MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

YARTS STRATEGIC PLAN Final Report

Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc

YARTS Strategic Plan Final Report

Prepared for Merced County of Governments 369 W. 18 St. Merced, California, 95340 209-723-3153

Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Ste. C Tahoe City, CA 96145 530-583-4053

June 14, 2021

LSC#207480

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERS

Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Institutional Overview Institutional Structure of YARTSS= ...... 3 YARTS Agreements ...... 5

Chapter 3: Review of Yosemite Visitation and YARTS Service Historic Annual & Seasonal Visitation to Yosemite National Park ...... 13 YARTS Services Overview ...... 17 Current and Historical YARTS Ridership ...... 24 YARTS Performance Analysis ...... 34 YARTS Connections ...... 38

Chapter 4: YARTS Capital Overview Introduction ...... 41 YARTS Fleet ...... 41 Moving Towards Zero Emissions ...... 43 YARTS Facilities ...... 47

Chapter 5: Funding History and Opportunities YARTS Funding Sources ...... 49 Federal Sources of Revenue ...... 54 State Sources of Revenue ...... 57 Local Sources of Revenue ...... 59 Summary – The Future Funding of YARTS ...... 60

Chapter 6: Recommended Strategies for YARTS Introduction ...... 61 Service Recommendations ...... 61 Capital Recommendations ...... 73 Institutional Plan ...... 79

Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends Appendix C: YARTS Boarding and Alighting Data

YARTS Strategic Plan Draft Report LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Council of Governments Page i LIST OF TABLES Table 1: NPS Financial Assistance for YARTS Service ...... 10 Table 2: Monthly Visitor Count (2000 – 2019)...... 14 Table 3: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance (1998 – 2019) ...... 16 Table 4: Annual Visitation by Major Entrance Station (2015– 2019) ...... 17 Table 5: 2019 Monthly Visitation by Major Entrance Station ...... 18 Table 6: Summary of Existing YART Service ...... 20 Table 7: Recent YARTS Service Changes ...... 21 Table 8: YARTS 2019 and 2020 Service Quantities by Route and Month ...... 23 Table 9: YARTS Ridership History by Route ...... 25 Table 10: YARTS Ridership History by Route and Season ...... 27 Table 11: Route 140 Ridership History by Type ...... 28 Table 12: Passenger Boardings by Route by Month 2019 & 2020 ...... 30 Table 13: Route Ridership by Average Weekday and Weekend by Month ...... 32 Table 14: YARTS 2019 Performance Analysis by Route and Month ...... 36 Table 15: YARTS Vehicle Fleet – Replacement Needs ...... 42 Table 16: YARTS versus VIA Bus Use – Calendar Year 2019 ...... 43 Table 17: YARTS Expenses by Year – Merced Contract ...... 50 Table 18: YARTS Revenues – Merced Contract ...... 51 Table 19: YARTS Expenses and Revenue by Year – Fresno Contract ...... 52 Table 20: YARTS Total Operating Expenses and Revenue by Year ...... 52 Table 21: Countywide Retail Sales Trends in YARTS Service Area ...... 54 Table 22: Recommended Service Reduction Plan to Generate Local Capital Match Funding ...... 62 Table 23: YARTS Alternative Service Reductions Analysis ...... 63 Table 24: Existing Buses Required in Service by Time-of-Day ...... 65 Table 25: Route 120 Average Daily Ridership in July ...... 68 Table 26: 120 Route Reduced Schedule (June 22 to September 11) ...... 69 Table 27: Route 41 Average Daily Ridership in August ...... 71 Table 28: Example Oakhurst – YNP Schedule ...... 71 Table 29: YARTS Bus Size Requirements ...... 75

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: YARTS 2021 – 21 Board of Directors ...... 4 Figure 2: Total Annual Visitors (2000 – 2019) ...... 15 Figure 3: Annual Visitors by Season (2000 – 2019) ...... 15 Figure 4: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance ...... 16 Figure 5: Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System ...... 19 Figure 6: YARTS Historic Annual Ridership by Route ...... 25 Figure 7: 2019 Monthly Ridership by Route ...... 31 Figure 8: 2020 Monthly Ridership by Route ...... 31 Figure 9: 2019 Average Weekday and Weekend/Holiday Ridership ...... 33

YARTS Strategic Plan Draft Report LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Council of Governments Page ii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Since its founding in 2000, the Yosemite Area Regional Transit System (YARTS) has grown to be a crucial element in Yosemite National Park’s transportation strategy and a key mobility and economic resource for the overall Yosemite Region. However, several factors are currently threatening the long‐term viability of the YARTS program as it currently stands. Most obviously, the COVID‐19 pandemic has reduced ridership and impacted operations while also reducing potential funding levels. The aging and insufficient fleet of YARTS‐owned vehicles also imposes new financial requirements on the system. Finally, the short‐ term nature of YARTS agreements and contracting arrangements limits the stability of the program and the availability to make long‐term investments.

Concerned with these issues, the YARTS Board of Directors has initiated this Strategic Plan to define new approaches to service levels, capital improvements, financial plans, and institutional strategies to define a sustainable long‐term framework for the program. It builds on the Short‐Range Transit Plan (SRTP) completed in 2018, considering subsequent changes in ridership, financial support, and contracting arrangement as well as including a review of previous plans considering these changing conditions. This Working Paper is an interim study product, reviewing existing conditions and framing the current issues. It is intended to serve as a resource to the Board, the Authority Advisory Committee, and other decision makers in future discussions. This document the groundwork for the analysis by providing an overview of the current institutional framework, reviewing the visitation to Yosemite National Park, analyzing recent service and ridership statistics for YARTS, reviewing capital needs (including bus replacement and zero emission requirements), assessing funding levels, and framing the challenges facing the program. These future discussions and technical analysis will form the basis for final strategies for implementation.

It should be noted at the outset that this plan is looking at conditions beyond the end of the COVID‐19 pandemic, which, as of this writing, appears to be on track to occur in mid‐2021. Though it is uncertain whether there will be long‐term permanent impacts to travel patterns, this analysis focuses on conditions prior to the outset of the pandemic impacts in March 2020. At present it appears that recreational travel demand will be strong after the pandemic, and that there is little overall hesitancy to return to travel by bus. Additionally, this document represents a compilation of previous working papers, which include references to agreements and cost factors which have since been updated. In the final recommendations, the latest available cost estimates are applied.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 1 This page intentionally left blank

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 2 Chapter 2 INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF YARTS

The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) whose members currently consist of Merced County, Mariposa County, and Mono County. Tuolumne County has recently joined the JPA. YARTS is overseen by a Board of Commissioners (the Board) which includes eight voting members and two non-voting members. Voting members consist of two elected Supervisors from each of the four member-counties, while non-voting members consist of one elected official from Madera County, and two elected officials from Fresno County. The makeup of the YARTS Board is depicted in Figure 1.

An 18-member Authority Advisory Committee (AAC) assists the YARTS Board by studying issues and making recommendations to YARTS on policy matters and projects. Three members of the AAC are nominated by each member county of the JPA Board, two by the National Park Service, two by the YARTS Executive Director, one each from Madera and Tuolumne Counties, and three from Fresno County. In addition to the JPA, YARTS has several agreements with additional entities as described below.

YARTS Joint Powers Authority

YARTS is a party to many agreements that define YARTS service and funding arrangements. In some cases, YARTS is the contracting agency and in others it is the contractor. The following is a summary of contractual agreements.

YARTS Joint Powers Authority Agreement

The original YARTS JPA was entered into on September 21, 1999, between the Counties of Merced, Mariposa, and Mono (JPA parties), and was most recently amended on May 9, 2017. The purpose of the JPA is to plan, operate, manage, and evaluate transportation improvements within and among the respective JPA parties’ jurisdictions around Yosemite National Park. The JPA was borne out of a common desire, not only among the JPA parties but also the National Park Service and Yosemite Regional Strategic Board, to address the transportation impacts of continued growth in Yosemite visitation and the need for transportation alternatives that helped protect the visitor experience and natural resources of the area.

The JPA established YARTS as a separate public entity with the stated purpose to start an initial two-year passenger bus demonstration project to serve the geographic jurisdictions of the JPA parties and Yosemite. Recognizing that a close relationship with the National Park Service (NPS) was critical, the JPA required that YARTS work with the NPS, as well as Caltrans and the Forest Service.

Per the JPA, the Board consists of two voting members from each JPA party along with one alternate Director from among the elected official of any political office in the member geographic area. The JPA

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 3 Figure 1: YARTS 2020-21 Board of Directors VOTING MEMBERS

Supervisor Rosemarie Smallcombe Mariposa County 2 elected Supervisors Supervisor Miles Menetrey

Supervisor Scott Silveira, Chair 2020-2021 Merced County 2 elected Supervisors Supervisor Daron McDaniel

Supervisor Bob Gardner, Vice Chair 2020-2021 Mono County 2 elected Supervisors Supervisor Stacy Corless

Supervisor Kathleen Haff Tuolumne County 2 elected Supervisors Supervisor Ryan Campbell

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

Madera County Supervisor Tom Wheeler

Mayor Ray Leon, City of Huron Fresno County Mayor Michelle Roman, City of Kingsburg

defines that the Board has the power to contract with an Administering Agency, enter contracts, acquire, and hold property, incur debt, accept funding, invest, have an unpaid Board, and other necessary acts in the provision of passenger bus service.

The JPA established the YARTS fiscal year (FY) as October 1st through September 30th. Moreover, the JPA defines a process for creating and adopting a budget, making contributions of funds or in-kind support, appointing a treasurer and controller, and distributing assets if dissolved.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 4 Joint Powers Authority Bylaws

The YARTS bylaws were adopted by the YARTS Board of Commissioners on June 10, 2013 and, in many ways, reinforced and further defined pieces contained in the JPA. The bylaws establish the objectives of the Authority as:

• Preservation of the natural environment of the Yosemite Region • Coordination and communication with Yosemite National Park • Accommodation of increasing visitation to Yosemite and surrounding region and of transportation options • Coordinate of local policy and planning of regional transit service and financial resources

The bylaws establish the positions of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. The Chairperson is required to have at least one year’s experience as a Commissioner.

The powers and functions of the authority are defined in these bylaws as the ability of the Board to:

• Plan, establish, manage, and evaluate passenger bus service • Employ an Executive Director • Employ agents and employees and contract for services • Make and enter into contracts and agreements • Acquire, hold, and convey property • Incur debt, obligations, and liabilities • Accept funding • Have members of the Board serve without compensation • Establish committees • Exercise any and all other powers provided by California Code section 6547

The bylaws state that authority meetings must be held at least quarterly with proper noticing and agenda posting. Furthermore, the bylaws state that the Board will appoint an Executive Director to manage and administer the transit service plan and budget, in addition to serving as the secretary of the board. A quorum is defined as a majority of voting members. A majority vote of all voting members is required to approve all expenditures.

Importantly, the JPA does not define specific funding requirements on the part of any participant.

YARTS AGREEMENTS

YARTS is a party to many agreements that define YARTS service and funding arrangements. In some cases, YARTS is the contracting agency and in others it is the contractor. The following summary of contractual agreements is all related to financial transactions with YARTS.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 5 YARTS and Merced County Association of Governments Agreement for Management and Marketing

The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG), under an agreement with the YARTS JPA, provides management, marketing, financial and grant administration, and transportation planning services on behalf of YARTS. In return, YARTS agrees to pay MCAG an annual fee for this service, equal to $465,506 for Fiscal Year 2020/21. This agreement is renewable annually, with the current term expiring June 30, 2021. More specifically, the duties consist of the following:

• Administration and Management—Conduct JPA Board and AAC meetings, accounting services, grants management, contracts and agreements (with Amtrak, Fresno COG, Tuolumne County, etc.), state and federal reporting, maintain YARTS-owned property

• Planning—Conduct passenger surveys, evaluate service modifications, participate in SSTAC meetings, oversee SRTP process, coordinate with other public and private transportation services

• Marketing—Prepare and distribute schedules and brochures, oversee the reservation process, maintain website and social media, administer ticket sales, and distribute public information and advertising.

This arrangement has been in place since the formation of YARTS in 2000 and appears to work well and in the best interest of YARTS. It allows YARTS to benefit from the cost savings associated with sharing staff resources (and office space) between YARTS and the other transit services (The Bus) managed by MCAG. Managing and marketing a public transit system is a complicated endeavor, particularly with regards to state and federal requirements, the high level of coordination needed for a regional service, the needs specific to serving a national park, and the need to address the many challenges of service operations in the Sierra. Providing the necessary level of expertise as a separate staff would almost certainly incur a greater overall cost than the current arrangement. Considering the relative staff size of the various JPA member organizations, shifting this work to another of these organizations would require significant expansion of the existing staff, with associated increase in costs. In sum, the current YARTS/MCAG agreement is the appropriate means of providing these services in the most cost-effective manner.

The year-to-year agreement, however, places an additional administrative burden on MCAG that could be avoided through a longer-term agreement (such as a five-year agreement). The short-term nature of the contract also has the potential to reduce employees’ level of commitment to their jobs. It would also be beneficial to align the contract term with the federal fiscal year (October to September) as the separate agreement with the National Park Service is a major funding source and as this would avoid the potential of changing YARTS administration in the middle of the busy summer season.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 6 YARTS—VIA Agreement for Daily Operations

YARTS contracts with VIA Adventures, Inc. for daily operations of the YARTS fixed route services, including service operations, bus maintenance and bus fuel. Since the current contract was signed, there have been two amendments, as discussed below.

Original Agreement

The current agreement was enacted on November 1, 2018.1 It identified a two-year term, along with the option to extend for up to two additional one-year terms. Key points of this agreement are as follows:

• Broadly speaking, VIA Adventures is responsible for the day-to-day operations of YARTS services, including providing staff (drivers, schedules/dispatchers and supervisors, trainers) and up to 12 over-the-road coaches (to supplement the 10 owned by YARTS), maintaining and fueling all vehicles, and operating all scheduled services.

• Costs are determined on a fixed-price per service-vehicle-hour of service basis, with fuel costs passed directly through to YARTS. This cost varies by location and ownership of the vehicles in use. Under the original agreement, these “unit costs” were as follows:

o YARTS-owned buses: 2020/21 = $110.60 per vehicle-service hour, 2021/22 = $113.92 per vehicle-service-hour

o VIA-provided buses based in Merced: 2020/21 = $158.11 per vehicle-service hour, 2021/22 = $162.85 per vehicle-service-hour

o VIA-provided buses based in Fresno: 2020/21 = $165.11 per vehicle-service hour, 2021/22 = $169.85 per vehicle-service-hour

This differential in hourly costs is crucial to future planning regarding YARTS services. Using a VIA- provided vehicle based in Merced increases costs over using a YARTS-owned bus by 43 percent, while using a VIA-provided vehicle based in Fresno increases costs by 49 percent. Put another way, for any specific dollar amount, using a VIA bus reduces the number of vehicle-hours of service that can be provided by 30 percent for buses based in Merced and by 33 percent for buses based in Fresno.

• The original contract was developed assuming a total of 21,878 annual vehicle-service-hours, consisting of 15,070 operated by YARTS buses, 2,195 operated by VIA Merced buses and 4,613 operated by VIA Fresno buses.

1 As a result of the term of the contract, the service year is from November 1st to October 31st. YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 7 • Through the 2019 – 20 service year, a minimum hourly transit operator pay scale is identified.

• A series of performance standards and associated liquidated damage penalties are defined, for on-time performance, missed runs, late runs, and bus cleanliness.

• YARTS has the authority to (upon 60 days written notice) modify the scope of services. VIA Adventures would then determine the impacts on operations and costs and negotiate for a change in scope.

Amendment #1

Amendment #1 (August 4, 2020) identifies a term extending to October 31, 2021, with extension at the sole discretion of YARTS for one additional year (to October 31, 2022). It also added categories (including pandemic) to the original Force Majeure clause. In addition, VIA Adventures is required to develop policies and procedures for cash fares handling and accountability.

Amendment #2

The second amendment to the current contract, enacted on November 1, 2020, reflects a substantial change in the contracting arragement. Rather than a straight per-service-hour basis, costs are now identified on a “fixed plus vehicle-service-hour” basis. Fixed costs are identified as $973,389 per year for the Merced-based service and $310,833 per year for the Fresno-based service, while the hourly costs are at a rate of $57.89 per vehicle-service-hour. Note that this rate does not vary by whether a YARTS-owned bus or a VIA-provided bus is operated, or what base the run initiates from. The costs are based on a total of 16,548 annual vehicle-hours for Merced-based service and 2,902 for Fresno-based service, and total payment shall not exceed $2,471,805. This level of service is 11 percent lower than the number of vehicle-service-hours identified in the original contract.

Discussion

The shift from a straight per-service-hour costing to a fixed-plus-per-service-hour costing is more in line with transit industry standards. The change is beneficial in that it better reflects how costs are actually incurred by the contractor and reduces the risk to the contractor that possible future reductions in service will be an undue financial burden. Using a single variable rate, regardless of whether a YARTS bus or contractor bus is used, tends to mask the additional costs associated with use of a contractor bus. Though under this amended contract YARTS does not immediately see a cost differential, the contractor’s costs to provide some of the necessary fleet are built into the rates. Over the long-term, it is still in YARTS’s interest to eliminate the need for contractor-provided buses.

Under the current agreement, the contractor provides storage and maintenance facility space for YARTS buses at the facility at 300 Grogan Avenue in Merced. Costs incurred by VIA for the facility are considered in the monthly and hourly cost rates. Providing a separate publicly owned operations/maintenance facility would lower annual ongoing costs for MCAG. In addition, it is not feasible for public funding to be used to YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 8 install electric charging or hydrogen fueling facilities on the contractor’s lot. As California’s public transit programs move towards zero-emission vehicles, the need for a publicly owned facility (perhaps jointly with other public transit programs) will increase.

YARTS—U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cooperative Agreement

The YARTS and National Park Service (NPS) agreement defines the contribution to YARTS for operating ongoing service on YARTS State Route 140 Route and seasonal service on the YARTS State Route 41 Route, as well as enhanced and seasonal service on Routes 120 East, 120 West, and 140. The most recent cooperative agreement was signed on May 27, 2020. For the Federal 2929 fiscal year (October 1, 2020 to Sept 30, 2021), Federal funding totaling $1,403,788 is identified, as shown in Table 1. The service levels identified in this table exceed the minimum defined in the Agreement text, in that the six daily roundtrips on SR 140 exceed the five identified in the text. The Agreement also indicates that service levels may grow to eight daily year-round trips on Highway 140, five summer and three winter roundtrips on both Highway 41 and Highway 120 West, and three summer roundtrips on Highway 120 East/US 395. Funding in subsequent years will reflect services as modified, based on the specific service parameters. The agreement specifies that YARTS operate four peak-season routes providing connections to the San Joaquin Valley and Mono Basin. Beyond providing funding, the NPS is required to encourage use of the YARTS system through marketing and coordination and provide park access.

The NPS Agreement outlines goals for the project, which can be summarized as the NPS and YARTS working cooperatively to provide public transportation services in a safe and convenient manner along the State Routes (or Highways) 41, 120, and 140 corridors to Yosemite Valley, for employment, recreation, shopping, education, and social service trips, so long as service can be provided in a cost- effective manner. The agreement also defines project objectives, such as minimum numbers of trips, on- time performance, etc.

The most recent agreement includes a statement about COVID-19 provisions, essentially conditioning the award of financial support based on COVID-19 conditions, and potentially waiving minimum service requirements because of those conditions.

The statements of work beyond the first year are loosely defined in the agreement, with detailed statements of work to be defined annually via modification of the agreement.

YARTS—Mariposa County Agreement

The YARTS and Mariposa County contract defines the Mariposa County annual funding contribution for operation of public transportation services that connect Mariposa with Yosemite on the Highway 140 Route. The original term of the agreement was from July 1, 2017 for one year, and is annually renewable, with the current agreement running from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Under this agreement, YARTS is required to provide Route 140 services, though a specific level of service is not defined, as well as provide planning, marketing, and management services. Mariposa County is required to pay YARTS an annual

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 9 Table 1: NPS Financial Assistance for YARTS Service 2020 Federal Fiscal Year

Round Recipient Origin by Trips Hours of Days in Operating Routes County Provided Scheduled Dates of Service Operation 1 Service Costs 2 NPS Award Highway 41, Wawona Fresno 5/11/20 to 9/11/20 (summer 3 9 124 $569,160 $200,000 Road Madera only) Highway 120 East (Tioga Mono 1 6/15 to 10/16/20 (summer) 7 139 $165,410 $79,360 Road) and U.S. 395

1 5/13/20 to 9/30/20 142 $152,082 Highway 120 West Tuolumne 6.3 $348,768 2 5/25/20 to 8/31/20 102 $218,484

Highway 140, El Portal Merced 7/1/20 to 6/30/21 (year- 6 7.9 361 $2,908,938 Road Mariposa round) $535,660 Highway 120 East (Tioga Mono 1 6/1 to 10/16/20 (summer) 7 153 $182,070 Road) and U.S. 395 Highway 140, El Portal Merced 2 5/18/20 to 9/30/20 (summer) 7.9 136 $365,296 $240,000 Road Mariposa

Note 1: Per bus, per day Recipient's Operating Cost $4,561,440 Note 2: Hourly rate = $170 x Hours of Total Financial Assistance $1,403,788 Operation per bus per day x Days in Service Source: NPS Cooperative Agreement service contribution, with the amount for the 2020 – 21 fiscal year not to exceed $191,000, due in four quarterly payments.

YARTS—Fresno Council of Governments Agreement

The YARTS agreement with Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) agreement was initially enacted in 2014 to provide funding for Route 41 service. Under this agreement, FCOG payments are equal to the operating/administrative costs of the service minus the credit revenues (passenger fares, NPS funding and Amtrak funding).

The most recent (the third) amendment defines a maximum contribution of $746,776 for services from May 2020 through September 2020, less any revenues collected from other sources, resulting in a maximum total of $478,526 from FCOG. Due to the COVID-related drop in ridership, the rate in 2020 was cut by one-third, to $678.32 per day. A new agreement is expected for summer 2021 service, to be negotiated in the spring.

YARTS—National Railroad Passenger Corp (Amtrak) Agreement

The services contract between Amtrak and YARTS, originally enacted in 2007, was most recently amended on July 1, 2020 to extend until June 30, 2021. It defines the Amtrak contribution to YARTS for Thruway bus service provided by YARTS on the Highway 140 Route and the Highway 41 Route. The three-year amendment for service between July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2020, wherein YARTS is the contractor, included a daily rate for service between Merced and Yosemite of $987.84, with an option to increase the daily

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 10 amount by 3 percent each of the final two years of a contract extension. The contract was extended by amendment to continue through June 30, 2021, at a daily rate of $1,017.47. However, due to the COVID- 19 related capacity restrictions and drop in ridership, the rate has been cut by one third for this year, to $678.31.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 11 This page intentionally left blank

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 12 Chapter 3 REVIEW OF YOSEMITE VISITATION AND YARTS SERVICE

HISTORIC ANNUAL & SEASONAL VISITATION TO YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

Over the past two decades, the number of visitors to Yosemite National Park has averaged 3.7 million per year, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Since 2015, annual visitation has exceeded 4.0 million people, reaching a peak of 5,028,868 visitors in 2016. In recent years, rock falls and wildfires have closed portions of the park at various times, yet 4,422,861 visitors still came to the park in 2019. This reflects a 12 percent decline from the peak in 2016.

Table 2 and Figure 2 also show the number of visitors by month for the past two decades. This data provides some insight into the annual increases in visitation. Summer continues to be the most popular time of year with 1,917,240 people visiting the park in 2019. As shown in Figure 3, the fall season (September through November) has shown growth over the past five years with 1,264,201 visitors in 2019, or a 16.6 percent increase in visitors from 2015. Over these five years, summer (June to August) visitation has grown by 5.7 percent, spring (April and May) visitation has been essentially unchanged, while winter (December through March) visitation declined by 8.6 percent. Since the completion of the YARTS SRTP, visitation over the past three year has increased by 5.6 percent in summer, 4.1 percent in fall, and 3.3 percent in winter, while declining 10.9 percent in spring.

Visitation by Gateway to Yosemite National Park

There are four key corridors serving Yosemite Valley: Arch Rock, South Entrance, Big Oak Flat, and Tioga Pass. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 4, the South Entrance (via State Route (SR) 41) has historically received the highest number of vehicles (31 percent on average), although in over the past few years Arch Rock and Big Oak Flat have also received more visitors due to wildfires affecting the South Entrance. Tioga Pass, which is closed during winter months, receives an average of 15 percent.

The number and types of visitors over the past five years has been tracked by each entrance kiosk, as shown in Table 4. Over the past five years, 97 percent of visitors entering through Arch Rock, Big Oak Flat, and Tioga Pass were recreational visitors and just 3 percent were non-recreational (employees, etc.). The South Entrance has the most non-recreational visitors (5 percent). In terms of non-recreational visitors, 39 percent entered through the South Gate and just 11 percent enter through Tioga Pass in 2019.

The observation of visitors by entrance station, by month, is shown in Table 5 for 2019. This data reflects the strong seasonality of visitors in the park. As shown, recreational visitors make up roughly 96 percent of the total visitors to the park, with only 4 percent being those entering the park for other reasons (employment, goods distribution, etc.). Of the various entrances, Big Oak Flat had the highest rate of recreational visitors during the summer months of June, July, and August at 33.7 percent of total visitors.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 13 Total 4,422,861 4,009,436 4,336,890 5,028,868 4,150,217 3,882,642 3,691,191 3,853,404 3,951,393 3,901,408 3,737,472 3,431,514 3,503,428 3,242,644 3,304,144 3,761,929 3,280,911 3,378,664 3,361,867 3,368,731 3,400,903 DEC 98,893 97,979 96,745 149,188 311,179 127,276 160,646 140,241 134,491 131,479 125,314 127,621 110,545 118,321 104,514 111,231 112,928 116,311 108,486 125,999 130,469 NOV 230,598 215,854 217,927 218,998 169,425 203,678 161,356 141,868 139,079 148,459 151,297 146,838 178,846 165,499 152,671 121,622 136,390 149,828 137,876 144,958 166,653 OCT 448,939 360,776 429,827 483,232 357,223 354,769 279,526 322,687 360,449 356,370 346,826 295,547 298,122 298,771 318,508 272,200 316,366 300,919 264,465 324,484 339,500 SEP 584,664 524,387 566,279 598,428 527,402 467,205 460,855 482,004 533,502 520,210 471,530 416,918 417,882 421,502 430,134 393,437 405,605 426,684 448,519 388,707 474,293 AUG 703,153 441,867 615,892 692,450 636,936 654,157 552,137 660,118 699,749 659,857 643,300 543,799 550,172 528,254 485,643 508,094 604,093 570,914 591,196 546,981 594,438 JUL 717,462 504,230 633,351 780,728 626,009 623,663 611,538 623,101 704,553 643,566 586,591 539,874 543,235 510,932 554,567 531,864 536,683 513,789 528,849 548,440 593,151 JUN 496,625 543,690 565,702 703,614 545,231 496,363 508,941 528,186 503,741 521,059 483,382 473,186 466,054 382,972 413,124 449,566 445,887 436,862 434,014 454,638 492,642 MAY 393,004 385,670 471,844 457,309 408,121 333,308 370,422 356,500 356,588 382,414 399,683 361,193 374,184 309,387 304,552 326,017 280,335 295,511 315,897 317,009 359,947 APR 297,207 278,349 302,553 305,092 281,328 242,722 231,178 243,102 231,372 224,461 230,828 199,592 219,854 189,472 195,385 228,212 174,337 186,682 192,936 216,087 233,537 MAR 173,610 170,681 166,793 286,990 194,667 146,750 165,409 136,687 100,433 149,651 132,711 153,735 135,925 125,556 143,335 146,876 137,550 141,766 142,141 136,523 154,389 FEB 93,588 78,795 111,665 143,321 119,421 201,601 135,316 113,403 114,440 113,341 100,379 107,729 100,941 101,194 103,756 106,258 111,506 113,695 101,897 103,444 113,785 JAN 96,089 95,124 99,892 91,238 93,633 116,746 129,432 120,025 139,780 128,318 112,133 103,910 120,496 100,718 101,984 104,591 100,020 116,984 108,906 102,455 109,124 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Table 2: Monthly Visitor Count (2000-2019) Source: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports Source: Average

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 14 Figure 2: Total Annual Visitors (2000-2019) 6,000,000

5,028,868 5,000,000

4,150,217

4,000,000 4,009,436 3,737,472

3,400,903 3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 3: Annual Visitors by Season (2000-2019) 2,500,000

Winter

2,000,000 Spring Summer Fall

1,500,000

1,000,000 Seasonal Visitation Seasonal

500,000

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 15 Table 3: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance (1998-2019) Year Arch Rock South Gate Big Oak Flat Tioga Pass Total 2019 500,591 356,632 508,295 177,794 1,543,312 2018 380,520 181,375 427,409 142,766 1,132,070 2017 562,150 488,373 412,740 181,377 1,644,640 2016 494,331 575,399 546,804 264,245 1,880,779 2015 424,316 497,056 408,943 204,882 1,535,197 2014 399,544 479,824 344,345 218,950 1,442,663 2013 389,005 450,725 318,088 207,250 1,365,068 2012 391,468 446,456 354,446 227,150 1,419,520 2011 422,988 445,426 395,178 201,150 1,464,742 2010 413,561 455,531 371,634 211,993 1,452,719 2009 387,502 442,679 347,999 227,490 1,405,670 2008 350,771 423,689 327,177 177,695 1,279,332 2007 348,570 451,045 319,034 189,450 1,308,099 2006 217,742 452,546 349,106 159,933 1,179,327 2005 398,723 384,783 317,504 181,463 1,282,473 2004 351,588 385,167 293,620 181,925 1,212,300 2003 345,097 400,800 291,748 214,023 1,251,668 2002 345,476 384,858 297,869 218,950 1,247,153 2001 350,007 375,261 306,554 218,950 1,250,772 2000 315,250 392,603 328,910 182,732 1,219,495 Source: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Park%20YTD%20Version%201

Figure 4: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance 700,000

Arch Rock South Gate Big Oak Flat Tioga Pass 600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 16 Table 4: Annual Visitation by Major Entrance Station (2015-2019) 2019 Change 2015-19 % of All Visitors 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 # % By Type Arch Rock Total Recreation Visitors 1,050,610 1,169,124 1,317,788 866,839 1,158,421 107,811 10% 26% Total Non-Rec Visitors 33,945 39,150 44,234 30,441 40,047 6,102 18% 25% Total Visitors 1,084,555 1,208,274 1,362,022 897,279 1,198,468 113,913 11% 26% South Gate Total Recreation Visitors 1,321,296 1,538,459 1,259,512 1,247,169 1,197,789 -123,507 -9% 27% Total Non-Rec Visitors 69,588 81,750 66,998 65,980 63,102 -6,486 -9% 39% Total Visitors 1,390,884 1,620,209 1,326,510 1,313,149 1,260,891 -129,993 -9% 28% Big Oak Flat Total Recreation Visitors 1,141,535 1,491,873 1,141,652 1,189,641 1,414,323 272,788 24% 32% Total Non-Rec Visitors 32,715 43,031 32,736 34,193 40,663 7,947 24% 25% Total Visitors 1,174,250 1,534,903 1,174,388 1,223,834 1,454,985 280,735 24% 32% Tioga Pass Total Recreation Visitors 592,171 754,819 518,879 661,741 603,683 11,511 2% 14% Total Non-Rec Visitors 16,391 21,140 14,510 18,624 17,124 734 4% 11% Total Visitors 608,562 775,959 533,389 680,365 620,807 12,245 2% 14% TOTAL Total Recreation Visitors 4,105,613 4,954,275 4,237,831 3,965,390 4,374,215 268,603 7% 100% Total Non-Rec Visitors 152,639 185,070 158,478 149,238 160,936 8,297 5% 100% Total Visitors 4,258,252 5,139,346 4,396,309 4,114,627 4,535,151 276,899 7% 100%

Percent Recreational Visitors Arch Rock 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% South Gate 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Big Oak Flat 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% Tioga Pass 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% Source: NPS Monthly Year-to-Date tables. Hetch Hetchy entrance data not included.

This was followed by South Entrance (25.9 percent), Arch Rock (22.6 percent), and Tioga Pass (17.9 percent). During the winter months (December through February), 39.7 percent of visitors enter through the South Entrance, followed by 37.9 percent at Arch Rock.

YARTS SERVICES OVERVIEW

Currently YARTS has one year-round route (SR 140 Route between Merced and Yosemite) and three seasonal routes running between May and September (Routes SR 41 from Fresno, SR 120 from Sonora, and SR 120/395 from Mammoth Lakes). A map of the routes is shown in Figure 5, and a list of operating seasons for a typical year, including runs and vehicles required, is shown in Table 6. In 2020, YARTS has continued to operate their services as usual through the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic.

SR 140 Route

Operated 365 days per year, this route provides service between Merced and Yosemite Valley. In peak season, eight eastbound trips are operated (seven from Merced and one from Mariposa) and nine westbound trips are operated (eight from Yosemite to Merced and one from Yosemite and one from

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 17 - 0.0% 8.3% 0.3% 37.9% 39.7% 22.5% Winter - 1.5% 22.6% 25.9% 33.7% 17.9% 41.7% Summer Percent of Rec. Visitors ofPercent Rec. 0 0 0 4% Dec 96% 1,794 3,038 1,137 5,969 51,500 53,294 56,569 59,607 40,490 41,627 148,559 154,528 4% 763 Nov 96% 2,504 3,150 2,079 8,496 71,771 74,275 59,724 62,874 72,547 74,626 26,557 27,319 230,598 239,094 Oct 3% 97% 3,362 5,208 4,193 2,749 96,401 99,763 96,856 99,604 15,512 104,245 109,453 147,085 151,278 444,587 460,098 Sep 3% 97% 4,578 6,510 5,118 3,970 20,176 132,775 137,353 126,168 132,678 178,098 183,216 141,280 145,250 578,322 598,498 3% Aug 97% 4,922 9,114 6,188 4,905 25,129 138,640 143,563 169,433 178,547 214,644 220,832 174,119 179,024 696,836 721,966 Jul 3% 97% 5,203 9,114 6,516 4,738 25,571 147,573 152,776 171,065 180,179 225,813 232,328 164,871 169,609 709,322 734,892 0 0 0 Jun 4% 96% 4,852 7,770 5,663 18,285 140,435 145,288 148,673 156,443 196,074 201,737 485,183 503,468 0 0 0 4% May 96% 4,241 6,293 3,911 14,445 125,891 130,131 122,333 128,626 136,179 140,090 384,402 398,847 0 0 0 Apr 4% 96% 3,339 4,725 3,123 98,704 89,296 94,021 11,187 102,043 109,207 112,330 297,207 308,394 0 0 0 4% Mar 96% 2,137 3,038 1,440 6,615 63,691 65,828 57,440 60,478 50,110 51,550 171,241 177,856 0 0 0 Feb 4% 527 96% 1,490 2,646 4,663 45,309 46,799 48,058 50,704 18,104 18,631 111,471 116,134 0 0 0 Jan 4% 768 96% 1,624 2,496 4,888 45,731 47,355 44,784 47,280 25,973 26,741 116,488 121,376 Table 5: 2019 Monthly Visitation by Major Entrance Station Major by Entrance Visitation Monthly 2019 5: Table Arch Rock Arch RecreationTotal Visitors Total Non-Rec Visitors Total VisitorsTotal South Entrance RecreationTotal Visitors Total Non-Rec Visitors Total VisitorsTotal Big Oak Flat RecreationTotal Visitors Total Non-Rec Visitors Total VisitorsTotal Tioga Pass RecreationTotal Visitors Total Non-Rec Visitors Total VisitorsTotal TOTAL RecreationTotal Visitors Total Non-Rec Visitors Total VisitorsTotal Percent of Total Recreation Visitors Non-Recreation Visitors Source: NPS Monthly Year-to-Date tables. Hetch Hetchy entrance data not included. Source: Hetchy entrance not Hetch data NPS Monthly Year-to-Date tables.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 18

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 19 Table 6: Summary of Existing YART Service Route 140 120/395 120 41 Total Peak Shoulder Peak Shoulder Peak Shoulder Service Parameters Summer Winter Summer Season Summer Season Summer Summer Season Winter Start Date 11-Jun 1-Oct 1-Jul 22-Jun 22-Jun 1-Sep 22-Jun End Date 30-Sep 10-Jun 31-Aug 30-Jun 31-Aug 30-Sep 11-Sep Start Date ------1-Sep ------End Date ------15-Oct ------Days per Year 111 254 61 52 70 29 81 1-Way Runs per Day Weekdays 17 12 4 2 6 2 6 33 21 12 Weekends/Holidays 15 9 4 2 6 2 6 31 19 9 Required # of Buses in Operation Weekdays 7 5 2 1 3 1 3 15 9 5 Weekends/Holidays 7 4 2 1 3 1 3 15 9 4 Source: LSC

Midpines to Merced). Service is reduced by one trip each direction on weekends and holidays. The 140 Route operates reduced service (Runs 140-1 and 140-27, which are scheduled to serve commuters, are not operated) on weekends and on the following holidays: President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year’s Day.

This route requires up to 3 hours 11 minutes to operate in the eastbound direction, and 2 hours 45 minutes in the westbound direction. A full one-way trip is 87 miles (174-mile round trip). This route requires seven buses to operate a full summer schedule, while in winter five buses are needed on weekdays and four on weekends/holidays. Note that these figures are only those in operations, excluding spares.

Table 7 provides a review of recent changes in SR 140 Route services since 2018, both those identified in the 2018 Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) as well as other changes. Key changes are the addition of eastbound service in the morning, the reduction in short runs ending in Mariposa, and shifting run times to provide greater choices in departure times and matching changes in train times. The required daily number of buses to operate the service remains unchanged at seven.

SR 120 Route

In summer, three eastbound trips are operated each day between the Black Oak Casino 10 miles east of Sonora and Yosemite Valley in the morning, with three westbound trips in the afternoon. Between June 22 and August 31, three trips are operated daily in each direction, dropping to one trip in September. This route requires 3 hours 10 minutes to operate into the Valley and 3 hours 15 minutes on the outbound runs. The route is 84 miles in one direction or 168 miles round-trip.

Over the last few years, the number of daily runs has remained unchanged, though the season has been shortened to eliminate service from mid-May to June 21st.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 20

Table 7: Recent YARTS Sevice Changes

YARTS 2018 SRTP Service Plan Elements Status Add 140 Route Summer Run (12:50 PM Eastbound, Not implemented, but the last westbound departure shifted 29 9:05 PM Westbound) minutes later Serve Mariposa Fairgrounds Yes - 7 runs per day serve Fairgrounds on request Extend 395 Route Season (Weekdays June and Sept, Implemented (7 days a week June through October 15) Weekends in October) Streamline the 120/395 Route by Dropping June Lane Implemented (Lee Vining Stops made On Request Only) Loop Stops, Lee Vining Stops Reduce Route 120 Runs to Sonora from 3 to 2, Add 2 Not Implemented Groveland-Valley Round Trips Start 120 Route Season on May 1, not May 15 Not Implemented. Service now does not start until June 22. Eliminate 41 Route Oakdale-Fresno Run Implemented Combine 41 Route Runs Implemented Drop The Pines Resort on 41 Route Implemented Not Implemented. Shifting Run 41-5 1 hour 10 minutes later would Shift Route 41 Runs to Better Serve Amtrak provide a good connection from Train 719, but would require shifting Run 41-6 to depart YNP at 7:10 PM. Operate 1 Run of 41 Route Staring Mid-April Not Implemented Drop 41 Route Service After Labor Day Not Implemented

Other Changes Implemented Since SRTP New 140 Summer Eastbound run at 6:00 AM Last 140 Summer Eastbound run shifted later (from 4:30 to 5:45 PM) New 140 Summer Westbound run at 2:30 PM 140 Summer Westbound afternoon runs ending in Mariposa dropped from 2 (at 3:15 and 4:35) to 1 at 5:15 140 Summer Westbound early AM short run now starts at Midpines, not Mariposa 140 Summer Westbound earliest AM run now starts at 8:15 AM, not 9:32 AM Early AM runs that previously started in Catheys Valley now start in Merced New 140 Winter Eastbound Run at 8:45 AM 140 Winter Eastbound Run at 1:20 PM dropped Last 140 Winter Eastbound Run shifted later from 4:30 PM to 5:25 PM First 140 Winter Westbound Run shifter earlier from 9:32 AM to 8:20 AM 140 Winter Westbound Run at 1:20 PM shifted to 2:15 PM Last 140 Winter Westbound Run shifted earlier from 5:45 PM to 5:05 PM 41 Fresno-Oakhurst and Oakhurst-Fresno runs dropped 41 Service consolidated into 3 full trips per day in each direction, down from 5 in 2017 and 4 in 2018. Now 2 arrivals in late morning/Noon plus 1 in evening, and 1 departure late morning and 2 late afternoon. 120 -- No change, except start date shifted later from 1 bus May 14 and 3 buses June 1 to 3 buses all June 22.

SR 120 East/US 395 Route

Dependent on when Tioga Pass is cleared of snow (at the discretion of the National Park Service), service is provided between Yosemite Valley and Mammoth Lakes (via Lee Vining and June Lake) seven days a week from June 22nd to October 15th, with one bus operating prior to July 1 and after Labor Day. The route stretches a total of 110 miles (or 220 miles per round-trip). Over the last few years, this route has

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 21 been streamlined to drop service to stops along the June Lake Loop and to make stops in Lee Vining on request only.

SR 41 Route

This service consists of three roundtrips per day seven days a week, from mid-May through mid- September, with two runs into Yosemite in the morning and one mid-day, paired with one mid-day southbound run and two in the late afternoon. All Fresno runs originate at the Fresno Yosemite International Airport and terminate at the airport if passengers request such. This is the longest route in the YARTS system, at 111 miles in length and 222 miles per round-trip. The schedule requires up to 3 hours 55 minutes into Yosemite Valley and 3 hours 30 minutes leaving the Valley.

Over the last few years, this service has been reduced in the number of full runs and by dropping runs between Oakhurst and Fresno. Service off of SR 41 to The Pines Resort has also been dropped, as has service between mid-May and mid-June.

Summary of Route Service

YARTS routes total 392 miles in length along some of the most challenging rural highways in the nation. Up to 33 one-way runs are operated per day in summer and 12 in winter. The overall service requires 15 buses to operate the summer schedule (excluding spare buses), nine buses in the shoulder season and 5 in the winter. In comparison with the 10 buses currently owned by YARTS, this indicates that a minimum of five contractor-provided buses are required to operate the summer schedule, while YARTS buses can operate the schedule in other seasons. Summary of YARTS Vehicle-Hours and Vehicle-Miles

Table 8 presents a summary of the vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours by route and by month from January 2019 to September 2020. For the most recent available 12 months, Route 140 comprises roughly 71 percent of YARTS systemwide services. SR 41 Route comes in second with 14 percent of the revenue hours, followed by SR 120 West Route (9 percent), and SR 120/395 Route (8 percent).

Over the last few years, YARTS overall service levels have been dropping. In total, comparing the 2018 vehicle-hours with the most recent 12 months’ vehicle-hours, service has been reduced by 3,816 vehicle- hours, or by 33 percent. By route, this change in service levels is as follows:

Route 140: 11-percent reduction Route 120: 26-percent reduction Route 395/120: 70-percent increase Route 41: 66-percent decrease

These shifts are largely due to reduction in runs on Route 140 and Route 41, a reduction in the days of service on Route 120 and Route 41, and an increase in the days of service on Route 395/120.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 22 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 9% 5% 9% 4% 3% 8% 3% % of 11% 16% 16% 14% 16% 16% Total 100% 100% 964 773 875 969 919 970 935 891 811 564 493 2,124 1,057 3,231 3,227 1,860 2,702 1,721 3,101 3,217 1,532 100% 100% 100% TOTAL 16,115 19,671 13,264 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7% 9% 8% 197 449 445 168 453 453 65.7 226.3 1,365 E/395 1,318 1,139 SR 120 SR 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 370 778 770 756 185 725 725 211 16% 14% 11% SR 41 423.3 1,847 3,097 1,847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W. Revenue Hours by Route 9% 221 598 605 585 189 182 493 601 176 11% 11% 1,452 2,197 1,452 SR 120 SR 120 964 831 773 875 969 919 970 935 891 811 564 493 66% 67% 71% 1,337 1,406 1,407 1,361 1,249 1,186 1,429 1,437 1,081 8,827 SR 140 11,452 13,060 5% 6% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 4% 3% % of 11% 16% 16% 14% 10% 13% 24% 24% 12% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% TOTAL 27,756 31,634 22,243 61,675 26,058 27,897 27,491 92,085 27,987 27,987 91,929 26,634 77,490 54,109 23,442 49,047 14,783 89,365 11,966 92,463 43,675 464,545 568,354 379,362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7% 9% 9% 1980 6,820 5,940 5,060 E/395 SR 120 SR 120 13,530 13,420 41,140 13,640 13,640 39,710 34,320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15% 14% 11% SR 41 9,856 3,996 5,994 20,774 20,560 21,420 12,138 51,282 20,646 20,646 84,748 51,282 Revenue Miles by Route 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8% 10% 10% 5,712 4,872 4,788 4,536 15,456 15,624 15,120 37,582 12,718 15,540 56,784 37,582 SR 120 W.SR 120 68% 68% 72% SR 140 27,756 24,814 22,243 40,167 26,058 27,897 27,491 42,325 27,987 27,987 42,325 37,099 26,634 40,950 23,442 35,203 14,783 42,361 11,966 42,637 31,165 334,541 387,112 256,178 Total Table 8: YARTS 2019 and 2020 Service and Quantities by Route Month and 2020 YARTS 8: Table 2019 Month 2019 January 2020 October Reports, Summary MCAG Source: October February September November March December % of Total August April Total 2020 January July May February June March % of Total September date) (to Total April % of Total Most Recent 12 Months August May July June

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 23 YARTS Fare Structure

Reflecting the length of the various routes, YARTS has established individual fares for each route and for each trip origin/destination. These fares are presented in Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure Tables A-1 through A-5 for each of the individual routes. Full fares are roughly equal to 16 cents per mile on the full length of the 41 Route and 22 to 24 cents per mile on the other three routes. Round trip fares are offered at generally twice the one-way fare (no discount). Discounted fares are offered for persons ages 62 and above, children ages 12 and under, and persons with disabilities. This discount is 44 percent on the SR 140 and SR 120 W. Routes, 58 percent on the SR 41 Route, and only 53 percent on the SR 395/120 Route. In addition, commuter passes are offered on the SR 140 Route and the SR 41 Route. Monthly passes, 20- ride passes, and 10-ride passes are all offered. The monthly pass and 20-ride passes are priced identically, while the 10-ride pass is half the price. These passes provide a 56 percent reduction in the full fare for the 140 Route and a 58 percent reduction for the 41 Route.

Since 2018, full-length base round-trip fares have changed as follows:

• Routes 140 and Route 120: 50-percent increase in regular fare, no change in discounted fare • Route 395/120: 44-percent increase in regular fare, no change in discounted fare • Route 41: 13-percent increase in regular fare, no change in discounted fare

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL YARTS RIDERSHIP

Table 9 summarizes annual ridership by route over the past six years. As shown, a total of 102,143 passengers boarded the YARTS system in 2019, reflecting an increase of 13 percent over the previous year and a slight (1 percent) drop since 2015. By route,2 the SR 140 Route in 2019 generated 59 percent of the annual ridership, followed by 15.8 percent on the SR 120 West Route, 8.5 percent on the SR 41 Route, and 6.1 percent on the SR 120 E./US 395 Route. Ridership by route and by year is also shown in Figure 6 dating back to the year 2000. As shown, ridership has fluctuated most along the SR 140 Route and the SR 41 Route over the past three years with overall rideship peaking at 127,055 passengers in 2017. It should be noted that while 2020 is included, winter ridership (after September) has not been included. As of September of 2020, overall ridership has declined by 58.3 percent from the same period in 2019. Considering the 2015 to 2019 period (pre-COVID), on a percentage basis the data indicates a dramatic 195 percent increase in ridership on the 120 Route serving Sonora/Tuolumne County. The US 395/120 Route also had a substantial (33 percent) growth in ridership, while the 140 route had a modest (5 percent) growth. On the other hand, the 41 Route ridership dropped by 29 percent, the Amtrak ridership by 38 percent and the Aramark/NPS Ridership fell by 70 percent.

2 Note that YARTS ridership tracking includes two types of ridership (Amtrak and Aramark/NPS) that are not summarized by the specific route. These categories represent a relatively small proportion of current ridership (6 percent in total).

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 24 Table 9: YARTS Ridership History by Route % Change 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2018- 2015- # # # # # % # % 19 19

Merced SR 140 Route 57,442 67,184 73,371 51,979 60,305 59.0% 23,734 56% 16% 5%

Mono US 395/ SR 120 E. 4,721 6,740 6,503 5,505 6,279 6.1% 3,909 9% 14% 33% Route

Sonora SR 120 W. Route 5,472 9,762 16,187 10,654 16,135 15.8% 6,785 16% 51% 195%

Fresno SR 41 Route 12,159 21,496 14,910 8,251 8,636 8.5% 5,895 14% 5% -29%

Amtrak Ridership 11,840 10,528 9,674 8,770 7,336 7.2% 1,082 3% -16% -38%

Aramark/NPS Ridership 11,575 9,270 6,410 5,602 3,452 3.4% 1,112 3% -38% -70%

Total 103,209 124,980 127,055 90,761 102,143 42,517 13% -1% Source: YARTS Ridership Report, 2020

Figure 6: YARTS Historic Annual Ridership by Route 120,000

Merced 140 Route Mono 395/ 120 Route 100,000 Sonora 120 Route Fresno 41 Route

80,000

60,000 Boardings per Year Boardings 40,000

20,000

0

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 25 YARTS monthly data can also be used to assess the impact of COVID-19 on ridership. Comparing ridership for the months of March through September in 2019 with the same months of 2020 indicates that the overall ridership dropped by 57 percent (45,694 passenger-trips). By route, this drop was as follows:

• 140 Route: 60-percent drop • 120 Route: 58-percent drop • 395/120 Route: 30-percent drop • 41 Route: 32-percent drop • Amtrak ridership (all routes): 96-percent drop • NPS/Aramark ridership (all routes): 79-percent drop

The drop in ridership generated through Amtrak ticketing was particularly dramatic; over the seven months included in the data, only 206 passengers boarded using Amtrak-generated tickets.

Ridership by Season

To allow further analysis of route ridership trends, YARTS ridership data was grouped into three operating “seasons”: Summer (June, July, August), Shoulder (May, September) and Winter (remainder of the year). Table 10 presents this data while also summarizing change year-over-year. As indicated, ridership along all routes have been greatest during the summer months over the past five years, in large part because this is when the most service has been offered. However, reviewing the ridership by season by route shows several trends:

• In 2019, more than half of the annual systemwide ridership was carried during the summer season (52.7 percent), followed by 28.9 percent in winter, and 18.3 percent in the shoulder season.

• The US 395 Route has experienced some decline in total and summer ridership over the past few years. However, the route ran services through October in 2019, allowing for a 14-percent increase in ridership over the previous year.

• SR 120 ridership has been steadily increasing over the past five years with the exception of 2018, which was impacted by the Ferguson Fire.

• SR 41 had been increasing in ridership between 2015 and 2017, however after eliminating winter service and reducing other services in 2017, ridership has decreased.

Additional data for seasonal ridership is included in graphic form Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends, Figures B-1 to B5.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 26 Table 10: YARTS Ridership History by Route and Season Five Year Change Calendar Year Change From Previous Year Routes 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 2016 2017 2018 2 2019 2020 1 2015-19 Merced SR 140 Route Summer 19,286 23,861 27,022 12,189 23,490 12,817 24% 13% -55% 93% -45% 22% Shoulder 10,276 13,155 14,982 11,195 11,014 2,198 28% 14% -25% -2% -80% 7% Winter 27,880 30,168 31,367 28,595 25,801 8,719 8% 4% -9% -10% -66% -7% Total 57,442 67,184 73,371 51,979 60,305 23,734 17% 9% -29% 16% -61% 5%

Mono US 395/ SR 120 E 2016 2017 2018 2019 Summer 4,380 6,046 5,901 4,914 4,378 3,532 38% -2% -17% -11% -19% 0% Shoulder 341 694 602 591 1,244 377 104% -13% -2% 110% -70% 265% Winter 0 0 0 0 657 0 ------Total 4,721 6,740 6,503 5,505 6,279 3,909 43% -4% -15% 14% -38% 33% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sonora SR 120 W. Route Summer 4,487 8,185 13,442 8,190 13,521 6,430 82% 64% -39% 65% -52% 201% Shoulder 985 1,577 2,745 2,464 2,614 355 60% 74% -10% 6% -86% -- Total 5,472 9,762 16,187 10,654 16,135 6,785 78% 66% -34% 51% -58% -- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Fresno SR 41 Route Summer 5,512 9,809 12,711 6,207 6,781 5,494 78% 30% -51% 9% -19% 23% Shoulder 1,727 4,571 2,199 2,044 1,855 401 165% -52% -7% -9% -78% 7% Winter 4,920 7,116 0 0 0 0 45% -100% ------100% Total 12,159 21,496 14,910 8,251 8,636 5,895 77% -31% -45% 5% -32% -29% YARTS Route Ridership Total Summer 33,665 47,901 59,076 31,500 48,170 28,273 42% 23% -47% 53% -41% 43% Shoulder 13,329 19,997 20,528 16,294 16,727 3,331 50% 3% -21% 3% -80% 25% Winter 32,800 37,284 31,367 28,595 26,458 8,719 14% -16% -9% -7% -67% -19% Total 79,794 105,182 110,971 76,389 91,355 40,323 32% 6% -31% 20% -56% 14% Amtrak Ridership Summer 3,341 2,952 2,791 2,365 2,306 7 -12% -5% -15% -2% -100% -31% Shoulder 2,253 2,151 2,184 2,086 1,582 0 -5% 2% -4% -24% -- -30% Winter 6,246 5,425 4,699 4,319 3,448 1,075 -13% -13% ------45% Total 11,840 10,528 9,674 8,770 7,336 1,082 -11% -8% -9% -16% -- -38% Aramark/NPS Ridership Summer 3,034 2,855 1,724 1,482 1,230 200 -6% -40% -14% -17% -84% -59% Shoulder 1,897 1,574 910 954 560 62 -17% -42% 5% -41% -- -70% Winter 6,644 4,841 3,776 3,166 1,662 850 -27% -22% ------75% Total 11,575 9,270 6,410 5,602 3,452 1,112 -20% -31% -13% -38% -- -70% All Route Ridership Summer 40,040 53,708 63,591 35,347 51,706 28,480 34% 18% -44% 46% -45% 29% Shoulder 17,479 23,722 23,622 19,334 18,869 3,393 36% 0% -18% -2% -82% 8% Winter 45,690 47,550 39,842 36,080 31,568 10,644 4% -16% -9% -13% -66% -31% Total 103,209 124,980 127,055 90,761 102,143 42,517 21% 2% -29% 13% -- -1%

Data is summarized by calendar year. Summer is June, July and August; shoulder is May and September; winter is the remainder of months. Note 1: Through September. Note 2: External factors affecting ridership include the Ferguson fire (summer 2018), Creek fire (summer 2020) and Covid-19 (beginning March 2020) Source: YARTS Ridership Report, 2020

Ridership by Passenger Type

Detailed ridership data for Route 140 is tracked for employee (NPS and concessionaire) versus visitor/other ridership. In addition, starting with the 2007 YARTS-Amtrak agreement, ridership generated by through Amtrak ticketing has also been tracked. This data is provided in Table 11. A review of this data indicates the following:

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 27 Total -58% -72% 42,357 57,569 83,604 74,870 80,371 61,552 56,692 83,961 47,614 62,746 57,880 54,762 91,661 83,568 81,721 81,171 86,982 89,455 71,093 66,351 25,928 -64% -75% Winter 11,849 26,586 40,035 35,505 36,874 29,205 26,956 37,558 28,807 28,380 26,915 26,594 41,810 38,016 38,350 40,770 40,434 39,842 30,911 36,080 10,644 Total Route 140 -80% -86% 8,090 7,816 2,260 10,303 10,690 16,265 15,832 14,292 15,100 11,026 10,156 16,450 11,833 11,270 16,689 15,362 14,426 16,880 18,076 14,235 13,156 Shoulder -39% -61% 22,418 20,680 19,046 30,138 27,737 25,073 28,397 21,321 10,991 18,012 33,401 22,533 19,695 28,863 28,009 25,975 29,668 31,537 16,036 27,026 13,024 Summer Note 1: Summer includes June, July and August. Shoulder includes and May September. Winter includes January to April October and to December. 7% 8% 5% 4% 11% 29% 32% 30% 28% 25% 23% 17% 15% 32% Total -94% -95% 9,270 6,410 5,602 3,452 1,112 21,522 29,224 20,800 23,284 24,667 23,731 23,640 19,889 16,679 19,966 22,885 24,380 22,024 19,592 13,882 11,889 9% 9% 5% 8% 850 12% 36% 32% 34% 31% 26% 20% 16% 39% 33% -92% -93% 7,204 9,937 7,807 6,644 4,841 3,776 3,166 1,662 Winter 14,347 11,726 12,740 12,904 12,857 12,024 11,283 12,743 11,120 12,958 12,790 12,079 Employees 62 5% 9% 7% 4% 3% 910 954 560 27% 27% 25% 24% 21% 16% 13% 30% 26% -98% -98% 3,756 4,938 3,512 4,049 4,197 3,829 3,962 3,276 1,980 3,589 3,876 3,984 3,636 3,554 2,429 1,897 1,574 Shoulder 5% 9% 5% 2% 200 28% 27% 22% 18% 21% 13% 13% 10% 25% 27% -96% -97% 9,939 5,562 6,495 7,566 7,045 7,654 5,330 1,956 5,257 6,051 7,606 6,309 6,101 3,646 3,348 2,855 1,724 1,482 1,230 10,562 Summer ------4% 9% 11% 15% 15% 13% 16% 12% 14% 15% 12% 13% 10% 17% Total -81% -93% 5,729 9,674 8,770 1,082 7,336 11,059 12,308 11,062 13,302 14,466 10,169 11,809 11,840 10,528 ------8% 12% 16% 16% 14% 13% 12% 15% 15% 13% 12% 11% 10% 19% -53% -80% 5,090 6,391 5,567 6,961 2,307 5,306 4,703 5,686 6,246 5,425 4,699 4,319 1,075 3,448 Winter 0 ------0% 7% 821 12% 16% 16% 14% 14% 11% 15% 16% 13% 15% 12% 17% 2,284 2,541 2,343 2,606 2,372 1,880 2,272 2,253 2,151 2,184 2,086 1,582 Visitor Amtrak - -100% -100% Shoulder 7 ------9% 9% 0% 13% 12% 12% 20% 12% 14% 13% 10% 15% 12% 13% 3,685 3,376 3,152 3,735 6,788 2,601 3,586 3,851 3,341 2,952 2,791 2,365 2,306 -100% -100% Summer 5% 82% 54% 56% 59% 59% 64% 69% 71% 77% 78% 85% 92% 29% 58% 54% Total 20,835 28,345 35,892 49,618 46,629 40,077 43,429 30,935 34,796 54,310 35,934 38,366 35,856 53,807 56,030 57,442 67,184 73,371 51,979 23,734 60,305 -7% 79% 48% 52% 53% 56% 61% 65% 68% 75% 79% 83% 82% 24% 53% 49% 4,645 8,719 12,239 Winter 15,230 19,728 20,740 17,081 17,889 16,064 15,474 23,546 15,615 15,590 14,836 23,376 24,857 27,880 30,168 31,367 28,595 25,801 7% 83% 57% 57% 61% 62% 67% 69% 71% 78% 79% 84% 97% 21% 63% 57% 4,334 5,365 7,178 9,932 9,094 8,120 8,532 5,836 6,567 6,929 7,849 7,634 2,198 10,202 11,255 10,661 10,276 13,155 14,982 11,195 11,014 Shoulder Visitor/Other Non-Amtrak - 86% 59% 61% 66% 62% 66% 73% 74% 80% 76% 87% 98% 40% 22% 63% 60% 9,035 11,856 10,741 13,484 19,958 16,795 14,876 17,008 12,755 20,562 13,390 14,927 13,386 19,176 20,512 19,286 23,861 27,022 12,189 12,817 23,490 Summer 2000 2017 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2018 2001 2019 2002 2020 2011 2010 2009 2008 2003 2012 2007 2006 2005 2004 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2019 2007 2008 Table 11: Route 140 Ridership 140 History Route 11: Table by Type Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020 through Reports Monthly VIA 2019-2020 Source: Percent Change over Last 10 5 and Years 2010-19 2015-19 Percent of Total

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 28 • At the outset of the YARTS program (2000), employees comprised roughly half of the overall ridership.

• As visitor ridership grew, the proportion of ridership generated by employees declined but in absolute numbers remained relatively constant until 2012.

• Since 2012, employee ridership has declined dramatically—a 72 percent decline from 22,885 to 6,410 in 2017—a decline that has occurred over all seasons (indicating that this is not a result solely of seasonal employee commute patterns). Over the last two years, ridership has continued to decline another 46 percent between 2017 and 2019, from 6,410 to 3,452 employee trips.

This data also provides trends in Amtrak ridership. Overall, Amtrak riders peaked in 2012 at 14,446 and have since declined by 49 percent to a 2019 figure of 7,336. This decline has largely occurred in the summer (a 66 percent decline), while off-season and winter Amtrak ridership has dropped by 33.3 percent and 35 percent, respectively.

Ridership by Month

The ridership data from 2019 and 2020 were further analyzed by month, as shown in Table 12, and depicted in Figures 7 and 8. In 2019, the peak month was July with 18,194, barely edging out August with 17,767. The lowest ridership was 2,774 in February.

During 2020, ridership initially started off with greater ridership in January than the previous year. Ridership immediately dropped in March due to Covid-19 and has stayed low through June. However, ridership did rise to 13,100 trips in July (a 28 percent decrease from the previous year).

Ridership by Route by Month and Day

Average ridership for 2019 was also analyzed by month, weekday, and weekend/holiday by service (Table 13 and Figure 9). This data indicates that weekend ridership is typically higher than weekday ridership on all routes, with ridership relatively close to equal on the 395 Route and relatively more concentrated on weekends/holidays on the 140 and 120 Routes. Weekend/holiday ridership is highest in July (reflecting the Fourth of July).

Boarding by Fare Type

The detailed records of passenger boardings by fare type provide a good indication of the type of passenger and trip purpose on the various routes. This data is included in Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-4, and indicates the following:

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 29 Table 12: Passenger Boardings by Route by Month 2019 & 2020 Route Year/Month SR 140 US 395/SR 120 E. SR 120 W. SR 41 TOTAL 2019 January 2,774 0 0 0 2,774 February 3,596 0 0 0 3,596 March 3,802 0 0 0 3,802 April 3,848 0 0 0 3,848 May 5,823 0 969 983 7,775 June 6,909 0 3,276 2,024 12,209 July 9,009 2,082 4,593 2,510 18,194 August 7,572 2,296 5,652 2,247 17,767 September 5,191 1,244 1,645 872 8,952 October 2,989 657 0 0 3,646 November 3,359 0 0 0 3,359 December 5,433 0 0 0 5,433 Total 60,305 6,279 16,135 8,636 91,355 2020 January 3,924 0 0 0 3,924 February 2,838 0 0 0 2,838 March 1,743 0 0 0 1,743 April 214 0 0 0 214 May 246 0 0 0 246 June 1,893 230 497 522 3,142 July 5,563 1,704 3,321 2,512 13,100 August 5,361 1,598 2,612 2,460 12,031 September 1,952 377 355 401 3,085 Total to Date 23,734 3,909 6,785 5,895 40,323 Note: Amtrak/Aramark ridership not included. Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

• Adult full-fare passengers generate the largest (81.2 percent) proportion of boardings on the 140 Route. This route has the highest proportion of Amtrak passengers at 10.2 percent. NPS Employees make up approximately 5.2 percent of boardings, followed by 3.4 percent free children fares.

• Full adult fares were used for 91.4 percent of the boardings on the 120 West route, along with 8.4 percent free child boardings. Amtrak passengers made up only 0.1 percent of boardings.

• The US 395 / SR 120 E. Route boardings were also concentrated among the Adult Paid category (96.6 percent), Free Child (2.5 percent) and Amtrak (0.9 percent).

• SR 41 Route boardings have 90.4 percent adult paid fare with 5.1 percent free child boardings. Employees only make up 0.2 percent of ridership along this route. This route has the second highest proportion of Amtrak passengers at 4.3 percent. YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 30 Figure 7: 2019 Monthly Ridership by Route 20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

SR 140 US 395/SR 120 E. SR 120 W. SR 41

Figure 8: 2020 Monthly Ridership by Route 14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 January February March April May June July August September SR 140 US 395/SR 120 E. SR 120 W. SR 41

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 31 Table 13: Route Ridership by Average Weekday and Weekend by Month

SR 140 Route US 395 / SR 120 E. Route SR 120 W. Route SR 41 Route Weekend/ Weekend/ Weekend/ Weekend/ Month, 2019 Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Holidays Holidays Holidays Holidays

January 97 141 ------February 207 317 ------March 148 142 ------April 158 173 ------May 170 191 - - 30 27 28 35 June 246 241 - - 111 105 67 68 July 276 332 64 75 135 186 75 97 August 239 256 74 75 108 130 71 76 September 191 230 42 40 48 71 24 41 October 116 101 18 32 - - - - November 117 169 ------December 198 216 ------Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Boardings by Stop

A summary of average daily boardings by stop on each of the various routes indicates the following:

• Not surprisingly, the busiest YARTS stop (on all four routes) is the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center, where 36 percent of total boardings occur over a July day.

• On the 140 Route in the summer, other busy stops are Merced Amtrak Station (11 percent), Yosemite Valley Lodge and Curry Village (8 percent of boardings each) and the Merced Transpo (7 percent). The Mariposa park-and-ride and Cedar Lodge are also busy stops. In winter, the busiest stops outside the Park are the Mariposa park-and-ride (10 percent) followed by the Amtrak station (9 percent).

• The 120 Route ridership is heavily concentrated in the lodging/campground areas between Groveland and the park. Of all boardings outside the park, 40 percent are at the Yosemite Pines RV Park and 28 percent are at Yosemite Lakes. In total, 93 percent of boardings outside the park are between Groveland and the park entrance, with only 7 percent in Jamestown, Sonora, or at the Black Oak Hotel.

• 15 percent of the 395 Route ridership is in the Tuolumne Meadows area. Outside the park, ridership is largely generated by the stops at Shilo Inn (10 percent), the Village (7 percent) and the Mammoth Mountain Inn (5 percent).

• Outside the park, boardings on Route 41 are highest at the Oakhurst Best Western (14 percent of total boardings), the Fresno Airport (10 percent) and the Fresno Amtrak/Greyhound stop (7

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 32 September October August September July Average Weekend/Holidays Average Average Weekend/Holidays Average SR 41 Route August June US 395 / / Route 120 E. SR 395 US Average Weekday Average Average Weekday Average July May 0 0 80 60 40 20 20 80 70 60 50 40 30 10 120 100 September August July Average Weekend/Holidays Average Average Weekend/Holidays Average SR 140 Route SR 120 W Route SR June Average Weekday Average Average Weekday Average May 0 0 50 80 60 40 20 350 300 250 200 150 100 200 180 160 140 120 100 Figure Average 9: and Weekday Weekend/Holiday Ridership 2019 Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020 through Reports Monthly VIA 2019-2020 Source:

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 33 percent). Within the park, 41 percent of total Route 41 boardings are at the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center, and 5 percent each at Wawona Store and Mariposa Grove.

Data with boarding by stop is summarized in Appendix B, Table B-5.

Boardings by Run

Ridership was also summarized by run for each route, and for peak months in each season (July, September, and January) and can be summarized as follows:

• On Route 140, the highest July ridership are the eastbound departures at 6:00 AM, 6:45 AM, 8:45 AM, 10:30 AM, and 6:00 PM, and the westbound departures at 9:05 AM, 3:15 PM and 6:00 PM. The lowest ridership is on the 5:54 AM departure from Midpines to Merced, with only 5.1 passengers per weekday. In September, eastbound ridership is highest on the 5:45 PM run, while westbound ridership is highest on the 3:15 PM run. Morning ridership into the park is significantly less in September than in July, though the morning run from Midpines to Yosemite remains the lowest ridership run. In January, ridership is highest eastbound on the 6:40 AM departure, the 8:45 AM departure and the 5:25 PM departure, and highest westbound on the 2:20 PM and 8:20 AM departures. The morning Midpines-Merced run carries an average of only 3.4 passengers per day.

• 0n the 120 Route, ridership in July is relatively high on all runs (a minimum of 13.9 passengers per trip, on average) with the highest ridership on the first AM departures (6:40 AM) and first afternoon return trip (4:00 PM). Ridership in September is even higher, particularly on weekends/holidays, with up to 51 passengers per trip on the first AM run.

• The 395 Route ridership is also highest on the first run of the day in each direction in July, with up to 32 passengers per trip on the 4:05 PM eastbound departure on weekends/holidays.

• Route 41 July ridership is greatest in the northbound direction on the early morning runs (up to 18.3 boardings on the 7:50 AM run on weekends/holidays), and lower on the mid-day run (7.5 on weekdays and 11.3 on weekends/holidays). This is also the overall pattern in September. In the southbound direction, ridership is highest on the first of the two afternoon runs (4:06 PM departure) and lowest on the 11:15 AM run.

Overall, this review reflects the high productivity of the 120 Route runs, as well as specific runs on the 140 Route and 395 Route. The resulting data is detailed in Appendix C.

YARTS PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Performance Analysis by Route and by Month

A “performance analysis” provides useful insights regarding the elements of a transit program that are relatively effective or ineffective. A higher-level performance analysis was conducted for each YARTS

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 34 route and month of service over the calendar year of 2019, as presented in Table 14. The following summarizes the data used for this analysis:

• Service quantities for each route and month were calculated between January and December of 2019 to cover FY 2018 – 19 and FY 2019 – 20. The vehicle-hours costs were based on both YARTS and VIA contract rates as follows:

o $104.76 and $107.38 per vehicle-hour for service operated with YARTS-owned buses for Route 120 Sonora and Route 140 Merced operated during winter and shoulder season months. o $149.76 and $153.50 per vehicle-hour for service operated with VIA-provided buses for Route 140 Merced during summer months. o $156.76 and $160.50 per vehicle-hour for service operated with VIA-provided buses for Route 41 Fresno.

• Ridership by route and month were drawn from Table 9 multiplied by average fare revenue per passenger-boarding for the various routes, to estimate the farebox revenue per route and month.

• Subtracting the fare revenues from the operating costs yields the marginal operating subsidy per route and month.

• Dividing the passenger boarding figures by the vehicle-hours yields the passenger boardings per vehicle-hour, also known as the “productivity” of a transit service. As indicated, this figure reaches a high of 9.5 (Route 120 in August) and a low of 2.3 (Route 41 in May). Overall, Route 120 West is the most productive of the routes with an overall figure of 7.3, followed by Route 395 at 4.8, Route 140 at 4.6, and Route 41 at 2.8. Overall, systemwide productivity for 2019 was 4.6 passenger boardings per vehicle-hour with a peak occurring in the months of July, August, and December (5.5, 5.6, 5.9 passenger boardings per vehicle-hour, respectively).

• The operating subsidy per passenger boarding is a key measure of the cost-effectiveness of a transit service as it relates the key public “input”(public subsidy funding) with the key “output” (passenger boardings). A lower figure reflects a more cost-effective service. As shown, the lowest subsidy per passenger-trips by overall routes is for Route 120, requiring $8.75 per passenger-trip. This figure ranges up to $51.32 (along Route 41). Subsidy per passenger-trip by month was highest in January ($30.64) and lowest in December ($12.41).

• Another important measure is the “farebox ratio”—the ratio of passenger revenues to marginal contractor operating costs. A “better” measure is reflected by a higher figure, by this measure. The best service by this measure is Route 120 in August, which covers 50 percent of the contractor costs with fare revenues. Again, Route 120 is “best” annually by this measure (40 percent) followed by the 395 Route (26 percent), the 140 Route (21 percent), and the 41 Route (10 percent).

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 35 Table 14: YARTS 2019 Performance Analysis by Route and Month

Route Route Month 140 120 41 395 TOTAL 140 120 41 395 TOTAL

Revenue Miles Revenue Hours January 27,756 27,756 963 963 February 22,243 22,243 773 773 March 27,897 27,897 969 969 April 27,987 27,987 970 970 May 37,099 4,872 12,138 54,109 1,249 189 423.3 1,860 June 40,950 15,120 21,420 77,490 1,361 585 755.8 2,702 July 42,325 15,624 20,560 13,420 91,929 1,407 605 770.4 445 3,227 August 42,325 15,456 20,774 13,530 92,085 1,406 598 778.3 449 3,231 September 40,167 5,712 9,856 5,940 61,675 1,338 221 369.6 197 2,126 October 24,814 6,820 31,634 831 226.3 1,057 November 26,058 26,058 875 875 December 27,491 27,491 918 918 Total 387,112 56,784 84,748 39,710 568,354 13,060 2,197 3,097 1,318 19,671

Contractor Operating Cost Passenger Fare Revenue January $100,900 $100,900 $15,900 $15,900 February $81,000 $81,000 $20,600 $20,600 March $101,500 $101,500 $21,800 $21,800 April $101,600 $101,600 $22,100 $22,100 May $130,800 $19,700 $66,400 $216,900 $33,400 $5,600 $5,600 $44,600 June $203,800 $61,300 $118,500 $383,600 $39,700 $18,800 $11,600 $70,100 July $215,900 $64,900 $123,600 $47,800 $452,200 $51,700 $26,400 $14,400 $12,000 $104,500 August $215,900 $64,200 $124,900 $48,200 $453,200 $43,500 $32,400 $12,900 $13,200 $102,000 September $205,400 $23,700 $59,300 $21,200 $309,600 $29,800 $9,400 $5,000 $7,100 $51,300 October $89,200 $24,300 $113,500 $17,200 $3,800 $21,000 November $93,900 $93,900 $19,300 $19,300 December $98,600 $98,600 $31,200 $31,200 Total $1,638,500 $233,800 $492,700 $141,500 $2,506,500 $346,200 $92,600 $49,500 $36,100 $524,400 Marginal Operating Subsidy Passenger Boardings per Vehicle Hour January $85,000 $85,000 2.9 2.9 February $60,400 $60,400 4.7 4.7 March $79,700 $79,700 3.9 3.9 April $79,500 $79,500 4.0 4.0 May $97,400 $14,100 $60,800 $172,300 4.7 5.1 2.3 4.2 June $164,100 $42,500 $106,900 $313,500 5.1 5.6 2.7 4.5 July $164,200 $38,500 $109,200 $35,800 $347,700 6.4 7.6 3.3 4.7 5.6 August $172,400 $31,800 $112,000 $35,000 $351,200 5.4 9.5 2.9 5.1 5.5 September $175,600 $14,300 $54,300 $14,100 $258,300 3.9 7.4 2.4 6.3 4.2 October $72,000 $20,500 $92,500 3.6 2.9 3.4 November $74,600 $74,600 3.8 3.8 December $67,400 $67,400 5.9 5.9 Total $1,292,300 $141,200 $443,200 $105,400 $1,982,100 4.6 7.3 2.8 4.8 4.6

Operating Subsidy Per Passenger Trip Marginal Farebox Ratio February $16.80 $16.80 25% 25% March $20.96 $20.96 21% 21% April $20.66 $20.66 22% 22% May $16.73 $14.55 $61.85 $22.16 26% 28% 8% 21% June $23.75 $12.97 $52.82 $25.68 19% 31% 10% 18% July $18.23 $8.38 $43.51 $17.20 $19.11 24% 41% 12% 25% 23% August $22.77 $5.63 $49.84 $15.24 $19.77 20% 50% 10% 27% 23% September $33.83 $8.69 $62.27 $11.33 $28.85 15% 40% 8% 33% 17% October $24.09 $31.20 $25.37 19% 16% 19% November $22.21 $22.21 21% 21% December $12.41 $12.41 32% 32% Total $21.43 $8.75 $51.32 $16.79 $21.70 21% 40% 10% 26% 21%

Source: LSC

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 36 Ridership and Performance Analysis by Run

A detailed analysis was conducted of the average daily ridership and performance analysis for the individual runs on all YARTS routes (pre-COVID). To reflect peak summer, shoulder season and winter conditions, this analysis was conducted for July 2019, September 2019, and January 2020, respectively. The analysis included the following elements:

• Monthly ridership per run was identified from the monthly Contractor Monthly Reports and divided by the runs per month to result in the average daily ridership by run. Note that the ridership and runs conducted on the free-fare day in January were excluded.

• Service revenue miles and revenue hours per day were also drawn from the Monthly Reports.

• Marginal operating cost per run was estimated based on the various contract rates described above.

• Various contract rates were applied to each route depending on time of year and whether a YARTS-owned or VIA bus was used. Systemwide farebox revenue and ridership was also used to calculate an average passenger fare of $5.13. This value was then subtracted from the marginal operating cost per run to yield the marginal operating subsidy per run. A series of performance measures were then calculated for each run:

o Boardings per revenue mile o Boardings per revenue hour (“productivity”) o Cost per Passenger Boarding o Subsidy per Passenger Boarding o Farebox Ratio (ratio of passenger fares to marginal operating cost)

The resulting summaries are included in Appendix C. The date was analyzed in Table C-3 through C-6 (for the average July day), Tables C-7 through C-10 (for the average September day) and Table C-11 (for Route 140 on the average January day). This information will be used to assess route and scheduling alternatives. A review of this data indicates the following:

• As measured by passenger boardings per mile, the best runs are the 120 Route weekend runs in September with up to 0.61 passengers per mile. The 140 Route morning short run from Mariposa to the Valley is also a good performer at 0.55.

• Passenger boardings per hour are also highest on the September weekend 120 Route runs with up to 15.9 boardings per hour. The 3:15 PM westbound departure on the 140 Route in July is also relatively high at 11.9 on weekdays and 10.2 on weekends/holidays. On the other end of the spectrum, some of the 41 Route runs carry as few as 1.3 passengers for every hour of operation.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 37 • The best performing runs by cost per passenger-trip are the weekend/holiday Route 120 service with runs requiring as low as $6.74 in subsidy in September and $8.47 in July.

• The subsidy per passenger-trip (costs minus fare revenues) are lowest on the 120 Route September weekend runs, ranging from $1.60 to $2.10 per passenger-trip. On the other extreme, some of the 41 Route runs require more than $100 in subsidy per passenger served.

• The weekend September 120 Route runs are also the best performing runs as measured by farebox ratio (fare revenue divided by operating costs), with runs covering between 71 and 76 percent of costs. This value falls below 10 percent on some of the 41 Route runs.

YARTS CONNECTIONS

YARTS service provides important connections to various modes of travel and transit, thereby enhancing its value in providing non-vehiclular access to Yosemite. Greyhound bus and Amtrak rail connections are available in Merced and Fresno. Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) bus connections to YARTS are available in Mammoth Lakes connecting to Reno, Nevada, and southern California. Additionally, the Merced Regional Airport (airport code MCE) operates one commercial airline, and the Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT) is served by five domestic and two international airlines. Mammoth Lakes Airport has direct flights from Denver, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and San Diego available, with service varying by season. YARTS does not directly serve the airport in Mammoth but serves within 8 miles.

A key connection for YARTS service is to and from Amtrak San Joaquin rail service in Fresno and particularly in Merced. Over the last few years (since the SRTP was completed), there has been a cut in daily rail service, from eight trains per day in each direction down to four trains per day. Current rail service times are as follows:

Merced Northbound: 7:23 AM, 11:23 AM, 3:23 PM, 7,23 PM Southbound: 10:45 AM, 12:45 PM, 4:45 PM 8:45 PM

Fresno Northbound: 6:12 AM, 10:16 AM, 2:16 PM, 6:16 PM Southbound: 11:49 AM, 1:49 PM, 5:49 PM, 9:49 PM

The previous direct rail runs to/from Sacramento have been revised to require bus service north of Stockton.

This rail service, combined with YARTS service, provides the following useful connections:

• A one-day trip between the Bay Area and Yosemite Valley is still possible, combining Train 710 (departing Oakland at 7:36 AM, arriving at Merced at 10:45 AM) with YARTS Bus 140-13

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 38 (departing Merced at 10:55 AM, arriving in the Valley at 1:41 PM), along with YARTS Bus 140-16 (departing the Valley at 4:35 PM, arriving in Merced at 7:05 PM) with Train 719 (departing Merced at 7:23 PM, arriving in Oakland at 10:29 PM).

• Another useful rail/bus connection is between Train 716 (depart Oakland at 1:36 PM, arrive in Merced at 4:45 PM) with YARTS Bus 150-15 (depart Merced at 6:00 PM, arrive in the Village at 8:36 PM).

• Leaving the Valley, YARTS Bus 140-12 departs the Valley at 8:15 AM and arrives at Merced at 10:46 AM, tranferring to Train 713 departing Merced at 11:23 AM and arriving in Oakland at 2:27 PM.

Reflecting the longer travel times, connections to/from Southern California are not as convenient. Traveling from Los Angeles Union Station, Train 711 arrives in Fresno at 6:12 AM and provides a short connection time with YARTS Bus 41-1 6:38 AM departure to the Valley (arriving at 10:02) but requires the passenger to board a bus at Union Station at 1:00 AM. The other feasible connection has a slightly more feasible Los Angeles departure time (5:00 AM, arriving via Train 713 at 10:16 AM) but then requires almost a three-hour layover before the 1:10 PM departure of YARTS Bus 41-6 (arriving at the Valley at 4:45 PM). In the other direction, YARTS Bus 41-2 (Valley departure at 11:15 AM, Fresno arrival at 2:45 PM) requires a two-hour layover before the 5:49 departure of Train 716, arriving (via bus) in Los Angeles at 10:35 PM. The other southbound option is the YARTS Bus 41-6 (departure at 6:00 PM, arriving in Fresno at 9:30 PM) and Train 718 (departing at 9:49 PM, arriving in Los Angeles via bus at 2:15 AM).

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 39 This page intentionally left blank

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 40 Chapter 4 YARTS CAPITAL OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

The YARTS program relies on a combination of YARTS-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by the contractor (currently VIA). As previously discussed, the cost of operating contractor-owned vehicles is higher than the cost of operating YARTS-owned vehicles. Until recently, this cost was calculated by contracted vehicle-hour for the provision of services, but more recently, the cost is built into the fixed monthly cost. Either way, operating the non-YARTS vehicles incurs a higher cost. To further complicate the matter, YARTS is facing the following challenges:

• The YARTS-owned fleet is aging, with all the buses reach the end of their useful life benchmark within the next five years. 3

• California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations requires YARTS to move toward a zero- emission fleet, likely battery electric buses or hydrogen electric buses.

• Zero emission technologies require supporting infrastructure, such as electric charging stations or hydrogen fueling stations.

• The new technologies are expensive.

• The vehicle range of electric or fuel cell buses can be limiting, particularly in hot, frigid, or hilly environments.

• Installing supporting infrastructure, particularly in a National Park, may have environmental and/or physical challenges.

• Grant funding for buses and infrastructure is limited.

This chapter further discusses these challenges, focusing on the fleet requirements for replacement. The pros and cons of the various technologies will be explored.

YARTS FLEET

The YARTS fleet consists of ten high quality over-the-road coaches as shown in Table 15. Nine additional vehicles are provided by VIA. The vehicles are fueled with clean diesel and carry 49 passengers with 2 wheelchair securement positions. The vehicles were purchased between 2010 and 2015 and have a

3 The Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) is 12 years, or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 41 Table 15: YARTS Vehicle Fleet - Replacement Needs

Description1 Fuel Useful Life Benchmark 3 Bus ID Make / Model Year Mileage2 Type In Service By Date3 By Mileage 4 501 D4500 Commuter Coach 2010 491,695 Diesel 4/23/2010 4/20/2022 1/11/2021 502 MCI Intercity Coach 2012 448,239 Diesel 10/24/2011 10/21/2023 1/31/2022 503 MCI Intercity Coach 2012 430,992 Diesel 10/24/2011 10/21/2023 7/3/2022 504 MCI Intercity Coach 2012 455,443 Diesel 10/24/2011 10/21/2023 11/28/2021 505 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 456,582 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 11/18/2021 506 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 458,739 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 10/30/2021 507 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 454,599 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 12/6/2021 508 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 408,421 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 1/19/2023 509 MCI D4500 Bus 2015 313,554 Diesel 1/26/2015 1/23/2027 5/8/2025 510 MCI D4500 Bus 2015 348,025 Diesel 1/21/2015 1/18/2027 7/7/2024 Note 1: Each bus has 49 seats and 2 wheelchair tie-down positions; no bicycle racks; under-bus storage (luggage and large items), plus over-seat storage for carryons; restroom. Note 2: Mileage as of October 30, 2020. Note 3: The Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) is 12 years, or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first. Note 4: At an average of approximately 41,200 miles in use annually per vehicle (based on 2019), the lifespan is expected to reach expire by mileage rather than date. Source: YARTS

useful life benchmark of 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first. Due to the high mileage of YARTS routes, the vehicles are expected to expire based on mileage rather than age, with five expiring in the coming year, two more in 2022, and one each in the years 2023, 2024, and 2025.

YARTS Versus VIA Vehicle Use

As discussed above, costs incurred by YARTS services depends on whether a YARTS-owned bus is used or a bus provided by the service contractor. The need for the contractor to provide buses also has the potential to limit the pool of possible contractors. As a result, the proportion of service operated by YARTS versus VIA buses is an important factor. Table 16 presents a summary of vehicle-hours operated monthly in 2019 by bus type. Reflecting the fact that the current winter service plan requires less buses than the size of the YARTS fleet, in winter virtually 100 percent of service is operated using YARTS-owned buses. At the other extreme, in August almost half (49 percent) of total YARTS service was operated using VIA buses. By route, this data reflects that the 41-Fresno route is operated using contractor buses, while on the 120/Sonora and 395/Mammoth routes contractor buses are only used when necessary due to YARTS-owned buses being out of service. For the key 140-Merced Route, YARTS buses provide 84 percent of the service over the course of the whole year, but only 49 percent in the busiest month of August.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 42 Table 16: YARTS versus VIA Bus Use - Calendar Year 2019 140-Merced 120-Sonora 395-Mammoth 41-Fresno Combined Services YARTS YARTS YARTS YARTS YARTS YARTS VIA Bus VIA Bus VIA Bus VIA Bus VIA Bus Total VIA Bus Month Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Bus Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours January 964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 964 0 964 100% 0% February 773 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 773 0 773 100% 0% March 969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 969 0 969 100% 0% April 970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 970 0 970 100% 0% May 1,173 76 189 0 0 0 0 423 1,361 499 1,860 73% 27% June 1,088 273 585 0 0 0 0 756 1,673 1,029 2,702 62% 38% July 789 518 556 49 445 0 0 770 1,790 1,337 3,127 57% 43% August 693 714 543 55 409 40 0 778 1,644 1,587 3,231 51% 49% September 817 520 221 0 197 0 0 370 1,235 890 2,124 58% 42% October 807 24 0 0 226 0 0 0 1,033 24 1,057 98% 2% November 875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 875 0 875 100% 0% December 913 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 913 6 919 99% 1% Total 10,830 2,130 2,093 104 1,277 40 0 3,097 14,200 5,372 19,571 73% 27% % - Annual 84% 16% 95% 5% 97% 3% 0% 100% 73% 27% % - August 49% 51% 91% 9% 91% 9% 0% 100% 51% 49% Source: YARTS

MOVING TOWARD ZERO EMISSIONS

California Air Resource Board Regulations

In December 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) introduced the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation to replace the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. The ICT requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100-percent zero-emission bus fleet and encourages them to provide innovative first and last-mile connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders. This regulation also provides various exemptions and compliance options to provide safeguards and flexibility for transit agencies through this transition.

Beginning in 2029, 100 percent of new purchases by transit agencies must be Zero Emission Buses (ZEBs), with a goal for full transition by 2040. There are only two allowable ZEB technologies: Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) and hydrogen fuel cell buses. This role applies to all transit agencies that own, operate, or lease buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds (such as YARTSP). It includes standard, articulated, over-the-road, double‑decker, and cutaway buses.

Flexibility Options

Transit agencies may be able to take advantage of flexibility options to comply with the ZEB purchase requirements, including:

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 43 • Bonus credits for early ZEB purchases to recognize transit agencies that took more risks by early purchases of innovative technologies; credit is based on each early acquisition of a zero-emission bus per the schedule in the regulation.

• Zero-emission mobility options to encourage innovation in providing first- and last-mile connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders; and

• Formation of a joint ZEB group to allow transit agencies to work together to collectively comply with the ZEB purchase requirements.

Provisions for Exemptions of a ZEB Purchase

To ensure transit service is not adversely impacted, the regulation has exemptions for circumstances that are beyond a transit agency’s control. Providing that all required information is correct and complete, exemptions will be granted upon request under the following circumstances:

• When the needed ZEB type is not available; • When daily mileage needs cannot be met; • When gradeability needs cannot be met; • When incremental capital or electricity costs for depot-charging battery electric buses cannot be offset after applying for all available incentive and funding programs; • When there is a delay in infrastructure construction; or • When a transit agency declares a financial emergency.

Potential exemptions for YARTS need to be explored, but it is possible that YARTS circumstances may meet multiple conditions listed.

Zero Emissions Technology

As both BEBs and hydrogen fueled vehicles are increasingly added to public transit fleets, the opportunities and challenges associated with them are becoming clearer, though much has still to be learned and tested for both technologies. The two types of vehicles are discussed below, along with the required infrastructure, as well as the pros and cons, of each type.

Battery Electric Buses

There are three primary manufacturers of battery electric buses available in California: Proterra, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), and Build Your Dreams Co Ltd (BYD):

• Proterra battery-electric buses and battery packs are manufactured at a plant in Burlington, California. Proterra sells several types of all-electric transit vehicles, some of which are used within the region. Proterra buses are a part of the transit fleet in Fresno, Stockton, Modesto, as well as in Yosemite Valley (as part of the fleet providing the Yosemite Shuttle). Proterra's Catalyst series

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 44 includes transit buses ranging from 35 feet to 40 feet in length and various battery configurations. Buses are charged through an overhead charging station that is placed at maintenance facilities as well as at route terminals. Proterra has partnered with the Belgium firm Van Hool to develop an over-the-road battery-electric coach, which might be appropriate for YARTS services. This bus is soon to be on the market but is still in development, and the range is yet to be announced.

• MCI has two new all-electric models: the MCI J4500e CHARGE, and the MCI D45 CRTe LE CHARGE, due to be available in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

• BYD is a subsidiary of the Chinese company and operates out of Lancaster, California. BYD sells ten types of battery-electric buses, including 23-foot, 35-foot, 40-foot, and 45-foot motor coaches. BYD vehicles have Alternating Current (AC) technology, whereas Proterra has Direct Current (DC) technology—something to consider when installing charging stations.

Cost of Battery Electric

The initial outlay of a BEB is much higher than a diesel bus at approximately $920,000 compared to $650,000, with prices fluctuating based on supply and demand and technological advances. Furthermore, infrastructure for charging the vehicles can be a significant cost. Developing the infrastructure not only requires that the chargers be purchased and installed, but also that the grid for charging has the capacity to provide the energy. Quick charging can be done en route but requires more stations, while slow charging is typically done overnight. Maintenance costs, however, are significantly lower for electric vehicles than for diesel-fueled vehicles, reflecting the fewer moving parts.

Capability of Battery Electric

Beyond the issue of vehicle cost, a key factor regarding battery electric buses is the potential range between charges. Buses with a range of 120 – 150 miles have been available for several years, which limits the viability of the buses for YARTS routes. Some manufacturers have recently announced new technology that can operate up to 350 miles between charges. However, mileage claims by manufactures often do not reflect the requirements to also power onboard heating and cooling systems (particularly heating systems), or to operate on steep grades—an important consideration for YARTS services. YARTS routes range from 84 to 111 miles one way, and in summer, each bus operates an estimated average of between 175 to 228 miles.4 To be able to depend on BEBs, YARTS would have to carefully plan which routes (if any) could be served by the limited range, thereby complicating scheduling. Additionally, one of the factors which increases operating costs is the break-down of aging buses, and if a BEB cannot reliably operate on a route, this too would increase the operating cost for YARTS.

4 This is based on the average miles per day per route in July 2019, divided by the peak number of buses in service. Actual mileage by bus varied from this estimate.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 45 Charging Infrastructure for Battery Electric Buses

A ZEB fleet requires charging equipment. These can take the form of slow-charge stations at the vehicle storage facility (for charging overnight) or fast-charge facilities at an outlying location, which typically requires 10 minutes to provide sufficient charge for an hour’s operation. Identifying the appropriate charging strategy and location requires addressing several issues:

• Is there adequate space for charging equipment to be installed at a publicly owned facility in outlying locations such as somewhere in Yosemite Valley, Tuolumne, and/or Mammoth Lakes?

• Would fast-charging during the operating day be possible without delaying transit routes?

• Providing adequate charging capacity may require extensive upgrades in the electrical system both on-site as well as in nearby power substations and supply lines, such as an upgrade from a 240-volt service to a 480-volt service. What is the electrical supply available at potential locations, and what are the cost implications of any necessary system upgrades?

• For major power users (such as a transit system with full BEB fleets), electrical rates typically vary by load and by time of day. What are the long-term operating cost impacts of various charging scenarios?

These issues will need to continue to be explored before a vehicle acquisition strategy can be recommended. However, it should be noted that Yosemite National Park currently has two BEB chargers. Working with the Yosemite Conservancy and “Adopt-a-Charger” (a non-profit group), Yosemite National Park now has two Proterra 60 KW chargers and a 480-volt charging station. The chargers use DC charging (rather than AC). Aramark is currently using one installed at the ice rink site in Yosemite Valley to charge two Proterra buses in use for the Yosemite Shuttle. The other charger is in storage, with plans to install it near Yosemite Lodge once a small building has been installed (to reduce visual impact).

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses

Another option for zero emission buses is hydrogen fuel cell buses. Fuel cell vehicles still have batteries, but they are much smaller and lighter than those in battery electric vehicles. Because fuel cell vehicles store energy in the form of hydrogen, their batteries can be anywhere from 6 to 50 times smaller than a battery electric vehicle. The reduced battery weight can be particularly advantageous for vehicles that need a lot of power but also need to maximize their payload.

Fuel cell vehicles also have a fuel tank. Combined with the lighter battery, this energy system allows them to operate at longer ranges than battery electric vehicles because they store more energy at a higher density. Studies that focus on efficiency and well-to-wheel analyses find that fuel cell vehicles could be competitive at ranges over 250 miles. However, critically, fuel cell vehicles require significantly more fueling infrastructure than battery electric vehicles. While battery electric vehicles can potentially plug

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 46 directly into the existing electricity grid, fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen fuel that requires production, transportation, and storage. Fuel cell vehicles cost in the range of $1.2 million apiece.

Hydrogen Fuel Stations

Infrastructure is the costliest difference between fuel cell and battery electric vehicles because of the sheer number of stakeholders involved in the hydrogen fuel supply chain. There are efforts to grow the fuel cell vehicle market in California, but it depends on large government investments. Fueling infrastructure and hydrogen production costs comprise between 30-60 percent of total fuel cell vehicle deployment costs in 2020. Stations generally cost between $1-2 million, depending on geography. Station capacity generally ranges from 200 to 600 kg/day, enough to fill between 6 and 20 buses. In comparison, electric charging stations in Philadelphia cost roughly $1 million all-in for a fleet of 25 battery electric buses.5

The closest hydrogen fuel station to Merced is 90 miles away at Harrison Ranch in Coalinga. For hydrogen fuel cell to be practical, one or more stations would need to be built within the YARTS service area, preferably in Merced. Given the cost, building a station would likely need to be a multi-user endeavor.

YARTS Active Vehicle Acquisition Grant

In May 2019, YARTS submitted an FTA 5339 grant application to retrofit six buses as battery-electric, estimating the total cost to be $5.1 million. The $765,000 required for local match included $720,000 from the CalSTART HVIP (Hybrid Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Program), and $45,000 from the YARTS reserve fund. However, the $850,000 per-bus price was found to be inadequate, and MCAG has been negotiating with Caltrans to alter the grant to best support the YARTS program.

YARTS FACILITIES

YARTS does not own any administrative, maintenance, operations or fueling facilities, instead relying on the contractor or others to provide these. Currently (and since the inception of YARTS), the contractor (VIA) owns the maintenance and operations facility which houses drivers, mechanics, and administrative staff for day-to-day operations. Additionally, eight to ten of the YARTS buses are stored here. This site is located at 300 Grogan Avenue in Merced.

YARTS Vehicle Storage

As mentioned, YARTS-owned vehicles are stored at the VIA yard in Merced. However, when the Route 120 West and Route 120/395 East are operating, three vehicles are stored at the Black Oak Casino in Tuolumne and another two are parked overnight along the side of a road (the east side of Minaret Road

5 https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/08/25/op-ed-do-hydrogen-fuel-cell-buses-make-sense-for-cities/

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 47 just north of Forest Trail, at a shoulder chain-up area) in Mammoth Lakes. VIA-owned buses are stored in Merced and Fresno on VIA property.

Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County—Transit Facility

The Transit Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) of Merced County owns the maintenance and operations facility recently built at 1950 Wardrobe Avenue in Merced, California. The site is currently being used by First Transit under their contract to operate Merced’s “The Bus”. Should the VIA yard on Grogan no longer be available under a new contract, YARTS could potentially use the TJPA facility as well, though accommodating two contractors on one site is complicated and creates the potential for conflicts, particularly for shared maintenance space.

The Wardrobe Avenue site is approximately 65.4 acres and includes:

• A 99,000 sf (1650’x60’) shop building • A 52,500 sf (1050’x50’) operations building • A 3,000 sf (60’x50’) service building • A fenced yard behind the buildings with o 72 parking spaces for large buses, o 25 parking spaces for small buses, and o 16 parking spaces for additional vehicles • 97 parking spaces in front of the buildings composed of o 5 spots that are ADA accessible, o 3 spots that are for electric vehicles o 8 spots that are for clean air vehicles and, o 81 for additional vehicles • A bus wash • Two above-ground fuel tanks and fuel dispensers

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 48 Chapter 5 FUNDING HISTORY AND OPPORTUNITIES

YARTS FUNDING SOURCES

YARTS has historically used a combination of federal, state, and local funding for operations and capital revenues for the transit program. This chapter provides a review of the past use of revenues for YARTS, as well as an overview of the status of funding programs, and projections for future availability of such programs (to the extent possible). Recent events, such as wildfires and the Coronavirus pandemic, have emphasized the need for YARTS to be responsive to outside impacts, and to provide services within a sustainable funding framework. To do so, it will be important to address urgent capital equipment needs, while identifying a sustainable level of operating funds.

YARTS Income and Expenses

Due to separate agreements with MCAG and Fresno County, two budgets are included in review: one for SRs 140, 120, 120/395 (Merced Contract budget) and one for SR 41 (Fresno Contract budget). Table 17 depicts the expenses for Merced for the last three years, the current year and projected for the upcoming year. The past and current budgets indicate the following:

• Operating costs range from $2.43 million in 2018 – 19 (a year when Yosemite National Park was closed for over a month during peak summer season due to the Ferguson Fire) to $3.16 million projected for the current fiscal year (FY21).

• Not including planning expenses, the contract costs are consistently between 61 to 70 percent of the overall operating expense, and the MCAG administrative costs are consistently 7 to 15 percent of the operating expense.

• Overall expenses, not including planning costs, decreased by 25 percent in FY19, increased by 14 percent the next year, with an expected increase in the adopted budget for FY21 showing another increase of 23 percent. This swing in operating costs indicates a pressing need to maintain an operating reserve.6

Table 18 shows the revenue for the Merced contract with over a dozen sources in each year. The main stays of funding include Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311(f) funds for intercity service, National Park Service contributions, and Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from the counties of the JPA as well as fare revenues. These funding sources will be discussed in greater detail in this chapter.

6 YARTS maintains a monetary reserve which is potentially available for either capital or operating costs.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 49 Table 17: YARTS Expenses by Year - Merced Contract

Actual Actual Actual Adopted Projected 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Operating Expenses Professional Service-YARTS NPS Special $8,850 $0 $0 $0 $0

Marketing, CMAQ1 $160,466 $100,223 $95,596 $200,000 $200,000 Professional Service-Contracts $2,044,048 $1,599,903 $1,615,438 $1,931,353 $1,931,353

Professional Service-Fuel $0 $300,829 $272,979 $430,000 $430,000

Prof Service-MCAG Administration $277,865 $170,930 $293,205 $465,506 $479,471

Prof Service-MCAG Other $59,733 $27,052 $0 $0 $0

Professional Services-Betterz $0 $0 $0 $18,000 $18,000

Audit fees $0 $12,319 $4,000 $8,000 $8,000

FEMA/CALOES2 $329,760 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legal Services & Other Services $0 $6,500 $11,050 $8,423 $9,000

Utilities $3,118 $2,764 $2,018 $8,505 $8,760

Communication $0 $5,606 $5,893 $6,000 $6,180

Insurance - General Liability $12,874 $13,999 $12,867 $13,500 $13,905

Membership $614 $644 $674 $0 $700

Training $4,576 $7,215 $12,800 $4,725 $6,000

Office Expense/ Admin/Event, Misc. expenses $4,843 $6,157 $6,711 $7,975 $8,214

Short Range Transit Plans $91,316 $106,145 $0 $0 $0

Rent & Lease - Structure & Equipment $3,550 $3,760 $5,217 $16,558 $17,055

YARTS-Maint . Mariposa Park & Ride $26,076 $15,391 $11,671 $15,000 $15,000

CA FLAP Program (free fares) $35,869 $55,000 $33,000 $16,500 $16,500

COVID-19 $0 $0 $246,479 $0 $0

Working Reserve $0 $0 $0 $775 $0

Total Operating Expenses 3 $3,063,559 $2,434,436 $2,629,596 $3,150,820 $3,168,138

Capital Expenses Capital Improvement $0 $19,964 $0 $15,800 TBD

Farebox Purchase $0 -- $0 $15,800 TBD

Bus Purchase $0 -- $0 $4,353,000 TBD

Total Capital Expenses $0 $19,964 $0 $4,384,600 TBD

Note 1: Marketing became the CMAQ fund in FY 19. Note 3: Rent & Lease Structure, Transpo, Equipment Note 2: Repair of Mariposa PNR sinkhole. Note 3: Does not include depreciation Source: Actual/budgeted expenses and revenues per YARTS. Projections by LSC

Table 19 shows the expenses and revenues for the Fresno Contract. Because Fresno County is not part of the JPA, these costs are negotiated separately. Expenses are primarily for the contract operations, fuel,

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 50 Table 18: YARTS Revenues - Merced Contract Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Projected 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Operating Revenues 5311(f) Operating $212,685 $292,501 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 5311(f) Planning (SRTP) $32,855 $67,145 ------F E CMAQ-Merced $143,657 $104,337 $90,109 $200,000 $200,000 D Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) $55,000 $55,000 $33,000 $16,500 $16,500 E R FEMA/CALOES $331,091 ------A National Park Service $345,000 $345,000 $376,625 $376,625 $376,625 L National Park Service - Special Project, Marketing $627,000 $603,000 $824,288 $827,163 $827,163 CARES Act Funding ------$326,779 -- Local Transportation Funds (LTF) - Merced $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 S Mariposa County $191,482 $191,000 $191,000 $190,000 $190,000 T A Mono County $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 T State Transit Assistance (STA) $66,834 $40,405 $105,394 $34,278 $34,278 E Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) $0 $33,038 $13,673 $28,775 $28,775 Farebox Revenue $533,158 $408,967 $356,693 $266,301 $311,500 Greyhound - Merced $3,474 $6,980 $12,105 $0 $0 L Interest & Other Income -General Ops $8,354 $25,660 $36,547 $11,000 $11,000 O C Amtrak $361,655 $360,562 $274,739 $263,000 $263,000 A Other Revenue (YARTS owned buses and Passes) $0 $25,833 $182 $0 $0 L County Short Range Transit Plans $77,848 $4,868 ------Fresno Staffing Service -- -- $25,000 $25,000 Total Operating Revenues $3,325,093 $2,899,296 $2,954,355 $3,205,421 $2,923,841

Capital Revenues State of Good Repair -- $8,986 -- $17,421 TBD Capital from Fresno ------$26,341 TBD Farebox LCTOP ------$15,800 TBD Farebox - for Capital Improvement ------$14,200 TBD Bus and Bus Facilities FTA 5539(b) ------$4,353,000 TBD Greyhound - Merced ------TBD Total Capital Revenues $0 $8,986 $0 $4,426,762

Total Revenues $3,325,093 $2,908,282 $2,954,355 $7,632,183 $2,923,841 Source: Actual/budgeted per YARTS. Projections by LSC and MCAG administration. While fuel costs are not part of the contract, some years they were reported together. As of FY21, MCAG has added a continency and capital expense cost to cover administrative and capital costs and plans to continue this practice.

Revenues for Fresno include fares, National Park contributions, and contributions by the Fresno Council of Governments (COG). Table 20 shows a summary of the operating costs and revenues for the Merced

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 51 Table 19: YARTS Expenses and Revenue by Year - Fresno Contract Actual Actual Actual Adopted Projected 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Operating Expenses Professional Service-Contracts $800,000 $518,726 $475,961 $478,830 $478,830

Prof Service-MCAG Administration $40,000 $2,149 $36,745 $25,000 $25,000

Prof Service-MCAG Administration-Branding, Media $50,000 -- -- $15,000 $15,000

Short Range Transit Plan -- $4,868 ------

Professional Service-Fuel -- $70,368 -- $70,000 $72,100

Contingency 5% + 5% Capital Expense ------$47,883 $47,883

Total Operating Expenses $890,000 $596,111 $512,706 $636,713 $638,813

Operating Revenues Total Farebox - Fresno $59,629 $62,809 $59,316 $55,000 $55,000

Amtrak-Fresno $5,000 $2,748 $902 $4,200 $4,200

National Park Service-Fresno $345,000 $345,000 $290,625 $200,000 $200,000

Greyhound - Fresno -- $4,017 $2,638 $4,000 $4,000

Fresno COG $480,371 $177,414 $158,731 $373,513 $373,513

Total Operating Revenues $890,000 $591,989 $512,212 $636,713 $636,713 Source: Actual/budgeted per YARTS. Projections by LSC

Table 20: YARTS Total Operating Expenses and Revenue by Year Actual Actual Actual Adopted Projected 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Operating Expenses Merced Operating Expenses $3,063,559 $2,434,436 $2,629,596 $3,150,820 $3,168,138

Fresno Operating Expenses $890,000 $596,111 $512,706 $636,713 $638,813

Total YARTS Operating Expenses $3,953,559 $3,030,547 $3,142,302 $3,787,532 $3,806,951

Operating Revenues Merced Operating Revenues $3,325,093 $2,434,436 $2,629,596 $3,150,820 $3,168,138

Fresno Operating Revenues $890,000 $591,989 $512,212 $636,713 $636,713

Total Operating Revenues $4,215,093 $3,026,425 $3,141,809 $3,787,532 $3,804,851

Net Income (Loss) $26,560 ($4,122) ($493) $0 ($2,100) Source: Actual/budgeted per YARTS. Projections by LSC and Fresno contracts, and the combined total for the past five years. Costs varied by as much as 30 percent or $1.18 million.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 52 Budget Projections

Tables 18 through 20 also show the actual and adopted budgets (as provided by MCAG staff) and include projections for the 2021 – 22 fiscal year. The projections are based on recent trends, the revised MCAG- VIA contract, and an inflation rate of 3 percent for items such as fuel and labor. Given these assumptions, YARTS appears to be financially sound for the time being. However, several major factors could impact future costs and revenues.

Expense Variables

• The service plan, including level of service, location of service and distribution of hours by season

• The VIA contract will expire in two years. The price of new contract will depend on several key factors, including:

o Whether the contractor uses YARTS buses or must provide additional vehicles o Whether YARTS or the contractor provides a maintenance and operations site o The amount of dead head required in the service plan, as well as the need to house vehicles and staff at off-site locations.

• Administrative expenses—MCAG has on occasion absorbed the administrative costs on behalf of YARTS when YARTS revenues were low. The administrative costs should be better identified, which may impact the cost, but also should improve predictability.

Revenue Variables

• Yosemite National Park generates funds for YARTS through a portion of entrance fees (approximately $2.00 per single vehicle). With changes in visitation to the park, this may eventually affect revenues available to YARTS.

• The National Park provides funding based on an assumed level of service. If this is greatly reduced, this may also impact the level of funding received for YARTS.

• Farebox revenues have been decreasing.

• Tuolumne County is joining the JPA, which should stabilize their contribution to YARTS operations

• CARES Act funding—already received, with a potential for a second round of funds—is a short- term source of revenue but may help address capital needs.

• LTF monies are tied to sales tax revenue, specifically a quarter-cent sales tax collected statewide and returned to the county of collection (minus a state collection fee). As discussed further below, reductions in retail sales could result in parallel changes in LTF funding.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 53 Taxable Sales Trends as an Indicator of Local Transportation Fund

As of this writing, forecasts of LFT revenues by the participating counties are not available. However, State Department of Finance data for the quarter including April to June of 2020 is a useful indication of how COVID-19 is impacting taxable sales and thus LTF sales tax income. Retail sales are shown in Table 21 for the second quarter of the last three years for regional counties, and for the State of California as a comparison. The trend shows the area is doing better than California as a whole. Tuolumne County actually showed an increase in taxable retail sales in 2020. However, both Mono Mariposa and Mono Counties, which contribute LTF to YARTS, had large drops in taxable sales from previous years—down 41.2 percent in Mariposa and 31.0 percent in Mono County. The reduction in retail sales, if long term, may impact Mariposa and Mono Counties’ ability to contribute LTF to YARTS. Merced County, which contributes the highest proportion of LTF, had a 7.7 percent decrease in taxable sales in 2020. In comparison, Fresno County had a relatively small reduction of 3.0 percent.

Table 21: Countywide Retail Sales Trends in YARTS Service Area % Change Second Quarter (Apr-Jun) Total Taxable Sales 2018 to 2019 to County/Area 2018 2019 2020 2019 2020 Fresno County $3,929,687,664 $4,135,071,158 $4,011,156,443 5.2% -3.0% Madera County $442,946,407 $464,141,843 $475,302,798 4.8% 2.4% Mariposa County * $58,769,973 $61,341,480 $36,069,855 4.4% -41.2% Merced County * $807,968,313 $887,904,896 $819,341,360 9.9% -7.7% Mono County * $65,011,144 $69,760,855 $48,128,753 7.3% -31.0% Tuolumne County $187,852,799 $197,661,926 $204,009,376 5.2% 3.2% YARTS JPA Area $931,749,430 $1,019,007,231 $903,539,968 9.4% -11.3% Statewide Total $176,223,785,852 $184,616,986,601 $152,362,296,481 4.8% -17.5% * = Included in the YARTS JPA Area Source: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/charts.htm?url=TaxSalesByCounty, accessed 11/4/20

FEDERAL SOURCES OF REVENUE

Federal funding accounted for 40 to 64 percent of operating revenues over the past four fiscal years, in increasing proportions. Federal sources of funding YARTS relies on are described below.

FTA 5311(f) Grant Funding

The FTA Section 5311 formula funding program provides supplemental funding for public transit service in non-urbanized areas which have populations of fewer than 50,000 residents, as quantified by the United States Census Bureau. The FTA apportions formula funds to each state on an annual basis. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail and Mass Transportation (DRMT) is the designated grantee for California. The DRMT Rural Transit and Intercity Bus Branch manages the 5311 and 5311(f) programs. 5311 funding is apportioned as follows: YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 54 • 75 percent Regional Apportionment—This funding share is apportioned to non-urban areas based on the size of the rural population. This apportionment is distributed to Transportation Planning Agencies (TPA) whose county or region contains a non-urbanized area. The TPA submits a Program of Projects that identifies subrecipients and projects to receive Section 5311 funds in their planning area. This must be completed by December 31st of each year. Additionally, subrecipients must complete and submit a Section 5311 Program Application and all other required submittals by the appropriate deadline.

• 15 percent Intercity Bus Program—This funding share is apportioned to the Rural Intercity Bus Program (known as FTA 5311(f)).

• 10 percent State Administrative Expenses—This funding share is apportioned to State Transportation Agencies to fund the administration of the 5311 & 5311(f) grant programs.

YARTS relies on FTA Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program grant funding for operations, receiving $222,000 in FY 2018 and 2019, and expecting $300,000 in FY 2020. This is a reliable funding source. Changes to the allocation occur when additional services qualify for the intercity funds.

YARTS also relies on 5311(f) regional apportionments to fund Short-Range Transit Plans, which are required every five years.

FTA 5339 Grant Funding

The FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities program provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment as well as to construct bus-related facilities. FTA apportions a discretionary component and a small urban (population 50,000 to 200,000) formula component to governors of each State annually. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the designated recipient FTA 5339 program funds for small urban and rural areas of the State and distributes funds to eligible sub-recipients (public agencies and private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation).

YARTS applied for and was awarded a $4.3 million FTA 5339 grant for the purchase of buses in FY19. The original grant included the purchase of six electric buses. An electric bus (Proterra) was test-driven in January 2019 and determined to function adequately. However, the vehicle was not fully loaded and not all factors were considered (such as the potential for one of the six-pack batteries to fail). Additionally, the cost of the six buses were significantly underestimated, and perhaps most significantly, the infrastructure for charging the buses is not yet in place. YARTS is in discussions with Caltrans to revise the grant.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—Merced

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program funds transportation as part of the effort to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. CMAQ has been reauthorized under every

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 55 successive Transportation Bill up to and including the FAST Act in 2015. The FAST Act provides funding to areas in nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide, and/or particulate matter. In addition, those States that have no nonattainment or maintenance areas still receive a minimum apportionment of CMAQ funding for either air quality projects or other elements of flexible federal aid highway spending. The City of Merced is a nonattainment area and allocates a portion of its CMAQ funds to YARTS. The CMAQ funds are used for marketing purposes and is shown as an expense in Table18. The revenues have ranged from $90,000 to $200,000 annually.

National Park Service

The U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (NPS) provides funding to YARTS as described in the Cooperative Agreement in Chapter 2. A set-aside of $5.00 per $35.00 entrance fee is earmarked for transportation, with approximately $2.00 per single-vehicle entrance designated for the Mariposa Grove Shuttle and $3.00 per single-vehicle entrance set aside for YARTS. Furthermore, the NPS pays an annual lump fee to cover basic operations and administrative costs, and then a negotiated rate based on the amount of service provided. The base contribution was $345,000 in FY18 and FY19, increasing to $376,625 in FY20, and $379,500 in FY21. The additional contribution was $581,000 in FY18, $603,000 in FY19, and $824,288 for FY20 and FY21. While there is a deal of uncertainty related to visitation and entrance fees, there are no indications that funding will be cut soon.

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)

The Federal Lands Access Program (Access Program) was established to improve transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands. The Access Program supplements State and local resources for public roads, transit systems, and other transportation facilities, with an emphasis on high-use recreation sites and economic generators. YARTS is eligible for the funds as it serves Yosemite National Park.

The Access Program is funded by contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund and subject to obligation limitation. Funds are allocated among the States using a statutory formula based on road mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation.

Projects are selected by a Programming Decision Committee (PDC) established in each State. The PDCs request project applications through a call for projects. The frequency of the calls is established by the PDCs. The grant requires a 11.47 percent local match. The allocation for California is approximately $30 million annually, with the bulk going for road construction projects.

YARTS received $50,130 in FY 2018, $50,130 in FY 2019, and is anticipating $16,500 in FY 2020. YARTS uses FLAP revenues to fund free fares and/or kids’ fares. This funding source should be explored for other potential uses, such as facilities.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 56 Great American Outdoor Act

The Great American Outdoors Act, signed into law on August 4, 2020, provides up to $1.9 billion annually for each of five years for the National Parks and Public Lands Restoration Fund. This will be generated by energy development fees and be used for infrastructure and maintenance of facilities on Federal recreation lands (National Parks, National Forests, wildlife refuges and recreation areas) as well as for American Indian schools. It also commits approximately $900 million per year in oil and gas royalties to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The key focus of funding for National Parks is on addressing deferred maintenance. The US Department of the Interior has already made funding decisions. For Yosemite, the selected projects include campground improvements, rehabilitation of Glacier Park Road, and improvements to an electrical transmission line. Nationwide, no projects involve transit buses or bus facilities. This funding program overall has a low potential to address YARTS capital needs.

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was a response to the Coronavirus pandemic and included funding for transit programs. This was a one-time, emergency funding source. YARTS received $326,779 in CARES funds, $246,479 of which was spent in FY 2020, with $80,300 remaining. The CARES funds were paid to VIA to offset loss of revenues due to park closures. A subsequent amount of $654,000 has been provided, which will help to continue to offset losses due to closures. A second Covid-19 Relief Bill has been approved by Congress, which includes $14 billion for mass transit agencies. The funds will be available for operating and capital projects, and some grants may require a local match.

STATE SOURCES OF REVENUE

The Transportation Development Act (TDA) was enacted by the California Legislature to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. This law provides funding to be allocated to transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans.

TDA established two funding sources: The Local Transportation Fund (LTF), and the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund. Providing certain conditions are met, counties with a population under 500,000 (according to the 1970 federal census) may also use the LTF for local streets and roads, construction, and maintenance. The STA funding can only be used for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes.

Local Transportation Funds (LTF)

As also discussed above, Local Transportation Fund (LTF) is derived from a quarter-cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The State Board of Equalization, based on sales tax collected in each county,

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 57 returns the general sales tax revenues to each county’s LTF. Each county then apportions the LTF funds within the county based on population.

Merced County LTF

Merced County allocates $300,000 annually for operations of the YARTS program. As mentioned, Merced taxable sales are down 7.7 percent in 2020 over the prior year.

Mono County LTF

Mono County contributed $35,000 in LTF in FY18 and FY19, increased to $40,000 for FY20 and FY21. Mono County taxable sales have declined by 31 percent in 2020 over the year prior.

Mariposa County LTF

Mariposa County contributed $191,000 in LTF in FY18, FY19, and FY20, and $190,000 in FY21. Mariposa County relies heavily on tourism, and taxable sales dropped by 41.2 percent in the early half of 2020 compared to 2019.

State Transit Assistance

State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are appropriated by the legislature to the State Controller’s Office (SCO). The SCO then allocates the tax revenue, by formula, to planning agencies and other selected agencies. Statue requires that 50 percent of STA funds be allocated according to population and 50 percent be allocated according to transit operator revenues from the prior fiscal year. This funding source is less stable than LTF funds and has ranged from a low of $23,000 in FY18 to a high of $105,000 in FY20. Because of the unpredictability, it is best use for more discretionary purposes.

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)

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 as well as 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. As such, YARTS has used the funds to provide free fares. YARTS has received between $13,673 and $33,038 in LCTOP revenues the past several years.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 58 LOCAL SOURCES OF REVENUE

Local funds have provided 19 to 34 percent of the operating revenues over the past four fiscal years, in decreasing proportions each year. Local sources of revenue are described below.

Farebox Revenue

Farebox revenues are an important source of revenue as they represent the users’ direct contribution to the service. The YARTS fare structure was presented in Chapter 3 and Tables 8 through 12. Farebox revenues have provided between 12 to 17 percent of the operating revenue (not including Greyhound and Amtrak revenues, which contribute to the farebox revenue). Farebox revenue is budgeted to bring in $266,301 in the current fiscal year, which is nine percent of the operating revenues. Due to coronavirus, services have been offered with reduced or free fares for much of the season.

Greyhound Merced/Fresno

Greyhound services interline with YARTS in Merced and Fresno, allowing passengers to book a Greyhound trip from San Francisco, Visalia, or Bakersfield all the way through to Yosemite. The passenger is quoted and pays one fare, but a portion of the fare is paid to Greyhound and a portion to YARTS. As shown in Table 18, this generated between $1,000 to $12,105 in the past several fiscal years, but due to service cuts, Greyhound is no longer generating fares in Merced. As shown in Table 19, $4,017 was generated on Fresno Greyhound in FY19, $2,638 in FY20, with $4,000 projected for FY21.

Amtrak

Like Greyhound, YARTS passengers can book rail tickets with connections to YARTS to continue on to Yosemite or other YARTS destinations. Additionally, Amtrak has a contract with YARTS to maintain a minimum level of service to meet passenger rail services in both Merced and Fresno to provide this service.

Amtrak revenues for Merced ranged from a high of $363,000 in FY18, to $274,739 in FY20, with the budgeted amount at $263,000 for FY21. In Fresno, Amtrak fares generated between $902 in FY20 (due to COVID-19) and $5,000 in FY18.

Fresno Staffing Service

The Fresno staffing service revenues shown in Table 18 are reimbursement funds to cover MCAG’s costs when they work on the Highway 41 service issues on behalf of the Fresno COG.

Interest and Other Income

Interest and other miscellaneous income ranged from $5,000 in FY18 to $36,547 in FY20. The miscellaneous income is generated by interest on funds and sales of passes.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 59 SUMMARY—THE FUTURE FUNDING OF YARTS

YARTS operations and funding are complex due to multiple contracts and obligations, and the multi- jurisdictional service area. Over time, YARTS has developed a sound institutional structure and operational plan—though both continue to evolve and respond to continual challenges. This Strategy Study seeks to use the lessons learned through the institutional, operational, and funding histories to create a flexible and sustainable transit program to meet the goals set forth in the JPA bylaws. While YARTS has secured the necessary funds for operations over the years, the crux of addressing funding issues is to ensure that service plans do not result in costs that exceed available revenues. There also is the possible need to reserve a portion of local funds to build a capital local match reserve fund.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 60 Chapter 6 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR YARTS

INTRODUCTION

Based upon the data and issues presented in previous chapters of this document, and working closely with MCAG staff, the AAC, and the JPA Board, the recommendations presented in this Chapter have been developed. The strategies are intended to address the following key near‐ term issues facing YARTS:

• The very important issue of replacing the aging existing YARTS‐owned fleet.

• The beneficial need to expand the YARTS‐owned fleet to avoid the need for contractor‐ provided vehicles.

• Issues with shifting to a battery electric bus fleet in the immediate future.

• Changes in ridership patterns and connecting Amtrak San Joaquins service that impact the optimal service plan.

• Assuring sustainable funding not only for operations but also for ongoing administration and capital needs.

Furthermore, an overall goal of this study is to define a scope of work for the Request For Proposals (RFP) that will guide the selection of a contractor at the end of the current service contract in November 2022, as well as maximize the potential for a competitive bid process. A draft RFP should be developed by the Summer of 2021 in order to provide potential bidders with an opportunity to observe YARTS service in full operation.

In short, this plan would reduce services in order to generate the local funds (within existing available local resources) to replace the aging YARTS‐owned fleet and expand it to reduce long‐term operating costs. This chapter first presents service recommendations with a focus on reductions in service to generate local match funding. Next, capital recommendations are presented, followed by financial and institutional strategies. This plan also reflects the recent decision to end funding provided through Fresno Council of Governments at the end of the Summer of 2022 operating season, which in turn will impact the 41 Route.

SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following presents recommended service modifications to all routes. Table 22 presents a summary of the recommended service modifications, while Table 23 presents details of the analysis. It should be noted that the cost estimates are based on the current contracted cost of $57.89 per revenue hour, plus

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 61 -- -- -73% -28% -24% -23% -14% -14% -15% Hours Vehicle- From 2019 -- -- -4% -9% -32% -18% -11% -10% -13% Percent Change Change Percent Ridership -- -- 3,097 2,197 1,318 Hours 19,671 19,671 13,060 16,574 Vehicle- 2019 Total -- -- 8,636 6,279 91,355 91,355 16,135 60,305 82,719 Ridership 0 0 0 2 -1 -4 -2 -3 -1 -1 -1 Operation Peak Buses inPeak 831 -507 -387 -190 Hours -2,267 -5,600 -4,769 -3,097 -1,419 -1,806 -2,503 Vehicle- -700 -830 5,900 -2,736 -8,636 -1,700 -4,500 -6,200 -7,730 -16,366 -10,466 Ridership Plan ElementPlan Annual Impact Subsidy $88,600 -$90,000 -$52,800 -$36,800 -$17,800 Change in in Change -$426,700 -$338,100 -$178,600 -$140,700 -$177,500 -$248,100 Operating Cost -$56,400 -$22,100 -$45,500 $127,000 -$101,100 -$516,000 -$389,000 -$228,100 -$163,900 -$209,400 -$287,900 in Operating Total ChangeTotal Cost Fixed -$6,100 $63,000 -$37,100 -$16,400 -$12,500 -$45,900 -$58,400 -$80,900 -$181,000 -$118,000 -$100,100 Change in in Change Operating g g Cost $64,000 -$64,000 -$40,000 -$33,000 -$16,000 Marginal Marginal -$335,000 -$271,000 -$128,000 -$118,000 -$151,000 -$207,000 Operating Net Change Plan ElementPlan

Excludes Consideration of 41 Route Eliminate Service All Initiate Oakhurst-Valley Service Also Reflecting Elimination of Fresno Participation and Recommended Oakhurst-Valley Service Year-Round 2, Run Drop Year-Round 8, and 1 Runs Drop Total -- Groveland to Day per Runs 2 Reduce Valley 15 September After Service Eliminate 41 140 120 395 Route Route Route Route TOTAL 3 Routes - Service Table 22: Recommended Service Reduction Plan to Generate Local Capital Match Funding Match Capital Local Generate to Plan Reduction Service Recommended 22: Table TOTAL 4 Routes -- If 41 Route Eliminated TOTAL 4 Routes -- With Oakhurst-Valley Svc

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 62 Psgr $9.91 $9.77 $7.43 $8.60 $4.34 $27.15 $52.00 $49.45 $22.80 $11.89 $14.29 $14.08 $15.00 $32.25 $41.67 $13.64 $13.17 $22.00 $27.44 $14.10 $36.29 $18.26 $16.42 $21.07 Marginal Subsidy / Operating 2.7 1.4 1.4 3.1 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.2 5.5 2.1 1.9 4.3 4.3 3.2 5.4 6.9 2.5 4.4 2.0 3.5 6.0 3.8 7.1 3.2 VSH Psgr-Trip / -$5,700 -$6,300 -$6,000 Subsidy $25,600 -$35,300 -$36,400 -$54,400 -$24,300 -$18,300 -$12,900 -$12,500 -$34,100 -$15,800 -$15,400 -$45,900 -$34,900 -$11,800 -$11,700 -$25,400 -$69,400 -$80,800 -$31,200 -$94,800 Marginal -$112,000 Operating

-$6,700 -$3,600 -$5,600 -$1,300 -$2,700 -$8,700 -$6,700 -$2,000 -$2,100 -$1,500 -$6,200 -$3,600 -$2,200 -$4,300 -$3,600 -$9,800 $38,400 Farebox -$12,900 -$24,100 -$24,100 -$19,600 -$48,200 -$58,000 -$23,200 Revenue -700 -250 -530 -400 -400 -300 -700 -430 -830 -700 5,900 -1,300 -2,500 -4,700 -4,700 -1,100 -1,700 -3,800 -9,400 -1,300 -1,200 -1,900 -4,500 -11,300 Ridership 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 Change in Peak Buses -$7,000 -$9,000 -$8,000 $64,000 -$42,000 -$47,000 -$70,000 -$59,000 -$40,000 -$60,000 -$33,000 -$29,000 -$89,000 -$41,000 -$25,000 -$15,000 -$14,000 -$22,000 -$19,000 -$14,000 -$16,000 -$129,000 -$118,000 -$170,000 Annual Marginal Operating Cost Miles 9,888 9,888 -9,945 -5,481 -5,481 -7,656 -7,656 -4,536 -2,420 -3,300 -5,720 -3,213 19,776 -16,965 -16,965 -23,751 -23,751 -13,024 -19,536 -13,158 -10,962 -33,930 -15,312 -47,502 -44,892 -62,814 Annual -80 -95 398 433 831 -293 -189 -488 -158 -585 -282 -220 -874 -683 -387 -347 -502 -176 -507 -760 -110 -190 Hours -1,073 -1,419 -1,556 -2,058 -9 63 63 63 88 88 -11 -15 -26 195 195 103 195 273 273 103 88.00 88.00 Days/Yr 2 2 4 6 6 1 1 1 Daily Service -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Runs 51 51 87 87 48 87 87 87 87 87 87 84 48 -37 -37 220 220 220 Miles 3 3 1-Way Run Parameters 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3.2 2.5 3.2 2.5 7.3 7.3 7.3 2.1 1.9 3.25 -1.44 -1.44 Hours 2 2 1 8 1 8 7 7 14 14 Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Route Inbound Outbound Total Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Year RoundYear RoundYear to Mid-Sept. Non-Summer Summer - June 1 Drop RunDrop 2 Drop RunsDrop 1 and 8 Drop RunsDrop 7 and 14 Table 23: YARTS Alternative Service Reductions Analysis Reductions Service Alternative YARTS 23: Table ROUTE 140 Route 120 Route 395/120 East Oakhurst - Valley Service Reduce 2 Runs Day per to Groveland -- Valley Reduce 3 Runs Day per to Groveland -- Valley Eliminate Service After Labor Day Eliminate October Service svc 15-30 Sept Eliminate Eliminate Service After September 15

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 63 a fuel cost of $0.80 per mile (which is not included in the contract). Additionally, because we are recommending service reductions of approximately 24 percent, it is reasonable to assume the overhead costs under a new contract will be reduced by half this amount (12 percent), or an additional $32.31 per service hour. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that reduction in services results in a cost savings of $90.20 per hour and $0.80 per mile. Table 23 shows these impacts as the change in the marginal operating cost, plus the change in the fixed operating cost.

Analysis of 140 Route Modifications

The existing utilization of buses over the course of a summer day is important in defining which service options can reduce the number of buses needed to operate YARTS service. This is a straightforward process for the 120 Route (as all three routes are in operation at once) and the 395/120 Route (with both buses in operation at once). Table 24 shows the vehicle utilization over the course of a day for the 140 Route. As shown, six buses are in operation (including layover time in the Valley and deadhead time) over much of the day, with a peak of seven buses in the 10 AM hour.

The focus of reductions on the 140 Route is a reduction in the number of daily runs. In assessing the best way to accomplish this, the individual runs were reviewed. Some runs are needed to meet key train connection times in Merced, specifically eastbound departures from Merced at 10:30 AM and 5:45 PM and westbound departures from YNP at 8:15 AM and 4:35 PM. Other runs also need to be operated to position buses for these Amtrak connection runs. Note that this analysis is based on the pre-COVID-19 schedule and ridership levels, though the current run numbering system is used.

Eliminate Run 2

Run 2 currently starts in Midpines at 5:54 AM on weekdays (year-round). The bus is deadheaded up from Merced to start the run. Even before COVID-19 in 2019, ridership on this route was low at 5.1 passengers per day in July, 5.2 in September and 3.4 in January. In 2020, ridership dropped to 0.9 riders per day in July and only 0.4 in September.

Eliminating this run would reduce annual marginal operating costs by a total of $33,000 per year—$8,000 in the summer operating season and $25,000 in the remainder of the year, as shown in Table 23. Assuming that ridership would return to pre-pandemic levels and that half of the reduction in riders on this run would also result in a lost rider on the return trip, a total of 1,700 passenger-trips per year would be lost (400 in the summer season and 1,300 in the remainder of the year). Considering the loss in revenue, this would generate a subsidy savings of $24,300 per year. The cut in service would reduce ridership by 4.4 passengers for every hour of reduced service and save roughly $14.29 in marginal subsidy for every passenger-trip lost. Note that the service cut does not reduce the peak number of buses needed to operate YARTS 140 Route service as this peak occurs later in the summer operating day.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 64 Table 24: Existing Buses Required In Service by Time of Day -- 140 Summer Schedule

Run Pairs # of Buses in Period Start Time 2 Solo 1 & 4 3 & 6 5 & 8 7 & 10 9 & 14 11 & 12 13 & 16 15 & 18 Operation 4:45 AM 1 5:00 AM Deadhead Merced 2 5:15 AM From Merced 2 5:30 AM Merced 3 5:45 AM Midpines 3 6:00 AM Merced 4 6:15 AM 4 6:30 AM 4 6:45 AM Merced 5 7:00 AM 5 7:15 AM Merced YNP 5 7:30 AM 4 7:45 AM 4 8:00 AM YNP 5 8:15 AM YNP Deadhead 5 8:30 AM From Merced 5 8:45 AM YNP Mariposa Merced 6 9:00 AM 6 9:15 AM 6 9:30 AM 6 9:45 AM YNP 6 10:00 AM 6 10:15 AM 6 10:30 AM YNP Merced 7 10:45 AM 7 11:00 AM Merced 7 11:15 AM 6 11:30 AM 6 11:45 AM YNP 6 12:00 PM 6 12:15 PM 6 12:30 PM 6 12:45 PM 6 1:00 PM 6 1:15 PM 6 1:30 PM YNP 6 1:45 PM 6 2:00 PM 6 2:15 PM 6 2:30 PM YNP 6 2:45 PM 6 3:00 PM 6 3:15 PM YNP 6 3:30 PM 6 3:45 PM 6 4:00 PM 6 4:15 PM YNP 6 4:30 PM YNP 6 4:45 PM 6 5:00 PM 6 5:15 PM YNP 6 5:30 PM Merced 6 5:45 PM Merced Merced 6 6:00 PM YNP 5 6:15 PM 5 6:30 PM 5 6:45 PM Merced Mariposa 5 7:00 PM 4 Deadhead To 7:15 PM 4 Merced 7:30 PM Merced 4 7:45 PM 2 8:00 PM 2 8:15 PM 2 8:30 PM YNP 2 8:45 PM Merced YNP 2 9:00 PM 1 9:15 PM 1 9:30 PM 1 9:45 PM 1 10:00 PM 1 10:15 PM Midpines 1 10:30 PM 1 10:45 PM Deadhead To 1 11:00 PM Merced 1 11:15 PM 1 Note 1: Including layover in YNP and deadhead time.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 65 Eliminate Runs 1 and 8 and Shift Run 10 to a 3:15 PM Departure

Of the other runs not needed for Amtrak connections, the lowest ridership (pre-COVID-19) is on the 5:00 AM eastbound run (Run 1) and the 4:15 westbound run (Run 10). However, as Runs 1 and 8 operate on weekdays only, this option would eliminate the existing Runs 1 and 8, and shift Route 10 to a 3:15 PM departure. Ridership on Run 8 (departing the valley at 3:15 PM) is higher than on Run 10 (4:15 PM departure), indicating that passengers would be better served if the Run 10 schedule is shifted to 3:15 PM. (The outbound Run 4, which provides an important Amtrak connection, would be paired with remaining Run 3.) The impacts would be as follows:

• In the summer only, eliminating these runs would reduce marginal operating costs by $29,000 per year. Ridership would drop by 700 per year, resulting in a loss of $3,600 in farebox revenues and a net reduction in marginal operating subsidy needs of $25,400 per year. This would reduce the number of buses needed to operate YARTS by one.

• In the non-summer operating seasons, marginal operating costs would be reduced by $89,000 per year. Ridership would drop by 3,800 per year, resulting in a loss of $19,600 in farebox revenues and a net reduction in marginal operating subsidy needs of $69,400 per year. As peak bus fleet needs occur in the summer, this option would not change the peak fleet needs.

• Over the whole year, marginal operating costs would be reduced by $118,000, ridership by 4,500, fare revenue by $23,200, and required marginal operating subsidy by $94,800.

Cutting these runs in the summer would be a better option than in the non-summer seasons. In the summer season, ridership would be reduced by 2.0 passengers per vehicle-hour of service and $36.39 in marginal operating subsidy would be saved for every passenger eliminated. In comparison, these figures would be 3.5 and $18.26 in the non-summer seasons. However, both reductions offer improvements in efficiency and are recommended.

Other Changes Considered But Not Recommended

In addition to the recommended reductions above, the following changes were considered but are not recommended at present:

• If additional subsidy savings are needed, the next paired set of runs that should be considered are the 6:45 AM eastbound departure (Run 7) and the 5:15 PM westbound departure (Run 14). However, this would have a substantially greater impact on ridership (a loss of approximately 11,300 passengers per year) and is therefore not recommended.

• Another alternative would be to shorten some of the 140 Route runs to provide Mariposa- Yosemite Valley service only. In concept, this would allow a single bus and driver to make multiple round-trips per day. It would not currently be effective to operate additional trips between El

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 66 Portal and the Valley, given the limited lodging and intercept parking opportunities in El Portal.7 A round-trip between Mariposa and the Valley requires roughly four hours of running time. This means that a bus making an early morning eastbound run into the Valley would not be able to start a second eastbound run until roughly 10:30 AM. This would provide additional capacity for travel into the Park in the mid-day, such as for Mariposa visitors that want to have a leisurely half- day trip to the Park, or day visitors driving to Mariposa in the morning and park-and-riding to the Park. However, there already is available YARTS capacity for these trips, such as existing Run 140- 11 (10:15 AM eastbound service from the Mariposa Park-and-Ride and Run 140-13 (a noon eastbound departure). Ridership on these existing runs is relatively low, with roughly 35 percent existing passenger load factor. Given the low potential to generate new ridership and an estimated annual marginal operating cost of $24,000, this option is not considered further as part of this Strategy Study. However, it may be a valid element of a longer-term plan if additional intercept parking (particularly in the El Portal area) is developed.

Analysis of 395 Route Modifications

Reduce Fall Days of Service

Options to reduce 395 Route operating subsidy requirements are limited. The 395 Route currently provides only two round-trips per day, which is a reasonable minimum level of service that provides at least a few options for passengers. The ridership pattern (reflecting the relative lodging capacity) indicates that a shortened service only as far east as Lee Vining would not be effective. In addition, previous service providing a shorter run between Mammoth Lakes and Tuolumne Meadows was not effective and generated only low ridership. Given this, the only realistic means of reducing service on this route is to consider reduction in the days of service. As the start of service is defined by when Tioga Pass opens, this in actuality is limited to possibly moving up the season end date.

In 2019, the 395 Route was operated until October 11th, with a single-round trip after August 31st. Two options were considered, as discussed below:

• Eliminate Service After September 30: Ridership figures indicate that approximately 250 passenger-trips (or 125 round-trips if all make a round-trip) are served after September 30. Eliminating this service would reduce marginal operating costs by $7,000 and reduce operating subsidy by $5,700 per year. $22.80 marginal subsidy would be saved per passenger-trip eliminated or 3.1 per vehicle-hour.

• Eliminate Service After September 15: If service were ended after the second weekend after Labor Day (roughly September 15th), the subsidy savings would be increased to $16,000, while the reduction in ridership would total 830. Overall, YARTS marginal operating subsidy would be reduced by $14.10 for every passenger-trip lost (a loss of 4.4 per vehicle-hour).

7 Note that a longer term strategy of expanding intercept parking in El Portal served by short YARTS runs may well be feasible but would have an implementation period longer than the focus of this Strategy Study.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 67

While the first option (eliminating service after September 30) offers a better cost savings per passenger trip, it does not significantly decrease the operating cost for the 395 Service. To provide additional capital local match funding and since the cost-effectiveness and productivity of the service in late September is relatively low, it is recommended that service be eliminated after the second weekend in September (approximately September 15th).

Analysis of 120 Route Modifications

Route 120 is operated in summer only, over a relatively short season (mid-June to mid-September). The three round-trips operated per day are some of the most effective overall runs in the YARTS system. As such, options to reduce the number of runs or the days of service were not considered. However, a detailed evaluation of the ridership by route segment indicates that the portion of the route west of Groveland is very ineffective, indicating the potential to reduce costs by shortening the route.

Reduce Two Runs of 120 Route to Groveland-Yosemite Valley

It is recommended that two runs of the 120 Route be reduced to service between Groveland (Mary Laveroni Community Park) and Yosemite Valley. Table 25 presents a summary of ridership by stop for the busy summer month of July in 2019 and 2020. As indicated, of all boardings outside the National Park in July 2019, 92 percent were between Groveland and the park boundary, while only 8 percent were west of Groveland. This ratio was even more skewed in 2020, with 94 percent between Groveland and the park boundary and 6 percent to the west. As a result of this low ridership and the fact that roughly 55 percent of the operating cost is generated by the one hour and 45-minute schedule time per one-way trip west of Groveland, the current service results in a marginal subsidy of $52.00 per one-way trip served west of Groveland, or $104 in public funding for every passenger provided with a round-trip.

Table 25: Route 120 Average Daily Ridership in July Average Daily Boardings 2019 2020 Stop # % Outside YNP # % Outside YNP Black Oak Hotel 0.8 1.2% 0.5 1.0% Sonora Best Western 1.7 2.5% 1.0 2.2% Cal Inns Washington 1.1 1.6% 0.9 2.0% Jamestown 2.1 3.1% 0.3 0.7% West of Groveland 5.7 8.3% 2.7 5.9% Mary Laveroni Park 7.6 11.1% 3.9 8.5% Yosemite Pines RV Park 29.8 43.6% 18.9 41.0% Buck Meadows Resort 4.7 6.8% 6.0 13.0% Yosemite Lakes Campground 20.5 30.1% 14.6 31.7% Outside the Park 68.3 100% 46.2 100% Big Oak Flat 2.0 2.0 Crane Flat Gas Station 0.5 0.2 Yosemite Visitors Center 73.6 48.5 Total 148.2 107.1 Source: VIA Monthly Reports YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 68

Reducing two of the routes to serve daily roundtrips from Groveland to Yosemite would generate $40,000 in annual marginal operating subsidy savings. This modification will reduce ridership by 700 per year or an average of 8 per day (assuming that none of the ridership generated by the Jamestown-Black Oak Casino stops choose to drive to Groveland to catch the bus). Though the service west of Groveland is inefficient, it still allows an opportunity for Tuolumne County residents and visitors to access YARTS from Sonora, which is desirable in the near-term to determine if the service can be sustainable. An example schedule is shown in Table 26. As indicated, some lower activity stops on the longer run are served on request only to make a more “express” run between Sonora and the Park and allow slightly later morning departure times from Sonora and Jamestown.

Table 26: 120 Route Reduced Schedule June 22 to September 11 Yosemite → Groveland → Sonora Location Run 120-2* Run 120-4 Run 120-6* P

YN Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM Crane Flat Crane Flat 4:05 PM 5:05 PM 6:05 PM Big Oak Flat/Park Entrance Gate 4:19 PM 5:19 PM 6:19 PM Big Oak Flat, Rush Rush Creek Lodge 4:24 PM 5:24 PM 6:24 PM Creek, Yosemite Lakes Yosemite Lakes Campground 4:29 PM 5:29 PM 6:29 PM Buck Meadows Restaurant 4:56 PM 5:56 PM 6:56 PM Bucks Meadows, Yosemite Pines RV Park 5:01 PM 6:01 PM 7:01 PM Groveland Groveland - Laveroni Park 5:18 PM 6:18 PM 7:18 PM Jamestown - Rocca Park REQ Downtown Sonora - Heritage Inn REQ Sonora, Jamestown Eliminated Sonora Best Western REQ Black Oak Hotel and Resort 8:50 PM Sonora → Groveland → Yosemite Location Run 120-1* Run 120-3 Run 120-5* Black Oak Hotel and Resort 6:50 AM Sonora Best Western 7:10 AM Sonora, Jamestown Eliminated Downtown Sonora - Heritage Inn 7:25 AM Jamestown - Rocca Park 7:35 AM Groveland - Laveroni Park REQ 9:00 AM 10:00 AM Bucks Meadows, Yosemite Pines RV Park 8:10 AM 9:10 AM 10:10 AM Groveland Buck Meadows Restaurant REQ 9:24 AM 10:24 AM Yosemite Lakes Campground 8:41 AM 9:41 AM 10:41 AM Big Oak Flat, Rush Rush Creek Lodge 8:46 AM 9:46 AM 10:46 AM Creek, Yosemite Lakes Big Oak Flat/Park Entrance Gate 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM Crane Flat Crane Flat 9:09 AM 10:09 AM 11:09 AM P

YN Yosemite Visitor Center 9:44 AM 10:44 AM 11:44 AM * Note -- Only Operated Through August 31.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 69 Other Changes Considered But Not Currently Recommended

Reducing all three of the daily round-trips on the existing full route to Sonora and Black Oak Casino would generate $60,000 in annual marginal operating subsidy savings and would improve overall efficiency of the route. While this change may be desirable in the long term, a more moderate reduction is currently recommended to still allow an opportunity for visitors and residents to use YARTS from Sonora.

Another option would be to eliminate the nine days of service (using a single bus only) currently operated after the Labor Day weekend until the 3rd weekend in September. This would generate a modest marginal operating subsidy savings ($14,000) but would eliminate service in a period of the year when ridership is growing, so therefore it is not recommended.

Analysis of Route 41 Service

The Fresno Council of Governments has recently confirmed that funding for the Route 41 service will end once the existing Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are fully expended at the end of the Summer 2022 operating season. This will result in the cessation of service to/from Fresno after the 2022 operating season. However, the ridership generated in the Oakhurst area has been relatively strong and has the potential to grow with the expansion of lodging in the community. A review of the Route 41 ridership data during August of 2019 and 2020 is presented in Table 27. As shown, for 2020 (that generated higher daily ridership than 2019), fully 74 percent of boardings outside of the National Park was generated at the Oakhurst and Tenaya Lodge stops, compared with only 4 percent at the Coarsegold stop, 5 percent at the Chukchansi stop and a total of 17 percent at the Fresno stops. This is consistent with the strong pattern of ridership from the other immediate “gateway” communities (such as Groveland and Mariposa) on YARTS. A reasonable strategy is therefore to consider a service for the southern gateway community of Oakhurst.

Based on a review of the existing Route 41 ridership and service plan, a reasonable operating plan for this service would be as follows:

• The service would start from the Oakhurst Community Park on Civic Circle, near the Library. This has the ability to provide overnight parking for buses (if the contractor chooses to do so) and to provide some informal park-and-ride parking for persons staying or living in the Oakhurst area.

• In addition to the existing stops served by Route 41, a new stop could be served at the recently- constructed Fairfield Inn on the northern side of Oakhurst, which is also adjacent to the Holiday Inn Express on one side and the Hampton Inn on the other.

• A conceptual schedule is provided as Table 28, showing two AM northbound runs (departing at 7:30 AM and 9:00 AM) and two PM southbound runs (departing the Yosemite Valley Visitors Center at 3:30 PM and 5:00 PM). There is sufficient existing ridership in this corridor to warrant two buses and providing two schedule options expands the variety of potential trip choices for travelers. If demand warrants and funding is expanded, additional daily runs could be considered.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 70 Table 27: Route 41 Average Daily Ridership in August Average Daily Boardings 2019 2020 Stop # % Outside YNP # % Outside YNP

Fresno Airport (FAT) 7.8 21% 3.3 7.8% Amtrak/Greyhound 5.9 15% 1.7 3.9% North Fresno 4.3 11% 2.3 5.4% Chukchansi 2.4 6% 2.1 4.8% Coarsegold Historic Village 4.0 10% 1.7 4.1% Oakhurst Best Western 11.0 29% 19.4 45.5% Tenaya Lodge 2.7 7% 12.1 28.4% Outside the Park 38.2 100% 42.6 100.0% The Mariposa Grove 4.1 2.0 Wawona Store 3.9 0.8 Yosemite Visitor Center 33.5 35.6 Total 79.6 81.0

Source: VIA Monthly Reports

Table 28: Example Oakhurst-YNP Schedule June 1 - Sept 12 Oakhurst → Yosemite Location Run 41-1 Run 41-3 Oakhurst Community Park 7:30 AM 9:00 AM Oakhurst Best Western 7:34 AM 9:04 AM Oakhurst Oakhurst Holiday Inn / Hampton Inn / 7:38 AM 9:08 AM Fairfield Tenaya Lodge 7:56 AM 9:26 AM Wawona, Mariposa The Mariposa Grove 8:06 AM 9:36 AM Grove, Fish Camp Wawona Store 8:26 AM 9:56 AM P

YN Yosemite Visitor Center 9:36 AM 11:06 AM Yosemite → Oakhurst Location Run 41-2 Run 41-4 YNP Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 3:30 PM 5:00 PM Wawona Store 4:30 PM 6:00 PM Wawona, Mariposa The Mariposa Grove 4:50 PM 6:20 PM Grove, Fish Camp Tenaya Lodge 5:00 PM 6:30 PM Oakhurst Holiday Inn / Hampton Inn / 5:18 PM 6:48 PM Fairfield Oakhurst Oakhurst Best Western 5:22 PM 6:52 PM Oakhurst Community Park 5:26 PM 6:56 PM

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 71 • A reasonable operating season would be from June 1 through the second weekend of September (or roughly 103 days per year). This also could be expanded as warranted and as funds allow. This service would operate 8.06 vehicle-hours and 192 vehicle-miles of service per day, or 831 vehicle- hours and 19,776 vehicle-miles over the full season.

At the assumed rate of $57.89 per vehicle service hour and $0.80 per vehicle-mile for fuel, the annual marginal operating cost of this service would be $64,000.

Ridership on this service can be estimated based on existing ridership generated by run and by stop and factored to reflect the change in the calendar of service. Annual ridership is estimated to total 5,900 boardings per year. Note that this does not reflect any growth in ridership demand due to new lodging in the Oakhurst area, which could well increase ridership. Based on existing fare revenues, adjusted to reflect the change in service, an estimated average fare per passenger-trip of $6.50 is assumed. Over the course of the operating season, this totals $38,400 per year. Subtracting the fare revenue, a total of $25,500 in marginal subsidy funding would be required (not including fixed costs, capital funding and management/marketing). Additional discussion of the financial and institutional aspects of this service is provided later in this chapter.

The Oakhurst-YNP service would perform relatively well: it would carry 7.1 passenger-trip per vehicle service hour, compared with the systemwide average of 4.6 in 2019 (pre-COVID-19). The service would nearly match the best performing route in the YARTS system by this measure of 7.3 generated by the 120 West service. Comparing the operating subsidy (operating costs minus passenger fares) to the number of passenger-trips, this service would require roughly $4.34 in marginal operating subsidy per passenger- trip.

As an aside, another option was considered that would extend this route south the additional 12 miles to start and end at the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino. Over the course of the season, this would add approximately 400 vehicle-hours and 2,300 vehicle-miles to the service, increasing operating costs by $58,000. Ridership (per existing boarding data) would only increase by 700 per year. Considering fare revenue, operating subsidy would increase $53,200 per year. This additional service would be relatively inefficient, generating only 1.7 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour and requiring $76 in subsidy per additional passenger-trip. It therefore should only be operated if additional funding is made available to extend the route.

Recommended Service Modifications

The change in overall YARTS services and ridership was evaluated both for the core service operated for the existing JPA members (the 140, 120 and 395 Routes), as well as for all existing routes including the 41 Route. For the three core services combined, the recommended service modifications would:

• Reduce service by a total of 2,503 annual vehicle-hours, or 15 percent of current service for the three core routes. Note that the proportion of reduction is equal at 14 percent on the 140 Route and 395 Route, and higher (23 percent) on the 120 Route.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 72

• Reduce ridership by 7,730 annual one-way passenger-boardings, or nine percent of 2019 ridership on the three core routes. This ridership loss is relatively modest (4 percent) on the 120 Route, reflecting the low existing ridership on service west of Groveland. As the drop in ridership is less than the drop in service levels, this strategy would overall improve the performance measures for the YARTS program.

• Reduce the number of buses in peak operation by one (from the reduction in runs on the 140 Route).

• Reduce the annual operating subsidy by $248,100 which should be used to develop a local capital reserve fund.

If the current 41 Route service is replaced with a smaller Oakhurst-Valley service, this would reduce service on this corridor by 73 percent while reducing ridership by 32 percent and the number of buses in operation by one additional bus. The overall YARTS system would operate 4,769 less vehicle-hours per year (a 24 percent reduction) and would serve 11 percent fewer passenger-trips than in 2019.

It should be noted that under the current operator contract, a reduction in service hours of greater than 15 percent triggers a contract renegotiation. As presented in Table 22, under this strategy plan the overall services would be cut by 24 percent. However, a new contract will be negotiated by then, and the reductions would not occur until the 2023 operating season.

CAPITAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Bus Fleet Improvements

The appropriate fleet improvement strategy for YARTS is impacted by several factors as discussed below: fuel type, vehicle size, and operating plan requirements.

Recommended Fuel Strategy

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies requires that public transit programs start purchasing alternative fuel vehicles (Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) or hydrogen) as 25 percent of bus purchases starting in 2026, with full conversion expected by 2035. It is recommended that YARTS delay implementation of conversion to an alternative fuels fleet for at least five years. There are several reasons why Zero Emissions Buses (ZEBs) are not currently viable and would reduce the overall ridership and environmental benefits of the transit program:

• Of the two ZEB options (Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) or hydrogen), the region does not have the fueling infrastructure needed for hydrogen fueled buses. Providing sufficient hydrogen fueling facilities at the various operating termini of the YARTS routes (at a per-site cost on the order of $2,000,000) would be excessively expensive.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 73

• The distances that BEB buses would need to travel without a mid-day charge in Yosemite National Park exceeds the range that currently available models can reliably operate, particularly given the additional power needed to climb mountain grades, operate air conditioning (such as in the Central Valley in summer) and operate heating systems (such as in the Park in winter). The roughly 4,000 feet of elevation gain between Merced and Yosemite Valley and the 6,000 feet of gain from the Valley to Tioga Pass are examples of the challenging conditions.

• The region also lacks existing electric vehicle charging capacity. Where there are small charging locations in the region (such as in Yosemite Valley, Sonora, Mammoth Lakes, Mariposa and Merced), these are sized for private autos and lack the electrical capacity for charging a bus fleet. Establishing charging facilities for buses often includes expansion of local electrical substations and potentially upgrading transmission lines. Defining the necessary level of upgrade to the limited electrical grid (particularly within the Park) has yet to be conducted. This should be conducted in consideration of overall electrical vehicle charging requirements (such as for Valley Shuttle buses, charter buses, commercial vehicles, and private autos). Making the necessary modifications could potentially require extensive environmental review, delaying when actual operation of BEBs can be initiated.

• BEBs are much more expensive than diesel buses—on the order of $1,300,000 per bus compared with $750,000 per bus (with necessary chain and communications equipment), or 75 percent more. As YARTS is a JPA, it lacks a dedicated source of funds available for the local match, and the financial capacity of the largely-rural local member jurisdictions is very constrained. As a result, local matching funds for bus purchase grants will need to be generated by reductions in operating subsidy costs resulting from cuts in service. Doubling these local match costs thus would double the necessary cuts in service and increase the loss of YARTS ridership. The resulting increase in auto use would expand the environmental impacts of overall access to Yosemite, such as greenhouse gas emissions.

• Over-the-road coaches, which have proven to be the appropriate vehicle type for the majority of YARTS routes, have only recently started to be available from manufacturers in BEB models. Like any new technology, there is a substantial “learning curve” with regards to a new BEB model type, during which manufacturing processes are refined, dependability increases, and costs tend to decrease. Given the very limited local resources available to YARTS, it is prudent to allow this learning curve to occur prior to investment in the new technology.

Given these factors, it is recommended that YARTS work with Caltrans to modify the existing BEB grant award to instead purchase six diesel buses.

Bus Size Recommendations

YARTS has historically used over-the-road coaches with a 50-passenger capacity to serve all routes. These buses are relatively comfortable for the long-distance trips required for YARTS, are designed to provide a YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 74 smooth ride over mountain roads and provide plenty of space for luggage. Given the critical need and high cost to replace buses, it is appropriate to review the type and size of buses required. The next smaller standard bus size are 35-foot-long models. Considering the space needed for a restroom and for luggage, these vehicles have seating for a maximum of 30 passengers.

VIA records daily passenger loads by route and run. Using this data from July 2019 for each trip pair (meaning the same bus serving both the inbound and outbound trip), the average load was analyzed, along with the 90th percentile load, 95th percentile load, and maximum load. Given YARTS is a discretionary service for most passengers, their comfort is an important aspect of the service. In order to minimize the number of potential riders that would be denied service, we assumed a 95th percentile passenger load to estimate what size bus is required for each run (with the potential to deny additional reservations on 5 percent of the runs).

As shown in Table 29, the 95th percentile loads ranged from lows of 8 passengers on the 5:54 AM run from Midpines to Merced and 20 passengers on the 4:05 PM Yosemite to Mammoth run, to highs of 47 passengers on the 5:00 PM Yosemite to Mammoth run as well as 50 passengers on both the 6:40 AM Tuolumne County to Yosemite and 4:00 PM Yosemite to Tuolumne County runs.

We made several assumptions to arrive at the required bus size. First, every run with a 95th percentile load of 30 passengers or less could potentially be operated with a smaller bus, and every run with 31 or more passengers would require a larger bus. However, in regard to the Highway 395 service between Mammoth Lakes and Yosemite, only two buses are used in service and they are parked 175 miles from the YARTS operation base in Merced. The buses should be interchangeable as potential back-ups, and therefore both should be large buses. The analysis was also adjusted to reflect the recommended reductions in service, specifically (1) two of the round-trips that could be operated using a smaller bus are proposed to be eliminated and (2) the replacement of the existing three daily Route 41 runs with two daily shorter runs is expected to increase ridership on the remaining runs, thereby requiring large buses on both remaining runs. Based on these factors, at 2019 ridership levels, three round-trips could be operated using smaller buses (all on the 140 Route), while the remaining 11 round-trips (including two on the 41 Route) would require full-sized buses.

Beyond accommodating existing (2019) ridership loads there are other factors that need to be considered in identifying the appropriate bus size:

• The purchase price of smaller buses is less than the larger over-the-road coaches. A 30-passenger medium-duty bus costs approximately $350,000 from the manufacturer, or on the order of $400,000 with necessary equipment, compared with a total cost of approximately $750,000 for a diesel over-the-road coach. However, larger buses have a longer useful life benchmark (ULB) of

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 75 Table 29: YARTS Bus Size Requirements Based on Summer 2019 Passenger Loads

Estimated Passenger Load 2 Existing Route/Run 90th 95th Paired 95th Bus Size Recommended For Pairs 1 Average Percentile Percentile Maximum Percentile 3 Required 4 Elimination? 140 Route M to Y 5:00 AM 9 11 14 16 Yes 29 Small Y to M 9:05 AM 19 21 29 32 No M to Y 5:30 AM 16 18 24 27 No 24 Small Y to M 3:40 PM 13 15 21 23 No M to Y 6:00 AM 21 23 32 35 No 44 Large Y to M 3:15 PM 29 33 44 48 No M to Y 6:45 AM 24 27 37 40 No 37 Large Y to M 4:15 PM 20 23 31 34 Yes MPS to Y 9:00 AM 15 17 23 25 No 23 Small Y to M 4:35 PM 13 14 19 21 No M to Y 8:45 AM 22 25 35 38 No 35 Large Y to M 5:15 PM 13 15 20 22 No M to Y 10:30 AM 25 28 38 42 No 38 Large Y to M 6:00 PM 24 28 38 41 No M to Y 5:45 PM 16 19 25 28 No 25 Small Y to M 8:17 PM 12 13 18 20 No Mid to M 5:54 AM 5 6 8 9 8 Small Yes 395 Route MM to Y 8:00 AM 15 23 26 30 No 47 Large Y to MM 5:00 PM 28 43 47 50 No MM to Y 6:45 AM 13 20 22 25 No 20 Large 5 Y to MM 4:05 PM 12 18 20 23 No 120 Route TC to Y 7:40 AM 24 37 39 44 No 39 Large Y to TC 4:30 PM 22 33 35 39 No TC to Y 6:40 AM 33 50 50 50 No 50 Large Y to TC 4:00 PM 35 50 50 50 No TC to Y 8:40 AM 15 24 25 28 No 31 Large Y to TC 5:35 PM 19 30 31 34 No 41 Route F to Y 5:37 AM 17 24 26 32 No 26 Large6 Y to F 11:15 AM 8 12 13 16 No F to Y 7:50 AM 15 21 23 28 No 31 Large Y to F 4:06 PM 20 28 31 38 No F to Y 11:15 AM 9 13 14 17 Yes 19 Small Y to F 5:46 PM 13 18 19 24 Yes

Potential Remaining Route Pairs by Necessary Bus Size M = Merced MM = Mammoth Mountain Route Small Large Y = Yosemite TC = Tuolumne County 140 Route 3 4 Mid = Midpines F = Fresno 395 Route 0 2 Note 1: Paired runs per driver run cuts July 2019. 120 Route 5 0 3 Note 2: Calculated based on reported passenger loads 41 Route 0 2 by route and run for July 2019. Total 3 11 Note 3: Shows the higher passenger load required for the paired runs to determine bus size. Note 4: Assumes buses with 95th percentile loads 29 and under can use small buses, and 30 or more require large buses. Note 5: Buses should be interchangable for services due to overnighting in remote locations. Note 6: Shift of existing demand to fewer runs would increase ridership over capacity of a smaller bus.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 76 12 years or 450,000 miles, compared to just 7 years of 200,000 miles on 30-passenger medium- duty small buses, which cost approximately $350,000. On an annual basis, smaller vehicles require $57,000 in capital compared with $62,000 for a full-sized bus, or $5,000 less per year. On a local basis, the fact that federal or state grant programs will typically fund 80 percent of the capital costs means that the cost savings to the YARTS JPA is only on the order of $1,000 per bus per year (or $3,000 for the three smaller buses). Therefore, due to the lesser useful life, smaller buses do not offer a significant cost savings.

• The operating cost savings of smaller buses is not as significant as might be first thought. The largest element of the operating costs associated with any transit service is driver wages and benefits, and these do not change between a 30-passenger bus and a 50-passenger bus (as both require the same level of driver licensing). There can be some modest reduction in fuel costs (depending on the variation in costs), but overall savings in operating costs are typically in the range of 5 percent to 10 percent.

• Smaller buses are less comfortable than over-the-road buses, which is a significant issue for tourists and recreationists traveling long distances for leisure.

• Luggage space would be required to be provided in the passenger compartment on smaller buses, further reducing the seating capacity and increasing the constraints on the riders YARTS is able to serve in peak periods.

A disadvantage of having a mixed fleet (both large and small buses) is that they cannot be used interchangeably. Larger buses are therefore required for back-up. A mixed fleet also increases the cost of maintaining adequate inventory of spare parts as well as mechanic training.

The final key consideration is that purchasing smaller buses for a portion of the fleet would reduce the YARTS program’s ability to accommodate any future increase in ridership. Given these various considerations, it is recommended that YARTS continue to pursue a fleet of fully over-the-road coaches.

Overall Fleet Improvement Strategy

The long-term sustainability of the YARTS program would best be achieved through acquisition of a fleet of diesel powered over-the-road coaches to operate the service plan (including spares) without the need for contractor-supplied buses. As shown in Table 9, with the service modifications recommended above, YARTS service (excluding any service on the 41 Route) requires a maximum of 11 buses in peak operation. At a standard 20 percent spare ratio and a minimum of one spare per route, three spare vehicles are needed to provide reliable service, for a total of 14 vehicles in the fleet.

At a cost of $750,000 per vehicle (including equipment), the new fleet will require $10,500,000 in total funding. At a 20 percent local match requirement, total local funding is $2,100,000.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 77 Depending on future discussions with Madera County, three additional buses may be needed in the YARTS fleet (two in peak service plus one spare), bringing the total fleet requirements up to 17 buses. These three additional buses would require $2,250,000, including a $450,000 local match. Over the course of the 12-year life of the vehicles, the annual local match for these three vehicles would total $37,500.

As an aside, one potential option may be to purchase up to nine buses currently owned by VIA Adventures and used in the YARTS service. These buses are 2014-year models, with the exception of on 2013-year model and thus are through slightly more than half of their useful life by age. The purchase price of these vehicles is not known. In addition, the mechanical condition of these vehicles is also not currently known, but typically maintenance costs associated with older buses tend to climb significantly as buses near the end of their lives. If grant funding can be obtained to offset 80 percent of the cost of a full new fleet, the YARTS program would have lower operating (maintenance) costs for a significantly longer number of years and would also put off the need for expensive investment in ZEB technologies for a longer period. Pursuing a 100 percent new fleet is therefore recommended, though purchase of the used vehicles may be a fallback strategy if funding limitations require it.

YARTS administrative staff should therefore work with Caltrans to shift the existing grant allocation from battery electric buses to six over-the-road diesel coach buses. Depending on the Madera County participation, other grant opportunities should be pursued to obtain 11 to 13 additional buses for YARTS over the next five year.

Establish YARTS Facilities

At present, YARTS relies on contractor-owned facilities for bus storage and maintenance in Merced and Fresno, bus parking on private (lodging property) land in Tuolumne County and bus parking along the side of a state highway (a chain-up area) in Mammoth Lakes. The lack of publicly owned facilities is a detriment in several ways:

• The contractor costs associated with providing facilities is reflected in higher ongoing operating costs. As the proportion of local funds for operating is higher than for capital, over time this results in higher costs to YARTS JPA members.

• The requirement that a contractor must provide facilities reduces the potential pool of possible contractors, decreasing competition and potentially resulting in higher costs.

• Public investment in electric bus charging equipment requires publicly owned (or long-term leased) locations. The lack of these locations is currently an impediment to implementing a BEB fleet.

• The lack of a secure (fenced) location at the park-out locations increases the possibility of vandalism to the buses.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 78 YARTS should pursue the purchase of a facility in Merced sufficient to store the 140 Route fleet (and potentially buses used in Oakhurst‐Yosemite Valley service). Depending on the ability to maintain the fleet at the existing TJPA facility in Merced, this site may also need to accommodate vehicle maintenance functions. Secured parking facilities should also be identified (preferably at existing publicly owned corporate yards) in Groveland, Mammoth Lakes, and potentially Oakhurst.

The total cost of facilities is currently uncertain and will depend on the various factors discussed above. It will certainly increase the need for local capital funding.

INSTITUTIONAL PLAN

Consider Madera County as a YARTS JPA Member

If current discussions regarding long‐term service between Madera County and Yosemite Valley are successful, it would be optimal for Madera County to become a full member of the YARTS Joint Powers Authority (as Tuolumne County recently did), rather than this service be operated on a short‐term agreement. The current agreement for the Route 41 service has shown the difficulties associated with a short‐term approach as it adds uncertainty to capital planning (bus fleet size, alternative fuels, facilities) and the year‐to‐year allocation of administrative/marketing resources.

The “fee” for JPA membership defined for Tuolumne County was identified based on the average local subsidy per vehicle‐hour of service. Factoring the fee defined several years ago for inflation and multiplying by the annual vehicle‐hours of service identified in Table 2 yields a value on the order of $30,000. Over the last few years, however, the need for local capital funding for bus purchases has become clear. As discussed above, the annual local match requirements for three buses needed for Madera County service (two in operation plus one spare) would be approximately $37,000. A total cost for JPA membership that would support the Madera County service (and capital) would therefore be on the order of $67,000. Optimally, this issue would be resolved in time to be reflected in the draft Request For Proposals published in the summer of 2021.

For Madera County to initiate the Oakhurst to Yosemite service, they would need to join the YARTS JPA with a $67,000 annual contribution and pay a portion of the operating cost of the service. The operating cost includes the $64,000 marginal operating cost shown in Table 23 (the contractor’s variable cost), and $63,000 as a proportion of the contractor’s fixed fee (calculated based on $1,130,115 for 14,902 hours of service, or $75.84 per hour of service, and assuming 831 hours of service). The total cost would therefore be $194,000. Ridership is expected to generate $38,400, bringing the annual subsidy to $155,600. As there are a variety of potential other funding sources (such as National Park Service funding and the Federal Transit Administration 5311F program) the specific funding needed from local Madera County sources should be addressed in the budgeting process.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 79 Bid the 395 Route Service as a Separate RFP Option

At present, the YARTS operations contract scope of work includes all four individual routes. The inclusion of the 395 Route service in particular has the potential to reduce the number of capable transit contractor firms interested in the YARTS contract due to the challenges of managing operations so far removed from the other services. As it is important to maximize the potential for competitive bidding, it is recommended that the RFP be developed that allows an individual contractor to optionally bid on the 395 Route service, the remaining (west side) service, or both.

LSC recognizes that MCAG management of two separate operations could potentially increase management staff time requirements. However, allowing for separate bidding of the two scopes of work could yield a better outcome for YARTS as a whole.

Change the MCAG Management/Marketing Contract from Annual to Multiyear

The year‐by‐year nature of the current MCAG contract for YARTS management and marketing adds to the administrative burden to the organization, and limits MCAG’s ability to plan for staffing levels and ongoing marketing efforts. Given the long‐term success of this arrangement, this contract should be modified to at least a three‐year term, and preferably a five‐year term.

Improve Coordination With Other Public Transit Services

YARTS provides the opportunity for connections with other transit services in the Yosemite Region, including ESTA and internal park shuttles. While detailed service planning is not the focus of this Strategy Study, YARTS/MCAG staff should continually consider means of coordinating with these other services to maximize the usefulness of the YARTS services to the Yosemite Region as a whole. In particular, the upcoming ESTA Short‐Range Transit Plan process will provide the opportunity to consider improved connections between ESTA and YARTS services along the US 395 corridor.

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends Appendix C: YARTS Boarding and Alighting Data

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Merced County Association of Governments Page 80 Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure Table A-1: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 120 Sonora to Yosemite TO

Groveland/Buck Yosemite Lakes/Rush Sonora/Jamestown Meadows Creek/Big Oak Flat Crane Flat Yosemite Valley Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ FROM Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Sonora/Jamestown Round‐trip — — $14 $7 $24 $10 $26 $12 $38 $18 One‐way — — $7 $4 $12 $5 $13 $6 $19 $9 Groveland/Buck Meadows Round‐trip $14 $7 — — $10 $3 $12 $5 $24 $10 One‐way $7 $4 ——$5 $2 $6 $3 $12 $5 Yosemite Lakes/Rush Creek/Big Oak Flat Round‐trip $24 $10 $10 $3 ——$8 $3 $14 $7 One‐way $12 $5 $5 $2 ——$4 $1 $7 $4 Crane Flat Round‐trip $26 $12 $12 $5 $8 $3 — — $10 $4 One‐way $13 $6 $6 $3 $4 $1 ——$5 $2 Yosemite Valley Round‐trip $38 $18 $24 $10 $14 $7 $10 $4 —— One‐way $19 $9 $12 $5 $7 $4 $5 $2 —— YARTS bus fares includes free admission to Yosemite National Park, as well as one free child ride (12 and under) per adult ticket purchased. Reduced fares are for seniors (62+), children (12 and under without an adult paid fare), and persons with disabilities. Source: https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120 October 20,2020 Table A-2: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 140 Merced to Yosemite TO Merced Catheys Valley Mariposa Midpines El Portal Yosemite Valley Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ FROM Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Merced ` Round‐trip — — $10 $4 $20 $8 $20 $8 $26 $13 $38 $18 One‐way — — $5 $2 $10 $4 $10 $4 $13 $7 $19 $9 Catheys Valley Round‐trip $10 $4 ——$8 $4 $8 $4 $20 $8 $26 $13 One‐way $5 $2 ——$4 $2 $4 $2 $10 $4 $13 $7 Mariposa Round‐trip $20 $8 $8 $4 ——$6 $2 $10 $4 $20 $8 One‐way $10 $4 $4 $2 ——$3 $1 $5 $2 $10 $4 Midpines Round‐trip $20 $8 $8 $4 $6 $2 — — $10 $4 $20 $8 One‐way $10 $4 $4 $2 $3 $1 ——$5 $2 $10 $4 El Portal Round‐trip $26 $13 $20 $8 $10 $4 $10 $4 — — $12 $5 One‐way $13 $7 $10 $4 $5 $2 $5 $2 ——$6 $3 Yosemite Valley Round‐trip $38 $18 $26 $13 $20 $8 $20 $8 $12 $5 —— One‐way $19 $9 $13 $7 $10 $4 $10 $4 $6 $3 —— YARTS bus fares includes free admission to Yosemite National Park, as well as one free child ride (12 and under) per adult ticket purchased. Reduced fares are for seniors (62+), children (12 and under without an adult paid fare), and persons with disabilities. Source: https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120, 10‐18‐2020 Table A-3: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 41 Fresno to Yosemite TO

Coarsegold/ Fish Camp/ Mariposa Fresno Oakhurst Grove/ Wawona Yosemite Valley Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ FROM Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Fresno Round‐trip — — $17 $10 $23 $14 $34 $20 One‐way — — $9 $5 $12 $7 $18 $10 Coarsegold/Oakhurst Round‐trip $17 $10 $5 $2 $8 $5 $23 $13 One‐way $9 $5 $3 $1 $5 $3 $12 $7 Fish Camp/Mariposa Grove/Wawona Round‐trip $23 $14 $8 $5 $15 $9 $15 $9 One‐way $12 $7 $5 $3 $9 $5 $9 $5 Yosemite Valley Round‐trip $34 $20 $23 $13 $15 $9 —— One‐way $18 $10 $12 $7 $9 $5 ——

YARTS bus fares includes free admission to Yosemite National Park, as well as one free child ride (12 and under) per adult ticket purchased. Reduced fares are for seniors (62+), children (12 and under without an adult paid fare), and persons with disabilities. Source: https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120, October 18, 2020 Table A-4: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 120 E./395 Mammoth Lakes to Yosemite TO Tuolumne Mammoth Lake June Lake Lee Vining White Wolf Crane Flat Yosemite Valley Meadows Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ Dis‐ FROM Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Regular counted Mammoth Lakes Round‐trip — — $12 $6 $20 $10 $26 $15 $38 $22 $46 $26 $52 $30 One‐way — — $6 $3 $10 $5 $13 $7 $19 $10 $23 $13 $26 $15 June Lake Round‐trip $12 $6 — — $10 $4 $20 $10 $26 $15 $36 $20 $42 $24 One‐way $6 $3 ——$5 $2 $10 $5 $13 $7 $18 $10 $21 $12 Lee Vining Round‐trip $20 $10 $10 $4 — — $10 $4 $20 $10 $26 $15 $38 $24 One‐way $26 $15 $5 $2 ——$5 $2 $10 $5 $13 $7 $19 $12 Tuolumne Meadows Round‐trip $26 $15 $20 $10 $10 $4 — — $10 $4 $20 $10 $26 $15 One‐way $26 $7 $10 $5 $5 $2 ——$5 $2 $10 $5 $13 $7 White Wolf Round‐trip $38 $22 $26 $15 $20 $10 $10 $4 — — $10 $4 $20 $10 One‐way $19 $10 $13 $7 $10 $5 $5 $2 ——$5 $2 $10 $5 Crane Flat Round‐trip $46 $26 $36 $20 $26 $15 $20 $10 $10 $4 — — $10 $4 One‐way $23 $13 $18 $10 $13 $7 $10 $5 $5 $2 ——$5 $2 Yosemite Valley Round‐trip $52 $30 $42 $24 $38 $22 $26 $15 $20 $10 $10 $4 —— One‐way $26 $15 $21 $12 $19 $10 $13 $7 $10 $5 $5 $2 ——

YARTS bus fares includes free admission to Yosemite National Park, as well as one free child ride (12 and under) per adult ticket purchased. Reduced fares are for seniors (62+), children (12 and under without an adult paid fare), and persons with disabilities. Source: https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120 Table A-5: YARTS Commuter Pass Prices

Highway 140 Highway 41 To To Tenaya Catheys Yosemite Hwy 41/ 145 Coarsegold/ Lodge/ Yosemite From Merced Valley Mariposa Midpines El Portal ValleyFrom Fresno Park & Ride Oakhurst Wawona Valley

Merced Fresno Monthly Pass or 20 Monthly Pass or 20 ‐‐ $47 $94 $120 $173 $220 ‐‐ $42 $126 $168 $252 round trips round trips 10 round‐trips $24 $47 $60 $87 $110 10 round‐trips $21 $63 $84 $126 Cathey's Valley Hwy 41/145 Park & Ride Monthly Pass or 20 Monthly Pass or 20 $47 ‐‐ $47 $74 $128 $173 $42 ‐‐ $100 $126 $210 round trips round trips 10 round‐trips $24 $24 $37 $64 $87 10 round‐trips $21 $50 $63 $105 Mariposa Coarsegold/Oakhurst Monthly Pass or 20 Monthly Pass or 20 $94 $47 ‐‐ $26 $80 $100 $126 $100 $33 $59 $126 round trips round trips 10 round‐trips $47 $24 $13 $40 $50 10 round‐trips $63 $50 $17 $30 $63 Midpines Tenaya Lodge/Wawona Monthly Pass or 20 Monthly Pass or 20 $120 $74 $26 ‐‐ $53 $100 $168 $126 $59 $17 $84 round trips round trips 10 round‐trips $60 $37 $13 $27 $50 10 round‐trips $84 $63 $30 $9 $42 El Portal Yosemite Valley Monthly Pass or 20 Monthly Pass or 20 $173 $128 $80 $53 ‐‐ $47 $252 $210 $126 $84 ‐‐ round trips round trips 10 round‐trips $87 $64 $40 $27 $24 10 round‐trips $126 $105 $63 $42 Yosemite Valley Monthly Pass or 20 $220 $173 $100 $100 $47 ‐‐ round trips 10 round‐trips $110 $87 $50 $50 $24

Passes can be purchased directly from the bus driver. YARTS Commuter Passes are non‐refundable and non‐transferrable. A $10 discount for students applies to all commuter passes. Students must show a valid student ID from an area school to receive the discount when purchasing the pass. No other discounts apply. Monthly passes are valid for the month in which they are purchased. 10‐ and 20 Round‐trip passes expire after 90 days. Source: http://yarts.com/wp‐content/uploads/2015/07/Hwy‐140‐Commuter‐Pass‐Price‐Schedule.pdf Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends Figure B-1: YARTS Systemwide Ridership History by Season 70,000 Summer Shoulder Winter 60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000 Boardings Per Season Per Boardings

20,000

10,000

0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure B-2: SR 140 Route Annual Ridership by Season 35,000 Summer Shoulder Winter 30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure B-3: US 395/SR 120 E. Route Annual Ridership by Season 7,000 Summer Shoulder Winter 6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure B-4: SR 120 W. Route Annual Ridership by Season 16,000 Summer Shoulder 14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure B-5: SR 41 Route Ridership History by Season 14,000

Summer Shoulder Winter 12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Table B-1: 2019 Route 140 Boardings by Fare Type

NPS Amtrak Month Employees Child Free Paid Fare (Paid) Total Total Paid January 122 81 2,693 454 3,350 3,147 February 255 142 3,454 280 4,131 3,734 March 257 93 3,709 467 4,526 4,176 April 322 152 3,696 687 4,857 4,383 May 317 130 4,591 785 5,823 5,376 June 423 233 6,156 520 7,332 6,676 July 491 474 7,267 777 9,009 8,044 August 307 364 6,307 594 7,572 6,901 September 235 132 5,059 656 6,082 5,715 October 271 86 2,632 503 3,492 3,135 November 220 69 3,290 406 3,985 3,696 December 215 308 5,125 651 6,299 5,776 Total 3,435 2,264 53,979 6,780 66,458 60,759 Percent 5.2% 3.4% 81.2% 10.2% 100.0% 91.4% Note: Passenger fare categories changed in October 2017 Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020 Table B-2: 2019 Route 120 West Boardings by Fare Type NPS Adult Amtrak Month Employees Child Free (Paid) (Paid) Total Total Paid May 2 35 932 - 969 932 June - 262 2,994 20 3,276 3,014 July - 354 4,239 - 4,593 4,239 August - 410 3,142 - 3,552 3,142 September 3 117 1,528 - 1,648 1,528 Total 5 1,178 12,835 20 14,038 12,855 % Total 0.0% 8.4% 91.4% 0.1% 100.0% 91.6% Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020 Table B-3: 2019 Route 120/395 Boardings by Fare Type

NPS Adult Amtrak Month Employees Child Free Paid (Paid) Total Total Paid May - 90 1,969 23 2,082 1,992 June - 53 2,238 5 2,296 2,243 July - 6 1,211 27 1,244 1,238 August - 7 650 0 657 650 Total 0 156 6,068 55 6,279 6,123 % Total 0.0% 2.5% 96.6% 0.9% 100.0% 97.5% Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Table B-4: 2019 SR 41 Route Boardings by Fare Type

NPS Child Adult Amtrak Total Month Employees Free Paid (Paid) Total Paid May 5 129 811 38 983 849 June 8 71 1,835 110 2,024 1,945 July 1 107 2,269 133 2,510 2,402 August 1 60 2,062 124 2,247 2,186 September 3 117 1,528 0 1,648 1,528 Total 18 484 8,505 405 9,412 8,910 % Total 0.2% 5.1% 90.4% 4.3% 100.0% 94.7% Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020 Table B-5: YARTS Boardings by Stop

Peak Summer (July 2019) Peak Winter (December 2019)

Avg Daily % Outside Avg Daily % Outside 140 Route Boardings % Total Park Boardings % Total Park Merced Airport 1.1 0% 1% 2.0 1% 1% Merced Transpo 19.5 7% 11% 13.2 5% 8% Amtrak Station 30.8 11% 18% 27.1 9% 16% Catheys Valley 0.5 0% 0% 0.4 0% 0% Midtown Mariposa 13.3 5% 8% 9.6 3% 6% Roadside Rest Stop 9.3 3% 5% 6.5 2% 4% Mariposa Park & Ride 21.0 7% 12% 29.1 10% 17% AutoCamp 10.3 4% 6% 3.3 1% 2% Midpines County Park 3.4 1% 2% 2.5 1% 1% Midpines Post Office 2.5 1% 1% 2.4 1% 1% Yosemite Bug Hostel 15.3 5% 9% 8.0 3% 5% Cedar Lodge 16.7 6% 10% 5.5 2% 3% NPS Maintenance 6.0 2% 3% 2.3 1% 1% Barium Mine Rd 5.7 2% 3% 0.2 0% 0% El Portal Post Office 2.6 1% 2% 1.6 1% 1% Yosemite View Lodge 14.9 5% 9% 5.5 2% 3% Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 71.5 25% 53.1 18% Yosemite Valley Lodge 23.3 8% 16.6 6% Curry Village 23.0 8% 14.4 5% Totals 290.6 203.2

Peak Summer (July 2019) Peak Summer (July 2019) 395 Route 120 Route Boardings % Total Park Boardings % Total Park The Village 4.5 7% 20% Black Oak Hotel 0.8 1% 1% Mammoth Mountain Inn 3.2 5% 14% Sonora Best Western 1.7 1% 2% Juniper Springs Resort 0.8 1% 3% Heritage Inn Sonora 1.1 1% 1% Mammoth Lakes Park/Tavern Rd 0.1 0% 0% Jamestown - Rocca Park 2.1 1% 3% Shilo Inn 6.4 10% 28% Groveland - Laveroni Park 7.6 5% 10% June Lake 1.5 2% 6% Yosemite Pines RV Park 29.8 20% 40% Mono Basin Visitors Center 1.1 2% 5% Buck Meadows Resort 4.7 3% 6% Lake View Lodge 2.4 4% 10% Yosemite Lakes Campground 20.5 14% 28% Tioga Mobil Gas 3.0 4% 13% Rush Creek Lodge 3.8 3% 5% Tuolumne Meadows Store 2.3 3% Big Oak Flat Park 2.0 1% 0 Tuolumne Meadows Visitor Center 8.0 12% Crane Flat Gas Station 0.5 0% Crane Flat Gas Station 0.3 0% Yosemite 73.6 50% Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 33.7 50% Totals 148.2 Totals 67.2 Peak Summer (July 2019) 41 Route Boardings % Total Park Fresno Airport 7.8 10% 20% Amtrak/Greyhound 5.9 7% 15% North Fresno 4.3 5% 11% Chukchansi Gold 2.4 3% 6% Coarsegold 4.0 5% 10% Oakhurst Best Western 11.0 14% 28% Pines at Bass Lake 1.3 2% 3% Tenaya Lodge 2.7 3% 7% Mariposa Grove 4.1 5% Wawona Store 3.9 5% Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 33.5 41% Totals 81.0

Appendix C: YARTS Ridership Performance Table C‐1: 140 Route Average Daily Ridership by Run Starting Weekday Weekend/Holiday Run Start / End Time July Sept Jan July Sept Jan

1S Merced to Yosemite 5:00 AM 9.3 6.4 12.2 2S Merced to Yosemite 5:30 AM 17.0 9.7 12.9 9.3 1XW/2W Cathey's Vly‐Valley 5:45 AM 6.6 9.5 7S Midpines to Yosemite 5:54 AM 5.1 5.2 3.4 2aS Merced to Yosemite 6:00 AM 21.8 7.8 28.7 9.8 3W Merced to Yosemite 6:40 AM 15.3 3S Merced to Yosemite 6:45 AM 21.8 15.9 17.0 21.4 4S/4XW Merced to Yosemite 8:45 AM 19.0 11.7 13.8 30.4 25.4 15.1 3aS Mariposa to Yosemite 9:00 AM 12.5 7.2 20.8 9.2 5S/5W Merced to Yosemite 10:30 AM 25.0 16.4 13.8 23.6 22.4 5 Extra Merced to Yosemite Xt 10:30 AM 25.0 20.1 6W Merced to Yosemite 5:25 PM 14.0 14.1 6S Merced to Yosemite 5:45 PM 18.3 18.3 11.9 19.1

8W Yosemite to Merced 8:20 AM 18.5 16.6 8S Yosemite to Merced 9:05 AM 19.5 20.6 16.9 19.4 9W Yosemite to Merced 2:20 PM 17.2 18.6 8aS Yosemite to Merced 3:15 PM 29.7 22.1 25.6 9S Yosemite to Merced 3:40 PM 14.7 7.7 12.4 9.8 7.6 10S/11W Yosemite to Merced 4:15 PM 19.8 15.5 16.1 20.4 19.4 20.9 11S Yosemite to Merced 4:35 PM 10.2 10.8 18.2 8.7 9W/12W Yosemite to Merced 5:05 PM 13.2 15.5 11aS Yosemite to Merced 5:15 PM 12.1 8.9 19.6 11.1 12 Yosemite to Merced 6:00 PM 22.0 14.0 29.8 20.4 14 Yosemite to Merced 8:17 PM 11.0 4.1 13.6 7.8 Table C‐2: 120, 120/395, & 41 Route Average Daily Ridership by Run Starting Weekday Weekend/Holiday Run Start / End Time July Sept July Sept

120 Route S1E Tuolumne to Yosemite 6:40 AM 29.9 40.6 51.0 S2E Tuolumne to Yosemite 7:40 AM 22.2 26.0 29.3 49.2 S3E Tuolumne to Yosemite 8:40 AM 16.1 13.9 49.0 S1F Yosemite to Tuolumne 4:00 PM 33.5 37.9 51.0 S2F Yosemite to Tuolumne 4:30 PM 22.5 24.4 19.2 49.0 S3F Yosemite to Tuolumne 5:35 PM 16.9 24.4 49.0

395 Route 1M Mammoth to Yosemite 6:45 AM 15.5 19.3 14.9 17.9 2M Mammoth to Yosemite 8:00 AM 14.4 9.8 1Y Yosemite to Mammoth 4:05 PM 26.7 25.7 32.0 27.5 2Y Yosemite to Mammoth 5:00 PM 11.8 9.6

41 Route 21 Yosemite to Fresno 11:15 AM 9.0 11.6 9.0 10.8 23 Yosemite to Fresno 4:06 PM 19.8 11.9 20.6 15.6 25 Yosemite to Fresno 5:46 PM 10.5 5.6 16.1 10.7 22 Fresno to Yosemite 5:37 AM 17.9 8.0 15.6 11.7 24 Fresno to Yosemite 7:50 AM 13.9 10.0 18.3 8.8 26 Fresno to Yosemite 11:15 AM 7.5 9.1 11.3 7.4 Table C‐3: July 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 140 Route Average Daily Performance Analysis Estimated Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Fare Operating Boardings per Boardings per Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays 1S Merced to Yosemite 5:00 AM 87 2.50 $383.75 9.3 $47.83 $335.92 0.11 3.7 $41.18 $36.05 12% 2S Merced to Yosemite 5:30 AM 87 2.60 $399.10 17.0 $87.26 $311.84 0.20 6.5 $23.48 $18.34 22% 2aS Merced to Yosemite 6:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 21.8 $111.76 $333.39 0.25 7.5 $20.45 $15.31 25% 3S Merced to Yosemite 6:45 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 21.8 $111.76 $333.39 0.25 7.5 $20.45 $15.31 25% 3aS Merced to Yosemite 9:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 12.5 $63.93 $381.22 0.14 4.3 $35.74 $30.61 14% 4S Mariposa to Yosemite 8:45 AM 55 3.20 $491.20 19.0 $97.29 $393.91 0.34 5.9 $25.91 $20.78 20% 5S Merced to Yosemite 10:30 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 25.0 $128.56 $331.94 0.29 8.3 $18.39 $13.25 28% 6S Merced to Yosemite 5:45 PM 87 2.60 $399.10 18.3 $94.03 $305.07 0.21 7.0 $21.79 $16.65 24% 7S Midpines to Yosemite 5:54 AM 51 1.50 $230.25 5.1 $26.13 $204.12 0.10 3.4 $45.23 $40.09 11% 8S Yosemite to Merced 9:05 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 19.5 $99.86 $360.64 0.22 6.5 $23.67 $18.54 22% 8aS Yosemite to Merced 3:15 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 29.7 $152.59 $231.16 0.34 11.9 $12.91 $7.78 40% 9S Yosemite to Merced 3:40 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 14.7 $75.60 $384.90 0.17 4.9 $31.27 $26.14 16% 10S Yosemite to Merced 4:15 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 19.8 $101.73 $358.77 0.23 6.6 $23.24 $18.10 22% 11S Yosemite to Merced 4:35 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 10.2 $52.50 $331.25 0.12 4.1 $37.52 $32.39 14% 11aS Yosemite to Merced 5:15 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 12.1 $62.06 $398.44 0.14 4.0 $38.09 $32.95 13% 12 Yosemite to Merced 6:00 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 22.0 $112.93 $316.87 0.25 7.9 $19.54 $14.40 26% 14 Yosemite to Merced 8:17 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 11.0 $56.46 $373.34 0.13 3.9 $39.07 $33.94 13% Overall Route Performance 1,411 47 $7,168.45 289 $1,482.27 $5,686.18 0.20 6.2 $24.82 $19.69 21%

Weekends/Holidays (2) 2S Merced to Yosemite 5:30 AM 87 2.60 $399.10 12.9 $66.16 $332.94 0.15 5.0 $30.96 $25.83 17% 2aS Merced to Yosemite 6:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 17.4 $89.54 $355.61 0.20 6.0 $25.52 $20.39 20% 3S Merced to Yosemite 6:45 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 28.7 $147.15 $298.00 0.33 9.9 $15.53 $10.40 33% 3aS Merced to Yosemite 9:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 20.8 $106.65 $338.50 0.24 7.2 $21.42 $16.29 24% 4S Mariposa to Yosemite 8:45 AM 55 3.20 $491.20 30.4 $156.27 $334.93 0.55 9.5 $16.13 $11.00 32% 5S Merced to Yosemite 10:30 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 23.6 $120.91 $339.59 0.27 7.9 $19.55 $14.42 26% 6S Merced to Yosemite 5:45 PM 87 2.60 $399.10 11.9 $61.03 $338.07 0.14 4.6 $33.57 $28.44 15% 8S Yosemite to Merced 9:05 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 16.9 $86.69 $373.81 0.19 5.6 $27.27 $22.13 19% 8aS Yosemite to Merced 3:15 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 25.6 $131.18 $252.57 0.29 10.2 $15.02 $9.88 34% 9S Yosemite to Merced 3:40 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 9.8 $50.19 $410.31 0.11 3.3 $47.10 $41.96 11% 10S Yosemite to Merced 4:15 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 20.4 $104.94 $355.56 0.23 6.8 $22.52 $17.39 23% 11S Yosemite to Merced 4:35 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 18.2 $93.53 $366.97 0.21 6.1 $25.27 $20.14 20% 11aS Yosemite to Merced 5:15 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 19.6 $100.46 $283.29 0.22 7.8 $19.61 $14.47 26% 12 Yosemite to Merced 6:00 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 29.8 $152.85 $276.95 0.34 10.6 $14.43 $9.30 36% 14 Yosemite to Merced 8:17 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 13.6 $69.58 $360.22 0.16 4.8 $31.71 $26.57 16% Overall Route Performance 1,273 43 $6,554.45 299 $1,537.13 $5,017.32 0.24 7.0 $21.89 $16.75 23%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐4: July 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 120 Route Sonora Average Daily Performance Analysis

Boardings per Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Estimated Operating Boardings per Revenue Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Fare Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays Tuolumne to S1E 6:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 29.9 $153.29 $190.33 0.36 9.3 $11.51 $6.37 45% Yosemite Tuolumne to S2E 7:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 22.2 $113.86 $229.76 0.26 6.9 $15.49 $10.36 33% Yosemite Tuolumne to S3E 8:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 16.1 $82.83 $260.79 0.19 5.0 $21.29 $16.16 24% Yosemite Yosemite to S1F 4:00 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 33.5 $172.19 $182.17 0.40 10.2 $10.56 $5.43 49% Tuolumne Yosemite to S2F 4:30 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 22.5 $115.49 $238.86 0.27 6.8 $15.75 $10.62 33% Tuolumne Yosemite to S3F 5:35 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 16.9 $86.79 $267.56 0.20 5.1 $20.96 $15.82 24% Tuolumne Overall Route Performance 504 20 2094 141 $724.45 $1,369.46 0.28 7.2 $14.84 $9.70 35%

Weekends/Holidays (2) Tuolumne to S1E 6:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 40.6 $208.17 $135.44 0.48 12.7 $8.47 $3.34 61% Yosemite Tuolumne to S2E 7:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 29.3 $150.57 $193.05 0.35 9.2 $11.71 $6.58 44% Yosemite Tuolumne to S3E 8:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 13.9 $71.29 $272.32 0.17 4.3 $24.74 $19.61 21% Yosemite Yosemite to S1F 4:00 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 37.9 $194.48 $159.87 0.45 11.5 $9.35 $4.22 55% Tuolumne Yosemite to S2F 4:30 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 19.2 $98.67 $255.69 0.23 5.8 $18.43 $13.30 28% Tuolumne Yosemite to S3F 5:35 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 24.4 $125.47 $228.88 0.29 7.4 $14.50 $9.36 35% Tuolumne Overall Route Performance 504 20 $2,093.91 165.3 $848.66 $1,245.25 0.33 8.5 $12.66 $7.53 41%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐5: July 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 120 / 395 Route Mammoth Average Daily Performance Analysis

Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Estimated Operating Boardings per Boardings per Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Fare Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays 6:45 AM 1M Mammoth to Yosemite 110 3.80 $408.04 15.5 $79.68 $328.36 0.14 4.1 $26.29 $21.15 20%

8:00 AM 2M Mammoth to Yosemite 110 3.80 $408.04 14.4 $73.73 $334.32 0.13 3.8 $28.41 $23.28 18%

4:05 PM 1Y Yosemite to Mammoth 110 3.50 $375.83 26.7 $137.12 $238.71 0.24 7.6 $14.07 $8.94 36%

5:00 PM 2Y Yosemite to Mammoth 110 3.50 $375.83 11.8 $60.66 $315.17 0.11 3.4 $31.80 $26.67 16%

Overall Route Performance 440 15 1568 68 $351.20 $1,216.55 0.16 4.7 $22.91 $17.78 22%

Weekends/Holidays (2) 6:45 AM 1M Mammoth to Yosemite 110 3.80 $408.04 14.9 $76.42 $331.62 0.14 3.9 $27.41 $22.27 19%

8:00 AM 2M Mammoth to Yosemite 110 3.80 $408.04 9.8 $50.19 $357.85 0.09 2.6 $41.73 $36.60 12%

4:05 PM 1Y Yosemite to Mammoth 110 3.50 $375.83 32.0 $164.26 $211.57 0.29 9.1 $11.74 $6.61 44%

5:00 PM 2Y Yosemite to Mammoth 110 3.50 $375.83 9.6 $49.05 $326.78 0.09 2.7 $39.33 $34.20 13%

Overall Route Performance 440 15 $1,567.75 66.2 $339.92 $1,227.83 0.15 4.5 $23.67 $18.54 22%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐6: July 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 41 Route Mammoth Average Daily Performance Analysis Boardings per Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Estimated Operating Boardings per Revenue Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Fare Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays 21 Yosemite to Fresno 11:15 AM 113 4 $704.74 9.0 $46.43 $658.31 0.08 2.1 $77.91 $72.78 7% 22 Fresno to Yosemite 5:37 AM 113 4 $659.51 17.9 $91.69 $567.82 0.16 4.3 $36.92 $31.79 14% 23 Yosemite to Fresno 4:06 PM 111 4 $693.07 19.8 $101.73 $591.34 0.18 4.6 $34.97 $29.84 15% 24 Fresno to Yosemite 7:50 AM 112 4 $647.84 13.9 $71.16 $576.67 0.12 3.4 $46.73 $41.60 11% 25 Yosemite to Fresno 5:46 PM 111 4.30 $690.15 10.5 $54.13 $636.02 0.10 2.5 $65.45 $60.31 8% 26 Fresno to Yosemite 11:15 AM 111 4 $644.92 7.5 $38.73 $606.19 0.07 1.9 $85.47 $80.34 6% Overall Route Performance 671 25 $4,040.22 78.7 $403.87 $3,636.35 0.12 3.1 $51.35 $46.22 10%

Weekends/Holidays (2) 21 Yosemite to Fresno 11:15 AM 112 4 $697.28 9.0 $46.20 $651.09 0.08 2.1 $77.48 $72.34 7% 22 Fresno to Yosemite 5:37 AM 211 8 $1,219.80 15.6 $79.85 $1,139.95 0.07 2.0 $78.42 $73.28 7% 23 Yosemite to Fresno 4:06 PM 111 4.30 $690.15 20.6 $105.87 $584.28 0.19 4.8 $33.46 $28.33 15% 24 Fresno to Yosemite 7:50 AM 111 4.00 $642.00 18.3 $93.68 $548.32 0.16 4.6 $35.18 $30.05 15% 25 Yosemite to Fresno 5:46 PM 222 8.60 $1,380.30 16.1 $82.70 $1,297.60 0.07 1.9 $85.67 $80.54 6% 26 Fresno to Yosemite 11:15 AM 222 8.00 $1,284.00 11.3 $58.17 $1,225.83 0.05 1.4 $113.29 $108.16 5% Overall Route Performance 988 37 $5,913.53 90.9 $466.46 $5,447.07 0.09 2.5 $65.07 $59.94 8%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐7: September 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 140 Route Average Daily Performance Analysis

Estimated Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Fare Operating Boardings per Boardings per Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays

1S Merced to Yosemite 5:00 AM 87 2.50 $383.75 6.4 $32.85 $350.90 0.07 2.6 $59.96 $54.83 9%

2S Merced to Yosemite 5:30 AM 87 2.60 $399.10 9.7 $49.53 $349.57 0.11 3.7 $41.36 $36.22 12%

2aS Merced to Yosemite 6:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 7.8 $40.25 $404.90 0.09 2.7 $56.76 $51.63 9%

3S Merced to Yosemite 6:45 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 15.9 $81.36 $363.79 0.18 5.5 $28.09 $22.95 18%

3aS Merced to Yosemite 9:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 7.2 $37.01 $408.14 0.08 2.5 $61.74 $56.60 8%

4S Mariposa to Yosemite 8:45 AM 55 3.20 $491.20 11.7 $59.80 $431.40 0.21 3.6 $42.16 $37.03 12%

5S Merced to Yosemite 10:30 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 16.4 $83.92 $376.58 0.19 5.5 $28.17 $23.03 18%

6S Merced to Yosemite 5:45 PM 87 2.60 $399.10 18.3 $93.68 $305.42 0.21 7.0 $21.87 $16.74 23%

7S Midpines to Yosemite 5:54 AM 51 1.50 $230.25 5.2 $26.43 $203.82 0.10 3.4 $44.71 $39.58 11%

8S Yosemite to Merced 9:05 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 20.6 $105.48 $355.02 0.24 6.9 $22.41 $17.28 23%

8aS Yosemite to Merced 3:15 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 22.1 $113.44 $270.31 0.25 8.8 $17.36 $12.23 30%

9S Yosemite to Merced 3:40 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 7.7 $39.27 $421.23 0.09 2.6 $60.20 $55.06 9%

10S Yosemite to Merced 4:15 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 15.5 $79.30 $381.20 0.18 5.2 $29.81 $24.67 17%

11S Yosemite to Merced 4:35 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 10.8 $55.44 $405.06 0.12 3.6 $42.64 $37.51 12%

11aS Yosemite to Merced 5:15 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 8.9 $45.93 $337.82 0.10 3.6 $42.89 $37.76 12%

12 Yosemite to Merced 6:00 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 14.0 $71.61 $358.19 0.16 5.0 $30.81 $25.68 17%

14 Yosemite to Merced 8:17 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 4.1 $21.05 $408.75 0.05 1.5 $104.83 $99.70 5%

Overall Route Performance 1,411 47 $7,168.45 201.9 $1,036.35 $6,132.10 0.14 4.3 $35.50 $30.37 14%

Weekends/Holidays (2)

2S Merced to Yosemite 5:30 AM 87 2.60 $399.10 9.3 $47.91 $351.19 0.11 3.6 $42.76 $37.63 12%

2aS Merced to Yosemite 6:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 9.8 $50.19 $394.96 0.11 3.4 $45.53 $40.39 11%

3S Merced to Yosemite 6:45 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 21.4 $110.07 $335.08 0.25 7.4 $20.76 $15.63 25%

3aS Merced to Yosemite 9:00 AM 87 2.90 $445.15 9.2 $47.34 $397.81 0.11 3.2 $48.27 $43.14 11%

4S Mariposa to Yosemite 8:45 AM 55 3.20 $491.20 25.4 $130.61 $360.59 0.46 8.0 $19.30 $14.17 27%

5S Merced to Yosemite 10:30 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 22.4 $115.21 $345.29 0.26 7.5 $20.52 $15.38 25%

6S Merced to Yosemite 5:45 PM 87 2.60 $399.10 19.1 $98.10 $301.00 0.22 7.4 $20.88 $15.75 25%

8S Yosemite to Merced 9:05 AM 87 3.00 $460.50 19.4 $99.81 $360.69 0.22 6.5 $23.68 $18.55 22%

8aS Yosemite to Merced 3:15 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 21.0 $107.79 $275.96 0.24 8.4 $18.27 $13.14 28%

9S Yosemite to Merced 3:40 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 7.6 $38.78 $421.72 0.09 2.5 $60.95 $55.82 8%

10S Yosemite to Merced 4:15 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 19.4 $99.81 $360.69 0.22 6.5 $23.68 $18.55 22%

11S Yosemite to Merced 4:35 PM 87 3.00 $460.50 8.7 $44.49 $416.01 0.10 2.9 $53.13 $48.00 10%

11aS Yosemite to Merced 5:15 PM 87 2.50 $383.75 11.1 $57.20 $326.55 0.13 4.5 $34.44 $29.31 15%

12 Yosemite to Merced 6:00 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 20.4 $104.94 $324.86 0.23 7.3 $21.02 $15.89 24%

14 Yosemite to Merced 8:17 PM 87 2.80 $429.80 7.8 $39.92 $389.88 0.09 2.8 $55.26 $50.13 9%

Overall Route Performance 1,273 43 $6,554.45 232.3 $1,192.16 $5,362.29 0.18 5.4 $28.22 $23.09 18%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐8: September 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 120 Route Sonora Average Daily Performance Analysis

Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Estimated Operating Boardings per Boardings per Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Fare Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays Tuolumne to S2E 7:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 26.0 $133.46 $210.16 0.31 8.1 $13.22 $8.08 39% Yosemite Yosemite to S2F 4:30 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 24.4 $125.25 $229.11 0.29 7.4 $14.52 $9.39 35% Tuolumne Overall Route Performance 168 7 $697.97 50.4 $258.70 $439.27 0.30 7.8 $13.85 $8.72 37%

Weekends/Holidays (2) Tuolumne to S1E 6:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 51.0 $261.78 $81.83 0.61 15.9 $6.74 $1.60 76% Yosemite Tuolumne to S2E 7:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 49.2 $252.54 $91.07 0.59 15.4 $6.98 $1.85 73% Yosemite Tuolumne to S3E 8:40 AM 84 3.20 $343.62 49.0 $251.52 $92.10 0.58 15.3 $7.01 $1.88 73% Yosemite Yosemite to S1F 4:00 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 51.0 $261.78 $92.57 0.61 15.5 $6.95 $1.82 74% Tuolumne Yosemite to S2F 4:30 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 49.0 $251.52 $102.84 0.58 14.8 $7.23 $2.10 71% Tuolumne Yosemite to S3F 5:35 PM 84 3.30 $354.35 49.0 $251.52 $102.84 0.58 14.8 $7.23 $2.10 71% Tuolumne Overall Route Performance 504 20 $2,093.91 298.2 $1,530.66 $563.25 0.59 15.3 $7.02 $1.89 73%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐9: September 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 120 / 395 Route Mammoth Average Daily Performance Analysis

Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operatin Passenger Estimated Operating Boardings per Boardings per Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours g Cost (1) Boardings Fare Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays

1M Mammoth to Yosemite 5:30 AM 110 3.80 $408.04 19.3 $98.88 $309.17 0.18 5.1 $21.18 $16.05 24%

1Y Yosemite to Mammoth 8:27 PM 110 3.50 $375.83 25.7 $131.84 $243.99 0.23 7.3 $14.63 $9.50 35%

Overall Route Performance 220 7 $783.87 44.9 $230.71 $553.16 0.20 6.2 $17.44 $12.31 29%

Weekends/Holidays (2)

1M Mammoth to Yosemite 5:30 AM 110 3.80 $408.04 17.9 $91.75 $316.29 0.16 4.7 $22.83 $17.69 22%

1Y Yosemite to Mammoth 8:27 PM 110 3.50 $375.83 27.5 $141.16 $234.67 0.25 7.9 $13.67 $8.53 38%

Overall Route Performance 220 7 $783.87 45.4 $232.91 $550.96 0.21 6.2 $17.28 $12.14 30%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐10: September 2019 Run Analysis ‐‐ 41 Route Mammoth Average Daily Performance Analysis

Boardings per Cost per Subsidy per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Estimated Operating Boardings per Revenue Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Fare Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays 21 Yosemite to Fresno 11:15 AM 111 4.30 $690.15 11.6 $59.31 $630.84 0.10 2.7 $59.72 $54.59 9% 22 Fresno to Yosemite 5:37 AM 111 4.00 $642.00 8.0 $41.06 $600.94 0.07 2.0 $80.25 $75.12 6% 23 Yosemite to Fresno 4:06 AM 112 4 $697.28 11.9 $61.03 $636.26 0.11 2.7 $58.65 $53.52 9% 24 Fresno to Yosemite 7:50 AM 112 4 $649.13 10.0 $51.33 $597.80 0.09 2.5 $64.91 $59.78 8% 25 Yosemite to Fresno 5:48 PM 112 4 $697.28 5.6 $28.52 $668.77 0.05 1.3 $125.51 $120.38 4% 26 Fresno to Yosemite 11:15 AM 112 4 $649.13 9.1 $46.77 $602.37 0.08 2.3 $71.25 $66.11 7% Overall Route Performance 670 25 $4,024.98 56.1 $288.02 $3,736.97 0.08 2.2 $71.73 $66.60 7%

Weekends/Holidays (2) 21 Yosemite to Fresno 11:15 AM 111 8.60 $1,380.30 10.8 $55.61 $1,324.69 0.10 1.3 $127.41 $122.28 4% 22 Fresno to Yosemite 11:15 AM 111 8.00 $1,284.00 11.7 $59.88 $1,224.12 0.11 1.5 $110.06 $104.92 5% 23 Yosemite to Fresno 5:37 AM 117 5 $741.51 15.6 $80.07 $661.44 0.13 3.4 $47.53 $42.40 11% 24 Fresno to Yosemite 7:50 AM 115 4 $674.10 8.8 $45.34 $628.76 0.08 2.1 $76.31 $71.18 7% 25 Yosemite to Fresno 5:46 PM 111 4.30 $690.15 10.7 $54.75 $635.40 0.10 2.5 $64.70 $59.57 8% 26 Fresno to Yosemite 11:15 AM 111 4.00 $642.00 7.4 $37.98 $604.02 0.07 1.9 $86.76 $81.62 6% Overall Route Performance 676 34 $5,412.06 65.0 $333.64 $5,078.42 0.10 1.9 $83.26 $78.13 6%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included. Table C‐11: January 2020 Run Analysis ‐‐ 140 Route Average Daily Performance Analysis y Estimated Cost per per Starting Revenue Revenue Operating Passenger Fare Operating Boardings per Boardings per Passenger Passenger Farebox Run Start / End Time Miles Hours Cost (1) Boardings Revenue Subsidy Revenue Mile Revenue Hour Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekdays 1XW Cathey's Vly‐Valley 5:45 AM 69 2.10 $225.50 6.6 $34.06 $191.43 0.10 3.2 $33.98 $28.85 15% 2W Exp. Merced to Yosemite 5:00 AM 87 2.50 $268.45 12.2 $62.53 $205.92 0.14 4.9 $22.04 $16.90 23% 3W Merced to Yosemite 6:40 AM 87 3.20 $343.62 17.0 $87.03 $256.59 0.19 5.3 $20.27 $15.13 25% 4XW Merced to Yosemite 8:45 AM 87 3.00 $322.14 13.8 $70.93 $251.21 0.16 4.6 $23.31 $18.18 22% 5W Merced to Yosemite 10:30 AM 87 3.30 $354.35 13.8 $70.93 $283.43 0.16 4.2 $25.64 $20.51 20% 5 Extra Merced to Yosemite Xtra 10:30 AM 87 3.00 $322.14 25.0 $128.32 $193.82 0.29 8.3 $12.89 $7.75 40% 6W Merced to Yosemite 5:25 PM 87 3.20 $343.62 14.0 $71.86 $271.75 0.16 4.4 $24.54 $19.41 21% 7WOct Midpines to Merced 5:54 AM 51 1.50 $161.07 3.4 $17.50 $143.57 0.07 2.3 $47.25 $42.11 11% 8W Yosemite to Merced 8:20 AM 87 2.80 $300.66 18.5 $94.73 $205.94 0.21 6.6 $16.29 $11.16 32% 9W Yosemite to Merced 2:20 PM 87 2.60 $279.19 17.2 $88.19 $190.99 0.20 6.6 $16.25 $11.12 32% 10XW Yosemite to Merced 3:40 PM 87 2.90 $311.40 12.4 $63.46 $247.94 0.14 4.3 $25.19 $20.05 20% 11W Yosemite to Merced 4:15 PM 87 2.80 $300.66 16.1 $82.83 $217.84 0.19 5.8 $18.63 $13.50 28% 12W Yosemite to Merced 5:05 PM 87 3.00 $322.14 13.2 $67.90 $254.24 0.15 4.4 $24.35 $19.22 21% Overall Route Performance 1077 36 3855 183.2 $940.27 $2,914.67 0.17 5.1 $21.04 $15.91 24%

Weekends/Holidays (2) 2W Cathey's Vly‐Valley 5:45 AM 69 2.10 $225.50 9.5 $48.76 $176.73 0.14 4.5 $23.74 $18.60 22% 3W Merced‐Yosemite 6:40 AM 87 3.20 $343.62 15.3 $78.28 $265.34 0.18 4.8 $22.53 $17.40 23% 4XW Merced‐Yosemite 8:45 AM 87 3.00 $322.14 15.1 $77.64 $244.50 0.17 5.0 $21.30 $16.17 24% 5W Merced‐Yosemite 10:30 AM 87 3.30 $354.35 20.1 $103.30 $251.05 0.23 6.1 $17.61 $12.47 29% 6W Merced‐Yosemite 5:25 PM 87 3.20 $343.62 14.1 $72.50 $271.11 0.16 4.4 $24.33 $19.19 21% 8W Yosemite to Merced 8:20 AM 87 2.80 $300.66 16.6 $85.34 $215.33 0.19 5.9 $18.09 $12.95 28% 9W Yosemite to Merced 2:20 PM 87 2.60 $279.19 18.6 $95.60 $183.59 0.21 7.2 $14.99 $9.86 34% 11W Yosemite to Merced 4:15 PM 87 2.80 $300.66 20.9 $107.15 $193.51 0.24 7.5 $14.40 $9.27 36% 12W Yosemite to Merced 5:05 PM 87 3.00 $322.14 15.5 $79.56 $242.58 0.18 5.2 $20.78 $15.65 25% Overall Route Performance 765 26.00 $2,791.88 145.8 $748.13 $2,043.75 0.19 5.6 $19.16 $14.02 27%

Note 1: Cost based on the $107.38 per revenue hour for use of a YARTS‐owned bus. Note 2: Runs only operated on 1 or 2 days (such as on free fare days) not included.