avenue / Malibu Lane (northwest corner). In addition to the 155 senior housing units in the Mobile Home Park, it would provide convenient transit service to approximately 100 additional single family dwelling units. At observed trip rates, this would increase ridership by estimated 1,500 boardings per year.
5 The Gold Country Stage service operated by Nevada County in the Grass Valley/Nevada City area, for example, has a total of 20 on-demand stops.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 100 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan family dwelling units. At observed trip rates, this would increase ridership by an estimated 1,500 boardings per year.
e d
2 2 d To Merced To
JuniperAve
Santa Fe Dr 99
99 Shaffer Rd Shaffer
MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, andthe GIS usercommunity Service LayerCredits: Esri, HERE,DeLorme,
Bellevue Rd Bellevue 1st St 1st Figure 29 29 Figure
Potential A1 Alternative A1 Potential e
5th St 5th e
I
Winton Way Winton Applegate Rd Applegate Miles
Atwater Blvd Legend ExistingRouteA1 AlternativeA1Route AlternativeOn-Demand Stop OnDemand Stop Æ a 0.25 Æ a Service Service LayerCredits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, user community user MapmyIndia,© OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe 0 0.5 1
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 101 The neighborhood along Shaffer Road north of East Bellevue Road – This relatively dense neighborhood is more than a quarter-mile walk from the existing bus routes along Bellevue Road. A second additional on-demand stop added at Shaffer Road / Channel Avenue (northeast corner) This would generate approximately 6 passenger- trips per day, or 1,800 per year.
Given that an on-demand deviations would take no more than a few minutes to serve and would be infrequent, this route should be able to operate on an hourly schedule. The net impact would be a decrease of 800 vehicle-miles of service per year, reducing costs by $700 annually. In total, ridership would be increased by 2,900 boardings per year. Adding the increase in farebox revenues of $3,000, the net impact on subsidy needs would be an decrease of $3,700 annually.
Eliminate Route A2
Route A2 is one of the poorest performing routes in The Bus system, carrying an average of only 3.8 passengers per vehicle-hour (on an annual basis on the basis of September/October 2016 ridership). One of the key reasons is that all stops along this route are also served by at least one other route. The only substantial benefit provided by this route is that it directly serves trips between Winton and downtown Atwater/Target. A review of boarding/alighting data indicates that only 45 percent of Route A2 ridership is comprised of passengers traveling from Winton to areas of Atwater south of Bellevue, while the remaining 55 percent would continue to have direct service (at an overall lower frequency) via Routes W1 and W2. Transit trips between Winton and Atwater would still be possible, but would require a transfer at a stop along Bellevue Avenue between Route A1 and Routes W1/W2.
This alternative would reduce annual operating costs by an estimated $189,900. Considering the existing elements of Route A2 ridership by trip origin/destination and the remaining transit service options for each, this would reduce ridership by an estimate 4,800 passenger-trips per year (31 percent of existing Route A2 ridership), with the remaining shifting to other routes. Subtracting the loss of an estimated $5,300 in fare revenues, the net impact would be a reduction in annual operating subsidy needs of $184,600. One less bus would also be needed in service.
Combine Routes A1 and A2 into a Large 2-way loop
Another option to reduce the overlap between routes in the Winton/Atwater area and potentially improve effectiveness would be to eliminate Route A2 and modify Route A1 by: (1) eliminating the Atwater Flea Market loop (except possibly on-demand) and (2) add a loop consisting of the existing northern portion of Route A2 (north of Bellevue Avenue). Operating two buses in opposite directions would then provide more convenient two-way service around
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 102 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Atwater. The overall route length, however, would be 15.6 miles in length, which is too long to operate on an hourly headway with adequate driver break and recovery time. Other options to shorten the route, such as elimination of service to Castle AFB area or along Bellevue Avenue, would have too large an impact on existing ridership. This option was therefore found to be infeasible and is not considered further.
Operate One Bus on Routes A1 and A2 on Weekends, Providing 2 hour headway
Under this alternative one bus would be operated on weekends, alternating between providing service on Routes A1 and A2. This would result in 2-hour headway service on each route. This bus would start the weekend day with service on Route A1 at 8:43 AM, and end with an arrival at Target at 6:11 PM on Route A2. In total, this would reduce annual vehicle-hours of service by 1,026 and vehicle-miles of service by 11,700, yielding a reduction in operating cost of $45,500. Ridership, based on existing weekend ridership and the observed change associated with a reduction in headway, would be reduced by 3,500 boardings per year. Including the loss of $3,700 in fare revenues, annual operating subsidy would be reduced by $41,800.
Eliminate Evening Route W2 Weekday Service
Route W2 is currently only serving 4.9 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour of service. One means of addressing this poor productivity would be to reduce the weekday number of runs. A review of ridership by run data, as summarized in Table 28, shows relatively steady ridership through the bulk of the day, until the 5:10 PM run (westbound from Merced College) when the average ridership drops to 4.5 followed by 2.7 passengers on the 6:10 PM partial run and 1.8 passengers on the 7:25 PM partial run. Given this data, a reasonable alternative would be to eliminate the 5:10 PM round-trip run, as well as the two subsequent partial runs. This would reduce operating costs by an estimated $21,200 per year. Considering that some existing passengers on these runs could shift to other routes, this option would reduce overall ridership by an estimated 600 passengers per year. Including the loss in fare revenue, the net reduction in operating subsidy would be $20,500 annually.
Eliminate Route W2
Route W2 has relatively low productivity, at an estimated 4.9 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour under the recent revisions. Outside of Merced, Route W2 stops are also served by Route W1, which generates approximately 50 percent more ridership. The key benefit of Route W2 is that it provides a direct trip to/from Merced College for Atwater/Winton residents.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 103 Table 28: Existing Route W2 Weekday Ridership by Run
Run# Departure Time Avg. Boardings 1 6:46 AM from Winton VFW 20.0 2 8:00 AM from Merced College 15.8 3 9:00 AM from Merced College 9.6 4 10:15 AM from Merced College 16.7 5 11:15 AM from Merced College 14.6 6 12:40 PM from Merced College 12.0 7 1:40 PM from Merced College 14.3 8 2:55 PM from Merced College 14.9 9 3:55 PM from Merced College 11.1 10 5:10 PM from Merced College 4.5 11 6:10 PM from Merced College 2.7 12 7:25 PM from Merced College 1.8 TOTAL 138.0
Source: AVL data for 2 weeks in September 2016 A review of boarding/alighting data indicates that 8 percent of W2 passengers are making trips within the Merced area (and could use M1 or M2), 12 percent are making trips within the Atwater/Winton area (and could use Route M1 or L), while the remaining 80 percent are traveling between Atwater/Winton and the northern portion of Merced (Walmart to Merced College).
This option would substantially impact the ability to travel between Atwater and Merced College. This trip would require travel via Route M1 and Routes M2 or M3, with a transfer at the Merced Transpo. A trip from Atwater (Jack in the Box stop) that currently takes 48 minutes would instead take 77 minutes including the transfer. As a result, it is estimated that 9,400 of these existing passengers would not shift to the alternate route option. In addition, ridership would be lost in the Atwater/Winton area, particularly as Routes W1 and W2 are the only westbound service along Bellevue Road (while Route A1 also provides eastbound service); this is estimated to total 900 passenger-trips per year. In total, 10,300 passenger-trips per year would be lost, or 34 percent of existing Route A2 ridership.
The elimination of Route W2 would reduce annual operating costs by approximately $226,200 per year. Including the drop in farebox revenues of $12,100, subsidy needs would be reduced by $214,100.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 104 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Eliminate Route W2, Expand Route L to Hourly on Weekdays
Expanding Route L to hourly service could help offset the impact of eliminating Route W2, while also providing other benefits. Travel between Atwater and Merced College could be accommodated by timing the Route L schedule to provide direct bus-to-bus transfers between Route L and Route W1 at the Castle Clinic. In the eastbound direction, these two routes are currently only 2 minutes off (service at 53 minutes after the hour on Route W1 and at 51 minutes after on Route L), but are 27 minutes off in the westbound direction. Since ridership on W2 is very directional (eastbound in the AM, westbound in the PM), the Route L schedule could be shifted in the Noon hour to provide direct transfers at Castle Clinic in both directions, keeping a consistent schedule on Route W1. This would result in Route L arrivals at Merced College at 21 minutes after the hour in the AM, and departures from Merced College at 30 minutes after the hour in the PM.
This would require operating an additional six Route L round-trips per weekday. This in turn would increase operating costs by $168,700 per year. Combined with the savings associated with W2 elimination, this would result in a net reduction in subsidy of $57,500.
Ridership would be benefitted by providing higher frequency service throughout the corridor from the northern portion of Merced to Livingston, resulting in an increase of 6,600 passengers per year. The loss of ridership associated with the elimination of Route W2 would be reduced from 10,300 to 4,400 per year, yielding an overall impact of this alternative of 2,200 additional passenger-trips. Including the additional $3,400 in fares that would be generated, total operating subsidy would be reduced by $60,900 annually.
Revise Route L to Eliminate Castle Stops
A common complaint among Route L passengers is the additional travel time resulting from serving the Castle HSA and Castle Clinic stops. Deviating off of Santa Fe Drive to serve these stops adds approximately 6 minutes of travel time in each direction, along with 1.5 miles of route length. These stops currently generate 10 percent of the Route L ridership, equivalent to 11 passenger boardings or alightings per day.
One strategy would be to shift the Route L schedule to provide direct bus-to-bus transfers with the W1 Route at the Winton VFW stop at 26 minutes past the hour. Route L would depart Merced College westbound at 53 past the hour (10 minutes earlier than at present) and would have 2 minutes additional layover in Livingston before departing Walnut/Franci in Livingston eastbound at 14 past the hour)6, arriving at Merced College at 1 minute before the hour. Travelers between Merced and the Castle stops could shift to the W1 or W2 routes. However,
6 While this would impact current transfer times with Route T in Livingston, the current ridership data indicates little of this activity is occurring.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 105 this schedule change would cause arriving passengers to miss the top-of-the-hour bell times at Merced College, thereby reducing ridership.
Ridership patterns indicate that 50 percent of Route L passengers are traveling from one side of the Castle stops to the other7. The reduced travel time for these trips would increase ridership by an estimated 1,000 per year. On the other hand, the ridership traveling to the Castle stops would be reduced by roughly 500 due to the inconvenience of transfers and Merced College ridership would drop by an estimated 2,000 annually. On balance, this option would decrease ridership by 1,500 boardings per year.
The shorter Route L length and run time would reduce operating costs by an estimated $16,500 per year. Including the loss of $2,300 in fare revenues, subsidy would be reduced by $14,200.
Revise Route L to Better Serve Local Livingston Trips
At present, the boarding/alighting data indicates that very few residents of Livingston are using Route L to make trips within Livingston (rather, the ridership is generated by travel between Livingston, Winton, and Merced). Given the growing population and the characteristics of Livingston, there is more potential demand for local service than is currently being served. The current route enters Livingston from the east via Walnut Avenue, serves Foster Farms, a loop up to a residential neighborhood to the north (as far as Harvest Avenue), downtown, a loop to the southeast (as far as Park Street/8th Street), back to downtown, a loop to Rancho San Rafael, back go downtown and Foster Farms, and then exiting eastbound on Walnut Avenue. Service is provided nine times per day (generally every two hours).
This service plan has several limitations for local passengers. First, there is a substantial portion of southwest Livingston not within a convenient quarter-mile walk of an existing bus stop. In addition, while residents of southern Livingston can easily travel to the Rancho San Miguel shopping area, there is no reasonable return trip available.8
To potentially address these issues, the loop in southern Livingston could be expanded, as shown in Figure 30. This loop could be expanded to travel as follows:
South on Main Street West on Peach Avenue North on Winton Parkway East on F Street South on Main Street, and counterclockwise around the current terminal loop.
7 The remaining 40 percent of Route L ridership is traveling within the Livingston – Wilton area, or within Merced. 8 While the Rancho San Miguel Market will provide a free ride home to customers purchasing $50 or more, the ridership data indicates that few transit passengers are taking advantage of this.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 106 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan F St 99
Peach Ave Peach Walnut Ave Walnut Hammatt Ave Hammatt
Campbell Ave
East Ave
Walnut Ave Walnut
7th St 7th
d
R
y
Franci St Franci
e
s
s
e
r
C
n
o
t
s
g
n
i
v i L Front St
99
Campbell Blvd Main St Main Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community
Figure 30 Figure ` Potential Route L Modifications L Route Potential Miles
0.5 B St B `
Serve inbounddirection as as wellas outbound Winton Pky Winton 0.25 0.125 Existing Route L Potential RouteModifications L I 0
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 107 This would serve approximately 800 additional residences (including the Monte Cristo adult community), as well as provide service to Livingston High School (along Main Street). In addition, the Rancho San Miguel shopping area could be served in the inbound (southbound) direction as well as the current outbound direction. These two modifications would increase operating costs by $38,700.
The increased service area is expected to generate approximately 4,400 passenger-trips per year, while the additional service to Rancho San Miguel would add 3,300. On the other hand, the additional in-vehicle travel time for existing passengers would reduce ridership by 1,100 per year, yielding a net ridership increase of 6,600 annual boardings. Including the $5,100 in additional fares, net operating subsidy requirements would be increased by $33,600.
Reduce Route L Weekend Service to Three Round Trips per Day
Over September and October of 2016, Route L averaged only 30 passenger-trips per Saturday and 14 passenger-trips per Sunday, generating a productivity of only 2.9 passengers per hour on Saturdays and 1.3 on Sundays. At present, weekend service consists of a morning southbound run (arriving at Merced College at 8:24 AM), three round-trips over the course of the day, and an evening run departing Merced College at 5:00 PM. Under this alternative, the round-trips departing Merced College at 8:30 AM and 2:30 PM would be dropped, leaving the morning and evening directional runs as well as a mid-day run departing Merced College at Noon. This would reduce operating costs by an estimated $24,900 per year, but reduce ridership by an estimated 1,000 passenger boardings annually. With the loss of $1,600 in fare revenues, overall subsidy requirements would be reduced by $23,300 annually.
Other Route Service Alternatives
Make the Kibby Road Eastbound Stop on Route P On-Request Only
The Planada Commuter Route serves a small subdivision along the north side of SR 140 between Merced and Planada adjacent to Kibby Road. The only viable stop locations that avoid passengers crossing the busy highway are on the north side of SR 140. While this is a simple stop in the westbound direction, due to the limited roadway network in the area serving an eastbound stop requires the bus to turn left onto northbound Kibby Road, which then requires out-of-direction travel for 1.5 miles north to Olive Avenue before turning east on Olive and south on Arboleda Road back to SR 140. This adds 3.1 miles of route length and 3 minutes in running time in the eastbound direction.
A review of boarding/alighting data for 14 Route P runs indicates that this eastbound stop served one passenger deboarding on 2 of these runs, but no boardings. An analysis of APC data for all runs on 10 weekdays indicated only 1 run that included a boarding at this eastbound stop
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 108 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan (along with a deboarding), as well as 10 additional runs with a deboarding at this stop. This indicates that 82 percent of the time over this latter period this diversion was operated, but no passengers were served.
This eastbound stop could be served on an “on-demand” basis. Passengers wishing a drop-off at this stop would be instructed to simply tell the driver upon boarding. Those few passengers wishing a pick-up in the eastbound direction would be directed to call The Bus at least 30 minutes prior to pick up. The dispatcher would then inform the Route P driver to serve the stop. As discussed above regarding Atwater route options, this is a common means of addressing infrequently used stops that substantially impact operations.
This option would not substantially reduce vehicle-hours of service, but would reduce mileage by 4,700 per year, which in turn would reduce operating costs by $4,200. The change in ridership boarding at this specific stop would be negligible, though the reduction in running times would make the service more convenient for other passengers, resulting in an estimated 200 additional boardings per year. This would increase $300 in additional fare revenues, resulting in a reduction in operating subsidy of $4,500.
Add Route P Weekday Route P 9:30 AM Run
At present, there is a substantial gap in the weekday Route P schedule, with almost a four-hour gap between the 7:40 AM eastbound departure from Transpo (8:50 AM westbound departure from Planada) and the 11:30 AM eastbound/12:40 PM westbound departure. This schedule accommodates typical commute and school trips, as well as half-day trips into Merced for shopping and other purposes. The long break in service, however, does limit mobility options.
Potential ridership was estimated based upon observed ridership by run to be 1,700 per year, which would generate $2,300 in additional fares. Operating costs per year would be increased by $23,900, yielding a $21,600 increase in subsidy requirements.
Reduce Route P Weekend Service
Weekend service on Route P currently consists of an early morning westbound run, two mid- day runs, and an eastbound late afternoon run. This route carries a current average of 26 passengers on Saturday and 18 on Sundays. The service currently has a productivity of 4.6 passengers per vehicle-hour on Saturdays and 3.5 on Sundays. An option to improve productivity would be to eliminate the mid-afternoon round trip. This would reduce operating costs by $12,700 per year. Ridership would be reduced by an estimated 800 per year, reducing fare revenues by $1,100 per year. Overall operating subsidy would be reduced by $11,600 per year.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 109 Drop Direct Service to Merced College (Merced) on 1:04 PM Route LB Run
At present, five weekday Route LB runs per day arriving eastbound into the Merced Transpo continue on to Merced College. While this is in order to provide a direct trip between Los Banos and the main college campus, this section between Transpo and Merced College is already served by four Merced routes. To investigate whether service should be reduced, AVL data for two weeks of weekday service was reviewed, focusing on the number of eastbound passengers that travel through the Transpo towards Merced College. For each of the times that the run passes through Transpo eastbound, the following average through-passengers were observed:
7:26 AM – 4.0
7:32 AM – 6.8
9:27 AM – 6.7
2:27 PM – 1.6
Given these figures, it may be appropriate to terminate the early afternoon run at Transpo. This would reduce annual operating costs by $9,700. The through-passengers could transfer to another route, such as Route M3, though this would result in their arrival at Merced College at 2:55 PM rather than 2:37 PM. This would result in a modest (estimated to be 100 passenger- trips per year) reduction in ridership, reducing fare revenues by $200. Annual subsidy needs would therefore drop by $9,500.
Lifeline Service from Hilmar 1 or 2 days per week
Until July of 2016, The Bus operated Route H, providing a morning run from Los Banos via Hilmar to Turlock, back to Hilmar and on to Merced (Transpo), with a return trip in the evening. This service carried only approximately 6 passengers per day, leading to its termination. Nevertheless, there are some mobility needs of this community that are not currently being met. Finding an efficient way to serve sparsely populated areas with public transit is not an unusual predicament for rural California communities. Many public transit agencies have implemented various demand response or fixed route services to connect rural residents with services in more urbanized area. These services are often called “lifeline” routes as they only operate one or a few days a week and are designed to provide transportation for transit dependent residents to essential services such as shopping and medical services.
There are a variety of California rural transit systems that provide lifeline service. Table 29 presents a review of nine rural peer transit routes in California:
Grizzly Flat Route (El Dorado Transit) between Grizzly Flat and Placerville
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 110 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 0.53 4.00 1.44 Capita Annual Annual Ridership perRidership 860 1,070 0.23 1,050 0.95 Population of of Population Outlying AreaOutlying 250 497 930 996 2,441 3,520 0.69 5,457 3,4103,075 1,500 1.60 3,441 2.05 2,308 1,760 Annual Annual Ridership $5.00 $4.00 $2.00 - $3.00 - Discount 1-Way Fare 1-Way $5.00 $5.00 Public $4.00 - $2.00 - General Center 6 hours $ 10.00 $ 5.00 5 hours $ 6.00 $ 5.25 4 hours $ 2.00 $ 1.00 6 hours $ 6.504 hours $ 4.50 $ 1.50 $ 1.50 3.5 hours $ 2.00 $ 1.00 3 - 4 hours Time in Urban TimeUrban in NA NA NA NA NA NA 21% % of Runs Runs of % Operated None None None None None None passenger Run CriteriaRun reservations Minimum of 5 Thur) Days/Week Days/Week Days/Week Peer Average Every 2ndEvery Sat 1 Roundtrip, 1 1 Roundtrip, 2 1 Roundtrip, 5 2 Roundtrips, 3 2 Roundtrips, 3 2 Roundtrips, 5 3 Roundtrips, 6 Day/Week (Thur) Wed, Fri),Wed, Service Days/Week (Mon, Days/Week Fri) (Tue, Days/Week Wed, (Tue, City Crescent City Urban CenterUrban Service Marysville, Yuba Rica Benton Bishop Burney Redding Hiouchi Outlying Outlying Gasquet/ Grizzly Flat Placerville Community Brownsville, Happy Camp Yreka Knights Landing Woodland Challenge, Loma Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Eastern Siskiyou Siskiyou Program Yolo Bus Bus Auth.Bus Authority El Dorado Dorado El Redwood Authority Yuba SutterYuba TABLE 29:ExistingRural TABLE Services Lifeline Transit Coast Sierra Transit Sierra Transit AreaRedding
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 111 Foothill Route (Yuba Sutter Transit) between Brownville/Challenge and Marysville/Yuba City
Benton to Bishop Route (Eastern Sierra Transit Authority) between Benton and Bishop
Route 216 (Yolo Bus) between Knights Landing and Woodland
Burney Express Route (RABA Transit) between Burney and Redding
Happy Camp/Orleans Route (Siskiyou Transit) between Happy Camp and Yreka
Crescent City/Gasquet Route (Del Norte Transit) between Gasquet and Crescent City
This review indicates the following:
On average, the peer rural routes operate three days per week. While Grizzly Flat service is offered only one day per week. Burney Express, Happy Camp/Orleans, and Crescent City/Gasquet operate five to six days per week.
Out of the nine peer rural routes, Grizzly Flat is the only route that requires a minimum number of ride requests in order to operate. For Grizzly Flat to run, a minimum of five passenger reservations must be booked in advanced. As a result, this route only operates 21 percent of the potential days. The benefit of a minimum passenger requirement is to ensure a certain farebox ratio is met. The disadvantage is that the service can be seen as unreliable (as passengers cannot be assured of service until the requirement is met) and thus may be seen as unattractive to potential passengers.
The peer routes include layovers of two to six hours in the urban destinations.
Regular fares for one-way trips on the peer systems range from $1.50 - $10.00, averaging at $4.00 - $5.00 (depending on length of trip). Discount fares range from $1.00 - $5.25, averaging at the $3.00 - $4.00 range.
The average annual ridership on the peer rural routes is 1,860. Ridership levels range from 250 (Grizzly Flat) to 5,457 (RABA - Burney).
As the populations of the peer areas vary significantly, ridership per capita data is a good peer measure of comparison. With a population of only 850 and annual ridership
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 112 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan of 3,441, the Gasquet/Crescent City service generates the highest ridership per capita (4.0 annual one-way trips per person). Happy Camp/Orleans also generates relatively high ridership per capita (respectively 2.05). The lowest ridership per capita is generated by the El Dorado Transit Grizzly Flat Route, 0.23 trips per capita, followed by the ESTA Benton to Bishop Route, 0.53 trips per capita. Grizzly Flat’s reservation-only system contributes to the low annual ridership (only 250 passenger-trips). The peer average ridership per capita is 1.27 trips per person.
A reasonable Lifeline service plan for Hilmar would operate one day per week9. It would travel east out of Hilmar via Bloss Avenue and the Highway 99 corridor, connecting Hilmar residents with the following:
Shopping opportunities in Livingston, such as Rancho San Miguel
Shopping opportunities in Atwater, such as Walmart/Target
Castle Family Health Center
Merced Mall and other nearby commercial centers
Mercy Medical Center and other medical facilities in Merced
The schedule would be designed to provide opportunity for short or longer shopping trips, as well as medical appointments in both the morning and afternoon.
Passengers would be picked up in Hilmar around 8:00 AM, allowing arrivals in Livingston around 8:30 AM, Atwater/Winton around 9:00 AM, and Merced by 9:30 AM. A mid-day round-trip would be operated departing Merced around 11:45 AM, dropping morning passengers and picking up afternoon passengers around 1:00 PM, and returning to Merced by 2:15 PM. A final north and westbound trip would depart Merced at 5:00 PM, dropping off Hilmar passengers by 6:15 PM. Rather than a fixed route, the driver would organize the trip based on passengers’ needs (within the service corridor). This could include making a second short stop along the way, such as picking up a prescription after a medical appointment.
Fares should be consistent with other rural transit routes ($3.00 general public / $1.50 discount for individual boardings, with passes available). Based on the observed transit ridership rate in the peer areas discussed above, as well as the observed ridership on the old Route H, ridership
9 If a holiday falls on the selected day of the week, service should be offered on an alternate day of the same week.
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 113 on this service is estimated to be 1,600 boardings per year. This would generate approximately $2,800 in fares per year, resulting in a net increase in operating subsidy of $11,800 annually.
Operate Some Route T Runs Via Hilmar
Another means of serving Hilmar would be to route three runs per weekday through Hilmar between Delhi and Turlock. In the northbound direction, the alternative Route T would travel from Merced through Livingston to Delhi as at present until the intersection of Shendel Avenue and Merced Avenue. Rather than turning right, the bus would turn left on Merced Avenue down to Bloss Avenue, and then west into Hilmar. (This would miss very little of the existing ridership in Delhi, as it would still serve downtown and the high school). In Hilmar, the route could make a loop around Pearl Street, Faulk Street, and Lander Avenue (serving a stop in front of the library), before turning north on Lander Avenue (State Route 165) to US 99. This new route segment would be 9.7 miles in length and require approximately 20 minutes to serve, compared with 5.7 miles and 8 minutes along the present route. Operating three round-trips through Hilmar each day, this option would increase annual operating costs by $3,200 per year. A reasonable schedule would be to serve Hilmar on the existing 6:30 AM, 10:30 AM and 4:30 PM runs from the Merced Transpo.
Before its elimination, Route H generated approximately 1,130 passenger boardings per year, operating weekday morning and afternoon commute period runs in both directions. The provision of a mid-day service time would expand the usefulness of this route beyond commuters and all-day students to also serve medical, social service and shopping trips. The overall additional ridership would total approximately 4,000 passenger-trips per year.
This option, on the other hand, would increase travel time for passengers traveling between Merced / Atwater / Livingston / Delhi on one end, and Turlock on the other end. For instance, the one-way trip from Livingston to Turlock, which currently takes 45 minutes, would be increased to 57 minutes. In addition, this option would impact transfer times at the Merced Transpo, which could also negatively impact ridership. Overall, an estimated 3,400 existing Route T riders would be lost, resulting in a net increase for this alternative of only 600. These runs would also serve the Turlock Transpo at differing times, complicating transfers. In addition, serving Hilmar on these runs would disrupt the convenient consistent hourly schedules recently implemented. Overall, this option would not be a benefit to the transit service and is not considered further.
Revisions to Dial-A-Ride/Link Services
To assess potential changes in Dial-A-Ride/Link services, recent driver manifests were obtained and reviewed. Regarding the Merced-area services (including services for Planada, Winton,
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 114 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Atwater and Livingston), this review indicated that current service levels over the course of the day are appropriate, and the service is efficient given the large area served. No modifications to this service warranted consideration.
The west‐side Dial‐A‐Ride services were also reviewed. The most problematic of these is the Route G combined scheduled/Dial‐A‐Ride service. Note that this service is not required as complementary paratransit service. The resources required to operate this service vary substantially depending on whether reservations are made for service in Newman, Gustine and/or Santa Nella. On the two days reviewed, ride requests were served in these communities on the first and last scheduled service periods of the day. This required the full driver schedules (15.8 vehicle‐hours per day) to be operated to serve only an average of 13.5 passenger‐trips per day. As a result, on these days Route G only served 0.86 passenger‐trips per vehicle‐hour of service. Also, 2.5 of these daily passenger‐trips consist of passengers served on Route G for trips wholly within Los Banos, who could alternatively have been served by the other Los Banos services.
One option would be to reduce the number of days per week that Route G is operated. Reducing service to three days per week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) would result in an annual operating cost savings of approximately $48,700. Reflecting that many of the existing riders on Tuesday and Thursday could shift to a remaining service day, the annual ridership would be reduced by an estimated 740 passenger‐trips per year, resulting in a fare revenue reduction of $1,400. As a result, the net impact would be a reduction in operating subsidy of $47,300.
Modifications to the Paratransit Program
As a basis for evaluating alternatives to the Paratransit services in the western portion of Merced County, a detailed analysis was conducted of all services provided over two weekdays. Summaries of the boardings by hour for each of the individual vehicles operated on Tuesday November 1 and Wednesday November 2, 2016 are provided in Appendix F. This data is also depicted graphically in Figure 31. A review of this data indicates the following:
Ridership demand by hour was roughly consistent between the two days, with a peak of 17 passengers boarding in the busiest hour (9:00 AM hour, when there are a relatively high number of grouped program trips). Ridership on Tuesday the 2nd was higher in the afternoon and early evening hours than on Wednesday the 3rd.
The tables and figure also show the number of vehicle‐hours of service provided in each hour of the day (which reflects that some vehicles are in operation for only portions of each hour).
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 115
The comparison of ridership with the vehicles in operation should in general show a similar growth and decline over the day. This review indicates that the service level supplied is consistent with the demand10. The exception is the 9:00 AM hour (with a high number of group trips) and hours in the late afternoon (in particular, the 5:00 PM hour), when ridership demand drops faster than the decline in the number of vehiclles in operation.
The tables also indicate the periods when the individual routes are in operation and the number of passengers boarding in each hour. In particular, a review of the hours in which each route has zero boardings is instructive. While it needs to be considered that some routes are busy in hours of zero boarding delivering passengers picked up in the previous hour, the fact that in the 5:00 PM hour only one out of four vehicles in operation on November 1st and one out of five vehicles in operation on November 2nd
10 Given the large service area, however, it is reasonable that a minnimum of two vehicles are in operation, even in periods of low demand.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 116 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan had any passenger boardings again indicates that the schedules could be trimmed in the late afternoon while still serving all passengers.
Another consideration is the hours of zero boardings by route. As shown in the tables, many of the routes served passengers consistently over the day. However, Route MP9 had a two‐hour‐long period of zero boardings in both days, while Route MP12 had a two‐hour zero boarding period on November 1st and a four‐hour period on November 2nd.
A final way of evaluating this data is to consider the overall productivity (passenger boardings per vehicle‐hour of service) for each hour of the day. As shown in Figure 32, these figures relatively consistent over the day, with a dip in the 6:00 AM hour (when some vehicles are traveling to their first pick‐up) and the late afternoon hours. The figures for the evening hours (with relatively high productivity on Wednesday November 3rd) are affected by the small level of service provided in those hours.
One factor that impacts efficiency is the large area served by paratransit. The review of two days of driver logs indicates the following proportion of trips by community:
Merced – 74.3 percent
Atwater – 20.2 percent
Winton – 3.3 percent
Planada – 1.1 percent
Livingston – 0.7 percent
Delhi – 0.4 percent
Overall, this review indicates that the Paratransit Services are largely being dispatched and operated in an efficient manner, particularly considering the large service area, the natural day‐ to‐day variation in demand, and the need to ensure availability when necessary under the ADA.
There are, however, some vehicle‐hours in the mid‐to‐late afternoon, estimated to total approximately 4 vehicle‐hours per day (or 4.5 percent of the current weekday total).
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 117 If review of additional days of service corroborates that existing routes could be terminated earlier in the afternoon, this efficiency improvement could reduce Paratransit operating costs by an estimated $35,800 per year.
Establishing Paratransit Service Area Boundaries
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that complementary paratransit service be available to all trip origins and destinations within ¾ miles (airline distance) of the nearest fixed route. To address this and to control demand (and thus costs), transit systems typically define a specific mapped service area in which paratransit requeests by eligibble persons will be accommodated. While areas beyond the ¾‐mile criteria can be served at the discretion of the local transit program, many transit systems choose to use this distance to define the service area.
At present, The Bus does not have a defined service area for the Paratransit program, other than the citation on the website that “Paratransit service is available in every city, community, and township in Merced County.” One potential for cost savings would be to define a more
LSC Transporo tation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 118 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan limited paratransit service area. To evaluate this, the location of every paratransit passenger boarding and alighting location over two weekdays was evaluated in terms of distance to the nearest fixed route. The results, as summarized in Table 30, indicates that 97.0 percent of all paratransit trip‐ends were within the ¾ mile ADA requirement distance, 1.5 percent had one trip‐end11 between 0.75 and 1.5 miles, 1.1 percent had one trip end between 1.5 and 3.0 miles, and 0.4 percent (or two one‐way trips over the two days) had one trip‐end between 3 and 4.5 miles. While there is anecdotal information that longer trips are infrequently provided, over these two days the most remote location served was a residence on Shaffer Road north of Oakdale Road, 3.8 miles away from the nearest route in Winton.
This information can be used to estimate the cost savings associated with various restrictions on the Paratransit service area:
TABLE 30: Proportion of The Bus Paratransit Trip‐Ends by Distance From Nearest Fixed Route
# of Trips Distance from Fixed Route Ends % of Trips Less than 0.75 Mile 520 97.0% 0.75 Mile ‐ 1.5 Miles 8 1.5% 1.5 Miles ‐ 3 Miles 6 1.1% 3 Miles ‐ 4.5 Miles 2 0.4%
Total 536 100.0% Source: Paratransit driver manifests from November 1‐2, 2016
A strict ADA ¾‐mile service area could be defined. This would eliminate an estimated 3 percent of all current Paratransit trips, or approximately 1,020 one‐way trips per year. Annual vehicle‐hours would be reduced by approximately 70012 and vehicle‐miles by 10,700, yielding a cost savings of $33,500 per year. Subtracting the lost fares, annual
11 Typically, the residential location is the more remote trip‐end. No trips were found with both trip‐ends beyond the ¾ corridor. 12 Assuming that the reduction in demand can be reflected in a reduction in vehicle‐hours.
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 119 operating subsidy would be reduced by $31,400 per year (or roughly $31 for every passenger‐trip eliminated).
Another option would be to define the service area as those locations within 3.0 miles of a fixed route. This would only eliminate an estimated 136 passenger‐trips per year. Operating costs would be reduced by $5,400 per year while operating subsidy would be reduced by $5,100 per year (or $38 per passenger‐trip eliminated).
If the decision is made to continue to serve all existing passengers (and future passengers in the existing effective service area), it is still recommended that the Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County establish a boundary (such as all areas within 5 miles of a fixed route). This is to avoid the risk that The Bus in the future is required to serve paratransit trip requests in the many far‐flung corners of the county. Serving one rider round‐trip in, say, Merced Falls could require roughly 2.5 vehicle‐miles and 100 vehicle‐miles, resulting in a cost of $175.
Elimination of Flag Stops in Developed Areas
The Bus policy is currently to allow passengers to “flag down” the bus at a location of their choice. This type of policy is not typical among urban transit services. While it is common among rural transit systems, there is a general trend to reduce or eliminate the use of flag stops.
There are a number of operational and liability issues associated with flag stops:
Perhaps most importantly, flag stops can increase the potential for accidents, as well as a transit system’s potential liability. By allowing flag stops, drivers can be faced with a split‐second decision as to whether a location (such as just beyond a blind curve) is adequately “safe” to make a stop. It essentially puts the passenger in the position of deciding whether they believe the stop is “safe”. (Many passengers are not fully aware of the distance that a bus may need to safely stop.) If the driver does not immediately decide to agree that their chosen location is adequately “safe”, the stop can then be passed by.
They can create conflicts between passengers and drivers, specifically if one driver decides that a location is “safe enough” to serve when another does not.
They can result in wheelchair loading or unloading at unsafe locations.
They can surprise drivers with the sudden need to stop for a pick‐up, particularly in dark or stormy conditions when visibility is reduced.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 120 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan If a number of flag stops are served in close proximity, the transit route can be unduly delayed.
By spreading ridership over more locations, flag stops make the provision of stop amenities (such as benches and shelters) less likely or effective.
Issues associated with flag stops were frequently observed by the Consultant while riding The Bus routes. Drivers noted that passengers commonly wait at multiple locations within close proximity (like within a few hundred feet of each other), requiring two stops where a signed stop would only require one. In addition, passengers sometimes complain that the driver does not stop exactly where they would prefer, or become upset when a driver does not stop immediately once the cord is pulled. In addition, some drivers believe that making flag stops along busier streets, such as along Childs Avenue in Merced, is potentially hazardous. Furthermore, passengers do not always understand when it is safe and when it is not safe for a bus to make a stop.
To address these issues, The Bus should implement a program of reviewing existing flag stop locations in developed areas and formalizing appropriate locations into designated stops.
Optimally, all stops should be signed, as (1) a convenience to passengers to inform them where to wait for the bus and (2) a benefit to the driver to inform them where to watch for possible passengers. Signing flag stops also has the benefit of increasing the visibility of The Bus system along the routes. Even in these days of internet and social media, many transit passengers report that they first found out about the availability of service by noticing the bus stop signs. It should be noted that simply installing a pole and sign (without provision of a pad, bench or shelter) does not trigger the requirement for full design conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
A review of Table 26 reflects the wide variation in the impacts of the various alternatives on The Bus annual ridership. As also shown in Figure 33, these range from an increase of 11,200 (for UC Merced Weekend Service) and 10,200 (for Merced Route service until 9:15 PM) to a reduction of 17,700 (for elimination of Route M2 north of Transpo). Other alternatives with relatively high potential to increase ridership are the later Merced Route evening runs (10,200), expanding Route L in Livingston (6,600) and revising Route M6 to a two‐way route.
The operating subsidy impacts also vary widely, as shown in Figure 34. The most costly options would be UC Route weekend service (up to $60,200). On the other hand, eliminating Route M2
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 121 north of Transpo would reduce subsidies by $311,800, eliminating Route W2 would reduce subsidies by $214,100, while eliminating Route A2 would reduce subsidies by $184,600.
Alternatives Performance Analysis
An analysis of the performance of the service alternatives is presented in Table 31. This considers the following key transit service performance measures.
Passenger‐Trips per Vehicle‐Hour
The marginal passenger‐trips per vehicle‐hour is a key measure of the productivity of a transit service. Note that some alternatives do not result in a change in vehicle‐hours, making this measure inapplicable. As shown in Table 31, and as also depicted in Figure 35, some alternatives yield a negative number, due to a positive ridership change and a reduction in vehicle‐hours (a desired result). In particular, reducing the frequency of Merced Route early evening service and adding runs until 8:38 PM increases overall ridership by 3,900 per year, while reducing hours of service by 370 per year, yielding ‐10.5 marginal passengers per vehicle hour. The other alternative with this beneficial result are the elimination of Route W2 while making Route L hourly. Other alternatives increase ridership, while increasing service levels. Of these, the options with the higher value indicate a better alternative. In this category, expanding Route L in Livingston is shown to be a relatively good alternative, as it generates 8.9 new passenger‐trips for every additional hour of service. Other relatively good alternatives are later Merced Route evening runs until 9:15 PM (at a lower frequency) with 9.3 passenger‐trips per additional vehicle‐hour, and the UC Merced weekend service (8.3 to 8.5 passengers per additional vehicle‐hour).
Of the alternatives that reduce ridership, the “better” options by this measure are those with relatively low numbers, indicating a smaller negative ridership impact per hour of service eliminated. The best option in this category is the elimination of Route M2 south of Transpo and corresponding extension of Route M3, which loses only 0.1 passenger‐trips for every hour of service reduction. Reducing Route G to three days per week also also scores relatively well by this measure, with 0.7 passenger‐trips lost for every hour of service reduction. At the opposite extreme, 4.3 passenger‐trips are lost for every hour eliminated by reducing Route P weekend service.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 122 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 123
LSC Transporo tation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 124 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Passenger‐Trips per Vehicle‐Mile of Service
This measure yields similar results as the previous measure. There are several alternatives that result in a change in vehicle‐miles without changing vehicle‐hours, and thus yield a value for this measure. Two of these (Revise Route 6 to Two‐Way, and Make Route P 140/Kibby Road Eastbound Stop On‐Demand) increase ridership while reducing vehicle‐miles. The most effective means of increasing ridership by this measure are Atwater On‐Demand stops, which add 3.6 passengers for every mile reduced. Of those increasing both ridership and vehicle‐ miles, the most effective is extending Merced Routes in the evening to 9:15 PM. Of those alternatives reducing service and ridership, the “better” (in that they minimize the reduction in ridership) are the extension of Route M3 with elimination of Route M2 south of Transpo, and making the Atwater Flea Market an on‐demand stop.
Cost Per Passenger‐Trip
This measure indicates five alternatives that yield negative numbers resulting from an increase in ridership and a reduction in cost (revising Route M6 to two‐way, later Merced Route service at a lower frequency until 8:38 PM, eliminating Route W2 while making Route L hourly, creating on‐demand stops in Atwater, and making the eastbound 140/Kibby Road stop on‐demand). Of those alternatives that increase ridership and costs, the most effective alternative is extending M3 to the south, which requires $4.50 in cost per passenger‐trip. Of those that reduce ridership along with costs, the best alternative (in that is saves the most cost per passenger‐trip eliminated) is extending Route M3 and eliminating Route M2 south of Transpo (calculated to save $710 for every passenger‐trip eliminated), followed by eliminating Route A2.
Subsidy per Passenger‐Trip
This measure directly relates the key public input (funding) to the key desired output (ridership). The results, as shown in Figure 36, exhibit the same pattern as the previous performance measure, with the same five alternatives reducing subsidy needs while increasing ridership. The option of extending Route M3 and eliminating Route M2 south of Transpo also stands out, saving $709 in subsidy for every passenger‐trip eliminated (a savings of $141,800 divided by a loss of 200 passengers).
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 125 TABLE 31: Transit Service Alternatives Performance Analysis Psgr‐Trips Psgr‐Trips per Service‐ per Service‐ Cost per Subsidy per Farebox Hour Mile Psgr‐Trip Psgr‐Trip Ratio
Alternatives That Reduce Ridership Extend Route M3, Eliminate Route M2 South of Transpo 0.1 0.01 $710.00 $709.00 0.1% Eliminate Route M2 North of Transpo 2.4 0.21 $18.63 $17.62 5.5% Revise Route M6 to Santa Fe Ave ‐ Transpo 1.1 0.10 $35.28 $34.26 2.9% Reduce Route M6 Weekday Frequency to Hourly 2.2 0.16 $21.17 $20.09 5.1% Reduce Merced Route Evening Runs 2.0 0.16 $22.85 $21.83 4.5% Make Atwater Flea Market an On‐Demand Stop ‐‐ 0.03 $29.00 $28.00 3.4% Eliminate Route A2 1.1 0.11 $39.56 $38.46 2.8% Reduce Weekend Service Frequency on Routes A1 and A2 3.4 0.30 $13.00 $11.94 8.1% Eliminate Last 2 Route W2 Weekday Runs 1.3 0.09 $35.33 $34.17 3.3% Eliminate Route W2 2.4 0.12 $21.96 $20.79 5.3% Reduce Route L Weekend Service 2.0 0.11 $24.90 $23.30 6.4% Reduce Route P Weekend Service 4.3 0.11 $15.88 $14.50 8.7% Reduce Route G Service to 3 Days per Week (M, W, F) 0.7 0.05 $65.81 $63.92 2.9% Alternatives That Increase Ridership Extend Route M3 South to Gerard Avenue ‐‐ 0.20 $4.50 $3.50 22.2% Revise Route M6 to Two‐Way Between Merced College & Transpo ‐‐ ‐0.21 ‐$4.16 ‐$5.23 ‐25.8% Later Merced Evening Runs ‐ Last Departure 8:38 PM ‐10.5 ‐0.62 ‐$4.72 ‐$5.74 ‐21.7% Later Merced Evening Runs ‐ Last Departure 9:15 PM 9.3 1.02 $4.56 $3.54 22.4% UC Merced Weekend Service ‐ Short Span 8.5 0.57 $5.59 $5.26 5.8% UC Merced Weekend Service ‐ Long Span 8.3 0.56 $5.71 $5.38 5.8% Make Atwater Flea Market On‐Demand Stop, Add Service Areas ‐‐ ‐3.63 ‐$0.24 ‐$1.28 ‐428.6% Eliminate Route W2, Make Route L Hourly ‐2.2 ‐0.08 ‐$26.14 ‐$27.68 ‐5.9% Eliminate Route L Castle Stops 4.9 0.22 $11.00 $9.47 13.9% Expand Route L in Livingston 8.9 0.44 $5.86 $5.09 13.2% Route P 140/Kibby Rd. Eastbound Stop On‐Demand ‐‐ ‐0.04 ‐$21.00 ‐$22.50 ‐7.1% Route P Weekday Mid‐Morning Run 4.0 0.16 $14.06 $12.71 9.6% Hilmar Shuttle 6.2 0.25 $9.13 $7.38 19.2%
Marginal Farebox Return Ratio
This is the ratio of marginal passenger‐fares to marginal operating costs. Again, a negative value reflects a positive condition, in that fares increase while operating costs decrease (revising Route M6 to two‐way, later Merced Route service at a lower frequency until 8:38 PM, eliminating Route W2 while making Route L hourly, providing on demand stops in Atwater and making the Route P eastbound 140/Kibby Road stop on‐demand). Of those alternatives increasing ridership as well as costs, the better alternatives as reflected by a higher farebox ratio are later Merced Route service until 9:15 PM (22.7 percent) existing Route M3 south to Gerard Avenue (22.2 percent) and the Hilmar Shuttle (19.2 percent).
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 126 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 127
LSC Transporo tation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 128 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Ridership Versus Subsidy Impacts
Another means of comparing the service alternatives is to graph the two key impacts of each: the change in annual ridership and the change in annual subsidy requirements, As shown in Figure 37, each of the service alternatives were numbered (as identified in Table 26, above), and plotted with the impact on annual operating subsidy on the X axis versus the impact on annual ridership on the Y axis. Those falling in the upper left quadrant represent the best outcome, in that ridership increases while operating subsidy decreases. Those falling in the upper right quadrant represent alternatives that increase ridership while increasing subsidies, while those in the lower left represent subsidy savings that result in a loss of ridership.
Summary
In sum, this review provides useful information for making decisions regarding the individual routes, and ultimately The Bus’ network as a whole. The appropriate alternatives to work into the overall plan will depend on the relative balance between the desire for ridership growth and the financial realities of available operating funding. It is also important to consider that there are many other factors (in particular, the ability to provide a dependable and safe transit service) beyond these financial and performance measures. Nonetheless, the following are key overall findings that result from this evaluation:
If the future needs of the system focus on expanding ridership, the following alternatives have a particularly high potential:
o Extend Merced Routes on weekday evenings until a last departure at 9:15 PM.
o Provide UC Merced service on weekends, with a span of service consistent with the current weekday span
o Revise Route M6 to a two‐way route between Merced College and Transpo
o Make the Atwater Flea Market an On‐Demand stop and expand Route M1 into additional service areas
o Expand Route L in Livingston
Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 129
Increase
Increase Increasing ‐
But Subsidies "Better" 11 Tradeoffs Ridership "Worse" Ridership 10
9
20
> IMPACT RIDERSHIP 23 < 26 Impact 3
13 22 12 0 25 24 19 8 16 21 5,000 5,000 ‐ 5 15,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 ‐ ‐ ‐
Ridership 15
27 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $100,000 18 ‐ Annual
7 Alternatives: vs.
$100,000 ‐ 6 Impact Service 4
1 37: ‐
$150,000 ‐ ‐ "Worse" But
Subsidy
Subsidy >
14 FIGURE Ridership Ridership
"Better" Subsidy
Alternatives IMPACT
Reducing
Saving Tradeoffs $200,000 ‐ ‐ 17 Reduce Best Increase Reduce Operating
Cost While SUBSIDY
Annual $250,000 ‐ LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 130 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan On the other hand, if future funding limitations require reductions in operating subsidies, the following alternatives have relatively high potential in that they reduce costs while minimizing impact on ridership levels: o Extension of Merced Route 3 and elimination of Merced Route 2 south of Transpo o Elimination of Route A2 o Elimination of the later Route W2 weekday runs o Reduce Route L weekend service o Reduce Merced Route evening runs o Elimination of Route M2 If future funding levels remain constant, the following alternatives should be considered to improve overall service efficiency and help attain performance standards: o Reduction of Merced Route early weekday service frequency, and parallel extension of evening span of service until 8:38 PM departures o Extension of Merced Route 3 and elimination of Merced Route 2 south of Transpo o Elimination of Route L Castle Stops to improve in‐vehicle travel times o Make the 140/Kibby Road Eastbound Stop On‐Demand o Terminate the Route P weekday mid‐morning run at Transpo rather than Merced College o Make the Atwater Flea Market an On‐Demand stop and add new service areas to Route A1 Finally, regardless of future funding levels, flag stops should be eliminated in urban areas. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 131 This page left intentionally blank. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 132 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 6 Capital Alternatives INTRODUCTION The provision of public transit services requires a substantial investment in vehicles, facilities and equipment. This chapter presents the ongoing needs of the transit program as well as any potential new capital needs related to the service alternatives. In particular, this chapter discusses the vehicle replacement needs, facility needs (maintenance and operations), and passenger amenities needs (transit centers and bus stop improvements), and typical costs for these capital items. TRANSIT VEHICLES The acquisition for transit vehicles -- from planning stages to funding acquisition to procurement -- takes two to three years. Therefore, identification of potential vehicle needs as well as the appropriate vehicle types (size, fuel source, and etcetera) is very important. At the same time, vehicle technology is rapidly changing and it is challenging to know which new technologies will provide the best benefit for a transit system. In Merced County, this is particularly important because air quality is a major environmental and health concern. The discussion of vehicle acquisition, therefore, takes into consideration TJPAMC’s need to be as flexible as possible in acquiring state-of-the-art technologies to meet air quality requirements. Direction from the California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies in 2000 which requires reductions in both pollutant emissions and exposure to air contaminants from urban buses and transit fleet vehicles. ARB is working to transform existing fleets to “zero emission” technologies for large transit agencies to meet air quality, climate and public health goals. ARB staff is currently developing a proposal to further reduce emissions from the conventional bus fleet by requiring use of renewable fuels and the cleanest available engines and phasing-in zero emission bus purchases. As fleets become familiar with zero emission bus technology, and technology evolves, purchase requirements would increase with the goal of transforming the statewide transit bus fleet by 2040. The proposed amendments would also include flexibility options for fleets to work together to pool requirements or to develop regional plans to meet the same goals. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 133 The current status of this effort is that the ARB has established working groups to brainstorm ideas and methods to achieve these goals. In simple terms, the key questions for ARB are 1) how will a baseline be established so that performance can be measured, and what are the preferred metrics, 2) what incentives can be offered to transit agencies to allow/encourage them to improve, and 3) how can key variables be addressed such as fuel types and vehicle mixes. MCAG is therefore at an important crossroads in terms of opportunity to affect change by procuring new technologies with a goal of zero-emissions. However, because the status of the technology and rules are in flux, identifying specific needs, even over the next five years, is somewhat challenging. Below is a discussion of number of vehicles needed, various fuel types and typical costs, as well as a discussion on consortium purchasing. Replacement / Expansion Vehicles Over the next five years, MCAG will need to replace 14 heavy-duty and 11 cutaway buses for fixed route services, and 22 Dial-a-Ride/Paratransit vehicles to maintain the current level of service. Furthermore, MCAG will need to replace an additional 20 heavy-duty, 8 cutaway, and 19 Dial-a-Ride/Paratransit vehicles in the subsequent five years (FY 2022-2026). Additionally, while the contractor currently supplies staff vehicles to transfer drivers from the operations center to shift start locations (primarily at the Transpo), the TJPA would benefit from purchasing and providing electric vehicles once the new operations facility is built and charging stations are available. A list of replacement vehicle needs is shown in Table 32. Additional vehicles may be warranted if any expansions are recommended, or potentially, fewer vehicles might be needed if services were to be cut at some point. Nonetheless, the need for vehicles requires a large and crucial capital investment. TABLE 32: Merced The Bus SRTP Vehicle Needs Vehicle Needs 6- 5-Year 10 Years Vehicle Needs 1 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 Total(1) FY 22-26 Dial-a-Ride/Paratransit Replacement Vans 10 6 3 0 3 22 19 (Low Floor) Fixed Route Replacement Buses - Heavy Duty 3 0 0 0 11 11 20 Fixed Route Expansion Buses - Cutaway 0 0 0 0 11 11 8 Total Number of Transit Vehicles Needed 13 6 3 0 25 44 47 Number of Non-Transit Staff Vehicles Needed 0 3 3 2 0 8 6 Note 1: Vehicle needs are based on the life expectancy of the existing fleet vehicles for the current level of service. Total excludes those already on order, including 9 vans to be delivered by the end of FY 2016-17. Note 2: Funding has yet to be identified for all needed vehicle purchases. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 134 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Below is a discussion of the types of vehicles the TJPA is likely to consider for vehicle procurement. The recommended vehicle purchase plan, including an estimated annual cost for each year of the SRTP, will be provided in the SRTP after service alternatives have been selected and budget estimates finalized. Hybrid Electric Vehicles A vehicle technology gaining popularity among transit systems nationwide is hybrid electric propulsion. Under this arrangement, battery-powered electric motors drive the wheels; the batteries are charged using a small internal combustion engine (diesel-, gasoline- or alternative- fueled) to power an electric generator. This arrangement provides dramatically lower emissions, as the engine operates within a very narrow and efficient operating range. Hybrid buses which use ultra-low sulfur diesel and particulate matter filters have 90 percent lower emissions than a conventional diesel bus, and tend to have less greenhouse gas emissions than both conventional diesel and CNG buses. Hybrid electric propulsion systems have been tested at several large transit programs, most notably at New York City Transit. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory prepared an evaluation of the benefits of 10 new CNG Orion VII buses and 10 new Orion VII hybrids used for New York City Transit. According to the report, hybrid maintenance costs were lower than the CNG buses, battery replacement rate for the hybrid vehicles was about 4.5 percent per year, brake repair costs were 79 percent lower on the hybrid buses than the CNG buses and the hybrids had fewer road calls. New York City Transit has since placed an order for an additional 500 hybrid buses. Other agencies which have implemented hybrid technologies include Sunline Transit in Thousand Palms (California), the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (Colorado), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Orange County Transportation Authority, Omnitrans in San Bernardino, TriMet in Portland (Oregon), King County Metro Transit in Seattle, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia, and New Jersey Transit. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has conducted several studies comparing fuel economy and maintenance cost per mile between hybrid electric and diesel transit vehicles for urban fleets. According to a NREL study for Long Beach Transit, fuel economy (miles per gallon) on a gasoline powered hybrid electric vehicles was 4.3 percent lower than on a diesel fueled vehicle but maintenance per mile costs were 42 percent less on the hybrid. Similar comparisons made for King County Metro Transit in Seattle show that fuel economy in miles per gallon was 27 percent greater on a diesel hybrid vehicle in comparison to an Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) vehicle. In this case study, total maintenance cost per mile was only 4 percent lower for the hybrid vehicles. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 135 Operating costs for a hybrid electric system are typically lower in comparison to conventional diesel- or CNG powered arrangements due to greater fuel economy and reduced brake wear (the batteries are also charged through regenerative breaking, which tends to slow the vehicle while it recoups energy). In addition, hybrid electric buses provide better acceleration and quieter operation than conventional internal combustion engine propulsion systems. Another benefit of hybrid electric technologies is that it does not require the large infrastructure investment that is required for CNG technologies. However, the average price of a hybrid bus is substantial, costing roughly $700,000 for a 35-foot bus when compared to $280,000 for a conventional diesel bus (2011 APTA Public Transportation Vehicle Database). In addition, conventional sealed-gel lead acid battery systems typically last only two to three years, and replacement units cost on the order of $25,000. Better battery technology currently exists that could extend battery life (i.e., nickel metal hydride), but this technology currently costs $35,000 to $45,000 per bus. Battery-Electric Transit Vehicles Technology and experience for battery-electric transit vehicles are still fairly new. Some larger transit systems are beginning to purchase battery-electric buses, with incentives being provided by the FTA. As an example of cost, Marin County recently purchased two battery-electric vehicles for $1.6 million. The cost includes purchase of the buses, GPS and fare collection equipment purchase and vehicle inspections. The project will be funded with a grant from the Federal Transit Administration, local transportation sales tax revenues dedicated for transit capital projects, and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District grant for zero-emission vehicles. Additionally, through its Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, the state's air resources board will provide the manufacturer with an $111,000 voucher per vehicle, which reduces Marin Transit's vehicle purchase price. The vehicles can be charged overnight at the operator's yards rather than requiring specialized fast-charge equipment at transit centers or along the route. Infrastructure improvements to charge buses will be paid for primarily with local vehicle license fee funds dedicated to support electric vehicles. The two electric buses will supplement Marin Transit District’s hybrid fleet of 18 diesel electric buses, along with 30 gasoline paratransit vehicles, 19 gasoline shuttle vehicles and 23 diesel buses. An additional 10 hybrids will be delivered in 2017. As illustrated by this example, adapting a fleet toward zero-emissions is an incremental process, but it is a strategy which the TJPA is likely to include as part of the vehicle replacement plan. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 136 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Beyond the issue of cost, a key factor regarding battery electric buses is the potential range between charges. While buses with a range of 120-150 miles have been available for several years, some manufacturers have recently announced new technology that can operate up to 350 miles between charges – much more than The Bus’s daily mileage per bus. However, these claims do not reflect the requirements to also power onboard heating and cooling systems – an important consideration in Merced County’s hot summers. Battery-Electric Staff Transfer Vehicles Currently, the Operations Contractor provides between six to eight vehicles to transfer staff between the operations center and locations for shift changes and breaks. The cost of these vehicles is included as a lump sum in the contract. However, if the TJPA purchased its own battery-electric vehicles to transfer staff, this would offer the following benefits: Federal grant funds for capital purchases could be used to purchase the vehicles with local match, reducing the local burden to pay for the cost of the vehicles. The monthly fixed fee to the contractor would be reduced by the lease amount for each vehicle and the amount needed to fuel the vehicles. The electric vehicles would be charged at the operations center, which will include charging stations. In addition to reducing fueling costs to the cost of electricity, this would reduce emissions. The “cons” of this option are that the initial cost of the vehicles will require capital outlay, as well as the cost of purchasing charging stations, but ultimately this will provide cost savings to the TJPA. Table 32, above, shows a potential purchase plan of three vehicles in 2018-19, by which time a charging station could be installed, and three additional vehicles in 2019-20, and two additional in 2020-21, if necessary. Spreading out the purchase over several years is a benefit to the overall capital program as local match requirements are also spread out, as are future replacement needs. Charging Stations Should the TJPA decide to purchase battery-electric vehicles, the vehicles will require charging stations. Depending on the type of vehicle and the battery technology, charging may be completed quickly at in-route charging stations, or overnight at the operations facility. One current issue is that the charging technology is proprietary to the manufacturer. Use of battery electric buses therefore requires the purchase of proprietary charging stations to support the buses, and tends to lock a transit system into a single manufacturer. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 137 Gasoline Transit Vehicles Much of The Bus’s existing fleet includes gasoline-fueled cutaway vehicles. These are relatively inexpensive and take no special equipment to re-fuel. Currently, The Bus’s gasoline-fueled vehicles are fueled at a local filling station. The CalACT vehicle purchasing cooperative indicates that a 16-passenger low-floor cutaway costs between $98,000 and $110,000 while the standard floor counterpart costs on the order of $80,000. In order to afford vehicles, gasoline-fueled vehicles will be a necessary part of the replacement fleet. Clean Diesel Transit Vehicles Likewise, The Bus’s larger vehicles are fueled with clean-diesel, which are cheaper than either hybrid-electric or electric vehicles. A heavy-duty low-floor diesel bus costs in the range of $480,000 per vehicle. These will also be a necessary part of the replacement fleet. Autonomous Vehicles Autonomous (AV) or “self-driving” vehicles are rapidly becoming a reality, particularly in California. This has been spurred by legislation signed in 2015 allowing AV vehicles under controlled conditions on the state’s public roadways. AV vehicle impacts on public transit services can be considered both regards to changes in auto use as well as changes in transit vehicles. Changes in Auto Use AV technology has the potential to change auto use in many ways: It reduces the overall “cost” of auto driving, if the value of the driver’s time is considered. By allowing the driver to instead accomplish some other function or to be entertained, the overall impact on long duration travel on individual’s lives is reduced. As a result of this, people may well choose to accept longer and longer commutes to more scenic or lower cost housing options. This factor has many observers concerned that AV autos will increase overall vehicle use and add to roadway congestion, as well as increase urban sprawl. It allows persons with disabilities much greater access to personal vehicle mobility. For the many persons with disabilities that preclude driving but do not preclude negotiating themselves in and out of a vehicle, AV autos hold the promise of providing the convenience of private auto use. As the cost of AV vehicles declines, this could ultimately reduce the demand for paratransit services. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 138 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan It has the potential to dramatically improve traffic safety, as more than 90 percent of crashes are currently related to driver errors. It reduces the need for expensive auto parking within activity centers. Auto owners arriving at a destination in a paid parking area can simply program the vehicle to drive to a parking area outside of the activity center (or back home). Some urbanists predict that this will spur the development of large shared parking facilities on low-cost land at the periphery of a downtown area, allowing more shared use of parking spaces and freeing up space in urban cores for pedestrians and cyclists. Of course, the additional “empty” travel to and from the remote parking areas also adds to the traffic levels. Much of the actual impact of AV autos will depend on the model of ownership. If the individual ownership model that is prevalent today continues, the growth in traffic levels discussed could well occur. However, we as a society already have examples of a shared ownership model, as evidenced by the development of the Transportation Network Companies (TNC) such as Uber and Lyft, and more traditionally the cab industry. AV vehicles will bring down the cost of TNC organizations by eliminating their highest costs (drivers). If individuals start to take advantage of these shared ownership options by foregoing individual car ownership, much of the potential benefits of AV autos could be realized while reducing overall individual mobility costs. Changes in Transit Services Fixed Route Buses The first experimental applications of AV fixed route buses are already being implemented. A low-speed (25 mph maximum) 12-passenger electric bus shuttle has begun operation in a suburban neighborhood of Helsinki, Finland. A five-month demonstration was also conducted in 2015 on the campus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland. Future demonstration projects are planned in the Netherlands and Sion, Switzerland. Closer to home, the Contra Cost a Transportation Authority has received approximately $5 Million in funding to implement a two-bus shuttle service within the Bishop Ranch business park. These electric 12- passenger vehicles are currently undergoing testing in a closed facility, but are planned to be introduced to private streets in the business park in 2017. If California law can be changed to allow AV vehicles without a steering wheel, brake pedal and accelerator, the route will be expanded to include 4 blocks of public streets within the business park. Operator wages and benefits current comprise roughly 40 percent of The Bus’ variable (non- fixed) annual operating costs. Put another way, if 40 percent of the variable costs could be eliminated through AV buses, total service levels could be increased by 66 percent within the Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 139 same operating budget. This means, for example, that Merced Route frequency could be improved from the current 30 minutes to 20 minutes (a 50 percent increase) while reducing costs. There are, however, some substantial hurdles to widespread adoption of AV fixed route transit buses, beyond the technical and regulatory hurdles. In particular, transit drivers provide security on the buses. Many passengers (particularly those more sensitive to security concerns) may well refuse to use a bus without the presence of a driver. Drivers are also needed to ensure fare payment as passengers board the bus, as well as operating wheelchair lifts/ramps and securing passengers. Dial-A-Ride AV technology could also greatly reduce the cost of Dial-A-Ride or paratransit services. However, this ignores the crucial role of the transit drivers in assisting passengers into and out of the vehicles, and in settling and securing the passengers. There could be the potential to have a lower paid attendant on the vehicle to assist passengers rather than a higher paid driver, yielding some cost savings. Discussion and Summary The Bus’s current fixed routes are not particularly conducive to early AV adoption. The transit system does not include any short shuttle routes (such as an on-campus shuttle) that are relatively easy to serve using AV technology. The system also has no free-fare services that would avoid the issue of fare evasion discussed above. The issues of personal security and assistance for persons with disabilities are important to the community. The limited financial capacity of the transit system (in comparison with larger systems serving major cities) also means that The Bus should allow many of the issues associated with AV buses to first be worked out in larger transit programs. As with any new technology, the implementation costs decrease significantly as the technology is improved and adopted on a larger scale. Liability for accidents involving AV buses should also be a concern to transit agencies, particularly those with limited financial resources. There is very little settled case law regarding who is liable in the event of accidents or passenger incidents involving vehicles. It is important to note that AV technology is not a matter of either/or, but instead encompasses a wide range of levels or options. The AV industry has developed the following five levels to describe the various levels of vehicle autonomy: Level 1: At this level most functions are still controlled by the driver, but a specific function (like steering or accelerating) can be done automatically by the vehicle. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 140 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Level 2: At least one driver assistance system of both steering and acceleration/ deceleration using information about the driving environment is automated, like cruise control and lane-centering. The driver is disengaged from physically operating, having their hands off the steering wheel AND foot off pedal at the same time. However, the driver must still always be ready to take control of the vehicle. Level 3: Drivers are still necessary, but are able to completely shift "safety-critical functions" to the vehicle, under certain traffic or environmental conditions. It means that the driver is still present and will intervene if necessary, but is not required to monitor the situation in the same way required for Level 2. AV developers are striving to avoid this level, as it raises issues when drivers must quickly react to take back control. Level 4: At this level, vehicles are "designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip." However, it's important to note that this is limited to the "operational design domain” (ODD) of the vehicle— meaning it does not cover every driving scenario. An example might be a closed campus shuttle loop, or interstate driving. Level 5: This refers to a fully-autonomous system that expects the vehicle's performance to equal that of a human driver, in every driving scenario—including extreme environments like dirt roads and storm conditions that are unlikely to be navigated by driverless vehicles in the near future. It is not expected that full Level 4 or 5 AV bus technology will be widely available in a cost- effective manner within the five-year period of this SRTP. However, the availability of Level 2 driver assist technologies within this SRTP period is very possible. In particular, lane-centering and automatic emergency brake technologies could improve transit safety. The evolution of these types of AV technologies should be monitored, and considered as part of new bus purchases over the coming years. OPERATIONS FACILITIES Maintenance and Operations: Existing and New Facilities Currently, transit operations are located at the corner of Thornton Road and Wardrobe Avenue in Merced. This site is leased from Merced County. The site includes a parking lot for the public and employees, portable office buildings (housing administrative offices, dispatch personnel, driver break and lockers, and general storage), and a fenced lot for vehicle storage. In addition, Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 141 vehicle maintenance functions occur at a leased facility at 147 Heron Way. These sites will continue to be used while a new operations site is being developed, located at Wardrobe Avenue across from Beechcraft Avenue. Groundbreaking is scheduled for April, 2017, and construction is anticipated to be completed by June 2018. The new operations center for The Bus is located along Wardrobe Avenue opposite Beechcraft Avenue in southwest Merced. It will provide parking for up to 71 full-sized buses as well as vans, staff vehicles, and employee vehicles. It will also include a bus wash facility and fueling facility, a vehicle maintenance shop with five bays, and an operations building that includes space for contractor administration, dispatch, training, driver breaks and a laundry. Given the current size of The Bus fleet and the limited level of potential expansion under the service alternatives discussed above, this facility will be adequate to accommodate all transit operations over the SRTP planning period. PASSENGER FACILITIES Passenger facilities include all equipment and amenities that serve the passenger as they access the bus. This includes bus stop shelters, benches and signs, information kiosks, pedestrian crossing amenities and transfer centers. The quality of passenger amenities is a very important factor in a passenger’s overall perception of a transit service. Depending on the trip, a passenger can spend a substantial proportion of their total time using the transit service waiting at their boarding location. If this is an uncomfortable experience, if it is perceived to be unsafe, or if it does not provide adequate protection from winter rain or summer sun, the bus stop can be the deciding factor regarding a potential passenger’s use of the transit system. The Bus, moreover, does not currently get particularly high marks in this regard: in the onboard survey of local route passengers, 10 percent of passenger ranked bus stops with poor or very poor (a score of 1 or 2 out of a scale of 1 to 5) and another 7 percent ranked stops as “fair”. In comments, however, many surveyed and interviewed said they would like additional stops in more locations. Below is a discussion of the existing passenger facilities and potential improvements for the plan period. Merced Transpo The Merced Transpo, located at West 16th Street and O Street in Merced, is the hub of the transit system and the major transfer location for the region. In addition to serving The Bus, the Transpo serves Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS), Greyhound, Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) and Chowchilla Area Transit’s CATlinX service. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 142 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan The site includes short-term and long-term parking, a shared-building (which includes a break room and information kiosk for The Bus, public restrooms, and a sitting area), bus pull-outs, and several shelters. However, The Bus’s needs have exceeded the capacity of the Merced Transpo. In particular, the bus concourse does not properly accommodate bus queues and there are not enough pull-outs. While the restrooms are adequately sized, they are in poor condition. The TJPA has plans to acquire the entire Transpo building which will provide multiple benefits. First, this will allow the TJPA to expand the office space and move transit administrative staff from the MCAG office at 18th and K to this location. Additionally, The Bus will expand its public information kiosk and provide better ticket and pass sales at this site. Any space not used by the TPJA can be leased to other entities, such as Greyhound. Furthermore, the TJPA will redesign the concourse to better accommodate additional buses. Specific design elements which should be considered in the redesign of the Transpo include the following: 1. Concourse Design: The concourse needs to accommodate ten The Bus routes, as well as the StaRT 70 route, YARTS 140 route, and CATLinX. Also, it will need to be determined if Greyhound will continue to be served at the back of the Transpo, or if this will stop be accommodated within the concourse design. Additionally, development of the high speed rail may call for a new shuttle between the Transpo and the rail station. 2. Public Information and Pass Sales: As ticket and pass sales are added to this location, access to the facility may require service hours beyond the current hours that the full building is open, so it may be desirable to include a walk-up (or roll-up) kiosk window on the outside of the building. 3. Office Space: Office space should be separate and secure from public access, though a public “front desk” may be desirable. 4. Public Restrooms: The existing restrooms are adequately sized, though they warrant renovation. 5. Driver Facilities: As the key facility for the transit drivers, separate restroom facilities should be provided. In addition, a separate entrance (with key card access) should also be provided.to a portion of the space that includes a driver break room as well as the restrooms Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 143 6. Security: A security review for the transit center should be included as part of the design. Door locations, video surveillance and staff access procedures should be carefully planned. 7. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian activity should be designed to intersect with bus flow as little as possible. Sidewalk and crosswalk access to the Transpo site need to be reviewed and improved, particularly at 16th and N Street, which has an uncontrolled crosswalk with poor visibility for the speed of cars on the street. This could be a good location for a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. 8. Improved Passenger Information: “Real time” information screens should be provided in the facility that provide information on schedules, service interruptions and public notices. Other Transfer Centers The local route system relies on timed transfers between the local and regional routes. This makes the transfer centers particularly important in the overall functioning and passenger experience of the system. The following improvements are recommended for transfer centers: Merced College: This location, like the Merced Transpo, serves a large proportion of the local and regional routes and is a major location for transfers. The stop is very well designed and in good condition. The one recommended improvement is to provide better lighting, such as a northward extension of the existing series of street light fixtures just to the south of the stop. Dos Palos Y: This stop is located in a large dirt lot south of the Chevron located at Elgin Avenue and Highway 33. Buses pull onto the dirt and make a wide turn to face Elgin road before loading and unloading passengers. The stop is unsigned. This stop provides transfers between the Los Banos Commuter and the Dos Palos route, so it is important to the transit network. Development of the stop should be a high priority, but will require working with land owners on an agreeable solution. Long-term, a bus pull- through and shelter are warranted. Other Bus Stops The TJPA has a continuous process of identifying bus stops which need improvements and then installing shelters, benches, signs, trash receptacles, lighting and ADA landing pads. In June of LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 144 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 2016, for example, the TJPA had a list of 42 stops to improve, including installing 6 shelters, 13 benches, 13 trash receptacles, 25 ADA landing pads, and 26 bus stop signs. Reasonable standards for determining which stops should receive amenities are as follows: Stops with more than 10 average passenger boardings per service day should receive a shelter with a bench and trash receptacle. Consideration should also be given in selecting bus shelter locations to serving passengers that are more effected by the weather, such as stops serving senior or medical facilities. Stops with more than 5 average passenger boardings per service day should receive a bench. All regularly scheduled stops should have a bus stop sign installed. Given these standards, an estimated 4 stops need shelters; 4 stops need benches, and 168 stops need bus stop signs (beyond the list of improvements identified in June, 2016). Additionally, given that passenger amenities need regular replacing due to normal wear-and- tear and/or vandalism and use, it is reasonable to include a capital reserve fund dedicated to bus stop amenity purchases. Sites which require a relatively straight-forward project of pouring a pad in existing right-of-way and installing a shelter have a unit cost of approximately $15,000. For sites which require additional elements, such as curb modifications, utility relocation, negotiation and surveying of easements, landscaping modifications, historic amenities, etc., an average unit price of $25,000 is reasonable to assume. Benches are typically $500-$800 installed, and bus stop signs are approximately $200. Bus Stop Sign Replacement Program A comprehensive bus stop sign replacement program should be implemented. Bus stop signs are an important part of the overall marketing/public awareness strategy, as they are in neighborhoods around the region at all times. Because The Bus routes have changed a lot in the past few years and because many passengers flag the driver to request a stop, signage has not been a priority. As a consequence, approximately half of the bus stops are unsigned. In conjunction with the recommendation in the service alternatives chapter to eliminate flag stops in urbanized areas and reduce them overall, it is even more important to make clear where existing stops are by installing signs. Bus stop signs average approximately $200 per stop (considering that some will require repairs to poles) and an additional $400 if a pole needs to be installed as well. At an estimated average of $200 per stop (considering that some will Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 145 require repairs to poles) and $10,000 in graphic design costs. The financial plan will need to include an estimated $80,000 to $90,000 over the next several years to install bus stop signs at all regularly scheduled stops. Work With Local Entities to Provide Better Pedestrian/Bicycle Access to Stops On one or both ends of their trip, virtually all transit passengers walk, bicycle or use a mobility device as part of their overall travels. Of all The Bus passengers, 77 percent walk or bike to the bus, and 77 percent walk or bike from the bus to their destination. The quality of bike lanes, bike paths and (particularly) sidewalks is therefore an important factor in generating transit ridership. Local transit agencies such as the Transit Joint Powers Authority therefore have a role in encouraging improvements to non-motorized facilities, particularly those facilities that access bus stops. Staff should coordinate with local Public Works and Community Development departments to gain an opportunity to review bicycle / pedestrian / activity transportation plans and provide input regarding locations that merit high priority in programming improvements. There are also opportunities to coordinate bus stop and sidewalk improvements. Adequate non-auto access is particularly important on transit route segments along high-volume roads that were originally developed in rural conditions. TECHNOLOGY Automatic Vehicle Location Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) is technology which identifies and transmits the geographic location of the vehicle. Most AVL systems, including that used by The Bus, is satellite Global Positioning System (GPS) based. AVL allows the transit system to track schedule adherence and transit travel patterns, as well as collect extensive data useful in planning services. Systematic updates to software and hardware for The Bus’s AVL system are continuously needed for any transit system, and thus need to be included in the five-year SRTP capital plan. “The Bus Live” – Mobile Trip Planning and Information Similar to apps such as NextBus and ETASpot, “The Bus Live” is an online application available to passengers to plan trips, track bus locations and projected arrival times, view or receive system alerts, and access route maps and schedules. The Bus Live can be accessed through a mobile app or through a desktop browser at www.thebuslive.com. All The Bus’s vehicles are equipped with wi-fi, so the site can be used without data requirements for traveling passengers. Passengers can also sign up to receive announcements and alerts through text messages. The Bus Live has mixed results as it sometimes glitches or is unavailable, or displays lapsed information. This was reflected in survey results and in observations by the Consultants. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 146 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Nonetheless, overall the app has had a positive reception, and the transit operator has indicated it has reduced calls to dispatch. Mobile Ticketing While many transit systems, including The Bus, have adopted magnetic stripe tickets as a fare medium, mobile ticketing is becoming more popular as smart phone technology is increasingly available to individuals, including many transit passengers. Even many low income individuals have access to smart phones through subsidy programs. Many people find smart phones to be a basic necessity in modern society. Mobile ticketing is the process whereby customers can order, pay for, obtain and/or validate tickets using mobile phones or other mobile devices. A mobile ticketing company builds the mobile apps for electronic ticket and fare collection, allowing users to buy tickets by app, and allowing the bus or rail conductor to check the tickets by mobile phone. Mobile ticketing offers the following benefits: For Passengers: o Can purchase tickets quickly and at any time of day. o No need to wait in lines or travel to an outlet. o Less likely to lose or damage tickets o Will not result in overpayment (the need for exact fare can cause passengers to pay more for fares if they do not have exact change) o Speeds up boarding time For Transit Systems: o No expensive hardware costs that need to be implemented in order to get the technology installed o Provides high customer satisfaction o Changes to the fare structure can be quickly accommodated Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 147 o Better reporting and analytics, allowing visibility of riders travel habits (which subsequently benefits route planning) o Passengers can be presented with timely, targeted offers for products and services relevant to their trip, turning ticketing from a cost to a revenue opportunity o Reduces cost of handling cash (securely picking up and moving cash, centrally processing and monitoring) o Reduced ticket printing/delivery costs o Reduced payment fraud o Speeds up boarding time—drivers visually identify active ticket on phone screen o Includes a trip planner, rider alerts for service disruptions and the ability to view estimated times of arrival for buses and trains (currently provided through “The Bus Live” app o Quickly and easily scan for valid mobile tickets as riders board your transit system. Passport’s visual inspection method uses QR codes to ensure the highest level of security for your operations. Transit operators can efficiently view riders’ dynamic QR code on their mobile device as a secure method of ticket inspection when they board. Disadvantages for passengers may include that this ticketing is not available without a smart phone, and if a phone battery is dead, the ticket is unavailable. There are numerous mobile ticketing choices with new options on the market regularly. The best option for The Bus would be to develop an RFP of desired capabilities and review bids for the most responsive and price competitive proposals. In-Vehicle Destination Displays One requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act is for drivers to inform passengers of upcoming major transit stops. Though announcements are made, passengers with hearing impairments may still find it difficult to identify their stop. The Bus should invest in LED displays on the buses that are triggered by the AVL system to show upcoming stops. While costs vary LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 148 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan depending on manufacturer and capabilities, a typical per-vehicle cost is $5,000. For the 42- vehicle fixed-route fleet, this would require on the order of $210,000. Scheduling / Run-Cutting Software Taking advantage of the latest improvements in scheduling and driver shift run-cutting programs is a prudent investment, given the substantial impacts that these functions can have on overall operating costs. A new software package would cost in the range of $30,000 to $50,000. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 149 This page left intentionally blank. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 150 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 7 Financial Considerations Existing financial conditions are presented in Chapter 3, including the operating costs and revenues for the TJPA for the past two and current fiscal years. This chapter presents “base case” financial sources and a discussion of fare considerations. Once service and capital strategies have been finalized, this information will be used as the basis for specific financial plans to support system enhancements. REVIEW OF EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES Current sources of funding used by the TJPA are listed below, with a discussion of recent trends and expectations for future availability. Federal Transit Funding Sources The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers a variety of public transit grant programs across the nation. Below is a description of the various grant programs. FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants The largest of FTA’s grant programs, this program provides grants to urbanized areas (50,000 population or more per the US Census) to support public transportation. Funding is distributed by formula based on the level of transit service provision, population, and other factors. The Turlock urbanized areas (which includes the community of Delhi and the City of Livingston) and the City of Merced are the two urbanized areas within the County. For the past several years, this has been the main source of Federal funding for the TJPA transit operations, with between 17 to 26 percent of the TJPA’s operating revenues have come from this source, and 25 percent of the operating revenue for FY 2017-18 projected to come from FTA 5307 funds. It should be noted that if an urbanized area (as defined by the US Census Department) exceeds 200,000 population, FTA 5307 funding is restricted to capital purposes only. This would eliminate the ability to use these funds for operating subsidies, which is an important financial factor for The Bus. However, a review of population forecasts in the Merced urbanized area indicates that there is no potential to exceed 200,000 population until 2030, even assuming the UC campus population is included in the 2020 update. Therefore, The Bus will continue to benefit from the additional flexibility until long beyond the timeframe of this SRTP. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 151 FTA Section 5311 Rural Area Formula Grants This program provides capital, planning, and operating assistance to support public transportation in rural areas, defined as areas with fewer than 50,000 residents. Funding is based on a formula that uses land area, population, and transit service. All areas outside of Turlock and the City of Merced are considered “rural” in Merced County for purposes of this funding source. For the past several years, between 3.6 to 4.4 percent of the TJPA’s operating revenues have come from this source, and 4.3 percent of the operating revenue for FY 2017-18 is also projected to come from FTA 5307 funds. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program The CMAQ program provides a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). The TJPA used this funding source for a demonstration project in FY 2014- 15 and 2015-16 (for evening service), but due to low ridership, the project was not continued. CMAQ funds have been used for marketing, which will continue. STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES Local Transportation Funds A mainstay of funding for transit programs in California is provided by the Transportation Development Act (TDA). The major portion of TDA funds are provided through the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). These funds are generated by a one-fourth cent statewide sales tax, returned to the county of origin. The returned funds must be spent for the following purposes: Two percent may be provided for bicycle facilities per TDA statues. The remaining funds must be spent for transit and paratransit purposes, unless a finding is made by the Transportation Commission that no unmet transit needs exist that can be reasonably met. (Article 4 or 8) If a finding of no unmet needs reasonable to meet is made, remaining funds can be spent on roadway construction and maintenance purposes. (Article 8) While in previous years TPJA did not allocate any of its TDA funds to streets and roads, in FY 2016/17 some funds were available for streets and roads (though future increases in costs and LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 152 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan reductions in other funding options may well make this a temporary condition). In FY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, LTF funds have accounted for 42.6 percent, 46.3 percent, and 40.8 percent of the operating budget, respectively. In 2017-18, this is expected to drop to 35.5 percent of the budget. Fortunately, this drop in LTF funds coincides with lower maintenance and operations cost through a new service contract, as well as an additional local funding measure, but it is cause for concern for long term trends. State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds In addition to LTF funding, the TDA includes a State Transit Assistance (STA) funding mechanism. The sales tax on gasoline is used to reimburse the state coffers for the impacts of the 1/4 cent sales tax used for LTF. Any remaining funds (or “spillover”) are available to the counties for local transportation purposes. Though this funding source can be particularly difficult to predict, in recent years, it has provided approximately 10 percent of the operating revenue for the TJPA, and it is projected to provide 10.0 percent in FY 2017-18 as well ($1.1 million). Low Carbon Transit Operations Program The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) is an element of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862. The LCTOP was created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Approved projects in LCTOP support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of the total moneys received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. Five percent of the annual auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Fund) are allocated for LCTOP (starting in 2015-16). The TJPA was allocated $181,866 in 2015-16 and $271,109 in 2016-17 in LCTOP funds. These funds were used to purchase passes to give away and to fund Free Fare Days (41 days total). If Measure V funds are used for free or reduced fares, LCTOP funds may be used for other purposes. Contract Revenues: UC Route The TJPA operates the UC Route under a contract with UC Merced. Expenses for operating the route, which total approximately $350,000 annually, are reimbursed by the UC. In exchange for Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 153 operating the route on behalf of the UC, all UC passengers are allowed to ride The Bus free of charge. Measure V - Sales Tax Revenue In November 2016 Merced County voters approved a 1/2 cent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements. This is projected to generate $450 million in new revenue over 30 years. The recommended expenditure plan allocates the estimated $15 million in new annual revenue to the following funding categories: Regional Projects (east and west side shares) Local Projects and Alternative Modes Projects Transit Administration The TJPA is anticipating receiving an estimated $750,000 of annual revenue for transit operations in 2017-18 and beyond. This new revenue source will help offset anticipated reductions in LTF. FARE ALTERNATIVES Review of Existing Fare Structure An important financial alternative is changes in the fare levels or fare structure. As background, existing fare use was reviewed, and a comparison of The Bus fare levels and policies with those of other similar transit systems was conducted, as discussed below. Evaluation of Boardings by Fare and Pass Type Table 33 and Figures 38 and 39 present the proportion of September 2016 boardings by pass and fare type for each route. This data provides insight into the activity by fare category subsequent to the August, 2016 service changes. As shown, the highest proportion of riders (32 percent) boarded using a 31-Day Pass, slightly exceeding the 29 percent boarding using a one- way fare, followed by 17 percent using a day pass. Conversely, only 1 percent of September riders boarded the bus using a 7-Day Pass. 31-Day Pass use is relatively high on Route P (54 percent) and Route L (44 percent), while one-way fares are relatively prominent on the Gustine Link (68 percent), Route A2 and the DP Link (51 percent each). There were more boardings using the Semester Pass on the Turlock Route than any other route (6 percent). LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 154 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 2`% Boardings by Passenger Type Passenger by Boardings Regular Reduced Student Other (1) Other Local Fare Fare Local Paratransit Paratransit Multi-Ride Pass Semester 31-Day Pass 31-Day Pass 7-Day 7-Day Boardings by Fare or Pass Type Pass or Fare by Boardings Day Pass Day Subtotal Regular Reduced Subtotal Regular Reduced Student Subtotal One-WayFare 4% 2%6% 6% 9% 4% 14% 1% 24% 5% 0% 0% 25% 6% 0% 1% 1% 8% 2% 15% 1% 1% 4% 0% 0% 74% 51% 14% 4% 4% 31% 8% 63% 74% 2% 4% 17%19%18% 9%16% 10%19% 12% 26%25% 9% 29%32% 6% 30%19% 19% 11% 17% 25%31% 5% 17% 25% 5%30% 8% 36% 5%33% 16% 9% 5% 24% 37% 16% 11% 22% 13% 27% 5%30% 1% 22% 9% 40% 3%48% 0% 6% 41% 4% 20% 16%26% 0% 7% 8% 14% 19% 42% 10% 1% 20% 1% 16% 10% 18% 16%20% 3% 25% 1% 9% 37% 15% 1% 0% 12% 6% 9% 9% 68% 4% 19% 10% 11% 9% 51% 12% 15% 11% 2% 2% 12% 35% 10% 20% 2% 8% 34% 8% 13% 1% 6% 11% 14% 29% 36% 3% 8% 0% 16% 2% 14% 40% 13% 1% 1% 15% 6% 1% 14% 15% 20% 2% 2% 14% 41% 7% 9% 36% 11% 3% 0% 26% 1% 5% 18% 0% 9% 3% 3% 11% 0% 0% 4% 44% 10% 0% 54% 13% 5% 0% 17% 0% 14% 32% 6% 18% 9% 4% 0% 25% 14% 9% 2% 1% 52% 0% 11% 33% 6% 7% 50% 14% 13% 4% 1% 24% 11% 0% 54% 24% 0% 11% 33% 3% 1% 48% 7% 13% 11% 0% 25% 54% 12% 26% 0% 14% 7% 4% 53% 11% 30% 5% 13% 12% 0% 17% 14% 10% 15% 20% 32% 1% 13% 51% 1% 9% 44% 17% 0% 11% 8% 55% 15% 2% 12% 31% 11% 60% 2% 17% 0% 11% 10% 30% 56% 20% 21% 2% 17% 5% 15% 53% 7% 8% 5% 6% 10% 17% 21% 19% 63% 13% 47% 18% 8% 30% 47% 31% 10% 22% 2% 14% 13% 5% 8% 17% 23%32% 12% 18% 35% 51% 12% 14% 3% 2% 16% 15% 0% 2% 18% 9% 7% 3% 9% 7% 34% 19% 2% 3% 0% 0% 14% 10% 53% 57% 22% 23% 11% 10% 14% Route Regular Reduced TABLE 33: Percentage of September, 2016 Boardings by Fare or Pass Type by Route Type 2016 Pass or by Fare ofBoardings September, TABLE 33: Percentage M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 L P T W1 W2 UC LB G DP DAR TOTAL Pass, includesPass, Token whoUC those or board Pass, Client Free using "other"category The 1: Service a Note Contract 2016 Bus September, The boardings Merced by passSource: and all for type days fare of week the A1 A2 Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 155 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 156 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan The majority of passenger who rode the UC Route (72 percent) boarded using a UC Pass, which is reflected in the “Other” category. Boardings by passenger type and fare discount are also shown in Table 33, as well as in Figure 39. As shown, 47 percent of September passengers boarded using a full‐price fare, followed by 22 percent who boarded using a reduced fare, 17 percent who boarded with an “Other” fare, which includes UC Passes, and 13 percent who boarded using either the 31‐Day or Semester Student Pass. Peer Fare Analysis Table 34 displays fare and pass information for The Bus and five California peer systems. These peers were selected based on the characteristics of the service area, and consist of the following: Yuba Sutter Transit San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) Modesto Area Express (MAX) Fresno Area Express (FAX) Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) One‐Way Fares As shown in Table 34, two out of the five peer systems (MAX and San Joaquin RTD) have base regular one‐way fares of $1.50, like that of The Bus. Fresno Area Express, Yuba Sutter Transit, and KART have lower base one‐way fares ($1.25, $1.00, and $1.00, respectively). Similar to The Bus, both KART and Yuba Sutter Transit operate a mix of urban and rural services, and have different base fares for the two services. Yuba Sutter Transit’s rural fares are twice the urban fares (as are The Bus fares), while KART’s rural fares are 50% higher than urban fares. Two of the peer systems (MAX and Yuba Sutter Transit) offer reduced one‐way fares for students, though The Bus does not. However, The Bus does offer a discount monthly pass to students. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 157 TABLE 34: Peer System Fare and Pass Analysis One-Way Day Pass Monthly Pass Other Paratransit Student/ Student/ ADA/ Non- Transit System Regular Reduced Youth Children Regular Reduced Regular Reduced Youth Fare Type Cost Senior ADA Modesto Area Book of 50 Free - $1.50 $0.75 $1.25 Free(1) $3.25 -- $49.00 $24.00 $37.00 $68.00 $1.50 Express tickets $1.50 Tokens $1.25 - Fresno Area (1, 20, 50) $55.00 $1.25 $0.60 -- Free(2) -- -- $48.00 $24.00 -- $3.00 -- Express Transfer Free Kings Area Rural $1.00 - $0.50 - $40.00 - $20.00 - $2.00 - -- Free(3) ------Transfer Free -- Transit $1.50 $0.75 $50.00 $25.00 $3.00 Book of 10 $10.00 Yuba Sutter $1.00 - $0.50 - $0.50 - tickets $1.25 - $1.25 - Free -- -- $30.00 $6.00 $6.00 Transit (4) $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $2.00 Transfer Free 10-Deviation San Joaquin RTD $1.50 $0.75 -- Free(5) $4.00 $2.00 $65.00 $30.00 $40.00 $10.00 $3.00 $3.00 Pass 7-Day Pass $20.00 $1.50 - $0.75 - $3.00 - $1.50 - $2.50 - Merced The Bus -- Free(6) $60.00 $30.00 $45.00 -- $3.00 $1.50 $6.00 $3.00 $5.00 Semester Pass $180.00 Note 1: Children ages 4 and under Note 2: Children ages 6 and under, with a maximum of 4 per adult Note 3: Youth ages 6 and under Note 4: Excluding Sacramento Commuter service. Passes not valid on rural routes. Note 5: Children ages 4 and under Note 6: Children under 46 inches in height Source: Fare and pass information listed on system websites All of the systems provide free rides to children, though the various systems have different qualifying factors. All of the peer systems allow children to qualify based on age (ranging from 4-6 years old), though The Bus requires that children meet a height requirement (lower than 46 inches in height). Day Passes versus Transfers Of the six systems, each offers either a day pass (The Bus, MAX, and San Joaquin RTD) or free transfers. The trend in the transit industry is away from transfers and towards provision of day passes, due to the operational issues associated with transfers. The ratio of day pass price to one-way fare for The Bus is relatively low at 2.0, compared to the ratio for MAX (2.2) and San Joaquin RTD (2.7). LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 158 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Monthly Passes All of the peer systems offer monthly passes (either for 30-31 days or for the calendar month in which the pass was purchased). The costs of these passes range from $30.00 to $65.00, and San Joaquin RTD is the only system with a monthly pass that is more expensive than that of The Bus. The ratio of monthly pass cost to one-way fare on the fare ranges from 30.0 on the Yuba Sutter Transit system to 43.3 on the San Joaquin RTD. In comparison, The Bus’s ratio for urban routes is 40.0, but only 20.0 for the rural routes. This indicates that the pass cost is relatively high for the urban service, but quite low for the rural routes. Notably, KART provides separate monthly passes for local and regional routes. Other Fare Instruments The peer transit systems offer a variety of other pass and fare options, including books of one- way tickets and free transfers. The Bus’ 7-Day Pass and Semester Pass are the only passes of their kind among the peer systems. Fresno Area Express is the only other system that uses tokens. Paratransit Fares for The Bus’ paratransit services are on par with or higher than the paratransit fares among many of the peer systems (depending on local versus intercity services). While peer one- way paratransit fares range from $1.25 - $3.00, The Bus’ paratransit fares range from $2.50 - $5.00. Summary and Recommendations The Bus’ base one-way fare of $1.50 in comparison with the peer average of $1.25 argues against an increase in the base fare, unless needed to address future funding shortfalls. The relatively low number of boardings with a 7-Day pass (0 to 2 percent on each route), coupled with the lack of similar multi-day passes among the peer systems, suggests that it may not be a necessary pass option. Eliminating the 7-Day Pass could help to simplify the fare system, simplify the driver’s job and reduce office time needed for tracking pass sales, with little impact on The Bus riders. Ride tokens, which are given to agencies and hospitals to give out for one-way rides for indigent or high needs individuals, accounted for 2,065 boardings in the month of September (included in the “Other Fare” category). Tokens require the tracking and processing of a separate fare category, as well as the collection of a unique fare media. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 159 The elimination of tokens could be considered to streamline and simplify the fare systems. As seen in the peer system fare structures, the price of day passes typically exceed the cost of two one-way trips. Slightly increasing the price of a day pass could be considered if the need for increased revenue arises. The Bus fare structure is most lenient for passengers on the regional routes using a 31- Day pass. A passenger using this pass that makes a daily round-trip on 22 work or school days a month pays an equivalent of $1.36 per trip for general public and $0.68 for discount passengers, which is a 55 percent discount from the base fare. Raising the 31-Day pass cost for regional routes should be the first consideration to increase fare revenues, if the need arises in the future. Maintaining the same ratio to base fare rates as on the urban routes would result in a high pass cost ($120 and $60) that would be quite onerous on passengers. However, a 50% increase (to $90 for regular riders and $45 for discount) could be considered. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 160 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 8 Goals, Policies, Objectives and Performance Measures An important element in the success of any organization is a clear and concise set of goals and objectives, as well as the performance measures and standards needed to attain them. This can be particularly important for a public transit agency, for several reasons: Transit goals can be inherently contradictory. For instance, the goal of maximizing cost effectiveness can tend to focus services on the largest population centers, while the goal of maximizing the availability of public transit services can tend to disperse services to outlying areas. To best meet its overall mission, a public transit agency must therefore be continually balancing the trade-offs between goals. Adopting policy statements also allows a discussion of community values regarding transit issues that is at a higher level of discussion than is possible when considering case-by-case individual issues. As a public entity, a public transit organization is expending public funds, and therefore has a responsibility to provide the public with transparent information on how funds are being spent and how well it is doing in meeting its goals. Funding partners also have a responsibility to ensure that funds provided to the transit program are being used appropriately. The transit organization therefore has a responsibility to provide information regarding the effectiveness and efficiency by which public funds are being spent. An adopted set of goals and performance standards helps to communicate the values of the transit program to other organizations, to the public, and to the organization staff. Existing Policy Statements The Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County has set forth current “guiding principles and policies,” which are documented in the 2012-2017 Short Range Transit Plan. The mission statement is identified as follows: “We delivery quality, affordable transit services that link people, jobs and communities” In addition, three specific goals are identified: A. Provide increased mobility in Merced County B. Provide safe and high quality service C. Provide cost-effective and efficient service Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 161 A series of performance standards are also identified, identifying a minimum standard as well as a target standard. Table 35 presents these current performance standards, along with the current value of each measure. The passengers per hour and marginal farebox return ratios listed in the “Current Status” have been adjusted to match ridership and farebox trends after the August, 2016 changes. Note that the farebox return ratios are marginal, and they do not account for outside income, such as payments through contracts. A summary of the current performance status in regards to the standards is as follows: With 201,769 miles between accidents, The Bus is currently meeting the minimum set safety standard of 100,000 miles between accidents, but it has not reached the target standard of 500,000 miles between accidents. A systemwide average of 16.5 percent of trips operate over five minutes behind schedule, which is far from meeting the current goal of having 95 percent of trips run no later than 5 minutes behind schedule. There is no current data available regarding road calls, but per the minimum standard there should be at least 10,000 miles between road calls. The previous standards stated that Urban Fixed Routes should achieve a minimum of 12 passenger boardings per hour, Suburban Fixed Routes should have at least 8 passengers per hour, Rural Fixed Routes should have at least 7 passengers per hour, and Deviated Rural Fixed Routes and Paratransit should have 3 passengers per hour, with a systemwide minimum of 8.5 passengers per hour. As shown in Table 35, the Turlock Route is the only route that achieved the minimum set standard for passengers per vehicle hour. As shown in Table 35, Urban Fixed Routes were assigned a minimum marginal farebox ratio standard of 20 percent, and Suburban Fixed Routes were given a minimum marginal farebox ratio standard of 15 percent. None of the routes are currently meeting those goals. Rural Fixed Routes were assigned a minimum farebox return ratio standard of 10 percent, and all are currently able to meet that goal. The Turlock and Livingston Routes also exceed the target goal of 12 percent. Deviated Rural Fixed Routes and Paratransit have a minimum farebox return ratio of 10 percent, and Dos Palos Link is the only service to meet that goal. Lastly, the systemwide marginal farebox return ratio standard of 15 percent was is not currently being met (instead reaching 12 percent systemwide). LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 162 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 35: Current and Proposed Performance Standards Shading Indicates Does Not Meet Minimum Standard Shading Indicates Meets Minimum Standard But Not Target Objective Shading Indicates Meets Target Objective 2012 Standards Proposed Standards Current Status Service Minimum Target Minimum Target SAFETY STANDARD Total Accidents 100,000 Miles 500,000 Miles 201,769 Miles 100,000 Miles Between 500,000 Miles Between Systemwide Between Accidents Between Accidents Between Accidents Accidents Accidents SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS On-Time Performance 16.4% of trips 90% of trips no later 95% of trips no later 95% of trips no later 99% of trips no later operate >5 minutes than 10 minutes behind than 10 minutes behind Systemwide than 5 minutes behind than 5 minutes behind behind schedule, schedule, no early schedule, no early schedule schedule 2.3% early departures departures Road Calls At Least 15,000 Miles At Least 15,000 Miles No current data is At Least 10,000 Miles Between Road Calls, At Least 10,000 Miles Between Road Calls, for Systemwide available for Between Road Calls for All Buses Within Between Road Calls All Buses Within evaluation Normal Useful Life Normal Useful Life SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS STANDARDS Service Productivity -- Passengers Per Hour Merced Routes M1 12.0 21.0 5.7 6.0 12.0 M2 12.0 21.0 8.0 6.0 12.0 M3 12.0 21.0 7.7 6.0 12.0 M4 12.0 21.0 8.0 6.0 12.0 M5 12.0 21.0 6.7 6.0 12.0 M6 12.0 21.0 3.9 6.0 12.0 UC - UC Merced 12.0 21.0 10.2 6.0 12.0 Intercity Routes A1 - Atwater Cross Town 8.0 14.0 6.8 4.0 8.0 A2 - Winton Way 8.0 14.0 3.8 4.0 8.0 W1 - Winton 8.0 14.0 5.9 4.0 8.0 W2 - Winton 8.0 14.0 4.9 4.0 8.0 T - Turlock Commuter 7.0 12.0 7.0 4.0 8.0 L - Livingston Commuter 7.0 12.0 4.5 4.0 8.0 LB - Los Banos Commuter 7.0 12.0 6.2 4.0 8.0 P - Planada Commuter 7.0 12.0 4.7 4.0 8.0 Rural Routes DP - Dos Palos Link 3.0 4.0 2.7 2.5 4.0 G - Gustine Link 3.0 4.0 1.6 2.5 4.0 ADA Paratransit 3.0 4.0 1.8 2.0 4.0 Systemwide 8.5 11.0 5.1 5.0 8.0 SERVICE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS Marginal Farebox Return Ratio Merced Routes M1 20% 25% 12% 15% 20% M2 20% 25% 17% 15% 20% M3 20% 25% 18% 15% 20% M4 20% 25% 18% 15% 20% M5 20% 25% 13% 15% 20% M6 20% 25% 8% 15% 20% UC - UC Merced 20% 25% 7% 15% 20% Intercity Routes A1 - Atwater Cross Town 15% 20% 14% 10% 15% A2 - Winton Way 15% 20% 10% 10% 15% W1 - Winton 15% 20% 13% 10% 15% W2 - Winton 15% 20% 12% 10% 15% T - Turlock Commuter 10% 12% 18% 10% 15% L - Livingston Commuter 10% 12% 13% 10% 15% LB - Los Banos Commuter 10% 12% 11% 10% 15% P - Planada Commuter 10% 12% 10% 10% 15% Rural Routes DP - Dos Palos Link 10% 12% 8% 8% 10% G - Gustine Link 10% 12% 6% 8% 10% ADA Paratransit 10% 12% 6% 8% 10% Systemwide 15% 23% 12% 12% 15% Note 1: On-time data recorded between September 1st and November 30th, 2016 Source: The Bus Ridership by Route by Month FY 15-16, The Bus Operating Stats FY 2015-16, Review of Weekly Ridership and Productivity, September 2016 Fare Use Reports Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 163 It should be noted that farebox ratio can be calculated in a number of ways, with differing results. The figures presented in Table 35 reflect a marginal farebox ratio for each route (direct fare revenues generated by each route divided by the marginal operating costs of each reach). They do not include contract revenues (such as UC revenue for the UC Route) or other systemwide-allocated grant funding included when calculating farebox ratio for purposes of the Transportation Development Act. Recommended Policy Statements The existing mission statement and goals remain appropriate, and no changes are recommended. However, the review of the current status versus the current performance standards indicates that many of the existing performance standards are not being achieved and are not contributing to effective decisionmaking. Establishing appropriate performance standards requires balancing the optimal condition with what is feasible. The intent on setting minimum standards is to define standards that “flag” routes or services which merit review and revisions. Setting the standard too low can result in services that are clearly ineffective. Setting standards too high, however, can result in one measure being pursued to the detriment of other desirable goals. (There also is a tendency when standards are set too high to simply “write off“ the standard as infeasible, which in turn reduces the effort put into their achievement.) The current service effectiveness standards are an example of a standard system that is too high to be an effective management tool. To achieve the current minimum standards would require a very substantial reduction in the scope of the fixed route bus network (in order to concentrate remaining ridership in fewer vehicle-hours), such as eliminating half-hourly Merced service and return to hourly service or the elimination of two or more Merced routes. This would clearly negatively impact the overall goal of increasing mobility. Accordingly, the right-most columns of Table 35 presents revised performance standards. The minimum standards have been defined to identify those routes and services that particularly merit review and revision. The target standards have been defined to provide realistic goals to encourage continuing improvement. In addition, the routes have been separated into four categories (including: Merced Routes, Intercity Routes, Rural Routes, and ADA Paratransit) and each category has been given uniform standards. Notably, the Atwater and Winton Routes have been included as Intercity Routes because, while they do span shorter distances, they do travel between cities, and they have similar performance to the longer Intercity Routes, negating the need to treat the routes differently. A summary of the proposed standards and the current performance status in regards to the potential new system is as follows: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 164 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Performance standards for total accidents and road calls were kept unchanged. The minimum on-time performance standard was changed to provide a minimum standard of 90 percent of trips running no more than 10 minutes behind schedule, with no early departures. In addition, the target standard is to achieve 95 percent of trip no more than 10 minutes behind schedule, with no early departures. While urban transit systems typically base on-time performance standards on a 5-minute window, the presence of several very active rail lines in the service area (with few grade separations) increases the potential for delay outside of the transit agency’s control. The current on- time performance still does not meet these adjusted standards, indicating continued need to address this issue. The service effectiveness standards have been relaxed to better match realistic levels of passengers per vehicle service-hour for the service area. Out of the seven Merced Routes, five meet the proposed minimum standard of 6.0 passengers per hour, though none currently meet the target standard of 12 passengers per hour. M1 and M6 are below the proposed minimum standard, with 5.7 and 3.9 passengers per hour respectively. With 3.8 passengers per hour, the A2 – Winton Way Route is the only Intercity Route that does not meet the proposed minimum standard of 4.0 passengers per hour. None of the Intercity Routes meet the proposed target standard of 8.0 passengers per hour. While the Dos Palos Link achieves the minimum proposed standard of 2.5 passengers per hour on rural routes, the Gustine Route does not. With 1.8 passengers per hour, Paratransit has not yet met the minimum proposed standard of 2.0 passengers per hour. A proposed minimum systemwide standard of 5.0 passengers per hour is currently met, though the target standard of 8.0 passengers per hour exceeds the current level of 5.1. With a proposed minimum standard of 15 percent and target standard of 20 percent farebox return ratio on the Merced Routes, three of the seven routes have achieved the minimum standard, and none achieved the target standard. A minimum farebox return ratio of 10 percent and target farebox return ratio of 15 are reasonable standards on the Intercity Routes. All of the routes meet the minimum Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 165 standard, and, at 18 percent, the Turlock Route’s farebox return ratio achieves the target standard. The Dos Palos Link is the only service to achieve the proposed minimum farebox return ratio of 8 percent on Rural Routes and Paratransit. The proposed systemwide minimum farebox return ratio of 12 percent is met, though the target standard of 15 percent has not been achieved. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 166 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 9 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan The following plan presents service programs, capital improvements, management plan elements and financial strategies to enhance public transit services in Merced County, within the constraints of realistic funding projections. This chapter presents the individual plan elements in brief, based on the substantial discussions presented in previous chapters; the reader is encouraged to refer to previous chapters for additional background on the plan elements. Figures 40 and 41 present an overview of the plan. SERVICE PLAN The service enhancements recommended are described below, followed by a discussion of several other plan elements to be implemented if there are changes in funding or systemwide needs. Eliminate Route M2 South of Transpo Center and Extend Route M3 The portion of Route M3 south of Transpo will be eliminated to improve service productivity, as the large majority of this route is also served by other routes. The small portion not already served (the loop formed by West 2nd Street, West Avenue, West Child Avenue and R Street) will be served by a short extension of Route M3. The major benefit of this plan element is that annual operating subsidy will be reduced by $141,800, while ridership will only be reduced by 200 passenger-trips per year (as illustrated in Table 37). As a result, this strategy helps to achieve productivity goals. One less bus will be required in peak operation. A side benefit of this strategy is that the one bus operated on weekend days on Route M2 can provide hourly service, rather than the current 90-minute service. This strategy was reviewed to ensure that no substantial impacts on ridership to/from the HSA would ensue. A review of load capacity indicates that there would be adequate seating capacity on the remaining Route M1 service. In addition, as the schedule for Route M1 is a few minutes later than the current Route M2 schedule, existing Transpo transfer opportunities will still be maintained. Extend Route M3 South to Gerard Avenue The southern portion of Route M3 will also be expanded to serve an additional neighborhood south of the current southernmost point along Trudy Way. Specifically, the route will extend Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 167 UC M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 W1 W2 To To _ b 140 140 UCMerced Bear Bear Creek Legend b Olive Ave Olive Childs Ave Childs Apartments TheGrove b Parsons Ave bParsons Santa Fe Ave Revise Revise Route M6 b b Yosemite Pky Yosemite _ b _ b r 140 U V D Glen Ave Glen k e e _ r _ C b G St G r b a e B aa h t r o N a Center Mercy Medical Amtrak community b Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap© contributors, and the GIS user b a a Main St a Yosemite Ave Yosemite Target Merced College 23rd St St M City Hall R St R Martin Luther King Jr Way Jr King Luther Martin Extend M3 Æ a 59 Figure 40 Figure 16th St 13th St St M b b b b Q St Q Childs Ave Childs b V St V ` b b St R b 2nd St Child Child SupportServices V St V 140 140 I 8th St 59 59 b GoldenValley HealthCenter Merced Transit Plan: Merced AreaPlan: Merced Transit Merced X St X West Ave West ` b Walmart Home Depot Home b Miles e 2 v A n a g o r McswainRd 16th St G Human Agency Services Wardrobe Ave Wardrobe 1 Santa Fe Ave To Winton To 99 0.5 e Revise MercedRevise Evening Service to Extend to 8:30 PM EliminateM2 South of Tranpo and Extend M3 0 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 168 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 145 U V 145 U V 145 U V 49 U V 99 U V 140 U V 140 U V G L DP P T UC LB W1 W2 Legend 152 U V M a r i pC o o s u a n t y OnDemand 233 U V EastboundStop Make 140/KibbyMake M a d e rC a o u n t y Le Le Grand Planada ` ` Center see see next figure of California Merced University 152 U V 152 Admin/Operations U V 140 U V 59 Merced U V Snelling Transfer Transfer Point Improvements 59 U V 59 Æ a U V 59 U V 59 U V El NidoEl 33 U V Transpo 33 U V Improvements 33 U V F r e s nC o o u n t y Atwater Establish Winton OnDemand Esri, HERE,Esri, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and GISthe user community Dos Palos Stopsin Atwater Dos Palos Y Reduce Figure 41 Figure Route Route W2 EveningService Livingston 140 U V 99 U V Delhi Merced Transit Plan Transit Merced 140 U V 165 U V I 5 § ¨ ¦ ` 99 Livingston U V 165 ` U V Expand Route L ServiceArea in Turlock Los BanosLos M e r c eC d o u n t y Hilmar-Irwin Miles 20 33 U V Gustine 140 U V Newman Santa Nella 33 U V 10 152 U V 5 § ¨ ¦ 5 33 U V 0 OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS 130 U V Establish capital reservefund Scheduling software Updated goalsand objectives Bus stop improvments Define ADAserviceDefine corridor In-Vehicle destinationdisplays Bus replacements Eliminate flag stops in developed areas Adjustparatransit service levels S t a n iC s o l u a n u t s y 130 U V 152 U V Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 169 south on M Street, left on Cartmell Way, right on Canal Street, right on Gerard Avenue, and return north on M Street. This will provide transit service to the new neighborhood south of Gerard Avenue, as well as a stop directly adjacent to the apartment complex on Canal Street. This extension adds 0.7 miles to Route M3, which combined with the previous plan element results in a total route length of 10.6 miles (still shorter than the other Merced routes.) The additional service area is forecast to increase ridership by 1,000 passenger-trips annually (as shown in Table 37), with a modest subsidy increase of $3,500 per year. Revise Route M6 to Two-Way Operating between Merced College and Transpo Route M6 will be revised from the current, large one-way loop to a two-way linear route connecting the neighborhoods east of M Street with both Transpo and Merced College. It will follow existing Route M4 between Transpo and the intersection of M Street/26th Street, and then operate the loop around 26th, 27th, Parsons, Santa Fe and Glen and follow the existing Route M6 northward to Mercy Medical Center and Merced College via M Street, Alexander Avenue, Parsons Avenue and Yosemite. It will continue to be operated every 30 minutes using two buses. This strategy addresses the current poor performance of Route 6 (approximately 1/3 the ridership of the other routes), and also is the most popular option for Route M6 identified through public surveys. By providing more convenient connections to downtown and other routes at Transpo, as well as by providing more convenient two-way service, overall ridership is forecast to be increased by 5,600 passenger boardings per year (as shown in Table 37). Route mileage would be reduced, resulting in a $29,300 reduction in annual operating subsidy. Later Merced Route Evening Runs - Last Departure 8:38 PM The weekday evening Merced service will be modified to reduce service frequency on runs starting after 5:30 PM, and use these resources to operate runs beyond the current end of service. This will address two issues: (1) the lower productivity of the current consistent half- hour service to approximately 8:00 PM and (2) the strong public input received regarding the desirability for later weekday service. The following specific runs should be eliminated: Route M1 – 6:35 PM south loop run, 7:05 PM north loop run Route M2 – 6:30 PM south loop run, 7:00 PM north loop run Route M3 – 6:35 PM south loop run, 7:00 PM north loop run LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 170 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Route M4 – 5:45 PM and 7:15 PM north loop runs, 6:38 PM south loop run Route M5 – 6:15 PM and 7:15 PM runs Route M6 – 5:50 PM and 6:50 PM runs The following runs should be added13: Route M1: 8:05 PM north loop run, 8:35 PM south loop run Route M2: 8:00 PM north loop run, 8:30 PM south loop run Route M3: 8:00 PM north loop run, 8:35 PM south loop run Route M4: 8:15 north loop run, 8:38 PM south loop run Route M6: 8:20 PM run The key transfer times with Routes L, LB, W1, W2 and P will still be served. Overall, this strategy will yield a net reduction of 370 vehicle-hours per day, and a reduction in annual operating cost of $18,400, which is illustrated in Table 36. However, it would yield a net increase in ridership of 4,100 boardings per year (as shown in Table 37), thereby reducing annual operating subsidy by $22,400 per year. It should be noted that extending the Merced Route evening service from 8:38 PM to 9:15 PM was also considered, but this additional service would not meet the revised minimum performance standards. Establish On-Demand Stops in the Atwater Area Route A1 will be revised to make the Atwater Flea Market and the DMV “on-demand” stops, and also to establish two new on-demand stops at the following locations: East Broadway Avenue / Malibu Lane (northwest corner) Shaffer Road / Channel Avenue (northeast corner) Passengers wishing to be dropped off at an on-demand stop will simply tell the driver as they board the bus. For pickups, passengers will need to call in advance (such as at least 1 hour in advance). If a regular pattern of requests emerges, these times could be included in the fixed schedule. 13 Some runs would be partial runs, per the current schedule for the last runs of the day. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 171 This strategy has several benefits: It eliminates the unnecessary travel time and costs serving the Flea Market (which is only open on Thursdays and Sundays). The large majority of the existing 13 runs per day west of Winton Way to the flea market serve no passengers, and only serve to increase costs as well as increasing the travel time for passengers already on the bus. It expands the area that is within a convenient walk of a transit stop. The Broadway/Malibu on-demand stop (which was previously served by the old Route A3) is within a convenient walk of the Ranch Grande Mobile Home Park, as well as other residences. The Shaffer/Channel on-demand stop will serve a substantial new residential area along both sides of Shaffer Road. It slightly reduces operating costs (by an estimated $700 per year, as shown in Table 36) by eliminating unproductive service to the flea market. Overall, this plan element will increase annual ridership by an estimated 3,000 (illustrated in Table 37). With the additional fare revenues, operating subsidy requirements will be reduced by $3,700 per year. Eliminate Last Two Weekday Route W2 Runs The 6:10 PM and 7:10 PM weekday Route W2 departures from Merced College only carry a total of 4.5 passengers per day. As this service is inefficient and passengers could largely still be served by Route W1, these one-directional runs will be eliminated. This will reduce ridership by an estimated 600 passenger boarding per year (shown in Table 37), while reducing annual operating subsidy by $20,500. Expand Route L in Livingston The proportion of Livingston residents served by Route L will be expanded by modifying the existing route to travel south on Main Street, west on Peach Avenue, north on Winton Parkway, east on F Street, and then counterclockwise around the existing Main/Park/8th/F loop. Compared to the existing route, this will provide stops within a convenient walk of an additional 800 homes. In addition, Rancho San Miguel will be served in the “inbound” (southbound) direction as well as the outbound (northbound) direction, in order for residents of the southern portion of Livingston to return to their homes from Rancho San Miguel in a convenient manner. Overall, this modification will increase ridership by an estimated 6,900 passenger-trips per year, as shown in Table 37. While some of the additional service area is comprised of newer homes LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 172 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan with a lower propensity to generate transit trips, it also includes the Monte Cristo Adult Community and other areas with higher ridership potential. The additional 15 minutes of operating time on each run can be accommodated in the schedule while still providing convenient service times at Merced College, though operating subsidies will be increased by an estimated $33,600 per year. Make the Route P Eastbound Stop at SR 140/Kibby Road an On-Demand Stop The existing bus stop at SR 140/Kibby Road (eastbound direction only) should be converted to an On-Request stop, requiring passengers to ask the driver for a drop-off or call for a pick-up. Due to the limited roadways in the area, serving this stop requires 3.1 miles of additional route length and adds 3 minutes of running time. However, a passenger is served on only 18 percent of the runs, resulting in unnecessary travel on 82 percent of the runs. Since the large majority of passengers are deboarding at this stop (which is an easy request to make), the ridership impact will be minimal, and will be more than made up by making the route more direct for the passengers traveling past this stop. Overall, this strategy will reduce operating subsidy by $4,500 per year while increasing ridership by a few hundred passenger-trips per year, shown in Table 37. Eliminate Flag Stops in Developed Areas The Bus should review existing flag stop locations in developed area and formalize appropriate locations into designated, signed stops. The current policy of allowing flag stops is not consistent with standard transit procedures in urban areas, and creates a range of operational problems: (1) creating potential safety issues regarding stopping at hazardous locations; (2) creating the possibility for conflicts between passengers and drivers over the appropriateness of a stop; (3) resulting in loading or unloading of wheelchairs in potentially hazardous locations; (4) increasing the potential for drivers to miss seeing passengers waiting for the bus and (5) increasing operational time by resulting in multiple stops where a single joint stop would suffice. It should be noted that simply installing a pole and sign (without provision of a pad, bench or shelter) does not trigger the requirement for full design conformity with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adjust Paratransit Service Levels The forecasted growth of elderly population (as reflected in Table 3 of Chapter 2) and the increasing need for mobility among non-elderly persons with disabilities indicates that the need for Paratransit service will increase. For purposes of this plan, a 3 percent annual growth in demand (and associated growth in service levels) is assumed. In FY 2017/18, however, the reduction of 4 daily vehicle-hours of service on weekday afternoons to better match demand Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 173 levels (as discussed in Chapter 5) is reflected in this plan. This results in a modest reduction in costs in the first two years of the plan, before the growth in overall demand yields a net increase in service levels. Establish a Defined ADA Service Corridor The TJPAMC Board should consider establishing a defined corridor for Paratransit services that meets the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act while also controlling costs. The Bus currently offers paratransit service to all areas of Merced County. While the proportion of trips beyond the ¾-mile-from-a-fixed-route ADA corridor is relatively low (an estimated 3 percent), the cost of serving these trips can be high14. The current policy, moreover, leaves the service open to the potential for inefficient cost increases: picking up and returning one passenger to a remote area of the county could incur costs up to approximately $175. The forecasted growth in senior population and the trend towards “aging in place” will only increase the potential for expensive long-distance Paratransit trips in the future. The Bus staff is currently in the process of collecting additional data regarding Paratransit service in more remote areas. Once this is complete the Board should review the information and identify an appropriate service corridor. Any future restrictions should provide a period between the decision and implementation to allow passengers to make other mobility arrangements, or existing regular passengers could be allowed to be exempted from the restriction. Additional Plan Elements if Funding Reductions Are Required in the Future There is currently a high level of uncertainty regarding the future of transit operating subsidy funding programs, particularly with regards to State Transit Assistance and Federal transit programs. If future limitations require reduction in The Bus’ operating budget (or if additional steps to address performance measures are deemed necessary), the following options should be considered: Eliminate Route A2 – This route is currently one of the poorest performing routes, in part due to the fact that almost all stops are also served by other routes. While eliminating this route would reduce ridership by an estimate 4,800 per year, it would save roughly $185,000 in operating subsidy. Schedule modifications to ensure that connections can be consistently made in Winton would also need to be considered. Reduce Route M6 to E. Santa Fe / Transpo Route – This option would reduce ridership by 3,900 per year (and eliminate service along Alexander Avenue and Parson Avenue in 14 A review of a two days of Paratransit service logs indicated trips up to 3.8 miles from the nearest route. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 174 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan northeast Merced), but would reduce operating subsidy needs by $134,000 annually. It would also reduce the number of buses in operation by one. Reduce Route L Weekend Service – Route L carries only 2.9 passengers per hour on Saturdays and 1.3 on Sundays. Reducing service to three round-trips per day would reduce ridership by 1,000 per year, but save $23,300 in annual subsidy. Eliminate Route M2 North of Transpo – The majority of Route M2 stops north of Transpo are also served by other routes. With modest modifications to Routes M1 and M3, some of the ridership impact of eliminating Route M2 could be addressed, though substantially longer travel times would be required for some trips. Overall, this option would reduce ridership by 17,700 per year, but would save a substantial $312,000 in annual operating subsidies. All of these strategies represent service elements that do not meet the standards identified in this plan. Other strategies to address funding shortfalls would be fare increases. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7, the following fare modifications could be considered: Increasing the cost of a monthly pass for regional routes by 50% to $90 for regular riders and $45 for discount riders. This would reduce ridership by an estimated 4,600 boardings per year, but increase revenues by $13,000. Increase the cost of a day pass. Transit systems typically price a day pass at slightly more than the cost of two boardings, while The Bus’s daypass costs are equal to two times the base fare (set to ease the recent transition to a daypass fare structure). As an examples, raising all daypass costs by 10 percent would generate approximately $11,500 in additional annual fare revenues, while reducing boardings by roughly 3,300 per year. Additional Plan Elements if Addition Funding is Available in the Future If additional subsidy funding were available through the University of California, the expansion of the UC Route service to serve the UC Merced campus on weekends (10 trips daily, between 7:15 AM and 7:30 PM) would be a cost-effective enhancement to The Bus service. This would increase subsidy needs by $60,200 per year, but would serve an estimated 11,200 additional passenger-trips annually, and would benefit both the campus and the community. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 175 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Transit services require ongoing capital investment in facilities and rolling stock. Capital investments in both vehicles and passenger facilities can also attract additional riders, while improving the quality of service and safety/security of existing riders. In addition, new advancements in communications technologies can significantly benefit public transit programs. The Capital Plan is presented in Table 39. Transit Fleet Improvements Foremost, the ongoing replacement of the transit fleet is essential for the long-term sustainability of The Bus. In addition to vehicles already on order, the following vehicles will require replacement over the coming years: A total of 12 low-floor cutaway vehicles 7 heavy duty fixed route buses 19 light duty cutaway vehicles This will require an estimated total of $11.6 Million over the next five years, as shown in Table 39. It is recommended that the JTPA pursue Battery Electric Bus (BEB) technology for the vehicle purchases starting in FY 2020/21. This could provide a substantial reduction in transit operations emissions, as well as ongoing operating costs. While unit costs are currently higher than for fossil-fueled vehicles, the growth in the electric transit market may well bring costs down, and the availability of funding through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the California State Air Resources Board can also reduce local funding requirements. In 2018, The Bus staff should review the status of battery electric bus technology (including the operating range given the need for air conditioning) and the status of funding programs to identify whether electric buses should be purchased in FY 2020/21 and beyond. Complete Construction and Transition to New Maintenance and Operations Facility The TJPA is currently entering into the construction of a new operations center along Wardrobe Avenue opposite Beechcraft Avenue in southwest Merced. When completed in 2018, it will provide parking for up to 71 full-sized buses as well as vans, staff vehicles, and employee vehicles. It will also include a bus wash facility and fueling facility, a vehicle maintenance shop with five bays, and an operations building that includes space for contractor administration, dispatch, training, driver breaks and a laundry. Given the current size of The Bus fleet and the limited level of potential expansion under the service alternatives discussed above, this facility LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 176 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan will be adequate to accommodate all transit operations over the SRTP planning period and beyond. Costs associated with this facility are accounted for in the FY 17-18 capital budget and are presented in Table 39. PASSENGER FACILITIES Bus Stop Improvement Plan The Bus is currently implementing bus stop improvements, focusing on the City of Merced area. Over the course of the SRTP period, this effort will be expanded into a comprehensive bus stop improvement plan, with the following elements: Establishment of fixed stops in urban areas (as discussed above) and provision of signs (and poles as required) at all urban fixed route stops. Replacement of existing bus stop signs to provide a consistent signage program throughout the county. Additional overhead streetlights at the Merced College stop to improve passenger security. Provision of additional shelters at stops with more than 10 boardings per day, and benches at stops with more than 5 boardings per day. Where necessary to establish fixed stops on busy arterials, bus pullouts may be required. An ongoing program to improve bus stop access for persons with disabilities. Implementing improvements to bus stops was identified by The Bus’ passengers as a high priority. A budget of $50,000 per year (increasing with inflation) is included in this plan, as shown in Table 39. Improvements to the Dos Palos Y The stop at the Dos Palos Y is (and will continue to be) an important junction in the rural transit service network, as it is the location where the Los Banos Commuter and Dos Palos Link services transfer passengers. The current stop requires vehicles to travel through dirt areas, and is not attractive or particularly convenient to use, particularly for passengers with disabilities. A Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 177 specific review of site options (with the participation of the property owner) will be undertaken to identify the best strategy, with the goal of providing a paved bus pull-through and shelter. Potentially Purchase Merced Transpo The JTPA has previously expressed an interest in negotiating with the City of Merced to purchase the Merced Transpo. While it is currently uncertain whether this will occur, acquisition and renovation of this facility would substantially benefit The Bus system as well as public transit services throughout Merced County and the greater Central Valley. This program would include the following improvements: Expansion of the bus bay capacity to accommodate The Bus, Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS), Greyhound, Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) and Chowchilla Area Transit’s CATlinX service. This will address existing operational delays due to inadequate capacity. Renovation of interior passenger waiting areas as well as passenger restrooms. Provision of real-time service information, including departures and service interruptions. Provision of driver facilities, including a separately accessed driver lounge and new driver restrooms. Provision of office space for The Bus administrative personnel, providing better oversight of transit operations as well as expanded public information and pass sales services. Expanded security systems, including modern video surveillance and staff access procedures. Improved pedestrian access, including enhanced sidewalks and crosswalk. If actual ownership transfer proves to be infeasible, the JTPA should still work with the City of Merced to implement facility improvements. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 178 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Advanced Technology In-Vehicle Destination Displays The TJPA will pursue the installation of in-vehicle LED destination displays, automatically informing passengers of the upcoming stop. This particularly assists passengers with hearing impairments. A total of $210,000 is included for this improvement, as shown in Table 39. Scheduling / Run-Cutting Software TJPA will invest in an updated scheduling and driver shift run-cutting program. While this will require an investment of $30,000 to $50,000 (as shown in Table 39), over time the improved efficiencies identified through use of the program will more than recoup the investment. Mobile Ticketing Advances in mobile technology are expanding the capabilities and reducing the costs of providing passengers with the ability to purchase transit fares through their smartphones. This technology has the promise to the passenger of reducing the hassle of purchasing passes and dealing with change, while benefiting the transit operator by reducing fare handling costs, reducing boarding times and inexpensively providing better data regarding ridership patterns. Costs (both up-front capital costs and ongoing fees) vary widely between vendors, as do the capabilities of the various systems and the dependability of the vendors. TJPA staff will investigate the various options and consider whether the benefits of mobile ticketing specific to The Bus would be worth the costs and staff time for implementation and management. If deemed warranted, the next step would be to select a vendor through a Request for Proposals process. MANAGEMENT PLAN Adopt Updated Goals and Performance Measures The revised goals, objectives and standards shown in Chapter 8 are recommended for adoption. These revisions are more in line with current operating conditions, while still providing appropriate incentives to improve services. Work With Local Entities to Provide Better Pedestrian/Bicycle Access to Stops On an ongoing basis, TJPA staff will coordinate with local Public Works and Community Development departments to gain an opportunity to review bicycle / pedestrian / activity transportation plans and provide input regarding locations that merit high priority in programming improvements. In addition, staff will look for opportunities to coordinate bus stop and sidewalk improvements, particularly along high-volume roads. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 179 Investigate Consolidation/Coordination of The Bus and CatTracks The Bus and UC Merced currently operate parallel services connecting the UC Merced Campus with downtown Merced, which leads to some inefficiencies and operational issues. There is the potential for overall cost savings and/or service enhancements that could accompany coordination of schedules or consolidation into a single service. Investigating these options will require considering impacts on budgets, staffing levels, employee status, farebox ratios and service quality, as well as existing commitments to serve off-campus student housing. TJPAMC staff will contact UC staff to initiate discussions, with an ultimate goal of identifying the institutional structure and service plan that best serves the University and the community FINANCIAL PLAN Use a Combination of Federal, State and Local Sources to Fund Transit Operations and Capital Improvements The following methodology was utilized in developing this Financial Plan: First, forecasts of annual operating and administrative costs were developed, as presented in Table 36 for FY 2017/18 through FY 2021/22. “Base case” operating and administrative cost forecasts were based on the existing budget, including marketing cost. The 2.4 percent annual inflation rate reflected in the recently-updated National Express contract was applied to estimate base case costs in the absence of any change in service levels. Next, operating and administrative cost estimates were identified for each SRTP element, based upon the analyses presented in previous sections of this document, and consistent with the implementation plan presented below. These costs were also factored to reflect the assumed rate of inflation. While the inflation rate will increase annual costs by approximately $1.25 Million, the operating plan elements will reduce costs for every year of the plan. In the initial year of the plan, operating and administrative costs will be reduced by an estimated $239,600 (or 1.9 percent). As the paratransit services expand over the plan period this savings will decline, but will still total $124,500 (0.9 percent) by the fifth year of the plan. Next, ridership for each SRTP element was estimated, as presented in Table 37. The “base case” ridership reflects expected ridership assuming no changes in service. The ridership impact of each Plan element is then identified and summed. As new services do not immediately attain the full potential ridership, ridership on new services is factored to reflect 66 percent of potential ridership in the first year of service and 90 percent of potential ridership in the second year. For relatively small changes to existing LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 180 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Total 5-Year Plan $4.5 $4.6 $4.7$0.0 $39.6 $4.8 $40.6 $5.0 $41.6 $23.6 $42.6 $164.4 -$0.7 -$0.7-$4.2 -$0.7 -$4.3 -$0.8 -$4.4 -$0.8 -$4.5 -$4.6 -$3.7 -$22.0 -1.9% -1.4% -1.2% -1.1% -0.9% -$23.3 -$23.9-$21.2 -$24.4 -$21.7 -$25.0-$25.5 -$22.2 -$25.6 -$2.0 -$22.8 -$122.3 -$23.3 $21.5 $45.0 -$111.2 $68.5 $107.5 -$239.6 -$181.6 -$162.4 -$143.4 -$124.5 -$937.0 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 $12,407.9 $12,704.5 $13,010.7 $13,326.8 $13,654.7 $65,104.6 $12,168.3 $12,522.9 $12,848.2 $13,183.4 $13,530.1 $64,167.6 (1) (2) Extend Route M3, Eliminate Route M2 South of Transpo of South M2 Route Eliminate M3, Route Extend Avenue Gerard to South M3 Route Extend -$142.0 -$145.4 -$148.9 -$152.5 -$156.3 -$745.1 Revise Route M6 to Two-Way to M6 Route Revise PM 8:38 Departure Last - Runs Evening Merced Later Area Atwater the in Stops On-Demand Establish Service Evening M2 Route Reduce Livingston -$18.4in L Route Expand On-Demand Stop Eastbound Rd. 140/Kibby P Route -$18.8Service Paratransit Reallocate/Expand ServicePlanElements Subtotal: -$19.3Change Percent -$19.8 -$20.2 -$96.5 TABLE 36: MercedTABLE TheSRTP Estimated Bus Operating Cost Element Plan Cost CaseOperating Base Elements Plan Service Cost Operating Net Note 1: Per draft budget. Includes $300,000 continency. budget. $300,000 1:Includes Note Per draft Consultants,Source: LSC Transportation Inc. All in Figures Thousands Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 181 Total 5-Year Plan 0.73.7 0.91.9 5.10.0 1.0 2.7 5.70.9 4.4 1.0 3.0 5.8 1.7 6.1 1.0 3.0 5.8 2.6 6.8 3.0 4.7 26.2 3.4 6.9 13.6 4.3 24.2 12.9 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -3.1 10.1 18.2 21.8 23.5 24.7 98.1 10.1 755.4 765.2 773.2 780.7 3,084.8 1.4% 2.5% 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 731.1 737.2 743.5 749.7 756.0 3,717.5 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 (1) Extend Route M3, Eliminate Route M2 South of Transpo of South M2 Route Eliminate M3, Route Extend Avenue Gerard to South M3 Route Extend -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -1.0 Revise Route M6 to Two-Way to M6 Route Revise 8:38 Departure Last - Runs Evening Route Merced Later Area Atwater the in Stops On-Demand Establish 3.5Service Evening M2 Route Reduce Livingston in L Route Expand On-Demand Stop Eastbound Rd. 140/Kibby P Route 4.0Service Paratransit Reallocate/Expand Elements Plan Subtotal 4.0 0.2Increase Percent 4.0 0.2 4.1 0.2 0.2 19.6 0.2 1.0 TABLE 37: MercedTABLE TheSRTP Estimated Bus Ridership Element Plan CaseRidership Base Elements Plan Service Net Ridership Net All in Figures Thousands 1: Note Base (1.1%); caselocalbase caseon commuterDAR assumed routes assumedwith fixed and population toridership toridership not grow change. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants,Source: LSC Transportation Inc. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 182 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan services (such as changes in hours of operation), a 90 percent factor is assumed for the first year and full ridership thereafter. In addition, ridership (for both base case and for the service improvements) is factored to reflect a 0.8 percent annual increase in population and associated ridership demand. By FY 2021/22, ridership is forecast to equal 780,700 one-way passenger-trips per year, which is 24,700 trips over the base case forecast of 756,000. This indicates that the plan will result in a 6.8 percent increase in ridership by the end of the plan period. Based on the ridership figures presented in Table 37, the estimated farebox revenues are presented in Table 38. Note that these figures assume no change in the current fare schedule. The base case farebox revenues for FY 2021/22 are estimated at $1,275,500. Implementation of the SRTP elements will increase FY 2021/22 farebox revenues by $23,600, equal to a 1.8 percent increase. The next element necessary in the development of the SRTP is estimation of the capital cost for vehicles, passenger amenities, facility improvements and technology equipment, as shown in Table 39 for each year of the Short Range Transit Plan period. It should be noted that an annual inflation rate of 3.0 percent is reflected in these figures. Based on the capital plan, presented above, the capital costs total $21,971,900 over the five-year period. Of particular note is the facility costs in FY 2017/18 and the substantial fleet replacement costs in FY 2020/21. The results of Tables 36 through 39 were used to develop the Financial Plan, as presented for each of the five years of the Short Range Transit Plan period in Table 40. In addition to passenger fare revenues, this Financial Plan incorporates the following funding sources: FTA Section 5307 (Urban Program) from both Merced and Turlock sources. FTA Section 5311 (Rural Program) is used for rural operations. FTA 5339 (Formula Capital Program) funds Transpo improvements and vehicle purchases. Proposition 1B PTMISEA (Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account) Program funds are used for operations facility costs. UC Route revenues, assumed to increase with inflation. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 183 Total 5-Year Plan $0.7$4.0 $0.9$2.0 $5.5 $1.0$0.0 $2.7 $6.2 $1.0$0.9 $3.4 $3.1 $6.2 $1.0 $1.7 $4.7 $3.1 $6.3 $4.7 $2.6 $5.3 $3.1 $28.1 $3.4 $5.3 $14.0 $4.3 $18.7 $12.9 -$0.7 -$0.7 -$0.70.9% -$0.7 1.4% -$0.7 1.7% -$3.6 1.8% 1.8% $10.5 $17.7 $21.0 $22.6 $23.6 $95.5 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 $1,233.4 $1,243.8 $1,254.3 $1,264.8 $1,275.5 $6,271.8 $1,244.0 $1,261.5 $1,275.3 $1,287.4 $1,299.0 $6,367.2 Extend Route M3, Eliminate Route M2 South of Transpo of South M2 Route Eliminate M3, Route Extend Avenue Gerard to South M3 Route Extend -$0.2 -$0.2 -$0.2 -$0.2 -$0.2 -$1.0 Revise Route M6 to Two-Way to M6 Route Revise 8:38 Departure Last - Runs Evening Route Merced Later Area Atwater the in Stops On-Demand Establish $3.6Service Evening M2 Route Reduce Livingston in L Route Expand $4.1On-Demand Stop Eastbound Rd. 140/Kibby P Route Service Paratransit Reallocate/Expand $4.1Elements Plan Subtotal $0.3Increase Percent $4.1 $0.3 $4.2 $0.3 $20.1 $0.3 $0.3 $1.5 Service Plan Elements Plan Service TABLE 38: MercedTABLE TheSRTP Estimated Bus Farebox Revenues Element Plan Case Base Net FareboxRevenuesNet All in Figures Thousands Source: LSC Transportation Consultants,Source: LSC Transportation Inc. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 184 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan 12 11 11 Total $1,086.8 $5,225.0 $3,080.0 5-Year Plan 5-Year 11 11 0 60 3 00 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 $0.0 $210.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $210.0 $0.0 $370.8 $191.0 $0.0 $525.0 $0.0 $0.0$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5,225.0 $0.0 $3,080.0 $50.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $50.0 $785.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $785.7 $7,259.5 $0.0$1,800.0 $51.5 $0.0 $53.0$9,895.2 $0.0 $632.3 $54.6 $0.0 $244.0 $56.3 $54.6 $7,259.5 $2,015.5 $8,886.3 $19,712.4 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 Total Cost Total Number of Vehicles (excluding 11 On Order) Vehicles Number On (excludingof 11 VehiclesNumber of Cost Total VehiclesNumber of Cost Total Fixed Route Replacement Buses - Heavy Duty Heavy - Buses Replacement Route Fixed Fixed Route Expansion Buses - Cutaway - Buses Expansion Route Fixed Facility Operations/Maintenance Transit Merced Improvements Security Facility Program Improvement Stop Bus Software Cutting Scheduling/Run Signs LEDDestination In-Vehicle Elements Plan Capital Total TABLE 39: MercedTABLE TheSRTP Capital Bus Plan Element Plan Floor) (Low Vans Replacement Dial-a-Ride/Paratransit Note 1: Note All costs inflation. include annual 3 percent Consultants,Source: LSC Transportation Inc. All in Figures Thousands Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 185 Total 5-Year Plan $7.0 $7.0$0.0 $7.0 $0.0$0.0$0.0$0.0 $7.0 $0.0 $0.0 $296.6 $0.0 $7.0$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $74.2 $0.0 $35.0 $0.0 $328.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $328.0 $5,908.0 $1,117.0 $0.0 $656.0 $6,204.6 $1,117.0 $1,477.0 $1,551.2 $50.0$50.0 $51.5 $335.7 $53.0 $244.0 $54.6 $0.0 $56.3 $2,650.3 $265.5 $3,280.0 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 $233.9$502.3$100.0 $239.5 $514.3 $100.0 $245.2$360.6 $526.6$700.0 $100.0 $251.1 $369.2 $539.2 $716.7 $100.0 $257.1 $378.0 $552.1 $733.8 $100.0 $1,226.8 $387.0 $2,634.5 $751.3$785.7 $500.0 $396.2 $769.3 $0.0 $1,891.0 $3,671.1 $400.0 $0.0 $400.0 $0.0 $400.0 $0.0 $400.0 $400.0 $785.7 $2,000.0 ($239.6) ($181.6) ($162.4) ($143.4) ($124.5) ($851.5) $1,161.6 $1,189.4$4,839.3 $1,217.8 $5,033.5 $1,246.9 $5,199.0 $1,276.7 $5,372.3 $6,092.4 $5,554.0 $25,998.1 $1,528.7$7,530.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,528.7 $7,530.8 $1,244.0$2,893.7 $1,261.5 $2,962.8 $1,275.3 $3,033.6 $1,287.4 $3,106.1 $1,299.0 $3,180.3 $6,367.2 $15,176.5 $9,895.2 $632.3 $244.0 $54.6 $8,886.3 $19,712.4 $12,168.3 $12,522.9 $12,848.2 $13,183.4 $13,530.1 $64,253.0 $12,168.3 $12,522.9 $12,848.2 $13,183.4 $13,530.1 $64,253.0 $10,345.2$12,678.0 $1,158.0 $5,369.2 $697.1 $5,443.0 $782.6 $5,372.3 $11,936.6 $8,204.3 $24,919.4 $12,407.9 $12,704.5 $13,010.7 $13,326.8 $13,654.7 $65,104.6 (From Table 51) (From Table 53) (From Table 54) Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Transit Program Operations Low-Carbon Interest $125.9 UCRevenues Route $128.9 $132.0 $135.2 $138.4 V Measure - Sales Tax -- Revenue Bus Stops $660.4 LTF -- Other FTA 5311 -5311 FTA Rural CMAQ-Marketing/Promo Transit State Assistance (STA) (LTF) Funds Local Transportation V Measure - Sales Tax Revenue Total Operating Revenues CMAQ -- Vehicles Vly APCD/Cap Joaquin San Funds Trade and Cal Office Services of Emergency (1) PTMISEA LTF -- Vehicles LTF Facility-- Operation / Bus Stops LTFCapital -- For Reserves Total Capital Revenues Total Operating Costs Passenger Fares (Merced) -5307 FTA Urban (Turlock) -5307 FTA Urban BalanceAnnual -5339 Federal Vehicles TABLE 40: Merced The Bus SRTP Financial Plan Bus Financial SRTP TABLE 40:The Merced CAPITAL PLAN Operating Operating Revenues Total Annual LTF (Including Reserves) LTF Funds - Local Transportation -STA Transit State Assistance Transportation LSC Consultants, Source: Inc. All Figures Allin Thousands Figures OPERATING PLAN Base Costs Case Operating Plan Elements Capital Costs Capital Revenues it wll capitalExcludes1: forward, for moves Note funding purchasesTranspo FY years.2017/18 in Ifprevious of Merced purchase JTPA here. shown LTFand of 5339 not funds a combination require LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 186 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan California Office of Emergency Services are used for video monitoring, facility fencing, and other security system improvements. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program funds are used for services that reduce carbon emissions. State Transit Assistance funds are used as funding for transit operations. Local Transportation Funds are used for transit operations, as well as facility and bus stop improvements. Measure V Sales Tax Revenue are used for transit operations. Congestion Management/Air Quality Funds are used to fund the bulk of the vehicle replacement costs in the final year of the program. Other air quality funding programs through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the California Air Resources Board could potentially be used to fund the incremental costs of beginning the conversion of The Bus fleet to battery electric vehicles starting with the purchases in FY 2020/21. As shown, both the operating financial plan and the capital financial plan are balanced in each of the plan years. While the annual total LTF requirements will vary over the plan period, it will remain substantially within the total LTF available to the jurisdictions within Merced County. Establishment of a Capital Reserve Fund Establishing a JTPA capital reserve fund is recommended as financial tool to finance major capital transit improvements. This step would have the following benefits: It would help address the substantial bus replacement requirements in the final years of this SRTP plan period, as well as the sobering costs associated with the purchase of an additional 39 vehicles in the following five-year period. With the construction of the new operations/maintenance facility, the JTPA will be responsible for ongoing major repairs (such as roof repairs) over coming years. The ready availability of local capital funds puts the JTPA in a better position to provide local match for new state and federal funding programs as they may arise. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 187 Over time, a capital reserve fund will reduce the need for “spikes” in transit LTF requirements, providing are more dependable source of LTF for non-transit purposes for the individual jurisdictions. Defining an appropriate LTF set-aside to fund the capital reserve fund is a matter of Board priorities. Given the funds required even for a 20 percent local match for the vehicle replacement costs between FY 2022/23 and FY 2026/27 (on the order of $3.6 Million), an annual funding of $400,000 would build an adequate fund balance within the 10-year period. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Fiscal Year 2017-18 Revise southern portion of Route M3 and reduce Route M2 Revise Route M6 Drop the last two weekday evening runs on Route W2 Finalize and implement revisions to Merced Routes evening schedule Establish on-demand stops in Atwater area and at SR 140/Kibby Road eastbound Revise Livingston route and schedule Eliminate flag stops in developed areas Revise Paratransit Service levels Establish Paratransit service corridor Develop policy establishing capital reserve fund Construct operations/maintenance facility Procure scheduling/run-cutting software Research in-vehicle LED destination signs LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 188 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Produce scheduling/run-cutting software Research in-vehicle LED destination signs Purchase 10 vans and 3 heavy duty buses Fiscal Year 2018-19 Purchase 6 Paratransit replacement cutaways Review Battery Electric Bus technology and funding options Implement in-vehicle LED destination signs Continue to adjust Paratransit capacity Continue implementing bus stop improvements Fiscal Year 2019-20 Purchase 3 Paratransit replacement cutaways Continue to adjust Paratransit capacity Continue implementing bus stop improvements Fiscal Year 2020-21 Continue to adjust Paratransit capacity Continue implementing bus stop improvements Fiscal Year 2021-22 Purchase 3 Paratransit replacement cutaways and 11 light duty transit vehicles Purchase 11 buses for Local Fixed Route Service Continue to adjust Paratransit capacity Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 189 Continue implementing bus stop improvements Conduct next SRTP study LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 190 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 10 Marketing Plan This Marketing Plan for The Bus transit system is adapted from a comprehensive plan which was developed concurrent with this SRTP. This chapter is intended to be a guide for all marketing and growth‐related decisions for the next five years. It is also intended to be a “living” document, meaning that as conditions change, TJPAMC management may amend this plan with adjusted recommendations. THE BUS’ MARKETING PROCESS As an introduction to understanding and developing the marketing plan, it is important to define roles in marketing of the The Bus and to provide some context in regards to the current branding and historical marketing efforts. Definition of Roles Currently, the primary players in The Bus’ marketing process include the following individuals: Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County: Rich Green, Transit Manager Stacie Dabbs, Deputy Director Dariana Lua, Assistant Transit Manager Malee Vang-Unruh, Grant Analyst Mauricio Torres, Staff Services Analyst Eva Garibay, Public Program Specialist Transit Marketing Services Consultant: Lost Art Communications, LLC (Brian Sullivan, Principal) Digital Attic, Inc. (graphics and video production subconsultant) Kramer Translations (translation subconsultant) By definition, the marketing and promotion of the transit programs are an essential component to the successful management of the system; these individuals will be integral to the successful implementation of this Marketing Plan. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 191 The TJPAMC contracts out daily operations of the transit system to an outside vendor. TJPAMC staff function in a managerial role, with a bird’s eye view of the daily operations which provides for a unique prospective to better define needed routine improvements. The following individuals will play a role in the marketing plan from a vendor prospective. Contracted Operations (National Express Transit Corporation): General Manager, Albert Perez Administrative and Operations Staff, as needed The vendor’s administrative and operations personnel, including operations managers, customer service representatives, supervisors, and vehicle operators, all play a role in the marketing of the system, as many of these individuals are the people with whom the target markets (i.e., passengers) interact with on a daily basis. THE BUS’ SERVICE OFFERINGS Merced’s The Bus operates a combination of Fixed Routes, Deviated Fixed Routes, Dial-a-Ride and Paratransit services, as described and depicted in Chapter 2 of this report. Fixed Route Services The fixed route services operated by The Bus include several regularly scheduled local services as well as commuter services. Merced Routes: There are six local Merced Routes identified as routes M1 to M6. UC Merced Route: The UC Route (UC) operates between the Transpo and the UC Merced campus, also serving Merced College and Mercy Medical Center. A separate transit program, CatTracks, is operated by UC Merced. Atwater Routes: There are two Atwater routes. The A1 Atwater Crosstown route is a local circulator route on hourly headways operating between 6:22 AM and 7:45 PM weekdays and from 8:43 AM to 6:05 PM on weekends. The A2 Atwater Winton Way operates between Atwater and Winton via Winton Way, also on hourly headways. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 192 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Winton Routes: Two commuter routes operate between Winton and Merced. W1 Winton Commuter connects communities north of the highway to the Transpo in Merced, and W2 Winton Commuter North operates between Winton and Merced via Santa Fe Drive, starting from Merced College rather than the Transpo. Los Banos Routes: A commuter route serves Los Banos, with seven outbound trips from Los Banos to Merced, and five inbound trips from Merced to Los Banos on weekdays. On Saturdays and Sundays, a morning and midday bus operates from Los Banos to Merced, and a midday and early evening bus returns from Merced to Los Banos. Within Los Banos, several routes contribute to a corridor service: the Los Banos Commuter, the Dos Palos Link and the Gustine Link. Intercity Routes In addition to the Los Banos and Winton Commuters, The Bus operates the following intercity routes: Livingston Commuter (L): operates between Livingston and Merced, serving Atwater and Winton enroute. Planada Commuter (P): operates from Merced to Planada to Le Grand, and back. Turlock Commuter (T): operates between Merced and Turlock (in Stanislaus County) serving Atwater, Livingston, and Delhi enroute. Deviated Fixed Routes / Dial-a-Ride / Paratransit In addition to the routes described above, there are two deviated fixed routes which stop within the communities of Dos Palos, Gustine, and Santa Nella and which also intermittently provide paratransit service. These routes will deviate up to ¾ of a mile to serve ADA-eligible passengers, and general riders at a higher fare. All deviated pick-ups require a next day reservation by calling ahead. The routes are as follows: Dos Palos (DP): Five trips are operated from Los Banos to Dos Palos, and four from Dos Palos to Los Banos on weekdays. Additionally, once the fixed route vehicle arrives in Dos Palos on the morning, midday and late afternoon run, the vehicle switches to Paratransit service for an hour before returning to Los Banos. On weekends, a trip is made from Dos Palos to Los Banos in the morning; a Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 193 round trip is made from Los Banos to Dos Palos at noon (with an hour of local Paratransit before returning to Los Banos); and an evening run is made from Los Banos which ends in Dos Palos. There are paratransit zones within Los Banos and Dos Palos where route deviations can be scheduled in advance, but no deviations are made outside of these zones between the two communities. Gustine (G): The Gustine Link is a combination of Dial-a-Ride service within the communities of Gustine / Newman and Santa Nella, and fixed route service in Los Banos. Weekdays, three outbound trips and three inbound trips are made, starting with approximately half an hour of Paratransit before serving the fixed routes. This service is only provided on weekdays. Paratransit Paratransit is a complimentary curb-to-curb transit service that requires customers to make a reservation to get service. This service is available in every city in Merced County. Paratransit service is available to persons with disabilities who are not able to navigate the fixed-route services of The Bus without special assistance. Service is operated using lift-equipped buses. The service is curb-to-curb and ADA compliant. BRANDING The branding of the TJPAMC transit service is simply “The Bus.” This branding has been in place since the consolidation of the various systems in Merced County and the City of Merced in 1996. The brand’s graphic representation has changed over the years, with the current design depicted at right. The system is currently celebrating 20 years of service connecting all of Merced County and as such has been using a specially designed emblem during the celebration, as depicted here. There is no separate or distinct branding for the deviated fixed route, paratransit, or dial-a-ride services. All services are collaboratively branded as “The Bus.” LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 194 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan OVERVIEW OF HISTORICAL MARKETING EFFORTS Since the inception of the system in 1996, the TJPAMC has invested well in the marketing efforts of the system. There were significant brand awareness activities to educate county residents of the merger of the formerly separate systems, and the reinforcement of The Bus as the unified transit system for all of Merced County has continued ever since. Activities have included: Consistent branding on all The Bus vehicles, and retirement of older vehicles with previous versions of the brand as feasible (at the time of this Plan, there are no vehicles in the fleet with the former brand in daily operation). The TJPAMC insists that its operations vendor maintain all transit assets in a clean and professional manner at all times. Consistent with this policy, the TJPAMC does not currently allow for advertising on the exterior of any of its vehicles. The development of a highly functional website (www.mercedthebus.com) which is undergoing a redesign/update at the time of this Plan. Local advertising campaigns to build awareness and to grow ridership, utilizing traditional media such as radio, local television, and print advertising. Social media presence and activities (including promotional contests), including primarily Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. The maintenance and distribution of system maps and route guides. Installation and use of monitors on all vehicles that display looping videos of important rider and community information, in both English and Spanish. These videos do not include the use of any audio material so as not to disturb the passengers. Installation and promotion of free public Wi-Fi on all fixed- route vehicles. The investment and frequent use of a “mascot” named Buster (depicted to the right in his cartoon form), who is a remote controlled mechanical miniature bus that appeals to children of all ages. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 195 Distribution of a wide variety of promotional items (such as t-shirts, buttons, umbrellas, toys, stickers, coloring books, etc.) Development and maintenance of “TheBusLive” app for passengers to use to collect real-time bus information and for The Bus to use to send alerts regarding upcoming service changes. Seasonal ridership promotions, including free-fare days/months for fixed-route service, which is partially underwritten with air quality initiative grants. Participation in dozens of community events, including parades, fairs, town hall meetings, Merced College and UC Merced events, and a wide variety of other activities. The TJPAMC and its Transit Marketing Services consultant are in the process of completing a first-ever printed Rider’s Guide (in both English and Spanish), as well as “at-a-glance” brochure versions in English, Spanish, and Hmong. The TJPAMC and its marketing consultants adhere strongly to the brand standards for The Bus. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS Market Summary To develop an effective summary of The Bus’ current situation, it is important first to understand the market in which The Bus operates, including key demographic information, the needs of the market including commuting needs, employment trends, and general market trends. Much of this information is contained in great detail in Chapter 2, so this Marketing Plan Chapter includes summary information for reference purposes. Market Demographics A review of the demographic data indicates the following: Total population of the county is 261,429, per the most recent Census data. Population density is greatest in the city of Merced (particularly the downtown area), Delhi, and Atwater. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 196 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Youth (persons under 18 years of age) total 36,698, or 14.0 percent of total population. Areas with relatively high concentrations of youth include central Merced, Los Banos, Atwater, and Delhi. Elderly persons with an age over 64 total 26,115, or 10.0 percent. While there are many areas with elderly population, particular concentrations are found in Merced, Atwater, and Livingston. There are a total of 65,552 persons living in households below the federal poverty level (25.6 percent of total population). Some areas of Merced have extremely high concentrations of poverty with several tracts having between 40-58 percent of households living below the poverty level. Approximately a third of the households in Planada and Dos Palos South live below poverty. Median Household income also reflects areas of lower wealth in Merced and Atwater, while the areas around UC Merced and East Merced have higher incomes. There are a total of 5,765 households without vehicles, or 7.5 percent of the total. Areas with relatively high concentrations of households without vehicles are found in Atwater and downtown Merced. Persons who indicate they have a self-care limitation total 6,999, or 2.7 percent of the County’s population. Areas of downtown Merced and Livingston have the highest proportions of individuals with self-care limitations. The Bus Rider Demographics A summary of the demographics of The Bus passengers has resulted from a comprehensive, onboard survey of The Bus passengers, conducted in May 2016 as part of this SRTP, including: Approximately two thirds of passsengers ride round-trip. Three quarters of passengers walk to or from the bus to get to their origin or destination, while 16 percent transferred to or from another bus. Of those transferring, the majority (60 percent) were transferring to or from the Merced routes. Approximately 4 percent used a bike to get to and from the bus, and another 4 percent were dropped off or picked up. Only 2 percent drove themselves to or from the bus. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 197 Passengers primarily travel for the purpose of either school or college (44 percent), work (14 percent) or multiple trip purposes (9 percent). The majority of riders use The Bus nearly daily (58 percent ride 5 days per week or more), with almost 12 percent saying they use the service 7 days per week. Only 8 percent ride fewer than 2 days per week. Nearly a third (30 percent) of passengers had been using The Bus services for less than a year, and another quarter had only used The Bus for one to two years, likely reflecting the high use by students who have regular turn-over. Among Spanish speakers, however, 60 percent said they had been using The Bus for three years or more. The riders were asked about their source of transit information. The most common sources of information is The Bus website (29 percent) followed by the bus driver (17 percent) and the printed guides (14 percent). Additionally, almost 11 percent get information at the bus stops, and 9 percent get information from TheBusLive mobile app. This reflects the importance of the website in providing information. Just over a third of riders have a driver’s license, while a very large percentage (87 percent) did not have a car available for the trip. Less than ten percent of passengers said they had a disability which limited their use of the fixed route service. The survey responses by age were as follows: 12 - 18 (11.5 percent) 19 - 24 (32.1 percent) 25 - 44 (30.7 percent) 45 - 59 (17.5 percent) 60 - 72 (7.2 percent) 72 (1.0 percent) Fewer than half (44.6 percent) of the riders were college students, and two thirds of those were Merced College students, while a third were UC Merced students. A small percentage (4 percent) identified themselves as K-12 students. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 198 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan The majority of riders are low income or very low income: 84 percent had an annual family income under $35,000, with 58 percent of them earning less than $15,000 annually. Market Needs As part of the passenger survey, The Bus riders were also asked to list improvements they would most like to see. Highlights of the results are provided below: Increased Span of Service: The most often identified improvement was for an increased span of service. This response comes on the heels of the service changes implemented August 1st, 2016, and many of the comments were couched in terms of returning to the previous schedule before changes were implemented. Later service and night service account for more than half of the requests for an increase in the span of services. Increased Frequency: 10 percent of suggested improvements were for increased frequency. Reduced or Discount Fares: 10 percent of suggested improvements were with regard to fares. The fare category includes such requests as lower fares, lower day passes, a return to free transfers, free youth fares (toddlers to grade school ages), as well as a handful of requests for better fare media, fare handling, et cetera. Better on-time performance: 8 percent of respondents wanted better on-time performance Bus stop improvements: Another 8 percent desired improved bus stops, including adding or improving signage, increased seating (benches), or addressing cleanliness. Better information services: 5 percent of survey respondents expressed a general desire for better information or improved information services. Underserved Communities and Populations In general, it is believed that the City of Merced has adequate transit throughout. Stakeholder(s) who were interviewed for this SRTP believe there is need for a service between Los Banos, Turlock, and Stanislaus and that in general, Los Banos could be better served. For example, a stakeholder noted that sometimes riders on the morning buses from Los Banos are Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 199 forced to stand. Some identified a need for more runs between Los Banos and Merced in the early afternoon. Some stakeholders believe other areas, such as Hilmar, Livingston, Planada, Dos Palos, Le Grand, and Snelling could ideally use more service. In recent years, TJPAMC staff have personally observed that there may be unmet transit demand amongst the Hmong-speaking populations of Merced County. As of 2015, US Census data indicate there were 4,625 people speaking Hmong in Merced County, comprising just 2 percent of the county’s population. Approximately 41 percent of this population (1,896) generally speaks little or no English and is likely somewhat intimidated by the predominantly English and Spanish communication and materials that are currently provided by The Bus. It is believed that ridership by Hmong-speaking residents would increase with outreach to these communities and the development and implementation of more Hmong marketing and promotional materials. Coordination with Other Regional Service / Future Transportation Services Among the stakeholders who had input regarding The Bus’ coordination with other regional agencies, most believe that The Bus coordinates well with YARTS but there is little communication with UC Merced’s CatTracks. Potential future transportation developments in the region (such as ACE, Amtrak expansion, and a High-Speed Rail) will require further coordination upon their implementation. Ridership Trends Annual ridership has ranged from a high of 1,032,420 in 2011-12, to a low 882,149 in 2015-16. The biggest drop in ridership has been in the services classified as “Rural” as well as a drop in Dial-a-Ride service. In September 2012, the TJPA eliminated the “unlimited dial-a-ride” pass which resulted in a major decline in ridership because passengers were required to pay per trip. Additionally, from 2013 to 2014, DAR eligibility requirements were narrowed to allow only ADA- certified individuals to use the paratransit service, and to encourage those who are not ADA- certified to utilize the fixed-route services. In terms of fixed routes, the Merced routes have been generally steady in ridership over the past three years, while the Planada and Livingston routes have shown small declines in ridership. Los Banos ridership has been restructured but has also shown growth. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 200 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Ridership follows a somewhat seasonal pattern, with the lowest ridership in June (though DAR was highest then), followed by January. This is due in part to college schedules; ridership is highest in September and October, when the new school year begins, and February and March, when the second college session begins. Employment Trends The top employers in Merced County are diverse and include agricultural, medical, educational and governmental entities. The top employers are Foster Farms, Mercy Medical, and West Air Gases & Equipment Inc., according to the California Department of Labor. While there is a concentration of major employers in Merced, there are other major employers in Atwater, Hilmar, Le Grand, Livingston, Los Banos, and Turlock. This pattern of large employers in many areas of Merced County increases the need for commuter service along various corridors. Market Trends Due to the dispersed development pattern of Merced County, most residents are not able to walk to key destinations (for grocery shopping, medical appointments, and other necessary trips). In addition, many of the county residents are transit-dependent, either because they are college students, disabled, senior, or unable to afford a car. In the future, stakeholders are concerned that these transit-dependent populations, particularly the UC Merced students and senior citizens, will continue to grow, requiring expanded transit services. With respect to a growing UC Merced campus and student body, it was noted that an express bus between UC Merced and downtown Merced is desired. In addition, there is a need to particularly focus on addressing the needs of transit-dependent commuters. With a relatively large portion of the population in rural areas, such as Hilmar and Los Banos, service is often needed outside of the ¾ mile barrier. In addition, these rural individuals could benefit from more comprehensive and more frequent transit. Some areas are unserved, and others only have access into Merced a couple of times per day. Several stakeholders believe that these rural populations are increasing at a steady rate, and this need will only become more pressing in the near future. Market Growth According to the University of the Pacific’s Center for Business and Policy Research, the Merced County Forecast Summary (July 7, 2016) indicates a 7 percent countywide increase in Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 201 population from 2015 to 2020, or from 272,716 to 291,056. The largest growth is expected to occur in Merced (5,594 additional residents) followed by Los Banos (2,957) and Atwater (2,009). On a percentage basis, the larger communities in Merced County are expected to all grow in the 7 to 8 percent range, though the UC Merced area is forecast to grow by 30 percent (850 persons) as the University continues its expansion and continues to grow in popularity. The elderly populations in the County are expected to significantly increase by the years 2020 and 2030. From 2010 to 2030, the population of young retirees (ages 62 through 74) is expected to rise by 105 percent, and the population of mature retirees (ages 75 through 84) is expected to rise by 115 percent. During this period, the population of seniors (ages 85 or more) is projected to grow by 102 percent. These substantial growth rates suggest an increased need for public transit options in the coming decades. The School Age (ages 5-17) population will actually decrease in the decade from 2010 to 2020, but then increase by 11 percent between the years of 2020 and 2030 within Merced County. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS - SWOT ANALYSIS Strengths The Bus currently possesses the following strengths: The ridership, in general, looks favorably on The Bus, with 80 percent of recent passenger survey respondents indicating that overall service rates an Excellent or Good response. The Bus is typically viewed to be a very clean, professional, and convenient transportation choice for riders. The free Wi-Fi is a welcome feature, the onboard monitors provide valuable information, and the consistently clean buses make The Bus an attractive choice. Though ridership patterns have declined slightly, there are situational reasons for the declines, and it is not generally due to poor service. There continues to be widespread stakeholder support for The Bus and the TJPAMC. Coordination of service between The Bus and YARTS services is considered to be convenient and well timed. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 202 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Funds for operations and capital needs are relatively steady, and where revenues/grants are predicted to be reduced or eliminated, the TJPAMC is able to adjust service to account for the reduced revenue. The TJPAMC recently changed how its bus fleet is maintained (i.e., including under the vendor contract, where it had been an additional contract with Merced County) giving the TJPAMC greater control over the life and usefulness of its assets. The TJPAMC is in the process of constructing a new Operations and Maintenance facility dedicated to The Bus operations. The Bus’ social media presence is strong for a system of its size. At present, The Bus has nearly 5,300 Facebook followers, 257 Twitter followers, and 227 Instagram followers. The average rating for The Bus by Facebook users is 4 out of 5 stars. TheBusLive app for iPhone and Android mobile users is rated a 4 out of 5 stars and has approximately 1,500 downloads, with nearly 100,000 session in the first year of implementation. The presence of The Bus and its administrative staff in the community is strong. The popularity of The Bus’ mascot Buster is growing, further strengthening the system’s presence and image in the communities served. The relationship between the TJPAMC and its operations vendor (National Express) continues to be strong, resulting in fewer misunderstandings, greater cost-effectiveness, greater safety and improved on-time performance. The Bus is in the process of enhancing its paratransit dispatch and scheduling system with improvements to communication with the passengers. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 203 Weaknesses The Bus currently possesses the following weaknesses: The County-wide nature of the service and limited budgets require The Bus to provide service that is often less frequent than desired in the more rural and less-populated areas of the county. The public perception that The Bus is for the transit-dependent population of the county makes attracting “choice” riders a challenge. Not all bus stops are ADA compliant making it difficult, in some cases, to convert paratransit passengers into fixed-route passengers. There is inadequate space for bus queuing at the Merced Transpo. If routes get off schedule, a queuing problem develops. Buses sometimes wait on O Street and then circle around through the YARTS/Greyhound stop. Pedestrian access is not ideal at the Merced Transpo. There is a signalized crosswalk at O Street, and an unsignalized crosswalk at N Street. Both intersections experience a lot of turn activity, and drivers are not always attentive to pedestrian activity at N Street in particular. The sidewalks are in good shape with ADA access at the corners, however. Coordination between The Bus routes and CatTracks routes could be improved to facilitate better transfer of passengers and reduce route redundancy. Many routes and services are not meeting established performance standards. Opportunities The Bus has the following opportunities for system growth and enhancement: The passage of County-wide Measure V in November 2016, which classifies Merced County as a “self-help county,” will present additional revenue opportunities for The Bus as well as for the overall transportation infrastructure in the county. The TJPAMC is in negotiation to purchase the Merced Transpo property and plans to redevelop the concourse to better accommodate the bus queuing, as well as to move LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 204 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan administrative offices into the Transpo. This will offer enhanced on-time performance and safety, and bring the administrative staff and customer service staff even closer to the customers. There is a continuing trend among millennials to prefer taking shared-ride trips (such as transit, Uber/Lyft, shared vehicle leases, etc.) as opposed to the costly ownership of a personal vehicle. This growing segment of the population, including the students of Merced College and UC Merced, presents an opportunity for choice ridership growth. The continued anticipated growth of the elderly populations in the county will require additional public transportation options (though, due to the costs of ADA paratransit, this could also be viewed as a threat). Coordination with the Merced Lao Family Community Inc., a nonprofit organization that has been in operation since 1983 as the main support organization that provides social services to local Hmong people, presents an opportunity for The Bus to gain access to the Hmong population to further develop ridership from this group. On a national level, the new Administration has announced that infrastructure improvements are to be a priority, including transportation projects. The focus thus far has been on highways and roads, but the potential for public transportation investment does exist. Threats The Bus faces the following threats or challenges to growth and enhancement: Continued affordability of gasoline means that fewer potential riders will consider exchanging their single-occupant vehicle for The Bus. The anticipated growth in demand for paratransit presents a threat to the economic viability of The Bus, because paratransit trip costs are significantly higher than fixed- route costs. This can also be viewed as an opportunity to increase fixed-route ridership through travel training and other programs that make it easier for elderly residents to take The Bus. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 205 From time to time, there are challenges to the statewide funding mechanism for public transportation, requiring the TJPAMC to maintain its involvement in statewide transit advocacy programs. There is currently a high level of uncertainty regarding future Federal support for transit, particularly related to operating subsidy programs. The administration of UC Merced has been reluctant to expand the partnership and coordination of transit services between CatTracks and The Bus, including the consideration of a consolidation of the services. COMPETITION Though The Bus is the only publicly funded transportation system in Merced County, there are “competitors” that can threaten the success of the system and certainly stifle any plans for growth if they are not understood and/or addressed. The following are some of The Bus’ competitors; however with a willingness to partner with these competitors the TJPAMC can have a more complete transportation system. Personal Automobiles/Local Roadway System The quality and efficiency of the local roadway system in Merced County makes it very convenient for residents, students, and visitors to utilize their personal automobiles. Local transportation policy, like similar communities across America, continues to favor expansion, extension, and improvement of roadways which makes it even more likely that the usage of personal automobiles will continue to be The Bus’ largest competitor for the foreseeable future. While improved roadways also benefit the operations of The Bus, they conversely entice many more residents to invest in and utilize automobiles, rather than utilize public transit to meet their mobility needs. In attempting to improve the service of the transit system, it is important to consider how transit can best work with automobiles to provide viable alternatives for meeting transportation demands and eliminating unnecessary stress on our roadways. If done efficiently, transit can ultimately serve to extend the capacity of the roadway by providing a truly multimodal network for commuters who utilize the network the most. Particularly if gas prices rise in the future, the long-distance nature of many of The Bus’ routes provides the opportunity to generate ridership through park-and-ride activity. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 206 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Taxis There are multiple taxi services in Merced which will provide service to all destinations. Taxi trips are generally more expensive than transit and paratransit trips for the consumer, however they are perceived to be more convenient. Due to the costs, taxis are not perceived to be significant competitor for The Bus. TNCS (E.G., Uber and Lyft) Transportation Network Companies, such as Uber and Lyft, have grown dramatically in popularity due to their convenience and relative affordability; however, their presence in Merced County is limited when compared to more densely populated areas of California and the country as a whole. Although a more expensive mode than transit, for‐hire TNC transportation could be utilized as a supplemental option to transit in areas where service are not provided, particularly if agreements are fostered between the entities. CatTracks As it is operated now, CatTracks is a competitor to The Bus, with both services covering the same territory independently of one another. Non-UC students must pay a higher fare on CatTracks than UC students, and many are unaware that they are even eligible to ride on CatTracks. Furthermore, CatTracks has advertising venues within the UC Merced Campus communications network which allows them to promote their services to students. CatTracks schedules are designed to meet the needs of UC Merced students. At the same time, UC Merced students are eligible to ride The Bus free of charge. The result is that UC Merced students have greater choice in transit options than non-UC students. Furthermore, many of the CatTracks routes overlap in area and scheduling with The Bus routes, but because of advertising opportunities, fare structures and scheduling design, UC Merced students tend to use CatTracks over The Bus, while non-UC students tend to use The Bus which is more affordable. CatTracks and The Bus expend sizeable operating funds to provide redundant services in the City of Merced. Better cooperation between the two entities would benefit riders of both systems, and possibly offer cost savings. At a minimum, the two entities could look for marketing strategies which would promote cross-service use. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 207 Bicyclists and Pedestrians Merced County, especially the City of Merced, has an extremely active population of bicyclists and pedestrians, due to the relatively flat landscape and the generally good-to-excellent condition of the roadways and sidewalks. The presence of bike racks on all The Bus vehicles, and the ability to secure bicycles at many of the bus stops and facilities, makes the TJPAMC a partner with the bicycling community. As noted previously, a large number of The Bus passengers must walk to and from their destinations at the beginning and end of the trips taken on The Bus. The relatively spread-out nature of the county, however, limits the feasibility for residents to walk for the entire length of their required travel. Again, the TJPAMC seeks partnerships to enhance the multimodal nature of the overall travel taken by The Bus passengers. KEYS TO SUCCESS Historically, the keys to success of the The Bus system have included: Provision of safe, best‐in‐class, customer‐oriented transportation in both the fixed route and the dial-a-ride/paratransit services. Maintenance of a clean and convenient fleet of transit and paratransit vehicles. Close coordination and collaboration between the TJPAMC and The Bus’ management and operations contractor (currently National Express). Political support from local elected and appointed officials, especially the 11-member board that governs the TJPAMC. Significant community presence, outreach, and participation in community events. Effective and FTA‐compliant procurement practices with the TJPAMC and MCAG’s procurement department. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 208 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan CRITICAL ISSUES/MACRO-ENVIRONMENT Economic Issues The most important macro‐environmental issue affecting The Bus is the status of the local, state, national and even global economies. The economy affects the availability of local, state and federal funding for the system. Farebox recovery for The Bus is at 14 percent, which alone, cannot sustain The Bus operations. Therefore, it is imperative to adapt The Bus’ policies and practices to reflect what is necessary to ensure steady and consistent funding from all of these sources. Growth in the Elderly Population The continued aging of the county’s population needs to be monitored regularly to ensure that demands for costly ADA paratransit or dial-a-ride trips do not outstrip the financial capability for The Bus to supply them. Regional and State Rail Plans There are two significant rail plans that need to be considered by the TJPAMC: The California High Speed Rail (HSR) project is beginning construction in the Central Valley and a HSR station is planned to be located along 16th Street between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and G Street in Merced. This station is scheduled to be constructed by 2020 with high speed rail operational between the Silicon Valley and Los Angeles Basin through the Central Valley by 2025. The California State Rail Plan 2007–2008 to 2017–2018 (Caltrans 2008) is implemented by Caltrans. The plan envisions capital and operational improvements that will increase San Joaquin’s service in Merced to eight daily roundtrips by 2018, carrying 1,430,000 passengers annually, with 90% on-time performance. Other Issues Other critical issues to be continually aware of include local and State elections, the cost of fuel, and any changing demographics due to new or changing developments in and around the County (such as expansion of programs offered by UC Merced or Merced College, new or expanding employers, etc.). Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 209 MARKETING STRATEGY Mission The Bus is committed to providing safe, accessible, sustainable, and courteous public transportation services to its customers. As part of the implementation of this Marketing Plan, the TJPAMC should develop and publish a Mission Statement that can serve as a guide for all activities of The Bus. Marketing Objectives Marketing objectives and associated initiatives are presented in Tables 41 through 44. Objective #1 can be stated as “Promote The Bus as Safe, Convenient, Sustainable, Cost-Effective and “Fun” Alternative to Single-Occupancy Vehicles to Increase Ridership”. Initiatives for this objective are shown in Table 41. Objective #2 can be stated as “Ensure Stakeholders and the Public At-Large Know that The Bus is a Valued member of the Merced County Community” as shown in Table 42, along with initiatives for this meeting this objective. Objective #3 is stated as “Convert ADA-Eligible Trips to Fixed-Route Trips to Reduce Operating Costs” as shown in Table 43. Finally, Objective #4 states is to “Ensure that the TJPAMC and The Bus Are Full Partners within the Regional Ground and Rail Transportation Network.” Initiatives for this objective are shown in Table 44. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 210 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Table 41: Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objective #1 Objective #1 Description: Implementation Assessment/ROI: Timeline: Promote and share the safety As they occur Community support and security accomplishments Political support Initiative 1.1: Share of The Bus and its operations Social media likes, Safety team followers, shares and accomplishments mentions Earned media Include messages reinforcing As part of all Ridership the convenience of The Bus advertising campaigns Initiative 1.2: Social media likes, (i.e., routes, frequency, and promotions Project a Revised followers, shares and features and benefits) Image about the mentions Convenience of Passenger survey Riding The Bus results Earned media As appropriate, include As part of all Ridership messages reinforcing the advertising campaigns Social media likes, Initiative 1.3: sustainability of Riding The Bus and promotions followers, shares and Continue to (environmental benefits, mentions Promote the exercise potential when Passenger survey Sustainability of combined with walking and results The Bus biking, alternative fuels used, Continued air quality etc.) funding As appropriate, include cost- Ongoing Ridership savings messages in Social media likes, Initiative 1.4: advertising and social media followers, shares and Promote the Cost- promotions (including annual mentions Effectiveness of cost savings, benefits of ride- Passenger survey Riding The Bus sharing, etc.) results Earned media Leverage the growing Ongoing Ridership popularity of Buster among Community support Initiative 1.5: Build Merced County citizens to Political support the Personality of appeal to passengers’ sense of Social media likes, Buster as a local fun followers, shares and “celebrity” mentions Earned media Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 211 Table 42: Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objective #2 Objective #2 Description: Implementation Assessment/ROI: Timeline: Continue to promote The Bus at Ongoing Ridership public and community events as Community support feasible, including town hall Political support Initiative 2.1: meetings, college and university Social media likes, Community fairs, festivals, county fairs (both followers, shares and Events Merced and Los Banos), mentions employment fairs, parades, and Colossus Con or similar sponsored events Engage in select traditional and As needed and Ridership social media advertising with an ongoing; suggest Community support emphasis on The Bus as a two advertising Political support Initiative 2.2: contributing member of the campaigns and/or Social media likes, Advertising and community social media followers, shares and Promotions promotions mentions annually targeting Passenger survey the markets results described herein MCAG and TJPAMC staff should Ongoing Community support participate in councils, committees, Political support Initiative 2.3: and meetings across the countywide Participate in service area where stakeholders in countywide the success of The Bus are also policy-making participants, with a particular meetings and emphasis on transportation and councils development related organizations and subject matter Promote the groundbreaking and Prior to the Ridership ribbon-cutting of the new groundbreaking Community support Initiative 2.4: operations and maintenance facility and ribbon-cutting Political support Promote New including public-invited events and events with Social media likes, O&M Facility the consideration of the inclusion of periodic updates followers, shares and a public art project into the facility’s in between mentions amenities Conduct a community-wide survey Every two years Survey results and Initiative 2.5: of residents to measure support and recommendations Community interest in The Bus (utilizing an Survey unbiased third-party survey firm) LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 212 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Table 43: Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objective #3 Objective #3 Description: Implementation Assessment/ROI: Timeline: Initiative 3.1: Promote The Bus’ ability to Ongoing and Conversions of Promotion of Travel assist ADA-eligible opportunistically at trips from ADA to Training and passengers in learning how community events fixed-route service Education to utilize more convenient (such as senior centers, and cost-effective fixed- etc.) route transit Initiative 3.2: Assist In anticipation of the Included in Conversions of in Transition to New potential implementation of implementation trips from ADA to Paratransit Service a more restrictive paratransit timeline and strategies fixed-route service Area service, work with the for new paratransit Community Operations team to ensure service area Support and communication is effective Understanding and easy to understand Initiative 3.3: Craft advertising and Ongoing Conversions of Promote the promotion messages that trips from ADA to Convenience and appeal to ADA-eligible fixed-route service Cost-Savings of The passengers, veterans, senior Ridership (with a Bus specifically to groups, etc. focus on ADA ADA-eligible targets demographics) Table 44: Merced The Bus Initiatives for Objective #4 Objective #4 Description: Implementation Assessment/ROI: Timeline: Initiative 4.1: Continued membership in the Ongoing and as Recognition for Trade California Transit Association (CTA) budget permits accomplishments Association and the California Association for (APTA) within these Membership Community Transportation (CalACT); organizations and consideration of membership in the Support for public Participation American Public Transportation policy issues Association (APTA) supporting public transportation in Merced County Initiative 4.2: Attend and be active participants in Ongoing and Support for public Participation in regional and statewide opportunistically policy issues Regional and forums/association regarding the as events occur supporting public Statewide development of improved ground transportation in Ground transportation networks serving Merced County Transportation Merced, including rail and high- and Rail Forums speed rail Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 213 Financial Objectives The Bus’ financial objectives are to: Maximize farebox revenues for both fixed‐route and paratransit passengers; Fund new service and enhancements to existing service through additional service grants and public-private partnerships; Manage and maintain annual operating budgets in accordance with all local, state and federal requirements, to ensure continued local, state and federal funding streams; Maintain a balanced budget, including a capital reserve fund and operating reserve fund which can allow services to be sustained during funding fluctuations. Transition ADA-eligible riders from being solely dependent on more costly paratransit services when they may be capable of safely using The Bus’ less costly fixed-route services with proper education. Target Markets The target markets for The Bus include the following categories: Traditional Riders – potential traditional transit users, including elderly, students/youth, and persons in households that are low‐income and/or have no vehicles (i.e., transit‐ dependent). Choice Riders – potential riders living in more densely‐populated areas of the County and choosing to use transit as a commuting alternative (i.e., people who would be likely to choose transit over personal automobile or other competing modes). By identifying these two market categories, the TJPAMC can better understand market segments and ultimately develop potential service improvements and policy strategies. It is important to note that this Marketing Plan can offer recommendations that would be appropriate for more than one market perspective (in fact, it would likely be more economical to identify and implement strategies that appeal to both of these markets). LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 214 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Target Markets The target markets for The Bus include the following categories: Traditional Riders – potential traditional transit users, including elderly, students/youth, and persons in households that are low‐income and/or have no vehicles (i.e., transit‐ dependent). Choice Riders – potential riders living in more densely‐populated areas of the County and choosing to use transit as a commuting alternative (i.e., people who would be likely to choose transit over personal automobile or other competing modes). By identifying these two market categories, the TJPAMC can better understand market segments and ultimately develop potential service improvements and policy strategies. It is important to note that this Marketing Plan can offer recommendations that would be appropriate for more than one market perspective (in fact, it would likely be more economical to identify and implement strategies that appeal to both of these markets). Traditional Riders As noted earlier, the demographic profile of The Bus’ current ridership largely reflects the traditional ridership model: that of transit-dependent commuters, students, individuals living in low-income households, and the elderly. The Bus should continue to consider these as primary target markets, offering convenient service aligned with the needs of these individuals (i.e., commute times to and from the various communities in the County, adequate frequency to and from Merced College and UC Merced, and deviated fixed-routes and dial-a-ride for the less densely populated and more rural areas of the County). The population of these markets across the County are anticipated to grow during the planning horizon and, therefore, should grow in ridership as well. Choice Riders The development of the choice rider market is a significant target for The Bus. These riders include: Commuters who may own a personal vehicle but would consider sharing rides on transit for environmental, social, financial and/or convenience reasons. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 215 Students and other millennials who deeply value the environment and prefer the reduced costs of transit, and other shared-ride modes, over the high-cost of personal vehicle ownership and maintenance. Low-income and single-parent households where there may be a personal vehicle but where the savings that can be achieved by utilizing transit may provide a significant increase in monthly disposable income. Bicyclists and pedestrians who may choose to incorporate The Bus into their multimodal trips to shorten the length of time it takes to reach their destinations. ADA-eligible passengers who are able to safely utilize fixed-route service. It is with the growth of choice ridership that the TJPAMC has the greatest opportunities for marketing and outreach. Positioning to Gain Choice Riders Positioning of The Bus to become a choice for these target markets will be critical to the success of this plan. Traditional positioning as the public transit system for the County’s transit- dependent population has been well-established by the TJPAMC, so the focus of this section will be on the positioning required to attract choice riders. The Bus’ marketing and outreach activities should include positioning activities that raise the profile of The Bus among the target market. For example: The Bus’ image needs to reflect one where commuters will feel safe and comfortable and experience convenience by taking The Bus. Students and millennials will need to be educated as to the environmental, social, and financial benefits of taking The Bus, as compared to single occupant vehicle trips. The Bus should also continue to leverage its image as a “fun” or “cool” transit system with its community event participation, social media presence, and the appropriate use of its mascot, Buster. College students in particular comprise a large proportion of The Bus’ ridership. There is a high turnover in this population, which therefore requires specific and repeated marketing efforts. Some examples might include addressing students at annual LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 Page 216 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan orientations, providing “free‐fare” events at the start of the school year to “hook” new students, and reviewing college schedules to ensure The Bus schedules maximize opportunities which meet students’ schedules when possible. Cost savings achieved by taking public transit should be promoted to low‐income and single‐parent heads of households. The Bus should project convenience to pedestrians (including those who require mobility devices) and bicyclists. To convert paratransit trips to fixed route, The Bus will need to develop and promote travel training and outreach programs targeted at these populations, including testimonials from others who choose fixed‐route over paratransit. Marketing Strategies and Tactics Short‐ and long‐term (five‐year horizon and beyond) marketing strategies and tactics are listed below which the TJPAMC should implement in order to achieve its objectives for maintenance and growth of the system. Target Markets The primary target markets for The Bus’ marketing activities (both short‐ and long‐term) should include: Choice Commuters Students and Millennials Low‐Income and Single‐Parent Households Members of the Hmong Community Bicyclists and Pedestrians ADA‐Eligible Passengers (to convert to fixed‐route service) Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 217 Positioning The positioning of The Bus to appeal to these target markets should include projecting an image that The Bus is a safe, cost‐effective, sustainable, and “fun” alternative to commuting by car for a wide variety of individuals (e.g., students, professionals, veterans, single moms, health‐ conscious, friends of the environment, etc.). Positioning activities should include: Continuing to invest in, maintain, operate and provide a first‐class, safe, and clean transit service; Advertising and social media campaigns that project the image described above; Development of select marketing materials in Hmong to better appeal to members of the Hmong communities across the County; Increasing the TJPAMC’s profile and participation in the state and national trade organizations (including the California Transit Association, California Association for Coordinated Transportation, and the American Public Transportation Association); Increased participation in regional planning activities, especially as they relate to HSR and other rail developments and inter‐connectivity with other regional transit systems; and Continued significant presence in all communities served by The Bus. Service Offerings The Bus’ service offering will largely remain the same as they are today: regular and commuter fixed‐route services, deviated fixed‐route and dial‐a‐ride service where they are required, and ADA paratransit. Certain adjustments to the daily operating schedule have been recommended elsewhere in the SRTP which will have an effect on The Bus’ services. As technological advances continue, it is possible that the TJPAMC may desire to enter into relationships with TNCs to provide cost‐effective and convenient “first‐mile/last‐mile” supplemental service to offer passengers a complete travel solution, or as an alternative to LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 218 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan more costly ADA paratransit service, especially in the more remote and less densely populated areas of the County. Ultimately, The Bus may also need to offer additional shuttle services to the HSR station. Fares The Bus will need to maintain a fair and equitable transit fare program, and do everything feasible to refrain from fare increases, which typically have a negative effect on ridership. As economic conditions warrant, however, the TJPAMC may need to consider adjustments to the fares in order to continue to position itself for continued growth, or to remain in line with other regional transit offerings. Promotions Short‐term tactical promotions should include: Advertising campaigns utilizing both traditional media (e.g., radio, broadcast/cable television, newspapers) and new media (e.g., audio listening services such as Spotify, Pandora, and iHeart Radio, video services such as YouTube and Hulu, Facebook promotions, etc.) Participation in all high‐profile community events, such as parades, festivals, conventions, and fairs. Such participation should include meet‐and‐greet and photo opportunities with Buster, as well as events targeting the Hmong communities to educate them on the ease of use of the system. Development and implementation of a First‐Time Rider’s kit to welcome those considering riding The Bus, including a Rider’s Guide, promotional items, a one‐day transit pass, appropriate schedules and route maps and possibly coupons from area retail businesses or partners of The Bus. Social media‐based contests to maintain and grow The Bus’ online following. Immediate response to any issues or complaints received, including those received via social media sites, to develop resolutions that prove that The Bus is customer friendly. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 219 Utilization of the on‐board monitors to promote events and contests, as well as to deliver important service announcements and alerts. Development and implementation of travel training opportunities for Seniors and ADA‐ eligible passengers. Promotions of The Bus as a clean‐air alternative to single‐occupant vehicles. Regular updating of content on The Bus’ website, to possibly include a blog about the many benefits of commuting by transit. Updates should also be considered for the landing page for riders using The Bus’ free Wi‐Fi. As‐needed alerts and communication to users of TheBusLive app to further enhance The Bus’ image as a user‐friendly, high‐tech transportation alternative. The TJPAMC and MVCAG should host a public ground‐breaking ceremony for the construction of the new Operations and Maintenance Facility, including posters displaying the design of the new facility, and inviting local, state and regional dignitaries and transit officials. As the new Operations and Maintenance Facility nears completion, the TJPAMC should plan for a public ribbon‐cutting ceremony and dedication, including local community groups, elected and appointed officials, and the public at large. If feasible, the TJPAMC should consider including public art in the new facility and/or the Transpo (upon completion of the transaction to acquire it). The art could be procured via a public “call for artists” in conjunction with the Merced Arts Community. Ideally, such a call for artists should occur prior to the ribbon‐cutting of any new or enhanced facility, so that the artwork can be promoted as a part of the dedication event. The TJPAMC should consider developing and implementing a long‐term mission statement for the organization which can serve as a guide for all activities conducted under The Bus brand. This long‐term mission will set a standard for all short‐term promotions and tactics. Due to the strength of and the long‐term investment in the current The Bus brand, it is not anticipated that the TJPAMC will need to adjust the branding of the system during the scope of this Plan. Should consolidations occur (i.e., with CatTracks) the branding can be adjusted or supplemented accordingly to appeal to the target markets for the consolidated service. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 220 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Perhaps the most important part of an effective Marketing Plan is the way in which the elements of the Plan are researched and evaluated, ensuring return on marketing investment (or ROMI). Research and Evaluation Strategies Every strategy considered for enactment should be researched in advance prior to the expenditure of resources. Costs should be evaluated so that detailed budgets can be prepared, and funding can be established. For example, if The Bus decides to conduct a call for artists for the installation of public art at the facilities, costs for that endeavor should be fully studied to ensure appropriate ROMI. Short‐term tactics may require more expedient decision‐making than long‐term strategies. There may not be enough time available to develop detailed budgets and implementation timelines. However, there are measures that can be taken to ensure ROMI. Steps to take would include analyzing ridership from each month to produce quarterly reports. From these, the TJPAMC can compare past ridership from previous years. This will allow a comparison of the ridership increase to the total amount of funds that went into marketing The Bus. Because The Bus is a public agency and governed by the TJPAMC and the MCAG, there are ample opportunities to garner publicity for the system and its activities and events. As each tactic is implemented, TJPAMC staff should keep records of all costs and resources expended, so that the Team can do assessments of the tactics to determine if goals were met and whether similar tactics should be employed again. For certain activities, staff can conduct surveys of participants, which will require the collection of certain information from the participants as feasible (such as name, address, and email addresses of participants on sign‐in sheets). CUSTOMER RETENTION AND SATISFACTION In the first year of the implementation of this Marketing Plan, TJPAMC staff should develop and implement a customer satisfaction campaign to include the following elements: On‐board survey and customer comment cards to be mailed directly to the assigned TJPAMC staff person after completion by the passenger, and forwarded to the contract General Manager for response, as needed. All responses will be logged into a database including a record of any follow up or corrective actions as deemed necessary. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 221 Information collected will include passenger’s name, address, e‐mail, frequency of ridership, years riding The Bus, etc.; name of driver; date of service; route; specific compliment, complaint, or suggestion; any other information as recommended. A plan to conduct on‐board surveys of passengers on a semi‐annual basis using TJPAMC and/or contractor staff. An example survey is included in Appendix E of the SRTP. Data collected will be logged and extrapolated to make statistically relevant conclusions about passenger satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Recommendations will be concluded from the surveys, and corrective actions should be taken, as required to improve and enhance passenger satisfaction. Each successive survey will be compared against previous surveys to benchmark performance of the contractor and passenger satisfaction as a whole. The TJPAMC should continue to monitor ridership data to identify trends and correct deficiencies. Ridership data when compared to passenger satisfaction data, can suggest system enhancements and necessary improvements. If trends dictate the need for it, the TJPAMC should consider conducting more formal, third‐party passenger satisfaction surveys, utilizing a professional market research company. At the writing of this Marketing Plan, there are no signs of the need for such an endeavor, but should conditions change, the TJPAMC may want to consider implementing such an impartial measurement of system effectiveness. Public Awareness of Transit Services In addition to querying existing riders, it is important to occasionally (possibly every five years or so) query the general public regarding their awareness and support of public transit services. This can be done via a phone survey, mailings in utility bills, online surveys, or a combination thereof. The survey should ask such questions as: Are you aware of the public transit system that serves (Merced County/or a specific community)? What is the name of the transit system? Have you seen bus stops or buses which serve public transit? Have you seen or heard any advertising of the public transit system? If so, where? LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 222 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Do you currently use public transit service? If so, what could encourage you to use it more? If no, why not? Could we improve it so that you would use it? This type of survey can be instructional in determining potential new markets or identifying markets which should be strengthened. BUDGETS The TJPAMC should continue to allocate between $100,000 and $150,000 a year toward marketing expenditures and the contract with the Transit Marketing Services consultant. These funds would be used to cover the cost of the activities and campaigns described herein that would either promote or support The Bus. Exceptions to this include the management and hosting of the website and purchase of promotional items, both of which have been historically included under separate budget line items. Marketing funding should be focused initially toward the short‐term tactics that result in: Customer Retention Ridership Growth Promoting The Bus brand Special Events Significant special events, such as a ribbon‐cutting or “call for artists” to solicit public art, would require funds above and beyond the standard marketing budget. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS The most important performance measurements for this Marketing Plan include: Passenger satisfaction surveys and comments, and Analyses of Return on Marketing Investments (ROMI) for short‐term tactics and long‐ term strategies. ROMI analyses should include a comparison of budget to actual expenses as well as lessons learned for enhancing future marketing activities. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 223 Of course, there will also be numerous less tangible ways to measure the performance and success of this Marketing Plan. For example, it is human nature to complete a comment card when experiencing negative service, but less likely that a comment card will be completed when a passenger experiences positive, above and beyond, or “extra mile” service from a vehicle Operator. So we would expect to receive more “negative” or constructive comments than compliments, though the overall passenger satisfaction may be more balanced or positive (indicating the need for a formal passenger survey once every two years). As the Marketing Plan and its elements are measured, TJPAMC management should be prepared to make adjustments, especially if the feedback indicates a consensus opinion that the team may be headed down the wrong path or proving more costly than originally anticipated. CONTROLS AND CONTINGENCIES The most important controls for the Marketing Plan will be budgetary in nature. The TJPAMC, its contract operator, and its Transit Marketing Services teams must adhere strictly to the budgets defined for the various strategies and tactics. Especially when federal, state and local funds are involved, budget adherence is absolutely necessary. Another control mechanism includes the manner in which marketing activities need to be conducted for a public service such as transit and paratransit transportation. It must be first and foremost that no marketing activity should interfere with the safety and daily operations and maintenance of The Bus. After all, the single most important fundamental element of this Plan is to continue to provide safe and convenient service to the passengers. Because even the best‐laid plans are subject to changes in conditions beyond control, certain contingencies should be prepared. For example, management should be prepared to conduct activities indoors if a preferably outdoor activity is affected by adverse weather. Plans should also be developed to be scalable in the event that funding for the activity needs to be decreased or eliminated altogether. Costs should be planned well in advance so as to be incorporated within budgets and allocations, but if budgets are reduced, it should be as feasible as possible to reduce the exposure and eliminate costly elements. The effect may indeed be negative on the intended accomplishments, but this is often far preferable than missing budget. When planning promotions or events, care should be taken to ensure that the activities parallel the TJPAMC’s mission and vision and do not conflict with the mission of the transit system. For LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 Page 224 Merced County Short Range Transit Plan example, when selecting a promotional item, the items should not inadvertently promote driving personal automobiles (such as key chains or tire pressure gauges). Fiscal Years 2017‐18 to 2021‐22 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Page 225 Appendices ______ Draft Final Report Merced County Short Range Transit Plan Prepared for the Merced County Association of Governments 369 West 18th Street Merced, CA 95340 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P. O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 Appendix A The Bus Route Evaluations Appendix A: The Bus Route Evaluations Route: L Livingston Surveyor: Selena McKinney Date: 9-16-2016 Departure Time: 8:03 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints Merced College (Depart) 8:03 AM Rancho San Miguel 9:18 AM Wal-Mart 8:16 AM Walnut Ave @ Francis St 9:30 AM Castle H.S.A. 8:26 AM Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 9:42 AM Castle Clinic 8:33 AM Castle H.S.A. 9:52 AM Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 8:41 AM Castle Clinic 9:56 AM Walnut Ave @ Celia Dr 8:56 AM Wal-Mart 10:08 AM Harvest Ave @ North Main St 9:03 AM Merced College (Arrive) 10:17 AM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) No delays on this run, but driver said mid-day with more traffic can get busy. The loop to serve the Castle H.S.A and Clinic is circuitous. Serves H.S.A. first in both directions. Driver noted that by serving H.S.A first in south direction, route must cross railroad tracks twice on Santa Fe. This requires pulling into turnout, stopping and opening door, and then merging back into traffic. For 3 weeks, construction on Main Street in Livingston has required detour. Not much of a problem, and nearly done (streetscaping). While in route, there were 1-2 buses in front and following on Hwy 99 and through Castle area. Driver says in the morning, the bus is express and by-passes the clinic (7:20 am). Some people have said they would like to get to the clinic early for their 8:00 am appointment (can still arrive on next regular run, so not really an issue). Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) Noted there was a homeless person encamped at Walmart NB shelter (not there on the way out). Shopping cart, numerous bags, lying next to shelter. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) Merced College, Target, Walmart, Laurel Glenn apartments, Castle H.S.A., Clinic, Winton library, Foster Farms, Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) 1. Merced Apartments to Foster Farms 2. Target to Foster Farms 3. Residential in Merced to Castle Clinic 4. Castle H.S.A to Walnut/Celia (with bike) 5. Winton Library to Walnut & Celia (Church) 6. Walnut/Celia to Livingston Commons 7. Walnut/Celia to M St. Village Apts (with bike) 8. Livingston City Hall to Castle Clinic 9. Livingston Commons/Rancho San Miguel to Merced College 10. Foster Farms to Library in Winton SB 11. Foster Farms to Library in Winton SB 12. Micante Garden Apts/Church to Merced College 13. Castle Clinic to Merced College Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) Driver was bilingual and very accommodating, friendly. Regular announcements regarding discontinued transfers. Many passengers paid with cash, some with magnetized tickets. One paid with small coins; driver called him back (in Spanish) to complete transaction. One passenger’s card was de-magnetized, and the driver offered to give her one out of his bag. She told me this was a continuous issue for the past several days. Upon exiting, the driver gave her a local fare and made a note on it about the issue. One passenger didn’t have correct fare, so paid $5.00 for $3.00 fare. Two bikes were loaded, very quickly. Other Notes Annunciation is mechanized and sounds robotic (accents and syllable emphasis is off, similar to Siri). Especially difficult to understand when adding “Eastbound” as the “E” gets tagged onto the previous word. How difficult would it be to customize/record announcements with live voice? Route: LB Los Banos Surveyor: Selena McKinney Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 11:30 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints Merced Transpo (Depart) 11:31 AM Food 4 /Dollar Tree 12:22 PM El Nido Grocery 11:49 AM F St @ 4th St/County Offices 12:28 PM Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 12:05 PM Los Banos Community Center 12:33 PM Los Banos Memorial Hospital 12:36 PM Los Banos Community Center 1:17 PM Merced College/Los Banos Campus 12:44 PM Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1:30 PM Walmart (arrive) 12:54 PM Y Chevron 1:44 PM Walmart (depart) 1:05 PM El Nido Grocery 1:55 PM Los Banos Memorial Hospital 1:11 PM Merced Transpo (Arrive) 2:20 PM F St @ 4th/County Offices 1:14 PM (did not ride local portion) Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) Bus arrived at 11:23 AM. New trainee driver took over (first driver stayed whole run). At Community Center, passengers had difficulty removing 3 bikes. Driver assisted. Slight delay. Flag Stops: none on commuter routes, but driver noted he does not like them on other routes (he drives M5 on weekends). He has had families stand 500 feet apart. He just stops in the middle. They can work okay, or they can cause delays. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) At Dos Palos Y, turned around in large dirt lot. Driver said holes were recently filled, but it is bumpy. On trip to Los Banos, met with DP bus at Y. At Food 4 Less, entered driveway to parking lot. At least 3 speed bumps. Stopped in front of store, disembarked onto dirt pad (connected to sidewalk, but could be muddy in rain). Previous to 8-1-2016 change, stopped on Ward just before the driveway to the shopping center, then continued on to Pacheco. On Eastbound, did a u turn on Ward, then left back onto Pacheco. Eaves at Sherwin Williams store provide for shelter. A passenger said with new changes, she can no longer get a fixed route bus to the Los Banos route. She lives 3 miles from the route and has to call paratransit 24 hours in advance. She has no car and a small child. She says the line is always busy when she calls in. She now has to get a ride to the DP Y. She uses the bus only once a week or so instead of 3 times or so. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) Area north of Pacheco between Ward and Mercy Springs seems to have low demand (gated community, etc). Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) Long distance. School, errands. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) One passenger used a card, and it said “card not valid.” Driver ran it twice, but still invalid. Checked date, allowed passenger. Three bikes on at Merced Transpo, off at Community Center. Route: M1 North and South Surveyor: Samara Haapala Date: 9-21-2016 Departure Time: 11:05 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints North Loop South Loop Employ. Devel. Dept 11:09 AM Dennis Chavez Pk 12:12 PM Buena Vista Plaza 11:18 AM HSA 12:20 PM El Redondo Dr & Aurora Dr 11:25 AM T St & 3rd 12:24 PM Merced College 11:30 AM DMV 12:29 PM Across from Target 11:36 AM Merced Transpo (Arrive) 12:34 PM Walmart 11:44 AM Behind Grocery Outlet 11:49 AM Merced Transpo 11:52 AM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) Two separate groups of passengers were loading and unloading shopping bags, which caused delay. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) I did not see stop signage or poles at Buena Vista Plaza and El Redondo Dr & Aurora Dr. I did not see signage at the DMV. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) Many of the passengers were riding to and from shopping destinations (such as Food Plus, Target and Walmart). Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) A passenger travelled from the Transpo to Merced College. Passengers travelled to residential destinations from Food Plus. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) This route had a relatively high number of passengers traveling to and from shopping trips. A group of passengers boarded at Food Plus with 5-6 shopping bags, which they set on the floor in front of them. An elderly passenger boarded at Walmart with a shopping bag on a roller. Route: M2 North and South Surveyor: Samara Haapala Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 4:00 PM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints North Loop South Loop Best Buy 4:10 PM Golden Valley Health Ctrs 5:13 PM Target 4:15 PM HSA 5:21 PM Merced College 4:20 PM West Ave & 1st St 5:25 PM Across Village Terrace Apts 4:32 PM Merced Transpo (Arrive) 5:32 PM Walmart 4:41 PM Merced Transpo 4:46 PM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) The only delay on this run was caused by a family boarding with both a car seat and stroller at Childs & R Street. According to the driver, flag stops often cause the bus to lag behind schedule. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) The southbound Olivewood St & R St stop is located just after the turn. According to the drive, in order to pull over safely (without the tail of the bus sticking into perpendicular traffic) the bus must stop past the marked stop. The southbound Walmart stop has a turnout, but it lacks any other indication of a bus stop. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) The key ridership generators include: Merced College, Human Services Agencies, and the Merced Transpo. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) Passengers traveled from the Merced Transpo to Walmart and residential destinations. Passengers boarded at HSA and got off at the Merced Transpo. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) Passengers boarded with an infant in a car seat and a stroller on the side. Other Notes The driver noted that flag stops on Childs Ave are often dangerous. Route: M3 Merced Surveyor: Selena McKinney Date: 9-16-2016 Departure Time: 10:56 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints Merced College (Depart) 10:56 AM Merced Transpo (arrive) 11:55 AM Mercy Medical Center 11:05 AM Merced Transpo (Depart) 12:02 PM Loughborough @ Target 11:13 AM M St @ 22nd 12:05 PM M St @ 22nd/Merced Co Offices 11:24 AM Meadows @ Olive 12:17 PM Merced Transpo (arrive) 11:30 AM Loughborough @ Target 12:20 PM Merced Transpo (depart) 11:35 AM Merced College (arrive) 12:24 PM M St @ Childs 11:43 AM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) Passsengers requested driver radio M4 to wait at Mercy Hospital. Driver complied. Passenger had shopping cart folded under seat; did not cause space issue or delay. At Transpo during breaks, 2nd driver explained to several passengers the options for their travel by various routes. He was very knowledgeable. Along M Street on the South Loop, passengers often request mid-block flag stops, but this usually would require the driver to stop in the travel lane as cars are parked along the street. Flag stops are a problem in some areas, not in others—but finding consistency is difficult. The driver noted he drives Los Banos Route in the early morning. A second driver leaves 15 minutes prior to him, but if there are delays, he sometimes catches up. He has low ridership, never fills his large bus (typically around 5 passengers/trip). He believes the run is redundant. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) Merced College, Mercy Hospital, Transpo, Target Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) College, hospital, shopping Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) Inebriated passenger boarded at Transpo with several bags. Put bags in one seat, and took up the other two in priority disabled seating. Fell asleep and remained there during trip. A disabled passenger asked a passenger on the opposite side to slide over so she could sit. Route: M4 North and South Surveyor: Samara Haapala Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 9:45 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints North Loop: South Loop: East Campus/Yosemite HS 9:48 AM G St at Carmen Way 10:50 AM G St at Olive Ave 9:55 AM C.O.V.E. 10:55 AM Mercy Medical Center 10:01 AM Merced Transpo 11:03 AM Merced College 10:08 AM G St at Olive Ave 10:14 AM Merced Transpo 10:26 AM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) The run was delayed at the start (by roughly ten minutes) due to an unexpected driver switch. Flag stops were a source of delay. A couple of times, riders requested the drivers to pull over within one block of a designated stop. In these cases, the driver was stopping twice on one street, which (both times) was lined with parked cars. This raises further questions of safety and traffic concerns. Bus M427 has a defect where its stop system occasionally beeps randomly. This prompted the driver to have to pull over excess times. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) There was a car parked at G Street and Carmen, which caused the bus to stop past the designated stop. The COVE stop has no signage. Cars took up space and there was no place to pull over at County Mental Health. The ash tray at the Mercy Medical Center stop was filled to the brim with garbage. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) The major ridership generators were the Merced Transpo and Merced College. There was low demand between G St/Olive and Mercy Medical Center, as well as G St/Olive and the Merced Transpo. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) The majority of passengers were headed to residential destinations or the Merced Transpo. One passenger went to an appointment at Mercy Medical Center. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) An elderly rider complained that the buses on routes M4 and M5 do not have adequate space to store a minimal amount of groceries, and she is often forced to take two separate roundtrips to adequately grocery shop. Route: M5 East and West Surveyor: Samara Haapala Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 12:15 PM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints East Loop: West Loop: The Bus MCAG Office 12:19 PM Motel Drive 12:47 PM Amtrak Station 12:22 PM Amtrak Station 12:56 PM Rancho San Miguel 12:32 PM Merced Transpo 1:02 PM The Grove Apartments 12:44 PM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) N/A Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) There were no signs at Motel Drive and MCAG, which are designated stops. The sign at the Grove is hidden by ivy. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) The High School and MCAG generated the most ridership. Per the driver, the housing complex at Campus and Gerard is a major transit generator. There was low demand between Villa Estates and Yosemite Parkway/Carol. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) Most riders were traveling to the Merced Transpo or residential areas. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) N/A Route: M6 North Surveyor: Samara Haapala Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 1:30 PM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints Save Mart 1:36 PM Mercy Medical Center 2:06 PM 27th & Green St 1:44 PM Merced College 2:13 PM Santa Fe & Reef Apts 1:48 PM Across From Target 2:19 PM Alexander & Parsons Ave 1:58 PM Best Buy 2:25 PM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) The route passes five separate schools. According to the driver, during times of heavy school traffic, the route is often delayed by 5-10 minutes. This was not the case during the 1:30 PM run. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) There is no signage or post at the 27th & Green St stop. There is no pavement at the Santa Fe & Reef Apts stop. As such, the stop is located on dirt, which becomes problematic when it rains. The stop at 27th & Parsons (non-designated) is located too close to the stop sign. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) In general, ridership was very low during this run. The route primarily serves residential areas. Ridership was sparse on most of 26th Street (between G St and Parsons Ave). There was low ridership on Parsons Ave before Mercy Medical Center. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) A mother and son boarded at Mercy Medical Center and got off at Target. A family of three boarded near Target with several grocery bags and got off at a residential designation. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) The family that boarded with grocery bags set the bags in the wheelchair/ADA area. Other Notes According to the driver, there are not many regular riders on this run, and ridership has been relatively low since the Free Ride program was stopped. Route: P Planada Surveyor: Selena McKinney Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 1:30 PM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints Merced Transpo (Depart) 1:32 PM Planada/Golden Valley 2:44 PM Kibby Rd @Hwy 140 1:44 PM Sutter @ El Mercado 2:48 PM Felix Torres Housing 1:57 PM Felix Torres Housing 2:52 PM Stanford Ave @ Sutter 2:01 PM Hwy 140 @ Kibby Rd 3:02 PM Planada/Golden Valley Clinic 2:08 PM Merced Transpo (Arrive) 3:10 PM Jefferson @ Le Grand/Ctr 2:28 PM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) Delay between Le Grand and Planada on Santa Fe due to slow moving farm equipment which the bus could not legally pass. Slowed by several minutes (but caught up by next timed stop as no passengers boarded). Driver doesn’t like flag stops. I said they didn’t seem like much of a problem (safe, quick drop offs). He agreed, but he said passengers get mad if he doesn’t drop them right in front of their houses. Passengers disembarked within a block or two of each other and/or official stops several times. Half of passengers disembarked at flag stops. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) Annunciation was in Spanish as well as English on this route. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) Kirby – Olive – Arboleda Drive loop took 8 minutes. No passengers. Driver says there are never passengers on this loop. The loop is not served in the return direction. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) Mostly elderly Spanish-speaking passengers/college students (also speaking Spanish). Elderly go into town to shop, a couple work at Goodwill. One passenger was homeless and says she regularly rides to get out of the heat or rest. She was polite, friendly, helpful, not obviously homeless. One developmentally disabled. Passengers on this route were returning from Merced to home. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) Passengers mostly use monthly passes on this route, but also cash fares. No bikes or wheelchairs. Route: Turlock Surveyor: Samara Haapala Date: 9-19-2016 Departure Time: 1:32 PM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints To Turlock To Merced Atwater Transpo 1:49 PM Across Veterans Memorial 3:25 PM Across from Walnut Ave Walnut Ave & Francis St 3:57 PM & Franci St 2:03 PM Atwater Transpo MISSED Veteran’s Memorial Merced Transpo 4:12 PM Building 2:26 PM Rite Aid Monte Vista 2:52 PM Turlock Transpo MISSED Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) See “Passenger Issues” Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) There is no safe sidewalk at the 4th & El Capitan stop. I did not see signage at the 4th & South Ave stop. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) The bus had high ridership throughout; the majority of passengers got off at residential destinations. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) Most of the passengers were traveling from Merced to go home or go shopping. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) At the beginning of the run, there was an angry, inebriated rider who was yelling at the driver. She wanted to get off of the bus because it was too full for her comfort. Since a refund was not possible, she decided to stay on the bus, but was lashing out angrily throughout the ride. There were several people carrying strollers on and off of the bus, which caused hold-ups throughout the route. A single mother struggled to get off of the bus with her multiple children, a car seat, and a large stroller. Another family boarded with two separate strollers. A potential passenger boarded the bus to ask the driver questions about which bus to take. She ended up departing the bus to wait for another one. There was luggage stacked at the front of the bus. Two passengers at a flag stop after Walnut & Celia yelled at the driver to stop right after pulling to request the stop. Route: UC Surveyor: Samara Haapala Date: 9-21-2016 Departure Time: 9:45 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints MCAG Office 9:50 AM Scholars & Emigrant 10:27 AM Amtrak 9:52 AM Paulson Ave & Yosemite Ave 10:35 AM M St & Olive Ave 9:58 AM Tri-College Center & G St 10:38 AM Merced College 10:02 AM Merced College 10:42 AM Merced College UC Parking 10:04 AM M St & Olive Ave 10:48 AM Paulson Ave & Yosemite Ave 10:14 AM Amtrak 10:53 AM Gallo Rec Center 10:24 AM Merced Transpo 10:58 AM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) N/A Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) Pulling over at the MCAG office often necessitates double-parking. In addition, this stop lacks a sign or pole. Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) Several riders boarded at the Amtrak station. Many of these riders were Merced College and UC students. There were eight boardings at the M St & Village Apts Northbound stop. There were four boardings at Yosemite and Perch. The Gallo Recreation Center at UC Merced was the destination for the majority of riders. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) Students travelled from residential areas (usually apartment complexes) and Amtrak to the Gallo Rec Center at UC Merced. Passengers travelled from Merced College to both UC Merced and the Merced Transpo. Students boarded at Gallo Rec Center and got off in residential areas. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) N/A Route: W1 Winton Surveyor: Selena McKinney Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 8:35 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) Driver switch. Also, road supervisor had to assist driver with fare for passenger; re-issue of demagnetized fare. Left 6 minutes late to assist two passengers with fare issues. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) Most stops on this route are not signed (except time points). Service Area Characteristics (Key Ridership Generators, Areas of Low Demand) Boarding and alighting is throughout route—no segments with substantially higher or lower. Key Passenger Trip Patterns (Boarding and Alighting Pairs, Trip Purpose) Serves residential, school (including elementary), the HSA, Castle Clinic and Transpo. Passenger Issues (Fare Handling, Luggage/Packages/Bikes/Strollers/Carts, Passenger Conduct, Interaction With Driver, Etc.) A passenger boarded and card was “not valid”. Driver viewed date and allowed. Passenger wanted to pay $3.00 all day pass for son, $1.50 one-way for himself. Before driver understood the request, he printed two all day passes. The passenger paid $4.50. Driver issued one pass, kept the other. Other Notes Passenger noted that it was very cold on the bus (AC does run very high on newer, larger buses—surveyors noted this throughout as well). Route: W2 Winton Surveyor: Selena McKinney Date: 9-20-2016 Departure Time: 9:00 AM Arrival Time at Schedule Checkpoints Merced Transpo (Depart) 9:02 AM Park Ave @ Winton Way 10:06 AM Wal-Mart 9:16 AM Bellevue @ Winton / SavMart 10:12 AM Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 9:22 AM Castle H.S.A. 10:23 AM Castle H.S.A. 9:31 AM Castle Clinic 10:28 AM Castle Clinic 9:36 AM Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 10:40 AM Bellevue @ Atwater Plaza Shopping 9:49 AM Wal-Mart 10:46 AM Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 9:57 AM Merced Transpo (Arrive) 10:54 AM Route Operational Issues / Sources of Delay (* If High Priority) Route stayed on schedule. Bus Stop Deficiencies / Recommended Improvements (* If High Priority) Stop located at Dan Ward at Beachwood Drive has several issues. Appendix B Boarding/Alighting Data Collected by Consultant Counts on Total of 10 ROUTE: A1 Atwater Runs Passengers On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 16 Atwater Target (Depart) 11 2 Dollar tree 0 2 Atwater Transpo 6 0 Winton @ Olive 0 0 Winton @ Grove 4 0 Winton @ Juniper/St. Anthony's 0 0 Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store 1 0 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 11 7 Bellevue @ 5th 0 0 Bellevue @ Redwood 2 2 Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave 2 3 Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave 2 0 Bellevue @ Constitution 0 5 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 5 11 Bellevue @ Secretariat 4 0 Castle H.S.A. 8 7 3 Inbetween H.S.A. & Clinic 0 3 Castle Clinic 9 4 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 3 3 Buhach Rd @ Garden 3 0 Buhach Rd @ Juniper Ave/ Buhach High 0 4 Juniper Ave @ Bridgewater St 0 1 Juniper Ave @ Almador Ter 4 4 Anberry Outpatient center 3 4 4 Between Anberry & Capitol 1 3 Broadway @ Capitol St 5 1 Broadway @ Castle St 0 2 Atwater Transpo 0 11 Atwater @ Sierra Vista 0 0 Atwater Blvd near Hwy 99 2 1 Atwater Flea Market 3 1 State Highway Patrol 0 0 Atwater Target (Arrive) 0 13 Passengers staying on at end of run 11 0 TOTAL 89 90 Counts on Total of 9 ROUTE: A2 Atwater Winton Way Runs Passengers On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 1 Atwater Target (Depart) 7 Atwater Transpo 8 1 Winton @ Olive 0 3 Winton @ Grove 0 0 Winton @ Juniper/St. Anthony's 0 1 Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store 3 1 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 2 0 Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave 0 0 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 0 2 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 0 0 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 6 7 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 0 1 Myrtle @ California 0 2 California @ Helton 1 4 Dollar General 0 0 Park Ave @ Winton Way 1 0 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 0 0 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 1 0 Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave 0 0 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 1 2 Winton @ Bellevue/99 cent store 3 5 Winton @ Juniper/ St. Anthony 0 2 Winton @ Grove 0 0 Winton @ Olive 0 4 Atwater Target (Arrive) 0 0 Passengers staying on at end of run 0 0 TOTAL 33 35 ROUTE: L Livingston Commuter Counts on Total of 14 Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 1 Merced College (Depart) 76 M St @ Donna 2 0 M St @ Villages Apts 2 0 Loughborough Dr @ Laurel Glen Apts 6 0 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall 8 1 R St @ Olive/Sears 1 0 Meadows Ave @ Jo Ann Fabrics 1 0 Meadows @ Olivewood 5 2 Devondwood @ Dogwood 2 0 Wal-Mart 8 2 Castle H.S.A. 7 9 Castle Clinic 3 17 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 13 3 Walnut Ave @ Barbera Ave 1 8 1 Walnut Ave @ Carvera 0 1 2 Walnut Ave @ Cressey 1 2 0 Walnut Ave @ Cypress 0 1 0 Walnut Ave @ Sycamore 0 1 Walnut Ave @ Dwight Way 0 3 Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave 2 11 Walnut Ave @ Celia Dr 3 5 1 Flag: Davis Street; 1.75 blocks before Foster Farms 0 1 Foster Farms 1 13 Harvest Ave @ North Main St 0 5 1 North Main @ Nut Tree / Orchard 1 0 Main St @ Davis St 1 4 0 Main St @ 1st St 2 0 Main St @ B St 4 8 2 B St @ Briarwood 0 2 0 B St @ Main 1 0 Main @ C St/Livingston City Hall 1 0 3 Main @ Park 4 1 Park St @ 7th St 1 2 8th St @ F St 6 7 Main St @ F St 1 1 Main @ C St/Livingston City Hall 6 1 1 Flag: streetside, just before entering RSM shopping 0 1 Rancho San Miguel 10 12 Main @ Shopping Center 1 0 Main St @ Crowell St 3 0 Foster Farms 6 0 2 Walnut Ave @ Sycamore 1 1 Walnut Ave @ Francis St 23 6 Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave 6 0 Walnut Ave @ Dwight Way 3 0 Walnut Ave @ Almond Glen 0 1 1 Walnut Ave @ Cressey 3 1 Walnut Ave @ Barbera Ave 1 0 2 Walnut Ave @ Thompson 0 2 Walnut Ave @ Grape 2 0 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 6 16 Castle H.S.A. 2 1 Castle Clinic 4 3 Wal-Mart 1 9 Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood 0 1 Meadows @ Olivewood 0 1 Meadows @ Olive Merced Meadows Apts 0 0 R St @ Olive/Sears 0 0 Loughborough @ Target/Mall 1 6 Loughborough @ Laurel Glen Apts 0 1 M St @ Village Apts (northbound) 1 1 M St @ Donna (northbound) 0 0 0 Santa Fe @ Center St 0 1 0 Alverez Park @ Park Ave 0 2 0 8th St @ Park Ave 1 0 0 Beechwood @ Santa Fe 0 2 0 Winton Elementary 0 1 Merced College (Arrive) 0 50 Passengers staying on at end of run 2 2 TOTAL 244 230 Counts on Total of 6 ROUTE: LB Los Banos Commuter Runs Passengers On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 0 Merced Transpo (Depart) 56 El Nido Grocery 3 0 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 1 18 Food 4 /Dollar Tree 5 6 F St @ 4th St/County Offices 0 0 Los Banos Community Center 8 26 Los Banos Memorial Hospital 3 0 Merced College/Los Banos Campus 8 13 Walmart 8 11 1 2nd St @ I St 1 0 1 25 West I St Los Banos 1 0 Los Banos Memorial Hospital 2 1 F St @ 4th/County Offices 2 1 Los Banos Community Center 15 6 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 9 4 Y Chevron 12 0 El Nido Grocery 0 0 Transpo 8 22 1 Pacheco @ H St 0 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1 1 Merced College 1 24 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 0 4 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 0 3 Passengers staying on at end of run 1 0 TOTAL 144 141 Counts on Total of 15 Runs ROUTE: M1 Merced West (North Loop) Passengers Flag Stop On Off # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 27 Transpo 23 18th @ P St (westbound) 0 1 18th @ S St / Employment Development Dept. 2 10 Hwy 59 @ Riviera Holiday Mobile Estates 2 4 Hwy 59 @ willowbrook 0 1 Buena Vista Plaza 2 6 R St @ Donna Dr 3 1 El Redondo Dr @ Jenner Dr 1 0 1 El Redondo Drive @ Pacific 1 0 Village Terrace Landing Apts 3 1 Merced College 9 18 M St @ Yosemite Av 1 0 M St @ Donna 1 0 M St @ Villages Apts 1 3 3 N & 4th 1 2 Loughborough Dr & M St 1 1 Loughborough Dr @ Laurel Glen Apts 1 0 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall 12 6 Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts 0 1 Meadows @ Olive 6 3 Wal-Mart 6 20 Olivewood Dr. @ R St 0 0 R St @ 23rd St 0 2 18th @ S St / Employment Development Dept. 5 0 18th @ P St 2 2 2 W.Main St/ V. St 2 0 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 1 22 Passengers staying on at end of run 4 0 TOTAL 85 104 Counts on Total of 16 ROUTE: M1 Merced West (South Loop) Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 16 Merced Transpo (Depart) 26 W 15th @ P St 1 0 R St @ 12th St 2 1 R St @ 10th 0 1 R St @ 8th St 1 0 8th St @ T St 3 4 8th @ V St 0 0 V St @ 10th 2 1 Dennis Chavez Park - 11th @ W St 5 6 1 Hwy 140 @ Sydney Lane 0 1 Hwy 140 @ Dollar General 7 4 Lopes @ Linda 2 7 West Ave @ 7th St 2 0 Valley Community School 3 2 HSA-Human Services Agency 18 9 Merced County Workforce Dev 1 2 West Av @ 4th 1 2 T St @ 3rd 1 1 R St @ 4th 2 4 R St @ 8th 3 0 DMV 5 1 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 21 Passengers staying on at end of run 5 TOTAL 85 67 Counts on Total of 20 Runs ROUTE: M2 Merced R Street Route (North Loop) Passengers Flag Stop On Off # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 16 Transpo 61 18th St @ N St 1 0 1 18th @ Ost 1 0 18th @ P St 1 2 6 18th @ Rst 0 6 R St @ 23rd 3 6 Olivewood Dr. @ R St 5 10 Meadows @ Olivewood 2 11 Devondwood @ Dogwood 2 3 Wal-Mart 25 18 1 Loughborough @ Olive 1 0 Loughborough Dr @ Austin Ave 0 0 3 Loughborough @ Rst 2 1 Loughborough @village Meadow apts 3 12 Loughborough @ Target/Mall 17 10 1 Flag before Village Terrace Landing Apts 1 0 Loughborough Dr @ M St 1 7 Merced College 29 24 El Redondo Dr @ Jenner Dr 4 7 1 Pacific and Compass Point 0 1 Village Terrace Landing Apts 4 8 R St @ Donna 2 1 R St @ Buena Vista/Black Rascal Bike Path 2 2 Loughborough Dr @ Village Meadow Apt 2 3 1 Loughborough @ Carson 0 1 Loughborough Dr @ Austin Ave 0 0 Wal-Mart 16 6 Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood 4 1 Meadows Ave @ Olivewood 9 3 Olivewood Dr. @ R St 2 2 R St @ 23rd St 0 4 18th @ P St 0 1 18th St @ N St 0 0 1 Loughborough/North Conestoga 0 1 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 14 32 Passengers staying on at end of run 15 14 TOTAL 200 183 Counts on Total of 20 ROUTE: M2 Merced R St Rt (South Loop) Runs Passengers Flag Stop On Off # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 16 Merced Transpo (Depart) 51 R St @ 12th St 3 2 0 R St @ 10th St 1 1 R St @ 8th St 3 5 0 R St @ 6th St 0 2 0 Q St @ 3rd St 0 4 R St @ 4th St 3 7 0 P St @ 4th St 0 1 0 R St @ 2nd St 0 1 0 Childs @ R St 3 0 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 6 10 0 2nd St @ West 3 0 S St @ 2nd St 0 6 0 T St @ 2nd St 0 1 Valley Community School 9 0 0 Between Valley Com School and HAS 1 0 Human Services Agency (HSA) 26 19 Merced County Workforce Dev 6 4 West Av @ 4th 2 1 0 West Av @ Warobe 1 0 West Av @ 1st 2 1 R St @ Childs 5 5 R St @ 4th 8 2 R St @ 8th 2 1 R St @ 12th St 3 1 W 15th St @ P St 0 1 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 27 Passengers staying on at end of run 20 TOTAL 138 102 ROUTE: M3 Merced M Street Rt North Loop Counts on Total of 17 Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 36 Merced Transpo (Depart) 61 M St @ 19th 5 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 27 13 M St @ 26th 8 2 M St @ Social Security Office 0 23 5 Park Olive Plaza 0 5 10 Flag: M St --streetside in front of Merced Mall 0 10 Meadows @ Olive 7 21 Loughborough @village Meadow apts 1 17 Loughborough @ Target/Mall 8 8 Loughborough Dr @ M St 1 7 1 Mulan Institute 0 1 1 2 Blocks before M st 1 0 1 Loughborough @ R St (Saratoga Apt) 0 1 M St @ Village Apts 2 3 M St @ Donna 0 0 START Merced College 24 27 Yosemite Ave @ G st 3 4 3 Just before turn onto Yosesite 3 0 Yosemite Av @ Paulson 1 6 1 Merced County Physcians 0 1 1 Across from Raba Bank 0 1 Flag: Paulson 1/2 between Yosemite/Mercy 1 1 Mercy Ave @ Paulson Rd 2 0 1 Middle School on Mercy Ave 0 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 10 G St @ University/Tri College Center 3 1 M St @ Donna 0 0 1 Yosemite @ M st 0 1 M St @ Villages Apts 0 0 Loughborough Dr & M St 0 1 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall 17 1 1 Across from Fire Station #3 1 0 Meadows @ Olive 5 7 2 Village Meadows Apts 0 2 Social Security Office 19 2 M St @ 26th 3 2 1 Applegate Park 0 1 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 2 11 M St @ Main 2 7 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 12 27 Passengers staying on at end of run 9 16 TOTAL 220 226 ROUTE: M3 Merced M St Rte South Loop Counts on Total of 15 Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 9 Merced Transpo (Depart) 31 O St @ 15th 0 1 1 Merced County Office of Education 0 1 M St @ 12th 3 1 1 M St @ 10th 0 1 M St @ 8th 2 7 3 M St @ 6th 0 3 M St @ Childs 1 4 4 M St @ Golden Valley Health 0 4 Q St @ 3rd 1 2 1 O and Childs 0 1 1 R St @ Olive 0 1 4th @ P St 0 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 5 4 1 P St and Childs 0 0 M St @ Trudy Way 1 1 1 Q St and 2nd 0 0 M St @ Childs 1 0 3 Trudy/South 0 1 M St @ 8th 4 0 O St @ 15th 1 1 1 In Shape Gym 1 0 1 Merced County Physicians 0 1 1 G St @ Olive 1 0 1 Flag: streetside in front of Sr Center 0 1 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 1 Passengers staying on at end of run 20 1 TOTAL 62 36 Counts on Total of 20 ROUTE: M4 Merced G St Rte North Loop Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 25 Merced Transpo (Depart) 55 G St @ East Campus 16 11 G St @ 21st 2 1 G St @ 23rd 4 4 G St @ 26th 1 1 G St @ N. Bear Creek Dr 0 3 G St @ Alexander 3 5 G St @ Olive 9 22 G St @ Brookdale 2 3 G St @ Columbia Ave 4 4 G St @ El Portal 1 3 G St @ Donna 2 8 Yosemite Ave @ G st 0 2 Yosemite Ave @ Cordova Ave 0 4 Paulson Rd @ Yosemite Ave 0 1 Mercy Ave @ Paulson Rd 0 0 Mercy Medical Center 10 7 G St @ University/Tri College Center 0 8 Merced College 44 19 M St @ Yosemite Av 2 0 G St @ Yosemite 1 0 G St @ Columbia 12 2 4 Just before G St @ Brookdale 3 1 G St @ Brookdale 5 1 G St @ Merced High School North Campus 0 1 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 28 4 G St @ Alexander 6 1 G St @ Park Av 9 6 G St @ N. Bear Creek Dr 0 0 G St @ 26th 0 5 G St @ 23rd 1 6 G St @ 21st 1 6 G St @ 18th 9 9 1 16th Arons 0 1 1 D St and 11th 1 0 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 41 Passengers staying on at end of run 8 TOTAL 230 190 Counts on Total of 21 ROUTE: M4 Merced G St Rte South Loop Runs Passengers On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 12 Merced Transpo (Depart) 53 O St @ 15th 3 0 13th @ G St 7 4 13th before MLK 1 2 G St between 11th and 12th St 2 0 G St @ Skylark 1 9 Carmen @ Las Brisas 5 1 Carmen and La Mesa 0 1 Gerard @ La Mesa 1 1 G St @ Gerard 4 4 Amy and Gerard 1 1 G St @ Carmen 5 3 G St @ Skylark 4 3 Half block before COVE stop 1 0 C.O.V.E. 3 7 15th @ B St/Merced County Health 14 17 13th @ D St 11 7 D St and 10th 0 3 13th @ G St 1 2 I St @ 13th St 0 2 N St and 13th St 0 3 O St @ 15th 0 0 Cone Ave 1 0 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 29 Passengers staying on at end of run 8 TOTAL 118 99 Counts on Total of 16 ROUTE: M5 Merced South Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 0 Merced Transpo (Depart) 32 K St @ 18th/ MCAG 3 4 K St @ 21st 0 1 Amtrak 4 1 K St @ 23rd 0 0 1 23rd @ King St 0 1 21st @ G St 4 0 21st @ Glen 0 5 1 21st between Kelly & Ash 0 1 1 21st @ Ash 0 1 21st @ Cherry 1 0 21st @ Yosemite Pkwy 1 3 3 Gen & 21E 3 0 Parsons St @ Yosemite Pkwy/Rancho San Miguel 6 7 1 Infront of Rancho San Miguel 0 2 Parsons @ Golden Valley HS 1 1 Childs @ Manzanita/Golden Valley HS 3 4 Childs @ Golden Valley HS 1 1 Childs @ Watertown 5 1 1 Childs @ Coffee 1 0 3 Campus @ Gerard 2 1 Gerard @ Coffee/Pioneer Elementary 1 6 Gerard @ Laughlin 7 2 Villa Estates MHP 0 2 Gerard @ Parsons/Cal Storage 3 2 Parsons @ The Grove 10 4 Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn 6 0 Parsons @ Golden Valley HS 2 3 Merced Ave @ Marthella 2 0 Motel Dr @ Merced Ave 1 0 Motel Dr @ Courtyard by Marriot 0 2 Yosemite Pkwy @ Cypress 4 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Rose 0 0 1 Merced & Shirley 0 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Shirley 3 0 Yosemite Pkwy @ Carol 2 1 21st & Yosemite Pkwy 2 0 21st @ Cherry 1 0 21st @ Orchard 1 2 21st @ G ST 1 4 Amtrak 4 9 1 Central Valley Reginal Center 0 1 4 K ST @ 22nd 2 2 K St @ 21st 0 1 1 K St @ 20th 0 1 K St @ 18th/ MCAG 1 1 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 0 24 Passengers staying on at end of run 19 0 TOTAL 120 103 Counts on Total of 23 ROUTE: M6 Merced North Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 23 Merced College (Depart) 20 To UC Merced from Merced College 0 0 M St @ Donna 1 0 M St @ Villages Apts 0 1 1 M St @ Yosemite 1 0 Loughborough Dr & M St 1 1 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall 8 12 Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts 2 1 Olive @ R St 0 1 Olive @ Meadows 2 2 Meadows Ave @ Olivewood 1 5 Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood 5 0 1 Devonwood Dr @ Austin 1 0 Wal-Mart 8 13 Olive @ College Green 3 3 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 5 3 G St @ Alexander 5 0 G St @ Park Av 0 2 1 G St @ Sandy 0 2 G St @ 26th 0 2 26th St @ 9th St 1 0 26th @ 4th Av 2 1 26th @ Glen 1 12 27th @ Glen 3 1 27th @ Green) 3 1 27th @ Parsons 4 1 Stretch @ Parsons 0 2 1 Stretch @ Hawthorne 0 1 Stretch @ Green 0 0 Santa Fe @ Reef Apts 7 5 26th @ Glen 4 2 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 4 1 26th @ 4th Av 0 0 G St @ 26th 0 0 G St @ Alpine 1 0 Alexander @ G St 0 3 Alexander @ Aspen 1 1 4 Alexander @ Oleander 2 3 1 Alexander @ Nottingham 0 1 Sycamore @ Alexander 0 3 Parsons @ Alexander 6 0 Parsons @ Olive 1 2 1 Olive @ Teak 0 1 1 Bookdale @ Parsons 1 0 Yosemite Av @ Parsons 2 2 Yosemite Av @ Paulson 1 1 Mercy Medical Center 9 1 G St @ Univ/Tri College, to UC Merced 0 1 Merced College (Arrive) 4 17 Passengers staying on at end of run 23 2 TOTAL 116 111 Counts on Total of 11 ROUTE: P Planada Commute Runs Passengers On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 9 Jefferson @ Le Grand/Community Ctr (Depart) 6 Le Grand @ Washington 4 0 Le Grand @ Santa Fe 3 0 Adams @ Santa Fe 1 0 Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 9 0 Planada/Golden Valley Clinic (to Merced) 2 0 Broaway @ Cabrillo St 0 0 Haskell Ave @ Fancher St 2 0 Stanford Ave @ Fancher 1 0 Bigler Dr @ Vallejo St 1 0 1 Cabrillo @ Fancher 1 0 4 Felix Torres Housing 6 1 Sutter @ El Mercado 10 0 Gage St @ Hwy 140 1 2 Hwy 140 @ Kibby Rd 3 0 Yosemite Pkwy @ Murthella 0 3 Yosemite Pkwy @ Jean 1 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Laurel 1 2 Transpo 73 46 Yosemite Pkwy @ Cypress 1 3 Yosemite Pkwy @ Rose 0 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Shirley St 0 0 Yosemite Pkwy @ Carol 0 0 Kibby Rd @ Hwy 140 0 2 Felix Torres Housing 2 13 Gage St @ Hwy 140 2 6 Fancher @ Stanford Ave 0 1 Stanford Ave @ Sutter / El Mercado 2 9 Bigler Dr @ Vallejo St 0 3 Haskell Ave @ Fancher St 0 2 Broadway @ Cabrillo St 0 0 Planada/Golden Valley Clinic 1 5 Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 0 3 Childs @ Topeka St 0 2 McDowell St @ Truman Ave 0 3 Washington St @ Jackson 4 9 Washington St @ Monroe 0 1 Santa Fe @ Savanna 0 1 Arguello @ Castro 0 6 Jefferson @ Le Grand/Community Ctr (Arrive) 8 Passengers staying on at end of run 11 TOTAL 137 133 Counts on Total of ROUTE: P Planada Commute 4 Runs Surveyor Name ______Passengers Date ______On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 0 Merced Transpo (Depart) 37 Flag: across from Sr Center, back of Transpo 1 0 Yosemite Pkwy @ Cypress 1 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Rose 1 0 Yosemite Pkwy @ Shirley St 0 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Carol 1 2 Kibby Rd @ Hwy 140 0 0 Felix Torres Housing 3 5 Gage St @ Hwy 140 0 3 Flag: Latham Dr before De La Guerra 0 1 Stanford Ave @ Sutter / El Mercado 1 7 Bigler Dr @ Vallejo St 0 3 Haskell Ave @ Fancher St 1 2 Broadway @ Cabrillo St 0 3 Planada/Golden Valley Clinic 0 0 Flag: Just east of Plainsburg 0 1 Flag: Plainsburg just south of Childs 0 1 Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 0 1 Flag: Castro, just a block past previous stop 0 1 McDowell St @ Truman Ave 0 1 Washington St @ Jackson 0 1 Flag: McDowell St, east of Truman 0 1 Flag: McDowell St, east of Truman, 1/2 block further 0 1 Jefferson @ Le Grand/Community Ctr 3 5 Le Grand @ Washington 1 1 Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 0 1 Planada/Golden Valley Clinic (to Merced) 0 0 Broaway @ Cabrillo St 0 0 Haskell Ave @ Fancher St 0 0 Bigler Dr @ Vallejo St 0 0 Sutter @ El Mercado 3 1 Felix Torres Housing 0 0 Gage St @ Hwy 140 0 1 Hwy 140 @ Kibby Rd 0 0 Yosemite Pkwy @ Murthella 0 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Jean 0 0 Yosemite Pkwy @ Laurel 0 0 Flag: 16th Street between MLK and K Streets 0 1 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 0 6 Passengers staying on at end of run 0 0 TOTAL 53 53 Counts on Total of 4 ROUTE: T Turlock Commute Runs Passengers On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 19 Merced Transpo (Depart) 42 2 Stop before at Transpo 0 2 16th @ T st 2 2 Atwater Transpo 5 12 2 Near HWY 99 and Atwater Blvd 0 2 1 Before Walnut Ave @ Hammatt 0 1 Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave 0 3 Walnut Ave @ Celia Dr 1 1 Main St @ Davis St 0 1 Main St @ B St 0 3 1 After Main St @ B St Stop 1 0 1 1 After Main St @ B St Stop 2 0 1 4th St @ South Ave 1 1 4th @ El Capitan 0 0 Stephens St @ Locust St 5 5 Schendel Ave @ Mimosa Ave 0 8 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 0 6 Merced Ave @ Darren Ln 0 1 Monte Vista Ave @ Country Side - Turlock 6 4 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 25 5 Turlock Transpo 15 9 Fulkerth Shopping Center 3 1 Merced Ave @ Darren Ln 0 1 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 2 2 Schendel Ave @ Mimosa Ave 0 1 Stephens St @ Acacia St 4 1 4th @ El Capitan 0 0 4th St @ South Ave 0 0 Main @ Shopping Center 0 7 Main St @ Crowell St 0 0 Walnut Ave @ Francis St 1 1 Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave 0 0 Atwater Transpo 12 12 16th @ T st 0 6 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 0 29 Passengers staying on at end of run 0 0 TOTAL 124 127 Counts on Total of 13 ROUTE: UC Route Runs Passengers On Off Flag Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 0 Merced Transpo (Depart) K St @ 18th/ MCAG K St @ 21st 1 K St @ 25th Amtrak M St @ Social Security Office M St @ Fairfield/Hylond M St @ Village Apts 2 M St @ Donna 2 M St @ Olive 1 Merced College UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) Yosemite Ave @ Cordova Ave Yosemite Av @ Paulson Yosemite Av @ Parsons Yosemite Ave @ Perch Scholars at Mammoth Lks. 3 3 1 Infront of Mercy Medical Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 28 Scholars @ Emigrant Yosemite @ Perch 5 Yosemite Av @ Chapparal Yosemite Av @ Parsons 2 5 Maraca @ Parsons 1 Yosemite Av @ Hatch Yosemite Av @ Dove Yosemite Av @ Paulson 2 1 Yosemite Av @ Mckee Mansionette @ Redwing/St Patricks Temporary stop Mansionette @ Kingfisher Mercy Medical Center G St @ University/Tri College Center Yosemite Av @ Steamboat Merced College M St @ Yosemite Av M St @ Donna M St @ Villages Apts 6 M St @ Fairfield 1 Social Security Office 3 M St @ N. Bear Creek 2 K St @ 26th K St @ 24th St 24th @ MLK/Amtrak 8 1 K St @ 23rd 2 K St @ 22nd K St @ 21st K St @ 18th/ MCAG Merced Transpo (Arrive) Passengers staying on at end of run TOTAL 34 30 Counts on Total of 6 ROUTE: W1 Winton Commuter Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 1 Merced Transpo (Depart) 34 16th @ T st 2 0 Hwy 59 @ Riviera Holiday Mobile Estates 0 0 Hwy 59 @ willowbrook 0 0 Cooper @ Scholle Corp 0 0 Beachwood @ Oakland 1 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 0 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd 0 0 Langtry Ave 0 0 Gurr Rd @ Valley Dr 0 0 Buhach Rd @ Avenue One 0 2 Buhach Rd @ Juniper Ave/ Buhach High 0 0 Buhach @ 5th 0 0 Green Sands @ Buhach 0 1 Buhach @ Castle Park 0 0 Castle H.S.A. 0 4 Castle Clinic 4 1 Buchach Rd @ Bellevue Rd 0 1 Bellevue @ Secretariat 0 3 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 4 2 Bellevue @ Constitution/Osborn Park 0 0 Bellevue @ Brownell 0 4 Bellevue @ Atwater Plaza Shopping 1 0 Bellevue @ Redwood 0 1 Bellevue @ 5th 0 2 Bellevue @ 21st 1 0 Bellevue @ Winton 3 3 Bellevue @ Walgreens 0 1 Winton @ Bellevue/SaveMart 0 7 Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave 1 0 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 0 0 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 0 1 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 8 7 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 0 2 Myrtle @ California 1 0 California @ Santa Fe 1 0 California @ Helton 1 2 Park Ave @ Winton Way 0 0 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 0 0 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 0 0 Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave 0 0 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 0 0 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 4 4 Bellevue @ 5th 1 2 Bellevue @ Redwood 0 1 Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave 0 0 Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave 0 0 Bellevue @ Constitution 1 0 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 6 2 Bellevue @ Secretariat 0 0 Linden @ Bellvue 0 1 Castle H.S.A. 1 1 Castle Clinic 1 2 Buchach @ Bellevue 0 0 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 1 0 Buhach Rd @ Garden 0 1 Buhach Rd @ Juniper Ave/ Buhach High 0 0 Buhach Rd @ Avenue One 3 0 Gurr Rd @ Valley Dr 3 0 Langtry Ave 0 0 Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd 2 0 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 3 0 Beachwood @ Oakland 1 2 Cooper @ Scholle Corp 1 1 Hwy 59 @ Willowbrook 0 7 Hwy 59 @ Riviera MHP 0 0 16th @ T st 2 1 Strauss 0 2 Ashby Rd 1 0 Merced Transpo (Arrive) 0 11 Passengers staying on at end of run 0 0 TOTAL 92 84 Counts on Total of 6 ROUTE: W2 Winton Commuter North Runs Passengers Flag On Off Stop # Passengers on bus at beginning of run 0 Merced College (Depart) 14 M St @ Donna 0 0 M St @ Villages Apts 0 1 Loughborough Dr @ Laurel Glen Apts 0 0 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall 0 1 2 Bellvue Rd @ Buhach Rd 0 2 R St @ Olive/Sears 0 0 Meadows Ave @ Jo Ann Fabrics 0 0 Meadows @ Olivewood 3 0 Devondwood @ Dogwood 0 0 Wal-Mart 5 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 0 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd 0 0 Castle H.S.A. 0 1 Castle Clinic 0 3 Bellevue @ Secretariat 0 3 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 0 1 Bellevue @ Constitution/Osborn Park 0 0 Bellevue @ Brownell 0 1 Bellevue @ Atwater Plaza Shopping 5 2 Bellevue @ Redwood 0 0 Bellevue @ 5th 0 0 Bellevue @ Winton 0 5 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 0 1 Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave 0 0 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 0 0 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 0 1 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 2 5 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 0 0 Myrtle @ California 2 0 1 California @ Center Ave 1 0 California @ Helton 0 0 Dollar General 0 0 Park Ave @ Winton Way 1 0 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 0 0 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 1 0 Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave 4 0 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 0 0 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 18 1 Bellevue @ 5th 1 0 Bellevue @ Redwood 3 0 Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave 4 1 Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave 1 0 Bellevue @ Constitution 1 0 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 2 0 Bellevue @ Secretariat 8 1 Castle H.S.A. 2 0 Castle Clinic 0 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd 2 0 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 3 1 Wal-Mart 0 5 Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood 0 0 Meadows @ Olivewood 0 0 Meadows @ Olive Merced Meadows Apts 0 0 R St @ Olive/Sears 0 3 1 Bellvue @ Granite Drive 1 0 Loughborough @ Target/Mall 1 1 Loughborough @ Laurel Glen Apts 0 1 M St @ Village Apts 0 3 M St @ Donna 0 0 Merced College (Arrive) 0 38 Passengers staying on at end of run 0 0 TOTAL 85 85 Appendix C Boarding/Alighting Automatic Vehicle Location Data Route A1 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Atwater Target (to Winton) 25.9 28.9 54.8 19% Atwater Transpo (Clockwise) 7.1 3.7 10.8 4% Winton @ Olive (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Grove (northbound) 0.4 0.3 0.7 0% Winton @ Juniper/St. Anthony's (northbound) 0.5 0.3 0.8 0% Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store (northbound) 0.3 0.5 0.8 0% Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart (eastbound) 8.8 7.8 16.6 6% Bellevue @ 5th (eastbound) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0% Bellevue @ Redwood (eastbound) 0.3 0.5 0.8 0% Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave (eastbound) 0.0 0.6 0.6 0% Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave (eastbound) 0.5 0.5 1.0 0% Bellevue @ Constitution (eastbound) 2.0 1.9 3.9 1% Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary (eastbound) 3.7 1.8 5.5 2% Bellevue @ Secretariat (eastbound) 0.1 0.5 0.6 0% Castle H.S.A. (to Atwater/Winton) 3.0 5.7 8.7 3% Castle Clinic (to Atwater/Winton) 8.1 5.7 13.8 5% Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave (southbound) 2.8 1.3 4.1 1% Buhach Rd @ Garden (southbound) 0.2 0.7 0.9 0% Buhach Rd @ Juniper Ave/ Buhach High (southbound) 1.4 3.3 4.7 2% Juniper Ave @ Bridgewater St (westbound) 1.0 1.2 2.2 1% Juniper Ave @ Almador Ter (westbound) 8.9 6.3 15.2 5% Anberry Outpatient center (southbound) 1.6 3.1 4.7 2% Broadway @ Capitol St (westbound) 1.7 1.5 3.2 1% Broadway @ Castle St (westbound) 0.1 0.7 0.8 0% Atwater Transpo (Counter-Clockwise) 4.6 14.3 18.9 6% Atwater @ Sierra Vista (westbound) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Atwater Blvd near Hwy 99 1.0 1.0 2.0 1% Atwater Flea Market (To Target) 0.4 0.8 1.2 0% State Highway Patrol 0.5 0.2 0.7 0% Atwater Target (to Winton) 25.9 28.9 54.8 19% n/a 23.2 36.5 59.7 20% TOTAL 134.1 158.9 293.0 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route A2 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Atwater Target (to Winton) 4.0 4.1 8.1 15% Atwater Transpo (Counter-Clockwise) 2.8 1.9 4.7 9% Winton @ Olive (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Grove (northbound) 0.1 0.3 0.4 1% Winton @ Juniper/St. Anthony's (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store (northbound) 1.4 2.0 3.4 6% Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS (northbound) 0.2 0.2 0.4 1% Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Doris/Winton PO (northbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Winton Way @ Crawfort St (northbound) 0.2 0.2 0.4 1% Center @ Walnut/Winton Library (northbound) 2.6 1.2 3.8 7% Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave (northbound) 0.9 0.5 1.4 3% Myrtle @ California (eastbound) 0.7 0.3 1.0 2% California @ Helton 0.2 0.0 0.2 0% Dollar General (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Park Ave @ Winton Way (westbound) 0.1 0.4 0.5 1% Winton Way @ Crawfort St (southbound) 1.2 0.1 1.3 2% Winton @ Doris/Winton PO (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS (southbound) 0.0 1.4 1.4 3% Winton @ Bellevue/99 cent store (southbound) 1.5 0.9 2.4 5% Winton @ Juniper/ St. Anthony (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Grove (southbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% Winton @ Olive (southbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Atwater Transpo (Clockwise) 1.1 2.4 3.5 7% n/a 7.6 11.7 19.3 37% TOTAL 24.7 27.9 52.6 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route M1 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (north/east) 34.1 31.0 65.1 12% 18th @ P St (westbound) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0% 18th @ S St / EDD (westbound) 3.4 5.5 8.9 2% Hwy 59 @ Riviera Holiday Mobile Estates (northbound) 3.3 3.0 6.3 1% Hwy 59 @ willowbrook (northbound) 0.1 0.4 0.5 0% Buena Vista Plaza (north/south bound) 2.5 4.3 6.8 1% R St @ Donna Dr (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% El Redondo Dr @ Jenner Dr (northbound) 1.8 1.4 3.2 1% Village Terrace Landing Apts (southbound) 1.3 0.1 1.4 0% Merced College 21.7 18.8 40.5 8% M St @ Yosemite Av 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% M St @ Donna (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% M St @ Villages Apts (southbound) 1.2 1.2 2.4 0% Loughborough Dr & M St (westbound) 0.4 0.7 1.1 0% Loughborough Dr @ Laurel Glen Apts (westbound) 0.5 1.4 1.9 0% Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall (westbound) 19.7 10.3 30.0 6% Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Meadows @ Olive (southbound) 7.2 2.6 9.8 2% Wal-Mart (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Olivewood Dr. @ R St (southbound) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0% R St @ 23rd St (southbound) 0.2 0.6 0.8 0% 18th St @ S St/ EDD (eastbound) 8.7 4.0 12.7 2% 18th @ P St (eastbound) 0.1 0.6 0.7 0% Transpo (south/west) 53.3 56.0 109.3 21% W 15th @ P St (westbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% R St @ 12th St (southbound) 1.0 2.2 3.2 1% R St @ 10th (southbound) 0.0 0.7 0.7 0% R St @ 8th St (southbound) 0.4 0.3 0.7 0% 8th St @ T St (westbound) 0.8 2.8 3.6 1% 8th @ V St (westbound) 0.3 0.1 0.4 0% V St @ 10th (northbound) 0.0 0.8 0.8 0% 11th @ W St (westbound) 6.4 5.2 11.6 2% Hwy 140 @ Dollar General (westbound) 5.0 6.1 11.1 2% Lopes @ Linda (eastbound) 1.2 0.9 2.1 0% West Ave @ 7th St (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Valley Community School (westbound) 0.1 0.4 0.5 0% HSA 6.6 8.0 14.6 3% Merced County Workforce Dev (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% West Av @ 4th (southbound) 0.5 0.2 0.7 0% T St @ 3rd (southbound) 4.2 4.5 8.7 2% R St @ 4th (northbound) 0.9 0.2 1.1 0% R St @ 8th (northbound) 1.1 0.0 1.1 0% DMV (eastbound) 5.6 2.4 8.0 2% n/a 65.3 92.6 157.9 30% TOTAL 259.0 270.1 529.1 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route M2 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (north/east) 52.4 41.9 94.3 13% 18th St @ N St (westbound) 3.0 1.2 4.2 1% 18th @ P St (westbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% R St @ 23rd 3.3 2.8 6.1 1% Olivewood Dr. @ R St (westbound) 0.2 4.8 5.0 1% Meadows @ Olivewood 3.5 10.8 14.3 2% Devondwood @ Dogwood (westbound) 0.6 0.4 1.0 0% Wal-Mart (northbound) 20.1 18.9 39.0 5% Loughborough Dr @ Austin Ave (eastbound) 0.4 0.6 1.0 0% Loughborough @village Meadow apts (eastbound) 1.2 3.4 4.6 1% Loughborough @ Target/Mall (eastbound) 18.4 14.2 32.6 5% Loughborough Dr @ M St 0.0 1.2 1.2 0% Merced College 46.1 41.6 87.7 12% El Redondo Dr @ Jenner Dr (northbound) 1.0 2.8 3.8 1% Village Terrace Landing Apts (southbound) 2.7 2.0 4.7 1% R St @ Donna 0.8 0.3 1.1 0% R St @ Buena Vista/Black Rascal Bike Path 0.4 0.3 0.7 0% Loughborough Dr @ Village Meadow Apt (westbound) 3.9 2.0 5.9 1% Loughborough Dr @ Austin Ave (westbound) 0.4 0.4 0.8 0% Wal-Mart (southbound) 0.2 0.3 0.5 0% Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood (eastbound) 0.1 0.8 0.9 0% Meadows Ave @ Olivewood (northbound) 14.2 5.0 19.2 3% Olivewood Dr. @ R St (southbound) 1.3 1.1 2.4 0% R St @ 23rd St (southbound) 1.4 2.9 4.3 1% 18th @ P St (eastbound) 0.2 0.6 0.8 0% 18th St @ N St (eastbound) 0.1 3.3 3.4 0% Transpo (south/west) 41.6 70.2 111.8 16% R St @ 12th St (southbound) 3.6 4.4 8.0 1% R St @ 8th St (southbound) 0.2 2.6 2.8 0% R St @ 4th St (southbound) 0.0 2.1 2.1 0% N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 13.1 9.0 22.1 3% S St @ 2nd St (westbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% West Av @ 1st (southbound) 1.1 0.4 1.5 0% R St @ Childs (northbound) 4.1 1.5 5.6 1% R St @ 4th (northbound) 5.3 0.2 5.5 1% R St @ 8th (northbound) 3.0 0.4 3.4 0% R St @ 12th St (northbound) 1.8 1.6 3.4 0% W 15th St @ P St (eastbound) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0% n/a 91.3 119.2 210.5 29% TOTAL 341.3 375.5 716.8 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route M3 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (north/east) 54.7 24.3 79.0 15% M St @ 19th (northbound) 3.7 1.7 5.4 1% M St @ 22nd/County Offices (northbound) 10.8 4.2 15.0 3% M St @ 26th (northbound) 3.2 1.5 4.7 1% M St @ Social Security Office (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Meadows @ Olive (northbound) 4.7 6.3 11.0 2% Loughborough @village Meadow apts (eastbound) 1.3 0.2 1.5 0% Loughborough @ Target/Mall (eastbound) 11.6 9.4 21.0 4% Loughborough Dr @ M St 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% M St @ Village Apts (northbound) 0.5 1.0 1.5 0% M St @ Donna (northbound) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Merced College 25.7 31.6 57.3 11% Yosemite Ave @ G st (eastbound) 0.0 0.3 0.3 0% Yosemite Av @ Paulson (eastbound) 0.1 0.4 0.5 0% Mercy Ave @ Paulson Rd (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Mercy Medical Center 4.4 4.0 8.4 2% G St @ University/Tri College Center 0.4 0.0 0.4 0% M St @ Donna (southbound) 0.4 0.0 0.4 0% M St @ Villages Apts (southbound) 1.4 0.4 1.8 0% Loughborough Dr & M St (westbound) 0.3 0.4 0.7 0% Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall (westbound) 15.5 6.0 21.5 4% Meadows @ Olive (southbound) 6.6 2.7 9.3 2% Social Security Office (southbound) 9.9 2.4 12.3 2% M St @ 26th (southbound) 0.9 1.7 2.6 0% M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices (southbound) 5.7 7.7 13.4 3% M St @ Main (southbound) 2.4 3.5 5.9 1% Transpo (south/west) 25.7 49.0 74.7 14% O St @ 15th (southbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% M St @ 12th (southbound) 1.0 1.8 2.8 1% M St @ 8th (southbound) 2.2 2.9 5.1 1% M St @ Childs (southbound) 0.3 0.9 1.2 0% Q St @ 3rd (northbound) 2.2 0.6 2.8 1% 4th @ P St (eastbound) 0.7 1.7 2.4 0% N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 7.8 3.2 11.0 2% M St @ Trudy Way (northbound) 3.0 3.4 6.4 1% M St @ Childs (northbound) 1.9 0.1 2.0 0% M St @ 8th (northbound) 3.0 0.6 3.6 1% O St @ 15th (northbound) 0.3 0.0 0.3 0% n/a 43.0 93.2 136.2 26% TOTAL 255.4 267.4 522.8 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route M4 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (small) 21.6 25.8 47.4 7% G St @ East Campus (northbound) 8.0 2.5 10.5 2% G St @ 21st (northbound) 1.6 1.4 3.0 0% G St @ 23rd (northbound) 0.2 0.5 0.7 0% G St @ 26th (northbound) 0.1 1.2 1.3 0% G St @ N. Bear Creek Dr (northbound) 0.3 2.0 2.3 0% G St @ Alexander (northbound) 0.9 2.8 3.7 1% G St @ Olive (northbound) 5.7 8.4 14.1 2% G St @ Brookdale (northbound) 0.9 1.0 1.9 0% G St @ Columbia Ave (northbound) 0.9 1.8 2.7 0% G St @ El Portal (northbound) 0.5 1.1 1.6 0% G St @ Donna (northbound) 15.3 16.1 31.4 5% Yosemite Ave @ G st (eastbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Yosemite Ave @ Cordova Ave (eastbound) 0.8 2.4 3.2 1% Paulson Rd @ Yosemite Ave (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Mercy Ave @ Paulson Rd (westbound) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0% Mercy Medical Center 3.9 4.7 8.6 1% G St @ University/Tri College Center 0.5 1.6 2.1 0% Merced College 16.3 12.3 28.6 5% M St @ Yosemite Av 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% G St @ Yosemite (southbound) 3.2 1.1 4.3 1% G St @ Columbia (southbound) 2.7 1.1 3.8 1% G St @ Brookdale (southbound) 2.0 0.8 2.8 0% G St @ Merced High School North Campus 0.2 0.5 0.7 0% G St @ Olive/Save Mart 11.4 4.4 15.8 2% G St @ Alexander (southbound) 1.8 0.3 2.1 0% G St @ Park Av 2.4 0.5 2.9 0% G St @ N. Bear Creek Dr (southbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% G St @ 26th (southbound) 1.1 1.3 2.4 0% G St @ 23rd (southbound) 0.2 1.1 1.3 0% G St @ 21st (southbound) 1.7 5.3 7.0 1% G St @ 18th (southbound) 3.2 4.9 8.1 1% Transpo - Small (Southbound) 23.7 32.2 55.9 9% O St @ 15th (southbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% 13th @ G St (eastbound) 1.2 4.0 5.2 1% G St @ Skylark (southbound) 0.4 1.1 1.5 0% Carmen @ Las Brisas 0.6 0.2 0.8 0% Gerard @ La Mesa 1.8 3.2 5.0 1% G St @ Gerard (northbound) 0.4 0.9 1.3 0% G St @ Carmen (northbound) 2.6 2.2 4.8 1% G St @ Skylark (northbound) 0.5 0.2 0.7 0% Sunny View Apartments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% COVE at 13th & D St (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 15th @ B St/Merced County Health (eastbound) 0.6 0.0 0.6 0% 13th @ D St (westbound) 1.3 0.3 1.6 0% 13th @ G St (westbound) 0.2 0.0 0.2 0% O St @ 15th (northbound) 0.4 1.9 2.3 0% n/a 155.4 184.9 340.3 54% TOTAL 296.6 338.5 635.1 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route M5 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (south/west) 49.9 50.6 100.5 22% K St @ 18th/ MCAG (northbound) 2.9 2.0 4.9 1% K St @ 21st (northbound) 0.2 1.8 2.0 0% Amtrak (westbound) 7.8 5.7 13.5 3% K St @ 23rd (southbound) 0.7 0.4 1.1 0% 21st @ G St (eastbound) 5.9 0.7 6.6 1% 21st @ Glen (eastbound) 1.4 1.5 2.9 1% 21st @ Cherry (eastbound) 1.2 1.4 2.6 1% 21st @ Yosemite Pkwy (eastbound) 0.7 7.7 8.4 2% Parsons St @ Yosemite Pkwy/Rancho San Miguel (soutbound)0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Parsons @ Golden Valley HS (southbound) 0.5 2.6 3.1 1% Childs @ Manzanita/Golden Valley HS (eastbound) 0.4 0.3 0.7 0% Childs @ Watertown (eastbound) 2.2 1.8 4.0 1% Gerard @ Coffee/Pioneer Elementary (westbound) 2.0 4.5 6.5 1% Gerard @ Laughlin (westbound) 5.4 3.5 8.9 2% Villa Estates MHP (westbound) 1.2 3.2 4.4 1% Gerard @ Parsons/Cal Storage 4.8 1.6 6.4 1% Parsons @ The Grove 11.4 11.6 23.0 5% Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn (northbound) 1.6 2.1 3.7 1% Parsons @ Golden Valley HS (northbound) 4.3 1.4 5.7 1% Merced Ave @ Marthella (to Transpo) 1.5 1.0 2.5 1% Motel Dr @ Merced Ave (to Transpo) 0.9 0.5 1.4 0% Motel Dr @ Courtyard by Marriot (to Transpo)) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Yosemite Pkwy @ Cypress (to Transpo) 1.7 1.0 2.7 1% Yosemite Pkwy @ Rose (to Transpo) 2.1 1.0 3.1 1% Yosemite Pkwy @ Shirley (to Transpo) 2.6 0.6 3.2 1% Yosemite Pkwy @ Carol (to Transpo) 0.0 0.8 0.8 0% 21st & Yosemite Pkwy (westbound) 5.2 0.9 6.1 1% 21st @ Cherry (westbound) 3.0 0.3 3.3 1% 21st @ Orchard (westbound) 0.2 1.3 1.5 0% 21st @ G ST (westbound) 1.2 6.8 8.0 2% Amtrak (To Transpo) 5.0 10.4 15.4 3% K St @ 21st (southbound) 0.7 1.6 2.3 1% K St @ 18th/ MCAG (southbound) 1.6 3.2 4.8 1% n/a 86.4 104.0 190.4 42% TOTAL 216.6 238.0 454.6 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route M6 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Wal-Mart (northbound) 17.7 21.1 38.8 14% Olive @ College Green (eastbound) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0% G St @ Olive/Save Mart 5.1 5.7 10.8 4% G St @ Alexander (southbound) 1.5 0.9 2.4 1% G St @ Park Av 3.7 0.9 4.6 2% G St @ 26th (southbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% 26th @ 4th Av (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 26th @ Glen (eastbound) 2.3 6.8 9.1 3% 27th @ Glen 1.2 1.4 2.6 1% 27th @ Green) 2.2 2.2 4.4 2% 27th @ Parsons 4.0 3.8 7.8 3% Stretch @ Parsons 2.5 2.6 5.1 2% Stretch @ Green 0.7 0.9 1.6 1% Santa Fe @ Reef Apts 8.6 6.1 14.7 5% 26th @ Glen (westbound) 3.4 0.1 3.5 1% 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS (westbound) 0.5 0.6 1.1 0% 26th @ 4th Av (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% G St @ 26th (northbound) 0.2 0.3 0.5 0% G St @ Alpine (northbound) 0.7 1.3 2.0 1% Alexander @ G St 2.4 2.6 5.0 2% Alexander @ Aspen 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% Parsons @ Alexander 2.7 4.3 7.0 2% Parsons @ Olive 1.4 0.3 1.7 1% Yosemite Av @ Parsons (westbound) 0.3 0.3 0.6 0% Yosemite Av @ Paulson 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Mercy Medical Center 6.5 4.2 10.7 4% G St @ Univ/Tri College, to UC Merced 0.1 0.4 0.5 0% Merced College 14.5 17.0 31.5 11% To UC Merced from Merced College 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% M St @ Donna (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% M St @ Villages Apts (southbound) 0.6 0.6 1.2 0% Loughborough Dr & M St (westbound) 0.1 1.7 1.8 1% Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall (westbound) 5.5 9.3 14.8 5% Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts (westbound) 0.1 0.3 0.4 0% Olive @ Meadows (westbound) 1.4 1.9 3.3 1% Meadows Ave @ Olivewood (northbound) 2.1 5.0 7.1 3% Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood (eastbound) 0.3 0.3 0.6 0% n/a 40.3 46.1 86.4 31% TOTAL 132.8 149.5 282.3 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route L Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Merced College 32.7 31.5 64.2 22% M St @ Donna (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% M St @ Villages Apts (southbound) 0.6 0.0 0.6 0% Loughborough Dr @ Laurel Glen Apts (westbound) 0.4 0.0 0.4 0% Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall (westbound) 4.7 0.8 5.5 2% R St @ Olive/Sears (southbound) 0.8 0.2 1.0 0% Meadows Ave @ Jo Ann Fabrics (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Meadows @ Olivewood 1.3 0.1 1.4 0% Devondwood @ Dogwood (westbound) 0.1 0.5 0.6 0% Wal-Mart (northbound) 3.3 1.3 4.6 2% Castle H.S.A. (to Atwater/Winton) 2.8 3.1 5.9 2% Castle Clinic (to Atwater/Winton) 1.4 5.1 6.5 2% Center @ Walnut/Winton Library (northbound) 6.4 3.3 9.7 3% Walnut Ave @ Barbera Ave (westbound) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0% Walnut Ave @ Dwight Way (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave (westbound) 0.1 2.5 2.6 1% Walnut Ave @ Celia Dr (westbound) 3.8 8.2 12.0 4% Foster Farms (To Livingston) 0.0 1.3 1.3 0% Harvest Ave @ North Main St (eastbound) 0.3 1.0 1.3 0% Main St @ Davis St (southbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% Main St @ B St (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Main @ C St/Livingston City Hall (southbound) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0% Park St @ 7th St (eastbound) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0% 8th St @ F St (northbound) 4.3 0.8 5.1 2% Main St @ F St (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Main @ C St/Livingston City Hall (northbound) 0.3 0.0 0.3 0% Rancho San Miguel (to Livingston) 4.6 2.9 7.5 3% Main @ Shopping Center (northbound) 0.7 1.6 2.3 1% Main St @ Crowell St (northbound) 0.8 0.1 0.9 0% Foster Farms (To Merced) 1.7 0.2 1.9 1% Walnut Ave @ Francis St (eastbound) 8.1 0.3 8.4 3% Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave (eastbound) 2.5 0.0 2.5 1% Walnut Ave @ Dwight Way (eastbound) 0.8 0.0 0.8 0% Walnut Ave @ Barbera Ave (eastbound) 1.5 0.0 1.5 1% Center @ Walnut/Winton Library (southbound) 3.8 5.9 9.7 3% Castle H.S.A. (To Merced) 1.3 1.5 2.8 1% Castle Clinic (to Merced) 2.2 2.9 5.1 2% Wal-Mart (southbound) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0% Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Meadows @ Olivewood (to First Christian Church) 0.3 1.5 1.8 1% Meadows @ Olive Merced Meadows Apts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% R St @ Olive/Sears (northbound) 0.0 1.3 1.3 0% Loughborough @ Target/Mall (eastbound) 1.5 1.4 2.9 1% Loughborough @ Laurel Glen Apts (eastbound) 0.2 0.7 0.9 0% M St @ Village Apts (northbound) 0.0 0.6 0.6 0% M St @ Donna (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% n/a 53.7 67.9 121.6 41% TOTAL 147.6 149.9 297.5 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route LB Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (south/west) 51.2 39.0 90.2 25% El Nido Grocery (southbound) 0.9 1.0 1.9 1% Dos Palos "Y" Chevron (to Los Banos) 1.4 14.2 15.6 4% Food 4 /Dollar Tree (To Los Banos) 1.5 8.9 10.4 3% F St @ 4th St/County Offices (westbound) 2.0 3.2 5.2 1% Los Banos Community Center (Westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Los Banos Memorial Hospital (westbound) 2.1 2.4 4.5 1% Merced College/Los Banos Campus 5.2 3.8 9.0 3% Walmart (Eastbound) 5.3 5.4 10.7 3% Los Banos Memorial Hospital (eastbound) 1.6 0.9 2.5 1% F St @ 4th/County Offices 0.6 0.2 0.8 0% Los Banos Community Center (Eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree (To Merced 10.3 1.9 12.2 3% Y Chevron (to Dos Palos) 15.7 2.3 18.0 5% El Nido Grocery (northbound) 3.0 0.7 3.7 1% Transpo (north/east) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0% M St @ 22nd/County Offices (northbound) 1.9 1.8 3.7 1% Merced College 10.1 27.8 37.9 11% M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices (southbound) 0.3 0.3 0.6 0% n/a 65.3 65.6 130.9 37% TOTAL 178.6 179.5 358.1 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route P Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (south/west) 39.2 40.4 79.6 35% Yosemite Pkwy @ Cypress (eastbound) 1.5 0.5 2.0 1% Yosemite Pkwy @ Rose (eastbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Yosemite Pkwy @ Shirley St (eastbound) 0.0 0.8 0.8 0% Yosemite Pkwy @ Carol (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Kibby Rd @ Hwy 140 (northbound) 0.1 1.2 1.3 1% Felix Torres Housing 4.3 3.3 7.6 3% Gage St @ Hwy 140 (southbound) 0.0 2.0 2.0 1% Stanford Ave @ Sutter / El Mercado (eastbound) 0.5 3.9 4.4 2% Bigler Dr @ Vallejo St (southeast bound) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Haskell Ave @ Fancher St (eastbound) 0.3 1.2 1.5 1% Broadway @ Cabrillo St (westbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Planada/Golden Valley Clinic (to Le Grand) 1.3 0.5 1.8 1% Crispi Dr @ Topeka St (southbound) 0.0 1.1 1.1 0% McDowell St @ Truman Ave (westbound) 0.5 1.0 1.5 1% Washington St @ Jackson (eastbound) 1.8 0.4 2.2 1% Jefferson @ Le Grand/Community Ctr 6.5 5.0 11.5 5% Le Grand @ Washington 3.9 0.4 4.3 2% Crispi Dr @ Topeka St (northbound) 2.0 0.1 2.1 1% Planada/Golden Valley Clinic (to Merced) 0.7 0.7 1.4 1% Broaway @ Cabrillo St (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Haskell Ave @ Fancher St (westbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% Bigler Dr @ Vallejo St (northwest bound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Sutter @ El Mercado (to Merced) 9.2 1.2 10.4 5% Gage St @ Hwy 140 (northbound) 1.7 0.0 1.7 1% Hwy 140 @ Kibby Rd (westbound) 2.2 0.0 2.2 1% Yosemite Pkwy @ Murthella (westbound) 0.1 0.6 0.7 0% Yosemite Pkwy @ Jean (westbound) 0.6 0.3 0.9 0% Yosemite Pkwy @ Laurel (westbound) 0.0 0.5 0.5 0% n/a 39.9 46.7 86.6 38% TOTAL 116.4 112.2 228.6 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route T Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (north/east) 20.1 41.5 61.6 12% 16th @ T st (NorthWest bound) 1.2 0.0 1.2 0% Atwater Transpo (westbound) 14.2 19.0 33.2 6% Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave (westbound) 1.2 2.5 3.7 1% Walnut Ave @ Celia Dr (westbound) 2.5 3.9 6.4 1% Main St @ Davis St (southbound) 1.1 1.4 2.5 0% Main St @ B St (southbound) 0.4 1.0 1.4 0% 4th St @ South Ave (northbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% 4th @ El Capitan (northbound) 0.5 0.2 0.7 0% Stephens St @ Locust St (southbound) 6.7 3.2 9.9 2% Schendel Ave @ Mimosa Ave (westbound) 0.9 2.2 3.1 1% Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS (westbound) 1.0 1.1 2.1 0% Merced Ave @ Darren Ln (northbound) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0% Monte Vista Ave @ Country Side - Turlock (eastbound) 4.7 5.8 10.5 2% W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd (eastbound) 17.5 22.2 39.7 7% Turlock Transpo (to Merced) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Fulkerth Shopping Center 5.7 5.8 11.5 2% Merced Ave @ Darren Ln (southbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Schendel Ave @ Mimosa Ave (eastbound) 2.8 0.8 3.6 1% Stephens St @ Acacia St (northbound) 2.5 1.8 4.3 1% 4th @ El Capitan (southbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% 4th St @ South Ave (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Main @ Shopping Center (northbound) 5.3 5.6 10.9 2% Main St @ Crowell St (northbound) 1.1 1.0 2.1 0% Walnut Ave @ Francis St (eastbound) 7.7 2.1 9.8 2% Walnut Ave @ Hammatt Ave (eastbound) 0.6 0.1 0.7 0% Atwater Transpo (eastbound) 25.5 12.8 38.3 7% 16th @ T st ( southeast bound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% n/a 138.1 135.7 273.8 51% TOTAL 261.6 270.2 531.8 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route UC Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 117.5 118.9 236.4 30% Scholars @ Emigrant 12.4 2.8 15.2 2% Yosemite @ Perch (westbound) 1.0 14.4 15.4 2% Yosemite Av @ Chapparal (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Yosemite Av @ Parsons (westbound) 0.8 15.6 16.4 2% Yosemite Av @ Dove 0.0 0.3 0.3 0% Yosemite Av @ Paulson 0.1 0.7 0.8 0% Mansionette @ Redwing/St Patricks Temporary stop 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Mansionette @ Kingfisher 0.0 0.3 0.3 0% Mercy Medical Center 2.2 0.8 3.0 0% G St @ University/Tri College Center 0.5 1.5 2.0 0% Yosemite Av @ Steamboat 0.0 1.4 1.4 0% Merced College 11.5 12.7 24.2 3% M St @ Yosemite Av 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% M St @ Donna (southbound) 0.0 1.4 1.4 0% M St @ Villages Apts (southbound) 3.1 31.1 34.2 4% M St @ Fairfield 0.4 3.6 4.0 1% Social Security Office (southbound) 8.7 9.1 17.8 2% M St @ N. Bear Creek (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% K St @ 24th St (southbound) 0.3 0.5 0.8 0% 24th @ MLK/Amtrak (eastbound) 3.2 16.7 19.9 3% K St @ 21st (southbound) 0.3 0.5 0.8 0% K St @ 18th/ MCAG (southbound) 1.4 5.6 7.0 1% Transpo (south/west) 29.5 40.6 70.1 9% K St @ 18th/ MCAG (northbound) 3.3 1.6 4.9 1% K St @ 21st (northbound) 1.7 0.8 2.5 0% Amtrak (westbound) 25.3 0.7 26.0 3% M St @ Social Security Office (northbound) 0.4 1.2 1.6 0% M St @ Fairfield/Hylond 0.3 1.1 1.4 0% M St @ Village Apts (northbound) 33.1 1.1 34.2 4% M St @ Donna (northbound) 0.4 0.2 0.6 0% Merced College (To UC Merced) 13.9 15.8 29.7 4% UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 2.3 2.0 4.3 1% Yosemite Ave @ Cordova Ave (eastbound) 6.0 1.0 7.0 1% Yosemite Av @ Paulson (eastbound) 4.5 0.5 5.0 1% Yosemite Av @ Parsons (eastbound) 20.4 1.0 21.4 3% Yosemite Ave @ Perch (eastbound) 6.9 1.0 7.9 1% Scholars at Mammoth Lks. 8.4 9.0 17.4 2% n/a 68.5 82.2 150.7 19% TOTAL 388.3 397.8 786.1 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route W1 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Transpo (north/east) 23.7 33.9 57.6 13% 16th @ T st (NorthWest bound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% Hwy 59 @ Riviera Holiday Mobile Estates (northbound) 0.3 0.4 0.7 0% Hwy 59 @ willowbrook (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Cooper @ Scholle Corp (westbound) 0.6 0.0 0.6 0% Beachwood @ Oakland (northbound) 0.5 1.2 1.7 0% Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr (westbound) 1.2 0.9 2.1 0% Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd (westbound) 1.1 0.6 1.7 0% Langtry Ave (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Gurr Rd @ Valley Dr (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Buhach Rd @ Avenue One (northbound) 0.6 0.4 1.0 0% Buhach Rd @ Juniper Ave/ Buhach High (northbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% Buhach @ 5th 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Buhach @ Castle Park 0.0 2.6 2.6 1% Castle H.S.A. (to Atwater/Winton) 3.0 8.7 11.7 3% Castle Clinic (to Atwater/Winton) 5.7 5.1 10.8 2% Buchach Rd @ Bellevue Rd (To Winton) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% Bellevue @ Secretariat (westbound) 1.2 0.5 1.7 0% Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary (westbound) 1.9 1.6 3.5 1% Bellevue @ Constitution/Osborn Park (westbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% Bellevue @ Brownell (westbound) 1.5 7.4 8.9 2% Bellevue @ Atwater Plaza Shopping 0.4 1.1 1.5 0% Bellevue @ Redwood (westbound) 0.1 2.5 2.6 1% Bellevue @ 5th (westbound) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0% Bellevue @ Winton (westbound) 4.8 12.4 17.2 4% Winton @ Bellevue/SaveMart (northbound) 0.2 0.2 0.4 0% Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Doris/Winton PO (northbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% Winton Way @ Crawfort St (northbound) 1.1 2.8 3.9 1% Center @ Walnut/Winton Library (northbound) 8.6 7.3 15.9 3% Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave (northbound) 0.9 1.4 2.3 1% Myrtle @ California (eastbound) 2.8 0.3 3.1 1% California @ Helton 0.8 0.5 1.3 0% Park Ave @ Winton Way (westbound) 2.6 1.3 3.9 1% Winton Way @ Crawfort St (southbound) 1.8 0.0 1.8 0% Winton @ Doris/Winton PO (southbound) 0.4 0.0 0.4 0% Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave (southbound) 0.2 0.0 0.2 0% Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart (eastbound) 15.1 6.4 21.5 5% Bellevue @ 5th (eastbound) 0.8 0.1 0.9 0% Bellevue @ Redwood (eastbound) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0% Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave (eastbound) 0.1 0.6 0.7 0% Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave (eastbound) 1.1 1.0 2.1 0% Bellevue @ Constitution (eastbound) 3.4 0.4 3.8 1% Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary (eastbound) 2.3 1.3 3.6 1% Bellevue @ Secretariat (eastbound) 0.4 0.9 1.3 0% Castle H.S.A. (To Merced) 7.6 1.9 9.5 2% Castle Clinic (to Merced) 2.9 6.0 8.9 2% Buchach @ Bellevue (southbound) 0.7 0.1 0.8 0% Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave (southbound) 2.3 0.2 2.5 1% Buhach Rd @ Garden (southbound) 1.9 0.6 2.5 1% Buhach Rd @ Juniper Ave/ Buhach High (southbound) 0.2 0.3 0.5 0% Buhach Rd @ Avenue One (southbound) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0% Gurr Rd @ Valley Dr (southbound) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Langtry Ave (eastbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd (eastbound) 0.1 0.0 0.1 0% Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr (eastbound) 1.8 1.8 3.6 1% Beachwood @ Oakland (southbound) 3.6 1.1 4.7 1% Cooper @ Scholle Corp (easttbound) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Hwy 59 @ Willowbrook (southbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Hwy 59 @ Riviera MHP (southbound) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0% 16th @ T st ( southeast bound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% n/a 117.5 111.0 228.5 50% TOTAL 228.9 228.9 457.8 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Route W2 Ridership by Stop (Average weekday) Average Daily Stop Activity Percent Stop Location Boarding Alighting Total of Total Merced College 0.6 0.2 0.8 0% M St @ Donna (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% M St @ Villages Apts (southbound) 0.4 0.0 0.4 0% Loughborough Dr @ Laurel Glen Apts (westbound) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0% Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall (westbound) 3.9 0.4 4.3 2% R St @ Olive/Sears (southbound) 1.9 0.6 2.5 1% Meadows Ave @ Jo Ann Fabrics (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Meadows @ Olivewood 0.4 0.1 0.5 0% Devondwood @ Dogwood (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Wal-Mart (northbound) 7.2 2.4 9.6 5% Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr (westbound) 0.2 2.6 2.8 1% Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd (westbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Castle H.S.A. (to Atwater/Winton) 0.8 1.4 2.2 1% Castle Clinic (to Atwater/Winton) 3.5 2.0 5.5 3% Bellevue @ Secretariat (westbound) 0.1 1.0 1.1 1% Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary (westbound) 0.2 1.1 1.3 1% Bellevue @ Constitution/Osborn Park (westbound) 0.3 0.1 0.4 0% Bellevue @ Brownell (westbound) 0.4 2.7 3.1 1% Bellevue @ Atwater Plaza Shopping 0.2 1.0 1.2 1% Bellevue @ Redwood (westbound) 0.2 0.7 0.9 0% Bellevue @ 5th (westbound) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Bellevue @ Winton (westbound) 2.5 14.8 17.3 8% Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS (northbound) 0.0 0.5 0.5 0% Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Doris/Winton PO (northbound) 0.2 1.6 1.8 1% Winton Way @ Crawfort St (northbound) 0.1 1.7 1.8 1% Center @ Walnut/Winton Library (northbound) 3.1 3.6 6.7 3% Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave (northbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Myrtle @ California (eastbound) 1.2 1.4 2.6 1% California @ Helton 0.0 0.3 0.3 0% Dollar General (northbound) 0.2 0.2 0.4 0% Park Ave @ Winton Way (westbound) 0.5 0.0 0.5 0% Winton Way @ Crawfort St (southbound) 1.4 0.0 1.4 1% Winton @ Doris/Winton PO (southbound) 1.0 0.0 1.0 0% Winton Way @ Gertrude Ave (southbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS (southbound) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0% Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart (eastbound) 9.0 1.6 10.6 5% Bellevue @ 5th (eastbound) 0.2 0.0 0.2 0% Bellevue @ Redwood (eastbound) 1.0 0.0 1.0 0% Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave (eastbound) 0.6 0.2 0.8 0% Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave (eastbound) 0.3 0.5 0.8 0% Bellevue @ Constitution (eastbound) 1.0 0.0 1.0 0% Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary (eastbound) 1.0 0.5 1.5 1% Bellevue @ Secretariat (eastbound) 0.4 0.1 0.5 0% Castle H.S.A. (To Merced) 2.3 0.2 2.5 1% Castle Clinic (to Merced) 1.2 1.3 2.5 1% Dan Ward Rd @ Franklin Rd (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr (eastbound) 2.8 1.7 4.5 2% Wal-Mart (southbound) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0% Devonwood Dr @ Dogwood (eastbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% Meadows @ Olivewood (to First Christian Church) 0.1 1.2 1.3 1% Meadows @ Olive Merced Meadows Apts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% R St @ Olive/Sears (northbound) 0.0 3.8 3.8 2% Loughborough @ Target/Mall (eastbound) 0.9 2.5 3.4 2% Loughborough @ Laurel Glen Apts (eastbound) 0.0 1.1 1.1 1% M St @ Village Apts (northbound) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0% M St @ Donna (northbound) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% n/a 46.9 58.2 105.1 49% TOTAL 98.4 114.2 212.6 100% Boarding and alighting data are based on average of weekday data for September 12 - 23, 2016. Appendix D Evaluation of Major Bus Stops TABLE *: Bus Stop Evaluations Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #4305 Atwater Target Target Parking Lot 37 ° 20' 29" N 120 ° 36' 8" W Routes Served A1 Atwater Loop; A2 Winton Loop Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) 0 -- -- Bus stop sign(s) 0 -- -- Bench(es) 1 Good Provided by Target Shelter(s) 0 -- -- Trash receptacle(s) 1 Good Provided by Target Lighting Yes Good Parking Lot Lights Designated Bus Pull Out? No Notes: Pull out of travel lane? Partially Length of bus pull-out? None Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Yes Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Yes Yes Roadway Configuration 2 lane parking lot Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Commercial Yes Potential Hazards: Limited traffic control in parking lots; uncontrolled pedestrian traffic. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? Bus stop sign; shelter; stop-specific lighting Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #5765 Merced Transpo 16th Street O Street 37 ° 20' 44" N 120 ° 36' 29" W Routes Served LB, M1, M2, M3, M5, UC, P Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) 0 -- -- Bus stop sign(s) 2 Excellent Attached to Shelter Bench(es) 11 Excellent -- Shelter(s) 1 Excellent -- Trash receptacle(s) 1 Good Provided by Target Lighting 6 Excellent Parking Lot Lights Other Drinking Foutain, Restrooms, Info. Digital clock not working Designated Bus Pull Out? Yes Notes: Pull out of travel lane? Yes Length of bus pull-out? See diagram Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Yes Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Yes Yes Roadway Configuration See diagram Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Commercial Generally, but affected by queing. Potential Hazards: Limited traffic control in parking lots; uncontrolled pedestrian traffic. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? See detailed description for Transpo Improvements. TABLE *: Bus Stop Evaluations Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #205 Walmart SB Loughborough Dr "Mistwood Dr" 37 ° 18' 59.8" N 120 ° 29' 55" W Routes Served L Livingston, M2 Merced, W2 Winton Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) 0 Note: This stop is located adjacent to Bus stop sign(s) 0 subdivided land with halted Bench(es) 0 development. No sign or stop Shelter(s) 0 amenities. Trash receptacle(s) 0 Lighting 0 Designated Bus Pull Out? No Note: Bus pulls next to a concrete barrier, with 1/3 Pull out of travel lane? Partially width still in the travel lane, but good sight distance. Length of bus pull-out? N/A Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Yes Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Street light Yes Roadway Configuration 2-way, 2 lane Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Yes Nearby Land Use Commercial, vacant residential Potential Hazards: Limited traffic control in parking lots; uncontrolled pedestrian traffic. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? Bus stop sign; shelter; stop-specific lighting Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #203 Walmart NB Loughborough Dr N of Driveway 37 ° 19' 5.3" N 120 ° 29' 58.6" W Routes Served L, M1, M2, M6, W2 Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) 0 Bus stop sign(s) 0 Bench(es) 1 Good Shelter(s) 1 Good Trash receptacle(s) 1 Good Lighting 0 Street Light Designated Bus Pull Out? No Notes: 2-way traffic; SB has left turn lane into Walmart Pull out of travel lane? Yes parking lot. Length of bus pull-out? N/A Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Yes Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Yes Yes Roadway Configuration 2-way, 3 lanes Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Commercial Yes Potential Hazards: None Evidence of impact on nearby properties? Yes. Vagrants with shopping carts, sleeping bags encamped on grass near shelter. Yes. Vagrants with Potential Improvements? Stop needs signage. Discourage vagrants from using stop. TABLE *: Bus Stop Evaluations Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #7155 Dos Palos Y Elgin Ave N of Hwy 33 37 ° 3' 5.8" N 120 ° 38' 8" W Routes Served LB Los Banos Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) 0 No passenger amenities. Stop is in a Bus stop sign(s) 0 large dirt lot south of the Chevron Bench(es) 0 gas station. Many holes and uneven Shelter(s) 0 surface. Trash receptacle(s) 0 Lighting 0 Designated Bus Pull Out? No Notes: Bus pulls into dirt lot and circles widely to stop Pull out of travel lane? Yes facing the road. Bumpy, pot holes, uneven surface. Length of bus pull-out? NA Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Yes Roadway Configuration Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Yes Potential Hazards: Rough for vehicles. Poor landing for passengers. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? Pave and develop as permanent stop. Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #317 Food4Less/$ Tree Parking lot Pacheco Drive 37 ° 3' 28.7" N 120 ° 49' 20.6" W Routes Served LB Los Banos Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) 0 Stop is at west end of Family Dollar Bus stop sign(s) 0 Tree Store. Curb with dirt platform Bench(es) 0 for disembarking. No amenities. Dirt Shelter(s) 0 landing pad is adjacent to paved Trash receptacle(s) 0 sidewalk for Dollar Tree, but no Lighting 0 access to stores west of stop. Designated Bus Pull Out? No Notes: Bus must enter shopping mall at west end, drive Pull out of travel lane? No over multiple speed bumps in front of 5 stores in lot Length of bus pull-out? NA before stopping. Exits at SE driveway. Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Minimal Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Yes Yes Roadway Configuration 2-way, parking lotStopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Commercial Yes Potential Hazards: Limited traffic control in parking lots; uncontrolled pedestrian traffic, speed bumps. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? Previous stop on Ward Road in front of Sherwin Williams Paint Store offered better vehicle access, overhang at building for shelter. TABLE *: Bus Stop Evaluations Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #5495 Merced College M Street 37 ° 20' 4.6" N 120 ° 28' 41" W Routes Served L, LB, M1, M2, M3, M4, M6, UC, W2 Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) Excellent Bus stop sign(s) Bench(es) Shelter(s) Trash receptacle(s) Lighting Other Bike racks, street-lit ped Xing Designated Bus Pull Out? Yes Notes: Pull out of travel lane? Yes Length of bus pull-out? 160' Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Yes Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Yes Yes Roadway Configuration Stop is between Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use College Yes Potential Hazards: Limited traffic control in parking lots; uncontrolled pedestrian traffic. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? Bus stop sign; shelter; stop-specific lighting Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude #5542 Olivewood Dr @ R St SB 37 ° 19' 3.7" N 120 ° 29' 12" W Routes Served M1, M2 Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) 1 Good Bus stop sign(s) 1 Good Bench(es) 0 Shelter(s) 0 Trash receptacle(s) 0 Lighting 1 Excellent Street light next to bus sign Designated Bus Pull Out? No Notes: Pull out of travel lane? No Length of bus pull-out? NA Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Yes Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Yes No Roadway Configuration 4 Lane Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Commercial No Potential Hazards: Evidence of impact on nearby properties? Potential Improvements? TABLE *: Bus Stop Evaluations Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude Dan Ward at Beachwood EB 37 ° 18' 59.8" N 120 ° 29' 55" W Routes Served Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) Bus stop sign(s) Bench(es) Shelter(s) Trash receptacle(s) Lighting Designated Bus Pull Out? Notes: Pull out of travel lane? Length of bus pull-out? Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Roadway Configuration Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Potential Hazards: Limited traffic control in parking lots; uncontrolled pedestrian traffic. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? Bus stop sign; shelter; stop-specific lighting Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude Dan Ward at Beachwood NB 37 ° 20' 44" N 120 ° 36' 29" W Routes Served Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) Bus stop sign(s) Bench(es) Shelter(s) Trash receptacle(s) Lighting Designated Bus Pull Out? Notes: Pull out of travel lane? Length of bus pull-out? Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Roadway Configuration Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Potential Hazards: Evidence of impact on nearby properties? Potential Improvements? TABLE *: Bus Stop Evaluations Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude Dan Ward at Beachwood WB 37 ° 18' 59.8" N 120 ° 29' 55" W Routes Served Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) Bus stop sign(s) Bench(es) Shelter(s) Trash receptacle(s) Lighting Designated Bus Pull Out? Notes: Pull out of travel lane? Length of bus pull-out? Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Roadway Configuration Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Potential Hazards: Limited traffic control in parking lots; uncontrolled pedestrian traffic. Evidence of impact on nearby properties? No Potential Improvements? Bus stop sign; shelter; stop-specific lighting Bus Stop ID Street Cross Street Longitude Latitude H.S.A./Castle Clinic 37 ° 20' 44" N 120 ° 36' 29" W Routes Served Stop Amenities Number of Each Condition Notes Bus stop sign pole(s) Bus stop sign(s) Bench(es) Shelter(s) Trash receptacle(s) Lighting Designated Bus Pull Out? Notes: Pull out of travel lane? Length of bus pull-out? Surrounds Sight Distance Sidewalk? Does driver pulling out into traffic have sight distance? Exterior Lighting? Roadway Configuration Stopping sight distance for oncoming drivers? Nearby Land Use Potential Hazards: Evidence of impact on nearby properties? Potential Improvements? Appendix E Passenger Survey Results A transit study is being conducted for Merced County. Please help us learn more about our riders by filling out this survey. If you have already completed a survey, please just answer the first section again (questions 1 to 9) so we can learn more about trip patterns. Thank you! Please tell us about your bus trip today… Starting Point Destination 1. What route are you on? (please list ) 4. Where will you exit the bus? ______2. Where did you board the bus? (Street address, business name or nearest intersection ) ______5. How will you get to your destination after you (Street address, business name or nearest intersection ) get off this bus? 3. How did you get to the bus stop for this bus? o Walk o Drive a car o Taxi o Walked o Drove car o Taxi o Bicycle o Get a ride in a car o Bicycled o Got a ride in a car o Transfer to another route (if so, please list o Transferred (if so, from which route ) ______which route ) ______o Other (specify ) ______o Other (specify ) ______6. Are you traveling round-trip on the bus today? o Yes o No 8. Are you a UC Merced student? 7. Was a car available for you to use on this trip? o Yes o No o Yes o No 9. What is the main purpose of your trip today? (specify one ) o Work o Medical / Dental o Shopping o Recreational / Social o Multi-purpose o School/College o Personal Business o Other (specify) ______Please tell us about your experience with The Bus 10. How many days do you usually ride per week? 13. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), how o 1st trip o 2-4 days o 6 days would you rate "The Bus" on each of the following: o 1 day or less o 5 days o 7 days (Mark a # box for each ) 1 2 3 4 5 11. How long have you been riding The Bus? Safety Performance o Less than 1 year o 3 - 4 years Driver Courtesy o 1-2 years o 5+ years On-Time Performance 12. What is your primary source for transit information? Vehicle Cleanliness o Bus driver o Bus stops o Google maps Value Received for Fare o Facebook o Twitter o Radio Service Information o Family / friend o Printed guide / schedule Hours of Service o "The Bus" website o The Bus Live o UC Merced Service Frequency o Merced College Duration of Trip o Other (specify) ______Bus Stops Overall Service Please tell us about yourself 14. Do you have a driver's license? o Yes o No 17. Do you use a mobility device? o Yes o No 15. WhatDo you is haveyour age?a disability that limits your ability to 18. What is your age? use the fixed route bus? o Yes o No o Under 12 o 19 - 24 o 45 - 59 o 73+ 16. What best describes your occupation? o 12 - 18 o 25 - 44 o 60 - 72 o Work full time o Merced College student 19. What is your combined total household income? o Work part time o UC Merced student o Under $15,000 o $50,000 - $74,999 o Unemployed o K-12 student o Homemaker o $15,000 - $34,999 o $75,000 - $100,000 o Retired o Other (list ) ______o $35,000 - $49,999 o Over $100,000 What transit improvements would you most like to see? (please list as specifically as possible ) For example, increased hours earlier or later in the day (& which days); service to additional locations (list); reduced fares; better information services; improved bus stops; etcetera. Please return this survey to the collection envelope on the bus, to the driver, or to the survey taker. Thank you! Un estudio de tránsito se está llevando a cabo para Merced County. Por favor ayúdanos a aprender más acerca de nuestros clientes con esta encuesta. Si ya ha completado una encuesta, por favor conteste la primera parte otra vez (preguntas 1 a 9) para aprender más sobre el viaje. ¡Gracias! Por favor díganos acerca de su viaje en autobús hoy… Punto de partida Destino 1. ¿En qué ruta está? (por favor, lista) 4. ¿Adónde se baja? ______2. ¿En qué parada se subió? (Dirección, negocio nombre o intersección) ______5. ¿Cómo vas a llegar a su destino después (Dirección, negocio nombre o intersección) de montar este autobús? 3. ¿Cómo llegaste a la parada de este autobús? o Caminando o En coche o Taxi o Caminando o En coche o Taxi o Bicicleta o Conseguir un paseo en un coche o Bicicleta o Conseguir un paseo en un coche o Transferir a otra ruta (si es así, por favor enumere o Transferido (Si es así, de que ruta) ______qué ruta)______o Otros (especificar) ______o Otros (especificar) ______6. ¿Va a viajar de ida y vuelta en el bus hoy? o Sí o No 8. ¿Estás un estudiante de UC Merced? 7. ¿Había un coche disponible para su uso en este viaje? o Sí o No o Sí o No 9. ¿Cuál es el propósito principal de su viaje hoy? (indica uno) o Trabajo o Médico/Dental o Ir de compras o Recreación/Social o Negocios personales o Escuela/ La Universidad o Multiusos o Otros (especificar) ______Háblenos de su experiencia con The Bus 10. ¿Cuántos días te montas generalmente por semana? 13. En una escala de 1 (pobre) a 5 (excelente), cómo o 1 viaje o 2-3 días o 5 días calificaría "The Bus" en cada uno de los siguientes: o 1 día o menos o 3-4 días o 6 días (Marque un # para cada uno) 1 2 3 4 5 11. ¿Cuánto tiempo ha estado viajando por The Bus? Funcionamiento de la seguridad o Menos de un año o 3-4 años Cortesía del conductor o 1-2 años o 5+ años Siempre a tiempo 12. Por favor indica todas las maneras de publicidad que Limpieza del vehículo ha visto o escuchado sobre servicios de tránsito de Lassen: Valor por tarifa o Facebook o Universidad Merced o Google Maps Información de servicio o Radio o UC Merced o Twitter Horas de servicio o "The Bus Live" o Guía Impresa Frecuencia del servicio o Paradas de autobus o Conductor de autobús Duración de viaje o El sitio de "The Bus" o Familia/Amigo Paradas de autobús o Otros (especificar) ______Servicio general Por favor díganos acerca de usted 14. ¿Tiene una licencia de conducir? o Sí o No 17. ¿Usas un dispositivo de movilidad? o Sí o No 15. ¿Tiene usted una discapacidad que limita su capacidad 18. ¿Cuántos años tienes? para usar la ruta de autobús fija? o Sí o No o Menos de 12 años o 19 - 24 o 45 - 59 16. ¿Qué describe mejor su ocupación? o 12 - 18 o 25 - 44 o 60 - 72 o 73+ o Ama de casa o Trabajo tiempo completo o Desempleados 19. ¿Cuál es su ingreso familiar annual? o Estudiante de K-12 o Trabajar medio tiempo o Menos de $15,000 o $50,000 - $74,999 o Jubilado o Estudiante Universidad Merced o $15,000 - $34,999 o $75,000 - $100,000 o Estudiante de UC Merced o Otros (lista) ______o $35,000 - $49,999 o Mas que $100,000 ¿Qué mejoras de tránsito le gusta más ver? (por favor indica específicamente) Por ejemplo, aumentado horas antes/después en el día (¿qué días?); servicio a las localizaciones adicionales (lista); servicio más frecuente; mejor información; mejores paradas; etc. Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q1. What route are you on (or were you on when you acquired the link to this survey)? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count M1 - Merced West 3.3% 25 M2 - Merced R St. Route 9.7% 73 M3 - Merced M St. Route 8.5% 64 M4 - Merced G St. Route 12.8% 97 M5 - Merced South-East 7.5% 57 M6 - Merced North 7.4% 56 UC - UC Merced Route 16.4% 124 A1 - Atwater Crosstown 4.8% 36 A2 - Atwater Winton Way 1.7% 13 W1 - Winton Commuter 3.3% 25 W2 - Winton Commuter North 4.4% 33 LB - Los Banos Commuter 6.9% 52 LB - Los Banos Corridor Routes 0.3% 2 P - Planada Commuter 3.4% 26 L - Livingston Commuter 5.8% 44 T - Turlock Commuter 3.6% 27 Other (please specify) 0.3% 2 answered question 756 skipped question 0 What route are you on (or were you on when you acquired the link to this survey)? M1 - Merced West M2 - Merced R St. Route M3 - Merced M St. Route M4 - Merced G St. Route M5 - Merced South-East M6 - Merced North UC - UC Merced Route A1 - Atwater Crosstown A2 - Atwater Winton Way W1 - Winton Commuter W2 - Winton Commuter North LB - Los Banos Commuter LB - Los Banos Corridor Routes P - Planada Commuter L - Livingston Commuter T - Turlock Commuter Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q1. Route you're on? Q3. Mode to route? Transferred from? Q5. Mode from route? Transferred from? Route Surveyed Mode To Bus Transferred FromMode From Bus Transferring To.. A1 - Atwater Crosstown Transferred T Walk A1 - Atwater Crosstown Transferred unspecified Walk A1 - Atwater Crosstown Transferred unspecified Walk A1 - Atwater Crosstown Transferred W1 Walk A1 - Atwater Crosstown Walked Transferring W2 A1 - Atwater Crosstown Transferring unspecified A2 - Atwater Winton Way Transferred T Walk A2 - Atwater Winton Way Walked Transferring M3 L - Livingston Commuter Got a ride in a car Transferring T L - Livingston Commuter Transferred M4 Transferring A1 L - Livingston Commuter Transferred unspecified Walk L - Livingston Commuter Transferred unspecified Walk L - Livingston Commuter Transferred L L - Livingston Commuter Walked Transferring A1 L - Livingston Commuter Walked Transferring G L - Livingston Commuter Walked Transferring unspecified LB - Los Banos Commuter Caminado Transferring M4 LB - Los Banos Commuter Caminado Transferring M4 LB - Los Banos Commuter Got a ride in a car Transferring M2 LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred DP Transferring LB Commuter LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred DP Transferring M2 LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred DP Transferring M3 LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred P Transferring P LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred Paratransit Transferring unspecified LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred unspecified Transferring unspecified LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred M1 Walk LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred unspecified Walk LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred DP LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred DP LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred unspecified LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred unspecified LB - Los Banos Commuter Transferred W1 LB - Los Banos Commuter Walked G Transferring L LB - Los Banos Commuter Walked Transferring A1 M1 - Merced West Transferred M3 Walk M1 - Merced West Transferred M5 Walk M1 - Merced West Transferred UC Walk M1 - Merced West Transferred W2 Walk M1 - Merced West Walked Transferring A1 M1 - Merced West Walked Transferring M1 M1 - Merced West Walked Transferring M3 M1 - Merced West Walked Transferring M4 M1 - Merced West Walked Transferring UC M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred LB Corridor Transferring DP Q1. Route you're on? Q3. Mode to route? Transferred from? Q5. Mode from route? Transferred from? Route Surveyed Mode To Bus Transferred FromMode From Bus Transferring To.. M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred M1 Transferring M4 M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred unspecified Transferring M4 M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred unspecified Transferring unspecified M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred M1 Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred M1 Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred M4 Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred M6 Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred unspecified Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred unspecified Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred W1 Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred W1 Walk M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred T M2 - Merced R St. Route Transferred T M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring LB Commuter M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring M1 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring M1 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring M2 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring M3 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring M3 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring M3 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring M4 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring P M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring W1 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring W1 M2 - Merced R St. Route Walked Transferring W2 M3 - Merced M St. Route Caminado Transferring M2 M3 - Merced M St. Route Got a ride in a car Transferring LB Commuter M3 - Merced M St. Route Got a ride in a car Transferring M1 M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred M6 Transferring M6 M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred T Transferring T M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred M1 Walk M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred M1 Walk M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred M5 Walk M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred P Walk M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred UC Walk M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred unspecified Walk M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred W1 Walk M3 - Merced M St. Route Transferred unspecified M3 - Merced M St. Route Walked Transferring M1 M3 - Merced M St. Route Walked Transferring M3 M3 - Merced M St. Route Walked Transferring M4 M3 - Merced M St. Route Walked Transferring M4 M3 - Merced M St. Route Walked Transferring T M3 - Merced M St. Route Walked Transferring T M3 - Merced M St. Route Walked Transferring M4 - Merced G St. Route Got a ride in a car Transferring M3 Q1. Route you're on? Q3. Mode to route? Transferred from? Q5. Mode from route? Transferred from? Route Surveyed Mode To Bus Transferred FromMode From Bus Transferring To.. M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M6 Bicycle M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred P Caminando M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred unspecified Caminando M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred L Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M1 Transferring M1 M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M3 Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M5 Transferring M5 M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred unspecified Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred unspecified Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred W1 Transferring M4 M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M2 Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M3 Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M5 Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M5 Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M5 Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred T Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred T Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred unspecified Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred unspecified Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred W1 Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred W1 Walk M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred L M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred M6 M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferred unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M1 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M1 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M1 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M4 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M5 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M5 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M5 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M5 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring M6 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring W1 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring W1 M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Walked Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferring unspecified M4 - Merced G St. Route Transferring unspecified M5 - Merced South-East Transferred P Other (please specify) M5 - Merced South-East Transferred M2 Walk M5 - Merced South-East Transferred M2 Walk M5 - Merced South-East Transferred M2 Walk M5 - Merced South-East Transferred M3 Walk M5 - Merced South-East Transferred unspecified Walk Q1. Route you're on? Q3. Mode to route? Transferred from? Q5. Mode from route? Transferred from? Route Surveyed Mode To Bus Transferred FromMode From Bus Transferring To.. M5 - Merced South-East Transferred unspecified M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring M1 M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring M3 M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring M4 M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring M4 M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring M4 M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring T M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring T M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring UC M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring UC M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring unspecified M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring unspecified M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring unspecified M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring W1 M5 - Merced South-East Walked Transferring W1 M6 - Merced North Caminado Transferring M2 M6 - Merced North Drove car Transferring M3 M6 - Merced North Transferred M2 Transferring unspecified M6 - Merced North Transferred M4 Transferring unspecified M6 - Merced North Transferred M2 Walk M6 - Merced North Transferred UC Walk M6 - Merced North Transferred UC Walk M6 - Merced North Transferred W2 Walk M6 - Merced North Transferred L M6 - Merced North Transferred unspecified M6 - Merced North Walked Transferring M1 M6 - Merced North Walked Transferring M2 M6 - Merced North Walked Transferring M4 M6 - Merced North Walked Transferring unspecified M6 - Merced North Walked Transferring unspecified P - Planada Commuter Transferred M2 Walk P - Planada Commuter Transferred M4 Walk P - Planada Commuter Walked Transferring A1 P - Planada Commuter Walked Transferring M2 P - Planada Commuter Walked Transferring M4 P - Planada Commuter Walked Transferring M4 P - Planada Commuter Walked Transferring M4 P - Planada Commuter Walked Transferring M4 T - Turlock Commuter Transferred M4 Get a ride in a car T - Turlock Commuter Transferred M1 Walk T - Turlock Commuter Transferred M2 Walk T - Turlock Commuter Transferred UC Walk T - Turlock Commuter Transferred unspecified Walk T - Turlock Commuter Transferred M4 UC - UC Merced Route Got a ride in a car Transferring P UC - UC Merced Route Transferred unspecified Caminando Q1. Route you're on? Q3. Mode to route? Transferred from? Q5. Mode from route? Transferred from? Route Surveyed Mode To Bus Transferred FromMode From Bus Transferring To.. UC - UC Merced Route Transferred unspecified Drive a car UC - UC Merced Route Transferred T Get a ride in a car UC - UC Merced Route Transferred unspecified Other (please specify) UC - UC Merced Route Transferred M5 Transferring M5 UC - UC Merced Route Transferred CatTracks Walk UC - UC Merced Route Transferred L Walk UC - UC Merced Route Transferred M4 Walk UC - UC Merced Route Transferred P Walk UC - UC Merced Route Transferred T Walk UC - UC Merced Route Transferred UC Walk UC - UC Merced Route Walked Transferring DP UC - UC Merced Route Walked Transferring M1 UC - UC Merced Route Walked Transferring UC UC - UC Merced Route Walked Transferring UC UC - UC Merced Route Walked Transferring unspecified UC - UC Merced Route Walked Transferring unspecified W1 - Winton Commuter Transferred M4 Caminando W1 - Winton Commuter Transferred M5 Walk W1 - Winton Commuter Transferred W1 Walk W1 - Winton Commuter Walked Transferring G W1 - Winton Commuter Walked Transferring M3 W2 - Winton Commuter N. Walked Transferring M3 W2 - Winton Commuter N. Walked Transferring M3 W2 - Winton Commuter N. Walked Transferring unspecified W2 - Winton Commuter N. Walked Transferring W2 W2 - Winton Commuter N. Transferring A1 Merced Passenger Survey Q2. Where did you get on the bus? Q4. Where will you exit? A1 - Atwater Crosstown Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off Anberry 1 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 1 Anberry 1 Castle Clinic 1 Anberry 1 Atwater Community Center 1 Target 1 Atwater Human Services Agency 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Atwater Human Services Agency 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Atwater Target 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Human Services Agency 1 Bellevue @ Secretariat 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Bellevue @ Walgreens 1 Buhach Rd 1 Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Buhach Rd 1 Anberry 1 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 1 Anberry 1 Buhach Rd @ Waters (2089 Buhach) 1 Walmart 1 Castle Clinic 1 Atwater Flea Market 1 Castle Clinic 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Castle Clinic 1 Broadway Atwater Fire Dept 1 Castle Clinic 1 Senior Housing 1 Human Services Agency 1 Canilia Mobile Home Park 1 Human Services Agency 1 Van @ Juniper 1 Jack in the Box 1 Anberry 1 Jack in the Box 1 Atwater Community 1 Jack in the Box 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Jack in the Box 1 Walmart 1 Juniper Ave @ Bridgewater St 1 Target 1 Osborn Park 1 Buhach Rd @ Garden 1 Savemart 1 Broadway Atwater Fire Dept 1 Savemart 1 Human Services Agency 1 Savemart 1 Target 1 Target 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Target 1 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 1 Target 1 Merced College 1 Transpo 1 Bellevue 1 Transpo 1 Castle Clinic 1 Bellvue Taco Bell 1 Broadway 1 Total On/Off 34 35 A2 - Atwater Winton Way Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off Atwater Target 1 Winton @ Bellevue/99 cent store 1 Atwater Target 1 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Walnut @ California 1 Target 1 Transpo 1 Winton 1 Winton 1 Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store 1 Myrtle 1 Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store 1 Transpo 1 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 1 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 1 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 1 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 1 Walnut CA 1 Total On/Off 9 10 L - Livingston Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 8th St @ F St 1 Merced College 8th St @ F St 1 Target Castle Clinic 1 Livingston Castle Clinic 1 Center St 1 Foster Farms Food Maxx 1 Castle Clinic Human Services Agency 1 Merced College Human Services Agency 1 Walnut M St @ Donna 1 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall Main St (8 Main St), Livingston 1 Merced College 1 8th St Merced College 3 Castle Clinic 3 Merced College 3 Livingston 3 Merced College 1 Livingston Church 1 Merced College 1 Olive Ave, Livingston 1 Merced College 2 Rancho San Miguel 2 Merced College 1 Rite Aid 1 Merced College 1 Walnut Ave 1 Merced College 1 Walnut Ave across Church St 1 Merced College 1 Winton 1 Merced College 1 R St @ Olive/Sears 1 Livingston 1 Rancho San Miguel 2 Merced College 2 Stehani Ave 1 Target 1 Foster Farms 1 Walmart 1 Walnut 1 Walnut Ave 2 Merced College 2 Walnut Ave 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Walnut Ave @ Cressey 1 Dollar Tree 1 Walnut Ave @ Francis St 2 Merced College 2 Walnut Ave @ Francis St 1 Walnut Ave @ Sycamore 1 Walnut Ave @ Sycamore 1 Winton VFW 1 Foster Farms 1 Livingston 1 Merced College 1 Walnut Ave @ Barbera Ave 1 Total On/Off 42 29 L - Livingston Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 1 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 1 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 2 Merced College 2 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 4 Transpo 4 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree, LB 1 Castle Clinic 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree, LB 5 Merced College 5 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree, LB 1 Transpo 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree, LB 2 Walmart, Los Banos 2 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree, LB 1 I st 1 Walmart 1 Los Banos 1 Los Banos 1 Los Banos 3 Transpo 3 Los Banos Community Center 1 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 1 Los Banos Community Center 1 Merced College 1 Los Banos Community Center 1 Transpo 1 Los Banos Memorial Hospital 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Merced College 1 Los Banos Community Center 1 Merced College 1 Merced transpo 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree, LB 1 Transpo 3 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 3 Transpo 3 Los Banos Community Center 3 Transpo 5 Merced College 5 Transpo 1 Santa Nella Village Market 1 Transpo 1 Tumbleweed Way (1635) 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Merced 1 Walmart 2 Transpo 2 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Merced College 1 Total On/Off 48 47 M1 - Merced West Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 3rd @ T St 1 Dollar General 1 Dollar General 1 Merced College 1 Dollar General 1 Merced Transpo 1 Dollar General 1 Walmart 1 Meadows Ave (3135) 1 16th St 1 Merced County Workforce Dev 1 Merced Transpo 1 Merced Valley 1 Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts 1 Target 1 Hwy 140 @ Sydney Lane 1 Target 1 Walmart 1 Merced Transpo 1 Buena Vista Plaza 1 Merced Transpo 1 Dennis Chavez Park - 11th @ W St 1 Merced Transpo 1 Lopes @ Linda 1 Merced Transpo 2 Merced College 2 Merced Transpo 2 Target 2 Merced Transpo 1 U St and 4th St, Merced 1 Turlock Transpo 1 Turlock Transpo 1 Village Terrace Landing Apts 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Merced Transpo 1 Wardrobe 2 DMV 1 Shadowbrook 1 Total On/Off 22 22 M1 - Merced West Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 711 1 12th St @ MLK 1 Walmart 1 12th St @ R St 1 Loughborough 1 18th St 1 Loughborough 1 18th St 1 18th St @ N St 1 Target 1 18th St @ R St 1 Transpo 1 19th St @ R St 1 Merced College 1 3rd St @ R St 1 Target 1 Del Taco 1 Loughborough 1 Devondwood @ Dogwood 1 Merced College 1 Dollar General 1 Downtown 1 Walmart 1 Food Maxx 1 Transpo 1 G St 1 East Campus 1 Human Services Agency 1 DMV 1 Human Services Agency 4 Transpo 4 Loughborough @village Meadow apts 1 Human Services Agency 1 Loughborough Dr @ M St 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 El Redondo Dr @ Jenner Dr 1 Merced College 1 Loughborough Dr (1055) 1 Merced College 3 Transpo 3 Merced College 2 Walmart 2 Merced College 1 Welfare 1 Merced College 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 18th St @ R St 1 North Merced 1 North Merced 1 Olivewood Dr. @ R St 1 Village Terrace Landing Apts 1 R St @ Donna 1 Best Buy 1 Target 1 Merced College 1 Target 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Human Services Agency 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough Dr @ Village Meadow Apt 1 Transpo 4 Merced College 4 Transpo 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Transpo 1 R St @ 6th St 1 Transpo 1 Target 1 Transpo 2 Walmart 2 Transpo 1 Wardrobe Ave (1800) 1 Transpo 4 VCS 1 Transpo 1 Village Meadow Apts 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Downtown 1 Walmart 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Walmart 2 Target 2 Walmart 4 Transpo 4 Food Maxx 1 R St 1 Total On/Off 65 59 M3 - Merced M St. Route Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 10th St @ M St 1 Merced College 1 16th St 1 Social Security Office 1 19th St @ M St 1 M St 1 By police station 1 Request 1 Downtown 1 Golden Valley Heath Center 1 Food 4 Less 1 Merced College 1 Le Grand @ Washington 1 Loughborough Dr & M St 1 Loughborough Dr 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 M St 2 Merced College 2 M St 1 Transpo 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1 99 cent Store on Olive 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1 Merced Mall 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1 Target 1 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 1 M St @ Social Security Office 1 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 1 Transpo 1 M St @ Cartnel 1 Merced College 1 M St @ Childs 1 Merced College 1 M St @ Childs 1 Transpo 1 M St @ Social Security Office 1 Transpo 1 Meadows @ Olive 1 Merced College 1 Meadows @ Olive 1 Yosemite Ave @ G st 1 Merced College 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Merced College 1 Golden Valley Heath Center 1 Merced College 2 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 2 Merced College 1 M St @ Cartmel 1 Merced College 1 Olive Ave 1 Merced College 5 Transpo 5 Merced College 1 Winton 1 Merced College 1 Merced Mall 1 13th St @ M St 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Merced College 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Transpo 1 On W 10 St 1 Police Station 1 Police Station 1 Transpo 1 Robin Dr 1 Police Station 1 Social Security Office 1 Transpo 1 Target 1 M St @ Applegate Park 1 Target 2 Merced College 2 Target 1 Target 1 Transpo 2 Golden Valley Heath Center 2 Transpo 1 Gym In Shape on R St 1 Transpo 1 John St 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough Dr @ M St 1 Transpo 1 Meadows @ Olive 1 Transpo 1 Merced College 1 Transpo 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Transpo 1 O St 1 Transpo 1 Social Security Office 1 Transpo 1 The Villages on M 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough 1 Total On/Off 60 59 M4 - Merced G St. Route Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 10th St @ N St 1 Transpo 1 13th @ G St 1 Transpo 1 13th St 1 G St @ Alexander 1 13th St 1 Transpo 1 13th St 1 13th St @ D St 1 Merced College 1 13th St @ MLK 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 15th @ B St/Merced County Health 1 16th St @ O St 1 15th St @ L St 1 Transpo 1 16th St @ King 1 Olive Ave @ G St 1 20th St @ G St 1 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 1 21st @ G St 1 21st @ G St 1 21st @ G St 2 Taco Bell 2 23rd St @ G St 1 Savemart 1 Atwater 1 C.O.V.E. 1 Atwater 1 G St 1 C.O.V.E. 1 G St @ Olive 1 D St 2 Transpo 2 Felix Torres Camp 1 Merced College 1 Flea market 1 Transpo 1 G St 1 Mercy Ave @ Paulson Rd 1 G St 2 Mercy Medical Center 2 G St 1 Fairgrounds 1 G St @ Alexander 1 G St @ Carmen 1 G St @ Carmen 1 G St @ Carmen 1 Merced College 1 G St @ Carmen 1 Paulson Rd @ Yosemite Ave 1 G St @ Carmen 2 Transpo 2 G St @ East Campus 1 East Campus 1 G St @ East Campus 2 G St @ East Campus 2 G St @ East Campus 1 Merced College 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Merced College 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Transpo 1 G St @ N. Bear Creek Dr 1 G St @ Olive 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Skylark 1 Transpo 1 Las Brisas 1 Transpo 1 Meadows Ave 1 Merced 2 Serano St (316) 1 Merced College 2 21st @ G St 1 Merced College 1 27th St @ G St 1 Merced College 1 C.O.V.E. 1 Merced College 1 El Portal Imaging 1 Merced College 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Merced College 1 Gerard @ La Mesa 1 Merced College 1 Savemart 1 Merced College 2 Transpo 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 G St 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 G St @ Park Av 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Savemart 1 Mercy Medical Center 2 Transpo 1 MLK 1 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 1 Olive St 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Rite Aid 1 Transpo 1 Save More 1 Taco Bell 1 Savemart 1 D St @ Childs 1 Savemart 1 Transpo 1 Taco Bell 1 Merced College 1 Taco Bell 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Taco Bell 1 Serano (366) 1 Taco Bell 1 Taco Bell 1 Taco Bell 1 Transpo 1 Taco Bell 1 Transpo 1 13th St 1 Transpo 1 D St 1 Transpo 1 Dollar Tree 1 Transpo 1 Flea Market 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Carmen 1 Transpo 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Gerard 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Oli 1 Transpo 1 G St @Adult School 1 Transpo 1 Inshape Gym 1 Transpo 1 La Mesa @ Gerard 1 Transpo 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Transpo 1 Taco Bell 1 Transpo 2 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Wellness Center 1 Transpo 1 Yosemite Ave 1 Yosemite Ave @ G st 1 Merced College 1 Yosemite High School 1 G St @ Alexander 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 91 83 M5 - Merced South-East Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 18th St 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 21st St 1 16th St 1 21st St 1 Human Services Agency 1 21st St @ K St 1 12th St @ R St 1 23rd St @ K St 1 Transpo 1 5th St @ V St 1 Housing Authority Office 1 Amtrak 1 Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn 1 Amtrak 1 Transpo 1 Between Rancho and Grove Apts 1 Transpo 1 Childs @ Golden Valley 1 Golden Valley Heath Center 1 Childs @ Manzanita/Golden Valley HS 1 Transpo 1 Cypress Way (1749) 1 Cypress Way (1749) 1 Family Dollar 2 Amtrak 2 Family Dollar Amtrak Family Dollar 1 Transpo 1 Gerard 1 21st @ Cherry Ave 1 Gerard 1 Merced College 1 Gerard 1 Transpo 1 Gerard @ Laughlin 1 Transpo 1 Merced Ave 1 Transpo 1 Merced Ave @ Ellen Ct 1 Transpo 1 Parsons 1 Transpo 1 Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn 2 Amtrak 2 Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn 1 M St @ Olive 1 Parsons @ Dinkey Creek 1 Transpo 1 Parsons @ Golden Valley HS 1 Gerard @ Coffee/Pioneer Elementary 1 Parsons @ Golden Valley HS 2 Transpo 2 Parsons @ The Grove 1 Amtrak 1 Parsons @ The Grove 1 Merced College 1 Parsons @ The Grove 4 Transpo 4 Parsons @ The Grove 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Rancho San Miguel, Merced 2 Merced Transpo 2 Rancho San Miguel 1 Gerard @ Coffee/Pioneer Elementary 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Target 1 711 1 Transpo 2 21 MLK 2 Transpo 1 21st St @ K St 1 Transpo 1 Amtrak 1 Transpo 1 Apostolic Tabernacle 1 Transpo 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Transpo 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 16th St 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Cypress 1 Loughborough @ R St 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Shirley 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 52 52 M6 - Merced North Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Alexander 1 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Burbank Elementary 1 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Chenoweth School 1 26th @ Glen 1 26th @ Glen 1 26th @ Glen 1 Library 1 27th @ Green 1 El Portal Plaza 1 27th @ Green 2 Merced College 2 27th @ Parsons 2 Pauls Place 2 27th St 1 Merced College 1 Alexander 1 Parsons @ Alexander 1 Best Buy 1 26th @ Glen 1 Burbank Elementary 1 Burbank Elementary 1 E Alexander (1046 E Alexander) 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 Eltrab 2 market 1 Pauls Place 1 Food Maxx 1 Loughborough 1 Food Maxx 1 Walmart 1 G St 1 27th St @ Parsons 1 G St 1 Rite Aid 1 G St 1 Walmart 1 G St @ Alexander 1 Loughborough 1 Glen @ East Santa Fe 1 Merced College 1 Green St 1 Walmart 1 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall 1 G St @ 26th 1 Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 Merced College 1 Alexander 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Olive Ave 1 Merced College 1 Pecan Ave 1 Merced College 1 R St 1 Mercy 1 Olive Ave @ M St 1 Parsons 1 Target 1 Parsons @ Alexander 1 Merced College 1 Parsons @ Alexander 1 Savemart 1 Parsons @ Olive 1 Merced College 1 Santa Fe 1 Merced College 1 Santa Fe 1 Walmart 1 Santa Fe @ Reef Apts 1 Merced College 1 Santa Fe @ Reef Apts 1 Target 1 Savemart 1 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Savemart 1 G St @ 26th 1 Starbucks 1 Target 1 Starbucks 1 Walmart 1 Sunstar 2 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 2 Target 1 26th St 1 Target 1 Burbank 1 Walmart 1 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 1 Walmart 1 Loughborough @ R St 1 Walmart 1 Olive Ave 1 Walmart 1 Parson 1 Walmart 1 Merced College 1 Total On/Off 53 53 P - Planada Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 1 Transpo 1 Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 1 Merced College 1 Le Grand 1 Merced 1 Le Grand 3 Transpo 3 Le Grand 1 Le Grand @ Washington 1 Transpo 1 Mercado Latino 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Le Grand 1 Merced College 1 Planada 1 Planada 1 Planada 1 Transpo 1 By the store 1 Transpo 1 Jefferson @ Le Grand/Community Ctr 1 Transpo 3 Le Grand 3 Transpo 1 Planada 1 Transpo 2 Washington St 1 Transpo 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Yosemite Pkwy (1400) 1 Planada 1 Total On/Off 22 20 T - Turlock Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off Rite Aid 1 Merced Transpo 1 Rite Aid 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 1 Merced 1 Merced Transpo 1 CSU Stan 1 Transpo 1 Hammatt Ave @ Walnut Ave 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Livingston Church 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Mcdonalds, Livingston 1 Merced Transpo 1 Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell St 1 Merced Transpo 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Merced Transpo 1 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 1 Transpo 1 St. Francis Church 1 Merced Transpo 3 Atwater Transpo 1 Merced Transpo 1 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 1 Merced Transpo 1 Delhi 1 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 1 Main St, Livingston 1 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Delhi 1 Merced College 1 Merced 1 Oaks Rd, Delhi 1 Merced 1 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 1 Merced 1 Turlock Transpo 1 Merced 1 Turlock 1 Merced 1 Livingston 1 Merced 1 Total On/Off 20 17 UC - UC Merced Route Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 22nd St @ K St 2 Merced College 2 Amtrak 1 Amtrak 1 Amtrak 3 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 3 Amtrak 1 Hyland @ Olive 1 Amtrak 1 M St @ Social Security Office 1 Amtrak 2 Merced College 2 Amtrak 2 UC Merced 2 Amtrak 3 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 3 Amtrak 1 Between 18th and 19th 1 Dos Palos 1 Transpo 1 Franklin 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 18th St @ K St 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Amtrak 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 M St 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Merced College 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Moraga 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Near W 25th St 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 Social Security Office 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Starbucks 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Target 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Via Moraga 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 Yosemite Ave @ Moraga 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St, Merced 1 Amtrak Station, Merced 1 M St 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St 1 K St @ 18th/ MCAG 1 M St 1 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 1 M St 1 M St @ Village Apts 1 K St @ 18th/ MCAG 1 M St @ Village Apts 2 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 2 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St @ Villages Apts 7 UC Merced 7 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Merced College 1 Amtrak 1 Merced College 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Merced College 2 Transpo 2 Merced College 4 UC Merced 4 Mercy Medical Center 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 Moraga 1 UC Merced 1 Olive Ave @ M St 1 M St (3906) 1 Olive Ave @ M St 2 UC Merced 2 Scholars @ Emigrant 1 M St @ Loughborough 1 Scholars @ Emigrant 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 Starbucks 1 Amtrak 1 Merced Transpo 1 By PG&E 1 Merced Transpo 1 Merced College 1 Merced Transpo 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Merced Transpo 3 UC Merced 3 Merced Transpo 1 W 22nd St (455) 1 UC Merced 1 18th St @ K St 1 UC Merced 1 24th St @ K St 1 UC Merced 1 Amtrak 1 UC Merced 2 M St 2 UC Merced 2 M St @ Olive St 2 UC Merced 3 M St @ Villages Apts 3 UC Merced 1 Main St 1 UC Merced 2 Merced College 2 UC Merced 2 Merced Transpo 2 UC Merced 3 University Surgery Center 3 UC Merced 2 Via Moraga 2 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 UC Merced 1 1 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 1 UC Merced 1 University Surgery Center 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 University Surgery Center 7 UC Merced 7 University Surgery Center 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 Via Moraga 1 M St @ Donna 1 Yosemite @ Perch 1 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave 1 Yosemite Ave 1 Yosemite Ave @ Moraga 1 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 2 UC Merced 2 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 M St @ Olive St 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 3 UC Merced 3 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Total On/Off 121 117 W1 - Winton Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off Atwater 1 Merced Transpo 1 Beachwood @ Oakland 1 Transpo 1 Beachwood @ Oakland 1 Winton 1 Bellevue 1 Wells Fargo, Atwater 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 16th St, Merced 1 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 1 Transpo 1 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 1 Winton Way 1 Bellevue Rd 1 Taco Bell 1 Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave 1 Wells Fargo, Atwater 1 Castle Clinic 1 Transpo 1 Castle Gardens (57), Atwater 1 Merced Transpo 1 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 1 Winton VMW 1 Jack in the Box, Atwater 1 Merced Transpo 1 Scholle 1 Sonic 1 Winton Way 1 Merced Transpo 1 Beachwood 1 Merced Transpo 1 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 1 Merced Transpo 1 Buhach Rd, Atwater 1 Merced Transpo 1 HSA Castle Airport 1 Merced Transpo 1 Human Services Agency, Atwater 1 Winton VFW 1 Bellvue Rd @ 5th 1 Corporation 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 21 22 W2 - Winton Commuter North Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business # On Street/Business # off 16th St (204) 1 99 Cent Store, Atwater 1 Savemart, Atwater 1 Bellevue, Atwater 1 Merced College 1 Bellevue, Atwater 1 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Near Bellevue School 1 Bellevue and Buhach, Atwater 1 Merced College, Merced 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 1 Beachwood 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 1 Merced College 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Ranchero Ln 1 1 Dollar General 1 Merced College 1 Dollar General 1 Walmart 1 Jack in the Box 3 Merced College 3 Meadows @ Olivewood 1 Castle Clinic 1 Meadows Ave 1 Castle Clinic 1 Merced College 1 5 Corners, Atwater 1 Merced College 1 Bellevue @ Buchach 1 Merced College 2 Savemart, Atwater 2 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Merced College 1 Target, Merced 1 5 Corners, Atwater 1 Walmart, Merced 1 Bellevue, Atwater 1 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 1 Winton Way 2 Merced College 2 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 1 Merced College 1 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 1 Merced College 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 29 28 Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q3. How did you get to the stop for this bus? Answer Options Response % Response # Walked 73.5% 542 Drove car 2.0% 15 Taxi 0.0% 0 Bicycled 3.4% 25 Got a ride in a car 5.3% 39 Transferred from another bus 15.1% 111 Other (specify) 0.7% 5 answered question 737 Q3. If you transferred, from which route did you transfer? Answer Options Response % Response # M1 9.2% 8 M2 9.2% 8 M3 4.6% 4 M4 9.2% 8 M5 9.2% 8 M6 4.6% 4 UC 6.9% 6 A1 0.0% 0 A2 0.0% 0 W1 10.3% 9 W2 2.3% 2 LB Commuter 0.0% 0 LB Corridor 1.1% 1 T 11.5% 10 P 5.7% 5 L 5.7% 5 DP 5.7% 5 G 1.1% 1 Other (please specify) 3.4% 3 answered question 87 How did you get to the stop for this bus? 0.7% Walked 5.3% 15.1% Drove car 3.4% Taxi 0.0% Bicycled 2.0% 73.5% Got a ride in a car Transferred from another bus Other (specify) Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q5. How will you get to your destination after you get off this bus? Answer Options Response % Response # Walk 73.5% 507 Drive a car 1.3% 9 Taxi 0.1% 1 Bicycle 3.8% 26 Get a ride in a car 2.9% 20 Transfer to another route 17.4% 120 Other (please specify) 1.0% 7 answered question 690 If you are transferring to another bus, which route? Answer Options Response % Response # M1 11.9% 12 M2 7.9% 8 M3 12.9% 13 M4 17.8% 18 M5 7.9% 8 M6 2.0% 2 UC 5.0% 5 A1 5.9% 6 A2 0.0% 0 W1 6.9% 7 W2 3.0% 3 LB Commuter 3.0% 3 LB Corridor 0.0% 0 T 6.9% 7 L 1.0% 1 P 3.0% 3 DP 2.0% 2 G 2.0% 2 Other (please specify) 1.0% 1 answered question 101 How will you get to your destination after you get off this bus? Walk Drive a car Taxi Bicycle Get a ride in a car Transfer to another route Other (please specify) Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q6. Are you traveling round-trip on the bus today? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 66.8% 488 No 33.2% 243 answered question 731 skipped question 23 Q6. Are you traveling Q7. Was a car available Q8. Are you a UC round-trip on the bus for you to use on this Merced student? today? trip? Yes No Yes No Yes No Q7. Was a car available for you to use on this trip? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 12.7% 83 No 87.3% 570 answered question 653 skipped question 102 Q9. Are you a UC Merced student? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Yes 20.9% 143 No 79.1% 541 answered question 684 skipped question 70 Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q9. What is the main purpose of your trip today (specify one) Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Work 13.9% 104 Medical/Dental 7.2% 54 Shopping 7.9% 60 Recreation / Social 2.8% 20 Multi-purpose 9.4% 87 School / College 43.8% 312 Personal Business 8.5% 62 Other (please specify) 4.4% 32 answered question 705 skipped question 23 Q9. What is the main purpose of your trip today (specify one) Work Medical/Dental Shopping Recreation / Social Multi-purpose School / College Personal Business Other (please specify) Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q10. How many days do you usually ride per week? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count 1st trip 2.5% 18 1 day or less 5.3% 39 2-4 days 34.3% 250 5 days 35.4% 258 6 days 10.8% 79 7 days 11.7% 85 answered question 729 skipped question 25 Q10. How many days do you Q11. How long have you been usually ride per week? riding The Bus? 1st trip Less than a 1 day or less year 2-4 days 1-2 years 5 days 3-4 years 6 days 7 days 5+ years Q11. How long have you been riding The Bus? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Less than a year 30.2% 204 1-2 years 26.2% 177 3-4 years 18.2% 123 5+ years 25.3% 171 answered question 675 skipped question 79 Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 What is your primary source for transit information? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Bus driver 16.6% 186 Facebook 2.1% 24 Family / friend 4.0% 45 "The Bus" website 29.5% 331 Merced College 2.9% 33 Bus Stops 10.8% 121 Printed Guide / Schedule 13.7% 154 The Bus Live (monitor on bus) 9.2% 103 UC Merced 3.6% 40 Other (please specify) 7.7% 86 answered question 1,123 skipped question 70 Q12. What is your primary source for transit information? Other (please specify) 7.7% UC Merced 3.6% The Bus Live (monitor on bus) 9.2% Printed Guide / Schedule 13.7% Bus Stops 10.8% Merced College 2.9% "The Bus" website 29.5% Family / friend 4.0% Facebook 2.1% Bus driver 16.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q13. Please rate The Bus on each of the following: Rating Response Answer Options Excellent (5) Good Fair Poor Very Poor (1) Average Count Safety Performance 433 61.2% 186 26.3% 64 9.0% 11 1.6% 14 2.0% 4.43 708 Driver Courtesy 454 64.1% 150 21.2% 77 10.9% 15 2.1% 12 1.7% 4.44 708 On-Time Performance 274 38.5% 182 25.6% 147 20.7% 70 9.8% 38 5.3% 3.82 711 Vehicle Cleanliness 422 59.7% 171 24.2% 79 11.2% 17 2.4% 18 2.5% 4.36 707 Value Received for Fare 423 60.4% 144 20.6% 84 12.0% 29 4.1% 20 2.9% 4.32 700 Service Information 384 54.4% 172 24.4% 105 14.9% 27 3.8% 18 2.5% 4.24 706 Hours of service 258 36.7% 159 22.6% 138 19.6% 66 9.4% 82 11.7% 3.63 703 Service Frequency 291 41.9% 181 26.1% 133 19.2% 43 6.2% 46 6.6% 3.90 694 Duration of Trip 334 47.8% 198 28.3% 109 15.6% 37 5.3% 21 3.0% 4.13 699 Bus Stops 320 45.8% 184 26.4% 120 17.2% 47 6.7% 27 3.9% 4.04 698 Overall Service 337 48.8% 220 31.8% 106 15.3% 19 2.7% 9 1.3% 4.24 691 Please rate The Bus service for each of the following: 100% 90% 4.43 4.44 4.36 4.32 4.24 4.13 4.24 Excellent (5) 80% 3.90 4.04 3.82 3.63 70% Good 60% 50% 40% Fair 30% 20% Poor 10% 0% Very Poor (1) Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q14. Do you have a driver's license? Q15. Have disability Q14. Do you have a Answer Options Response % Response # that limits use of fixed Yes driver's license? 38.0% 278 route? No 62.0% 454 answered question 732 Q15. Do you have disability that limits your ability to use the fixed route bus? Answer Options Response % Response # Yes 9.7% 68 Yes No Yes No No 90.3% 635 answered question 703 Q16. What best describes your occupation? Q16. What best describes your occupation? Answer Options Response % Response # Work full time 14.0% 99 Work full time Work part time 10.8% 76 Work part time Unemployed 9.9% 70 Unemployed Retired 8.1% 57 Retired Merced College Student 29.2% 206 Merced College Student UC Merced Student 15.4% 109 UC Merced Student K - 12 Student 3.8% 27 K - 12 Student Homemaker 4.2% 30 Homemaker Other (please specify) 4.5% 32 Other (please specify) answered question 706 Q17. Do you use a mobility device? Q17. Do you use a mobility device? Answer Options Response % Response # Yes 30.7% 202 Yes No 69.3% 456 No answered question 658 Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q18. What is your age? Q18. What is your age? Answer Options Response % Response # Under 12 0.0% 0 12-18 11.5% 81 19-24 32.1% 227 25-44 30.7% 217 45-59 17.5% 124 60-72 7.2% 51 Under 12 12-18 73+ 1.0% 7 19-24 25-44 answered question 707 45-59 60-72 skipped question 47 73+ Q19. What is your combined household income? Answer Options Response % Response # Q19. What is your combined Under $15,000 57.8% 353 household income? $15,000-$34,999 26.2% 160 $35,000-$49,999 8.5% 52 $50,000-$74,999 4.4% 27 $75,000-$100,000 1.8% 11 More than $100,000 1.3% 8 answered question 611 skipped question 143 Under $15,000 $15,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$100,000 More than $100,000 Merced Passenger Survey - September 2016 Q20. What improvements would you like to see? Area 1 More routes to south end of merced. Also expand more toward Planada 2 Buses to go to El Capiten High School 3 More towards Planada and the south side of merced 4 Closer to Lake Road 5 M3 stop at S Canal St 6 Less looping of Castle area Like to see a bus stop out past the college on M Street. There are a lot of UC, college, high school 7 students trying to get to class or town, the stop is by M St @ W Cardella Rd 8 More routes 9 More bus stops near residential areas 10 More stops in neighborhoods 11 Need more city to city routes 12 Route Livingston - Delhi 13 Service from Merced HSA to atwater HSA 14 Service to additional location: Bear Creek Housing, Planada 15 Service to Bear Creek housing 16 Library in Atwater 17 Route bus to make stops at Target/Lobby Hobby and JC Penny shopping centers. Bus Condition 1 Clean seats 2 I'd like to see the buses cleaner, the seats are often dirty and I worry for my child. 3 Keep AC on. Some warm. Loud banging sounds. One air conditioner may need tightening. 4 Not so hot in here. 5 Should had play radio of Fridays and after 5pm when people get off work The bus is very uncomfortable when it goes through bumps, it becomes really rough and unpleasant and 6 it's dirty. 7 Better GPS Maint. Better response to BNSF 8 Fix the damn buses. AC and signals are broken 9 Another bike rack would be great. 10 More clean seats, waiters that service buses for free Bus Size/Capacity 1 Bigger buses used on Atwater route, more than 1 bus down bellevue; always very packed 2 more seats 3 I think m5 needs two big buses instead of one big and one little 4 More large buses 5 More hours so at times many students are't as packed in 6 No more little buses Bus Stop Improvements 1 Accessibility (More) stop 2 Atwater Transpo dirty 3 Atwater transpo/Target dirty 4 Benches at stops, why isn't M4 stop at fairgrounds valid? 5 Bus stop at the paint store 14 Improved bus stops (9 comments) 15 Dirty bus stops 16 Have all bus stops updated w/ signs or posts on street/sidewalk 17 Improved bus stops - more benches, shelters over benches 18 Increased hours later, bench at G St Savemart stop 20 Keep the Atwater Transpo cleaner (2 comments) 21 Lighting at shelters, more shelters 22 More benches 23 More bus stops and seats at the bus stops, bus stops need signs 24 More bus stops. 25 More stops Q20. What improvements would you like to see? 26 more stops to wait for bus 27 need benches at every bus stop 28 Need more signs for scheduled stops 29 No flag downs - only use designated stops, more shelters 30 paved streets, improved bus stops 31 Put back more benches (blue). You've taken many out but added non. 32 Put more signs 33 shaded cover on bus stop 34 Signs at stops that have schedules 35 Target bus stop, Atwater Transpo dirty 36 Transpo dirty 37 Walmart stop need seats and cover too hot 38 Why doesn't the bus use the bus shelter by Pioneer Rd. 39 No flag downs - only use designated stops, more shelters Compliment 1 I am happy with the changes they made on Aug 1st 2 I think the bus is great, no changes 3 No, perfect now! 4 Gene is a great bus driver! 5 Bus is great. 6 So far so good! Thank you! 8 LOVE the bus (2 comments) 9 The new route change is good. 10 Everyday the best 11 I just want to say I appreciate your help 12 I love the bus, thank you 13 I think the service is great. 14 It's great 15 Serves me great! 16 Thank you for your services! 17 They are all good people. 18 Overall, you guys are the best!!!! 19 You do a good job though. 1 Driver Issue 2 Better drivers 3 Better service info - by hiring people to do job, every driver on same page regarding policies on bus 4 Bus drivers more friendly 5 Consistency between drivers 6 Don't skip stops 7 Driver to be more careful 8 Driver training. Some are real bad. 9 Missed connection, buses should hold for 5 minutes. 10 More accommodation for the drivers (better pay, breaks, lunches and equal consideration of all drivers) 11 Nicer drivers 12 Nicer drivers, better attitude 13 Some of the drivers are rude and made me pay for my 3 year old 2 times 14 T route driver is sometimes unprofessional with passengers There are a few drivers that don't have good customer service and I wish that all the drivers including the DP LINK about the stroller policy and too many bags from stores that take up too much room and put them where the Ada slot goes... My suggestion is there any way to educate the public on these matters 15 out there.. thank you 16 To wait and check all mirrors before leaving and wait til designated time 17 When I'm short a dollar for fare, don't kick me off like the driver was about to, it was my only ride. 18 While I was on M5, two ladies of hispanic type got on and rode for free but an elderly white lady couldn't Q20. What improvements would you like to see? Fares/Fare Issue 1 Bus passes for merced college students 2 Cheaper or free bus passes for college students 3 reduced fares for students 4 Reduced semester bus passes would be great. 5 You should make the merced college id cards available to use as a bus pass like the uc students 6 When I'm short a dollar for fare, don't kick me off like the driver was about to, it was my only ride. 7 More free rides 8 Reduced fares to be free every month 9 Intercity fares 10 Lower monthly/30 day fare (4 comments) 11 Reduce bus pass prices 12 Cheaper prices 13 Fare needs to be less 14 fares to $1.00 if possible 15 I think that reduced fares would help a lot 16 lower fares 17 Lower the fares 18 Please reduce bus fare 25 Reduced fares (8 comments) 26 Reduced fares one way 27 reduced fares, don take wifi! 28 reduced fares. 29 Reduced fares. 3 dollars is too much 30 Bring transfers back 31 give back transfers 32 Reinstate transfers - should be valid longer than bus to bus 33 Return transfer passes 34 Rider is upset for not offering transfers, she is a low income student. 35 transfers 36 transfers for one way trips discounts for children under 18 for single fair, not just passes; Electronic fare cards that can be reloaded and your name is on there permanently, not the paper cards where the name starts wearing off after less than two weeks because Sharpie marker doesn't even stay on there with the swiping of the card. Along with those, email/text/app alerts when the current balance or length of time (31 day, semester, etc) is expiring so we can reload. 37 I think elementary students should not pay full fare like adults. Some families cannot afford it but the 38 children need their education 39 Lower fare for school children 4-older 40 Maybe students K-12 ride free too 41 Reduced fare for elementary students 42 Reduced fares for children. Have new buses read UC cards because they currently don't read them and or inform bus drivers we 43 can ride with UC Merced ID Card because some don't know Frequency 1 30 minute buses for m6 on weekends 2 Better frequency 3 Double route in Atwater 4 Having more buses to reduce waiting time. 5 Increased frequency and timeliness 6 Increased hours for "P" route between 8:30a - 12:25p 7 Increased hours later in the day with same frequency during day 8 Increased hours later in the day, make the bus faster Increased hours on all days, even weekends, with the same frequency as in the bulk 7am-7pm hours for weekdays. Better frequency for weekends, with UC service on weekends and later evening service on 9 weekends. Q20. What improvements would you like to see? 10 Increased hours/frequency of hours in PM 11 Later hours on weekends/days, More buses on weekends 12 Later hours on weekends/days,. more buses on weekend 13 Later hours, more buses and stops in Delhi CA. Delhi should have more buses and routes 14 later in the day service frequency, longer hours of service, on time performance, weekend services 15 later running times, better frequency Longer hours in the evening, more overlap times w Transpo buses. i.e. I get back to merced transpo at 16 755p. All merced buses stop at 740p. Also the hours for turlock could be extended and more frequent 17 More Atwater bus like A1 18 more bus, too long to wait. I'm used to Santa Clara County, a lot of buses 19 More buses from UC Merced to downtown 20 more buses going and coming from dos palos to Merced and from Merced to dos palos 21 More buses going and coming to Merced from Dos Palas 22 More buses that go to Livingston 23 More buses that go to livingston, more bus stop pick up 24 More buses throughout day and night 25 More frequency, more buses going to Atwater Walmart 26 More frequent 27 more frequent buses on the weekends, more free rides 28 More frequent on week days 29 More frequent stop hours 30 More frequent trips to the college 31 More frequent, very poor hours 32 More often 33 More routes for P bus/ Increased priority for students 34 More T routes more often 35 more trips on the P route 36 More trips to the college 37 Need at least 2 buses for intercity routes 38 Service frequency increased on routes 39 Shorter duration between routes would be something to improve in. 40 Shorter intervals 41 T Turlock add 3:30 bus 42 There aren't enough buses that go to delhi at a reasonable hour - the gaps between times are too long 43 They need to have more than 2 buses that go from merced to dos palos 44 Increased hours (LB to Merced) mornings and afternoons. 45 time should be changed more often to los banos 46 We need more buses Improved Information 1 "bus live" at all main bus stops 2 A clearer specification of where to wait at for the yosemite @ paulson stop 3 Better GPS Maint. Better response to BNSF 8 Better information (5 comments) 9 Better information services to help people that aren't residents or that don't know where to get off. 10 Better timing announcements Fix the buslive.com such as when it displays arrival predictions, not available at this time this really 11 throws me off and often causes me to miss certain us stops I will still like to see better service info - by hiring people to do job, every drive on same page regarding 12 policies on bus I wish that all the drivers including the DP LINK about the stroller policy and too many bags from stores that take up too much room and put them where the Ada slot goes... My suggestion is there any way to 13 educate the public on these matters out there.. thank you 14 Improved tracking system, some stops don't show up 15 More bus schedules posted and stop signs and a bus stop sign for both north and south loops 16 More online info Q20. What improvements would you like to see? 17 Need more signs for scheduled stops 18 Please start providing bus schedules on buses. 19 Route UC has its own alert to tell us when bus breaks down 20 Schedules to be posted at all locations i.e. target 21 Better ways of obtaining info (live is spotty, website has bad info) 22 The bus live tracker being more accurate 23 The bus routes number on the back of the bus Miscellaneous 1 More bus stops and seats at the bus stops, bus stops need signs 2 More stops on Childs Ave in Planada 3 Sometimes the bus never shows up, it would be good if that didn't happen 4 Better coordination with Amtrak train schedule to ensure efficient and guaranteed transfer 5 Make a route stop at JC Penny shopping center in Los Banos. On-time Performance 1 Arrive on time 2 be more on time more often 3 be more punctual 4 Be on time to bus stops and don't skip stops 5 Be more on time. 6 Be on time, more stops 7 being on time more often. 9 Better on time performance (2 comments) 10 Bus needs to match times on the schedule better 11 Buses arrive on time 12 For people to on time to work and use it wisely 13 for them to be on time at least 5 min late not 15 14 For them to be on time, at least 5 minutes late not 15 15 I don't like how the bus is always late 16 I would like to see buses more on time. 17 improve on time performance 18 Improved bus arrival times Improved time management. Buses are often late with no explanation. This causes us to be late or have 19 to leave very early just to be on time 20 Increased frequency and timeliness Increased hours for later in the day (Thurs). Be more on time, have new buses read UC cards because they currently don't read them and or inform bus drivers we can ride with UC Merced ID Card because 21 some don't know 22 increased hours later in the day and on time performace 23 Increased hours! can improve on punctuality 24 Make the stop on time 25 Maybe better on time and reduced fares 26 More accurate schedule 27 on time performance 32 On time performance (5 comments) 33 please please please be on time 34 Running on time! 35 That buses arrive on time, not early and not late. 36 the buses being on time 37 can improve on punctuality Prefer Previous Fixed Route in Los Banos Can't see phone to dial. Doesn't like using paratransit - have to call ahead at 6:19 - People can't see him 1 at stop. Soooo early to get to merced. I would really like the bus to start going back to South Dos Palos because it's hard to get the bus on the 2 phone to call for the bus to come pick me up. The line is always busy and I handle everything in Merced. 3 Return fixed route to LB, increased hours later every day, including weekends. Schedule/Routing Q20. What improvements would you like to see? 1 5 days a week mon-fri (LB commuter) 2 bus from Merced to Dos Palos between 12-3 3 Have the 3:49 route again, have outlets I think that there should be one bus from the college to transpo and there shouldn't be such a gap 4 inbetween the T Bus. If I miss the 1:30, I have to wait 2 hours for the next bus 5 I wish you guys still had the 11:07 bus to go to Merced from Dos Palos I'd like to see the buses cleaner, the seats are often dirty and I worry for my child. There should be one 6 bus that stops at HSA before 8 for those who work out there early (6/7a) 7 If the bus got to Monte Vista/Crowell @ 8pm 8 increase hours bus between 12p and 3p 9 It was nicer when there was a 4pm bus, now i have to wait 2 hours for the bus 10 Keep the Atwater transport cleaner and have more routes from Atwater to Merced College 11 Later day routes transferring from the Y to Dos Palos LB Commuter should leave at 1:00P because waiting until 3:45P is a long way. So just adding a buss 12 that leaves at 1P 13 Livingston bus should have a 3:20/3:30pm route on tuesdays and thursdays 14 M1 and M2 are too close for transfer 15 M5 should go to the merced college 16 Make a route stop at JC Penny shopping center in Los Banos. 17 Mon-Fri route 4 need to come early. I hate being 5 min late since you guys changed the time. 18 More buses available from 10:30-1:30 to go to Turlock 19 More buses back from Livingston 20 More buses to and from LB between 12-3 More service on R St: Early bus 4am; Stop at the Case De Fruta, air Museum, where there is recreation and good visitor locations. Also, special stops for the season celebrations like the pumpkin-patch 21 harvest, christmas lights, trees, the lake (summer). Trees at all bus stops and garden lighting. 22 Return transfer passes; 1 additional bus to/from Merced at night 23 Revert back to the pre-aug 2016 service hours, regular route through hilkmar and gustine would like another bus that takes us back to Los Banos before 11:30. Also another bike rack would be 24 great. You eliminated the LB commuter that left between 8-9am. That was a lot safer than waiting at the transpo at 6:30am. Please bring that back. Also, the Ward st drop off was safer than the Dollar store for 25 handicap people in LB. Overall, you guys are the best!!!! You took away the 3pm bus - myself and several others need this bus to get home at a reasonable hour. 26 You should make the merced college id cards available to use as a bus pass like the uc students 27 Increased hours later in the day for Tuesdays and Thursdays. L Bus should have 3:15/3:30 hour route 28 M St Village apts stop, later in the day on weekdays Span of service 1 Arrive on time, run on weekends 2 Back to longer hours of services (both weekdays and weekends) 3 Back to the old time that stayed open later. 4 being on time more often. increased hours earlier and later in the day 5 Bring back the night time bus 6 Bring late bus service back 7 Bus ends too early causing me to walk from Livingston to Atwater 8 Bus needs to start at night 9 Buses should run normal hours on saturdays and sundays, more time 10 Definitely increased hours and more stop/buses on weekends and weekdays. 11 Double route in Atwater, run later at night 12 earlier and later hours 13 Earlier hours 14 Earlier in the day m-F 15 Earlier M-F via Moraga UC 16 Earlier on Sat and Sun Q20. What improvements would you like to see? 17 earlier times and later times every day 18 Early/4 and 5 am/ Late 12am 19 Evening services 20 Extend the weekend hours Extended night hours- I can't use the bus going home at night. (i work til 830p). Morning hours on 21 weekends. 22 Extended service hours on weekends and weekdays 23 Extending the bus schedule on weekends 24 Fare needs to be less and extended hours. 25 For the bus to run a little later than 5:30 on weekends 26 Go later! 27 Have an earlier bus schedule on Saturday and Sunday 28 Hour increased and later hours 29 hours of service 30 Hours of service: Run later 31 Hours to operate in a later evening, reduce bus pass prices I have to walk to work when I go in at 7:30A. I wish there was still a bus that would take me the target 32 shopping center that early. I work til nine across town. Unsafe for me to be walking home late at night. If the bus could go one more 33 stop at 9:14pm, I'd really appreciate that. M-F 34 improve on time performance and weekend service 35 improved bus stops, increased hours later 36 Increase bus hours (6 comments) 37 Increase earlier hour on m6 and UC. 38 Increase hour, lower fare for school children 4-older 39 increase hours for later services to 830 - 9p 40 increase hours later in the day 41 Increase the hours later and increase the number of bus stops 42 increased earlier hours 43 Increased hours after 10pm on weekdays 44 Increased hours because I work late 45 Increased hours during weekend. Improved bus stops 46 increased hours earlier and later every day, reduced fees 47 Increased hours earlier in the day 48 Increased hours earlier in the day, m-f, monte vista @ 12pm-1pm 49 Increased hours earlier on weekends 50 increased hours earlier, reduced fares, improved bus stops Increased hours for Friday and Saturdays. More bus stops. Missed connection, buses should hold for 5 51 minutes. Increased hours for later in the day (Thurs). Be more on time, have new buses read UC cards because they currently don't read them and or inform bus drivers we can ride with UC Merced ID Card because 52 some don't know 53 increased hours for Saturday in evenings 54 Increased hours in the morning Q20. What improvements would you like to see? Increased hours into the evening on weekdays and morning on weekends. At least go until most businesses close; discounts for children under 18 for single fair, not just passes; increased maintenance of the bus stops. On 8th St, there are two stops. One has been fitted with the new light, the other hasn't. Some shelters still have drilled holes but no lights. Post schedules and announcements on the poles at bus stops, mark off the new bus stop at U St and 4th: people park along both streets; more advertising of meetings and changes: post on bus stops, at the Transpo and major locations such as the mall. Electronic fare cards that can be reloaded and your name is on there permanently, not the paper cards where the name starts wearing off after less than two weeks because Sharpie marker doesn't even stay on there with the swiping of the card. Along with those, email/text/app alerts when the current balance or length of time (31 day, semester, etc) is expiring so we can reload. Future bus exhaust vents should be on the left side of the bus. It is disgusting to have the exhaust blowing on people when the buses are idling. At this time, ALL local buses have the exhaust vent on the right side. Having hot exhaust blasting out is not something needed on the right side of the bus. What is 55 the point of that? Nobody stands on the left side, the door is on the right as is the sidewalk. 56 Increased hours lat in the day, Improve bus stops and reduced fares. 62 Increased hours later (6 comments) 63 Increased hours later in the day (M-F) 64 increased hours later in the day and lower the fares 65 increased hours later in the day and on time performace 66 Increased hours later in the day for Tuesdays and Thursdays. L Bus should have 3:15/3:30 hour route 67 increased hours later in the day on weekends 68 Increased hours later in the day with same frequency during day 69 Increased hours later in the day, improved bus stops 70 Increased hours later in the day, make the bus faster 71 Increased hours later in the day. 72 Increased hours later in the days 73 Increased hours later on weekdays 74 Increased hours later, bench at G St Savemart stop 75 Increased hours later. 76 increased hours M-Th, better information services. Increased hours on all days, even weekends, with the same frequency as in the bulk 7am-7pm hours for weekdays. Better frequency for weekends, with UC service on weekends and later evening service on 77 weekends. 78 Increased hours on LB Commuter on weekends 79 Increased hours on weekend 80 increased hours on weekends (evenings) 81 Increased hours sat and sun. later hours every day 82 Increased hours to later at night 83 Increased hours! can improve on punctuality 84 Increased hours. 11:30 85 Increased hours/frequency of hours in PM 86 increased hours/runs later in the evening 87 Increased weekend hours 88 Just later hours of service for Merced College 89 Late night service return 90 Later at night would be awesome! LOVE the bus 96 later bus hours (six comments) 97 Later hours like to 8pm 98 later hours on saturdays 99 Later hours on weekends/days, More buses on weekends 100 Later hours on weekends/days,. more buses on weekend 101 later hours until 10pm 102 Later hours were nice for night classes 103 later hours, atwater transpo/target dirty Q20. What improvements would you like to see? 104 later hours, like 930p 105 Later hours, more buses and stops in Delhi CA. Delhi should have more buses and routes 106 later in the day 107 later in the day (weekends) 108 later in the day service frequency, longer hours of service, on time performance, weekend services 109 Later on weekends, more frequent on week days 110 later rides 111 Later routes on weekends and week days 112 later running times, better frequency 113 later schedules (after 730p) 114 Later service 115 later service (night) 116 later service during the week 117 Later service hours, Target bus stop, Atwater Transpo dirty 118 Later service times on the weekends 119 later weekend service 120 Longer bus hours in the PM 121 Longer hours 122 Longer hours and give back transfers Longer hours in the evening, more overlap times w Transpo buses. i.e. I get back to merced transpo at 123 755p. All merced buses stop at 740p. Also the hours for turlock could be extended and more frequent 124 Longer hours in the PM 125 Longer hours on Sunday and Saturday 126 M St Village apts stop, later in the day on weekdays 127 Maybe A1 starting at Target a little earlier 128 Maybe students K-12 ride free too, maybe go til 10-11pm 129 Monday through Friday should stay til 9:30/last run so kids could get home before legal curfew 130 More benches, night service 131 More bus hours 132 more buses on weekends 133 More buses throughout day and night 134 More frequent and later on weekends 135 More hours 136 More hours and nicer drivers 137 More hours at night 138 More hours at transit 139 More hours later in the day 140 More hours on weekends 141 more hours running on both weekdays and weekends 142 More hours so at times many students are't as packed in 143 more night routes 144 More routes, longer hours, better ways of obtaining info (live is spotty, website has bad info) 145 More Sunday buses 146 More times on weekends - real early stops 147 More trips to college after 5p 149 More weekend service (2 comments) 150 more weekend transportation,transfers for one way trips 151 Mostly just a little longer at night. Love the bus!! 152 Need longer hours on buses, don't stop so early 153 night transportation 154 on time performance, more hours during weekend 155 one earlier and later services 156 Reduced fares and night services 157 reduced fares. 3 dollars is to much and earlier hours coming and going to Merced 158 route routine or later hours. 159 Routes Atwater to Merced needed after 5pm to 6pm Q20. What improvements would you like to see? 160 Run a little later than 7 on weekdays 161 run at target a little later!! this is important for employees! 162 Run UC route later in the day for later classes 163 Sat and Sun earlier and longer hours 164 service in the the weekends too 165 The bus need better hour service 166 time longer hours 167 transpo dirty, later hours 168 UC route service until 10pm would be great We need earlier times like we did before going and coming to Merced like the 5:30 and the 8:30 coming 169 back 170 Weekend UC Route? Run a bit later and better on time performance 171 Weekends 172 Weekends not so good but can learn to live with it. The new route change is good. 173 Wish they hadn't cut the night hours. Many people depended on them. 174 Would like a later bus fro Merced to Los Banos 175 Would like to see bus run til midnight on holiday Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs A1 - Atwater Crosstown Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off Anberry 1 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 1 Anberry 1 Castle Clinic 1 Anberry 1 Atwater Community Center 1 Target 1 Atwater Human Services Agency 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Atwater Human Services Agency 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Atwater Target 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Human Services Agency 1 Bellevue @ Secretariat 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Bellevue @ Walgreens 1 Buhach Rd 1 Bellevue Rd @ Alabama Ave 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Buhach Rd 1 Anberry 1 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 1 Anberry 1 Buhach Rd @ Waters (2089 Buhach) 1 Walmart 1 Castle Clinic 1 Atwater Flea Market 1 Castle Clinic 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Castle Clinic 1 Broadway Atwater Fire Dept 1 Castle Clinic 1 Senior Housing 1 Human Services Agency 1 Canilia Mobile Home Park 1 Human Services Agency 1 Van @ Juniper 1 Jack in the Box 1 Anberry 1 Jack in the Box 1 Atwater Community 1 Jack in the Box 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Jack in the Box 1 Walmart 1 Juniper Ave @ Bridgewater St 1 Target 1 Osborn Park 1 Buhach Rd @ Garden 1 Savemart 1 Broadway Atwater Fire Dept 1 Savemart 1 Human Services Agency 1 Savemart 1 Target 1 Target 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Target 1 Buhach Rd @ Castlewood Ave 1 Target 1 Merced College 1 Transpo 1 Bellevue 1 Transpo 1 Castle Clinic 1 Bellvue Taco Bell 1 Broadway 1 Total On/Off 34 35 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs A2 - Atwater Winton Way Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off Atwater Target 1 Winton @ Bellevue/99 cent store 1 Atwater Target 1 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 1 Atwater Transpo 1 Walnut @ California 1 Target 1 Transpo 1 Winton 1 Winton 1 Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store 1 Myrtle 1 Winton @ Bellevue/ 99 cent store 1 Transpo 1 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 1 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 1 Winton @ Fruitland/Atwater HS 1 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 1 Walnut CA 1 Total On/Off 9 10 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs L - Livingston Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 8th St @ F St 1 Merced College 8th St @ F St 1 Target Castle Clinic 1 Livingston Castle Clinic 1 Center St 1 Foster Farms Food Maxx 1 Castle Clinic Human Services Agency 1 Merced College Human Services Agency 1 Walnut M St @ Donna 1 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall Main St (8 Main St) Livingston 1 Merced College 1 8th St Merced College 3 Castle Clinic 3 Merced College 3 Livingston 3 Merced College 1 Livingston Church 1 Merced College 1 Olive Ave Livingston 1 Merced College 2 Rancho San Miguel 2 Merced College 1 Rite Aid 1 Merced College 1 Walnut Ave 1 Merced College 1 Walnut Ave across Church St 1 Merced College 1 Winton 1 Merced College 1 R St @ Olive/Sears 1 Livingston 1 Rancho San Miguel 2 Merced College 2 Stehani Ave 1 Target 1 Foster Farms 1 Walmart 1 Walnut 1 Walnut Ave 2 Merced College 2 Walnut Ave 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Walnut Ave @ Cressey 1 Dollar Tree 1 Walnut Ave @ Francis St 2 Merced College 2 Walnut Ave @ Francis St 1 Walnut Ave @ Sycamore 1 Walnut Ave @ Sycamore 1 Winton VFW 1 Foster Farms 1 Livingston 1 Merced College 1 Walnut Ave @ Barbera Ave 1 Total On/Off 42 29 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs L - Livingston Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off Dos Palos "Y" Chevron Dos Palos Y 1 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 1 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron Dos Palos Y 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron Dos Palos Y 2 Merced College 2 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron Dos Palos Y 4 Transpo 4 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Castle Clinic 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree Los Banos 5 Merced College 5 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree Los Banos 1 Transpo 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree los banos 2 walmart los banos 2 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree Los Banos 1 I st 1 Walmart 1 Los Banos 1 Los Banos 1 Los Banos 3 Transpo 3 Los Banos Community Center 1 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 1 Los Banos Community Center 1 Merced College 1 Los Banos Community Center 1 Transpo 1 Los Banos Memorial Hospital 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Merced College 1 Los Banos Community Center 1 Merced College 1 Merced transpo Merced 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree Los banos 1 Transpo 3 Dos Palos "Y" Chevron 3 Transpo 3 Los Banos Community Center 3 Transpo 5 Merced College 5 Transpo 1 Santa Nella Village Market 1 Transpo 1 Tumbleweed Way (1635) 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Merced 1 Walmart 2 Transpo 2 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Merced College 1 Total On/Off 48 47 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs M1 - Merced West Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 3rd @ T St 1 Dollar General 1 Dollar General 1 Merced College 1 Dollar General 1 Transpo 1 Dollar General 1 Walmart 1 Meadows Ave (3135) 1 16th St 1 Merced County Workforce Dev 1 Transpo 1 Merced Valley 1 Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts 1 Target 1 Hwy 140 @ Sydney Lane 1 Target 1 Walmart 1 Transpo 1 Buena Vista Plaza 1 Transpo 1 Dennis Chavez Park - 11th @ W St 1 Transpo 1 Lopes @ Linda 1 Transpo 2 Merced College 2 Transpo 2 Target 2 Transpo Merced 1 U St and 4th St Merced 1 Turlock Transpo 1 Turlock Transpo 1 Village Terrace Landing Apts 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Transpo 1 Wardrobe 2 DMV 1 Shadowbrook 1 Total On/Off 22 22 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs M1 - Merced West Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 711 1 12th St @ MLK 1 Walmart 1 12th St @ R St 1 Loughborough 1 18th St 1 Loughborough 1 18th St 1 18th St @ N St 1 Target 1 18th St @ R St 1 Transpo 1 19th St @ R St 1 Merced College 1 3rd St @ R St 1 Target 1 Del Taco 1 Loughborough 1 Devondwood @ Dogwood 1 Merced College 1 Dollar General 1 Downtown 1 Walmart 1 Food Maxx 1 Transpo 1 G St 1 East Campus 1 Human Services Agency 1 DMV 1 Human Services Agency 4 Transpo 4 Loughborough @village Meadow apts 1 Human Services Agency 1 Loughborough Dr @ M St 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 El Redondo Dr @ Jenner Dr 1 Merced College 1 Loughborough Dr (1055) 1 Merced College 3 Transpo 3 Merced College 2 Walmart 2 Merced College 1 Welfare 1 Merced College 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 18th St @ R St 1 North Merced 1 North Merced 1 Olivewood Dr. @ R St 1 Village Terrace Landing Apts 1 R St @ Donna 1 Best Buy 1 Target 1 Merced College 1 Target 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Human Services Agency 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough Dr @ Village Meadow Apt 1 Transpo 4 Merced College 4 Transpo 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Transpo 1 R St @ 6th St 1 Transpo 1 Target 1 Transpo 2 Walmart 2 Transpo 1 Wardrobe Ave (1800) 1 Transpo 4 VCS 1 Transpo 1 Village Meadow Apts 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Downtown 1 Walmart 1 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Walmart 2 Target 2 Walmart 4 Transpo 4 Food Maxx 1 R St 1 Total On/Off 65 59 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs M3 - Merced M St. Route Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 10th St @ M St 1 Merced College 1 16th St 1 Social Security Office 1 19th St @ M St 1 M St 1 By police station 1 Request 1 Downtown 1 Golden Valley Heath Center 1 Food 4 Less 1 Merced College 1 Le Grand @ Washington 1 Loughborough Dr & M St 1 Loughborough Dr 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 M St 2 Merced College 2 M St 1 Transpo 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1 99 cent Store on Olive 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1 Merced Mall 1 M St @ 22nd/County Offices 1 Target 1 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 1 M St @ Social Security Office 1 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 1 Transpo 1 M St @ Cartnel 1 Merced College 1 M St @ Childs 1 Merced College 1 M St @ Childs 1 Transpo 1 M St @ Social Security Office 1 Transpo 1 Meadows @ Olive 1 Merced College 1 Meadows @ Olive 1 Yosemite Ave @ G st 1 Merced College 1 Food 4 Less / Dollar Tree 1 Merced College 1 Golden Valley Heath Center 1 Merced College 2 M St @ 22nd/Merced County Offices 2 Merced College 1 M St @ Cartmel 1 Merced College 1 Olive Ave 1 Merced College 5 Transpo 5 Merced College 1 Winton 1 Merced College 1 Merced Mall 1 13th St @ M St 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Merced College 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Transpo 1 On W 10 St 1 Police Station 1 Police Station 1 Transpo 1 Robin Dr 1 Police Station 1 Social Security Office 1 Transpo 1 Target 1 M St @ Applegate Park 1 Target 2 Merced College 2 Target 1 Target 1 Transpo 2 Golden Valley Heath Center 2 Transpo 1 Gym In Shape on R St 1 Transpo 1 John St 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough Dr @ M St 1 Transpo 1 Meadows @ Olive 1 Transpo 1 Merced College 1 Transpo 1 N St @ Childs (Golden Valley Health Centers) 1 Transpo 1 O St 1 Transpo 1 Social Security Office 1 Transpo 1 The Villages on M 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Loughborough 1 Total On/Off 60 59 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs M4 - Merced G St. Route Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 10th St @ N St 1 Transpo 1 13th @ G St 1 Transpo 1 13th St 1 G St @ Alexander 1 13th St 1 Transpo 1 13th St 1 13th St @ D St 1 Merced College 1 13th St @ MLK 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 15th @ B St/Merced County Health 1 16th St @ O St 1 15th St @ L St 1 Transpo 1 16th St @ King 1 Olive Ave @ G St 1 20th St @ G St 1 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 1 21st @ G St 1 21st @ G St 1 21st @ G St 2 Taco Bell 2 23rd St @ G St 1 Savemart 1 Atwater 1 C.O.V.E. 1 Atwater 1 G St 1 C.O.V.E. 1 G St @ Olive 1 D St 2 Transpo 2 Felix Torres Camp 1 Merced College 1 Flea market 1 Transpo 1 G St 1 Mercy Ave @ Paulson Rd 1 G St 2 Mercy Medical Center 2 G St 1 Fairgrounds 1 G St @ Alexander 1 G St @ Carmen 1 G St @ Carmen 1 G St @ Carmen 1 Merced College 1 G St @ Carmen 1 Paulson Rd @ Yosemite Ave 1 G St @ Carmen 2 Transpo 2 G St @ East Campus 1 East Campus 1 G St @ East Campus 2 G St @ East Campus 2 G St @ East Campus 1 Merced College 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Merced College 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Transpo 1 G St @ N. Bear Creek Dr 1 G St @ Olive 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Skylark 1 Transpo 1 Las Brisas 1 Transpo 1 Meadows Ave 1 Merced 2 Serano St (316) 1 Merced College 2 21st @ G St 1 Merced College 1 27th St @ G St 1 Merced College 1 C.O.V.E. 1 Merced College 1 El Portal Imaging 1 Merced College 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Merced College 1 Gerard @ La Mesa 1 Merced College 1 Savemart 1 Merced College 2 Transpo 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 G St 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 G St @ Park Av 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Savemart 1 Mercy Medical Center 2 Transpo 1 MLK 1 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 1 Olive St 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Rite Aid 1 Transpo 1 Save More 1 Taco Bell 1 Savemart 1 D St @ Childs 1 Savemart 1 Transpo 1 Taco Bell 1 Merced College 1 Taco Bell 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Taco Bell 1 Serano (366) 1 Taco Bell 1 Taco Bell 1 Taco Bell 1 Transpo 1 Taco Bell 1 Transpo 1 13th St 1 Transpo 1 D St 1 Transpo 1 Dollar Tree 1 Transpo 1 Flea Market 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Carmen 1 Transpo 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Gerard 1 Transpo 1 G St @ Oli 1 Transpo 1 G St @Adult School 1 Transpo 1 Inshape Gym 1 Transpo 1 La Mesa @ Gerard 1 Transpo 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Transpo 1 Taco Bell 1 Transpo 2 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Wellness Center 1 Transpo 1 Yosemite Ave 1 Yosemite Ave @ G st 1 Merced College 1 Yosemite High School 1 G St @ Alexander 1 G St @ El Portal 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 91 83 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs M5 - Merced South-East Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 18th St 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 21st St 1 16th St 1 21st St 1 Human Services Agency 1 21st St @ K St 1 12th St @ R St 1 23rd St @ K St 1 Transpo 1 5th St @ V St 1 Housing Authority Office 1 Amtrak 1 Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn 1 Amtrak 1 Transpo 1 Between Rancho and Grove Apts 1 Transpo 1 Childs @ Golden Valley 1 Golden Valley Heath Center 1 Childs @ Manzanita/Golden Valley HS 1 Transpo 1 Cypress Way (1749) 1 Cypress Way (1749) 1 Family Dollar 2 Amtrak 2 Family Dollar Amtrak Family Dollar 1 Transpo 1 Gerard 1 21st @ Cherry Ave 1 Gerard 1 Merced College 1 Gerard 1 Transpo 1 Gerard @ Laughlin 1 Transpo 1 Merced Ave 1 Transpo 1 Merced Ave @ Ellen Ct 1 Transpo 1 Parsons 1 Transpo 1 Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn 2 Amtrak 2 Parsons @ Childs/ Holiday Inn 1 M St @ Olive 1 Parsons @ Dinkey Creek 1 Transpo 1 Parsons @ Golden Valley HS 1 Gerard @ Coffee/Pioneer Elementary 1 Parsons @ Golden Valley HS 2 Transpo 2 Parsons @ The Grove 1 Amtrak 1 Parsons @ The Grove 1 Merced College 1 Parsons @ The Grove 4 Transpo 4 Parsons @ The Grove 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Rancho San Miguel Merced 2 Merced Transpo Merced 2 Rancho San Miguel 1 Gerard @ Coffee/Pioneer Elementary 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Target 1 711 1 Transpo 2 21 MLK 2 Transpo 1 21st St @ K St 1 Transpo 1 Amtrak 1 Transpo 1 Apostolic Tabernacle 1 Transpo 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Transpo 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 16th St 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Cypress 1 Loughborough @ R St 1 Yosemite Pkwy @ Shirley 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 52 52 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs M6 - Merced North Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Alexander 1 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Burbank Elementary 1 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Chenoweth School 1 26th @ Glen 1 26th @ Glen 1 26th @ Glen 1 Library 1 27th @ Green 1 El Portal Plaza 1 27th @ Green 2 Merced College 2 27th @ Parsons 2 Pauls Place 2 27th St 1 Merced College 1 Alexander 1 Parsons @ Alexander 1 Best Buy 1 26th @ Glen 1 Burbank Elementary 1 Burbank Elementary 1 E Alexander (1046 E Alexander) 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 Eltrab 2 market 1 Pauls Place 1 Food Maxx 1 Loughborough 1 Food Maxx 1 Walmart 1 G St 1 27th St @ Parsons 1 G St 1 Rite Aid 1 G St 1 Walmart 1 G St @ Alexander 1 Loughborough 1 Glen @ East Santa Fe 1 Merced College 1 Green St 1 Walmart 1 Loughborough @ Target/Merced Mall 1 G St @ 26th 1 Loughborough @ Village Meadow Apts 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 Merced College 1 Alexander 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Olive Ave 1 Merced College 1 Pecan Ave 1 Merced College 1 R St 1 Mercy 1 Olive Ave @ M St 1 Parsons 1 Target 1 Parsons @ Alexander 1 Merced College 1 Parsons @ Alexander 1 Savemart 1 Parsons @ Olive 1 Merced College 1 Santa Fe 1 Merced College 1 Santa Fe 1 Walmart 1 Santa Fe @ Reef Apts 1 Merced College 1 Santa Fe @ Reef Apts 1 Target 1 Savemart 1 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 1 Savemart 1 G St @ 26th 1 Starbucks 1 Target 1 Starbucks 1 Walmart 1 Sunstar 2 26th @ 7th/Hoover MS 2 Target 1 26th St 1 Target 1 Burbank 1 Walmart 1 G St @ Olive/Save Mart 1 Walmart 1 Loughborough @ R St 1 Walmart 1 Olive Ave 1 Walmart 1 Parson 1 Walmart 1 Merced College 1 Total On/Off 53 53 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs P - Planada Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 1 Transpo 1 Crispi Dr @ Topeka St 1 Merced College 1 Le Grand 1 Merced 1 Le Grand 3 Transpo 3 Le Grand 1 Le Grand @ Washington 1 Transpo 1 Mercado Latino 1 Merced College 1 Merced College 1 Le Grand 1 Merced College 1 Planada 1 Planada 1 Planada 1 Transpo 1 By the store 1 Transpo 1 Jefferson @ Le Grand/Community Ctr 1 Transpo 3 Le Grand 3 Transpo 1 Planada 1 Transpo 2 Washington St 1 Transpo 1 Yosemite Pkwy 1 Yosemite Pkwy (1400) 1 Planada 1 Total On/Off 22 20 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs T - Turlock Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off Rite Aid 1 Transpo Merced 1 Rite Aid 1 Transpo Atwater 1 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 1 Merced 1 Transpo Merced 1 CSU Stan 1 Transpo 1 Hammatt Ave @ Walnut Ave 1 Transpo Atwater 1 Livingston Church 1 Transpo Atwater 1 Mcdonalds Livingston 1 Transpo Merced 1 Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell St 1 Transpo Merced 1 Rancho San Miguel 1 Transpo Merced 1 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 1 Transpo 1 St. Francis Church 1 Transpo Merced 3 Transpo Atwater 1 Transpo Merced 1 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 1 Transpo Merced 1 Delhi 1 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 1 Main St Livingston 1 W. Monte Vista Ave @ Crowell Rd 1 Transpo Atwater 1 Delhi 1 Merced College 1 Merced 1 Oaks Rd Delhi 1 Merced 1 Schendel Ave @ Driftwood Ave/Delhi HS 1 Merced 1 Transpo Turlock 1 Merced 1 Turlock 1 Merced 1 Livingston 1 Merced 1 Total On/Off 20 17 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs UC - UC Merced Route Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 22nd St @ K St 2 Merced College 2 Amtrak 1 Amtrak 1 Amtrak 3 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 3 Amtrak 1 Hyland @ Olive 1 Amtrak 1 M St @ Social Security Office 1 Amtrak 2 Merced College 2 Amtrak 2 UC Merced 2 Amtrak 3 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 3 Amtrak 1 Between 18th and 19th 1 Dos Palos 1 Transpo 1 Franklin 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 18th St @ K St 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Amtrak 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 M St 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Merced College 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Moraga 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Near W 25th St 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 Social Security Office 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Starbucks 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Target 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Via Moraga 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 Yosemite Ave @ Moraga 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St Merced 1 Amtrak Station Merced 1 M St 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St 1 K St @ 18th/ MCAG 1 M St 1 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 1 M St 1 M St @ Village Apts 1 K St @ 18th/ MCAG 1 M St @ Village Apts 2 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 2 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 M St @ Villages Apts 7 UC Merced 7 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Merced College 1 Amtrak 1 Merced College 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Merced College 2 Transpo 2 Merced College Merced 4 UC Merced Merced 4 Mercy Medical Center 2 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 2 Moraga 1 UC Merced 1 Olive Ave @ M St 1 M St (3906) 1 Olive Ave @ M St 2 UC Merced 2 Scholars @ Emigrant 1 M St @ Loughborough 1 Scholars @ Emigrant 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 Starbucks 1 Amtrak 1 Transpo 1 By PG&E 1 Transpo Merced 1 Merced College 1 Transpo 1 Mercy Medical Center 1 Transpo Merced 3 UC Merced 3 Transpo 1 W 22nd St (455) 1 UC Merced 1 18th St @ K St 1 UC Merced 1 24th St @ K St 1 UC Merced 1 Amtrak 1 UC Merced 2 M St 2 UC Merced 2 M St @ Olive St 2 UC Merced 3 M St @ Villages Apts 3 UC Merced 1 Main St 1 UC Merced 2 Merced College 2 UC Merced 2 Transpo Merced 2 UC Merced 3 University Surgery Center 3 UC Merced 2 Via Moraga 2 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 UC Merced 1 1 UC Merced Parking Lot (Merced College) 1 UC Merced 1 University Surgery Center 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 University Surgery Center 7 UC Merced 7 University Surgery Center 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 1 Via Moraga 1 M St @ Donna 1 Yosemite @ Perch 1 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave 1 Yosemite Ave 1 Yosemite Ave @ Moraga 1 UC Merced 1 Yosemite Ave @ Parsons 2 UC Merced 2 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 Gallo Rec and Wellness Ctr 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 1 M St @ Olive St 1 Yosemite Ave @ Paulson 3 UC Merced 3 M St @ Villages Apts 1 Total On/Off 121 117 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs W1 - Winton Commuter Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off Atwater 1 Transpo Merced 1 Beachwood @ Oakland 1 Transpo 1 Beachwood @ Oakland 1 Winton 1 Bellevue 1 Wells Fargo Atwater 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 16th St Merced 1 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 1 Transpo 1 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 1 Winton Way 1 Bellevue Rd 1 Taco Bell 1 Bellevue Rd @ Brownell Ave 1 Wells Fargo Atwater 1 Castle Clinic 1 Transpo 1 Castle Gardens (57) Atwater 1 Transpo Merced 1 Center @ Walnut/Winton Library 1 Winton VMW 1 Jack in the Box Atwater 1 Transpo Merced 1 Scholle 1 Sonic 1 Winton Way 1 Transpo Merced 1 Beachwood 1 Transpo Merced 1 Bellevue @ Winton / SaveMart 1 Transpo Merced 1 Buhach Rd Atwater 1 Transpo Merced 1 HSA Castle Airport 1 Transpo Merced 1 Human Services Agency Atwater 1 Winton VFW 1 Bellvue Rd @ 5th 1 Corporation 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 21 22 Surveyed Boarding/Alighting Pairs W2 - Winton Commuter North Boarding location Alighting Location Street/Business Community # On Street/Business Community # Off 16th St (204) 1 99 Cent Store Atwater 1 Savemart Atwater 1 Bellevue Atwater 1 Merced College 1 Bellevue Atwater 1 1 Bellevue @ Bellevue Elementary 1 Near Bellevue School 1 Bellevue and Buhach Atwater 1 Merced College Merced 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 1 Beachwood 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Beachwood Dr 1 Merced College 1 Dan Ward Rd @ Ranchero Ln 1 1 Dollar General 1 Merced College 1 Dollar General 1 Walmart 1 Jack in the Box 3 Merced College 3 Meadows @ Olivewood 1 Castle Clinic 1 Meadows Ave 1 Castle Clinic 1 Merced College 1 5 Corners Atwater 1 Merced College 1 Bellevue @ Buchach 1 Merced College 2 Savemart Atwater 2 Merced College 1 Walmart 1 Merced College 1 Target Merced 1 5 Corners Atwater 1 Walmart Merced 1 Bellevue Atwater 1 Winton @ Doris/Winton PO 1 Winton Way 2 Merced College 2 Winton Way @ Crawfort St 1 Merced College 1 Winton Way @ Myrtle Ave 1 Merced College 1 Transpo 1 Transpo 1 Total On/Off 29 28 Appendix F Paratransit Boardings by Hour Summaries TABLE A: Paratransit Boardings by Route and Hour ‐‐ November 1, 2016 Hours In Service Route Total Psgrs/ MP1 MP2 MP3 MP5 MP6 MP7 MP8 MP9 MP11 MP12 Total Veh‐Hr Veh‐Hr 5:00 AM 110000000020.772.6 6:00 AM 011001000033.430.9 7:00 AM 222003000094.002.3 8:00 AM 2110020022105.671.8 9:00 AM 3140230022176.822.5 10:00 AM 0011220031107.751.3 11:00 AM 3333110011168.002.0 12:00 PM 1221232001148.731.6 1:00 PM 2213023121179.451.8 2:00 PM 1321200120129.531.3 3:00 PM 0013002130105.521.8 4:00 PM 000200012164.881.2 5:00 PM 000000200022.930.7 6:00 PM 000000000002.000.0 7:00 PM 000000010012.000.5 8:00 PM 000000120031.801.7 9:00 PM 000000000000.00‐‐ Total 15 16 18 14 9 17 10 7 17 9 132 83.28 1.6 Start 05:35AM 05:39AM 06:16AM 10:15AM 09:11AM 06:18AM 12:16PM 01:33PM 08:10AM 08:10AM End 02:38PM 03:06PM 03:25PM 05:41PM 03:00PM 02:54PM 08:52PM 08:56PM 05:15PM 04:53PM Hours9:039:269:087:255:498:368:367:229:058:43 Psgrs/Veh‐Hr 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.2 0.9 1.9 1.0 Source: The Bus Paratransit dispatcher logs. TABLE B: Paratransit Boardings by Route and Hour ‐‐ November 2, 2016 Hours In Service Route Total Psgrs/ Veh‐ MP1 MP2 MP3 MP5 MP6 MP7 MP8 MP9 MP10 MP11 MP12 Total Veh‐Hr Hr 5:00 AM 0100000000010.502.0 6:00 AM 2110000000043.821.0 7:00 AM 22200200200105.002.0 8:00 AM 21200200210105.751.7 9:00 AM 02402200421176.952.4 10:00 AM 30022000122128.721.4 11:00 AM 14220200220159.001.7 12:00 PM 111020312001110.521.0 1:00 PM 221104021301610.971.5 2:00 PM 00412030010118.931.2 3:00 PM 00012013021106.981.4 4:00 PM 00012022031116.001.8 5:00 PM 0003000000033.380.9 6:00 PM 0001002100042.002.0 7:00 PM 0000000100012.000.5 8:00 PM 0000003300061.803.3 9:00 PM 0000000000000.950.0 Total 13 14 17 12 12 12 14 13 14 16 5 142 93.27 1.5 Start 05:45AM 05:45AM 06:25AM 10:17AM 09:18AM 06:01AM 12:09PM 12:20PM 06:45AM 08:15AM 09:45AM End 02:22PM 02:39PM 03:20PM 06:34PM 05:30PM 02:34PM 09:21PM 09:36PM 01:58PM 05:09PM 05:10PM Hours 8:37 8:54 8:54 8:16 8:12 8:32 9:12 9:16 7:13 8:53 7:25 Psgrs/Veh‐Hr 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8 0.7 Source: The Bus Paratransit dispatcher logs. Appendix G Service Alternatives Survey Forms We Want Your Opinion About The Bus – Merced Evening Service The Issue – Routes M1 to M6 run every 30 minutes Current Merced Routes on weekdays. The last run leaves at 7:45 PM. After 6 Passengers by Hour PM—only about 3 people get on each run, compared 150 to an average of 7 or so before 6 PM. 100 OPTION 1: Reduce Service Frequency After 5:30 PM, 50 Keep Last Run at 7:45 PM – Since ridership is lower, 0 buses could run less often after 5:30 PM. The 7:45 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 PM bus would still be run and the key 7:30 PM PM PM PM PM transfer time still would be served at Transpo. One run per route would be dropped around 6:30 PM. Impact of Options on This would reduce riders, but also reduce costs. Annual Ridership OPTION 2: Reduce Service Frequency After 5:30 PM, -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 But Extend to 8:38 PM Departures – Here, there Option 1 would be fewer runs like Option 1 but the money Option 2 saved would be used to operate service until 8:30 PM. This would cut yearly costs by $18,400. Overall Option 3 ridership would increase by 3,900 boardings per year. Impact of Options on OPTION 3: Reduce Service Frequency After 5:30 PM, Annual Funding Needs But Extend to 9:15 PM Departures: We could also -$100,000 -$50,000 $0 $50,000 $100,000 operate later runs until 9:15 PM on weekdays. This increases costs by $46,500 per year, but serving Option 1 10,200 additional annual boardings. Option 2 Do you think we should (check one) …. Option 3 Keep Merced Weekday Evening Service as is Pick Option 1 (less frequent service) Pick Option 2 (less frequent, but until 8:30 PM for same cost) Pick Option 3 (less frequent, but until 9:15 PM with higher cost) Change evening service in another way: ______Why do you think so? ______ We Want Your Opinion About The Bus – On Demand Stops The Issue – Some of the stops on The Bus routes take a while to serve but don’t have many riders. For example, the Atwater Flea Market is only open on Thursdays and Sundays, but the route serves the stop once an hour six days a week. Only 1 passenger a day gets on or off at this stop, and 90% of the time no passengers are served but passengers on the bus are delayed by 4 minutes. The bus spends $5,800 in costs to serve this stop. On Demand Stops – Other transit systems with this problem choose to serve low ridership stops “on demand”. The stop is shown in the schedule, and there is no extra charge for service, but passengers only get picked up or dropped off by request. Passengers who want the bus would call or text the transit system at least an hour in advance of the scheduled time. To get dropped off, passengers simply tell the driver that they would like the stop served. The map shows the On Demand stops for the transit service in Grass Valley, shown with the symbol. Advantages – Passengers already on the bus get shorter trips. The transit system saves fuel and maintenance costs. Unnecessary traffic is avoided. Disadvantages – Passengers must arrange in advance for pick ups (though this has not been an issue in other systems). The route might be a few minutes late on runs where someone does request a stop. Do you think On Demand service makes sense for low ridership stops served by The Bus? Yes No It depends: ______If you like the idea, do you have suggestions about good On Demand stop locations? ______ We Want Your Opinion About The Bus – Route M6 Changes The Issue – Of the six Merced routes, Route M6 has the lowest ridership (about 1/3 of the other Merced routes). M6 uses two buses on an hour-long loop route which serves Merced College, Target/Walmart and the Santa Fe Avenue area. M6 is the only route that does not serve Transpo, and the large one-way loop means that riders in many neighborhoods need to ride out of their way to complete their trip. Option – Serve Transpo and Merced College on a 2-Way Route: The 2 buses could instead be used to connect the Santa Fe Avenue area with both Merced College and Transpo. This would provide direct connections in both directions. Service to the stores in western Merced would be dropped from Route 6, but would be available through transfers downtown or at Merced College. Option -- Serve Transpo Only: Service to the Santa Fe Avenue area (where much of the existing M6 ridership is found) could be provided to Transpo every half-hour using one bus. This would save $138,000 per year in operating costs. Transfers at Transpo would be available to make connections to other destinations. What do you think we should do with Route M6? Nothing – Keep as Is Revise to Serve Transpo and Merced College Revise to Serve Transpo Only and Save the Money Other: ______ Why do you think so? ______ ______ ______ We Want Your Opinion About The Bus – Low Ridership Service Versus High Ridership Service The Issue – The Bus serves lots of different communities and service areas. More people use the buses in bigger communities. Bus service in Merced carries roughly 4 times as many riders as the route serving Santa Nella and Gustine. Buses also carry more riders on weekdays than on weekends – Saturday ridership is 1/3 of the ridership on a weekday, and Sunday service is 1/5 of weekday ridership. Given that funding for transit service is limited, The Bus needs to balance where and when services should be provided Option – The Bus could focus on being most efficient by focusing service in high-use areas. These areas are generally within Merced and along the 99 corridor between Merced, Atwater, Livingstone and Turlock. This would increase ridership, but would require reduction or elimination of service to some smaller communities. Also, service could be increased on weekdays by reducing weekend service to improve efficiency. Option – The Bus could try to serve more people in smaller areas by expanding routes in outlying areas. For instance, there currently is no transit service to Hilmar. Service could also be expanded on Saturdays and Sundays, meeting more needs during the weekend. This would require a cut in current services, but would expand the overall area of service. How do you think The Bus services should be designed? Keep As Is Concentrate on high ridership areas – we need to make the best use of the available dollars to move the most people Serve low ridership areas – providing service to everyone is more important than effectiveness Other: ______ Why did you think so? ______ ______ ______