s

2019

Transit Efficiency and Innovations Study for Stanislaus Council of Governments

Prepared by

McGuire Management Consultancy and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

This page intentionally left blank.

P a g e | i

Transit Efficiency and Innovations Study Draft September 19, 2019

Author’s note: A number of data sources were used in the preparation of this Study. All were provided by participants in the process. Due to variations in definition of the original data recipient (State Controller’s Office, StanCOG), some slight discrepancies in reported values may exist. They are not believed to have a material impact on the Study conclusions.

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Chapter 1 Senate Bill 903 ...... 1 Recommendations: SB 903 ...... 2 Chapter 2 Paratransit Efficiency Strategies ...... 3 Recommendations: Paratransit...... 4 Chapters 3 and 4: Fixed Route and New Transit Strategies ...... 6 Recommendations: Fixed Route Operations ...... 9 Chapter 5 Transit Consolidation ...... 11 Recommendations: Transit Consolidation ...... 12 Chapter 1 Senate Bill 903 ...... 15 Introduction ...... 15 Background ...... 15 Description of Transit Routes ...... 23 Transit Operating Budgets ...... 40 Transit Salary Issues ...... 41 Observations and Conclusions ...... 46 Recommendations...... 48 Chapter 2 Paratransit Efficiency Strategies ...... 61 Introduction ...... 61 Existing Paratransit Services ...... 62 Recommendations...... 72

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard P a g e | ii

Chapter 3 Analysis of Fixed Route Operations ...... 77 Introduction ...... 77 System-Level Analysis ...... 77 Demographic Analysis ...... 85 Route-Level Analysis ...... 101 Planned or Implemented Route Consolidations ...... 106 Recommendations...... 113 Evaluation of Fixed-Route Systems ...... 126 Chapter 4 New Transit Strategies ...... 132 Introduction ...... 132 Microtransit Integration Opportunities ...... 132 Opportunities for Stanislaus County ...... 134 Chapter 5 Transit Consolidation ...... 138 Introduction ...... 138 Transit Organizational Models ...... 138 What is Transit Consolidation? ...... 140 Alternative Approaches to Consolidation ...... 140 Consolidation Considerations for Stanislaus County ...... 145 Consolidation Scenarios ...... 153 Recommendations...... 154

.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard P a g e | 1

Executive Summary

The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Transit Efficiency and Innovations Study (Study) was prescribed to fulfill a number of objectives. The first of these was to satisfy requirements of SB 903 of the 2018 legislative session. That legislation granted StanCOG the authority to adjust the farebox recovery ratio (FRR) for the transit operators in the County for a limited period if they were unable to meet the State mandated levels through all available means. If StanCOG did grant relief from the State level, that action triggered the requirement that StanCOG report back to the legislature the results of the process by January 2020. The contents of that report to the legislature were specified in the statute.

The next major objective of the Study was to assess opportunities to improve transit efficiency throughout the County. This objective was approached as a continuum of options. At the simple or low end of the continuum are steps to improve the coordination and communication among the transit operators. As one moves up the continuum, the next level is coordination. At this step, agencies would formally work together to achieve efficiencies. Streamlined management of such functions as demand response/paratransit service delivery would be a coordination step. Finally, at the most complex step on the continuum, consolidation is reviewed. This would involve the complexity of new agency formation and full integration of service delivery under a consolidated organization. Consolidation has the potential to achieve the greatest level of customer and service delivery efficiency. Chapter 1 Senate Bill 903

Chapter 1 of this study is constructed to fulfill that requirement. It specifically addresses each item specified through the compilation of substantial statistical information as well as technical input from the transit operators and other contributors.

The SB 903 analysis documented the efforts taken by local transit operators to achieve compliance with the fare recovery requirements of the Transportation Development Act (TDA). In so doing, the Study revealed the negative influence of the fare recovery requirement (FRR) on transit planning. It further illustrated the extent to which transit operators would go to adjust services simply to meet the requirement. The Study concluded that FRR is not an appropriate performance measure for transit operators of the size and focus of those in Stanislaus County. Other performance measures that are more commonly used by transit professionals to measure their own efficiency were mentioned as options. An example of this is passengers per revenue hour. This measure is a common tool used by operators to gauge the effectiveness of their services. It is not a performance metric required by TDA.

Yet even a measure such as passengers per revenue hour varies in its applicable scale depending upon other measures of the community in which the service operates. For example, the passengers per hour of individual routes will be far higher in a large urban area such as San Francisco than in a suburban/rural environment such as Stanislaus County. The lowest productivity route in a large metropolitan area would perform at a much higher level than the

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 2

highest route in a suburban/rural area. Thus, such a metric must be scaled according to other measures of community size possibly including population, population density, income characteristics, auto ownership or other factors, as well as factors related to the characteristics of the transit service. Recommendations: SB 903

Farebox Ratio as a Performance Measure On the basis of the research associated with this Study, it is recommended that farebox ratio be eliminated as a transit performance measure in the context of TDA. This measure interferes with appropriate transit service decision making and may lead to violations of FTA Title VI relative to consideration of social factors in transit service deployment.

Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Return to Source The LTF portion of TDA is a return of sales tax collected in each county to the county of origin. Given this, it is recommended that decisions relating to the allocation of LTF funds be a local determination and that any performance metrics associated with that allocation be developed locally by the RTPA (StanCOG in Stanislaus County).

Scaled Performance Metrics It is recommended that performance metrics associated with any TDA funds take into account the scale of the jurisdiction involved. For example, passengers per revenue hour is a commonly applied performance metric. An acceptable number of passengers per hour in the City of Modesto would be very different from the same metric in San Francisco or San Diego. Similarly, such a metric would be very different between the City of Modesto and the City of Patterson.

Equity Considerations Equity considerations particularly as defined in FTA Title VI serve as an overlay to other factors in transit fund allocation. Decisions to provide transit “coverage” may be necessary in spite of lower metrics such as farebox ratio as influenced by equity considerations. This should be considered in any revisions to TDA rules and regulations.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 3

Chapter 2 Paratransit Efficiency Strategies

Along the continuum of options for service improvement, certain recommendations apply to all elements of service including paratransit and fixed route. One of those that applies to all is the recommendation that transit planning for all modes be done on a regional level rather than at the individual operator level as it is done today. Transit planning should be conducted county-wide in order to ensure that consideration is given to the efficiencies that can be attained by integrating the various separate services into a more rational service deployment structure.

The Transit Efficiency and Innovations Study called for a review of demand response/paratransit operations in the County and potential efficiencies related to that service type. In 2017 all four transit operators agreed to a consolidated ADA eligibility process managed by MOVE, the designated Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for Stanislaus County. StanCOG supported this approach and agreed to allow MOVE to increase its TDA claim to include the cost of this service. This was a significant first step towards possible agency consolidation for delivery of paratransit services. This Study examined approaches to accomplishing paratransit consolidation with an emphasis on the business elements of the process. A very detailed review was performed of all demand response/paratransit contracts, invoices for services, operating policies, and service deployment issues. This Study concluded that improvements could be made at each level of a continuum of improvements. At the basic level, improved coordination of public information would better inform the riding public of the relation of the many services and how to more efficiently utilize them. Further, improved coordination of operating policies would facilitate travel using multiple operators to cross service boundaries. At the next level of coordination, major improvements could be achieved through the coordination of procurement practices to integrate the timing of contracts, use of consistent performance measures, and integration of procedures such as reservation processes utilizing the same technology across operators. The highest level of collaboration would be the consolidation of management of all paratransit services into a single service delivery process using one vendor for all operators, one technology system for reservations and scheduling, and a single oversight process for all County operations. This is one step short of full transit system consolidation. A form of interagency agreement establishing a joint management structure would be necessary in order to achieve this. An example of this structure is described in Chapter 2 of this Study.

The consolidation of demand response services could be accomplished without full agency consolidation. A number of improvements in service delivery would result. And it is assumed that these same results would be realized as part of a full agency consolidation decision.

Certain specific recommendations were included in the Study. These were that a public agency procure and manage the reservation and scheduling technology regardless of the level of consolidation. This places one of the most critical elements of service management in the hands of a public/oversight agency rather than in the hands of a contractor. The history to date is to have the contractor provide the technology. This leaves any management agency (at the present time all four agencies) subject to technical dependency upon a vendor which may well change every three to five years. Except for Turlock, which provides its own maintenance facility, the

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 4

current arrangement requires the vendor to provide a facility for demand response management and vehicle maintenance. This places an extraordinary amount of dependence upon the vendor to provide adequate infrastructure. Among other issues with this dependence is the fact that it limits competition for contracts by requiring the vendor to secure an adequate local operating facility. This is a very costly process requiring investment for the long term. There is evidence that this approach has limited competition in recent procurements. Control of the facility by the agency opens up the contracting processes to greater competition. This can attract increased operating creativity and broader expertise to the competitive environment.

Finally, most of the current demand response contracts require the contractor to provide some or all of the vehicles. This too can be a competition limiting factor. If the agency owns its fleet, it possesses greater control over the contracting process. This also reduces the risk to a contractor associated with investment in the vehicle fleet. Agencies owning their own fleet and facilities would leverage more capital funds but decrease operating costs. Again, all of this contributes to increasing competition for the operating contract.

Recommendations: Paratransit

The Integration Study is structured to consider a range of options along a continuum from minor improvements all the way to potential full consolidation of operators. That range of options applies within the paratransit service element as well. On the basis of all of the analysis presented in this Chapter regarding demand response/paratransit service, the consultants offer the following recommendations arrayed along that continuum.

Basic, Minimum Integration Steps: Improved Communication/Coordination Implement Region-Wide Transit Planning: Because of the regional nature of travel throughout Stanislaus County, transit planning should be conducted on a regional basis. This new approach to planning would require little more than coordination among the operating jurisdictions to achieve a single process for the region.

Implement consistent fares: Fares for services vary substantially across operators. A process should be initiated to establish a uniform paratransit fare structure consistent among all operators.

Implement improved information: The communication of operating details varies substantially across operators. A process should be implemented to present information consistently across all operators. For example, not all operators consistently describe the role of MOVE in the ADA eligibility process.

Implement improved paratransit vendor procurement concepts: Much greater coordination of paratransit vendor procurement could result from simple coordination of

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 5

procurement elements. This could include contract timing, consistent performance measurement, non-compliance treatment, and even insurance provisions.

More Complex Integration of Service Elements: Collaboration Implement Joint Vendor Procurement: Using a single procurement process for a paratransit vendor for all operators would result in consistent application of policies and procedures among all. It would address the elements of timing, performance measurement etc. But it would go further to introduce the use of reservation and scheduling technology consistently across operators. Presumably only one technology platform would be sought for use across all operators. This would result in consistent application of procedures for the riding public. It would likely also result in cost efficiencies.

Implement Joint Technology Purchase: At the present time, there is no consistency among operators regarding the selection of reservation and scheduling technology. Instead it is defined differently in each procurement and the result is left to the vendor to determine. The current result is not only the possible use of completely different systems but also the inconsistent utilization of the same system. Finally, the ownership of the system by a public agency eliminates the potential for somewhat frequent introduction of a new system with complex data migration issues and other technical details.

Full Integration: Consolidation Full Consolidation of Paratransit Operations: The highest level of paratransit integration would be the full consolidation of all paratransit operations. This would be facilitated by the fact that all operators currently use the same paratransit vendor. In order to achieve full paratransit consolidation, a number of steps could be involved:

• Develop joint governing/oversight framework: In order to consolidate paratransit operations, a mechanism would need to be created to combine all participating jurisdictions into a management framework that would have the legal standing to carry out the procurement process on behalf of all and to oversee day-to-day operations on behalf of all. This management mechanism should then have decision making authority regarding service policies and operating procedures. • Conduct a joint vendor procurement process: The new management entity would carry out a single vendor procurement to result in one contractor providing service under a single agreement throughout the County. This approach would consolidate decision making regarding reservations and scheduling, vehicle types, maintenance practices, etc. A desired outcome would be a single structure for the provision of the range of services that are currently provided from ADA paratransit, to inter-community shuttles, to local dial-a-rides. • Procure a single reservation and scheduling technology system: A single technology would allow for consistent delivery of services throughout the County. The integration of all jurisdictions could also lead to improved service efficiency by eliminating barriers to vehicle scheduling and utilization, driver deployment,

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 6

customer service, and many other technical details. With public ownership of the system, the volatility of changing systems along with a vendor is eliminated. Further, a much higher level of knowledge and control of the system would likely improve the effectiveness of its application. • Use a single management structure to oversee on-going operations: Management of paratransit services would be simplified and perhaps be accompanied by a higher level of professional expertise through the operation of a larger system. In today’s structure, management of paratransit is spread among all operators each devoting some time to this complex operation. It does not allow for full focus on the nuances of paratransit service delivery as would be the case with a fully integrated and much larger system. The whole could be much more sophisticated than the sum of its parts.

The overall consultant recommendation is to implement change as far up the continuum as there is collective interest in doing so. Chapters 3 and 4: Fixed Route and New Transit Strategies

The recommendation for region-wide transit planning is restated here to better integrate both fixed route and paratransit services on a county-wide basis.

The largest consumer of agency resources, but also the largest contributor in terms of passengers and mobility are the four fixed route systems operating within Stanislaus County. The agencies are listed in alphabetical order.

Ceres Area Transit (CAT): City of Ceres - CAT operates one fixed route in Ceres. Transfers to MAX and StaRT routes are available at the Herndon Road and Hatch Rd stop.

Modesto Area Express (MAX): City of Modesto, Modesto Area Express (MAX) operates 17 fixed routes in and around Modesto. Major transfer points are the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall in North Modesto. Transfers are available between MAX routes and StaRT routes at the Modesto Downtown Transit Center. Regional connections from MAX routes are available to Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter rail at the Lathrop/Manteca ACE station, Amtrak rail at the Modesto Amtrak Station, BART at the Dublin BART Station, and Ceres Area Transit via transfer.

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT): Stanislaus County, Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) provides eight fixed-routes in the region, connecting the cities of Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock with smaller areas including Riverbank, Oakdale, Patterson, Grayson, Westley, Crows Landing, Newman, Gustine, Hughson, Hickman, Keyes, Empire, Waterford and Denair. StaRT also provides a commuter route to the Dublin BART Station. Transfers are available between StaRT routes and CAT, Turlock Transit, and MAX routes. Turlock Transit interfaces with Merced’s “The Bus” Route T at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center in Turlock.

Turlock Transit: City of Turlock, Turlock Transit operates six fixed routes in Turlock. Regional connections from Turlock Transit routes are available to StaRT routes at the Turlock Transit

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 7

Center. Turlock Transit interfaces with Merced’s “The Bus” Route T at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center in Turlock.

Service Levels Weekday service levels for all routes, including hours of operation and frequency, are summarized by transit agency and route in Figure ES-1 on the following page.

Figure ES-1 Stanislaus County Fixed Route Transit Weekday Service Span and Frequency

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 8

An analysis of the fixed route system made the following findings:

1.) Generally, transit riders in Stanislaus County are more likely to be low-income, students, and lack access to a vehicle than the overall population in the county. Transit agencies in Stanislaus County are, therefore, providing essential transportation services for people with the greatest need and the most limited mobility options. 2.) Access to transit is not evenly distributed throughout the county to those who potentially need it most. Despite efforts to stretch mobility options to as many residents as possible, there remain gaps in the system. This situation is not unique to Stanislaus County and should not be interpreted as a criticism of the transit systems in the county. For most counties where a significant portion of the population is located in more rural areas, this is a common condition. This condition is not exclusively found in the rural areas of the County, within urban areas of the County there remain pockets of high need individuals who are not within walking distance of a transit stop. The point is, that offering mobility to households with low income and no access to autos is a never-ending effort at stretching resources and balancing investments. Even if all four systems were consolidated into one system, this condition would remain and continue to be a challenge for a county-wide transit agency in both rural and urban areas. 3.) There are opportunities to improve coordination of resources in a few locations in the County where agencies are providing overlapping services. In some cases, there are opportunities to operate services in a way that improves overall service for transit riders. In a few cases there are opportunities to improve operating efficiency by eliminating service overlaps. These opportunities could best be characterized as nibbling at the edges of resource allocation, as opposed to wholesale changes that would yield significant improvements in operating efficiency. 4.) In a few cases, there are locations where more flexible and adaptive transit services could offer improved mobility for residents at about the same overall cost. Again, these are not wholesale opportunities, but in some neighborhoods present a chance to better serve a niche market. 5.) Given the typical profile of transit riders in the County, somewhat limited availability of app- based ridershare operators, and the general transportation conditions that both encourage and make driving the option of first choice, there is no evidence to suggest that the app- based rideshare services are offsetting any portion of the current transit market in Stanislaus County. In fact, the existence of these services offers some limited opportunities to provide more flexible mobility for some residents at a lower overall cost.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 9

Recommendations: Fixed Route Operations

Recommendation: Transit Planning It is recommended that future transit planning in Stanislaus County be carried out on a region-wide basis. The preparation of individual Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) by each operator misses the opportunity to fully rationalize transit deployment in the best interest of the riding public. As travel patterns in the County are regional, planning for meeting the increasingly complex array travel needs should be carried out on a regional basis.

Recommendation: McHenry Avenue/SR 108 Corridor Although the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor is shared by multiple routes, the service design successfully provides high-frequency transit on the trunk portion of the corridor (Needham Street to Standiford Avenue) and connects residential communities inside and out of Modesto to retail and institutional opportunities on SR 108.

Care should be taken, however, to coordinate schedules so that stop times on the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor’s trunk service area minimize headways for riders boarding or alighting on the corridor. With slightly more coordinated schedules, it is possible to give many riders a minimum of seven-minute headways to certain destinations on the corridor, as well as to the Downtown Transit Center from the corridor. It is also recommended that StaRT and MAX stops along the corridor be fully consolidated so that there are no StaRT-only stops (such as the McHenry Ave. & Bowen Ave. stop #104).

The benefits of short headways provided by multi-agency service along this corridor can only be realized by riders if they understand how to use and transfer between buses operated by both agencies. To this end, both agencies should coordinate to produce posted stop schedules, online materials, and transit center collateral that clearly and effectively communicates the access provided by their joint services. This type of coordination is especially helpful for new riders.

Likewise, better integrating the fare system among local agencies would make transfers among agencies easier, which may increase ridership on all systems. The ability to pay fares on any local bus with a single pass or fare card would greatly improve service and fare legibility for riders.

Recommendation: Ceres Hatch Road/Mitchell Road/Whitmore Avenue Corridors It is recommended that the single CAT route be absorbed into MAX operations. Having a single CAT route reduces overall transit legibility in the Modesto area, and, on a regional level, incurs unnecessary administrative and operational overhead that could be more efficiently managed within MAX. The CAT route service patterns and alignment could remain the same under MAX operations or could be adjusted to serve the Downtown Transit Center in Modesto, thus eliminating transfers for many riders.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 10

It is also recommended that route stop times be coordinated to provide the lowest headways on shared corridors (e.g. evenly spacing trips for the CAT route and StaRT Route 61 on E Hatch Road and Mitchell Road), while considering riders that may continue to use the Herndon Road at E Hatch Road transfer point.

Recommendation: Turlock Local Circulator StaRT routes 10 and 15 are recommended to stop at CSU Stanislaus, Monte Vista Crossings, and the Roger K. Fall Transit Center only, providing an express connection to Turlock and bypassing many of the local stops that are currently served by Turlock Transit.

Altering StaRT routes to serve only these locations will reduce StaRT trip times, allowing the adjusted StaRT routes to operate greater with slightly greater frequency and/or reliability. Although riders will no longer have one-seat ride access to some destinations, they will still be able to access these destinations via transfer to Turlock Transit’s local routes.

Limiting the number of Turlock stops will also improve service legibility for Stanislaus County residents, helping to solidify StaRT as a regional transit service and Turlock Transit as a local transit service.

The StaRT Commuter to BART route is recommended to remain as-is.

Recommendation: Long Distance Commuter Service To use limited resources more efficiently, the existing MAX commuter routes could be combined into a single ‘MAX to ACE and BART’ route, serving the Modesto Downtown Transit Center, Vintage Faire Mall park-and-ride, Lathrop/Manteca ACE station, and Dublin / Pleasanton BART station. Stopping at both the ACE and BART stations instead of serving BART directly would add approximately 10 minutes of travel time but would be a more efficient use of operational resources.

Combining the MAX to ACE and MAX to BART routes and operating seven round trips would yield, on average, 29 boardings per trip (59% seat utilization with a 49-passenger over-the-road coach bus) assuming current demand persists.

It is also recommended that long-distance commuter routes in Stanislaus County be operated only by StaRT. Operating long-distance commuter routes under two agency names, brands, and fare structures may be reducing service legibility for riders, as well as damaging general branding and awareness of service throughout Stanislaus County.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 11

Chapter 5 Transit Consolidation

The consolidation of transit systems is a major focus of the Study. Chapter 5 of the Study addresses this concept. There are many potential objectives for consolidation. While the study did not include a formal goal setting process, some of the typical goals or expectations of system consolidation are discussed. Among the most important of these is the improvement of service for the riding population. The current service configuration in the County includes different fare structures between operators, overlapping service deployment, inconsistent public information, uncoordinated service change processes having ripple effects on the other operators, and differing approaches to vendor contracting. Consolidation of management of all of these factors in a single structure clearly introduces opportunities to eliminate rider confusion through simplification of system access. It also provides for an environment in which service deployment is centrally planned and managed. An outcome would be “route rationalization” in which all resources become part of the same pool and thus can be deployed as a unified system. Any consolidation conversation should begin with this overall objective.

The factors involved in agency consolidation are numerous and complex. They include both policy and technical considerations. These are influenced by the form of consolidation that might be considered. The Study reviews various options including consolidation by an existing agency or the formation of a new organization. Each approach has its merits and shortcomings. Ultimately, the formation of a new agency is recommended. Within this recommendation, further options are also outlined. Agency consolidation is a voluntary action. The participating jurisdictions must choose to participate and take formal action to do so. Given that fact, each must evaluate the impacts on their jurisdiction and their constituents. The Study concludes that consolidation of the City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, and the City of Ceres into a new Joint Powers Authority would be a good option for achieving the objectives relating to customer service. A second option to include the City of Turlock is also offered. This latter option would offer the benefits of centralized management throughout the entire County.

A common expectation of agency consolidation is cost savings. The Study suggests that, while savings may be realized, it should not be the primary objective. There are cost factors which may

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 12

increase across operators as they are comingled. For example, wage rates in a consolidated environment typically gravitate toward the higher existing level. However, consideration of efficiencies in the Stanislaus case is facilitated by the fact that all four operators use the same contractor for some or all of their operations. This fact presents opportunities to introduce management and service deployment efficiencies through either a single vendor procurement or two vendor contracts, one for fixed route service and the other for demand response/paratransit. Obtaining such potential efficiencies depends upon managing the procurement process in a manner that allows for their consolidation. Among other issues is the contract end dates for the various operators. Steps should be taken immediately to achieve consistent contract termination dates in order to facilitate the larger process.

The Study recommends that contracts for fixed route and paratransit services be separated and awarded separately. This allows for structuring the procurement process and management of the resulting vendors for their unique characteristics. This approach is recommended even in a consolidated environment where both services are managed by a single public entity.

Other impacts of potential consolidation are also addressed. At the present time, the City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, and the City of Turlock all claim transit funds to support overhead functions within their administrative structure. These items commonly include human resources, accounting and finance, legal services, and IT support. Typically, in a consolidation process, these funds are no longer claimed by the original jurisdiction and instead go to the new agency to support those functions in the new configuration. The impact of this transition needs to be considered in the discussion.

Another common step associated with consolidation is the re-branding of the system to reflect the new agency. This can be a costly process involving the introduction of a new identity across a now consolidated fleet, bus stops, and other facilities. This is a one-time expense that can be significant. Other examples of agencies elsewhere in the State indicate that a one-time allocation of funds to facilitate this or other transition expenses can encourage the decision.

Recommendations: Transit Consolidation

Basic, Minimum Integration Steps: Improved Communication/Coordination The most basic level of service consolidation that is recommended is the operation of transit service in Ceres by either the County or the City of Modesto. Ceres Transit is not sustainable. Between FY 2015-16 and FY 2017-18 total ridership on Ceres fixed route and demand response combined dropped by nearly 62%. Fewer than 2,000 rides per month were provided in FY 2017-18. Both MAX and StaRT also operate service to Ceres at the present time. The riding public would be better served through consolidation of Ceres service. Further, the integration of Ceres into either MAX or StaRT may also demonstrate cost efficiencies. Integration of Ceres should occur effective July 1, 2020. At the basic level, no new operating agency would be necessary. Some revision of the

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 13

procurement and resulting vendor contract would be necessary to address transition details.

More Complex Integration of Service Elements: Collaboration The next level of consolidation would begin with paratransit. Under this scenario, the demand response/paratransit services of all County operators would be combined through an operating agreement. Such an agreement would include the creation of a centralized paratransit management function/office to oversee procurement of a single operator contract, oversight of on-going operations, and single point of contact for the riding public. This could be a phase 1 approach to full consolidation. The complexity of operating and management issues involved in this scenario could result in focus on this issue to the distraction from larger agency consolidation. This would be a decision that would depend upon the ultimate objective of the governing jurisdictions.

Full Integration: Consolidation The next level of complexity along the continuum would be the consolidation of some of the operators though not all. The next level of consolidation that is recommended would combine MAX, StaRT, and Ceres into a single operating agency. This could be accomplished through the absorption of MAX and Ceres by the County. This would result in the operation of most services throughout the region by the County. Only Turlock would remain an independent operator. Integration of MAX and Ceres into the County is not recommended for a number of reasons:

1. The City of Modesto is currently the designated recipient for federal transit grants. Shifting that responsibility to the County would add a level of complexity to County management that to date has been effectively performed by the City. 2. The County does not possess the necessary depth of management to effectively integrate dramatically larger services. 3. The only change in governance accomplished by this option would be greater transit responsibility for the County Board of Supervisors. At the present time, transit is one of many programs overseen by the Board. It does not currently receive a level of attention that creates a transit emphasis. Applying that same governance to a greatly expanding array of services and issues would not afford the appropriate level of attention.

The recommended approach to the integration/consolidation of the three agencies is the formation of a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to assume management of all aspects of the transit service of the three jurisdictions. The benefits of such an approach would include:

1. Central management of all transit services allowing for complete integration of service elements including route structure, public information, fares, and assets (facilities and fleet).

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 14

2. Central governance with a transit focus. A new JPA Board responsible for all transit decisions for the three agencies would bring an emphasis on transit that is currently embedded within general government. 3. Centralized vendor procurement: It is recommended that vendor procurement be separated into a fixed route contract and a demand response contract. At the present time, these services are combined in the contracts awarded by the County, Ceres, and Turlock. This configuration does not provide the necessary focus on the technical issues inherent to each service type. Separation of the contracts would provide for that emphasis. Many details of the two service types are substantially different. These include the technologies used for each, the approach to service delivery (fixed schedules versus on-demand with curbside pickup), vehicle types, driver training, and many additional nuances. Further, the majority of fixed route drivers are currently represented by a union while the demand response drivers are not. Award and management of only two contracts with the appropriate service types would allow for optimization of each. 4. Potential cost efficiencies: The consolidation of the three services could afford cost efficiencies. While this should not be the paramount factor in the consolidation decision, the potential does exist to achieve efficiencies at both the agency and vendor levels.

As applied in this context, full consolidation refers to complete integration of some or all of the operating agencies in the County. This could begin with the consolidation of Modesto, the County, and Ceres into a new JPA. Though it would be more efficient to consolidate all agencies at the same time as it relates to both governance and policy issues but also operations factors, a partial consolidation without the City of Turlock would be a strong starting point.

The consolidation of all four operating agencies would be the final step in integrating all transit services throughout the County. The various benefits outlined above would apply to this full consolidation scenario. But they would be further enhanced through the addition of the Turlock components to the mix. Turlock currently uses the same contractor as do the other jurisdictions. Full consolidation would allow for the rationalization of services to include single larger contracts for both fixed route and demand response services. It could also introduce additional options for service deployment. Turlock has both existing and proposed facilities that could be valuable considerations in efficiency discussions.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 15

Chapter 1 Senate Bill 903

Introduction

The Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) initiated this Transit Efficiency and Innovations Study intending to fulfill multiple objectives. The first of those was to address legislative requirements associated with the passage of SB 903 in 2018. This involves an analysis of many transit operating and financial issues to assess the impact of fare recovery ratio as an effective transit performance measure. The legislature was specific in the contents of the resulting analysis. This Chapter 1 – SB 903: Legislative Requirements fulfills that directive. The Study is also intended to identify opportunities for greater integration of transit services throughout Stanislaus County in an effort to attain certain efficiencies and perhaps to create a more cost- effective overall system. Finally, the Study called for an analysis of options and impacts of some level of transit consolidation in the County. Each of these objectives is addressed in this Study beginning with the SB 903 analysis. Background

The passage of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) in 1971 was a landmark event in the nation regarding funding for public transit. TDA created the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) which is the return of a quarter percent (.25%) of the State sales tax back to the jurisdiction where it was collected. In the large counties with a population of over 500,000 all TDA funds were required to be used for public transit or other specified purposes. The funds could not be used to fund street and road projects. In smaller counties there was a recognition that the available funds may be greater than was needed to provide public transit services. In those counties, under certain circumstances, some of the funds could be used for streets and roads.

Existing TDA law requires a transit operator to meet a specified ratio of fare revenues to operating cost, called the Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR). Generally, TDA law defines the minimum ratio necessary to receive LTF funding as 20% for operators of general public transit services within urbanized areas, 10% for operators in non-urbanized areas and 10% for operators of services restricted to seniors and people with disabilities regardless of where it operates. Operators serving a combination of urban and non-urban areas may be subject to a combined ratio of 15%. If a transit operator fails to meet the FRR applicable to the service it operates, TDA law requires the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), StanCOG, to withhold an amount of LTF equal to the shortfall in farebox revenues. The operator is required to cover the revenue shortfall by using local funds.

In the 2010 census, Stanislaus County crossed the population threshold of 500,000. This carries with it the increase in fare recovery ratio from either 10% or 15% to 15% to 20%. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) allowed the transportation planning agency up to five years from the date of the census to impose the higher farebox ratio. These regulations (CCR 6613.1 and CCR6633.2 (a)) set the latest effective date for the new farebox requirement July 1 of the year

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 16

five years following the census. This meant that the new farebox regulations for Stanislaus County went into effect July 1, 2016.

The transit operators in Stanislaus County took various steps to comply with the newly applicable fare ratio requirements. Efforts to achieve compliance are documented below. In certain cases, major service restructuring was implemented in an effort to achieve the new higher ratio. The restructuring was so substantial as to qualify the operator for an exemption from the fare requirements for three years. In other instances, the operator achieved the ratio but was predicted to fall short of the required ratio in the near future.

This combination of circumstances led to the introduction and passage of SB 903. That 2018 statute allowed StanCOG to set a fare ratio for the Stanislaus operators of up to 5% lower than the ratio that was achieved in the 2015-16 year. The required Farebox Recovery Ratios for fiscal years 2015-16 through 2017-18 are listed in Figure 1-1 below:

Figure 1-1 Required Farebox Ratios FY 2015-16 Stanislaus County Transit Operators FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Ceres Area Transit, CAT (Urban Area Fixed Route) 15% 20% 20% Ceres Dial-A-Ride 10% 10% 10% Modesto Area Express MAX (Urban Area Fixed Route)1 15% 20% 20% Modesto Dial-A-Ride (MADAR)1 10% 10% 10% Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) (Urban-Rural Blend) 10% 15% 15% Turlock Transit (Urban Area Fixed Route) 15% 20% 20% Turlock Transit Dial-A-Ride 10% 10% 10%

1. FRR is 15% for MAX and 10% for MADAR. In accordance with PUC 99268.5(b), Modesto can calculate its FRR using these percentages separately or combine both for a 15% FRR.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 17

Actual farebox ratios for each operator for FY 2015-16 through FY 2017-18 are listed in Figure 1- 2 below.

Figure 1-2 Actual Farebox Ratios FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FR DR FR DR FR DR Ceres 9.33% 9.03% 10.32% Modesto 18.51% 18.89% 9.68% 22.83% 10.39% StaRT 10.70% 10.82% 16.30% Turlock 16.16% 10.75% 16.20% 10.75% 16.30% 10.29%

Data Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Ceres, Modesto and StaRT provided demand response service in all three fiscal years shown in Figure 1-2. Ceres and StaRT reported combined fixed route and demand response percentages for all three years. Modesto reported combined fixed route and demand response percentages in FY 15-16.

Figures 1-3 and 1-4 below illustrate the actual farebox recovery ratios achieved by each of the four transit agencies for fixed route and demand response service compared to the farebox requirement established by StanCOG for fiscal years 2015-16 through 2017-18.

Figure 1-3 Fixed Route Actual versus Required Farebox Recovery Ratios

Data Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Ceres and StaRT reported combined fixed route and demand response percentages for all three years. Modesto reported combined fixed route and demand response percentages in FY 15-16.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 18

Figure 1-4 Demand Response Actual versus Required Farebox Recovery Ratios Demand Response Farebox: Required versus Actual Fiscal Years 15/16 - 16/17 - 17/18 12% 10.8%10.7% 10.4% 10.3% 9.7% 10% 10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

16/17

16/17

15/16 17/18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.0% 17/18 0% StaRT Ceres Modesto Turlock

Data Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Ceres and StaRT reported combined fixed route and demand response percentages for all three years. Modesto reported combined fixed route and demand response percentages in FY 15-16.

In January 2019, StanCOG adopted Implementation Policies and Procedures which provide for consideration of a fare ratio adjustment for individual operators for fiscal year 2018-19 based upon their performance. The individual operator circumstances will be reviewed during the annual Transit Cost Sharing Process carried out in April 2019.

Operator Efforts to Achieve Compliance This study examined the factual efforts made by each transit operator in the County to comply with the TDA farebox requirements. This was accomplished through examining summaries of service adjustments provided by the operators as well as analyzing statistical evidence of changes in service according to various measures. The following are details of the actions taken by each operator to address the dramatic increase in farebox ratio that became effective July 1, 2016:

Ceres: The City of Ceres implemented the following measures on December 1, 2016, in specific response to the new farebox requirements:

• Eliminated fixed route service on weekends • Reduced weekday fixed route service by 50% o FY 16-17 operated 4,418 fixed route revenue hours o FY 17-18 operated 2,695 fixed route revenue hours • Reduced coverage of the territory of the City by 50% o This was the direct result of the reduction of service (measured in revenue hours)

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 19

• Reduced Dial-A-Ride service by 33% o FY 16-17 operated 4,286 revenue hours o FY 17-18 operated 2,861 revenue hours • Eliminated eligibility of the general public to use Dial-A-Ride (CDAR) o This limited DAR to seniors and disabled only • Increased DAR fares by 40% o FY 14-15 DAR fare = $2.15 o FY 16-17 DAR fare = $3.00

City of Modesto (MAX and former MADAR): The City of Modesto has taken many steps to improve service and build ridership. The City was not in immediate jeopardy of non- achievement of the farebox requirement. It did, however, take a number of steps to maintain and improve the farebox ratio. Some of these were done in an effort to improve service and enhance the customer experience with the expectation of increasing ridership on the system and thus farebox receipts. Others were specifically directed at farebox compliance. Changes began in FY 2014-15 in anticipation of the farebox increase.

• FY 14-15: o Purchased 26 new fixed route vehicles; reduced maintenance costs; replaced approximately half of the fleet • FY 15-16: o Received California Air Resources Board (CARB) grant to purchase electric buses. o Established a policy to focus transit service on high ridership areas with higher farebox ratios than on low productivity areas in spite of need. • FY 16-17: o Installed bus tracking for passengers to improve service quality o Initiated a transit advertising program in response to the change in State law allowing advertising to count as farebox revenue o Installed new fareboxes with new fare media to improve customer service o Initiated new vendor contract for transit services to emphasize customer service and vehicle cleanliness o Negotiated an agreement with Modesto Junior College to allow students to ride with college ID; resulted in a new farebox revenue source at a guaranteed level o Measure L was passed by Stanislaus County voters; provided a new local source of revenue for transit farebox [applies to all Stanislaus County operators]

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 20

• FY 17-18: o Implemented major route revisions to improve on-time performance; reduced poor performing routes (low ridership) o Raised fares in all ridership categories o Implemented a mobile ticketing app (Token Transit) to improve customer service

Stanislaus County StaRT: Stanislaus County implemented the following measures in specific response to the new farebox requirements:

• FY 14-15: o Consolidated stops in Turlock, Keyes, and on the west side of the County due to low ridership o Used LCTOP grant to provide transit vouchers thus adding a new funding source to attract new riders • FY 15-16 o Service cuts including consolidation of stops in Patterson, Newman, and Turlock due to low ridership o Eliminated a loop on the Merced route o Eliminated Friday Medivan service o Reduced Saturday Shuttle service hours o Eliminated Saturday Waterford Dial-A-Ride service • FY 16-17 o Additional adjustment of stops was undertaken particularly consolidation of stops in Keyes o New commuter service from Turlock/Patterson to the Dublin BART station was introduced in an effort to appeal to higher fare paying ridership o ADA paratransit was introduced in areas served by StaRT fixed routes o Stops added in various locations to address unmet demand o New service added between Modesto, Empire, Waterford, Hickman, Hughson and Ceres to attract new riders • FY 17-18 o Farebox recovery was an increasingly dramatic problem; many service adjustments were made in specific response o Entered service contract with Modesto Junior College allowing students to ride at no cost; college paid for all service; new revenue source o Service was reduced on several routes in the form of increased headways o Eliminated service to Merced o Eliminated Medivan Feeder service o Received grant to improve County-owned property for a transit yard in east County to reduce operating costs

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 21

• FY 18-19 o Reduced service through elimination of stops in Patterson, Westley, and Grayson to improve running time o Raised fares

Turlock: The City of Turlock has implemented a number of actions in recent years in an effort to improve transit service all of which are driven by specter of farebox penalties. The following is a summary of actions taken. Recognizing the impending farebox ratio increase in FY 2016, the City of Turlock began making dramatic changes as early as FY 13-14. As documented below, many changes to the system were implemented between FY 13-14 and FY 17-18. As a result of these changes, ridership on the fixed route system increased by 35% over that period. There were similarly dramatic results on the demand response service. Over that same period, demand response ridership dropped by 68%. The combination of these two trends produced very positive results for the City.

• FY 13-14: o Eliminated all evening service; service eliminated after 5:30 pm o Reduced Saturday service by approximately 50% • FY 14-15 o Left Manager position unfilled to reduce operating cost • FY 15-16 o SB 508 allowed advertising revenues to count as farebox; Turlock implemented an advertising program guaranteeing revenue o Farebox ratio still did not reach the 20% that would be required in the following year • FY 16-17 o Implemented a major system overhaul driven by farebox requirement ▪ Redesigned and realigned routes ▪ Reduced headways ▪ Extended evening hours ▪ Implemented bi-directional service ▪ Results: improved on-time performance; improved connectivity o Granted a three year farebox exemption due to the dramatic system redesign o Entered into a funding agreement with California State University, Stanislaus, guaranteeing fare income for five years • FY 17-18 o Cost increase in new transit vendor contract negated many of the gains achieved in the prior years.

The results of these various actions are best illustrated by comparing revenue hours of service delivered by each operator over the three year period beginning in FY 2015-16. Figure 1-5 on the following page compares service volumes measured in revenue hours for each operator.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 22

Figure 1-5 Revenue Hours FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FR DR FR DR FR DR Ceres 6,840 6,555 4,418 4,286 2,695 2,861 Modesto 151,089 32,530 156,258 31,085 161,231 28,976 StaRT 43,531 19,374 47,468 20,544 45,048 20,909 Turlock 12,894 2,621 15,516 2,398 22,760 3,832

Data Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report

With the changes in the volume of service deployed there were subsequent impacts on overall transit ridership. Three of the four operators experienced declines in ridership through the three year period. Ceres, Modesto, and the County all experienced patterns of ridership decline over that period. Turlock was the only operator that experienced ridership increases during the period. Figure 1-6 shows ridership by operator.

Figure 1-6 Ridership FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FR DR FR DR FR DR Ceres 34,201 27,014 19,385 13,807 14,926 8,355 Modesto 3,108,307 121,047 2,762,922 115,702 2,589,049 92,025 StaRT 338,047 47,108 313,338 45,714 309,953 42,755 Turlock 111,040 9,828 117,370 8,680 144,730 10,950

Data Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report

In addition, the study evaluated the impact on transit service deployment decision making resulting from the existence of the farebox ratio requirements. Interviews with the transit managers of all jurisdictions covered by this study revealed a number of interesting perspectives. The transit managers are all industry professionals. Of the current managers, two have managed transit agencies in multiple jurisdictions through a period of many years. One of these managed a transit system in another State (Alaska) with very different operating circumstances than California. The other two managers have led their agencies for at least three years. Through these extensive career commitments, the managers have accumulated a substantial body of experience in planning and managing public transit operations. Extensive discussions with each of these professionals documented the influence of the farebox requirement in TDA on transit service planning decisions. Every manager described how actual transit deployment, particularly in what would be considered lifeline situations, was a secondary consideration to the achievement of farebox compliance. Some of the most transit dependent populations or service areas went underserved as a result of planning decisions made as a result of farebox considerations. Those

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 23

areas with traditionally low ridership but with some of the most needy transit users struggle to meet the farebox ratio. This is because service operating costs are as high in high ridership areas, but passenger revenues are not comparable. Thus, service in low ridership areas exaggerates the farebox ratio dilemma.

SB 903 Report to the Legislature Requirement

The report to the Legislature that is triggered by the adjustment of the fare ratio by StanCOG requires that it contain a review of transit routes operating within the county. The specific reference from SB 903 follows:

(2) The report shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (A) A description of the transit routes operating within the county. (B) The service levels on those transit routes, including any planned expansions or consolidations. (C) The ridership numbers for those transit routes.

Description of Transit Routes

The following are descriptions of the transit routes operating within Stanislaus County as of April 2019. Agencies are listed in alphabetical order.

Ceres Area Transit (CAT): City of Ceres - CAT operates one fixed route in Ceres. Transfers to MAX Routes 29 and 42 and StaRT Routes 15 and 61 are available at the Herndon Road and Hatch Rd stop.

• CAT route serves several major destinations including Summit Charter School, Walmart, and Central Valley High School. Transfers are available at Herndon Road and Hatch Road to MAX and StaRT routes.

Modesto Area Express (MAX): City of Modesto, Modesto Area Express (MAX) operates 17 fixed routes in and around Modesto. Major transfer points are the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall in North Modesto. Transfers are available between MAX routes and StaRT routes at the Modesto Downtown Transit Center. Regional connections from MAX routes are available to Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter rail at the Lathrop/Manteca ACE station, Amtrak rail at the Modesto Amtrak Station, BART at the Dublin BART Station, and Ceres Area Transit via transfer with MAX Routes 29 and 42.

• Route 21 is a loop route in central Modesto, serving Modesto High School, Marshall School, Robertson Road School, Burbank School, and the Downtown Transit Center.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 24

• Route 22 operates along the McHenry and Standiford corridors, serving major destinations including Vintage Faire Mall, McHenry Village, and the Downtown Transit Center. Transfers to Route 37 can be made at McHenry/Standiford. • Route 23 provides north-south service along the McHenry corridor. Transfers to Route 37 can be made at McHenry/Standiford. • Route 24 serves residential areas in east Modesto, Lakewood School, and Enochs High School. Transfers to Route 37 can be made at Oakdale/Surrey. • Route 25 provides east-west service between Downtown Transit Center, Amtrak Station, and Vintage Faire Mall. Major corridors served include Orangeburg and Sisk. Transfers to Routes 22, 30, 31, 32, 36, and 37 are available on Orangeburg and Sisk. • Route 26 is a loop route that serves central Modesto, including Modesto High School, Central Catholic High School, and the Downtown Transit Center. Transfers can be made to Routes 21 and 36. • Route 28 provides circulation in north Modesto, serving Gregori High School, Kaiser Hospital, and Vintage Faire Mall. Transfers to Routes 22, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, and 41 are available at Vintage Faire Mall. • Route 29 provides service to Crows Landing and Ceres. Destinations include Tuolumne School and Shackleford School. Select trips serve the JFK/Howard Training Center. Transfers to Route 42 and CAT are available at Hemdon and Hatch. • Route 30 provides local service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall. The route also serves Modesto Jr. College East. Transfers can be made along the route to Routes 25, 31, and 37. • Route 31 provides service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall, via Tully and Pelandale. Major destinations include Modesto Jr. College East and Davis High School. • Route 32 provides service between the Downtown Transit Center and Northeast Modesto. The route serves many schools, including Downey High School, and Memorial Medical Center. Transfers can be made to Route 25 at Coffee and Orangeburg, and Route 37 on Oakdale. • Route 33 is a loop route in west Modesto providing service between the Downtown Transit Center and Modesto Jr. College West. It also serves Central Catholic High School and Mark Twain Jr. High School. • Route 36 provides service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall, operating on the west side of town. The route serves Modesto Jr. College West, Central Catholic High School, and Modesto High School. Transfers can be made along the route to Routes 26 and 33. • Route 37 provides crosstown service to neighborhoods in east and north Modesto. The route connects the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall. Transfers to Routes 25, 31, and 32 are available. • Route 38 is a loop route that serves the Orville Wright School and neighborhoods in east Modesto.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 25

• Route 41 provides direct service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall, operating via Highway 99. • Route 42 is a loop route that serves neighborhoods in south Modesto, including Crows Landing and Ceres. Destinations served include the Shackleford School and Community Services Agency/County Safety Center. Transfers to Route 29 and CAT can be made at Hatch and Hemdon. • Modesto ACE Express is a weekday-only express service between Modesto and the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter train. The bus provides non-stop service between Modesto's Vintage Faire Mall park-and-ride to the Lathrop/Manteca ACE train station. Modesto ACE Express does not provide service to every ACE train. • Modesto BART Express is a weekday-only express service between Modesto and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The route stops at the Modesto Downtown Transit Center, Sisk Road Orchard Supply Hardware parking lot, and Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT): Stanislaus County, Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) provides eight fixed-routes in the region, connecting the cities of Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock with smaller areas including Riverbank, Oakdale, Patterson, Grayson, Westley, Crows Landing, Newman, Gustine, Hughson, Hickman, Keyes, Empire, Waterford and Denair. StaRT also provides a commuter route to the Dublin BART Station. Transfers are available between StaRT routes and CAT, Turlock Transit, and MAX routes.

• Route 10 serves Modesto and Turlock via Highway 99 and circulates central Turlock. Route 10 is weekday-only. • Route 15 serves Modesto, Ceres, Keyes, and Turlock on weekdays and Saturdays. It provides local service east of Highway 99 and circulates Turlock. • Route 40 runs between Modesto and Patterson and serves Modesto, Grayson, Westley, and Patterson. On weekdays, the route operates from the Modesto Downtown Transit Center, and on Saturdays it also serves the Vintage Faire Mall in Modesto. • Route 45E operates between Patterson and Turlock on weekdays and Saturdays. • Route 45W operates between Gustine and Patterson via Highway 33, also serving Newman and Crows Landing. • Route 60 serves Modesto, Riverbank, and Oakdale on weekdays and Saturdays. • Route 61 serves Modesto, Empire, Waterford, Hickman, Hughson, and Ceres on weekdays and Saturdays. • Commuter to BART serves Turlock, Patterson, and Dublin BART Station on weekdays only.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 26

Turlock Transit: City of Turlock, Turlock Transit operates six fixed routes in Turlock. Regional connections from Turlock Transit routes are available to StaRT Routes 10, 15, 45E, Commuter, and The Bus (Merced) Route T.

• Route 1 Countryside is a loop route that operates in a clockwise direction along the same alignment as Route 2. It serves California State University (CSU) Stanislaus, Monte Vista Crossings, Walmart, the Turlock Transit Center, and neighborhoods in north Turlock. • Route 2 Geer is a loop route that operates in a counter-clockwise direction along the same alignment as Route 1. It serves CSU Stanislaus, Monte Vista Crossings, Walmart, the Turlock Transit Center, and neighborhoods in north Turlock. • Route 3 Olive is a loop route that serves the Turlock Transit Center, Emanuel Cancer Center, Pitman High School, CSU Stanislaus, DMV, and Emanuel Medical Center. • Route 4 Colorado serves neighborhoods in east Turlock. Major destinations include Turlock Transit Center, Dutcher High School and Turlock High School. • Route 5 Lander serves the Turlock Transit Center, Downtown Turlock, Turlock City Hall, Central Park, and neighborhoods in south Turlock. • Route 6 Soderquist serves the Turlock Transit Center, Osborn School, and neighborhoods in southwest Turlock.

Route-Level Analysis The following sections describe service levels, planned or completed consolidations, ridership, rider demographics, and productivity on transit routes in Stanislaus County.

Service Levels Service levels for all routes, including hours of operation and frequency, are summarized by transit agency and route in Figure 1-7 on the following page.

Planned or Implemented Route Consolidations Transit agencies are always seeking to provide service as efficiently as possible. One way to ensure efficiency is to consolidate routes that provide overlapping or duplicative service or are underperforming. Route consolidations that have been planned or implemented in recent years and are discussed in this section.

• MAX implemented route consolidations in 2018. Changes included elimination of Routes 27, 34, and 39 and restructuring parts of Route 34 into new Route 24.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 27

Figure 1-7 Service Span and Frequency

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 28

Ridership The number of passengers being served, or ridership, is a reflection of how successful a transit route is. High ridership is indicative of successful service, and conversely, low ridership can indicate that a route is not adequately meeting rider needs.

The following Figure 1-8 shows total annual ridership by agency using the most recent data available.1 MAX carries the highest number of annual passengers, followed by StaRT, Turlock Transit, and CAT.

Figure 1-8 Annual Ridership by Transit Agency

Ridership can be a function of the size of a jurisdiction. The following figures show population by jurisdiction and rides per capita by jurisdiction.2 American Community Survey (ACS) data was used as the source for population (rather than CA Department of Finance) for consistency with other datasets used in the transit propensity analysis. In the City of Ceres, annual ridership is lower than the total number of people in the jurisdiction. In the cities of Modesto and Turlock, annual ridership exceeds the total population by a ratio of 2:1 in Turlock and 11:1 in Modesto. In Stanislaus County, ridership is lower than the population as a whole, except when the populations of Ceres, Modesto, and Turlock are excluded.

1 Ridership data provided by agencies: MAX FY18; CAT FY18; StaRT FY18; Turlock Transit FY18. 2 American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimates

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 29

Figure 1-9 Population by Jurisdiction

600,000 535,684

500,000

400,000

300,000 227,534 199,579

200,000 TotalPopulation

100,000 66,785 41,786

0 Ceres Modesto Stanislaus County Stanislaus County Turlock (minus Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock)

Data Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimate

Figure 1-10 Rides per Capita by Jurisdiction

12.0 10.9

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.1 Annual Rides AnnualRides per Capita 2.0 1.4 0.4 0.6 0.0 Ceres Modesto Stanislaus County Stanislaus County Turlock (minus Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock)

Data Sources: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimate; Ridership data provided by agencies: MAX FY18; CAT FY18; StaRT FY18; Turlock Transit FY18

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 30

Average daily ridership provides a measure for comparing routes with one another. Average daily boardings by agency and route are shown in Figure 1-11. The highest ridership routes in the county are MAX Routes 25, 22, and 21, in that order, with an average of over 500 boardings per day. Among StaRT routes, the highest ridership route is Route 10, with an average of over 300 boardings per day. CAT and Turlock Transit routes have less than 120 boardings on average per day.

Figure 1-11 Average Daily Boardings

Data Sources: Ridership data provided by agencies—MAX FY18; CAT FY18; StaRT FY18; Turlock Transit FY18.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 31

Route Performance Measuring transit performance continues to be an increasing focus in the transit industry. There are essentially three classes of metrics: efficiency, effectiveness, and service quality.

The requirements of SB 903 appear to focus primarily on efficiency and effectiveness. Some common metrics used in the transit industry to evaluate these two include:

Efficiency: • Passengers per Revenue Hour • Passengers per Revenue Mile • Farebox recovery ratio • Cost per boarding • Cost per revenue hour Effectiveness: • Rides per capita • Population within transit walkshed • High mobility need population within transit walkshed • % of population within reach of frequent service The present TDA regulations focus on only one measure - farebox recovery. A better proxy for the relative cost efficiency of providing a given service is passengers per revenue hour or passengers per revenue mile. Both of these metrics are simple to calculate accurately and are more agile in describing the subtle differences in routes. This is one of the reasons they are so commonly used by transit agencies as the primary metrics for measuring efficiency. The two measures are frequently used in tandem to recognize the difference between routes that operate in a denser urban environment versus routes that operate in a more suburban or rural environment. Figure 1-12 shows passengers per revenue hour by mode for fiscal years 2015-16 through 2017-18 while Figure 1-13 shows passengers per revenue hour by route.

Figure 1-12 Passengers per Revenue Hour FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FR DR FR DR FR DR Ceres 5.0 4.1 4.4 3.2 5.5 2.9 Modesto 20.6 3.7 17.7 3.7 16.1 3.2 StaRT 7.8 2.4 6.6 2.2 6.9 2.0 Turlock 8.6 3.7 7.6 3.6 6.4 2.9

Data Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 32

The more complex part of setting benchmarks or thresholds with these two metrics is the fact that, just as various transit systems are different, so are individual routes. So, even within a given route structure there may be three or four classes of routes with different benchmarks. A best practice in this area is to utilize benchmarks that float based on performance of a route group. Route groups are normally distinguished by the service characteristics; days of service, span, and frequency. Floating benchmarks mean the performance of the group is measured and some benchmark is established based on the collective performance. For example, one might find a range of performance of 10 to 30 passengers per revenue hour among a group of routes. The median of that group is 25 passengers per revenue hour. The benchmark or threshold might be set at routes that achieve at least 80% of the median, or 20 passengers per revenue hour in this example. If that were the case, a route that performs at 10 passengers per hours does not meet the performance threshold.

The key question is: what happens if the route does not meet the threshold? The options vary based on the situation. If a route does not meet the benchmark, but has increasing ridership, it may be put on a “watch” list. If the route has been on a “watch” list, an option may be to downgrade the service provided to a different class, such as reducing frequency, or spans of service, or days of service. In some instances, a route might be phased out of operation.

With that as background, Figure 1-13 illustrates how the routes operated in Stanislaus County compare in terms of passengers per revenue hour. No attempt has been made to establish route groups or classes; the purpose is to provide context.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 33

Figure 1-13 Passengers per Revenue Hour

Data Sources: Ridership data provided by agencies—MAX FY18; CAT FY18; StaRT FY18; Turlock Transit FY18.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 34

Rider Demographics The demographics of ridership were analyzed using rider survey data, when available. Transit riders in Stanislaus County are more likely to be low-income, students, and lack access to a vehicle than the overall population in the county. Transit agencies in Stanislaus County are, therefore, providing essential transportation services for people with the greatest need and the most limited mobility options. This section compares rider makeup with the jurisdiction in which the agency is located and with the county as a whole.

Ceres Area Transit (CAT): Demographic information for CAT riders was not available at the time of this report writing.

Modesto Area Express (MAX): MAX surveyed riders in 2018. MAX riders are significantly more likely to be below the poverty line and lack access to a vehicle than the populations of Modesto and Stanislaus County.

Figure 1-14 Stanislaus County, Modesto, and MAX Rider Demographic Comparison

70% 66% 60% 60%

50%

40%

30% 27%26%

20% 17%17% 12%14%12% 9% 10% 7% 7% 2% 1% 1% Percent Percent Total of Populationof Area 0% Youth (<18) College-Aged Seniors (>64) Workers w/o People w/ Income People (20-24) Access to a Vehicle below Poverty Line

Stanislaus County Modesto MAX Riders

Data Sources: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimate; MAX Rider Survey 2018

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT): StaRT riders were most recently surveyed in a 2013 ridecheck and reported by route in their 2014 Comprehensive Operational Analysis.

Turlock Transit: Turlock Transit surveyed riders in early 2019. Similar to MAX riders, Turlock Transit riders are significantly more likely to be below the poverty line and lack access to a vehicle than the populations of Turlock and Stanislaus County. They are also more likely to be college students.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 35

Figure 1-15 Stanislaus County, Turlock, and Turlock Transit Rider Demographic Comparison

80% 75%

70%

60%

50% 47%

40% 27% 28% 30% 25%

20% 17% 17%16% 12%13%11% 8% 10% 7% 1% 1% Percent Percent Total of Populationof Area 0% Youth (<18) College-Aged Seniors (>64) Workers w/o People w/ Income People (20-24) Access to a Vehicle below Poverty Line

Stanislaus County Turlock Turlock Riders

Service Area Demographics Research shows that, on average, people are willing to walk one-quarter mile to access transit. Access to transit in the county was evaluated by creating walksheds for each service area. Walksheds were estimated by mapping walkable areas within ¼-mile of fixed-route transit stops. They are overlaid with various demographic characteristics in each jurisdiction to assess populations served by transit.

Ceres. In Ceres, 32 percent of the population reside within CAT transit walksheds. Among people without access to a vehicle living in Ceres, 26% live within the CAT walkshed. Figure 1-16 details the percentage of various demographic groups in Ceres who are served by CAT. CAT walksheds are illustrated in Figure 1-17.

Figure 1-16 Ceres Population within CAT Walksheds Demographic Group Percent of Ceres Residents within CAT Walksheds Population 32% Youth (<18)** 33% College-Aged People (20-24)** 34% Seniors (>64)** 30% People w/ Disabilities*** 35% Workers w/o Access to a Vehicle*** 26% People w/ Income below Poverty Line*** 38% Jobs 33% Low-Income Jobs 40% Data Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimates; LODES

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 36

Figure 1-17 CAT and MAX Walkshed and Population Density Map

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 37

Modesto In Modesto, 70 percent of the population reside within MAX transit walksheds. The following figure details the percentage of various demographic groups in Modesto who are served by MAX. MAX walksheds are illustrated in 1-18. Figure 1-18 Modesto Population within MAX Walksheds Demographic Group Percent of Modesto Residents within MAX Walksheds

Population 70%

Youth (<18)** 74%

College-Aged People (20-24)** 75%

Seniors (>64)** 65%

People w/ Disabilities*** 66%

Workers w/o Access to a Vehicle*** 71%

People w/ Income below Poverty Line*** 77%

Jobs 72%

Low-Income Jobs 72%

Data Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimates; LODES

Stanislaus County In Stanislaus County, 6 percent of the population reside within StaRT transit walksheds and 37 percent reside within CAT, MAX, StaRT, and/or Turlock Transit walksheds. Figure 1-19 details the percentage of various demographic groups in the county who have access to fixed-route transit. Walksheds are not legible at the county-wide extent and have not been mapped.

Figure 1-19 Modesto Population within MAX Walksheds Percent of Stanislaus County Percent of Stanislaus County Demographic Group Residents within StaRT Residents within All Walksheds Walksheds

Population 37% 6%

Youth (<18)** 37% 7%

College-Aged People (20-24)** 40% 6%

Seniors (>64)** 37% 6%

People w/ Disabilities*** 37% 6%

Workers w/o Access to a Vehicle*** 38% 6%

People w/ Income below Poverty Line*** 39% 6%

Jobs 39% 8%

Low-Income Jobs 44% 9%

Data Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimates; LODES

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 38

Turlock In Turlock, 46 percent of the population reside within Turlock Transit walksheds. Figure 1-20 below details the percentage of various demographic groups in Turlock who are served by Turlock. Turlock Transit walksheds are illustrated in Figure 1-21.

Figure 1-20 Turlock Population within Turlock Transit Walksheds Demographic Group Percent of Turlock Residents within Turlock Transit Walksheds

Population 46%

Youth (<18)** 47%

College-Aged People (20-24)** 49%

Seniors (>64)** 47%

People w/ Disabilities*** 49%

Workers w/o Access to a Vehicle*** 47%

People w/ Income below Poverty Line*** 56%

Jobs 55%

Low-Income Jobs 54%

Data Source: American Community Survey 2017 5-Year Estimates; LODES

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 39

Figure 1-21 Turlock Walkshed and Population Density Map

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 40

SB 903 Report to the Legislature Requirement

The report to the Legislature that is triggered by the adjustment of the fare ratio by StanCOG requires that it contain a review of transit operating budgets. The specific reference from SB 903 follows:

(2) The report shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (D) The annual budget numbers for the transit services provided by each individual operator in the county, including its ratio of fare revenues to operating costs…

Transit Operating Budgets

The budgets for each Stanislaus County transit operator have been complied and reviewed. Budgets and corresponding performance measures are presented for each operator in the Exhibits section at the end of this Study. The following fiscal years for each operator are provided:

• FY 2015-16 • FY 2016-17 • FY 2017-18

This detail covers the year established by the Legislature as the base point for making fare ratio adjustments by StanCOG (FY 2015-16) and the two subsequent years for which data is available. A number of observations regarding the operator budgets emerge from the review.

• Revenue sources:

The operators make use of a substantial number of revenue sources in meeting their agency operating and capital needs. The basic sources are those common to most transit agencies in California: Local Transportation Fund (LTF), State Transit Assistance (STA), and now Measure L. But in addition to these typical sources the operators have made creative use of grants. These range from LCTOP, to FTA Section 5307, to special California Air Resources Board (CARB) grants. Transit operators are typically schooled to search out grant funds to support either operations or capital needs. It is an expectation of all transit managers. Their efforts in this regard are generally supported by the information network associated with grant sources. Whether grants are available through FTA, Caltrans, CARB, or other sources, the granting agency typically has broadcast means to announce the availability of funds. Transit funds would not likely be available without the knowledge of transit management. Industry associations such as the California Transit Association (CTA) and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CalACT) are also information sources with which transit officials are routinely connected.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 41

Another aspect of revenue sources is their creative use by transit management. An example that is being constructed today is the use of LCTOP funds to support fare free periods among all transit operators during FY 2019-20. These funds qualify as farebox revenue. Their use for the fare free days allows all operators to maximize the contribution to farebox revenue during the established periods.

• Expenses:

A review of the expense items and then the impact of these as reflected in the performance measures suggests that costs are rising rapidly relative to the level of service. This will be analyzed in great detail in the final project report. For example, Modesto projects a nearly 34% increase in the cost per hour for Dial-a-Ride for the current year. Turlock projects a nearly 15% increase in cost per hour in its fixed route cost for the current year. Ceres projects an increase in the cost per revenue hour of approximately 45% in the current year over FY 2017-18. Among the issues related to these costs that will be analyzed in the integration study will be the provisions in the operating contracts concerning rates. There may be opportunity for cost saving with a thorough review of contracting approaches.

SB 903 Report to the Legislature Requirement

The report to the Legislature that is triggered by the adjustment of the fare ratio by StanCOG requires that it contain a review of transit salaries. The specific reference from SB 903 follows:

(2) The report shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (D) …and any salary increases since the enactment of this section.

Transit Salary Issues Agency Employees The transit salary issues experienced in the Stanislaus environment are very similar to those experienced throughout the transit industry in California. This is especially true in cases such as Stanislaus where all operators contract for some or all aspects of the actual service delivery. It is important to describe the employment structure of transit positions in order to fully analyze salary issues. The four transit operators in Stanislaus County have similar though not identical employment structures. Each agency directly employs management, administrative, and sometimes planning or other personnel. Information provided by operators indicate that salaries during study period (FY 2015-16 to FY 2018-19) were generally at or below CPI levels.

These are public employees of each government agency. Organization charts for each agency are presented on the following pages in Figures 1-22 through 1-25:

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 42

Figure 1-22 Ceres Organizational Chart The City of Ceres

Figure 1-23 Turlock Organizational Chart The City of Turlock

Figure 1-24 StaRT Organizational Chart Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT)

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 43

Figure 1-25 Modesto Organizational Chart The City of Modesto

These employees perform a variety of tasks essential to the operation of transit service. Typical tasks include:

• General management • Service planning • Contract oversight and management • Grant management • Fleet maintenance (Modesto and Turlock) • Administration: accounting of fares, general accounting and finance, purchasing

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 44

Contract Structure Each of the operators contracts for significant portions of their operations. The following table indicates the services that are provided through contract for each operator.

Figure 1-26 Contract Structure Ceres Modesto StaRT Turlock CONTRACTOR Fixed Route Storer Transit Systems National Express Storer Transit Systems Storer Transit Systems Demand Response Storer Transit Systems Storer Transit Systems Storer Transit Systems Storer Transit Systems CONTRACT FUNCTIONS FIXED ROUTE Bus Operations     Bus Maintenance   DEMAND RESPONSE Bus Operations     Bus Maintenance    Data Source: Transit-agency provided documents

City of Modesto (MAX) The contract environment introduces challenges in evaluating employee salary changes during the term of an agreement. Contractors do not typically disclose actual salaries and are under no obligation to do so because contractor invoicing is often based upon a monthly fee and an hourly rate that includes many items besides wages. Thus, other means are needed to consider the rate of increase in contractor wages. There are two available methods to evaluate salary adjustments for contract employees. The first is wage estimates that are contained in the proposal submitted by the contractor to obtain the initial multi-year agreement. The proposal often presents estimated salaries in different job classes as they are planned by the contractor throughout the period of the agreement. In the case of the National Express contract with the City of Modesto for MAX, the agreement has a four year base term and four option years. Throughout the job classes listed in the proposal, the typical wage increase estimated from one year to the next was 2%. In later years of the contract there is some slight variation on this. Yet no increases were listed above 2.5%. These wage levels are within the likely CPI over the term.

There is still another dimension to the wage issue for some contractors. Again, the agreement between the City of Modesto and National Express is a good example. National Express has an agreement with Teamsters Local #386 which covers all full and part time bus drivers. This labor contract is in force for a period of five years from 2017 through 2022. The year-to-year wage increase across the various wage steps is approximately 1.5%. Thus, wage rates for employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement also fall within the expected CPI. Unless the parties were to open the agreement for renegotiation during the five year period, wages for the largest number of employees operating Modesto Transit are set beyond the period covered by SB 903. This demonstrates that for the largest operator in the County, no extraordinary wage changes were planned and are largely contractually limited. The potential farebox adjustments by StanCOG through the period of SB 903 will generally be unaffected by wage considerations.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 45

The City of Modesto has a separate contract with Storer Transit Systems for the operation of demand response service, MADAR (soon to be renamed MAX Mobility). This agreement is similar to that with National Express in that it covers all aspects of operation from reservations and dispatching to vehicle operation (driving), to vehicle storage and maintenance. A difference between the Storer agreement and that with National Express is that the City provides vehicle storage and maintenance for the fixed route buses in a City-owned facility. For salary discussion purposes, another difference between the agreements is that Storer employees are not members of a collective bargaining unit. Their wage adjustments are then under greater control by the company. The agreement between the City and Storer sets year-to-year rate adjustments commensurate with the change in CPI for the year. This rate adjustment method places controls on all contractor costs including wages. According to Storer officials, the approach taken to employee compensation adjustments is to set them at the same CPI level as applies to the operating contract. Again, this establishes controls on wage increases.

Stanislaus County (StaRT) Stanislaus County contracts with Storer Transit Systems for both fixed route and demand response services. The Storer employees are not members of a collective bargaining unit. The company makes wage and salary decisions based upon terms contained in its contract with the County. In its relationship with the County, Storer has taken the approach of granting employees a percentage wage increase that mirrors the operating agreement. That agreement between the company and the County sets annual rate adjustments at the CPI for the preceding year. This then becomes the level of wage adjustment that is granted to employees. This approach keeps wage changes within the scope of the CPI. No exceptions to this have been planned as a result of possible adjustment to the farebox ratio by StanCOG.

Turlock The City of Turlock contracts with Storer Transit Systems for both fixed route and demand response services similar to Stanislaus County. The company manages its contract operations similarly among its agency clients in Stanislaus County. This means that it takes the same approach to wages for employees in Turlock that it does with the County. This means that employees are granted adjustments in keeping with the CPI.

Ceres The City of Ceres also contracts with Storer Transit Systems for its fixed route and demand response services. The company manages employees who work on the Ceres contract just as it does with the County and Turlock. Employees receive wage adjustments consistent with the CPI.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 46

Additional Wage Factors

The wage provisions in the various agreements relating to transit service in Stanislaus County effectively control increases. Yet within this context it is important to recognize the market environment facing all County transit operators. Most transit operators throughout the nation are facing driver and other employee shortages. In the economic environment of 2019, unemployment is at or near an all-time low. Recently reported national unemployment is under 3.8%. With the unemployment rate that low, it is difficult for transit agencies to recruit qualified employees. Each Stanislaus operator reports that their contractor (National Express and Storer) reports difficulty filling available positions. In an effort to avoid missed trips, the operators resort to substantial levels of overtime for existing workers or assign supervisory and management employees to drive vehicles. This situation puts pressure on wage rates in transit to compete with other less demanding but similarly compensated jobs in other industries. Observations and Conclusions

Transit planning and service deployment decisions are driven by the TDA farebox ratio rules. The information presented in this paper supported by interviews with each transit operator in Stanislaus County support the conclusion that transit planning and service deployment decisions are driven by the TDA farebox rules. It is clear from the timing of decisions to dramatically revise services or to raise fares that these decisions are based upon farebox considerations rather than legitimate needs for transit service.

Farebox rules drive service deployment to higher ridership areas at the expense of service to needy population groups. Farebox rules focus transit deployment on areas that are more likely to generate high ridership than on “coverage” for areas that have a higher transit dependent population. The cost of transit service is the same no matter where it is deployed. But farebox receipts are lower in low density, low income areas. Deployment in low yield areas for coverage reasons exacerbates the farebox ratio issue.

Transit salaries have been unaffected by the availability of a farebox ratio reduction provided by SB 903. Transit salaries among all operators in Stanislaus County have been reviewed and documented. Salary adjustments are largely driven by labor agreements at the agency level (most city and county transit employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements) and at the contractor for MAX. The wage increases in these agreements are typically at or below the CPI. The contractor providing demand response service to the City of Modesto and all contract services to the other three jurisdictions (Storer Transit Systems) is not unionized. However, their wage adjustments are pegged to the CPI largely due to CPI being the contract rate adjustment factor.-No Stanislaus County transit operator would be able to meet the farebox ratio requirement without Measure L, exemptions provided by TDA, or the reduced ratio allowed by SB 903.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 47

Transit operators have taken drastic steps with service deployment and fare adjustments in an effort to meet farebox requirements. In certain cases, these measures have qualified them for exemptions from a portion or all of the farebox ratio for a period of time. All existing exemptions for all operators will expire June 30, 2019. Further, the availability of Measure L in FY 2017-18 allowed MAX and StaRT to meet farebox for that year. Fare recovery penalty process is a multi-year process that begins the year farebox is not met. Without farebox relief going forward or further exemptions, the cycle leading to TDA penalties will likely begin with current FY 2019-20.

Factors other than farebox are more appropriate for measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of transit service. This chapter highlights certain other performance measures that are commonly used to evaluate transit performance and that are typically used by transit professionals to make service deployment decisions. These include passengers per revenue hour and passengers per revenue mile. Other important measures include the portion of the population within a reasonable distance of a transit route. The latter metric is often used to evaluate service coverage for purposes of measuring equity in resource allocation.

The combination of the same contractor across operators with the rapid escalation of most operating cost rates offers opportunities for efficiency. The Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study offers the opportunity to evaluate approaches to contracting, contract provisions, and management efficiencies related to individual agencies and across agencies. This chapter focused on issues related to SB 903. However, in the process a number of larger issues of service integration, contracting approach, and management decisions have been revealed. These are thoroughly analyzed in the Study to identify specific opportunities for improvement of service for the Stanislaus County transit riders and for the agencies responsible for providing this service.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 48

Recommendations

Farebox Ratio as a Performance Measure On the basis of the research associated with this Study, it is recommended that farebox ratio be eliminated as a transit performance measure in the context of TDA. This measure interferes with appropriate transit service decision making and may lead to violations of FTA Title VI relative to consideration of social factors in transit service deployment.

Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Return to Source The LTF portion of TDA is a return of sales tax collected in each county to the county of origin. Given this, it is recommended that decisions relating to the allocation of LTF funds be a local determination and that any performance metrics associated with that allocation be developed locally by the RTPA (StanCOG in Stanislaus County).

Scaled Performance Metrics It is recommended that performance metrics associated with any TDA funds take into account the scale of the jurisdiction involved. For example, passengers per revenue hour is a commonly applied performance metric. An acceptable number of passengers per hour in the City of Modesto would be very different from the same metric in San Francisco or San Diego. Similarly, such a metric would be very different between the City of Modesto and the City of Patterson.

Equity Considerations Equity considerations particularly as defined in FTA Title VI serve as an overlay to other factors in transit fund allocation. Decisions to provide transit “coverage” may be necessary in spite of lower metrics such as farebox ratio as influenced by equity considerations. This should be considered in any revisions to TDA rules and regulations.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 49

Exhibit A City of Ceres TDA Claim: Fixed Route (CAT)

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 47,824 39,619 28,184 25,000 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 1,643 2,340 3,788 408 Local taxes 409 LTF 284,811 LTF Current Year 467,446 596,680 217,607 LTF Carryover from prior year 411,997 192,558 Carry over for Future Year (423,595) (192,558) 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA 35,139 4,816 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 414 Measure L funds 35,000 TOTAL REVENUES 505,315 446,081 351,922 474,981

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 31,047 53,018 50,598 60,885 502 Fringe Benefits 503 Services - Accounting 3,509 1,344 9,991 1,523 504 Materials & Supplies and Services 8,021 26 38,600 505 Utilities 506 Casualty & Liability 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 435,673 349,544 291,307 330,973 509 Misc Expenses - Depreciation 35,086 34,154 43,000 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 505,315 446,081 351,922 474,981

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1 Operating Cost 505,315 380,795 351,992 431,981 2 Passengers 37,806 19,385 14,926 15,000 3 Vehicle Service Hours 6,811 4,418 2,695 2,717 4 Vehicle Service Miles 95,077 60,762 35,741 36,033 5 Employees 6.5 6.5 5.1 5.1 6 Fares (Includes Meas L funds beginning FY 18/19) 47,824 39,619 28,184 60,000 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 Operating Cost Per Passeneger 13.37 19.64 23.58 28.80 8 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour 74.19 86.19 130.58 158.99 9 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour 5.55 4.39 5.54 5.52 10 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Mile 0.40 0.32 0.42 0.42 11 Vehicle Service Hours Per Employee 1,047.85 679.69 528.43 532.75 12 Fares as a Percent of Operating Cost 9.46% 10.40% 8.01% 13.89%

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 50

Exhibit B City of Ceres TDA Claim: Demand Response (CDAR)

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 37,094 37,867 40,800 32,000 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 1,574 623 3,672 408 Local taxes 409 LTF Current Year 450,000 243,166 237,850 337,865 LTF Carryover from prior Year 406,451 173,704 LTF Carryover for future Year (423,595) 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA 4,288 34,060 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 414 Measure L funds TOTAL REVENUES 471,524 459,648 316,382 369,865

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 28,292 51,389 49,044 59,015 502 Fringe Benefits 503 Services 3,198 1,303 9,685 1,477 504 Materials & Supplies 7,775 26 4,000 505 Utilities 506 Casualty & Liability 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 406,409 366,076 257,627 305,373 509 Misc Expenses Depreciation 33,625 33,105 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 471,524 459,648 316,382 369,865

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1 Operating Cost 471,524 374,541 316,382 369,865 2 Passengers 24,278 13,807 8,355 10,000 3 Vehicle Service Hours 6,311 6,311 2,861 2,832 4 Vehicle Service Miles 72,904 45,746 30,125 300,000 5 Employees 9.50 9.5 4.8 4.8 6 Fares (includes Meas L beginning FY 17/18) 37,094 37,867 40,800 32,000 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 Operating Cost Per Passeneger 19.42 27.13 37.87 36.99 8 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour 74.71 59.35 110.59 130.60 9 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour 3.85 2.19 2.92 3.53 10 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Mile 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.33 11 Vehicle Service Hours Per Employee 664.32 664.32 595.99 590.00 12 Fares as a Percent of Operating Cost 7.87% 10.11% 12.90% 8.65%

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 51

Exhibit C City of Modesto TDA Claim: Fixed Route (MAX)

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 2,598,624 2,426,596 2,422,504 2,739,523 402 Special Transit Fares 33,814 90,092 133,000 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 235,393 188,916 188,670 189,400 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 217,447 316,515 224,172 197,220 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Carryover from last completed fiscal year 522,288 467,618 1,617,192 LTF - New claim 5,192,508 4,879,157 5,065,697 5,070,017 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA - New claim 2,121,886 1,963,515 2,144,005 4,025,584 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 177,033 180,143 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 1,936,664 2,520,353 2,587,857 2,394,547 414 Measure L funds 302,323 324,000 TOTAL REVENUES 12,302,522 13,028,187 13,673,081 16,690,483

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 1,273,577 1,336,972 1,360,422 1,506,178 502 Fringe Benefits 505,315 552,493 614,778 679,085 503 Services 1,119,844 1,881,332 2,020,995 2,286,657 504 Materials & Supplies 1,655,661 1,156,025 1,400,766 2,124,764 505 Utilities 96,176 106,707 107,599 110,360 506 Casualty & Liability 14,842 28,736 24,484 20,369 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 7,625,801 7,950,294 8,089,356 9,850,181 509 Misc Expenses 11,306 12,479 54,681 106,889 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals 3,150 - 6,000 Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,302,522 13,028,187 13,673,081 16,690,483

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1 Operating Cost 12,302,522 13,028,187 13,673,081 16,690,483 2 Passengers 3,108,307 2,762,922 2,589,049 3,000,000 3 Vehicle Service Hours 151,089 156,258 161,231 165,000 4 Vehicle Service Miles 1,947,743 1,991,113 1,903,908 2,200,000 5 Employees 138 138 137 138 6 Fares 2,598,624 2,649,326 3,003,589 3,385,923 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 Operating Cost Per Passeneger 3.96 4.72 5.28 5.56 8 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour 81.43 83.38 84.80 101.15 9 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour 20.57 17.68 16.06 18.18 10 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Mile 1.6 1.39 1.36 1.36 11 Vehicle Service Hours Per Employee 1,094.85 1,132.30 1,176.87 1,195.65 12 Fares as a Percent of Operating Cost 21.00% 20.34% 21.97% 20.29%

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 52

Exhibit D City of Modesto TDA Claim: Demand Response

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 326,569 316,817 285,085 368,614 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 10,258 22,428 21,198 39,521 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Carryover from last completed fiscal year 476,961 421,959 LTF - New claim 1,277,147 1,270,431 1,657,112 1,917,461 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA - New claim 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 1,320,669 1,242,943 1,202,453 1,399,928 414 Measure L funds 20,000 20,000 TOTAL REVENUES 3,411,604 3,274,578 3,185,848 3,745,524

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 74,578 52,303 90,766 502 Fringe Benefits 22,228 13,009 28,958 503 Services 109,836 69,741 110,057 120,772 504 Materials & Supplies 96 671 4,344 3,079 505 Utilities 506 Casualty & Liability 1,128 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 3,301,671 3,107,361 3,006,135 3,499,821 509 Misc Expenses 1,000 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,411,604 3,274,578 3,185,848 3,745,524

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1 Operating Cost 3,411,604 3,274,578 3,185,848 3,745,524 2 Passengers 133,358 115,867 97,889 84,000 3 Vehicle Service Hours 37,880 36,435 31,319 27,851 4 Vehicle Service Miles 465,205 454,998 395,505 365,454 5 Employees 41 45 45 41 6 Fares 326,569 316,817 305,085 388,614 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 Operating Cost Per Passeneger 25.58 28.26 32.55 44.59 8 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour 90.06 89.87 101.72 134.48 9 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour 3.52 3.18 3.13 3.02 10 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Mile 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.23 11 Vehicle Service Hours Per Employee 923.90 809.67 695.98 679.29 12 Fares as a Percent of Operating Cost 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 53

Exhibit E City of Modesto TDA Claim: Alternative Transportation

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) (2,087) 2,166 321 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Carryover from last completed fiscal year LTF - New claim 6,094 829 2,526 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA - New claim 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 45,313 94,769 92,268 102,755 414 Measure L funds TOTAL REVENUES 49,320 97,764 95,115 102,755

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 16,915 22,656 22,045 26,250 502 Fringe Benefits 1,821 2,232 2,105 500 503 Services 29,510 13,511 45,372 63,612 504 Materials & Supplies 770 18,104 25,143 8,600 505 Utilities 506 Casualty & Liability 269 460 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 509 Misc Expenses 35 40,801 450 3,600 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 49,320 97,764 95,115 102,562

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 54

Exhibit F City of Modesto TDA Claim: Transit Center

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 149,522 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Carryover from last completed fiscal year LTF - New claim 291,986 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA - New claim 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 110,863 414 Measure L funds TOTAL REVENUES 552,371

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 502 Fringe Benefits 503 Services 525,385 504 Materials & Supplies 505 Utilities 23,720 506 Casualty & Liability 3,266 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 509 Misc Expenses 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 552,371

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 55

Exhibit G City of Modesto TDA Claim: Amtrak

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Carryover from last completed fiscal year LTF - New claim 136,795 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA - New claim 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 9,361 414 Measure L funds TOTAL REVENUES 146,156

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 502 Fringe Benefits 503 Services 113,685 504 Materials & Supplies 505 Utilities 27,615 506 Casualty & Liability 1,857 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 509 Misc Expenses 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 143,156

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 56

Exhibit H County of Stanislaus TDA Claim: Combined Fixed Route and Demand Response Note: The County reports Performance Indicators both with and without exclusions.as reported on SCO/TDA Reports. Figures used here are with exclusions.

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 510,570 559,730 583,114 576,862 402 Special Transit Fares (LCTOP Fare Program)1 6,557 LCTOP Fare Program 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 121,502 31,676 113,531 408 Local taxes 409 LTF 4,131,649 4,299,016 3,585,844 5,091,632 LTF -Transfer from Capital for FY 16-17 138,766 LTF - Carryover from FY 13-14 to FY 15-16 1,110,728 LTF - Carryover from FY 15-16 to FY 17-18 (1,257,346) 1,257,346 LTF - Carryover from FY 17-18 to FY 19-20 (1,783,160) LTF - Carryover from FY 18-19 to FY 20-21 (1,135,085) 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA 26,816 13,747 25,227 34,540 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 25,000 35,000 LCTOP Carryover FY 15-16 to 16-17 (25,000) LCTOP - Carryover from FY 16-17 to FY 17-18 3,110 LCTOP - Carryover from FY 16-17 to FY 18-19 15,333 LCTOP - Carryover from FY 18-19 to FY 19-20 (17,500) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 28,478 413 Federal Operating Grants 433,556 837,509 1,617,990 1,517,555 414 Measure L funds 189,526 202,102 TOTAL REVENUES 5,077,475 5,880,444 5,621,006 6,320,439 1 LCTOP revenue is not included in the totals.

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 268,602 245,483 217,200 288,759 502 Fringe Benefits 158,771 140,646 99,256 130,352 503 Services 386,935 497,946 285,622 440,720 504 Materials & Supplies 34,738 31,497 46,283 19,750 505 Utilities 506 Casualty & Liability 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 3,960,317 4,625,954 4,617,702 4,966,387 509 Misc Expenses 229,080 274,802 288,722 421,050 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals 39,032 64,116 66,221 53,421 Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,077,475 5,880,444 5,621,006 6,320,439

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1 Operating Cost 5,077,475 5,880,444 5,621,006 6,320,439 2 Passengers 384,258 359,052 352,690 338,995 3 Vehicle Revenue Hours 62,905.74 68,012.88 65,957.11 69,447.24 4 Vehicle Revenue Miles 1,181,540 1,228,771 1,136,869 1,116,421 5 Employees 36 36 38 38 6 Fares 510,571 566,287 775,750 794,297 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 Operating Cost Per Passeneger 13.21 16.38 15.94 18.64 8 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Revenue Hour 80.72 86.46 85.22 91.01 9 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Hour 6.11 5.28 5.35 4.88 10 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Mile 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.30 11 Vehicle Revenue Hours Per Employee 1,747.00 1,889.00 1,736.00 1,828.00 12 Fares as a Percent of Operating Cost 10.06% 9.63% 13.80% 12.57%

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 57

Exhibit I City of Turlock TDA Claim: Fixed Route

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 118,727 124,023 125,890 129,000 402 Special Transit Fares 13,375 84,725 90,000 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 18,800 11,000 17,700 35,000 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 45,701 16,937 41,677 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Current Claim 343,844 496,171 518,018 770,602 LTF - Transfer from Capital 1,091 96,833 76,100 LTF - Carryover from 2016-17 to 2017-18 (81,169) 81,169 LTF - To Capital - correct prior year error (36,719) 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA - New claim 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 354,482 395,222 708,944 846,702 414 Measure L funds 49,532 50,000 TOTAL REVENUES 882,645 938,840 1,724,488 1,997,404

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 196,102 112,699 243,440 325,339 502 Fringe Benefits 35,141 58,357 60,447 90,180 503 Services 69,516 81,067 103,077 126,560 504 Materials & Supplies 117,575 88,752 241,260 220,000 505 Utilities 12,553 13,495 15,110 11,725 506 Casualty & Liability 3,538 2,088 7,041 9,000 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 404,242 551,552 1,019,178 1,160,000 509 Misc Expenses 20,379 28,822 31,326 29,600 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies 23,599 2,008 3,609 25,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 882,645 938,840 1,724,488 1,997,404

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1 Operating Cost 882,645 938,840 1,724,488 1,997,404 2 Passengers 111,040 117,370 144,730 152,000 3 Vehicle Service Hours 12,894 15,516 22,760 23,000 4 Vehicle Service Miles 163,534 181,025 251,969 260,000 5 Employees 12 14 20 20 6 Fares 137,527 148,398 277,847 304,000 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 Operating Cost Per Passeneger 7.95 8.00 11.92 13.14 8 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour 64.45 60.51 75.77 86.84 9 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour 8.61 7.56 6.36 6.61 10 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Mile 0.68 0.65 0.57 0.58 11 Vehicle Service Hours Per Employee 1,074.50 1,108.29 1,138.00 1,150.00 12 Fares as a Percent of Operating Cost 16.00% 16.00% 16.11% 15.22%

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 58

Exhibit J City of Turlock TDA Claim: Demand Response

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 30,165 26,367 34,441 37,000 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 9,400 22,000 17,700 20,000 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 34,424 2,362 2,818 2,800 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Curent Claim 192,935 204,219 192,111 189,875 LTF - Carryover from 2015-16 to 2016-17 (42,143) LTF - Transfer from Capital 251 21,748 52,531 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Current Claim 5,347 6,202 10,024 STA - Carryover 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 8,171 413 Federal Operating Grants 164,216 212,180 214,579 255,230 414 Measure L funds TOTAL REVENUES 397,168 472,726 489,599 567,460

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 135,646 132,470 129,980 120,000 502 Fringe Benefits 35,142 58,356 59,650 40,000 503 Services 5,647 5,870 6,565 34,960 504 Materials & Supplies 38,633 93,248 31,686 57,000 505 Utilities 563 330 360 700 506 Casualty & Liability 1,310 3,069 3,485 4,000 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 174,710 179,284 257,762 300,000 509 Misc Expenses 5,226 99 49 9,000 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies 291 62 1,800 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 397,168 472,726 489,599 567,460

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1 Operating Cost 397,168 472,726 489,599 567,460 2 Passengers 9,828 8,680 10,950 11,500 3 Vehicle Service Hours 2,621 2,398 3,832 3,850 4 Vehicle Service Miles 31,442 23,361 40,400 40,800 5 Employees 4 4 4 4 6 Fares 39,565 48,367 52,141 57,000 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 7 Operating Cost Per Passeneger 40.41 54.46 44.71 49.34 8 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour 151.53 197.13 127.77 147.39 9 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour 3.75 3.62 2.86 2.99 10 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Mile 0.31 0.33 0.27 0.28 11 Vehicle Service Hours Per Employee 655.25 599.50 958.00 962.50 12 Fares as a Percent of Operating Cost 10.00% 10.00% 10.65% 10.04%

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 59

Exhibit K City of Turlock TDA Claim: Amtrak

A. OPERATING REVENUE FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 Actual Actual Actual Estimated 401 Passenger Fares 402 Special Transit Fares 403 School Bus Service 404 Freight Tariffs 405 Charter Service 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) 408 Local taxes 409 LTF - Current Claim 2,900 3,520 2,815 LTF - New claim LTF - Carryover 2014-15 to 2015-16 2,330 LTF - Carryover 2016-17 to 2017-18 (2,901) 2,901 LTF - Carryover 2015-16 to 2016-18 (3,636) LTF - Carryover 2017-18 to 2018-19 1,465 410 Local Special Fare Assistance 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year STA - New claim 412 Low Carbon Transit Operations Progam (LCTOP) 412 State Special Fare Assistance 413 Federal Operating Grants 414 Measure L funds TOTAL REVENUES 2,329 2,785 4,280

B. OPERATING EXPENSE 501 Labor 502 Fringe Benefits 503 Services Maintenance 580 504 Materials & Supplies 505 Utilities 2,329 2,785 3,700 506 Casualty & Liability 507 Taxes 508 Purchase Transportation Services 509 Misc Expenses 510 Expense Transfers 511 Interest Expense 512 Leases & Rentals Contingencies TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,329 2,785 4,280

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 60

This page intentionally left blank.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 61

Chapter 2 Paratransit Efficiency Strategies

Introduction

The concept of “paratransit” has broad meaning. It has evolved through the years beginning with the idea of dial-a-ride. This was an early form of door-to-door transportation that was intended to provide efficient personalized transit service. It was initially introduced in suburban or other low density environments where rider volumes were felt to be too low to support fixed route transit service. The operating principle was to schedule rides as efficiently as possible, picking people up at their location, and delivering then to their destination. The efficiency was in the form of ride sharing to result in greater productivity than was possible with taxi service. Early versions of this concept were introduced in the 1970’s under federal sponsorship. Dial-a-ride service preceded ADA by nearly twenty years.

In the years since the door-to-door concept was first rolled out, it has been applied and refined in a number of different environments. Many communities introduced dial-a-ride services as an alternative to fixed route transit in an attempt to provide a high level of service, typically door-to- door, in low density areas. These services were generally available “on demand” by calling a central dispatch number being placed on a schedule along with other passengers traveling in the same time frame and in the same general direction. This process was made much more sophisticated within years through the introduction of computerized routing and scheduling.

In about the mid-1970’s, many communities began providing some level of special service to disabled individuals. These paratransit services were fledgling with no uniform eligibility criteria, many early versions of vehicle access technology (typically crude wheelchair lifts), and very limited communication technology. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 introduced the requirement for complimentary paratransit service wherever fixed route transit service was provided. Paratransit services expanded dramatically as a result of this landmark set of regulations.

Since the passage of the ADA in 1990, all communities that provide fixed-route public transportation have been required to provide complementary paratransit service for individuals who, because of a disability, are prevented from using fixed-route buses or trains all or some of the time. (Complementary service requirements do not apply to commuter bus, commuter rail or intercity rail systems.)

There are three categories of eligibility as defined in the ADA:

1. Any individual, who as a result of a physical or mental impairment and without the assistance of another individual (except the operator of a wheelchair lift or other boarding device) is unable to board, ride or disembark from any vehicle in the system which is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 62

2. Any individual with a disability who needs the assistance of a wheelchair lift or other boarding assistance device and is able, with such assistance, to board, ride and disembark from any vehicle which is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities if the individual wants to travel on a route on the system during the hours of operation of the system at a time, or within a reasonable period of such time, when such a vehicle is not being used to provide designated public transportation on the route. 3. Any individual with a disability who has a specific impairment-related condition which prevents such individual from traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location on such system. i. Only a specific impairment-related condition which prevents the individual from traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location is a basis for eligibility under this paragraph. A condition which makes traveling to boarding location or from a disembarking location more difficult for a person with a specific impairment-related condition than for an individual who does not have the condition, but does not prevent the travel, is not a basis for eligibility under this paragraph. ii. Architectural barriers not under the control of the public entity providing fixed-route service and environmental barriers (e.g., distance, terrain, weather) do not, standing alone, form a basis for eligibility under this paragraph. The interaction of such barriers with an individual’s specific impairment-related condition may form a basis for eligibility under this paragraph, if the effect is to prevent the individual from traveling to a boarding location or from a disembarking location.

The ADA states clearly that paratransit is a "safety net" service and is not intended for everyone. Indeed, the goal of the ADA has been to ensure access to fixed-route transportation for persons with disabilities, not to establish a separate transportation system. However, it was also recognized that some individuals, because of the effects of their disability, are prevented from using fixed-route all or some of the time. For these consumers, complementary paratransit is available.

In addition to the required ADA paratransit service, many jurisdictions have chosen to operate demand response services targeting other customer markets. Services can be provided to the general public or a smaller target such as seniors. In Stanislaus County each of the four jurisdictions that operate paratransit service does provide service to other populations. In order to attain a full understanding of the paratransit integration opportunities, it is important to consider all components. Existing Paratransit Services

The paratransit services that are provided by each Stanislaus jurisdiction operate largely independent of each other. However, beginning in March 2018, a step toward paratransit integration was undertaken. This was the establishment of a consolidated ADA eligibility process. That milestone is presented below. It is followed by a description of the individual services that are operated by each agency.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 63

Consolidated ADA Paratransit Eligibility

In the months leading up to March 2018, all of the transit operators recognized their obligation to provide complimentary ADA paratransit service. This obligation carries with it the responsibility to implement an eligibility process. As is typical of many agencies around the country, a paper application process was used to determine eligibility. It simply required verification of a disability by any of a number of community agencies or medical professionals. Many agencies were revising their processes to use an in-person functional assessment to make the determination process more accurate and to eliminate some of the involvement of medical professionals which can be an expense to the applicant. Stanislaus County had established an in-person process in FY 2016-17 with the inception of its ADA service.

In discussions led by StanCOG, the four operators in the County agreed to craft an in-person process to be applied uniformly across all jurisdictions. This was the first example of a form of consolidation among the transit operators. The agreement included the following elements:

• Eligibility services would be provided by MOVE, the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA). • The services would be paid for through MOVE’s TDA claim thus removing the cost of the program from the operators and avoiding an additional expense item in their fare recovery ratio calculation. • Eligibility determinations would be accepted by all operators thus eliminating multiple application processes for customers who use multiple operators. • A central database of eligible applicants would be made available to each jurisdiction to screen ride requests for eligibility. • The new process would be an in-person approach using state-of-the-art techniques.

This highly successful integration model served as an example of the efficiency of a consolidated process. Paratransit Service in Stanislaus County

City of Modesto (MADAR) The City of Modesto operates paratransit service for ADA eligible individuals and also for persons over age 65. Operating under the MADAR brand (rebranding is planned in the future), these paratransit services are available throughout most of the City. The service area is established by federal regulations and is provided within ¾ mile of all MAX fixed routes. Service operates seven days per week with hours that also mirror the MAX schedules.

There are two components to the MADAR service. The first is for disabled persons who are determined to be eligible under ADA guidelines. Once registered through MOVE, customers are entered into the database managed by the City of Modesto paratransit contractor, Storer Transit Systems. They may then contact Storer to schedule a ride up to seven (7) days in advance of a trip. Ride reservations must be made before 5:00 pm on the day before service. Prior to July

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 64

2019, customers were able to schedule a ”will call” or open return for some cases such as a doctor appointment of uncertain length. In this instance, riders would call Storer for the return ride and were picked up within 60 minutes of the call. The will call system was discontinued in July 2019.

MADAR also provides paratransit service to seniors age 65 and above. This program is managed similarly to ADA service and also by Storer. Eligibility is managed separately from the ADA process. Seniors must submit documentation of age and a photo ID to Storer and are then added to the list of eligible riders. They may schedule rides for medical purposes up to 24 hours in advance. Other trip purposes may be scheduled on the day of service but are on a space available basis. As with ADA service, open returns are provided within 60 minutes of a call for a return ride.

The fare for MADAR service is $3.00 per one-way trip. A Personal Care Attendant (PCA) accompanying an ADA rider pays no fare.

Stanislaus County (StaRT) Stanislaus County operates a number of paratransit services. Under the broad definition of demand response services, the County offers a host of different services targeting a range of users and portions of the region.

ADA Paratransit

ADA service is provided similar to that of MADAR within ¾ mile of a fixed route. The County uses the eligibility process for ADA that is managed by MOVE. Ride requests are taken as much as seven (7) days in advance and up to 5:00 pm on the day before service. The one-way fare for ADA service is $3.60 per ride. PCA’s travel free of charge.

Dial-A-Ride Service

Dial-a-ride is service that is provided within a city or community. It is curb-to-curb and passengers need to call in advance to schedule a ride. Newman Dial-a-Ride operates within Newman, Crows Landing, and parts of Gustine. Hours of operation are 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday. Oakdale Dial-a- Ride is operated within the City between 6:30 am and 5:30 pm. Patterson Dial-a-Ride operates within the City of Patterson and the communities of Westley and Grayson from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 4:30 pm on Saturday. Riverbank Dial-a-Ride provides service within the City of Riverbank from 6:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday. Dial-a-Ride fares are $2.00 per one-way ride for the general public and $1.50 for seniors and disabled.

Shuttle Service

Shuttles are transit services that are provided between cities or communities. They are available to the general public. Three such services are operated by the County. The Waterford/Modesto Shuttle connects the communities of Waterford, Modesto, and Oakdale. The service operates between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm. It provides five round trips per day between Modesto, Empire, Oakdale, Waterford, Hickman, Hughson, and Ceres.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 65

The Eastside Shuttle operates between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays and between 8:30 am and 5:00 pm on Saturday. A total of four round trips are provided on weekdays and three round trips on Saturdays. The Turlock/Modesto Shuttle operates four round trips per weekday between Modesto, Keyes, Turlock, and Denair. Three round trips are operated on Saturdays. Weekday service is from 7:00 am to 5:30 pm and from 8:30 to 5:00 on Saturday. Shuttle fares are $3.00 for the general public and $2.50 for seniors and disabled.

Medivan Service

The County operates Medivan service between Stanislaus County and a number of medical facilities in the Bay Area. An advance reservation is required. The service operates four days per week, Monday through Thursday. The van departs from the Modesto Transit Center at 6:00 am each day. The fare is $12.50 per one-way ride.

Figure 2-1 on page 79 at the end of this chapter compares the annual ridership and revenue hours for each of the County’s systems for fiscal years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18.

City of Turlock Dial-a-Ride The City of Turlock operates Dial-a-Ride service in addition to its fixed route services. Reservations for DAR service may be made between one (1) and fourteen (14) days in advance. Trips within the basic service area (Zone 1) are only available to those who are ADA eligible, age 65 and over, those with Medicare cards, or elementary school students. A majority of trips (80%) provided in Zone 1 are to ADA eligible passengers. Trips between zones (1 – 3) are available to the general public. Fares are $2.50 for seniors and disabled, $3.50 for all users riding outside of the fixed route area (Zone 1), and $3.00 for elementary students.

City of Ceres Dial-a-Ride Ceres operates dial-a-ride (CDAR) service for persons with disabilities and those over age 65. The City participates in the ADA eligibility process through MOVE along with the other jurisdictions. However, the City website does not indicate this. Instead it indicates that applications are completed on paper and submitted to the City for processing. Service is operated within the City and the immediate surrounding unincorporated area. The fare is $3.00 per one- way ride.

Observations Regarding Existing Services The paratransit operating policies and procedures described above demonstrate the complexity of the current environment. There are a number of differences between the jurisdictions as to fares, reservation periods, service areas, eligibility approaches (for non-ADA service), and general service purposes. The information available on each jurisdiction’s websites varies in detail and is sometimes seemingly contradictory. For example, the Turlock website indicates that reservations may be made up to 14 days in advance under the general service description.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 66

However, under Tips for Using Dial-a-Ride, it indicates that “service is best when reservations are made from one to seven days in advance.”

The ADA fare on MADAR is $3.00 while on Turlock Dial-a-Ride it is $2.50. The ADA fare for the County is $3.60. This variety of fares for the same type of service can be confusing to the riding public.

Contracting Overview Each of the four transit operators in Stanislaus County contracts for the provision of paratransit service. Each operator enters into its own contract with a vendor for this service. At the present time, all operators contract with Storer Transit Systems. Though all contracts are with the same vendor, each jurisdiction enters into its own agreement. There is no coordination of the contract timing and duration between jurisdictions. They establish differing performance measures, and they all require specific management oversight by the contractor.

Highlights of Paratransit Contracts A review of the details contained in the contracts that are currently in place between each transit operator and its vendor is revealing. It is especially noteworthy that all contracts are with the same vendor. The contract highlights suggest the difference in approach or emphasis by each operator and perhaps of the relationship between that operator and the vendor. The list of contract provisions simply points out the major elements, especially those that would be involved in consideration of integration/consolidation. The highlights are roughly in the order in which they appear in the actual contract documents.

City of Modesto (MADAR) • Vehicle Service Hour for billing is calculated from the time the bus leaves the yard until it returns to the yard. • Agreement term: Has been officially extended through June 30, 2020. • Insurance: o General liability insurance: $2,000,000 o Auto liability insurance: $10,000,000 o Work Comp insurance: $1,000,000 o Employee dishonesty: $50,000 o Performance bond: $300,000 • MADAR uses some taxi service provided by Storer • Billing rate: $73.89 for FY 2018-19 and $75.36 for FY 2019-20. • Billing rate for taxi: $4.25 per mile. • Billing adjustment each year by CPI (minus any fuel cost adjustment). • No rate adjustment over 5% per year. • Rate adjustment of more than a 10% difference in hours (base hours = 42,600) • Eligibility: Contractor responsibility beginning of the contract through March 2018. • Contractor provides all vehicles, maintenance, • 14 vehicles required (must be 2014 or newer at start of the contract).

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 67

• 2 “part time” vehicles must be provided for short term use. • Contractor required to meet 2.5 productivity or explain why not. • Contractor provides facility: office, maintenance, parking, radios for buses. • Contractor collects fares; delivers fares twice weekly to City.

Stanislaus County (StaRT) • Amended July 2014 through June 2019; may be extended for three 1 year option periods. • Extended through June 30, 2020 • Rate increase: states: “shall be no more than up to five (5) percent of the annual increase in the CPI for the State of CA for the most recently concluded calendar year.” • Contractor provides: vehicles, drivers, dispatchers, maintenance, fuel, back-up vehicles, and two-way radio system. • Revenue hours: o Deviated fixed route: first pick up to last drop off. o Shuttle or intercity service: first pick up to last drop off. o Dial-a-Ride: (only billed when a vehicle is within the DAR service boundary) o ADA complementary service: begin when vehicle exits the storage facility; ends upon return to vehicle storage facility. • Fourteen vehicles daily on fixed route • Thirteen vehicles daily on deviated fixed route, and shuttles. • One vehicle on commuter service. • Rate structure: o Fixed route County-owned CNG buses: $66.95 o County-owned paratransit CNG buses: $64.25 o County-owned Medivan diesel bus: $69.72 o Contractor-provided paratransit buses: $76.21 o ADA paratransit service: ▪ County-owned buses: $58.29 ▪ Monthly fixed fee: $28,607 (guaranteed ADA hour minimum per vehicle dispatched per day was re-negotiated and removed effective July 1, 2018.) o County-owned commuter bus: $106.26 • Rate adjustment: 20% for fixed route or deviated service; +/- 20 vehicle service hours per week for “runabout or dial-a-ride” service. • Contractor provides thirteen (13) demand response buses. • Contractor provides three (3) demand response back-up vehicles. • Rate increase: based upon CPI annually minus relative importance motor fuel rate. • Insurance:

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 68

o General liability: $5,000,000 o Business liability: $5,000,000 o Auto liability: $5,000,000 o Work Comp: statutory o Performance bond: $250,000 o Fidelity bond: $50,000

City of Turlock Dial-a-Ride • Single contract includes fixed route and demand response. • Service adjustment of 25% or less is a “moderate” change. • Service adjustment of 25% or more is a “major” change. A major change opens the rate to renegotiation. • Contract requires General Manager and Operations Manager to be 100% dedicated to the contract. • Contractor not responsible for fuel cost for City-owned vehicles. • Contractor not responsible for maintaining City-owned vehicles. • Term: Base term ends June 30, 2021. Two additional two year options may be exercised by the City. • Insurance: o General liability: $10,000,000 o Auto liability: $10,000,000 o Work Comp: $1,000,000 o Professional liability: $1,000,000 o Employee dishonesty: $100,000 o Performance bond: 25% of annual operating cost • Wage requirement: $15 per hour minimum for employees performing safety- sensitive functions; not less than $2.00 per hour greater than the legal minimum wage. Customer service or bus washers are not held to this requirement. • City obligations: o Provide one non-revenue vehicle o Maintain bus stops and shelters o Provide fare media o Pay fuel costs • Wages increased each year by 2.5% COLA • Contract rate (Year 3; 2019-20) o Fixed monthly fee: $60,874 o Rate per Vehicle Hour: $28.49

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 69

City of Ceres Dial-a Ride • Contract expires June 30, 2020 • Rate for last contract year is $107.00 per hour; this is different from prior years (was a monthly fee plus hourly rate) • Contract includes both fixed route (CAT) and dial-a-ride (CDAR) • Contractor required to provide a computer dispatching system • Contractor to provide vehicles (original contract said 5 for CDAR and 1 for CAT) • City to provide 3 CNG buses to Contractor. • Contractor maintains all buses including City • Contractor provides radio system • Contractor provides all fuel except CNG; City purchases CNG from Stanislaus County • Contractor provides office, maintenance, and storage facilities • Original contract included CPI increase minus fuel adjustment not to exceed 5% • Rate may be renegotiated if service is adjusted by 10% or more • Performance bond: $125,000

Review of Operator Contracts

A number of observations are appropriate regarding the vendor contracts that are in place among the Stanislaus transit operators. First, the fact that every operator contracts with the same vendor (Storer Transit Systems) for demand response/paratransit service is very important. Though the contract timing is not precisely aligned, the fact that all operators use the same vendor is a step towards some level of integration. If the operators were in agreement, substantial adjustments could likely be introduced through either 1) some level of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to more fully integrate operating provisions and protocols, of 2) a single vendor procurement that would eliminate the many variations among provisions and approach. A major realignment of the contracting approach to either more complete integration or full contract consolidation would certainly introduce improvements for the riding public and likely introduce operating efficiencies that would reduce cost.

Though current contracts are all with the same vendor, contract provisions and approach vary substantially between them. A major variation among the operators is the approach to vehicle maintenance. The City of Modesto maintains its own fixed route vehicles but receives demand response vehicle maintenance through the vendor. The City of Turlock provides maintenance for all of its fixed route and paratransit vehicles though they are operated by a contractor. The County and Ceres both receive maintenance services through the contractor. Similarly, insurance provisions vary among the contracts. There are variations in the approach to staffing. All operators require the contractor to provide the paratransit dispatching system. The contracts provide for a varying mix of agency-owned and contractor-owned vehicles. The fact that all operators are served by a single contractor and that contractor’s employees are not represented by a labor union does contribute to facilitating some level of integration.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 70

The issues involved in integrating or consolidating paratransit services are discussed in detail in the Chapter regarding that topic. Suffice to say that the historical landscape of differing approaches to service contracting is ripe for some level of revision.

Analysis of Paratransit Operating Costs

Figure 2-2 on page 65 displays the comparative operating costs and other demand response measures among the Stanislaus operators. There is substantial variation in many of the measures among the operators. Among the most important of these is the cost per revenue hour. It is a key measure of the overall cost of providing service. It is a common measure used by transit agencies. It is important to note the Ceres does not separate demand response from fixed route for reporting purposes. Thus, its displayed cost measures include both fixed route and demand response. Given this, it is given significant attention in the analysis. It is, however, worth noting that in the negotiation of an option year extension through June 30, 2020, the city of Ceres revised its approach to pricing and agreed upon a single hourly rate rather than the historical monthly fee and hourly rate. The new rate of $107.00 includes all costs of operation.

This analysis is based upon the recently completed Triennial TDA Performance Audits for all operators. The audit of these measures was completed in April 2019 and include figures from the most recently completed and audited fiscal year, 2017-18. An analysis of these figures is revealing. The data in Table 1 includes audited information for the three years ending in June 2018. A number of the trends are worth noting.

City of Modesto (MADAR) Ridership on the Modesto demand response system has been declining for several years. In the three year period of the reported audit, ridership declines totaled nearly 27% in the three year period. During that same period, costs remained constant. The result of this trend was an increase in the cost per revenue hour from $83.95 in FY 2015-16 to $101.52 in FY 2017-18. The resulting cost per passenger rose from $23.85 to $32.48 in that same period. Cost per hour increased in the last year over the prior year by 13%. This highlights a trend of continuing cost increases with declining ridership thus dramatically increasing the cost per hour. Between FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 there was a 14% decline in revenue hours with only a 2.9% decrease in overall operating expense. Other trends track similarly.

Stanislaus County (StaRT) Trends in County demand response measures are somewhat stable. Overall cost and cost pre revenue hour peaked in FY 2016-17. In that year, overall costs increased 18.4% over the prior year. ADA paratransit services was added in FY 2016-17. The result was a high of $93.44 per revenue hour. Yet over the three year reporting period, ridership declined by 9.2%. The result was a steady increase in cost per passenger trip from $34.41 in FY 2015-16 to $43.07 in FY 2017-18.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 71

City of Turlock Dial-a-Ride Turlock stands out among the Stanislaus operators in certain measures. Its FY 2017-18 cost per hour of $182.33 was nearly double that of the other operators. Its cost per passenger was $44.94 compared to the County cost of $43.07 for FY 2017-18. The reason for this is that Turlock operated a nearly double the productivity as that of the County, 4.06 vs. 2.04. This is not uncommon among very different operating environments. While statistics are not readily available for this study, the common explanation for such a variance is the average trip length. Given the rural nature or most County trips, the average trip length is likely much greater than for urban trips.

Turlock experienced a significant increase in operating cost in FY 2016-17 and a more modest increase in FY 2017-18. An increase of 37.7% was experienced over the three year study period. An increase of 12.7% was reported in the most recent year over the previous year with an increase of 5.6% in the cost per revenue hour. An increase in revenue hours in the most recent year results in the lower cost per hour.

City of Ceres Dial-a-Ride Due to the reporting format for the City of Ceres, an analysis of its operating performance is more difficult. The overall metrics compared to the other operators are much smaller. But the City reports both fixed route and demand response in combination. This makes direct comparison difficult. It is reported that with the newly negotiated contract extension, a rate of $107.00 per revenue hour was agreed upon. It was further reported that costs are typically distributed according to revenue hours between fixed route and demand response. Reported revenue hours for FY 2017-18 are distributed nearly evenly between the two modes (2,861 hours of demand response and 2,695 hours of fixed route). This results in a cost per hour for demand response of $134.72. This puts Ceres about midway between Modesto and Turlock on the cost per hour scale. In FY 2017-18 Ceres Dial-a- Ride carried only 8,355 passenger trips.

Observations Regarding Demand Response Metrics A review of available metrics does not provide a complete view of the implications of providing required ADA paratransit service. Most demand response metrics blend all services of that type together for reporting purposes. Thus, for the County, demand response includes all local dial-a- rides and shuttle services, as is shown in Figure 2-1 on page 79. These are not ADA paratransit services. Similarly, Modesto, Turlock, and Ceres all operate service for seniors which do not qualify as ADA service. The result is a higher level of curb-to-curb or in some cases door-to-door service than is required by the ADA. As noted on the beginning of the Chapter, such services including those available to the general public are often provided as an alternative to more expensive (from a total operating cost perspective) fixed route services.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 72

Observations Regarding Demand Response Services

A wide variety of demand response services are operated throughout Stanislaus County. In some cases, they are provided to meet federal regulations regarding ADA paratransit service. In others they are provided as a sort of life-line for seniors. In still others they are available to the general public as an alternative to more expensive fixed route service. In combination, they form a patchwork of services that are often not well coordinated, and which are not coordinated among the jurisdictions for planning purposes. The level of public information varies greatly among operators.

All demand response services are contracted to a single vendor at the present time. In spite of that, the rate structures vary between contracts and the requirements to dedicated staff and other service components vary. As recommended below, a single procurement of a paratransit vendor would likely achieve greater service coordination as well as operating efficiencies. The wide variation in operating cost per revenue hour suggests that steps could be taken to spread efficiencies across operators and create mutual benefit. Recommendations

The Integration Study is structured to consider a range of options along a continuum from minor improvements all the way to potential full consolidation of operators. That range of options applies within the paratransit service element as well. On the basis of all of the analysis presented in this Chapter regarding demand response/paratransit service, the consultants offer the following recommendations arrayed along that continuum.

Basic, Minimum Integration Steps: Improved Communication/Coordination Implement consistent fares: Fares for services vary substantially across operators. A process should be initiated to establish a uniform paratransit fare structure consistent among all operators.

Implement improved information: The communication of operating details varies substantially across operators. A process should be implemented to present information consistently across all operators. For example, not all operators consistently describe the role of MOVE in the ADA eligibility process.

Implement improved paratransit vendor procurement concepts: Much greater coordination of paratransit vendor procurement could result from simple coordination of procurement elements. This could include contract timing, consistent performance measurement, non-compliance treatment, and even insurance provisions.

More Complex Integration of Service Elements: Collaboration Implement Joint Vendor Procurement: Using a single procurement process for a paratransit vendor for all operators would result in consistent application of policies and procedures among all. It would address the elements of timing, performance measurement etc. But it would go further to introduce the use of reservation and

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 73

scheduling technology consistently across operators. Presumably only one technology platform would be sought for use across all operators. This would result in consistent application of procedures for the riding public. It would likely also result in cost efficiencies.

Implement Joint Technology Purchase: At the present time, there is no consistency among operators regarding the selection of reservation and scheduling technology. Instead it is defined differently in each procurement and the result is left to the vendor to determine. The current result is not only the possible use of completely different systems but also the inconsistent utilization of the same system. Finally, the ownership of the system by a public agency eliminates the potential for somewhat frequent introduction of a new system with complex data migration issues and other technical details.

Full Integration: Consolidation Full Consolidation of Paratransit Operations: The highest level of paratransit integration would be the full consolidation of all paratransit operations. This would be facilitated by the fact that all operators currently use the same paratransit vendor. In order to achieve full paratransit consolidation, a number of steps could be involved:

• Develop joint governing/oversight framework: In order to consolidate paratransit operations, a mechanism would need to be created to combine all participating jurisdictions into a management framework that would have the legal standing to carry out the procurement process on behalf of all and to oversee day-to-day operations on behalf of all. This management mechanism should then have decision making authority regarding service policies and operating procedures. • Conduct a joint vendor procurement process: The new management entity would carry out a single vendor procurement to result in one contractor providing service under a single agreement throughout the County. This approach would consolidate decision making regarding reservations and scheduling, vehicle types, maintenance practices, etc. A desired outcome would be a single structure for the provision of the range of services that are currently provided from ADA paratransit, to inter-community shuttles, to local dial-a-rides. • Procure a single reservation and scheduling technology system: A single technology would allow for consistent delivery of services throughout the County. The integration of all jurisdictions could also lead to improved service efficiency by eliminating barriers to vehicle scheduling and utilization, driver deployment, customer service, and many other technical details. With public ownership of the system, the volatility of changing systems along with a vendor is eliminated. Further, a much higher level of knowledge and control of the system would likely improve the effectiveness of its application. • Use a single management structure to oversee on-going operations: Management of paratransit services would be simplified and perhaps be accompanied by a higher level of professional expertise through the operation of a larger system. In today’s structure, management of paratransit is spread among all operators each

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 74

devoting some time to this complex operation. It does not allow for full focus on the nuances of paratransit service delivery as would be the case with a fully integrated and much larger system. The whole could be much more sophisticated than the sum of its parts.

The overall consultant recommendation is to implement change as far up the continuum as there is collective interest in doing so. Thus, if there is interest in full consolidation, it is not recommended to pursue the step of interim consolidation of paratransit but to focus on full consolidation

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 75

Figure 2-1: Stanislaus County (StaRT) Demand Response Service 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Service Passengers Revenue Hours Passengers Revenue Hours Passengers Revenue Hours Eastside Shuttle 6,016.00 3,812.17 6,049.00 3,441.28 4,971.00 2,923.87 Turlock/Modesto Shuttle 5,031.00 2,819.35 4,459.00 3,143.65 5,046.00 2,886.69 Waterford/Modesto/Ceres Shuttle N/A N/A 1,953.00 2,090.86 1,439.00 1,295.62 Newman Dial-A-Ride 8,775.00 2,390.02 8,727.00 2,365.46 6,741.00 2,028.35 Oakdale Dial-A-Ride 8,118.00 2,079.03 7,531.00 2,106.45 5,326.00 1,489.83 Patterson Dial-A-Ride 13,055.00 4,035.40 12,682.00 3,968.82 11,185.00 2,896.42 Riverbank Dial-A-Ride 2,148.00 918.79 1,819.00 777.42 1,209.00 475.45 Medivan 2,423.00 2,310.75 1,993.00 1,978.22 1,449.00 1,802.84 Waterford Dial-A-Ride 1,679.00 1,638.58 159.00 208.47 N/A N/A ADA Paratransit Service N/A N/A 342.00 463.47 5,389.00 5,110.27 Total 47,245.00 20,004.09 45,714.00 20,544.10 42,755.00 20,909.34

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 76

Figure 2-2 Paratransit Operating Cost Analysis Data Source: Triennial Performance Audits FY 2015/16 - FY 2017/18

CERES MODESTO Stanislaus County TURLOCK

FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18

Total Operating Cost1 $989,891 $861,199 $748,441 $3,179,964 $3,274,578 $3,179,377 $1,620,825 $1,919,689 $1,841,286 $367,997 $449,948 $506,884

Total Revenue Hours2 6,555 4,286 2,861 37,880 36,435 31,319 19,374 20,544 20,909 2,621 2,606 2,780

Total Revenue Miles 74,026 45,746 30,125 465,205 454,998 395,505 269,419 271,257 272,739 31,442 28,873 40,400

Total Passengers 27,014 13,807 8,355 133,358 115,867 97,899 47,108 45,714 42,755 9,828 8,680 11,279

Operating cost per Revenue Hour $151.01 $200.93 $261.60 $83.95 $89.87 $101.52 $83.66 $93.44 $88.06 $140.40 $172.66 $182.33

Operating cost per Revenue Mile $13.37 $18.83 $24.84 $6.84 $7.20 $8.04 $6.02 $7.08 $6.75 $11.70 $15.58 $12.55

Operating cost per Passenger $36.64 $62.37 $89.58 $23.85 $28.26 $32.48 $34.41 $41.99 $43.07 $37.44 $51.84 $44.94

1Financial data segragated by mode was not provided as part of the Triennial Audit. 2Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) and Miles (VSM) are defined in the Triennial Audit as the time/distance during which a revenue vehicle is available to carry fare-paying passengers

This page intentionally left blank.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 77

Chapter 3 Analysis of Fixed Route Operations

Introduction

This chapter provides a snapshot of existing conditions for fixed-route transit service in Stanislaus County, focusing on the four major public transit providers:

• Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) operates 8 fixed routes to provide regional transit service connecting Modesto, Turlock, and Ceres with smaller communities in the region, as well as the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station • Modesto Area Express (MAX) operates 17 fixed routes in and around Modesto • Turlock Transit operates six fixed routes in Turlock and interfaces with Merced’s “The Bus” Route T at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center in Turlock. • Ceres Area Transit (CAT) operates one fixed route in Ceres

The remainder of this chapter is divided into four sections:

• System-Level Analysis, which presents an overview and system-level evaluation of the four transit operators • Demographic Analysis, which provides a summary of demographic information for people living near transit service in Stanislaus County as well as transit rider demographic information • Route-Level Analysis, which provides an analysis of each fixed route operated by the four transit operators • Recommendations, including an analysis of transit system gaps, service integration opportunities between providers, low performing fixed routes, and transit service evaluation metrics System-Level Analysis

This section evaluates the four fixed-route public transit service providers (StaRT, MAX, Turlock Transit, and CAT) in Stanislaus County. An overview of each system is provided, including service areas and major destinations served. This section also describes fixed-route transit service performance trends of the four service providers.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 78

Service Areas

This section provides an overview of the areas served by the four fixed-route public transit providers in Stanislaus County.

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) operates eight fixed routes in the region, connecting the cities of Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock with smaller areas including Riverbank, Oakdale, Patterson, Grayson, Westley, Crows Landing, Newman, Gustine, Hughson, Hickman, Keyes, Empire, Waterford and Denair. StaRT also operates a commuter route to the Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station.

Figure 3-1 Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) System Map

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 79

Modesto Area Express (MAX) Modesto Area Express (MAX) operates 17 fixed routes in and around Modesto. Regional connections from MAX routes are available to Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter rail at the Lathrop/Manteca ACE station, Amtrak rail at the Modesto Amtrak Station, BART at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, and Ceres Area Transit via transfer with MAX routes 29 and 42.

Figure 3-2 Modesto Area Express (MAX) System Map

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 80

Turlock Transit Turlock Transit operates six fixed routes in Turlock as shown in Figure 3-3. Regional connections from Turlock Transit routes are available to StaRT routes 10, 15, 45E, and Commuter to BART.

Figure 3-3 Turlock Transit System Map

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 81

Ceres Area Transit (CAT) CAT operates one fixed route in Ceres (Figure 3-4). Transfers to MAX routes 29 and 42 and StaRT routes 15 and 61 are available at the Herndon at Hatch northbound bus stop.

Figure 3-4 CAT System Map

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 82

Performance Trends

Most transit agencies report annually to the National Transit Database (NTD) on key performance statistics, including ridership, operating costs, revenue hours, and farebox recovery. This section reviews these performance trends for MAX, StaRT3, and Turlock Transit over a five-year period. CAT does not report to NTD and so it is not included in the analysis.

Annual Passenger Trips MAX has the highest ridership among the four agencies. From 2012 to 2017, ridership has increased for Turlock and declined for MAX and StaRT (Figure 3-5).

Figure 3-5 Annual Passenger Trips by Agency, 2012-2017 4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Turlock Transit MAX StaRT

Data Source: National Transit Database, 2012-2017

3 StaRT data from NTD include both commuter and motor bus (CB and MB, respectively) figures.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 83

Operating Costs and Revenue Hours Although total operating costs have fluctuated (Figure 3-6), operating costs per revenue hour are not generally rising. This indicates that the agencies have been operating with steady efficiency over five-year period. Operating costs per passenger trip are rising, partially due to the decline in passenger trips.

Figure 3-6 Annual Operating Costs by Agency, 2012-2017

$14,000,000

$12,000,000

$10,000,000

$8,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Turlock Transit MAX StaRT

Data Source: National Transit Database, 2012-2017

Figure 3-7 Operating Costs per Revenue Hour, 2012-2017

$100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Turlock Transit MAX StaRT

Data Source: National Transit Database, 2012-2017

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 84

All three agencies increased their annual revenue hours from 2012 to 2017, although Turlock Transit and StaRT increased their annual revenue hours significantly more than MAX has as seen in Figure 3-8. From 2012 to 2017, Turlock Transit increased annual revenue hours by 63%, StaRT increased annual revenue hours by 74%, and MAX increased annual revenue hours by 9%.

Figure 3-8 Annual Revenue Hours, 2012-2017

180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Turlock Transit MAX StaRT

Data Source: National Transit Database, 2012-2017

Farebox Recovery Farebox recovery is the ratio of fare revenues to operating costs (Figure 3-). Farebox recovery is highest at MAX, where it exceeded 20% in FY ’17-‘18. Due to its relationship to SB 903, farebox recovery is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1.

Figure 3-9 Farebox Recovery Rate, FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18

25%

20%

15%

10%

Farebox Recovery Farebox Recovery Rate 5%

0% FY '15-'16 FY '16-'17 FY '17-'18

Turlock Transit MAX StaRT CAT

Data Source: State Controller’s Office Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 85

Demographic Analysis

This section evaluates the demographics of Stanislaus County transit providers’ service areas, which, for the purpose of this analysis, is defined as the area within ¼ mile of a transit access point, such as a bus stop or transit center. This is described as the “walkshed” of the transit service, or the area with reasonable non-auto access to transit for people of most ages and abilities. To the extent that data are available, this section also describes the demographics of transit riders from rider survey data.

Service Area Demographics

Population Served by Transit Transit riders will typically walk ¼-mile to access transit. Using this assumption, the analysis in this section evaluates access to transit in Stanislaus County via ‘walksheds’, which represent the area around a bus stop that is accessible in a ¼-mile walk. These walksheds are geospatially overlain with various demographics in each jurisdiction to assess the extent to which various populations are served by transit.

Of the over 535,000 people that live in Stanislaus County, roughly 37% live within a ¼-mile walkshed of a fixed-route transit stop.

Figure 3- on the following page shows the percentage of the total population in a walkshed that fall within certain demographic categories. The total population living in the walksheds is in the first row of the figure, while the total number of jobs in the walksheds is the first italicized row. Each walkshed should be compared to the first column (Stanislaus County at large) to see if the demographics within the walkshed are over or under-represented relative to Stanislaus County.

Figure 3-10 Transit Service Walkshed Demographic Comparisons by Geography

Stanislaus All Transit Turlock CAT MAX StaRT Demographic County Walksheds Transit Walksheds Walksheds Walksheds **** * Walksheds

Population** 535,684 198,403 13,472 140,272 33,570 30,999

Youth (<18)** 27% 27% 31% 27% 29% 26%

College-Aged People 7% 8% 9% 8% 7% 8% (20-24)**

Seniors (>64)** 12% 12% 9% 12% 12% 14%

People Renting*** 42% 44% 47% 45% 38% 51%

People w/ 13% 13% 13% 14% 12% 13% Disabilities***

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 86

Workers w/o Access to 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% a Vehicle***

People w/ Income 17% 18% 19% 19% 16% 19% below Poverty Line***

Jobs 178,368 70,367 3,531 51,901 14,333 12,223

Low-Income Jobs 26% 29% 31% 28% 30% 31%

*All Transit defined as Ceres, MAX, StaRT, and Turlock Transit. Walksheds defined as 1/4-mile network distance and 100-meter buffer using TIGER road network. **Calculated using 2017 ACS five-year estimates at the census block group level. Assumed equal geographic distribution of population throughout land area of block group. ***Calculated using 2017 ACS five-year estimates at the tract level. Assumed equal geographic distribution of population throughout land area of census tract. People renting are people above age 1. ****Calculated using tract-level ACS data. Jobs data calculated using LODES data.

Walkshed Maps Figure 3- throughFigure 3-22 illustrate the locations of walksheds and densities of select demographic groups. In these maps, a “walkshed” is the area around a bus stop that can be accessed by a ¼-mile (or less) walk.

Population Density Figure 3- shows the distribution of transit walksheds and population densities in Modesto and Ceres. MAX walksheds are shown in pink and CAT walksheds are shown in light blue. Population density in the greater Modesto area is greatest in the Bret Harte neighborhood, east of Ceres in unincorporated Stanislaus County.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 87

Figure 3-11 Modesto and Ceres Population Density and MAX and CAT Transit Walksheds

Figure 3- shows the distribution of transit walksheds and population densities in Turlock. The greatest population density in Turlock is in the neighborhood northwest of Crane Park, just south of the county fairgrounds, and between South Avenue and Columbia Park.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 88

Figure 3-12 Turlock Population Density and Turlock Transit Walkshed

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 89

Figure 3-4 shows the distribution of population densities in Stanislaus County, and the locations of StaRT routes. Walksheds are not visible at this map extent. There are few concentrations of population outside of the greater Modesto and Turlock areas.

Figure 3-4 Stanislaus County Population Density and StaRT Routes

Note: Walksheds are not visible at this extent.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 90

Transit Propensity The combination of several demographic variables—youth, college-aged people, seniors, people with disabilities, workers without access to a vehicle, and people with income below the poverty line—is called a transit propensity index and indicates places where transit demand is expected to be highest. Although certain factors may play a more dominant role in an individual’s decision to use transit, the variables are not weighted in this analysis.

Figure 3-5 shows the distribution of transit walksheds and transit propensity in Modesto and Ceres. The areas with the highest transit propensity index score are the neighborhoods northeast of Vintage Faire Mall, northwest of Bellenita Park, east of SR 108 and west of Root Lateral Canal, surrounding Coleman F. Brown and Ellison parks, south of Creekside Golf Course, and in the Bret Harte area.

Figure 3-5 Modesto and Ceres Transit Propensity Index and Transit Walksheds

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 91

Figure 3-6 shows the distribution of transit walksheds and transit propensity in Turlock. The neighborhood with the highest transit propensity index is bounded by North Avenue, Colorado Avenue, E Main Street, E Canal Drive, and Geer Road.

Figure 3-6 Turlock Transit Propensity Index and Transit Walkshed

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 92

Figure 3-7 shows the distribution of transit propensity in Stanislaus County. Outside of Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock, there are no areas in the top tier of the transit propensity index. This is largely due to the low population density outside of Stanislaus County’s urbanized areas; places with very few residents per mile very rarely score high on a transit propensity index. This does not necessarily indicate that there is no need for transit in these areas. It does suggest a low density of need, which is difficult to efficiently serve with fixed-route transit.

Figure 3-7 Stanislaus County Transit Propensity Index

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 93

Jobs Densities of employment in Modesto and Ceres are shown in Figure 3-8. Downtown Modesto, the area northwest of W Orangeburg Avenue at SR 108, and Memorial Medical Center show the highest densities of employment.

Figure 3-8 Modesto and Ceres Jobs Density and Transit Walkshed

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 94

In Turlock, the highest densities of employment are near California State University Stanislaus, Emmanuel Medical Center, in Downtown Turlock, around Turlock High School, and northeast of the E Linwood Avenue at Lander Avenue intersection (Figure 3-9).

Figure 3-9 Turlock Jobs Density and Transit Walkshed

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 95

Outside of Modesto and Turlock, few areas have significant density of employment, as land use is largely agricultural (Figure 3-10).

Figure 3-10 Stanislaus County Jobs Density

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 96

Low-Income Jobs Low-income jobs in Modesto and Ceres are concentrated in similar places as all jobs, although retail centers appear as particularly high concentrations of employment; Vintage Faire Mall and the shopping center on Plaza Parkway are highlighted in Figure 3-11.

Figure 3-11 Modesto and Ceres Low-Income Jobs Density and Transit Walkshed

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 97

Low-income jobs in Turlock are most densely concentrated in shopping district west of Geer Road (north of W Minnesota Avenue and south of W Monte Vista Avenue) and in downtown Turlock (Figure 3-12).

Figure 3-12 Turlock Low-Income Jobs Density and Transit Walkshed

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 98

Outside of Modesto and Turlock, few areas have significant density of low-income employment, as land use is largely agricultural (Figure 3-211322).

Figure 3-2113 Stanislaus County Low-Income Jobs Density

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 99

Rider Demographics

Transit rider demographics for each agency were analyzed using available survey data. Overall, riders in Stanislaus County are more likely to be low-income, students, and lack access to a vehicle than the general population. This suggests that public transit in the county is providing essential transportation for people with the greatest need and the most limited mobility options. This section of the report compares transit rider demographics with the demographics of the jurisdiction in which the agency primarily operates, as well as with Stanislaus County as a whole.

Figure 3-14 Rider Demographics Demographic Stanislaus StaRT CAT Riders MAX Turlock County Riders Riders Riders Youth (<18) 27% 2% 17% College-Aged (20-24) 7% 9% 28% Seniors (>64) 12% 12% 11%

Renting Households 14% unavailable unavailable

People w/ Disabilities 13% unavailable unavailable

Workers w/o Access to a Vehicle 1% 66% 75% unavailable People w/ Income below Poverty Line 17% unavailable 60% 47% Data Sources: ACS 2017 five-year estimates; MAX 2018 rider survey; Turlock Transit 2019 ridecheck

MAX Rider Demographic Comparison MAX last surveyed riders in 2018. MAX riders are significantly more likely to be below the poverty line and lack access to a vehicle than the populations of Modesto and Stanislaus County. MAX riders are much less likely to be youth than the population of Stanislaus County or Modesto.

Figure 3-154 Stanislaus County, Modesto, and MAX Rider Demographic Comparison

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

10% Percent Percent of Population 0% Youth (<18) College-Aged Seniors (>64) Workers w/o People w/ Income People (20-24) Access to a below Poverty Vehicle Line

Stanislaus County Modesto MAX Riders

Data Sources: ACS 2017 five-year estimates; MAX 2018 rider survey

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 100

Turlock Transit Rider Demographic Comparison Turlock Transit surveyed riders in early 2019. As was the case with MAX riders, Turlock Transit riders are significantly more likely to be below the poverty line and lack access to a vehicle than the populations of Turlock and Stanislaus County. They are also more likely to be college students.

Figure 3-25 Stanislaus County, Turlock, and Turlock Transit Rider Demographic Comparison

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

Percent Percent of Population 20%

10%

0% Youth (<18) College-Aged Seniors (>64) Workers w/o Access People w/ Income People (20-24) to a Vehicle below Poverty Line

Stanislaus County Turlock Turlock Riders

Data Sources: ACS 2017 five-year estimates; Turlock Transit Rider Survey 2019

StaRT and CAT Rider Demographic Comparison StaRT riders were most recently surveyed in a 2013 ridecheck and reported by route in the 2014 COA. Demographic data collected, however, is not detailed enough to produce a meaningful comparison of Stanislaus County demographics to StaRT rider demographics. Demographic information on CAT riders was not available as of 2019.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 101

Route-Level Analysis

This section describes each fixed route operated by the county’s four transit agencies, provides detailed route performance data, including comparisons of how each route performs relative to all other routes in the network.

Description of Transit Routes

Following are descriptions of transit routes operating within Stanislaus County, as of April 2019.

Ceres Area Transit (CAT) CAT operates one fixed route in Ceres. Transfers to MAX Routes 29 and 42 and StaRT Routes 15 and 61 are available at the Herndon Road and Hatch Rd stop.

• CAT route serves several major destinations including Summit Charter School, Walmart, and Central Valley High School. Transfers are available at Herndon Road and Hatch Road to MAX and StaRT routes.

Modesto Area Express (MAX) MAX operates 17 fixed routes in and around Modesto. Major transfer points are the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall in North Modesto. Transfers are available between MAX routes and StaRT routes at the Modesto Downtown Transit Center. Regional connections from MAX routes are available to Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter rail at the Lathrop/Manteca ACE station, Amtrak rail at the Modesto Amtrak Station, BART at the Dublin BART Station, and Ceres Area Transit via transfer with MAX Routes 29 and 42.

• Route 21 is a loop route in central Modesto, serving Modesto High School, Marshall School, Robertson Road School, Burbank School, and the Downtown Transit Center. • Route 22 operates along the McHenry and Standiford corridors, serving major destinations including Vintage Faire Mall, McHenry Village, and the Downtown Transit Center. Transfers to Route 37 can be made at McHenry/Standiford. • Route 23 provides north-south service along the McHenry corridor. Transfers to Route 37 can be made at McHenry/Standiford. • Route 24 serves residential areas in east Modesto, Lakewood School, and Enochs High School. Transfers to Route 37 can be made at Oakdale/Surrey. • Route 25 provides east-west service between Downtown Transit Center, Amtrak Station, and Vintage Faire Mall. Major corridors served include Orangeburg and Sisk. Transfers to Routes 22, 30, 31, 32, 36, and 37 are available on Orangeburg and Sisk. • Route 26 is a loop route that serves central Modesto, including Modesto High School, Central Catholic High School, and the Downtown Transit Center. Transfers can be made to Routes 21 and 36. • Route 28 provides circulation in north Modesto, serving Gregori High School, Kaiser Hospital, and Vintage Faire Mall. Transfers to Routes 22, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, and 41 are available at Vintage Faire Mall.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 102

• Route 29 provides service to Crows Landing and Ceres. Destinations include Tuolumne School and Shackleford School. Select trips serve the JFK/Howard Training Center. Transfers to Route 42 and CAT are available at Hemdon and Hatch. • Route 30 provides local service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall. The route also serves Modesto Jr. College East. Transfers can be made along the route to Routes 25, 31, and 37. • Route 31 provides service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall, via Highway 99. Major destinations include Modesto Jr. College East and Davis High School. • Route 32 provides service between the Downtown Transit Center and Northeast Modesto. The route serves many schools, including Downey High School, and Memorial Medical Center. Transfers can be made to Route 25 at Coffee and Orangeburg, and Route 37 on Oakdale. • Route 33 is a loop route in west Modesto providing service between the Downtown Transit Center and Modesto Jr. College West. It also serves Central Catholic High School and Mark Twain Jr. High School. • Route 36 provides service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall, operating on the west side of town. The route serves Modesto Jr. College West, Central Catholic High School, and Modesto High School. Transfers can be made along the route to Routes 26 and 33. • Route 37 provides crosstown service to neighborhoods in east and north Modesto. The route connects the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall. Transfers to Routes 25, 31, and 32 are available. • Route 38 is a loop route that serves the Orville Wright School and neighborhoods in east Modesto. • Route 41 provides direct service between the Downtown Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall, operating via Highway 99. • Route 42 is a loop route that serves neighborhoods in south Modesto, including Crows Landing and Ceres. Destinations served include the Shackleford School and Community Services Agency/County Safety Center. Transfers to Route 29 and CAT can be made at Hatch and Hemdon. • Modesto ACE Express is a weekday-only express service between Modesto and the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) commuter train. The bus provides non-stop service between Modesto's Vintage Faire Mall park-and-ride to the Lathrop/Manteca ACE train station. Modesto ACE Express does not provide service to every ACE train. • Modesto BART Express is a weekday-only express service between Modesto and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The route stops at the Modesto Downtown Transit Center, Sisk Road Orchard Supply Hardware parking lot, and Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 103

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) StaRT operates eight fixed routes in the region, connecting the cities of Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock with smaller areas including Riverbank, Oakdale, Patterson, Grayson, Westley, Crows Landing, Newman, Gustine, Hughson, Hickman, Keyes, Empire, Waterford and Denair. StaRT also provides a commuter route to the Dublin BART Station. Transfers are available between StaRT routes and CAT, Turlock Transit, and MAX routes.

• Route 10 serves Modesto and Turlock via Highway 99 and circulates central Turlock. Route 10 is weekday-only. • Route 15 serves Modesto, Ceres, Keyes, and Turlock. It provides local service east of Highway 99 and circulates Turlock. • Route 40 runs between Modesto and Patterson and serves Modesto, Grayson, Westley, and Patterson. On weekdays, the route operates from the Modesto Downtown Transit Center, and on Saturdays it also serves the Vintage Faire Mall in Modesto. • Route 45E operates between Patterson and Turlock on weekdays only. • Route 45W operates between Gustine and Patterson via Highway 33, also serving Newman and Crows Landing. • Route 60 serves Modesto, Riverbank, and Oakdale on weekdays and Saturdays. • Route 61 serves Modesto, Empire, Waterford, Hickman, Hughson, and Ceres. • Commuter to BART serves Turlock, Patterson, and Dublin BART Station.

Turlock Transit Turlock Transit operates six fixed routes in Turlock. Connections from Turlock Transit to elsewhere in the region are available via StaRT routes 10, 15, 45E, and Commuter to BART. The agency also interfaces with Merced’s “The Bus” Route T at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center in Turlock.

• Route 1 Countryside is a loop route that operates in a clockwise direction along the same alignment as Route 2. It serves California State University (CSU) Stanislaus, Target, Walmart, the Turlock Transit Center, and neighborhoods in north Turlock. • Route 2 Geer is a loop route that operates in a counter-clockwise direction along the same alignment as Route 1. It serves CSU Stanislaus, Safeway, Walmart, the Turlock Transit Center, and neighborhoods in north Turlock. • Route 3 Olive is a loop route that serves the Turlock Transit Center, Target, Pitman High School, CSU Stanislaus, and Emanuel Medical Center. • Route 4 Colorado serves neighborhoods in east Turlock. Major destinations include Turlock Transit Center, Dutcher High School and Turlock High School. • Route 5 Lander serves the Turlock Transit Center, Downtown Turlock, and neighborhoods in south Turlock. • Route 6 Soderquist serves the Turlock Transit Center, Osborn School, and neighborhoods in west Turlock.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 104

Route Performance

Individual route performance is assessed based on a number of metrics, including total ridership, productivity (ridership normalized by revenue hours), on-time performance, and schedule efficiency. The following sections describe service levels, planned or completed consolidations, ridership, and productivity on transit routes in Stanislaus County.

Service Levels Service levels for all routes, including hours of operation and frequency, are summarized by transit agency and route in the figure below.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 105

Figure 3-16 Service Span and Frequency

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 106

Planned or Implemented Route Consolidations

Transit agencies are always seeking to provide service as efficiently as possible. One way to ensure efficiency is to consolidate routes that provide overlapping or duplicative service or are underperforming. Route consolidations that have been planned or implemented in recent years and are discussed in this section.

• MAX implemented route consolidations in 2018. Changes included elimination of Routes 27, 34, and 39 and restructuring parts of Route 34 into new Route 24.

Ridership

The number of passengers being served, or ridership, is a reflection of how successful a transit route is. High ridership is indicative of successful service, and conversely, low ridership can indicate that a route is not adequately meeting rider needs.

Total Ridership The following figure 3-26 shows total annual ridership by agency using the most recent data available.4 MAX carries the highest number of annual passengers, followed by StaRT, Turlock Transit, and CAT. The highest ridership routes in the county are MAX Routes 25, 22, and 21, in that order, with an average of over 500 boardings per day. Among StaRT routes, the highest ridership route is Route 10, with an average of over 300 boardings per day. CAT and Turlock Transit routes have less than 120 boardings on average per day. Average daily boardings by route and agency are shown in

4 Ridership data provided by agencies: MAX FY18; CAT FY18; StaRT FY18; Turlock Transit FY18.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 107

Figure 3-17 Annual Ridership by Transit Agency

Ridership by Route Average daily ridership provides a measure for comparing routes with one another. Average daily boardings by agency and route are shown in

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 108

Figure 3-18 on the following page. The highest ridership routes in the county are MAX Routes 25, 22, and 21, in that order, with an average of over 500 boardings per day. Among StaRT routes, the highest ridership route is Route 10, with an average of over 300 boardings per day. CAT and Turlock Transit routes have fewer than 120 average daily boardings.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 109

Figure 3-18 Average Daily Boardings

Data Sources: Turlock FR Fares and Ridership, FY17-18; StaRT FY17/18 Route Info; Ceres table with Data for SB 903 Consultant; MAX FY18 ridership

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 110

Ridership by Stop MAX ridership is highest at the Modesto Transit Center, Vintage Faire Mall on SR 99 in north Modesto, and at the transfer point in Ceres (Figure 3-19). Notable high ridership corridors include McHenry Avenue/SR 108 in north Modesto, and Paradise Road/Robinson Road/Sutter Avenue in southwest Modesto.

Figure 3-19 MAX Ridership by Stop

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 111

Turlock Transit’s ridership is evenly distributed throughout transit corridors in the city, with the highest number of boardings occurring at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center (Figure 3-20). Ridership is somewhat higher along Monte Vista Avenue and Geer Road.

Figure 3-20 Turlock Transit Ridership by Stop

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 112

Route Productivity

Route productivity can be measured in passengers per revenue hour. StaRT Routes 60, 10, and 15 are the most productive routes, with over 25 passengers per revenue hour, followed by MAX Routes 38 and 21 and StaRT Route 40, with over 20 passengers per revenue hour. All Turlock Transit and CAT routes, as well as some MAX and StaRT Routes, have productivity below 10 passengers per revenue hour.

Figure 3-30 Passengers per Revenue Hour

Data Sources: Turlock FR Fares and Ridership, FY17-18; StaRT FY17/18 Route Info; Ceres table with Data for SB 903 Consultant; MAX FY18 ridership

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 113

Recommendations

This section describes recommendations that the transit operators in Stanislaus County may wish to consider based on the consultant’s analysis of existing conditions and opportunities. It includes a gap analysis of areas that have higher than average transit ridership potential but no service within ¼-mile walkshed. It also reviews service integration opportunities for transit routes that provide similar or overlapping services. Finally, this section reviews service design guidelines and performance standards for the county’s four agencies, including recommendations for future evaluation of fixed-route systems.

Gap Analysis

The review of Stanislaus County fixed-route transit walksheds performed in the Demographic Analysis section informs the following gap analysis, which identifies places within Stanislaus County where fixed-route transit service may be desirable but is not currently provided.

Modesto & Ceres Modesto is generally well-served by MAX and StaRT fixed-route service. That being said, the E Briggsmore Avenue corridor, between Oakdale Road and Coffee Road in northeast Modesto, is a relatively high-density residential area that scores high on the transit propensity index (Figure 3-31). Lack of pedestrian infrastructure and the presence of the Moulton Lateral canal limits provision of fixed-route service on this corridor, however.

Figure 3-31 Modesto Fixed-Route Transit Service Gap

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 114

Ceres is generally well-served by MAX, CAT, and StaRT fixed-route service. There are, however, two locations that score relatively high on the transit propensity index and may benefit from the addition of fixed-route transit service (Figure 3-211):

• Central Avenue between E Hatch Road and E Whitmore Road is currently not served by fixed-route transit. The corridor is home to a number of high-density housing developments and some places of employment. • The Westward-Ho mobile home community on Mitchell Road is currently not served by fixed-route transit, although the StaRT Route 15 operates on Mitchell Road (the closest stop is ½-mile away). This location may be well-suited to future fixed-route service, with Don Pedro Road serving as a natural transit vehicle turnaround.

Figure 3-21 Ceres Service Gaps

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 115

Turlock There are three places in Turlock with relatively-high transit propensity that are currently within a fixed-route transit service gap (Figure 3-22):

• W Tuolumne Road between Geer Road and N Golden State Boulevard and Dels Lane between W Monte Vista Avenue and E Hawkeye Avenue traverse one of the largest areas of Turlock that scores relatively high on the transit propensity index. Although not the highest-density residential community in Turlock, it is home to a moderate concentration of homes and is not currently covered by fixed-route transit. Roadway features (speed bumps, roundabouts) could present impediments to transit service along this roadway, however. • E Canal Drive between Olive Ave and N Golden State Boulevard is currently not served by fixed-route transit but is adjacent to relatively high-density housing, as well as some businesses. This is not, however, the highest-priority service gap, as fixed-route stops exist on both N Olive Avenue and N Golden State Boulevard. • Geer Road between E Canal Drive and 20th Century Boulevard is home to a number of businesses and some residential development. Like E Canal Drive, however, this corridor is not the highest-priority gap, as fixed-route transit exists just outside of a ¼-mile walkshed near this corridor.

Figure 3-22 Turlock Fixed-Route Transit Service Gaps

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 116

Stanislaus County The remainder of Stanislaus County is either served by StaRT fixed-route transit or is too low- density to warrant fixed-route transit service. If moderate-density residential or employment destinations continue to develop in more suburban regions of Stanislaus County (e.g. the distribution center west of Patterson), fixed-route service could be adjusted to serve these changing land uses.

In lieu of operating a low-efficiency fixed-route transit service in low-density communities, demand-response transit services could be provided. These could operate in a similar or the same fashion as existing StaRT demand-response services, such as intra-community Dial- A-Ride, inter-community Shuttle, or countywide ADA paratransit.

Other Central Valley models for community transportation in low-density areas include Green Raiteros, a local-, state-, and grant-funded electric vehicle rideshare program that allows residents of Huron (a small, agricultural community in Fresno County) to share rides for shopping, medical, and other trips. Green Raiteros operates in similar fashion as more casual farmworker ‘raitero’ ridesharing, adding dispatchers and driver reimbursements to the otherwise informal practice. Stanislaus County could contribute funds to support Green Raitero-type services in its rural communities.

Service Integration Opportunities

Four key areas of overlap among Stanislaus County’s four transit providers were identified as having opportunities for consolidation:

• Modesto McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor • Ceres Hatch Road/Mitchell Road/Whitmore Avenue corridors • Turlock local circulation • Long distance commuter service

Each of these opportunity areas are discussed in a separate section below. This analysis focuses on overlapping service and service designs (e.g. local vs. commuter) among transit agencies. Additional areas with overlapping service were also assessed but were not found to present opportunities for consolidation. Some of these corridors included SR 99 in Modesto, Dale Road in north Modesto, and Crows Landing Road in south Modesto.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 117

Modesto McHenry Avenue/SR 108 Corridor Three routes serve the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor in north Modesto: StaRT Route 60 and MAX routes 22 and 23 (Figure 3-23). In addition to serving the same corridor, StaRT Route 60 departs from the Modesto Transit Center at the same time as MAX route 22 or 23 for nearly all departures.

Figure 3-23 McHenry Avenue/SR 108 Corridor Routes

• StaRT Route 60 makes local stops along McHenry Avenue/SR 108 before continuing service to Riverbank and Oakdale. Route 60 makes 13 round trips each weekday. On Saturdays, Route 60 instead travels on SR 99 to serve the Vintage Faire Mall and makes seven round trips. • MAX Route 22 serves the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 and Standiford corridors. The route is anchored by two major ridership generators: the Modesto Transit Center and Vintage Faire Mall. Route 22 offers 30-minute service all day, departing the Modesto Downtown Transit Center at :00 and :30. • MAX Route 23 serves the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor between the Downtown Transit Center and SR 219 with all-day 30-minute service. The route’s schedule is offset with Route 22, which departs the Downtown Transit Center at :15 and :45, thus providing frequent service along the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor between the Downtown Transit Center and Standiford Ave.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 118

Span and Frequency Figure 3-24 shows weekday span of service and frequency of departures from the Modesto Downtown Transit Center for the three routes. Routes 22 and 23 have offset schedules, effectively providing 15-minute service along much of the corridor. StaRT Route 60’s departure times overlap with either Route 22 or Route 23 for nearly all departures.

Figure 3-24 Weekday Span and Frequency of Modesto Transfer Center Departures, MAX Routes 22, 23, and StaRT Route 60

Ridership The McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor in North Modesto is one of the area’s highest ridership corridors, with 713 total average daily MAX boardings on McHenry Avenue/SR 108 from Needham Street to SR 219, representing 11% of MAX’s total systemwide average daily boardings. StaRT Route 60 averages 27 boardings per day, or 25% of StaRT’s total systemwide average daily boardings.5

Recommendation: McHenry Avenue/SR 108 Corridor Although the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor is shared by multiple routes, the service design successfully provides high-frequency transit on the trunk portion of the corridor (Needham Street to Standiford Avenue) and connects residential communities inside and out of Modesto to retail and institutional opportunities on SR 108.

Care should be taken, however, to coordinate schedules so that stop times on the McHenry Avenue/SR 108 corridor’s trunk service area minimize headways for riders boarding or alighting on the corridor. With slightly more coordinated schedules, it is possible to give many riders a minimum of seven-minute headways to certain destinations on the corridor, as well as to the Downtown Transit Center from the corridor. It is also recommended that StaRT and MAX stops along the corridor be fully consolidated so that there are no StaRT-only stops (such as the McHenry Ave. & Bowen Ave. stop #104).

The benefits of short headways provided by multi-agency service along this corridor can only be realized by riders if they understand how to use and transfer between buses operated by both agencies. To this end, both agencies should coordinate to produce

5 Stop-level boarding data for StaRT were unavailable as of July 2019. MAX ridership data are from FY ’18 and StaRT ridership data are from FY 17/18.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 119

posted stop schedules, online materials, and transit center collateral that clearly and effectively communicates the access provided by their joint services. This type of coordination is especially helpful for new riders.

Likewise, better integrating the fare system among local agencies would make transfers among agencies easier, which may increase ridership on all systems. The ability to pay fares on any local bus with a single pass or fare card would greatly improve service and fare legibility for riders.

Ceres Hatch Road/Mitchell Road/Whitmore Avenue Corridors Three routes serve Ceres: the sole CAT route, MAX Route 29, and StaRT routes 15 and 61 (Figure 3-25). There are opportunities to be more efficient in this area by consolidating operations and evenly spacing headways on corridors with overlapping routes.

Figure 3-25 Hatch Road/Mitchell Road/Whitmore Avenue Corridor Routes

• The CAT route provides local circulation in Ceres. It runs every 60 minutes, departing the Herndon Road at E Hatch Road timepoint at :15 after the hour. The only area served solely by this route is the Central Valley High School Loop. • MAX Route 29 connects Modesto and Ceres at the Herndon Road at E Hatch Road timepoint. • StaRT Route 15 makes local stops in Ceres and provides intercity connections to Turlock, Keyes, and Modesto. The route operates along several of the same corridors as the CAT route and connects to the Herndon Road at E Hatch Road timepoint. StaRT Route 15 operates every 90 minutes from 5:25 a.m. to 9:25 p.m. • StaRT Route 61 provides intercity service to Modesto, Empire, Waterford, Hickman, Hughson, and Ceres. In Ceres, it operates along Hatch Road and Mitchell Road corridors in the northbound direction only.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 120

Span and Frequency The following figure 3-37 shows weekday span of service and frequency of departures from the Herndon Road at E Hatch Road timepoint for the four routes.

Figure 3-26 Weekday Span and Frequency of Departures, CAT, MAX Route 29, StaRT Routes 15 and 61

Ridership The Herndon Road at E Hatch Road timepoint has 93 average MAX boardings per day, suggesting a high volume of transfer activity at this timepoint among the four routes.

Ridership by stop data are not available for CAT and StaRT. The CAT route, however, averages 59 daily boardings, while StaRT Route 15 averages 182 and StaRT Route 61 averages 51 (17% and 5% of total average daily StaRT systemwide boardings, respectively).6

Recommendation: Ceres Hatch Road/Mitchell Road/Whitmore Avenue Corridors It is recommended that the single CAT route be absorbed into MAX operations. Having a single CAT route reduces overall transit legibility in the Modesto area, and, on a regional level, incurs unnecessary administrative and operational overhead that could be more efficiently managed within MAX. The CAT route service patterns and alignment could remain the same under MAX operations or could be adjusted to serve the Downtown Transit Center in Modesto, thus eliminating transfers for many riders.

It is also recommended that route stop times be coordinated to provide the lowest headways on shared corridors (e.g. evenly spacing trips for the CAT route and StaRT Route 61 on E Hatch Road and Mitchell Road), while considering riders that may continue to use the Herndon Road at E Hatch Road transfer point.

6 MAX and CAT ridership data are from FY 18. StaRT ridership data are from FY 17-17.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 121

Turlock Local Circulation Turlock Transit currently operates six fixed routes within the City of Turlock. Four StaRT routes connect Turlock with other Stanislaus County destinations (and vice versa), while also providing local circulation.

Figure 3-38 Turlock Local Circulation Routes

• StaRT Route 10 and 15 connect Modesto and Turlock. Route 10 serves as a more direct route between the two cities, with no stops between the two. Route 15 stops in Ceres and Keyes and operates with headways of approximately 70-90 minutes. Route 10 operates on weekdays only and Route 15 operates 12 weekday round trips and eight Saturday round trips.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 122

• StaRT Route 45E connects Patterson and Turlock, with multiple stops in both communities and approximately 105-minute headways. This route operates eight round trips on weekdays and four on Saturdays. • StaRT Commuter to BART connects Turlock and Patterson to the Dublin / Pleasanton BART station with one a.m. trip and one p.m. trip on weekdays. This commuter-type service’s only Turlock stop is at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center. • Turlock Transit operates six fixed routes, using the Roger K. Fall Transit Center as a service hub and primary transfer point. These routes depart the transit center every 30 to 35 minutes every weekday with limited Saturday service. The agency also interfaces with Merced’s “The Bus” Route T at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center in Turlock

Ridership Turlock Transit ridership is concentrated at the Roger K. Fall Transit Center and California State University (CSU) Stanislaus (Figure 3-39). Ridership in Downtown Turlock is low relative to other areas. There is a moderate amount of ridership at Turlock High School, as well.

Figure 3-279 Turlock Transit Ridership by Stop

Recommendations StaRT routes 10 and 15 are recommended to stop at CSU Stanislaus, Emanuel Medical Center, and the Roger K. Fall Transit Center only, providing an express connection to Turlock and bypassing many of the local stops that are currently served by Turlock Transit.

Altering StaRT routes to serve only these locations will reduce StaRT trip times, allowing the adjusted StaRT routes to operate greater with slightly greater frequency and/or

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 123

reliability. Although riders will no longer have one-seat ride access to some destinations, they will still be able to access these destinations via transfer to Turlock Transit’s local routes.

Limiting the number of Turlock stops will also improve service legibility for Stanislaus County residents, helping to solidify StaRT as a regional transit service and Turlock Transit as a local transit service.

The StaRT Commuter to BART route is recommended to remain as-is.

Long-Distance Commuter Service Two different Stanislaus County transit agencies currently operate three unique long-distance commuter-type routes connecting Stanislaus County with the Bay Area (Figure 3-40): the MAX to ACE and BART routes and the StaRT Commuter to BART.

Figure 3-40 Long-Distance Commuter Service from Stanislaus County

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 124

• MAX to BART offers three a.m. and two p.m. weekday trips to and from the Dublin / Pleasanton BART station. Each trip stops twice in Modesto: once at the Downtown Transit Center and once at the former Orchard Supply Hardware store on Sisk Road. • MAX to ACE offers three a.m. and four p.m. weekday trips to and from Modesto and the Lathrop/Manteca ACE train station. Three trips depart from the Downtown Transit Center and the remainder depart and arrive at the Vintage Faire Mall park-and-ride. • StaRT Commuter to BART offers one trip each in the a.m. and p.m., connecting Turlock and Patterson residents with BART service to the Bay Area at Dublin / Pleasanton. This route operates on weekdays only and is reservation-only.

Span and Frequency Stanislaus County commuter route departures are designed to allow county residents to access the Bay Area for typical daytime working hours. These routes’ schedules are coordinated with ACE and BART schedules. Stops at the ACE station are most important to time, as ACE service is far less frequent than BART (ACE operates only four trips per day in each direction, BART operates on approximately 15-minute headways). Currently, MAX to ACE arrives before three of the four a.m. ACE train departures and departs after four of the four ACE train p.m. arrivals from Lathrop / Manteca.

Ridership Ridership on Stanislaus County’s commuter routes varies; it is relatively high on MAX to ACE, moderate on MAX to BART, and low on StaRT Commuter to BART (Figure 3-41). Average weekday ridership per trip on the MAX commuter routes represents a total of approximately 36 people traveling to and from ACE or BART.

Figure 3-41 Average Weekday Ridership, Stanislaus County Commuter Routes Route Average Weekday Boardings Average Weekday Boardings per Trip MAX to ACE 76 25 MAX to BART 124 11 StaRT Commuter to BART 21 11 Data Sources: MAX ridership from FY 18, StaRT ridership from FY 17/18

Recommendations To use limited resources more efficiently, the existing MAX commuter routes could be combined into a single ‘MAX to ACE and BART’ route, serving the Modesto Downtown Transit Center, Vintage Faire Mall park-and-ride, Lathrop/Manteca ACE station, and Dublin / Pleasanton BART station. Stopping at both the ACE and BART stations instead of serving BART directly would add approximately 10 minutes of travel time but would be a more efficient use of operational resources.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 125

Combining the MAX to ACE and MAX to BART routes and operating seven round trips would yield, on average, 29 boardings per trip (59% seat utilization with a 49-passenger over-the-road coach bus) assuming current demand persists.

It is also recommended that long-distance commuter routes in Stanislaus County be operated only by StaRT. Operating long-distance commuter routes under two agency names, brands, and fare structures may be reducing service legibility for riders, as well as damaging general branding and awareness of service throughout Stanislaus County.

Low-Performing Fixed Routes

On average, the following routes carry fewer than six passengers per revenue hour, making them candidates for discontinuation, given their low productivity:

• CAT Route • MAX BART Express • StaRT Commuter • Turlock Transit Route 3 • Turlock Transit Route 6

Given rider demographics from rider survey data, any discontinuation of service is likely to harm people with low incomes and those without vehicles. If resources from discontinued services were reallocated to supplement stronger performing service in the county, it is likely that benefits would accrue to the riders who are also likely to be low income and without access to a vehicle.

The MAX BART and StaRT Commuter routes could be combined as described in the preceding section, which, as described, would make better use of the overall resource and improve productivity. Although with the long miles and few stops on a riders per service hour basis, these commuter routes will never perform on par with local routes and should not be expected to do so. A better productivity benchmark is boardings per trip as shown in Figure 3-41 above as a threshold. A suggested value for the boardings per trip would be based on the cost of providing a single trip versus the expected farebox recovery from a specific number of boardings. For example, if a trip costs $300 to operate and the average fare per boarding is $5.00 per boarding and the goal is to achieve 30% farebox recovery, it would require 30% of $300, or $100, divided by $5, or 20 boardings per trip as a productivity threshold. This is more commonly used in the transit industry as a way to benchmark the performance of long distance commuter type services.

The remaining three identified low productivity routes, CAT and Turlock Routes 3 and 6 could, alternatively, be candidates for piloting new service concepts with more dynamic service assignment, as described in Chapter 4. We recommend working with the CAT Route as a starting point to establish a dynamically dispatched route. As a standalone service, this route is a good candidate for testing the viability of an alternative service concept.

The route would pick up people at home and deliver them to two to three fixed point destinations where they could either connect with larger transit network (e.g., a transit center or transfer point

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 126

between two or more routes) or major activity centers (like a medical facility or shopping center). Rides would be pre-arranged through an app or by phone. Some exploration needs to be undertaken with transportation network companies, like Lyft and Uber, to test the feasibility of offering subsidized rides on these services. Both companies offer these services in other communities; the key is whether there are enough operating units in the area to make a successful service. Given that the business model of both providers allows the drivers to choose their market and also to accept rides, one would want to ensure there are enough vehicles and operators in the area that ride requests would be fulfilled with reasonable response times, reliability, and consistency within a defined span of service (hours of day and days of week).

Regardless of the way service is delivered (cooperative with Transportation Network Companies like Uber and Lyft or a standalone service like SacRT’s SmaRT Ride—see Chapter 4 for more detail on this service), the recommendation is to identify a pilot area, establish a performance framework (how many trips per day, response time experience, reliability, cost per trip, etc.) and set up a pilot service to test the concept. If successful, the next step would be to determine the next best candidate route/area and continue implementation. Evaluation of Fixed-Route Systems

Service guidelines and performance measures provide structure and guidance for transit operators in evaluating, deploying, and considering changes to transit services. This section discusses best practices for developing and implementing service guidelines and performance measures, and identifies methodologies for ongoing evaluation of fixed route systems, factoring in housing and land use planning.

Key Terms

To help clarify key terms used throughout this section, below are four important definitions:

• A guideline is a recommendation that leads or directs a course of action to achieve a certain goal. • A standard sets the minimum investment required to reach the service classification. • A measure is a reference point against which performance is evaluated. Measures can be evaluated against a baseline value or against a specific target. • A target is the defined value set for individual measures. For example, a target might be 20 passengers per revenue hour.

Service Guidelines and Performance Measure Goals Aside from the adage “you can’t manage what you don’t measure,” there are several reasons why service guidelines are critical for transit agencies. Transit service guidelines and performance measures should:

• Reflect the vision and goals of the overall transit network: Transit service guidelines and performance measures reflect community values for transit service. An agency that values extensive geographic coverage above concentrating service in high-demand

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 127

corridors will adhere to a different set of service guidelines and performance measures than one that focuses on most-efficiently serving demand. There is not a standard or accepted set of service guidelines and performance measures. Focusing on farebox recovery, as required by TDA, implies that productivity, or riders per unit of service, is the primary goal for transit operators in Stanislaus County and that efficiency is the most important value. • Ensure consistency among Stanislaus County transit service providers: While guidelines and performance measures need not be identical among operators, establishing some service guidelines and performance measures that apply to all operators will set baseline expectations for a consistent, integrated, and coordinated network of services. • Provide transparency: Service guidelines and performance measures provide benchmarks and performance indicators that reflect realistic and appropriate levels of productivity and cost-effectiveness. These indicators track the development of the network and can be shared with elected boards and members of the public. Accordingly, the service guidelines and performance measures must be easy to understand, directly related to network goals, and instill confidence in stakeholders. • Establish evaluation criteria for all services: Service guidelines and performance measures include evaluation metrics and tools to shape, define, and evaluate individual transit routes and the emerging transit network. The guidelines will direct attention and investments to specific parts of the network. They will also create a clear, consistent, and equitable framework for decision-making and investment. • Support Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and TDA compliance: Ultimately, transit service will be implemented using a combination of local and state funding, as well as FTA (federal) funding. Transit operators who receive state and federal funding are required to adhere to a series of policies and regulations. By integrating service guidelines and performance measures into management practices, compliance is built into agency procedures.

Performance Measurement Measuring transit performance continues to be an increasing focus in the transit industry. This section discusses industry best practices related to performance measurement that operators in Stanislaus County should consider implementing to achieve service goals.

There are essentially three classes of measures: efficiency, effectiveness, and service quality. Some common metrics used in the transit industry to evaluate these include:

• Efficiency: o Passengers per Revenue Hour o Passengers per Revenue Mile o Boardings per trip o Farebox recovery ratio

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 128

o Cost per boarding o Cost per revenue hour • Effectiveness: o Rides per capita o Population within transit walkshed o High mobility need population within transit walkshed o Percent of population within reach of frequent service • Service Quality: o On-time performance o Average headway o Complaints per boarding o Vehicle miles between road calls

Operators within Stanislaus County use measures similar to these, and to varying degrees. The present TDA regulations, however, focus on only one measure—farebox recovery, which is an efficiency measure. Understandably Stanislaus County operators heavily focus management decisions on this measure. A better proxy for the relative cost efficiency of providing a given service is passengers per revenue hour or passengers per revenue mile. Both of these metrics are simple to calculate accurately and are more agile in describing the subtle differences in routes. This is one of the reasons they are so commonly used by transit agencies as the primary metrics for measuring efficiency. The two measures are frequently used in tandem to recognize the difference between routes that operate in a denser urban environment versus routes that operate in a more suburban or rural environment.

The more complex part of setting benchmarks or thresholds with these two metrics is the fact that, just as various transit systems are different, so are individual routes. So, even within a given route structure there may be three or four classes of routes with different benchmarks. A best practice in this area is to utilize benchmarks that float based on performance of a route group. Route groups are normally distinguished by the service characteristics, days of service, span, and frequency. Floating benchmarks mean the performance of the group is measured and some benchmark is established based on the collective performance.

For example, one might find a range of performance of 10 to 30 passengers per revenue hour among a group of routes. The median of that group is 25 passengers per revenue hour. The benchmark or threshold might be set at 80% of the median or 20 passengers per revenue hour in this example. If that were the case, a route that performs at 10 passengers per hours does not meet the performance threshold. The key question is: what happens next? The options vary based on the situation. If a route does not meet the benchmark, but has increasing ridership, it may be put on a “watch” list. If the route has been on a “watch” list, an option may be to downgrade the service provided to a different class, such as reducing frequency, or spans of service, or days of service. In some instances, a route might be phased out of operation, or perhaps becomes a candidate for a different type of service as discussed for areas of low productivity.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 129

Existing Service Policies of Stanislaus County Transit Providers Figure 3-42 shows the existing policies guiding operations for each agency, which are discussed in greater detail below.

Figure 3-42 Policies Guiding Operation of Transit Service in Stanislaus County Transit Provider Governing Service Guidelines and Performance Measures Ceres Area Transit (CAT) TDA Farebox Recovery Requirement

Modesto Area Express (MAX) City of Modesto Guiding Policies for Transit Planning City of Modesto Transit Vision Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) StaRT Goals, Policy and Service Standards Framework (Chapter IV of 2014 StaRT Comprehensive Operations Analysis) Turlock Transit Turlock Transit Service Guidelines (Chapter 10 of 2016 Turlock Transit 2016 Short-Range Transit Plan)

Ceres Area Transit (CAT) Rather than having agency or city policy-level guidance for deploying transit service, CAT manages service with the goal of attaining the minimum farebox recovery requirement of the TDA.

Modesto Area Express (MAX) MAX service is guided by a transit vision set by the City Council, as well as a set of Guiding Policies that include service guidelines, standards, and performance measures.

Transit Vision: The MAX system should be frequent, convenient, safe, clean, and easy to understand. The vision supports higher ridership in service of the TDA farebox requirement.

Guiding Policies: MAX guiding policies include:

• Service Guidelines: locations where fixed-route bus service should be provided based on specific demographic thresholds • Service Standards: recovery time, headways for weekday and weekend service, customer information, bus stop amenities • Performance Measures and Targets covering service efficiency and quality, including measures and targets for: on-time performance, farebox recovery, route-level passengers per hour, customer complaints

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) StaRT’s 2014 Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) included recommended objectives and associated service policies, as well as service standards and new service warrants.

Objectives and Policies: Seven objectives related to customer experience, efficiency, service quality, target markets, service monitoring and evaluation, the agency’s role in development review, financial practices, and partnerships. The objectives are largely associated with attaining

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 130

the efficiency and ridership needed to achieve farebox recovery goals. Each objective includes one or more policies that direct the agency’s actions toward achieving the objective.

Service Standards: Standards for service efficiency, quality/reliability, and service design. These include service standards, performance measures, and targets, largely associated with meeting farebox recovery requirements.

New Service Warrants: Tool for evaluating and determining how and whether to deploy resources toward new services or service extensions. Provides a timeline during which new services can be piloted to ensure they meet farebox recovery requirements prior to permanent implementation.

Turlock Transit Turlock Transit’s 2016 Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) provides guidelines to be used when expanding service to new areas or modifying existing routes. These guidelines are based on transit design best practices, and include principles related to route directness, alignment, deviations, appropriate streets for transit service, route length, headways, and span of service. The guidelines are qualitative in nature and provide high-level direction for service design.

Transit Operating Environments Transit operating environments are an important consideration in transit service design and play a key role in transit service productivity. Transit providers directly control the product (type of service) and set characteristics such as service quality (cleanliness of the vehicle, reliability of service, friendliness of the driver, etc.), service design (how efficiently the service transports passengers to their desired destinations), and the price of the trip or fare.

Transit agencies have less direct control over their operating environments. The most significant factors influencing transit ridership relate to land use, including the number of people within walking distance of a transit route (density); the safety, comfort, and attractiveness of the built environment; the type of development (housing, jobs, shopping, etc.); and the amount and cost of parking. Although transit agencies typically have limited control over their operating environments, transit agencies can develop routes to complement the characteristics of specific environments. This is especially important for operators focused on efficiency measures for performance.

Density is the largest single factor influencing transit demand, as the number of people within walking distance of a bus route determines the overall market size. Accordingly, if there are more people living or working within walking distance (e.g. denser development), there are more potential users of the service. Further, because land tends to be more expensive in high-density communities, these areas also feature less parking and are more likely to charge for parking. Limited parking and/or parking fees tend to make transit more attractive. Corridors with high densities of people and/or activities, therefore, can support higher transit frequency. Corridors and communities with lower densities are better matched with lower frequency service types (local bus routes or demand-response service).

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 131

Urban form also shapes transit demand, as transit service is more accessible in areas with sidewalks, crosswalks, and manageable street crossings; including these accessibility features can also expand the reach of transit. Land use also shapes transit demand; office space, for example, usually has higher demand on weekdays in the morning and afternoon, while shopping areas may have demand throughout the day on weekdays and weekends.

Due to the strong connection between surrounding land use and transit performance, as well as the shifting development and demographics in Stanislaus County, transit operators in the county should continue to evaluate and consider density, urban form, and land use in the deployment of fixed-route transit resources. Matching resources to the most promising markets will provide the greatest opportunity for operators to meet farebox recovery requirements of the TDA.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 132

Chapter 4 New Transit Strategies

Introduction

Emerging mobility services such as microtransit and transportation network companies (TNCs) have the potential to expand mobility options in areas where traditional fixed-route transit service is difficult to provide efficiently. The Federal Transit Administration defines microtransit as “IT- enabled private multi-passenger transportation services that serve passengers using dynamically generated routes and may expect passengers to make their way to and from common pick-up or drop-off points. Vehicles can range from large SUVs to vans to shuttle buses. Because they provide transit-like service but on a smaller, more flexible scale, these new services have been referred to as microtransit.”7 TNCs provide a service that the FTA calls ridesourcing, or “use of online platforms to connect passengers with drivers and automate reservations, payments, and customer feedback.”8 TNCs are further defined by drivers’ use of personal, non-commercial vehicles.9 Examples of TNCs include companies such as Uber and Lyft.

The two main goals of this chapter are to analyze (1) the integration of micro-transportation opportunities within Stanislaus County and (2) potential impacts related to the emergence of private transportation network companies such as Lyft and Uber. Microtransit Integration Opportunities

This section explores the potential benefits of microtransit services to Stanislaus County by reviewing two case studies in the Sacramento area. The first case study, SmaRT Ride, is a microtransit service implemented by Sacramento Regional Transit District in Sacramento. The second case, Via, is an on-demand microtransit service implemented by the City of West Sacramento in conjunction with a private rideshare company. This section reviews these cases and discusses microtransit opportunities for Stanislaus County.

Sacramento Regional Transit District Pilot: SmaRT Ride Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) is the regional transit provider for Sacramento County, CA. In February of 2018, the agency implemented a pilot microtransit service known as SmaRT Ride available to anyone living within the service area of Citrus Heights, and which has since been expanded to include the Franklin-South Sacramento service area.10 SmaRT Ride will pick up and drop off customers anywhere they wish to travel within the defined service area and has a standard one-way fare of $2.50 per trip, with discounted fares of $1.25 for seniors, people

7 Federal Transit Administration (2017) Shared Mobility Definitions. Retrieved from https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/shared-mobility-definitions 8 Ibid. 9 SFCTA (June, 2017) “TNCs Today: A Profile of San Francisco Transportation Network Company Activity.” Retrieved from https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/TNCs_Today_112917_0.pdf 10 SacRT (2018) SmaRT Ride On-Demand Transit. Retrieved from https://smartride.sacrt.com/

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 133

with disabilities, and students, matching the fares of SacRT’s fixed route services. In addition, groups of five or more people traveling from the same pick up and drop off locations can ride SmaRT Ride for free. Rides can be ordered using a smartphone app, by phone, or online.

In 2018, SacRT received a $12 million grant from the Sacramento Transit Authority to expand SmaRT Ride shuttle service in residential and commercial areas that have been underserved by public transit in the past. According to SacRT, SmaRT Ride ridership has increased more than six-fold since its inception and community response has been positive.11 In expanding SmaRT Ride service to new areas, SacRT has the following goals:

• Continue testing and evaluating the microtransit concept • Provide service in areas that have little or no fixed-route service and connect people in these areas into the fixed-route network • Provide a new alternative to traditional paratransit service • Better understand community values around allocation of transit funding resources • Collect data to identify future fixed-route transit opportunities

SacRT operates SmaRT Ride service using SacRT vehicles and drivers, and estimates that this yields a 30% cost savings over contracting operations to private vendors.12 Scheduling software, including the customer ride-ordering application, is provided by a private vendor.

West Sacramento On Demand: Via In May 2018, the City of West Sacramento introduced a new public microtransit service in collaboration with Via, a private rideshare company. Rides can be ordered using the Via smartphone application by anyone age 18 or older (ages 13 to 18 permitted with guardian consent) living within West Sacramento city boundaries Monday-Friday 6AM-11PM and Saturday 9AM-11PM. Via charges a standard one-way fare of $3.50 and a discounted rate of $1.75 for seniors and those with disabilities. Weekly passes are offered at $15, allowing up to four rides each day of the week. If traveling with friends, group pricing allows additional riders to be added for $1 per rider. In comparison, Yolobus, the county bus service, charges a standard fare of $2.25 and $1.10 for discounted fares.

In October 2018, the City of West Sacramento reported that average daily ridership surpassed pre-launch expectations by 50%, providing about 300 rides per day compared to the pre-launch estimate of 200. Approximately 15% of weekly riders receive the senior or disabled rider discount. The service has been most heavily utilized between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and dominant pick-up and drop-off locations include community centers and commercial locations. One of the primary issues faced by the program initially was underperformance of the Customer Support Line. Specifically, riders struggled to get through to an operator during morning hours. This issue

11 SacRT (2018) SacRT Awarded $12 Million to Expand SmaRT Ride Service On-Demand. Retrieved from https://www.sacrt.com/apps/sacrt-awarded-12-million-to-expand-smart-ride-service-on-demand/ 12 SacRT (2018) SacRT Community/Neighborhood Shuttle Program presentation to STA Board. Retrieved from http://www.sacta.org/pdf/agendas/2018/041218/041218-09AT2.pdf

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 134

was primarily due to the Support Line’s inability to place callers on hold. If the line was in use, an automated message referred users to text or email any issues they were facing and terminated the call (without placing callers on hold). This required riders to continue calling back until the line was free. This was especially problematic for riders who do not have access to a smartphone or a computer. To mitigate this issue, Via switched Support Line vendors.

Results from a recent Via rider survey indicate that the microtransit service may be helping to meet latent demand for mobility among youth and seniors. About a quarter of survey respondents aged 13-17 and 70+ indicated that they would not have taken the trip at all had Via service not been available.13 Opportunities for Stanislaus County

Microtransit services such as SmaRT Ride and Via offer an opportunity for cities to supplement gaps within existing transit services and provide customers with convenient door-to-door transportation options. However, since fare recovery ratio is a key consideration for transit operators in Stanislaus County, care should be taken to ensure that the anticipated fares collected and operational costs would not detract from transit operators’ ability to meet farebox targets. While microtransit service may be provided at a lower cost than traditional paratransit service, it is unlikely to recover a greater percentage of fares than a moderately well-used fixed-route transit line. The following sections provide additional considerations, should StanCOG or transit operators within Stanislaus County decide to move forward with microtransit offerings.

Implementation SacRT’s microtransit service was implemented by the regional transit provider whereas West Sacramento’s microtransit service was funded by city government and operated by a private contractor. Cost, labor considerations, and customer service standards are key considerations for determining how to best deliver service. SacRT’s service is provided at a cost savings over using private contractors and customer communications are integrated with other functions of the agency. Another consideration is that SacRT is the primary transit provider in the region and does not need to coordinate service needs with other providers, unlike Stanislaus County, which has several providers that could potentially need to coordinate on implementation in areas of overlapping service.

Using a private contractor may allow the service to be implemented more quickly, and in the case of West Sacramento, was likely more cost effective than the city standing up an entirely new division of service that it did not previously offer.

Finally, both case studies were implemented as pilot programs. This may be a good option for the transit providers in Stanislaus County, as pilots allow for potential problems to be identified before

13 City of West Sacramento (February 2019) West Sacramento’s on-demand rideshare pilot: A summary of 6-month user survey findings. Retrieved from https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/home/showdocument?id=8637

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 135

full implementation of the program occurs. Piloting also allows for discontinuation if the program is not successful, but it should be noted that positive customer response to the pilots noted above might make it difficult to discontinue a microtransit program after it begins, especially for a reason other than low utilization (e.g., inadequate fare recovery).

Service Area Service area considerations could include areas of low or declining performance of fixed route services and areas with high transit propensity (low-income areas, low-car-ownership areas, and areas with a high proportion of youth/seniors) that are difficult to serve with fixed route service. Service could also be implemented in coordination with any changes to the fixed-route network that result from this or other planning efforts (e.g., Turlock Transit’s Short-Range Transit Plan).

Fares and Access Both SmaRT Ride and Via in West Sacramento charge a standard fare with discounts for seniors and those with disabilities. Standard fares (as opposed to distance or time-based fares used by other on-demand services such as Lyft or Uber) are simple for users to understand. Within these two programs, discounted fares have been extended to seniors and those with disabilities. This has positively impacted seniors who need to run short errands in West Sacramento.14 As discussed in Chapter 3, transit riders in Stanislaus County are more likely to be low-income, students, and lack access to a vehicle than the general population. This suggests that public transit in the county is providing essential transportation for people with the greatest need and the most limited mobility options. Therefore, it may be beneficial to consider income-based discounts, or at a minimum to keep fares in line with fixed-route service to ensure microtransit services are accessible to all. In order to increase accessibility of services, rides should be available for order through smartphone applications, phone calls, and through a website.

Impact of Transportation Network Companies on Stanislaus County

This section reviews industry research on the relationship between TNC and transit use in the United States and its applicability to Stanislaus County.

TNC Ridership A national study conducted on TNC ridership from 2016-2017 by the Federal Highway Administration found that TNC ridership is concentrated in large, densely populated metropolitan areas.15 Based on ridership data from areas with high TNC usage, riders tend to be younger with

14 Hendricks, A (October 2018) Mercedes-Benz vans or public buses? How West Sacramento residents are getting to the grocery store. Retrieved from https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article220439830.html 15 FHWA (2019) Changing Attitudes and Transportation Choices: 2017 National Household Travel Survey. Retrieved from https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/FHWA_NHTS_Report_3E_Final_021119.pdf

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 136

higher incomes and trips tend to replace trips where destinations require a high parking fee and when riders want to avoid drinking and driving.16

According to a 2018 study conducted by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), there does not appear to be a clear relationship between peak-hour TNC use and long-term changes in public transit usage.17 In general, people who use transit or commute via single- occupancy vehicles do so as part of a routine while TNCs are used on a much more occasional basis. Frequent TNC use (weekly or more) is much less common than frequent transit use and while TNCs may be one of Stanislaus County residents’ many transportation options, research suggests that they will not serve as a primary mode for those who already use transit. People who have replaced certain transit trips with TNC trips have cited transit wait times as the primary reason for the switch.

TNC Partnerships Although TNCs are still evolving in many geographies, the TCRP study suggests it may be beneficial for transit agencies to engage with TNC services in ways that align with their goals.18 This can be done through partnerships and pilots that encourage complementary usage and promotes multi-modal travel, such as programs to connect people from lower density areas into the transit network at key transit hubs using TNCs. According to TCRP, paratransit, dial-a-ride, and late-night services can often be one of the highest cost services for transit agencies to provide. In order to offset these costs, partnerships with TNCs have saved transit agencies money19 and could be explored in Stanislaus County. If this approach is taken, it is important to note that TNCs do not always provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, so it may be necessary to include other partners who supply these vehicles.20

Opportunities for Stanislaus County

In smaller urban areas, transit agencies typically rely on a greater mix of revenue sources than larger agencies and these smaller agencies can face issues with providing frequent service across widespread geographic areas. Overall, TNCs can be a valuable tool in helping fill first/last- mile gaps in lower-density areas, providing alternatives to unproductive routes, and providing expansion of service hours and area and are unlikely to be wholly responsible for the declining rates of transit ridership in Stanislaus County due to the contrasting demographics of transit riders in the county and TNC users and trip purposes in general.

16 MAPC, (2018) Fare Choices: A Survey of Ride-Hailing Passengers in Metro Boston. Retrieved from http://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Fare-Choices-MAPC.pdf 17 TCRP (2018) Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit, Shared Mobility, and Personal Automobiles. Retrieved from http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/177112.aspx 18 Ibid. 19 FWHA, “Changing Attitudes” 20 TCRP, “Broadening Understanding”

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 137

Similar to microtransit, cost and farebox recovery are important elements to understand when considering opportunities for TNC partnerships to fill fixed-route transit service gaps. On a per- rider (and thus per-fare) basis, TNC service is generally more expensive than moderately well- used fixed-route transit service, resulting in a decrease in farebox recovery ratio compared to fixed-route service.

The density of available service through TNC’s or microtransit-type options is such that they offer little near term benefit as a transit solution. Their evolution and increasing availability in Stanislaus County should be monitored for future potential application. Should there be an interest in some form of new transit strategy, a pilot project of the concept is recommended on a relatively small scale to test the initial applicability in the region.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 138

Chapter 5 Transit Consolidation

Introduction

There are many examples, including Stanislaus County, where a number of transit operators exist in the same geographic region. Typically, multi-operator situations have grown up over a period of years, some dating back to the passage of TDA in 1971, which encouraged transit service development. In many of these long-standing situations, the communities operating their own transit systems were more geographically separated than they are today. Over many years not only have communities grown larger and thus closer together but travel has become more regional in nature. The growth of cross-jurisdictional travel including by public transit has resulted in overlapping patterns and the need to easily cross jurisdictional lines. An outgrowth of this evolution is reduced isolation of services and expanded layering or interaction among service providers.

In the Stanislaus County situation, there is a great deal of cross-jurisdictional transit service. The City of Modesto MAX service operates not only within the Modesto city limits but also in Ceres. The County service, StaRT, operates throughout the entire County certainly including portions within Modesto, Ceres, and Turlock. The StanCOG Transit Efficiency and Innovations Study places some emphasis on consideration of consolidation in an effort to improve operations and service to the public. The consulting team has extensive experience with consolidation issues. This summary paper is intended to provide guidance regarding the issues involved and information to inform the dialogue regarding consolidation options. Members of the consulting team have had direct experience in transit consolidation efforts elsewhere in California. Some of these experiences are used as examples in this paper. The discussion begins with typical approaches to transit service delivery. Transit Organizational Models

There are several models of organization structure among transit agencies in California. Among the major alternatives are the following:

• City Transit Department: Transit may be provided as a service of local city government. In this circumstance, it is common for the transit function to be one of the components of the public works department. While reporting relationships of staff can vary, it is typical for the transit manager to report to the Public Works Director who then reports up the organization ultimately to the City Manager. Governance under this structure is provided by the City Council. The elected Councilmembers are ultimately responsible for transit decisions such as fare policy, operating and capital budgets, major contracts, interagency agreements, and regulatory compliance. The transit manager is supported by staff assigned directly to the transit department as well as by general city staff in other departments that do not report directly to the transit manager. These other support functions often include accounting and finance, human

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 139

resources, legal services, and information technology (IT). The cities of Modesto, Turlock, and Ceres are generally structured in this fashion. • County Transit Department: At the County level, transit service is typically provided in a structure much like that of a city. The County transit department is often structured under the umbrella of the Public Works Department reporting up through the structure to the County Chief Administrative Officer. In the County structure, the elected Board of Supervisors is the body with ultimate responsibility for decisions much like the City structure. StaRT is structured in this manner. • Joint Powers Authority: A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a form of government organization created by other governmental entities pursuant to Section 6500 of the Government Code. A JPA may be formed by agreement between two or more jurisdictions. Throughout California there are a number of transit organizations that are structured as JPAs. These JPAs then become independent organizations with their own governing body as set forth in the JPA agreement. The Board of a JPA then becomes a governing body dedicated to transit policy making. There are JPAs in northern California that have existed and operated for more than thirty years while others have been formed in recent years. Formation of a JPA creates a new public agency with many of the rights and duties of their formation partners. This typically includes the ability to employ staff, award contracts, receive and disburse public funds, own property, and design and deploy services. JPAs are formed through a local process and thus are not created by action of the California Legislature. They typically do not have direct authority to levy taxes but can be the beneficiary of taxes levied at city or county levels. • Special Districts: Special Districts are typically created through enabling legislation passed by the California Legislature. Their rights and obligations are set forth in State law. This includes their governing structure, territorial boundaries, and authorities such as eminent domain. Special Districts can be granted taxing authority under defined circumstances. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMTA) and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) are all examples of special districts created through state legislative action.

The organization structure of a transit agency can have a significant impact on the relationship between the governing agency and the riding public. Alternative governing structures offer different opportunities for public access to transit decision-making. In the City and County models, decisions are made by the respective councils or boards. These general purpose government boards are responsible for all functions and activities in their respective jurisdictions, transit being only one of many. These governing boards are responsible for police and fire protection, other emergency services, finance, public works, etc. Transit may not have a high position in the decision priority structure of the jurisdiction. In contrast, a typical JPA is a dedicated transit agency with a governing board that is usually single-purpose, although board members are frequently elected officials from jurisdictions that are members of the JPA.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 140

What is Transit Consolidation?

The “consolidation of public transit service” can mean a number of different things. Most commonly, mention of transit consolidation quickly jumps to the formation of a new transit agency, taking over its originating participants in their entirety. While this is one option, there are actually multiple options for transit consolidation. This paper examines the options and is intended to guide a discussion of this in Stanislaus County. Certainly, one is the formation of a new transit agency bringing together existing agencies into a new organizational structure. There are a number of relatively recent examples of this around the State. Some of these will be described here illustrating the new agency approach.

There are other forms of consolidation that do not involve the formation of a new agency. At least two other approaches are appropriate for consideration in Stanislaus County. One of these is to have an existing agency take over all the services presently operated by another. An example of this approach would be the absorption of Riverbank’s transit services by Stanislaus County in 2012. This approach to consolidation does not require the formation of a new agency. It can involve the transfer of assets facilities, or outstanding grants. Many of these technical details may be involved in alternative approaches. But there are certain benefits to this somewhat simplified approach to the issue. The various details and implications are presented in this paper.

Yet another approach to consolidation is the application of the concept only to certain services. For example, in Stanislaus County each operating jurisdiction operates some form of paratransit service. The consulting team has experience with other agencies that have created formal agreements to integrate paratransit operations while leaving other service modes untouched. This level of integration would not necessarily require asset transfers or complex financial restructuring. Instead it would essentially involve the joint procurement of a service such as paratransit. This could then consolidate the four existing paratransit vendor contracts into a single procurement, presumably achieving a number of benefits such as cost savings and seamless service delivery. Again, this option is laid out in detail in this paper. Alternative Approaches to Consolidation New Agency Formation

Transit consolidation is most commonly thought of as new agency formation. This generally takes the form of two or more agencies agreeing to participate in forming an agency and then relinquishing their existing operations to that new agency. This is typically accomplished either through the creation of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or through creation of a new transit district. The JPA approach is much more common in large part due to that fact that it is easier to accomplish. JPA formation is a decision and action of local agencies. Cities or counties may choose to create a JPA without requiring the involvement of other participants such as the State Legislature. Jurisdictions may have experience with other JPAs such as fire districts, irrigation districts, or even library districts.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 141

Formation of a JPA is a voluntary decision of the participants. Jurisdictions decide voluntarily to create a new agency to provide, in this case, transit service. Once formed, the new agency typically takes over all aspects of transit governance, management, and service deployment. As a new government agency with its own decision making authority, a JPA typically assumes ownership of the assets formerly held by its members. A relatively straight forward transfer process can usually accomplish this. Assets commonly include rolling stock, facilities, and incidental items such as bus stops, maintenance equipment, technology, and office equipment. There is also a process whereby the transfer of grants and grant management authority is accomplished. While some of these steps (the grant transfer process, for example) can take a considerable amount of time, a new agency can often begin operating prior to completion of all actions.

Most of the staff of a new agency is commonly selected from employees of the participating jurisdictions. Many employees would have the necessary experience to fill similar jobs with a new organization. But in cases such as cities and counties, support services such as accounting and finance, human resources, technology support (IT), legal services, and perhaps other functions are typically provided as a service of the parent jurisdiction. A new agency would become responsible for these functions upon formation. This requirement is often addressed through contracts for support services either with one or more of the original jurisdictions or through contracts with other organizations. The new agency may also choose to provide some of these services with in-house resources. A function such as accounting is commonly provided in-house at some point. A part of the cost analysis of the implications of new agency formation involves documentation of the overhead charges being applied by the participating jurisdictions in providing these functions before consolidation and their estimated on-going cost following consolidation.

New Agency Formation Examples

Calaveras Transit Agency Calaveras Transit Agency is a Joint Powers Authority formed in March 2018 by the County of Calaveras and the City of Angels Camp. Prior to creation of the new Authority, transit service was managed by the Calaveras County Department of Public Works. This structure had been in place since the early 2000s. Transit usage in the County had been in steep decline in recent years and there was a growing discontent with County management, which was in part due to the many other responsibilities of the Public Works Department resulting in transit receiving very little management and technical attention. Further contributing to consideration of a new structure was the position of the City of Angels Camp that had no voice in transit decision making in spite of contributing the majority of its TDA funds to the operation.

In mid-2017, elected officials from both jurisdictions agreed to study the formation of a new JPA to assume responsibility for public transit. The effort was guided by a committee consisting of two County Supervisors, a member of the Angels City Council, the County Administrator, the City Manager, and the Executive Director of the Calaveras Council of

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 142

Governments (CalaCOG). This group met regularly to fast track decision making and crafted a JPA agreement which was adopted by the two jurisdictions in March 2018. Full transition of operations occurred in July 2018.

It is worth noting in this example that governance structure was a key consideration. After considering a number of possible options, the jurisdictions agreed to coordinate governance with the COG. The JPA agreement was crafted to specify that the new transit agency JPA would have the same Board of Directors as the COG which is also a JPA but a separate legal entity from the new transit agency. Thus, appointment to the COG also meant automatic membership on the transit Board. The two entities conduct business separately and have separated meetings to emphasize the separate functions.

Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) The Eastern Sierra Transit Authority is a Joint Powers Authority formed in November 2006. It brought four jurisdictions together into a new transit agency. Those were: Inyo County, Mono County, the City of Bishop, and the Town of Mammoth Lakes. These four jurisdictions collaborated to create the new agency. Transit service throughout the area had been run by Inyo County prior to formation of the new Authority. This new JPA was formed in an effort to better integrate transit services throughout the region and also create a governance structure that afforded participation in decision making to all jurisdictions in the service area. ESTA took over operation of transit services from Inyo County on July 1, 2007.

The governance structure of the new agency was established as an eight member Board of Directors. Each of the four member jurisdictions appointed two of its elected representatives to the Board of ESTA. Each jurisdiction is afforded equal representation on the Board. Representation thus is not related to the amount of funds contributed by each participating jurisdiction nor its service level.

Solano County Transit (Soltrans) Solano County Transit was formed through a Joint Powers Agreement. The JPA agreement was initially approved by a Coordinating Committee formed by the participating jurisdictions in May 2010. The cities of Vallejo and Benicia and the Solano Transportation Authority were the entities that formed the new agency. It was finalized through additional negotiations and became operational in 2011.

The agreement forming Soltrans called for a governing structure consisting of five voting members and one Ex-Officio Member. The voting members consisted of two elected representatives of each participating city. Those members would be appointed to the Soltrans Board by each city. The fifth member was designated as the Solano County representative to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) (as long as that member did not represent most or all of either participating city). The Ex-Officio member was appointed by the Solano Transportation Authority.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 143

The other Solano cities of Fairfield, Vacaville, and Dixon chose not to participate in the new agency formation. Provisions were included in the JPA agreement regarding future Board structure should any or all of these jurisdictions eventually join Soltrans. In anticipation of potential membership, the Transportation Authority appointed the Mayor of Fairfield as the initial Ex-Officio member of the Board in order to encourage future consideration of participation.

Consolidation by Existing Jurisdictions Transit consolidation can be accomplished by agreement among jurisdictions to turn all aspects of operation over to an existing agency. For example, Stanislaus County or the City of Modesto could become the primary operator either through assumption of full responsibility for the other jurisdiction or through a contractual agreement to operate. This would be similar to the model established with the absorption of the City of Riverbank service by Stanislaus County in 2012. A similar approach was used in Sonoma County in recent years to consolidate service in the cities of Sebastopol, Windsor, Sonoma, and Healdsburg into Sonoma County Transit. More recent discussion has focused on the potential further consolidation of the City of Petaluma.

In Stanislaus County the principal options for transit management by an existing agency would be the City of Modesto or the County. The City is the designated recipient of federal transit funds for the Modesto UZA. This means that federal funds directed at County operations flow through the City. This puts the City in an oversight role over County funding management. The County, on the other hand, has region-wide coverage and responsibility.

Consolidation of Functions

Another level of consolidation to consider is that of certain functions. Rather than fully consolidate all transit operations, some positive impacts could be achieved by consolidating some of the services that are currently provided by all operators. An obvious area for such consideration would be paratransit services. Bringing all paratransit services under one operation could have a number of positive impacts. Such consolidation has been implemented elsewhere with considerable success. In such a scenario a form of operating agreement would be crafted to establish a central mechanism for management of all paratransit operations in the County. Among the expected improvements from such an approach would be the creation of one central call center for ride reservations, use of a single scheduling system (software) to improve service deployment, and a single operating contract to attain management efficiencies.

Such an approach is facilitated by the fact that all transit agencies currently use the same vendor for paratransit services. All four transit operators use Storer Transit Systems as their contractor. This fact would allow consideration of paratransit consolidation much easier than if the operations were spread among several vendors. Joint procurement of a single transit vendor would also likely introduce other efficiencies possibly including cost savings that would accrue to the region.

At the present time, the necessary reservations and scheduling software that is used to manage daily operations is provided by the contractor. Thus, Storer is obligated to provide this under terms of their current contract. Though all demand response services are currently provided by

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 144

a single contractor, this would not necessarily be the case under the current model where each agency selects its own contractor. This fact introduces the possibility that different scheduling systems could be in use within the County, which is less than ideal. Further, ownership of the software by a contractor leaves the agency vulnerable in a transition as well as overall data management. This vulnerability it eliminated through the ownership of the system by a public agency, which then provides the software system to any selected contractor for its use.

It is recommended that immediate steps be taken to procure reservation and scheduling software by a public agency in Stanislaus County. This step should be combined with consolidation of demand response services such that a single software solution is applied to all operations throughout the County. This combination of actions (consolidation of demand response service delivery and the purchase of one scheduling system) would allow for full integration of this key service component.

Functional Consolidation Example

East Bay Paratransit Consortium In the 1990s, AC Transit and BART in Oakland agreed to fulfill their ADA paratransit obligations through a joint operating agreement. The resulting organizational structure was the East Bay Paratransit Consortium. This structure was created through an interagency agreement. The agencies collaborated on implementation of a management mechanism that was provided by contract to a transit consulting/management company. That structure was overseen by a joint committee of staff representatives of each operator. In turn, the management contractor selected a paratransit operating company through an open solicitation to deliver services. The operating contractor is responsible for all aspects of service delivery including eligibility, ride reservations, trip scheduling, on-street operations, and all reporting. This structure has operated successfully since its original creation.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 145

Consolidation Considerations for Stanislaus County

There are many considerations to be analyzed as part of a dialogue regarding transit consolidation. Each of the consolidation models introduces its own set of issues. A discussion of major issues follows.

Governance

The issue of governance is among the most important in any consolidation discussion. As discussed above, the current governance model in Stanislaus County involves three city councils and the County Board of Supervisors, each in the governance role for their respective agencies. Those councils and Board are responsible for all issues within their jurisdictions including transit. Often in such situations, transit is not a primary consideration.

In the new agency model (e.g. JPA), a new governing structure is typically created. The range of options is substantial. Several are mentioned above in the agency formation examples. The key is that the structure is negotiated in crafting the formation agreement. Representation of all of the parties is typical. Whether it is equal or proportional varies. In fact, in some cases an existing governing body is designated as that for transit. In both ESTA and Soltrans, new governing boards were created with membership negotiated to fit the circumstances. In the Calaveras example, the COG Board was established in the JPA agreement as the transit Board. Membership on the COG board also meant membership on the transit agency board. In such an example, there are other nuances worth considering. For example, the Calaveras Board consists of only seven members while the StanCOG Board consists of sixteen members. In addition, the Calaveras Board includes three citizen members along with four elected officials.

Absorption of the transit service of one jurisdiction by another would typically mean that governance would also be absorbed by the consolidating jurisdiction. Thus, transit in Riverbank is now under the purview of the County Board of Supervisors. Absorption of other jurisdictions would imply a similar configuration. This approach does mean that the steps involved in forming a new agency would not be necessary. The governing structure is already in place. Such an outcome may not be acceptable to Stanislaus jurisdictions as, for example, the City of Modesto might be giving governance up to the County. Absorption of Ceres by either the City of Modesto or the County would have similar consequences though of a smaller magnitude given the current level of transit service in Ceres.

Consolidating a function such as paratransit does not imply formation of a new agency. Instead it would likely take the form an agreement between the existing agencies creating a joint management structure without raising other governance issues. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar format would be the instrument establishing decision making protocols for oversight of the operation. Perhaps like the East Bay example, a jointly established management body would award and oversee a single operating contract providing seamless service throughout the county.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 146

Contracting

At the present time there are two contractors providing all services in Stanislaus County. The City of Modesto contracts with National Express for fixed route operations and with Storer Transit Systems for demand response services. All other jurisdictions contract with Storer Transit Systems for both fixed route and demand response services. The fact that most services are presently contracted to the same vendor presents opportunities. Even though provided by the same vendor, there are different approaches to aspects of the individual agreements. They include assignment of different managers to some of the operations, different approaches are taken to vehicle maintenance, and there are differences in the approach to trip scheduling for demand response services. Bringing all of these operations into a single agreement could offer efficiencies both from a management perspective and also from the customer viewpoint.

Consolidation of the operating contracts could yield both cost and operating efficiencies. In preparing a combined RFP for contract services, a consolidated entity would combine management to cover the entire operation, centralize such services as reservations and dispatch for demand response, possibly centralize maintenance using one or both of the federally financed maintenance facilities (Modesto and Turlock) as maintenance and operations sites, spread employee hours across all services, and centralize agency oversight.

Exhibit A provides a comparison of key features in the existing operating contracts. Provisions in the Storer Transit contracts vary between agreements. Rates are not consistent. Many of these items would be adjusted in a single procurement.

Even if consolidation was limited to the paratransit function, many contract provisions would be revised to introduce efficiencies. Such items as contractor management, single software, combined call center, and combined driver pool would result in greater efficiency. This is short of full consolidation, which would have larger implications for the agency side of the operation.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure is always a significant consideration in the discussion of consolidation. Typically, in full agency consolidation (such as the JPA model) all transit assets would be transferred to the new agency. This means changing title to assets such that they become the property of the new agency. The list of assets would include property, facilities, vehicles, software, transit centers, bus stops and shelters, support vehicles, and possibly other smaller items such as furniture. The major items and their implications are described below.

Facilities Facilities refers to operating bases or maintenance structures. The City of Modesto owns a transit maintenance facility located at 1609 8th Street in Modesto. It was designed for the operation of 100 vehicles. The current fleet size is approximately 60 vehicles, thus providing some space for growth. It is a state-of-the-art facility including support for the latest model electric buses. The City provides all maintenance services on contractor- operated vehicles at this site.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 147

The City of Turlock also has a federally financed maintenance structure. However, that building is located on the City Corporation Yard at 701 South Walnut Street. While the transit building is dedicated to bus maintenance, it is located immediately adjacent to the maintenance structure for all other city equipment. Fueling is located on-site. The maintenance staff is shared between transit and other city vehicles. However, one mechanic is typically dedicated to the transit fleet. The city has developed preliminary plans for a new vehicle storage yard adjacent to the current facility. If funded and built, this new base would have sufficient space for the current fleet and some expansion. Though not intended initially, the site would also be large enough to house a new maintenance structure.

Stanislaus County (StaRT) and Ceres are served by their contractor. Maintenance service is provided under terms of the operating contract. Vehicles are operated from and maintained at a yard owned by Storer Transit.

Facilities are an important consideration in consolidation discussions. In the cases of Modesto and Turlock, the involvement of federal funds in the construction of the facilities has implications about their continued use under various consolidation scenarios. If a structure is funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), it must remain in use for transit throughout its program life (typically at least 30 years). If such a facility is no longer used for transit (for example, turned over to the city for non-transit maintenance), then the non-amortized portion of funding for the building must typically be repaid to the FTA. This requirement can be sufficiently costly and potentially negative to influence decisions about use of such facilities in the future.

Should a consolidation plan involving both Modesto and Turlock be considered, an operating plan using both maintenance structures for transit in a split deployment would likely be the desired approach. Staging vehicles at two facilities could reduce deadhead mileage to the southern portion of the county and also result in capacity for the current and future fleets.

Fleet Consolidation of transit fleets is quite possible. In most new agency formations, title to vehicles is simply transferred from the former agencies to the new organization. Vehicles and other assets become the property of the new agency. Stanislaus County circumstances complicate this situation somewhat. The cities of Modesto and Ceres as well as the County obtain some or all of their vehicles from the contractor. Turlock owns all of its fleet vehicles. This has been a long standing approach to the acquiring the fleet. Discussions have been undertaken with some of the jurisdictions regarding eventual elimination of this approach and moving toward full fleet ownership by the agency. Until this might be accomplished, due largely to availability of funding, use of contractor vehicles would continue. This is a workable circumstance but, in any scenario should be replaced with publicly owned vehicles. This offers greater control by the agency and also stimulates

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 148

competition among vendors where substantial capital investment on their part is not required.

Software Computer software is another key consideration in agency consolidation. While there are many types of software that are routinely involved in transit today, the focus here is on the software that is used to schedule paratransit rides. There are a number of providers of scheduling software in the market today. These scheduling tools are typically complex systems and can involve major expense. In the scenario whereby paratransit service throughout the county would be consolidated, the presumption is that a single software system would be utilized to manage all operations. This approach would allow for the greatest possible scheduling efficiency as well as supporting a much improved user experience. Travel throughout the county would be managed centrally by one agency thus eliminating cross-jurisdiction scheduling of trips sometimes involving a transfer between systems by individuals with disabilities.

The software situation in Stanislaus County is slightly complicated by the fact that the contractor presently owns the system. The research associated with this project has revealed that the contractor makes minimal use of its elaborate system. Instead of using the sophisticated routing capability, most routing occurs by hand. This raises a number of issues for consideration. First, in any scenario, much greater use of the tools embedded in the software should be required in an effort to maximize routing efficiency. Second, software should be owned by the agency. This is a critical component of agency control. Under current circumstances, software selection has been left up to the vendor. The agencies have exercised little control over the software choice. The recent procurement process by the City of Modesto for a new vendor contract did afford it greater influence over the software choice, yet ownership would have remained with the vendor.

Ownership of scheduling software by the public agency in either a paratransit consolidation or a full agency consolidation would be a key step in achieving control of operations. Even assuming vendor utilization of the agency software, its ownership by the agency allows for key decision making regarding its use to rest in public hands. Further, ownership of the software by the public agency eliminates this as a factor in vendor selection thus typically increasing competition.

Impacts on Jurisdictions

A routine and important item of discussion in any consolidation scenario is the impact that it would have on the existing jurisdictions. The typical approach to support services for transit in a city or county operating model is for functions such as accounting and finance, human resources, legal services, and IT to be provided on a shared basis with the rest of the jurisdiction. Depending somewhat on the size of the transit operation, these shared services are typically spread among a variety of staff members rather than having dedicated personnel. Where this becomes important is funding that is utilized to cover these services. The common approach to this is for

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 149

the jurisdiction to add overhead charges in some manner to its claim for transit funds. Thus, a source funds such as LTF is typically claimed to cover the cost of these shared services. In FY 2017-18 the City of Modesto claimed $385,900 in transit funds to support City overhead functions. Turlock claimed $42,132 for overhead for the first time for FY 2019-20. Similarly, the County claimed $31,598 for overhead in FY 2018-19.

The usual approach to funds such as these in a consolidation is for the new agency to utilize these funds to obtain its overhead services. Whether this is done through in-house staff or through the purchase of these services from outside sources, a new agency would have a need for some level of support services. Because these functions would be combined in a new agency, the combination of overhead services does often offer some potential cost efficiency.

However, it is important to understand the potential impact on the original jurisdiction. The loss of these funds to a city or the county could be significant enough to result in the elimination of positions. Often the jurisdiction absorbs the staff to fill vacancies, etc. But these impacts would be factored into any transition plan.

Impacts on Personnel

Transit staffing among the Stanislaus County agencies falls into two categories: 1) agency management staff, and 2) contractor staff. Each operator employs management staff generally in some relationship to the size of its operation. The organization charts for each jurisdiction are attached as Exhibit B. While none of the existing organizations is generously staffed, a discussion of consolidation affords an opportunity to assess the full range of duties that fall to the agency. During a transition, the full range of duties is routinely aligned with existing employees to determine if any reductions are appropriate where duties and be consolidated. Often such functions as grant management, contractor oversight, and some administrative functions can be streamlined.

Employees whose functions are consolidated are sometimes absorbed by the original jurisdiction. Their new assignment would not be transit-related but would be a position still within the organization. The savings would accrue to the new transit agency. The case of a paratransit- only consolidation would afford a variation on this approach. Paratransit management would in effect be “carved out” of existing transit staff and dedicated to the new consolidated organization. This would not likely yield measurable staff savings at the agency level. Instead its efficiency would be introduced at the contractor level.

The other major staff component that would be subject to reconfiguration in a consolidation is that of the contractor. Current Stanislaus County circumstances make consideration of consolidation much more feasible than in some other counties. The fact that one contractor serves all four jurisdictions (though currently with separate agreements) implies opportunity for efficiency. The approach to achieving this would be to craft a new vendor solicitation covering all (depending upon the participating jurisdictions) services of a particular type. A newly structured vendor procurement could either include all services, both fixed route and paratransit, or separate those into two different solicitations. In either case, efficiencies should result.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 150

The largest fixed route operator is MAX. It is contracted to National Express. All other services in the county are operated under separate agreements by jurisdiction by Storer Transit. Under each of the agreements with the other jurisdictions, Storer operates a combination of fixed route and paratransit services. The City of Modesto operates MADAR, its paratransit, through a contract with Storer Transit. In a consolidated model, the integration of fixed route into a single procurement would be the logical approach. This would offer the greatest opportunity to efficiently assign fleet, utilize maintenance resources, etc. Similarly, paratransit, as discussed previously, would benefit from integration of all aspects of operation.

Union issues are somewhat of a factor in a realignment of service packages made available for procurement. National Express employees are represented by the Teamsters. Storer employees are not represented. The likely outcome of a consolidation of fixed route operations would be that all fixed route employees would come under Teamster representation. This is because they are the largest employee group and would likely be recognized by any competing vendor. This could then leave the paratransit employees under a combined procurement without union representation. While this might change over time, it would at least initially begin in that fashion.

An additional issue regarding union representation would be any effort by the City of Modesto to better utilize its current transit facility. There is additional capacity in the facility that could provide space for locating MADAR on that site. Under current circumstances, MADAR is operated by Storer whose employees are not represented by a labor union. The National Express employees who are located on that site are represented by the Teamsters. Consolidation by the City to combine these operations could present a situation where a unionized group of employees and a non-union group would be located at the same facility. While there are examples of similar situations where such an arrangement continued without the non-union group joining a union, there would likely be pressures to do so.

In the larger consolidation context, steps could be taken to keep the union and non-union groups separated. This would be accomplished through the use of other operating facilities. This also presumes the realignment of the operating vendor contracts. At the present time, the contracts of the County, Turlock, and Ceres cover both fixed route and demand response services. In a consolidated approach, there would be benefits to separating these two service types. The focus of a fixed route contract would be around issues that relate specifically to that service type. For example, performance measures, service monitoring, customer information tools, other on-board vehicle technology are different for fixed route than for demand response. A contract focusing on these issues separately from demand response would allow for clearer direction to the vendor and sharpened focus on fixed route issues by the agency. For demand response, similar considerations exist. Demand response service is characterized by its own set of performance measures, different customer interaction processes, and different operating procedures than for fixed route. Again, separate contracts would provide for a more refined focus by management.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 151

Cost impacts

There are many factors to consider in the various levels of transit service integration/consolidation. Cost savings may be achieved through full integration of the service itself. This could result from rationalizing routing and overall service deployment resulting in the elimination of service overlaps or inconsistent operating policies. There may also be cost savings at the agency level. Consolidation presumes that management resources of the participating agencies would be combined. In so doing, efficiencies may be achieved

The formation of a new transit agency is usually accompanied by a rebranding of the organization. This means that the vehicles of different agencies that are combined into a new fleet are treated to a new graphic scheme. The same applies to bus stop signs and other public signage. Agency print materials are also redone with the new scheme. These and other one-time costs potentially including professional services to handle transition details must be considered in the cost review. Sometimes these significant one-time cost items are phased in to spread the expense depending upon the funding source.

In any consolidation effort, other than the one-time expenses, costs should remain flat or be reduced. The Stanislaus County situation does afford a number of areas of potential cost efficiency or even service deployment efficiency which would translate into cost savings. The two major components of cost that would need thorough analysis are agency management costs and vendor costs for on-street operations. Exhibits N through Q at the end of this chapter provide details on potential staffing and cost impacts.

Timing

The speed with which transit consolidation can occur depends upon a number of factors. Even assuming willing agency partners, the negotiation of an agreement to form a new agency can be somewhat time consuming. The parties will wish to evaluate the implications of alternative governing structures and any service or funding commitments to partners as part of the process. This is typically carried out in parallel with resolution of the many technical issues that are involved. The combination of policy and technical issues to be addressed in consolidation is too substantial to allow for completion by June 30, 2020. The negotiation of a JPA agreement, decisions relating to consolidation of funding including adjustment of federal grant eligibility, restructuring of the vendor contracts to better align with service delivery, and the vendor selection process could not be accomplished by that date. With a decision to proceed with consolidation being made during FY 201-20, it could be accomplished with one additional year of transition ending June 30, 2021. A new agency could be in place and ready to function as of July 1, 2021.

A commitment to this timing would entail decisions by the jurisdictions in the near future regarding various procurement issues. The City of Modesto is developing plans to solicit proposals for scheduling software, new vehicles, and a new operations vendor during the current fiscal year for implementation July 1, 2020. The County is facing similar decisions. It would be worth considering alternative approaches to these decisions if there is an interest in some level of consolidation by July 2021. Negotiation of additional short term extensions may be an option.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 152

A somewhat common approach to the negotiation and analysis of the many implementation details is to create two steering committees to guide this process. One is at the policy level and typically includes elected representatives of each participating jurisdiction. This may also include the chief executives of the agencies. The COG is often the lead agency in such a process because that is commonly a source of funding for technical work that is necessary and is an existing platform for consideration of regional issues.

The second committee or “working group” is often made up of the technicians who are necessary to the dialogue. This would include transit managers, perhaps other COG staff, and other topic advisors such as finance staff or human resources professionals. This group would be responsible for preparing detailed budgets, support cost analyses, legal documents, etc. The work of both groups can take several months depending upon the complexity of the issues.

Timing can be affected by the expiration dates of the existing vendor service agreements. It is helpful to manage decisions regarding these in anticipation of consolidation such that the timing of a joint procurement falls clearly at the end of the term. In the case of one vendor holding the key contracts, such as Storer Transit in Stanislaus, negotiation with the vendor may allow dates to be “trued up” outside of the regular interval. Again, specific to this situation, if paratransit were the only function to be integrated, there would still be a number of time consuming actions to be accomplished to complete the process. A list of considerations relating to the timing of consolidation follows:

• Contract end dates: o City of Modesto MAX: June 30, 2021 o City of Modesto MADAR: June 30, 2020 o Stanislaus County: June 30, 2020 o City of Turlock: June 30, 2021 o City of Ceres: June 30, 2020 • City of Modesto intends to issue separate Requests for Proposals for reservation and scheduling software, paratransit vehicles, and a new vendor contract very soon with the expectation of having them in place by June 30, 2020. Assuming that this timing remains firm, it is recommended that consideration be taken in all procurements for the possible integration of all services at some point in the early term of agreements. For example, scheduling software should be chosen with the potential that it be used at some point in the future to schedule all demand response services in the County. • Stanislaus County is moving ahead with the procurement of technology to support its operations. The result could be the selection of technology that is different from and potentially incompatible with technology used by other jurisdictions particularly the City of Modesto. • Ceres intends to make a decision regarding transit deployment for its City by August or September 2019. The intent is to have services overseen and provided by another jurisdiction or agency by June 30, 2020. The City is currently in discussions with the County and Modesto regarding options.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 153

• StanCOG could consider providing “seed” funding to facilitate the consolidation process by supporting the transition process and possibly funding a rebranding effort to align all participating services into a single new public image. Consolidation Scenarios

The assessment of consolidation impacts must begin with a look at the combined current circumstances of the potential participants. One approach would be the phase in of consolidation beginning with paratransit. This would bring all jurisdictions together in an agreement to consolidate that function. This would then require the resolution of many operating details involved in that service component. This possibility resulted in two alternative approaches to the consolidation issue. Those two approaches are described below.

• Approach 1: Consolidate paratransit services among all four jurisdictions. This would require an interagency agreement and the resolution of many operating details. This approach would “ease into” consolidation by requiring all jurisdictions to work together to achieve the common objective of far greater efficiency and seamless service throughout the County for the riding public. • Approach 2: Consolidate all aspects of service into a new agency. A clear beginning scenario would be the consolidation of the City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, and the City of Ceres. This could also include the City of Turlock from the beginning (which would be presumed in a paratransit consolidation) or allow for Turlock to be included at a later date.

The two major components that have been combined for discussion purposes are

• Agency staffing • Operating budgets.

These elements of the operations will be critical in evaluating potential efficiencies in consolidation discussions. Because the Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study is not an implementation plan, it does not achieve a level of detail to determine precise efficiency results from combining the agencies. However, an initial review of the combined scenarios suggests that a complete assessment of staff duties relative to full integration would likely yield some savings. Similarly, a detailed analysis of the operating revenues and expenses would likely identify overlaps in certain cost items as well as efficiencies resulting from fil l service integration that could yield similar results. The combined staffing scenarios and combined operating budgets are presented as Exhibits N through Q at the end of this chapter.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 154

Recommendations

The Integration Study is structured to consider a range of options along a continuum from minor improvements all the way to potential full consolidation of operators. This section reviews the issues involved in the range of approaches to transit consolidation. On the basis of all of the analysis presented in this Chapter regarding consolidation, the consultants offer the following recommendations arrayed along that continuum.

Basic, Minimum Integration Steps: Improved Communication/Coordination The most basic level of service consolidation that is recommended is the operation of transit service in Ceres by either the County or the City of Modesto. Ceres Transit is not sustainable. Between FY 2015-16 and FY 2017-18 total ridership on Ceres fixed route and demand response combined dropped by nearly 62%. Fewer than 2,000 rides per month were provided in FY 2017-18. Both MAX and StaRT also operate service to Ceres at the present time. The riding public would be better served through consolidation of Ceres service. Further, the integration of Ceres into either MAX or StaRT may also demonstrate cost efficiencies. Integration of Ceres should occur effective July 1, 2020. At the basic level, no new operating agency would be necessary. Some revision of the procurement and resulting vendor contract would be necessary to address transition details.

More Complex Integration of Service Elements: Collaboration The next level of consolidation would begin with paratransit. Under this scenario, the demand response/paratransit services of all County operators would be combined through an operating agreement. Such an agreement would include the creation of a centralized paratransit management function/office to oversee procurement of a single operator contract, oversight of on-going operations, and single point of contact for the riding public. This could be a phase 1 approach to full consolidation. The complexity of operating and management issues involved in this scenario could result in focus on this issue to the

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 155

distraction from larger agency consolidation. This would be a decision that would depend upon the ultimate objective of the governing jurisdictions.

Full Integration: Consolidation The next level of complexity along the continuum would be the consolidation of some of the operators though not all. The next level of consolidation that is recommended would combine MAX, StaRT, and Ceres into a single operating agency. This could be accomplished through the absorption of MAX and Ceres by the County. This would result in operation most services throughout the region by the County. Only Turlock would remain an independent operator. Integration of MAX and Ceres into the County is not recommended for a number of reasons:

1. The City of Modesto is currently the designated recipient for federal transit grants. Shifting that responsibility to the County would add a level of complexity to County management that to date has been effectively performed by the City. 2. The County does not possess the necessary depth of management to effectively integrate dramatically larger services. 3. The only change in governance accomplished by this option would be greater transit responsibility for the County Board of Supervisors. At the present time, transit is one of many programs overseen by the Board. It does not currently receive a level of attention that creates a transit emphasis. Applying that same governance to a greatly expanding array of services and issues would not afford the appropriate level of attention.

The recommended approach to the integration/consolidation of the three agencies is the formation of a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to assume management of all aspects of the transit service of the three jurisdictions. The benefits of such an approach would include:

1. Central management of all transit services allowing for complete integration of service elements including route structure, public information, fares, and assets (facilities and fleet). 2. Central governance with a transit focus. A new JPA Board responsible for all transit decisions for the three agencies would bring an emphasis on transit that is currently embedded within general government. 3. Centralized vendor procurement: It is recommended that vendor procurement be separated into a fixed route contract and a demand response contract. At the present time, these services are combined in the contracts awarded by the County, Ceres, and Turlock. This configuration does not provide the necessary focus on the technical issues that inherent to each service type. Separation of the contracts would provide for that emphasis. Many details of the two service types are substantially different. These include the technologies used for each, the approach to service delivery (fixed schedules versus on-demand with curbside pickup), vehicle types, driver training, and many additional nuances. Further, the majority of fixed route drivers are currently

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 156

represented by a union while the demand response drivers are not. Award and management of only two contracts with the appropriate service types would allow for optimization of each. 4. Potential cost efficiencies: The consolidation of the three services could afford cost efficiencies. While this should not be the paramount factor in the consolidation decision, the potential does exist to achieve efficiencies at both the agency and vendor levels.

As applied in this context, full consolidation refers to complete integration of some or all of the operating agencies in the County. This could begin with the consolidation of Modesto, the County, and Ceres into a new JPA. Though it would be more efficient to consolidate all agencies at the same time as it relates to both governance and policy issues but also operations factors, a partial consolidation without the City of Turlock would be strong starting point.

The consolidation of all four operating agencies would be the final step in integrating all transit services throughout the County. The various benefits outlined above would apply to this full consolidation scenario. But they would be further enhanced through the addition of the Turlock components to the mix. Turlock currently uses the same contractor as do the other jurisdictions. Full consolidation would allow for the rationalization of services to include single larger contracts for both fixed route and demand response services. It could also introduce additional options for service deployment. Turlock has both existing and proposed facilities that could be valuable considerations in efficiency discussions.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 157

Exhibit L Transit Operators Organizational Charts - Current

The City of Ceres

The City of Turlock

Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT)

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 158

The City of Modesto

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 159

Exhibit M Transit Operator Contract Summary - Current Note: The Contractor Hourly Fee rate shown below for Stanislaus County includes maintenance expenses.

City of Modesto Stanislaus County City of Turlock1 City of Ceres1

Fixed Shuttle; ADA Fixed Fixed MAX MADAR DAR Medivan Commuter DAR DAR Route Runabout Paratransit Route Route National Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer CONTRACTOR Express Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit City of Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer Storer City of City of Storer Storer MAINTENANCE PROVIDER Modesto Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Transit Turlock Turlock Transit Transit CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE 6/30/2021 6/30/20202 6/30/2020 6/30/20203 6/30/2020 6/30/2020 6/30/2020 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2021 6/30/20204 6/30/2020 CONTRACTOR-PROVIDER VEHICLES 17 13 2 3 FEES Monthly Fixed Fee $143,530.42 $30,431 $60,874.00 $60,874.00 NA Agency-Owned Vehicles Hourly Fee $44.10 $66.95 $64.25 $69.72 $109.22 $76.21 $56.75 $28.49 $28.49 $107.00 $107.00 Revenue Hours 159,250 29,060 5,522 2,457 1,143 2,240 Contractor-Owned Vehicles Hourly Fee $73.886 $76.21 Revenue Hours 36,000 22,098 Taxi rate (per mile) Taxi rate (per mile) $4.25

1 Fixed Route and Demand Response (DAR) combined in single contract 2 Extended by recent Council decision to 6-30-20 3 Extended by recent Contract Amendment to 6-30-20 4 Extended for the final option year by City Council

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 160

Exhibit N Consolidation Scenario 1 – Combined Organizational Chart

City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, and the City of Ceres

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 161

Exhibit O Consolidation Scenario 1 – Combined Operating Budget

City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, and the City of Ceres

A OPERATING REVENUE TOTAL

401 Passenger Fares $3,359,687 402 Special Transit Fares1 $90,092 403 School Bus Service $0 404 Freight Tariffs $0 405 Charter Service $0 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) $188,670 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) $366,361 408 Local Taxes $0 409 LTF - New claim $10,831,314 LTF - Carryover from last completed fiscal year $467,618 LTF - Carryover from FY 15-16 to FY 17-18 $1,257,346 LTF - Carryover from FY 16-17 to FY 17-18 $0 LTF - Carryover from FY 17-18 to FY 19-20 -$1,780,050 LTF - Transfer from Capital $0 410 Local Special Fare Assistance $0 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year $0 STA - New claim $2,238,431 412 LCTOP $180,143 412 State Special Fare Assistance $28,478 413 Federal Operating Grants $5,408,300 414 Measure L Funds $511,849 Total Revenues $23,148,239

B OPERATING EXPENSE

501 Labor $1,729,567 502 Fringe Benefits $727,043 503 Services $2,436,350 504 Materials & Supplies $1,451,445 505 Utilities $0 506 Casualty & Liability $107,599 507 Taxes $24,484 508 Purchase Transportation Services $8,172,771 509 Misc Expenses $8,378,078 510 Expense Transfers $54,681 511 Interest Expense $0 512 Leases & Rentals $66,221 Contingencies $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $23,148,239

1 StaRT: $3,110 in LCTOP Fare Program is not included in TOTAL REVENUE

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 162

Exhibit P Consolidation Scenario 2 – Combined Organizational Chart

City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, the City of Ceres and the City of Turlock

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 163

Exhibit Q Consolidation Scenario 2 – Combined Operating Budget

City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, the City of Ceres and the City of Turlock

A OPERATING REVENUE TOTAL

401 Passenger Fares $3,520,018 402 Special Transit Fares1 $174,817 403 School Bus Service $0 404 Freight Tariffs $0 405 Charter Service $0 406 Auxiliary (inc. Advertising) $224,070 407 Nontransportation (inc. Interest) $410,856 408 Local Taxes $0 409 LTF - New claim $11,541,443 LTF - Carryover from last completed fiscal year $467,618 LTF - Carryover from FY 15-16 to FY 17-18 $1,257,346 LTF - Carryover from FY 16-17 to FY 17-18 $81,169 LTF - Carryover from FY 17-18 to FY 19-20 -$1,780,050 LTF - Transfer from Capital $118,581 410 Local Special Fare Assistance $0 411 STA - Carryover from last completed fiscal year $0 STA - New claim $2,244,633 412 LCTOP $180,143 412 State Special Fare Assistance $28,478 413 Federal Operating Grants $6,331,823 414 Measure L Funds $561,381 Total Revenues $25,362,326

B OPERATING EXPENSE

501 Labor $2,102,987 502 Fringe Benefits $847,140 503 Services $2,545,992 504 Materials & Supplies $1,724,391 505 Utilities $15,470 506 Casualty & Liability $118,125 507 Taxes $24,484 508 Purchase Transportation Services $9,449,711 509 Misc Expenses $8,409,453 510 Expense Transfers $54,681 511 Interest Expense $0 512 Leases & Rentals $66,221 Contingencies $3,671 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $25,362,326

1 StaRT: $3,110 in LCTOP Fare Program is not included in TOTAL REVENUE

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 164

This page intentionally left blank.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard

P a g e | 165

This page intentionally left blank.

Transit Efficiency and Innovation Study 2019 McGuire Management Consultancy – Nelson/Nygaard