YARTS STRATEGIC PLAN Final Report

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc

YARTS STRATEGIC PLAN

Final Report

YARTS Strategic Plan

Final Report

Prepared for

Merced County of Governments

369 W. 18 St.

Merced, California, 95340

209-723-3153

Prepared by

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

2690 Lake Forest Road, Ste. C

Tahoe City, CA 96145

530-583-4053

June 14, 2021

LSC#207480

YARTS Strategic Plan Draft Report LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Council of Governments Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERS

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Institutional Overview

Institutional Structure of YARTSS= ............................................................................................................ 3

YARTS Agreements .................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 3: Review of Yosemite Visitation and YARTS Service

Historic Annual & Seasonal Visitation to Yosemite National Park .......................................................... 13

YARTS Services Overview ........................................................................................................................ 17

Current and Historical YARTS Ridership .................................................................................................. 24

YARTS Performance Analysis ................................................................................................................... 34

YARTS Connections .................................................................................................................................. 38

Chapter 4: YARTS Capital Overview

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 41

YARTS Fleet .............................................................................................................................................. 41

Moving Towards Zero Emissions ............................................................................................................. 43

YARTS Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 47

Chapter 5: Funding History and Opportunities

YARTS Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................... 49

Federal Sources of Revenue .................................................................................................................... 54

State Sources of Revenue ........................................................................................................................ 57

Local Sources of Revenue ........................................................................................................................ 59

Summary – The Future Funding of YARTS .............................................................................................. 60

Chapter 6: Recommended Strategies for YARTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 61

Service Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 61

Capital Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 73

Institutional Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 79

Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure

Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends

Appendix C: YARTS Boarding and Alighting Data

YARTS Strategic Plan Draft Report LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Council of Governments Page ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: NPS Financial Assistance for YARTS Service .............................................................................. 10

Table 2: Monthly Visitor Count (2000 – 2019)........................................................................................ 14

Table 3: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance (1998 – 2019) ............................................................ 16

Table 4: Annual Visitation by Major Entrance Station (2015– 2019) ..................................................... 17

Table 5: 2019 Monthly Visitation by Major Entrance Station ................................................................ 18

Table 6: Summary of Existing YART Service ............................................................................................ 20

Table 7: Recent YARTS Service Changes ................................................................................................. 21

Table 8: YARTS 2019 and 2020 Service Quantities by Route and Month ............................................... 23

Table 9: YARTS Ridership History by Route ............................................................................................. 25

Table 10: YARTS Ridership History by Route and Season ....................................................................... 27

Table 11: Route 140 Ridership History by Type ...................................................................................... 28

Table 12: Passenger Boardings by Route by Month 2019 & 2020 ......................................................... 30

Table 13: Route Ridership by Average Weekday and Weekend by Month ........................................... 32

Table 14: YARTS 2019 Performance Analysis by Route and Month ....................................................... 36

Table 15: YARTS Vehicle Fleet – Replacement Needs ............................................................................ 42

Table 16: YARTS versus VIA Bus Use – Calendar Year 2019 ................................................................... 43

Table 17: YARTS Expenses by Year – Merced Contract .......................................................................... 50

Table 18: YARTS Revenues – Merced Contract ....................................................................................... 51

Table 19: YARTS Expenses and Revenue by Year – Fresno Contract ...................................................... 52

Table 20: YARTS Total Operating Expenses and Revenue by Year ......................................................... 52

Table 21: Countywide Retail Sales Trends in YARTS Service Area .......................................................... 54

Table 22: Recommended Service Reduction Plan to Generate Local Capital Match Funding ............... 62

Table 23: YARTS Alternative Service Reductions Analysis ...................................................................... 63

Table 24: Existing Buses Required in Service by Time-of-Day ................................................................ 65

Table 25: Route 120 Average Daily Ridership in July .............................................................................. 68

Table 26: 120 Route Reduced Schedule (June 22 to September 11) ..................................................... 69

Table 27: Route 41 Average Daily Ridership in August ........................................................................... 71

Table 28: Example Oakhurst – YNP Schedule ......................................................................................... 71

Table 29: YARTS Bus Size Requirements ................................................................................................. 75

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: YARTS 2021 – 21 Board of Directors .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Total Annual Visitors (2000 – 2019) ......................................................................................... 15

Figure 3: Annual Visitors by Season (2000 – 2019) ................................................................................ 15

Figure 4: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance .................................................................................. 16

Figure 5: Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System ..................................................................... 19

Figure 6: YARTS Historic Annual Ridership by Route .............................................................................. 25

Figure 7: 2019 Monthly Ridership by Route ................................

........................................................... 31

Figure 8: 2020 Monthly Ridership by Route ........................................................................................... 31

Figure 9: 2019 Average Weekday and Weekend/Holiday Ridership ...................................................... 33

YARTSStrategicPlanLSCTransportationConsultants,Inc.

MercedCountyAssociationofGovernments  Page1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION



INTRODUCTION



Sinceitsfoundingin2000,theYosemiteAreaRegionalTransitSystem(YARTS)hasgrowntobeacrucial

elementinYosemiteNationalPark’stransportationstrategyandakeymobilityandeconomicresource

fortheoverallYosemiteRegion.However,severalfactorsarecurrentlythreateningthelong‐termviability

oftheYARTS

programasitcurrentlystands.Mostobviously,theCOVID‐19pandemichasreduced

ridershipandimpactedoperationswhilealsoreducingpotentialfundinglevels.Theagingandinsufficient

fleetofYARTS‐ownedvehiclesalsoimposesnewfinancialrequirementsonthesystem.Finally,theshort‐

termnatureofYARTSagreementsandcontractingarrangements

limitsthestabilityoftheprogramand

theavailabilitytomakelong‐terminvestments.



Concernedwiththeseissues,theYARTSBoardofDirectorshasinitiatedthisStrategicPlantodefinenew

approachestoservicelevels,capitalimprovements,financialplans,andinstitutionalstrategiestodefinea

sustainablelong‐termframeworkfor

theprogram.ItbuildsontheShort‐RangeTransitPlan(SRTP)

completedin2018,consideringsubsequentchangesinridership,financialsupport,andcontracting

arrangementaswellasincludingareviewofpreviousplansconsideringthese changingconditions.

ThisWorkingPaperisaninterimstudyproduct,reviewingexistingconditionsandframingthe

current

issues.ItisintendedtoserveasaresourcetotheBoard,theAuthorityAdvisoryCommittee,andother

decisionmakersinfuturediscussions.Thisdocumentthegroundworkfortheanalysisbyprovidingan

overviewofthecurrentinstitutionalframework, reviewingthevis itationtoYosemiteNationalPark,

analyzingrecentservice

andridershipstatisticsforYARTS,reviewingcapitalneeds(includingbus

replacementandzeroemissionrequirements),assessingfundinglevels,andframingthechallengesfacing

theprogram.Thesefuturediscussionsandtechnicalanalysiswillformthebasisforfinalstrategiesfor

implementation.



Itshouldbenotedattheoutsetthatthisplanis

lookingatconditionsbeyondtheendoftheCOVID‐19

pandemic,which,asofthiswriting,appearstobeontracktooccurinmid‐2021.Thoughitisuncertain

whethertherewillbelong‐termpermanentimpactstotravelpatterns,thisanalysisfocusesonconditions

priortotheoutset

ofthepandemicimpactsinMarch2020.Atpresentitappearsthatrecreationaltravel

demandwillbestrongafterthepandemic,andthatthereislittleoverallhesitancytoreturntotravelby

bus.Additionally,thisdocumentrepresentsacompilationofpreviousworkingpapers,whichinclude

referencestoagreementsandcost

factorswhichhavesincebeenupdated.Inthefinalrecommendations,

thelatestavailabl ecostestimatesareapplied.



 

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 2

This page intentionally left blank

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 3

Chapter 2

INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF YARTS

The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) whose

members currently consist of Merced County, Mariposa County, and Mono County. Tuolumne County has

recently joined the JPA. YARTS is overseen by a Board of Commissioners (the Board) which includes eight

voting members and two non-voting members. Voting members consist of two elected Supervisors from

each of the four member-counties, while non-voting members consist of one elected official from

Madera County, and two elected officials from Fresno County. The makeup of the YARTS Board is

depicted in Figure 1.

An 18-member Authority Advisory Committee (AAC) assists the YARTS Board by studying issues and

making recommendations to YARTS on policy matters and projects. Three members of the AAC are

nominated by each member county of the JPA Board, two by the National Park Service, two by the YARTS

Executive Director, one each from Madera and Tuolumne Counties, and three from Fresno County. In

addition to the JPA, YARTS has several agreements with additional entities as described below.

YARTS Joint Powers Authority

YARTS is a party to many agreements that define YARTS service and funding arrangements. In some cases,

YARTS is the contracting agency and in others it is the contractor. The following is a summary of

contractual agreements.

YARTS Joint Powers Authority Agreement

The original YARTS JPA was entered into on September 21, 1999, between the Counties of Merced,

Mariposa, and Mono (JPA parties), and was most recently amended on May 9, 2017. The purpose of the

JPA is to plan, operate, manage, and evaluate transportation improvements within and among the

respective JPA parties’ jurisdictions around Yosemite National Park. The JPA was borne out of a common

desire, not only among the JPA parties but also the National Park Service and Yosemite Regional Strategic

Board, to address the transportation impacts of continued growth in Yosemite visitation and the need for

transportation alternatives that helped protect the visitor experience and natural resources of the area.

The JPA established YARTS as a separate public entity with the stated purpose to start an initial two-year

passenger bus demonstration project to serve the geographic jurisdictions of the JPA parties and

Yosemite. Recognizing that a close relationship with the National Park Service (NPS) was critical, the JPA

required that YARTS work with the NPS, as well as Caltrans and the Forest Service.

Per the JPA, the Board consists of two voting members from each JPA party along with one alternate

Director from among the elected official of any political office in the member geographic area. The JPA

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 4

defines that the Board has the power to contract with an Administering Agency, enter contracts, acquire,

and hold property, incur debt, accept funding, invest, have an unpaid Board, and other necessary acts in

the provision of passenger bus service.

The JPA established the YARTS fiscal year (FY) as October 1st through September 30th. Moreover, the JPA

defines a process for creating and adopting a budget, making contributions of funds or in-kind support,

appointing a treasurer and controller, and distributing assets if dissolved.

Mayor Michelle Roman, City of Kingsburg

Fresno County

Merced County

2 elected Supervisors

Mariposa County

2 elected Supervisors

Mayor Ray Leon, City of Huron

Supervisor Ryan Campbell

Tuolumne County

2 elected Supervisors

Mono County

2 elected Supervisors

Madera County

Supervisor Tom Wheeler

Figure 1: YARTS 2020-21 Board of Directors

VOTING MEMBERS

Supervisor Rosemarie Smallcombe

Supervisor Miles Menetrey

Supervisor Daron McDaniel

Supervisor Scott Silveira, Chair 2020-2021

Supervisor Stacy Corless

Supervisor Bob Gardner, Vice Chair 2020-2021

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

Supervisor Kathleen Haff

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 5

Joint Powers Authority Bylaws

The YARTS bylaws were adopted by the YARTS Board of Commissioners on June 10, 2013 and, in many

ways, reinforced and further defined pieces contained in the JPA. The bylaws establish the objectives of

the Authority as:

• Preservation of the natural environment of the Yosemite Region

• Coordination and communication with Yosemite National Park

• Accommodation of increasing visitation to Yosemite and surrounding region and of

transportation options

• Coordinate of local policy and planning of regional transit service and financial resources

The bylaws establish the positions of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. The Chairperson is required to

have at least one year’s experience as a Commissioner.

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

• Plan, establish, manage, and evaluate passenger bus service

• Employ an Executive Director

• Employ agents and employees and contract for services

• Make and enter into contracts and agreements

• Acquire, hold, and convey property

• Incur debt, obligations, and liabilities

• Accept funding

• Have members of the Board serve without compensation

• Establish committees

• Exercise any and all other powers provided by California Code section 6547

The bylaws state that authority meetings must be held at least quarterly with proper noticing and agenda

posting. Furthermore, the bylaws state that the Board will appoint an Executive Director to manage and

administer the transit service plan and budget, in addition to serving as the secretary of the board. A

quorum is defined as a majority of voting members. A majority vote of all voting members is required to

approve all expenditures.

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

YARTS AGREEMENTS

YARTS is a party to many agreements that define YARTS service and funding arrangements. In some cases,

YARTS is the contracting agency and in others it is the contractor. The following summary of contractual

agreements is all related to financial transactions with YARTS.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 6

YARTS and Merced County Association of Governments Agreement for Management and

Marketing

The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG), under an agreement with the YARTS JPA,

provides management, marketing, financial and grant administration, and transportation planning

services on behalf of YARTS. In return, YARTS agrees to pay MCAG an annual fee for this service, equal to

$465,506 for Fiscal Year 2020/21. This agreement is renewable annually, with the current term expiring

June 30, 2021. More specifically, the duties consist of the following:

• Administration and Management—Conduct JPA Board and AAC meetings, accounting services,

grants management, contracts and agreements (with Amtrak, Fresno COG, Tuolumne County,

etc.), state and federal reporting, maintain YARTS-owned property

• Planning—Conduct passenger surveys, evaluate service modifications, participate in SSTAC

meetings, oversee SRTP process, coordinate with other public and private transportation services

• Marketing—Prepare and distribute schedules and brochures, oversee the reservation process,

maintain website and social media, administer ticket sales, and distribute public information and

advertising.

This arrangement has been in place since the formation of YARTS in 2000 and appears to work well and in

the best interest of YARTS. It allows YARTS to benefit from the cost savings associated with sharing staff

resources (and office space) between YARTS and the other transit services (The Bus) managed by MCAG.

Managing and marketing a public transit system is a complicated endeavor, particularly with regards to

state and federal requirements, the high level of coordination needed for a regional service, the needs

specific to serving a national park, and the need to address the many challenges of service operations in

the Sierra. Providing the necessary level of expertise as a separate staff would almost certainly incur a

greater overall cost than the current arrangement. Considering the relative staff size of the various JPA

member organizations, shifting this work to another of these organizations would require significant

expansion of the existing staff, with associated increase in costs. In sum, the current YARTS/MCAG

agreement is the appropriate means of providing these services in the most cost-effective manner.

The year-to-year agreement, however, places an additional administrative burden on MCAG that could be

avoided through a longer-term agreement (such as a five-year agreement). The short-term nature of the

contract also has the potential to reduce employees’ level of commitment to their jobs. It would also be

beneficial to align the contract term with the federal fiscal year (October to September) as the separate

agreement with the National Park Service is a major funding source and as this would avoid the potential

of changing YARTS administration in the middle of the busy summer season.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 7

YARTS—VIA Agreement for Daily Operations

YARTS contracts with VIA Adventures, Inc. for daily operations of the YARTS fixed route services, including

service operations, bus maintenance and bus fuel. Since the current contract was signed, there have been

two amendments, as discussed below.

Original Agreement

The current agreement was enacted on November 1, 2018.

It identified a two-year term, along with the

option to extend for up to two additional one-year terms. Key points of this agreement are as follows:

• Broadly speaking, VIA Adventures is responsible for the day-to-day operations of YARTS services,

including providing staff (drivers, schedules/dispatchers and supervisors, trainers) and up to 12

over-the-road coaches (to supplement the 10 owned by YARTS), maintaining and fueling all

vehicles, and operating all scheduled services.

• Costs are determined on a fixed-price per service-vehicle-hour of service basis, with fuel costs

passed directly through to YARTS. This cost varies by location and ownership of the vehicles in

use. Under the original agreement, these “unit costs” were as follows:

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

vehicle-service-hour

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

$162.85 per vehicle-service-hour

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

$169.85 per vehicle-service-hour

This differential in hourly costs is crucial to future planning regarding YARTS services. Using a VIA-

provided vehicle based in Merced increases costs over using a YARTS-owned bus by 43 percent,

while using a VIA-provided vehicle based in Fresno increases costs by 49 percent. Put another

way, for any specific dollar amount, using a VIA bus reduces the number of vehicle-hours of

service that can be provided by 30 percent for buses based in Merced and by 33 percent for

buses based in Fresno.

• The original contract was developed assuming a total of 21,878 annual vehicle-service-hours,

consisting of 15,070 operated by YARTS buses, 2,195 operated by VIA Merced buses and 4,613

operated by VIA Fresno buses.

As a result of the term of the contract, the service year is from November 1

to October 31

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 8

• Through the 2019 – 20 service year, a minimum hourly transit operator pay scale is identified.

• A series of performance standards and associated liquidated damage penalties are defined, for

on-time performance, missed runs, late runs, and bus cleanliness.

• YARTS has the authority to (upon 60 days written notice) modify the scope of services. VIA

Adventures would then determine the impacts on operations and costs and negotiate for a

change in scope.

Amendment #1

Amendment #1 (August 4, 2020) identifies a term extending to October 31, 2021, with extension at the

sole discretion of YARTS for one additional year (to October 31, 2022). It also added categories (including

pandemic) to the original Force Majeure clause. In addition, VIA Adventures is required to develop

policies and procedures for cash fares handling and accountability.

Amendment #2

The second amendment to the current contract, enacted on November 1, 2020, reflects a substantial

change in the contracting arragement. Rather than a straight per-service-hour basis, costs are now

identified on a “fixed plus vehicle-service-hour” basis. Fixed costs are identified as $973,389 per year for

the Merced-based service and $310,833 per year for the Fresno-based service, while the hourly costs are

at a rate of $57.89 per vehicle-service-hour. Note that this rate does not vary by whether a YARTS-owned

bus or a VIA-provided bus is operated, or what base the run initiates from. The costs are based on a total

of 16,548 annual vehicle-hours for Merced-based service and 2,902 for Fresno-based service, and total

payment shall not exceed $2,471,805. This level of service is 11 percent lower than the number of

vehicle-service-hours identified in the original contract.

Discussion

The shift from a straight per-service-hour costing to a fixed-plus-per-service-hour costing is more in line

with transit industry standards. The change is beneficial in that it better reflects how costs are actually

incurred by the contractor and reduces the risk to the contractor that possible future reductions in

service will be an undue financial burden. Using a single variable rate, regardless of whether a YARTS bus

or contractor bus is used, tends to mask the additional costs associated with use of a contractor bus.

Though under this amended contract YARTS does not immediately see a cost differential, the contractor’s

costs to provide some of the necessary fleet are built into the rates. Over the long-term, it is still in

YARTS’s interest to eliminate the need for contractor-provided buses.

Under the current agreement, the contractor provides storage and maintenance facility space for YARTS

buses at the facility at 300 Grogan Avenue in Merced. Costs incurred by VIA for the facility are considered

in the monthly and hourly cost rates. Providing a separate publicly owned operations/maintenance facility

would lower annual ongoing costs for MCAG. In addition, it is not feasible for public funding to be used to

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 9

install electric charging or hydrogen fueling facilities on the contractor’s lot. As California’s public transit

programs move towards zero-emission vehicles, the need for a publicly owned facility (perhaps jointly

with other public transit programs) will increase.

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

The YARTS and National Park Service (NPS) agreement defines the contribution to YARTS for operating

ongoing service on YARTS State Route 140 Route and seasonal service on the YARTS State Route 41

Route, as well as enhanced and seasonal service on Routes 120 East, 120 West, and 140. The most recent

cooperative agreement was signed on May 27, 2020. For the Federal 2929 fiscal year (October 1, 2020 to

Sept 30, 2021), Federal funding totaling $1,403,788 is identified, as shown in Table 1. The service levels

identified in this table exceed the minimum defined in the Agreement text, in that the six daily roundtrips

on SR 140 exceed the five identified in the text. The Agreement also indicates that service levels may

grow to eight daily year-round trips on Highway 140, five summer and three winter roundtrips on both

Highway 41 and Highway 120 West, and three summer roundtrips on Highway 120 East/US 395.

Funding in subsequent years will reflect services as modified, based on the specific service parameters.

The agreement specifies that YARTS operate four peak-season routes providing connections to the San

Joaquin Valley and Mono Basin. Beyond providing funding, the NPS is required to encourage use of the

YARTS system through marketing and coordination and provide park access.

The NPS Agreement outlines goals for the project, which can be summarized as the NPS and YARTS

working cooperatively to provide public transportation services in a safe and convenient manner along

the State Routes (or Highways) 41, 120, and 140 corridors to Yosemite Valley, for employment,

recreation, shopping, education, and social service trips, so long as service can be provided in a cost-

effective manner. The agreement also defines project objectives, such as minimum numbers of trips, on-

time performance, etc.

The most recent agreement includes a statement about COVID-19 provisions, essentially conditioning the

award of financial support based on COVID-19 conditions, and potentially waiving minimum service

requirements because of those conditions.

The statements of work beyond the first year are loosely defined in the agreement, with detailed

statements of work to be defined annually via modification of the agreement.

YARTS—Mariposa County Agreement

The YARTS and Mariposa County contract defines the Mariposa County annual funding contribution for

operation of public transportation services that connect Mariposa with Yosemite on the Highway 140

Route. The original term of the agreement was from July 1, 2017 for one year, and is annually renewable,

with the current agreement running from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Under this agreement, YARTS is

required to provide Route 140 services, though a specific level of service is not defined, as well as provide

planning, marketing, and management services. Mariposa County is required to pay YARTS an annual

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 10

service contribution, with the amount for the 2020 – 21 fiscal year not to exceed $191,000, due in four

quarterly payments.

YARTS—Fresno Council of Governments Agreement

The YARTS agreement with Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) agreement was initially enacted in

2014 to provide funding for Route 41 service. Under this agreement, FCOG payments are equal to the

operating/administrative costs of the service minus the credit revenues (passenger fares, NPS funding

and Amtrak funding).

The most recent (the third) amendment defines a maximum contribution of $746,776 for services from

May 2020 through September 2020, less any revenues collected from other sources, resulting in a

maximum total of $478,526 from FCOG. Due to the COVID-related drop in ridership, the rate in 2020 was

cut by one-third, to $678.32 per day. A new agreement is expected for summer 2021 service, to be

negotiated in the spring.

YARTS—National Railroad Passenger Corp (Amtrak) Agreement

The services contract between Amtrak and YARTS, originally enacted in 2007, was most recently amended

on July 1, 2020 to extend until June 30, 2021. It defines the Amtrak contribution to YARTS for Thruway

bus service provided by YARTS on the Highway 140 Route and the Highway 41 Route. The three-year

amendment for service between July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2020, wherein YARTS is the contractor, included

a daily rate for service between Merced and Yosemite of $987.84, with an option to increase the daily

Table 1: NPS Financial Assistance for YARTS Service

2020 Federal Fiscal Year

Routes

Origin by

County

Round

Trips

Provided

Scheduled Dates of Service

Hours of

Operation

Days in

Service

Recipient

Operating

Costs

NPS Award

Highway 41, Wawona

Road

Fresno

Madera

5/11/20 to 9/11/20 (summer

only)

124 $569,160 $200,000

Highway 120 East (Tioga

Road) and U.S. 395

Mono 1 6/15 to 10/16/20 (summer) 7 139 $165,410 $79,360

5/13/20 to 9/30/20 142

$152,082

5/25/20 to 8/31/20

102 $218,484

Highway 140, El Portal

Road

Merced

Mariposa

7/1/20 to 6/30/21 (year-

round)

7.9

361

$2,908,938

Highway 120 East (Tioga

Road) and U.S. 395

Mono 1 6/1 to 10/16/20 (summer) 7 153 $182,070

Highway 140, El Portal

Road

Merced

Mariposa

5/18/20 to 9/30/20 (summer) 7.9

136 $365,296 $240,000

Note 1: Per bus, per day $4,561,440

$1,403,788

Source: NPS Cooperative Agreement

Highway 120 West

Tuolumne

6.3

$348,768

$535,660

Recipient's Operating Cost

Note 2: Hourly rate = $170 x Hours of

Operation per bus per day x Days in

Service

Total Financial Assistance

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 11

amount by 3 percent each of the final two years of a contract extension. The contract was extended by

amendment to continue through June 30, 2021, at a daily rate of $1,017.47. However, due to the COVID-

19 related capacity restrictions and drop in ridership, the rate has been cut by one third for this year, to

$678.31.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 12

This page intentionally left blank

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 13

Chapter 3

REVIEW OF YOSEMITE VISITATION AND YARTS SERVICE

HISTORIC ANNUAL & SEASONAL VISITATION TO YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

Over the past two decades, the number of visitors to Yosemite National Park has averaged 3.7 million per

year, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Since 2015, annual visitation has exceeded 4.0 million people,

reaching a peak of 5,028,868 visitors in 2016. In recent years, rock falls and wildfires have closed portions

of the park at various times, yet 4,422,861 visitors still came to the park in 2019. This reflects a 12 percent

decline from the peak in 2016.

Table 2 and Figure 2 also show the number of visitors by month for the past two decades. This data

provides some insight into the annual increases in visitation. Summer continues to be the most popular

time of year with 1,917,240 people visiting the park in 2019. As shown in Figure 3, the fall season

(September through November) has shown growth over the past five years with 1,264,201 visitors in

2019, or a 16.6 percent increase in visitors from 2015. Over these five years, summer (June to August)

visitation has grown by 5.7 percent, spring (April and May) visitation has been essentially unchanged,

while winter (December through March) visitation declined by 8.6 percent. Since the completion of the

YARTS SRTP, visitation over the past three year has increased by 5.6 percent in summer, 4.1 percent in

fall, and 3.3 percent in winter, while declining 10.9 percent in spring.

Visitation by Gateway to Yosemite National Park

There are four key corridors serving Yosemite Valley: Arch Rock, South Entrance, Big Oak Flat, and Tioga

Pass. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 4, the South Entrance (via State Route (SR) 41) has historically

received the highest number of vehicles (31 percent on average), although in over the past few years

Arch Rock and Big Oak Flat have also received more visitors due to wildfires affecting the South Entrance.

Tioga Pass, which is closed during winter months, receives an average of 15 percent.

The number and types of visitors over the past five years has been tracked by each entrance kiosk, as

shown in Table 4. Over the past five years, 97 percent of visitors entering through Arch Rock, Big Oak Flat,

and Tioga Pass were recreational visitors and just 3 percent were non-recreational (employees, etc.). The

South Entrance has the most non-recreational visitors (5 percent). In terms of non-recreational visitors,

39 percent entered through the South Gate and just 11 percent enter through Tioga Pass in 2019.

The observation of visitors by entrance station, by month, is shown in Table 5 for 2019. This data reflects

the strong seasonality of visitors in the park. As shown, recreational visitors make up roughly 96 percent

of the total visitors to the park, with only 4 percent being those entering the park for other reasons

(employment, goods distribution, etc.). Of the various entrances, Big Oak Flat had the highest rate of

recreational visitors during the summer months of June, July, and August at 33.7 percent of total visitors.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 14

Table 2: Monthly Visitor Count (2000-2019)

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Total

2019 116,746 111,665 173,610 297,207 393,004 496,625 717,462 703,153 584,664 448,939 230,598 149,188 4,422,861

2018 129,432 143,321 170,681 278,349 385,670 543,690 504,230 441,867 524,387 360,776 215,854 311,179 4,009,436

2017

120,025 119,421 166,793 302,553 471,844 565,702 633,351 615,892 566,279 429,827 217,927 127,276 4,336,890

2016

139,780 201,601 286,990 305,092 457,309 703,614 780,728 692,450 598,428 483,232 218,998 160,646 5,028,868

2015

128,318 135,316 194,667 281,328 408,121 545,231 626,009 636,936 527,402 357,223 169,425 140,241 4,150,217

2014

112,133 113,403 146,750 242,722 333,308 496,363 623,663 654,157 467,205 354,769 203,678 134,491 3,882,642

2013

103,910 114,440 165,409 231,178 370,422 508,941 611,538 552,137 460,855 279,526 161,356 131,479 3,691,191

2012

120,496 113,341 136,687 243,102 356,500 528,186 623,101 660,118 482,004 322,687 141,868 125,314 3,853,404

2011

100,718 93,588 100,433 231,372 356,588 503,741 704,553 699,749 533,502 360,449 139,079 127,621 3,951,393

2010

96,089 100,379 149,651 224,461 382,414 521,059 643,566 659,857 520,210 356,370 148,459 98,893 3,901,408

2009

101,984 78,795 132,711 230,828 399,683 483,382 586,591 643,300 471,530 346,826 151,297 110,545 3,737,472

2008

95,124 107,729 153,735 199,592 361,193 473,186 539,874 543,799 416,918 295,547 146,838 97,979 3,431,514

2007

99,892 100,941 135,925 219,854 374,184 466,054 543,235 550,172 417,882 298,122 178,846 118,321 3,503,428

2006

104,591 101,194 125,556 189,472 309,387 382,972 510,932 528,254 421,502 298,771 165,499 104,514 3,242,644

2005

91,238 103,756 143,335 195,385 304,552 413,124 554,567 485,643 430,134 318,508 152,671 111,231 3,304,144

2004

100,020 106,258 146,876 228,212 326,017 449,566 531,864 508,094 393,437 272,200 121,622 96,745 3,280,911

2003

116,984 111,506 137,550 174,337 280,335 445,887 536,683 604,093 405,605 316,366 136,390 112,928 3,378,664

2002

108,906 113,695 141,766 186,682 295,511 436,862 513,789 570,914 426,684 300,919 149,828 116,311 3,361,867

2001

102,455 101,897 142,141 192,936 315,897 434,014 528,849 591,196 448,519 264,465 137,876 108,486 3,368,731

2000

93,633 103,444 136,523 216,087 317,009 454,638 548,440 546,981 388,707 324,484 144,958 125,999 3,400,903

Average 109,124 113,785 154,389 233,537 359,947 492,642 593,151 594,438 474,293 339,500 166,653 130,469 3,761,929

Source: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 15

3,400,903

3,737,472

4,150,217

5,028,868

4,009,436

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 2: Total Annual Visitors (2000

-2019)

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Seasonal Visitation

Figure 3: Annual Visitors by Season (2000-2019)

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 16

Table 3: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance (1998-2019)

Year Arch Rock South Gate Big Oak Flat Tioga Pass Total

2019 500,591 356,632 508,295 177,794 1,543,312

2018 380,520 181,375 427,409 142,766 1,132,070

2017 562,150 488,373 412,740 181,377 1,644,640

2016 494,331 575,399 546,804 264,245 1,880,779

2015 424,316 497,056 408,943 204,882 1,535,197

2014 399,544 479,824 344,345 218,950 1,442,663

2013 389,005 450,725 318,088 207,250 1,365,068

2012 391,468 446,456 354,446 227,150 1,419,520

2011 422,988 445,426 395,178 201,150 1,464,742

2010 413,561 455,531 371,634 211,993 1,452,719

2009 387,502 442,679 347,999 227,490 1,405,670

2008 350,771 423,689 327,177 177,695 1,279,332

2007 348,570 451,045 319,034 189,450 1,308,099

2006 217,742 452,546 349,106 159,933 1,179,327

2005 398,723 384,783 317,504 181,463 1,282,473

2004 351,588 385,167 293,620 181,925 1,212,300

2003 345,097 400,800 291,748 214,023 1,251,668

2002 345,476 384,858 297,869 218,950 1,247,153

2001 350,007 375,261 306,554 218,950 1,250,772

2000 315,250 392,603 328,910 182,732 1,219,495

Source: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Park%20YTD%20Version%201

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure 4: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance

Arch Rock South Gate Big Oak Flat Tioga Pass

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 17

This was followed by South Entrance (25.9 percent), Arch Rock (22.6 percent), and Tioga Pass (17.9

percent). During the winter months (December through February), 39.7 percent of visitors enter through

the South Entrance, followed by 37.9 percent at Arch Rock.

YARTS SERVICES OVERVIEW

Currently YARTS has one year-round route (SR 140 Route between Merced and Yosemite) and three

seasonal routes running between May and September (Routes SR 41 from Fresno, SR 120 from Sonora,

and SR 120/395 from Mammoth Lakes). A map of the routes is shown in Figure 5, and a list of operating

seasons for a typical year, including runs and vehicles required, is shown in Table 6. In 2020, YARTS has

continued to operate their services as usual through the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic.

SR 140 Route

Operated 365 days per year, this route provides service between Merced and Yosemite Valley. In peak

season, eight eastbound trips are operated (seven from Merced and one from Mariposa) and nine

westbound trips are operated (eight from Yosemite to Merced and one from Yosemite and one from

Table 4: Annual Visitation by Major Entrance Station (2015-2019)

2019

% of All Visitors

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 # % By Type

Arch Rock

Total Recreation Visitors 1,050,610 1,169,124 1,317,788 866,839 1,158,421 107,811 10% 26%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 33,945 39,150 44,234 30,441 40,047 6,102 18% 25%

Total Visitors 1,084,555 1,208,274 1,362,022 897,279 1,198,468 113,913 11% 26%

South Gate

Total Recreation Visitors 1,321,296 1,538,459 1,259,512 1,247,169 1,197,789 -123,507 -9% 27%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 69,588 81,750 66,998 65,980 63,102 -6,486 -9% 39%

Total Visitors 1,390,884 1,620,209 1,326,510 1,313,149 1,260,891 -129,993 -9% 28%

Big Oak Flat

Total Recreation Visitors 1,141,535 1,491,873 1,141,652 1,189,641 1,414,323 272,788 24% 32%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 32,715 43,031 32,736 34,193 40,663 7,947 24% 25%

Total Visitors 1,174,250 1,534,903 1,174,388 1,223,834 1,454,985 280,735 24% 32%

Tioga Pass

Total Recreation Visitors 592,171 754,819 518,879 661,741 603,683 11,511 2% 14%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 16,391 21,140 14,510 18,624 17,124 734 4% 11%

Total Visitors 608,562 775,959 533,389 680,365 620,807 12,245 2% 14%

TOTAL

Total Recreation Visitors 4,105,613 4,954,275 4,237,831 3,965,390 4,374,215 268,603 7% 100%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 152,639 185,070 158,478 149,238 160,936 8,297 5% 100%

Total Visitors 4,258,252 5,139,346 4,396,309 4,114,627 4,535,151 276,899 7% 100%

Arch Rock 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

South Gate 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Big Oak Flat 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

Tioga Pass 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

Source: NPS Monthly Year-to-Date tables. Hetch Hetchy entrance data not included.

Change 2015-19

Percent Recreational Visitors

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 18

Table 5: 2019 Monthly Visitation by Major Entrance Station

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Summer Winter

Arch Rock

Total Recreation Visitors 45,731 45,309 63,691 98,704 125,891 140,435 147,573 138,640 132,775 96,401 71,771 51,500 22.6% 37.9%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 1,624 1,490 2,137 3,339 4,241 4,852 5,203 4,922 4,578 3,362 2,504 1,794

Total Visitors 47,355 46,799 65,828 102,043 130,131 145,288 152,776 143,563 137,353 99,763 74,275 53,294

South Entrance

Total Recreation Visitors 44,784 48,058 57,440 89,296 122,333 148,673 171,065 169,433 126,168 104,245 59,724 56,569 25.9% 39.7%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 2,496 2,646 3,038 4,725 6,293 7,770 9,114 9,114 6,510 5,208 3,150 3,038

Total Visitors 47,280 50,704 60,478 94,021 128,626 156,443 180,179 178,547 132,678 109,453 62,874 59,607

Big Oak Flat

Total Recreation Visitors 25,973 18,104 50,110 109,207 136,179 196,074 225,813 214,644 178,098 147,085 72,547 40,490 33.7% 22.5%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 768 527 1,440 3,123 3,911 5,663 6,516 6,188 5,118 4,193 2,079 1,137

Total Visitors 26,741 18,631 51,550 112,330 140,090 201,737 232,328 220,832 183,216 151,278 74,626 41,627

Tioga Pass

Total Recreation Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 164,871 174,119 141,280 96,856 26,557 0 17.9% 0.0%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,738 4,905 3,970 2,749 763 0

Total Visitors 0 0 0 0 0 0 169,609 179,024 145,250 99,604 27,319 0

TOTAL

Total Recreation Visitors 116,488 111,471 171,241 297,207 384,402 485,183 709,322 696,836 578,322 444,587 230,598 148,559 41.7% 8.3%

Total Non-Rec Visitors 4,888 4,663 6,615 11,187 14,445 18,285 25,571 25,129 20,176 15,512 8,496 5,969 1.5% 0.3%

Total Visitors 121,376 116,134 177,856 308,394 398,847 503,468 734,892 721,966 598,498 460,098 239,094 154,528 - -

Percent of Total

Recreation Visitors 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96%

Non-Recreation Visitors 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%

Source: NPS Monthly Year-to-Date tables. Hetch Hetchy entrance data not included.

Percent of Rec. Visitors

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 19

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 20

Midpines to Merced). Service is reduced by one trip each direction on weekends and holidays. The 140

Route operates reduced service (Runs 140-1 and 140-27, which are scheduled to serve commuters, are

not operated) on weekends and on the following holidays: President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence

Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year’s Day.

This route requires up to 3 hours 11 minutes to operate in the eastbound direction, and 2 hours 45

minutes in the westbound direction. A full one-way trip is 87 miles (174-mile round trip). This route

requires seven buses to operate a full summer schedule, while in winter five buses are needed on

weekdays and four on weekends/holidays. Note that these figures are only those in operations, excluding

spares.

Table 7 provides a review of recent changes in SR 140 Route services since 2018, both those identified in

the 2018 Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) as well as other changes. Key changes are the addition of

eastbound service in the morning, the reduction in short runs ending in Mariposa, and shifting run times

to provide greater choices in departure times and matching changes in train times. The required daily

number of buses to operate the service remains unchanged at seven.

SR 120 Route

In summer, three eastbound trips are operated each day between the Black Oak Casino 10 miles east of

Sonora and Yosemite Valley in the morning, with three westbound trips in the afternoon. Between June

22 and August 31, three trips are operated daily in each direction, dropping to one trip in September. This

route requires 3 hours 10 minutes to operate into the Valley and 3 hours 15 minutes on the outbound

runs. The route is 84 miles in one direction or 168 miles round-trip.

Over the last few years, the number of daily runs has remained unchanged, though the season has been

shortened to eliminate service from mid-May to June 21st.

Table 6: Summary of Existing YART Service

Service Parameters

Summer Winter

Peak

Summer

Shoulder

Season

Peak

Summer

Shoulder

Season

Summer

Peak

Summer

Shoulder

Season

Winter

Start Date

11-Jun 1-Oct 1-Jul 22-Jun 22-Jun 1-Sep 22-Jun

End Date 30-Sep 10-Jun 31-Aug 30-Jun 31-Aug 30-Sep 11-Sep

Start Date -- -- -- 1-Sep -- -- --

End Date -- -- -- 15-Oct -- -- --

Days per Year 111 254 61 52 70 29 81

1-Way Runs per Day

Weekdays 17 12 4 2 6 2 6 33 21 12

Weekends/Holidays 15 9 4 2 6 2 6 31 19 9

Required # of Buses in Operation

Weekdays 7 5 2 1 3 1 3 15 9 5

Weekends/Holidays 7 4 2 1 3 1 3 15 9 4

Source: LSC

Route

140

120/395

120

Total

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 21

SR 120 East/US 395 Route

Dependent on when Tioga Pass is cleared of snow (at the discretion of the National Park Service), service

is provided between Yosemite Valley and Mammoth Lakes (via Lee Vining and June Lake) seven days a

week from June 22nd to October 15th, with one bus operating prior to July 1 and after Labor Day. The

route stretches a total of 110 miles (or 220 miles per round-trip). Over the last few years, this route has

Table 7: Recent YARTS Sevice Changes

YARTS 2018 SRTP Service Plan Elements Status

Add 140 Route Summer Run (12:50 PM Eastbound,

9:05 PM Westbound)

Not implemented, but the last westbound departure shifted 29

minutes later

Serve Mariposa Fairgrounds Yes - 7 runs per day serve Fairgrounds on request

Extend 395 Route Season (Weekdays June and Sept,

Weekends in October)

Implemented (7 days a week June through October 15)

Streamline the 120/395 Route by Dropping June Lane

Loop Stops, Lee Vining Stops

Implemented (Lee Vining Stops made On Request Only)

Reduce Route 120 Runs to Sonora from 3 to 2, Add 2

Groveland-Valley Round Trips

Not Implemented

Start 120 Route Season on May 1, not May 15

Not Implemented. Service now does not start until June 22.

Eliminate 41 Route Oakdale-Fresno Run Implemented

Combine 41 Route Runs Implemented

Drop The Pines Resort on 41 Route Implemented

Shift Route 41 Runs to Better Serve Amtrak

Not Implemented. Shifting Run 41-5 1 hour 10 minutes later would

provide a good connection from Train 719, but would require

shifting Run 41-6 to depart YNP at 7:10 PM.

Operate 1 Run of 41 Route Staring Mid-April Not Implemented

Drop 41 Route Service After Labor Day

Not Implemented

Other Changes Implemented Since SRTP

140 Summer Westbound earliest AM run now starts at 8:15 AM, not 9:32 AM

New 140 Summer Eastbound run at 6:00 AM

Last 140 Summer Eastbound run shifted later (from 4:30 to 5:45 PM)

New 140 Summer Westbound run at 2:30 PM

140 Summer Westbound afternoon runs ending in Mariposa dropped from 2 (at 3:15 and 4:35) to 1 at 5:15

140 Summer Westbound early AM short run now starts at Midpines, not Mariposa

Early AM runs that previously started in Catheys Valley now start in Merced

New 140 Winter Eastbound Run at 8:45 AM

140 Winter Eastbound Run at 1:20 PM dropped

Last 140 Winter Eastbound Run shifted later from 4:30 PM to 5:25 PM

First 140 Winter Westbound Run shifter earlier from 9:32 AM to 8:20 AM

120 -- No change, except start date shifted later from 1 bus May 14 and 3 buses June 1 to 3 buses all June 22.

140 Winter Westbound Run at 1:20 PM shifted to 2:15 PM

Last 140 Winter Westbound Run shifted earlier from 5:45 PM to 5:05 PM

41 Fresno-Oakhurst and Oakhurst-Fresno runs dropped

41 Service consolidated into 3 full trips per day in each direction, down from 5 in 2017 and 4 in 2018. Now 2 arrivals in late

morning/Noon plus 1 in evening, and 1 departure late morning and 2 late afternoon.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 22

been streamlined to drop service to stops along the June Lake Loop and to make stops in Lee Vining on

request only.

SR 41 Route

This service consists of three roundtrips per day seven days a week, from mid-May through mid-

September, with two runs into Yosemite in the morning and one mid-day, paired with one mid-day

southbound run and two in the late afternoon. All Fresno runs originate at the Fresno Yosemite

International Airport and terminate at the airport if passengers request such. This is the longest route in

the YARTS system, at 111 miles in length and 222 miles per round-trip. The schedule requires up to 3

hours 55 minutes into Yosemite Valley and 3 hours 30 minutes leaving the Valley.

Over the last few years, this service has been reduced in the number of full runs and by dropping runs

between Oakhurst and Fresno. Service off of SR 41 to The Pines Resort has also been dropped, as has

service between mid-May and mid-June.

Summary of Route Service

YARTS routes total 392 miles in length along some of the most challenging rural highways in the nation.

Up to 33 one-way runs are operated per day in summer and 12 in winter. The overall service requires 15

buses to operate the summer schedule (excluding spare buses), nine buses in the shoulder season and 5

in the winter. In comparison with the 10 buses currently owned by YARTS, this indicates that a minimum

of five contractor-provided buses are required to operate the summer schedule, while YARTS buses can

operate the schedule in other seasons.

Summary of YARTS Vehicle-Hours and Vehicle-Miles

Table 8 presents a summary of the vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours by route and by month from January

2019 to September 2020. For the most recent available 12 months, Route 140 comprises roughly 71

percent of YARTS systemwide services. SR 41 Route comes in second with 14 percent of the revenue

hours, followed by SR 120 West Route (9 percent), and SR 120/395 Route (8 percent).

Over the last few years, YARTS overall service levels have been dropping. In total, comparing the 2018

vehicle-hours with the most recent 12 months’ vehicle-hours, service has been reduced by 3,816 vehicle-

hours, or by 33 percent. By route, this change in service levels is as follows:

Route 140: 11-percent reduction

Route 120: 26-percent reduction

Route 395/120: 70-percent increase

Route 41: 66-percent decrease

These shifts are largely due to reduction in runs on Route 140 and Route 41, a reduction in the days of

service on Route 120 and Route 41, and an increase in the days of service on Route 395/120.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 23

Table 8: YARTS 2019 and 2020 Service Quantities by Route and Month

Month

SR 140 SR 120 W. SR 41

SR 120

E/395

TOTAL

% of

Total

SR 140

SR 120

SR 41

SR 120

E/395

TOTAL

% of

Total

2019

January 27,756 0 0 0 27,756 5% 964 0 0 0 964 5%

February 22,243 0 0 0 22,243 4% 773 0 0 0 773 4%

March 27,897 0 0 0 27,897 5% 969 0 0 0 969 5%

April 27,987 0 0 0 27,987 5% 970 0 0 0 970 5%

May 37,099 4,872 12,138 0 54,109 10% 1,249 189 423.3 0 1,860 9%

June 40,950 15,120 21,420 0 77,490 14% 1,361 585 756 0 2,702 14%

July 42,325 15,624 20,560 13,420 91,929 16% 1,407 605 770 445 3,227 16%

August 42,325 15,456 20,774 13,530 92,085 16% 1,406 598 778 449 3,231 16%

September 40,167 5,712 9,856 5,940 61,675 11% 1,337 221 370 197 2,124 11%

October 24,814 0 0 6,820 31,634 6% 831 0 0 226.3 1,057 5%

November 26,058 0 0 0 26,058 5% 875 0 0 0 875 4%

December 27,491 0 0 0 27,491 5% 919 0 0 0 919 5%

Total 387,112 56,784 84,748 39,710 568,354 100% 13,060 2,197 3,097 1,318 19,671 100%

% of Total 68% 10% 15% 7% 100% 66% 11% 16% 7% 100%

2020

January 27,987 0 0 0 27,987 7% 935 0 0 0 935 5%

February 26,634 0 0 0 26,634 7% 891 0 0 0 891 5%

March 23,442 0 0 0 23,442 6% 811 0 0 0 811 4%

April 14,783 0 0 0 14,783 4% 564 0 0 0 564 3%

May 11,966 0 0 0 11,966 3% 493 0 0 0 493 3%

June 31,165 4,536 5,994 1980 43,675 12% 1,081 176 211 65.7 1,532 8%

July 42,637 15,540 20,646 13,640 92,463 24% 1,437 601 725 453 3,217 16%

August 42,361 12,718 20,646 13,640 89,365 24% 1,429 493 725 453 3,101 16%

September 35,203 4,788 3,996 5,060 49,047 13% 1,186 182 185 168 1,721 9%

Total (to date) 256,178 37,582 51,282 34,320 379,362 100% 8,827 1,452 1,847 1,139 13,264 100%

% of Total 68% 10% 14% 9% 100% 67% 11% 14% 9% 100%

Most Recent 12 Months

Total 334,541 37,582 51,282 41,140 464,545 11,452 1,452 1,847 1,365 16,115

% of Total 72% 8% 11% 9% 100% 71% 9% 11% 8% 100%

Revenue Miles by Route

Revenue Hours by Route

Source: MCAG Summary Reports, October 2020

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 24

YARTS Fare Structure

Reflecting the length of the various routes, YARTS has established individual fares for each route and for

each trip origin/destination. These fares are presented in Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure Tables A-1

through A-5 for each of the individual routes. Full fares are roughly equal to 16 cents per mile on the full

length of the 41 Route and 22 to 24 cents per mile on the other three routes. Round trip fares are offered

at generally twice the one-way fare (no discount). Discounted fares are offered for persons ages 62 and

above, children ages 12 and under, and persons with disabilities. This discount is 44 percent on the SR

140 and SR 120 W. Routes, 58 percent on the SR 41 Route, and only 53 percent on the SR 395/120 Route.

In addition, commuter passes are offered on the SR 140 Route and the SR 41 Route. Monthly passes, 20-

ride passes, and 10-ride passes are all offered. The monthly pass and 20-ride passes are priced identically,

while the 10-ride pass is half the price. These passes provide a 56 percent reduction in the full fare for the

140 Route and a 58 percent reduction for the 41 Route.

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

• Routes 140 and Route 120: 50-percent increase in regular fare, no change in discounted fare

• Route 395/120: 44-percent increase in regular fare, no change in discounted fare

• Route 41: 13-percent increase in regular fare, no change in discounted fare

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL YARTS RIDERSHIP

Table 9 summarizes annual ridership by route over the past six years. As shown, a total of 102,143

passengers boarded the YARTS system in 2019, reflecting an increase of 13 percent over the previous

year and a slight (1 percent) drop since 2015. By route,

the SR 140 Route in 2019 generated 59 percent

of the annual ridership, followed by 15.8 percent on the SR 120 West Route, 8.5 percent on the SR 41

Route, and 6.1 percent on the SR 120 E./US 395 Route. Ridership by route and by year is also shown in

Figure 6 dating back to the year 2000. As shown, ridership has fluctuated most along the SR 140 Route

and the SR 41 Route over the past three years with overall rideship peaking at 127,055 passengers in

2017. It should be noted that while 2020 is included, winter ridership (after September) has not been

included. As of September of 2020, overall ridership has declined by 58.3 percent from the same period

in 2019.

Considering the 2015 to 2019 period (pre-COVID), on a percentage basis the data indicates a dramatic

195 percent increase in ridership on the 120 Route serving Sonora/Tuolumne County. The US 395/120

Route also had a substantial (33 percent) growth in ridership, while the 140 route had a modest (5

percent) growth. On the other hand, the 41 Route ridership dropped by 29 percent, the Amtrak ridership

by 38 percent and the Aramark/NPS Ridership fell by 70 percent.

Note that YARTS ridership tracking includes two types of ridership (Amtrak and Aramark/NPS) that are not

summarized by the specific route. These categories represent a relatively small proportion of current ridership (6

percent in total).

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 25

Table 9: YARTS Ridership History by Route

# # # # # % # %

Merced SR 140 Route 57,442 67,184

73,371 51,979 60,305

59.0%

23,734

56% 16% 5%

Mono US 395/ SR 120 E.

Route

4,721 6,740 6,503 5,505 6,279 6.1% 3,909 9% 14% 33%

Sonora SR 120 W. Route 5,472

9,762 16,187 10,654

16,135 15.8%

6,785

16%

51%

195%

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

Amtrak Ridership 11,840

10,528 9,674

8,770 7,336 7.2%

1,082

-16%

-38%

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

Total 103,209 124,980 127,055 90,761 102,143 42,517

13% -1%

Source: YARTS Ridership Report, 2020

% Change

2020

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2018-

2015-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Boardings per Year

Figure 6: YARTS Historic Annual Ridership by Route

Merced 140 Route

Mono 395/ 120 Route

Sonora 120 Route

Fresno 41 Route

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 26

YARTS monthly data can also be used to assess the impact of COVID-19 on ridership. Comparing ridership

for the months of March through September in 2019 with the same months of 2020 indicates that the

overall ridership dropped by 57 percent (45,694 passenger-trips). By route, this drop was as follows:

• 140 Route: 60-percent drop

• 120 Route: 58-percent drop

• 395/120 Route: 30-percent drop

• 41 Route: 32-percent drop

• Amtrak ridership (all routes): 96-percent drop

• NPS/Aramark ridership (all routes): 79-percent drop

The drop in ridership generated through Amtrak ticketing was particularly dramatic; over the seven

months included in the data, only 206 passengers boarded using Amtrak-generated tickets.

Ridership by Season

To allow further analysis of route ridership trends, YARTS ridership data was grouped into three operating

“seasons”: Summer (June, July, August), Shoulder (May, September) and Winter (remainder of the year).

Table 10 presents this data while also summarizing change year-over-year. As indicated, ridership along

all routes have been greatest during the summer months over the past five years, in large part because

this is when the most service has been offered. However, reviewing the ridership by season by route

shows several trends:

• In 2019, more than half of the annual systemwide ridership was carried during the summer season

(52.7 percent), followed by 28.9 percent in winter, and 18.3 percent in the shoulder season.

• The US 395 Route has experienced some decline in total and summer ridership over the past few

years. However, the route ran services through October in 2019, allowing for a 14-percent increase

in ridership over the previous year.

• SR 120 ridership has been steadily increasing over the past five years with the exception of 2018,

which was impacted by the Ferguson Fire.

• SR 41 had been increasing in ridership between 2015 and 2017, however after eliminating winter

service and reducing other services in 2017, ridership has decreased.

Additional data for seasonal ridership is included in graphic form Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends,

Figures B-1 to B5.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 27

Ridership by Passenger Type

Detailed ridership data for Route 140 is tracked for employee (NPS and concessionaire) versus

visitor/other ridership. In addition, starting with the 2007 YARTS-Amtrak agreement, ridership generated

by through Amtrak ticketing has also been tracked. This data is provided in Table 11. A review of this data

indicates the following:

Table 10: YARTS Ridership History by Route and Season

Routes

2015

2016 2017 2018 2019

2020

2016 2017

2018

2019

2020

2015-19

Merced SR 140 Route

Summer 19,286 23,861 27,022 12,189 23,490 12,817 24% 13% -55% 93% -45% 22%

Shoulder 10,276

13,155 14,982 11,195 11,014 2,198 28% 14% -25% -2% -80% 7%

Winter 27,880 30,168 31,367 28,595 25,801 8,719 8% 4% -9% -10% -66% -7%

Total 57,442

67,184 73,371 51,979 60,305 23,734 17% 9% -29% 16% -61% 5%

Mono US 395/ SR 120 E

2016 2017 2018 2019

Summer 4,380 6,046 5,901 4,914 4,378 3,532 38% -2% -17% -11% -19% 0%

Shoulder 341 694 602 591 1,244 377 104% -13% -2% 110% -70% 265%

Winter 0

0 0 0 657 0 - - - - - -

Total 4,721

6,740 6,503 5,505 6,279 3,909 43% -4% -15% 14% -38% 33%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Sonora SR 120 W. Route

Summer 4,487 8,185 13,442 8,190 13,521 6,430 82% 64% -39% 65% -52% 201%

Shoulder 985 1,577 2,745 2,464 2,614 355 60% 74% -10% 6% -86% --

Total 5,472 9,762 16,187 10,654 16,135 6,785 78% 66% -34% 51% -58% --

2015

2016

2017 2018 2019

Fresno SR 41 Route

Summer 5,512 9,809 12,711 6,207 6,781 5,494 78% 30% -51% 9% -19% 23%

Shoulder 1,727 4,571 2,199 2,044 1,855 401 165% -52% -7% -9% -78% 7%

Winter 4,920 7,116 0 0 0 0 45% -100% -- -- -- -100%

Total 12,159 21,496 14,910 8,251 8,636 5,895 77% -31% -45% 5% -32% -29%

YARTS Route Ridership Total

Summer 33,665 47,901 59,076 31,500 48,170 28,273 42% 23% -47% 53% -41% 43%

Shoulder 13,329 19,997 20,528 16,294 16,727 3,331 50% 3% -21% 3% -80% 25%

Winter 32,800 37,284 31,367 28,595 26,458 8,719 14% -16% -9% -7% -67% -19%

Total 79,794 105,182 110,971 76,389 91,355 40,323 32% 6% -31% 20% -56% 14%

Amtrak Ridership

Summer 3,341 2,952 2,791 2,365 2,306 7 -12% -5% -15% -2% -100% -31%

Shoulder 2,253 2,151 2,184 2,086 1,582 0 -5% 2% -4% -24% -- -30%

Winter 6,246 5,425 4,699 4,319 3,448 1,075 -13% -13% -- -- -- -45%

Total 11,840 10,528 9,674 8,770 7,336 1,082 -11% -8% -9% -16% -- -38%

Aramark/NPS Ridership

Summer 3,034 2,855 1,724 1,482 1,230 200 -6% -40% -14% -17% -84% -59%

Shoulder 1,897 1,574 910 954 560 62 -17% -42% 5% -41% -- -70%

Winter 6,644 4,841 3,776 3,166 1,662 850 -27% -22% -- -- -- -75%

Total 11,575 9,270 6,410 5,602 3,452 1,112 -20% -31% -13% -38% -- -70%

All Route Ridership

Summer 40,040 53,708 63,591 35,347 51,706 28,480 34% 18% -44% 46% -45% 29%

Shoulder 17,479 23,722 23,622 19,334 18,869 3,393 36% 0% -18% -2% -82% 8%

Winter 45,690 47,550 39,842 36,080 31,568 10,644 4% -16% -9% -13% -66% -31%

Total 103,209 124,980 127,055 90,761 102,143 42,517 21% 2% -29% 13% -- -1%

Data is summarized by calendar year. Summer is June, July and August; shoulder is May and September; winter is the remainder of months.

Note 1: Through September.

Source: YARTS Ridership Report, 2020

Note 2: External factors affecting ridership include the Ferguson fire (summer 2018), Creek fire (summer 2020) and Covid-19 (beginning March 2020)

Calendar Year

Five Year

Change

Change From Previous Year

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 28

Table 11: Route 140 Ridership History by Type

Summer Shoulder Winter Total Summer Shoulder Winter Total Summer Shoulder Winter Total Summer Shoulder Winter Total

2000 11,856 4,334 4,645 20,835 -- -- -- -- 10,562 3,756 7,204 21,522 22,418 8,090 11,849 42,357

2001 10,741 5,365 12,239 28,345 -- -- -- -- 9,939 4,938 14,347 29,224 20,680 10,303 26,586 57,569

2002 13,484 7,178 15,230 35,892 -- -- -- -- 5,562 3,512 11,726 20,800 19,046 10,690 26,956 56,692

2003 12,755 6,567 15,474 34,796 -- -- -- -- 5,257 3,589 11,120 19,966 18,012 10,156 26,594 54,762

2004 13,386 7,634 14,836 35,856 -- -- -- -- 6,309 3,636 12,079 22,024 19,695 11,270 26,915 57,880

2005 14,927 7,849 15,590 38,366 -- -- -- -- 7,606 3,984 12,790 24,380 22,533 11,833 28,380 62,746

2006 9,035 5,836 16,064 30,935 -- -- -- -- 1,956 1,980 12,743 16,679 10,991 7,816 28,807 47,614

2007 13,390 6,929 15,615 35,934 2,601 821 2,307 5,729 5,330 3,276 11,283 19,889 21,321 11,026 29,205 61,552

2008 17,008 8,532 17,889 43,429 3,735 2,606 6,961 13,302 7,654 3,962 12,024 23,640 28,397 15,100 36,874 80,371

2009 14,876 8,120 17,081 40,077 3,152 2,343 5,567 11,062 7,045 3,829 12,857 23,731 25,073 14,292 35,505 74,870

2010 16,795 9,094 20,740 46,629 3,376 2,541 6,391 12,308 7,566 4,197 12,904 24,667 27,737 15,832 40,035 83,604

2011 19,958 9,932 19,728 49,618 3,685 2,284 5,090 11,059 6,495 4,049 12,740 23,284 30,138 16,265 37,558 83,961

2012 20,562 10,202 23,546 54,310 6,788 2,372 5,306 14,466 6,051 3,876 12,958 22,885 33,401 16,450 41,810 91,661

2013 19,176 11,255 23,376 53,807 3,586 1,880 4,703 10,169 6,101 3,554 9,937 19,592 28,863 16,689 38,016 83,568

2014 20,512 10,661 24,857 56,030 3,851 2,272 5,686 11,809 3,646 2,429 7,807 13,882 28,009 15,362 38,350 81,721

2015 19,286 10,276 27,880 57,442 3,341 2,253 6,246 11,840 3,348 1,897 6,644 11,889 25,975 14,426 40,770 81,171

2016 23,861 13,155 30,168 67,184 2,952 2,151 5,425 10,528 2,855 1,574 4,841 9,270 29,668 16,880 40,434 86,982

2017 27,022 14,982 31,367 73,371 2,791 2,184 4,699 9,674 1,724 910 3,776 6,410 31,537 18,076 39,842 89,455

2018 12,189 11,195 28,595 51,979 2,365 2,086 4,319 8,770 1,482 954 3,166 5,602 16,036 14,235 36,080 66,351

2019 23,490 11,014 25,801 60,305 2,306 1,582 3,448 7,336 1,230 560 1,662 3,452 27,026 13,156 30,911 71,093

2020 12,817 2,198 8,719 23,734 7 0 1,075 1,082 200 62 850 1,112 13,024 2,260 10,644 25,928

Percent of Total

2007 63% 63% 53% 58% 12% 7% 8% 9% 25% 30% 39% 32%

2008 60% 57% 49% 54% 13% 17% 19% 17% 27% 26% 33%

29%

2009 59% 57% 48% 54% 13% 16% 16% 15% 28% 27% 36% 32%

2010 61% 57% 52% 56% 12% 16% 16% 15% 27% 27% 32% 30%

2011 66% 61% 53% 59% 12% 14% 14% 13% 22% 25% 34% 28%

2012 62% 62% 56% 59% 20% 14% 13% 16% 18% 24% 31% 25%

2013 66% 67% 61% 64% 12% 11% 12% 12% 21% 21% 26% 23%

2014 73% 69% 65% 69% 14% 15% 15% 14% 13% 16% 20% 17%

2015 74% 71% 68% 71% 13% 16% 15% 15% 13% 13% 16% 15%

2016 80% 78% 75% 77% 10% 13% 13% 12% 10% 9% 12% 11%

2017 86% 83% 79% 82% 9% 12% 12% 11% 5% 5% 9% 7%

2018 76% 79% 79% 78% 15% 15% 12% 13% 9% 7% 9% 8%

2019 87% 84% 83% 85% 9% 12% 11% 10% 5% 4% 5% 5%

2020 98% 97% 82% 92% 0% 0% 10% 4% 2% 3% 8% 4%

Percent Change over Last 10 and 5 Years

2010-19 40% 21% 24% 29% -100% -100% -53% -81% -96% -98% -92% -94% -39% -80% -64% -58%

2015-19 22% 7% -7% 5% -100% -100% -80% -93% -97% -98% -93% -95% -61% -86% -75% -72%

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Note 1: Summer includes June, July and

August. Shoulder includes May and

September. Winter includes January to

April and October to December.

Visitor/Other - Non-Amtrak

Visitor - Amtrak

Employees

Total Route 140

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 29

• At the outset of the YARTS program (2000), employees comprised roughly half of the overall

ridership.

• As visitor ridership grew, the proportion of ridership generated by employees declined but in

absolute numbers remained relatively constant until 2012.

• Since 2012, employee ridership has declined dramatically—a 72 percent decline from 22,885 to

6,410 in 2017—a decline that has occurred over all seasons (indicating that this is not a result

solely of seasonal employee commute patterns). Over the last two years, ridership has continued

to decline another 46 percent between 2017 and 2019, from 6,410 to 3,452 employee trips.

This data also provides trends in Amtrak ridership. Overall, Amtrak riders peaked in 2012 at 14,446 and

have since declined by 49 percent to a 2019 figure of 7,336. This decline has largely occurred in the

summer (a 66 percent decline), while off-season and winter Amtrak ridership has dropped by 33.3

percent and 35 percent, respectively.

Ridership by Month

The ridership data from 2019 and 2020 were further analyzed by month, as shown in Table 12, and

depicted in Figures 7 and 8. In 2019, the peak month was July with 18,194, barely edging out August with

17,767. The lowest ridership was 2,774 in February.

During 2020, ridership initially started off with greater ridership in January than the previous year.

Ridership immediately dropped in March due to Covid-19 and has stayed low through June. However,

ridership did rise to 13,100 trips in July (a 28 percent decrease from the previous year).

Ridership by Route by Month and Day

Average ridership for 2019 was also analyzed by month, weekday, and weekend/holiday by service (Table

13 and Figure 9). This data indicates that weekend ridership is typically higher than weekday ridership on

all routes, with ridership relatively close to equal on the 395 Route and relatively more concentrated on

weekends/holidays on the 140 and 120 Routes. Weekend/holiday ridership is highest in July (reflecting

the Fourth of July).

Boarding by Fare Type

The detailed records of passenger boardings by fare type provide a good indication of the type of

passenger and trip purpose on the various routes. This data is included in Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-4,

and indicates the following:

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 30

• Adult full-fare passengers generate the largest (81.2 percent) proportion of boardings on the 140

Route. This route has the highest proportion of Amtrak passengers at 10.2 percent. NPS

Employees make up approximately 5.2 percent of boardings, followed by 3.4 percent free

children fares.

• Full adult fares were used for 91.4 percent of the boardings on the 120 West route, along with

8.4 percent free child boardings. Amtrak passengers made up only 0.1 percent of boardings.

• The US 395 / SR 120 E. Route boardings were also concentrated among the Adult Paid category

(96.6 percent), Free Child (2.5 percent) and Amtrak (0.9 percent).

• SR 41 Route boardings have 90.4 percent adult paid fare with 5.1 percent free child boardings.

Employees only make up 0.2 percent of ridership along this route. This route has the second

highest proportion of Amtrak passengers at 4.3 percent.

Table 12: Passenger Boardings by Route by Month 2019 & 2020

Year/Month SR 140 US 395/SR 120 E. SR 120 W. SR 41 TOTAL

2019

January 2,774 0 0 0 2,774

February 3,596 0 0 0 3,596

March 3,802 0 0 0 3,802

April 3,848 0 0 0 3,848

May 5,823 0 969 983 7,775

June 6,909 0 3,276 2,024 12,209

July 9,009 2,082 4,593 2,510 18,194

August 7,572 2,296 5,652 2,247 17,767

September 5,191 1,244 1,645 872 8,952

October 2,989 657 0 0 3,646

November 3,359 0 0 0 3,359

December 5,433 0 0 0 5,433

Total 60,305 6,279 16,135 8,636 91,355

2020

January 3,924 0 0 0 3,924

February 2,838 0 0 0 2,838

March 1,743 0 0 0 1,743

April 214 0 0 0 214

May 246 0 0 0 246

June 1,893 230 497 522 3,142

July 5,563 1,704 3,321 2,512 13,100

August 5,361 1,598 2,612 2,460 12,031

September 1,952 377 355 401 3,085

Total to Date 23,734 3,909 6,785 5,895 40,323

Note: Amtrak/Aramark ridership not included.

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Route

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 31

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Figure 7: 2019 Monthly Ridership by Route

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

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

January February March April May June July August September

Figure 8: 2020 Monthly Ridership by Route

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

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 32

Boardings by Stop

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

• Not surprisingly, the busiest YARTS stop (on all four routes) is the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center,

where 36 percent of total boardings occur over a July day.

• On the 140 Route in the summer, other busy stops are Merced Amtrak Station (11 percent),

Yosemite Valley Lodge and Curry Village (8 percent of boardings each) and the Merced Transpo (7

percent). The Mariposa park-and-ride and Cedar Lodge are also busy stops. In winter, the busiest

stops outside the Park are the Mariposa park-and-ride (10 percent) followed by the Amtrak

station (9 percent).

• The 120 Route ridership is heavily concentrated in the lodging/campground areas between

Groveland and the park. Of all boardings outside the park, 40 percent are at the Yosemite Pines

RV Park and 28 percent are at Yosemite Lakes. In total, 93 percent of boardings outside the park

are between Groveland and the park entrance, with only 7 percent in Jamestown, Sonora, or at

the Black Oak Hotel.

• 15 percent of the 395 Route ridership is in the Tuolumne Meadows area. Outside the park,

ridership is largely generated by the stops at Shilo Inn (10 percent), the Village (7 percent) and

the Mammoth Mountain Inn (5 percent).

• Outside the park, boardings on Route 41 are highest at the Oakhurst Best Western (14 percent of

total boardings), the Fresno Airport (10 percent) and the Fresno Amtrak/Greyhound stop (7

Table 13: Route Ridership by Average Weekday and Weekend by Month

Month, 2019

Weekday

Weekend/

Holidays

Weekday

Weekend/

Holidays

Weekday

Weekend/

Holidays

Weekday

Weekend/

Holidays

January

141

February

207

317

March

148

142

- -

April

158 173 -

- -

May

170

191

June

246

241

- -

111

105 67

July 276

332 64 75 135

186

75 97

August

239

256

75 108

130 71

September

191

230 42

October

116

101 18 32 - -

- -

November

117

169 -

- -

December 198

216 -

- -

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

US 395 / SR 120 E. Route

SR 120 W. Route

SR 41 Route

SR 140 Route

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 33

Figure 9: 2019 Average Weekday and Weekend/Holiday Ridership

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

100

150

200

250

300

350

SR 140 Route

Average Weekday Average Weekend/Holidays

July August September October

US 395 / SR 120 E. Route

Average Weekday Average Weekend/Holidays

100

120

140

160

180

200

May June July August September

SR 120 W Route

Average Weekday Average Weekend/Holidays

100

120

May June July

August

September

SR 41 Route

Average Weekday Average Weekend/Holidays

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 34

percent). Within the park, 41 percent of total Route 41 boardings are at the Yosemite Valley

Visitor Center, and 5 percent each at Wawona Store and Mariposa Grove.

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

Boardings by Run

Ridership was also summarized by run for each route, and for peak months in each season (July,

September, and January) and can be summarized as follows:

• On Route 140, the highest July ridership are the eastbound departures at 6:00 AM, 6:45 AM, 8:45

AM, 10:30 AM, and 6:00 PM, and the westbound departures at 9:05 AM, 3:15 PM and 6:00 PM.

The lowest ridership is on the 5:54 AM departure from Midpines to Merced, with only 5.1

passengers per weekday. In September, eastbound ridership is highest on the 5:45 PM run, while

westbound ridership is highest on the 3:15 PM run. Morning ridership into the park is significantly

less in September than in July, though the morning run from Midpines to Yosemite remains the

lowest ridership run. In January, ridership is highest eastbound on the 6:40 AM departure, the 8:45

AM departure and the 5:25 PM departure, and highest westbound on the 2:20 PM and 8:20 AM

departures. The morning Midpines-Merced run carries an average of only 3.4 passengers per day.

• 0n the 120 Route, ridership in July is relatively high on all runs (a minimum of 13.9 passengers per

trip, on average) with the highest ridership on the first AM departures (6:40 AM) and first afternoon

return trip (4:00 PM). Ridership in September is even higher, particularly on weekends/holidays,

with up to 51 passengers per trip on the first AM run.

• The 395 Route ridership is also highest on the first run of the day in each direction in July, with up

to 32 passengers per trip on the 4:05 PM eastbound departure on weekends/holidays.

• Route 41 July ridership is greatest in the northbound direction on the early morning runs (up to

18.3 boardings on the 7:50 AM run on weekends/holidays), and lower on the mid-day run (7.5 on

weekdays and 11.3 on weekends/holidays). This is also the overall pattern in September. In the

southbound direction, ridership is highest on the first of the two afternoon runs (4:06 PM

departure) and lowest on the 11:15 AM run.

Overall, this review reflects the high productivity of the 120 Route runs, as well as specific runs on the 140

Route and 395 Route. The resulting data is detailed in Appendix C.

YARTS PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Performance Analysis by Route and by Month

A “performance analysis” provides useful insights regarding the elements of a transit program that are

relatively effective or ineffective. A higher-level performance analysis was conducted for each YARTS

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 35

route and month of service over the calendar year of 2019, as presented in Table 14. The following

summarizes the data used for this analysis:

• Service quantities for each route and month were calculated between January and December of

2019 to cover FY 2018 – 19 and FY 2019 – 20. The vehicle-hours costs were based on both YARTS

and VIA contract rates as follows:

o $104.76 and $107.38 per vehicle-hour for service operated with YARTS-owned buses for

Route 120 Sonora and Route 140 Merced operated during winter and shoulder season

months.

o $149.76 and $153.50 per vehicle-hour for service operated with VIA-provided buses for

Route 140 Merced during summer months.

o $156.76 and $160.50 per vehicle-hour for service operated with VIA-provided buses for

Route 41 Fresno.

• Ridership by route and month were drawn from Table 9 multiplied by average fare revenue per

passenger-boarding for the various routes, to estimate the farebox revenue per route and month.

• Subtracting the fare revenues from the operating costs yields the marginal operating subsidy per

route and month.

• Dividing the passenger boarding figures by the vehicle-hours yields the passenger boardings per

vehicle-hour, also known as the “productivity” of a transit service. As indicated, this figure

reaches a high of 9.5 (Route 120 in August) and a low of 2.3 (Route 41 in May). Overall, Route 120

West is the most productive of the routes with an overall figure of 7.3, followed by Route 395 at

4.8, Route 140 at 4.6, and Route 41 at 2.8. Overall, systemwide productivity for 2019 was 4.6

passenger boardings per vehicle-hour with a peak occurring in the months of July, August, and

December (5.5, 5.6, 5.9 passenger boardings per vehicle-hour, respectively).

• The operating subsidy per passenger boarding is a key measure of the cost-effectiveness of a

transit service as it relates the key public “input”(public subsidy funding) with the key “output”

(passenger boardings). A lower figure reflects a more cost-effective service. As shown, the lowest

subsidy per passenger-trips by overall routes is for Route 120, requiring $8.75 per passenger-trip.

This figure ranges up to $51.32 (along Route 41). Subsidy per passenger-trip by month was

highest in January ($30.64) and lowest in December ($12.41).

• Another important measure is the “farebox ratio”—the ratio of passenger revenues to marginal

contractor operating costs. A “better” measure is reflected by a higher figure, by this measure.

The best service by this measure is Route 120 in August, which covers 50 percent of the

contractor costs with fare revenues. Again, Route 120 is “best” annually by this measure (40

percent) followed by the 395 Route (26 percent), the 140 Route (21 percent), and the 41 Route

(10 percent).

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 36

Table 14: YARTS 2019 Performance Analysis by Route and Month

Month 140 120 41 395 TOTAL 140 120 41 395 TOTAL

Revenue Miles Revenue Hours

January 27,756 27,756 963 963

February 22,243 22,243 773 773

March 27,897 27,897 969 969

April 27,987 27,987 970 970

May 37,099 4,872 12,138 54,109 1,249 189 423.3 1,860

June 40,950 15,120 21,420 77,490 1,361 585 755.8 2,702

July 42,325 15,624 20,560 13,420 91,929 1,407 605 770.4 445 3,227

August 42,325 15,456 20,774 13,530 92,085 1,406 598 778.3 449 3,231

September 40,167 5,712 9,856 5,940 61,675 1,338 221 369.6 197 2,126

October 24,814 6,820 31,634 831 226.3 1,057

November 26,058 26,058 875 875

December 27,491 27,491 918 918

Total 387,112 56,784 84,748 39,710 568,354 13,060 2,197 3,097 1,318 19,671

Contractor Operating Cost

Passenger Fare Revenue

January $100,900 $100,900 $15,900 $15,900

February $81,000 $81,000 $20,600 $20,600

March $101,500 $101,500 $21,800 $21,800

April $101,600 $101,600 $22,100 $22,100

May $130,800 $19,700 $66,400 $216,900 $33,400 $5,600 $5,600 $44,600

June $203,800 $61,300 $118,500 $383,600 $39,700 $18,800 $11,600 $70,100

July $215,900 $64,900 $123,600 $47,800 $452,200 $51,700 $26,400 $14,400 $12,000 $104,500

August $215,900 $64,200 $124,900 $48,200 $453,200 $43,500 $32,400 $12,900 $13,200 $102,000

September $205,400 $23,700 $59,300 $21,200 $309,600 $29,800 $9,400 $5,000 $7,100 $51,300

October $89,200 $24,300 $113,500 $17,200 $3,800 $21,000

November $93,900 $93,900 $19,300 $19,300

December $98,600 $98,600 $31,200 $31,200

Total $1,638,500 $233,800 $492,700 $141,500 $2,506,500 $346,200 $92,600 $49,500 $36,100 $524,400

Marginal Operating Subsidy

Passenger Boardings per Vehicle Hour

January $85,000 $85,000 2.9 2.9

February $60,400 $60,400 4.7 4.7

March $79,700 $79,700 3.9 3.9

April $79,500 $79,500 4.0 4.0

May $97,400 $14,100 $60,800 $172,300 4.7 5.1 2.3 4.2

June $164,100 $42,500 $106,900 $313,500 5.1 5.6 2.7 4.5

July $164,200 $38,500 $109,200 $35,800 $347,700 6.4 7.6 3.3 4.7 5.6

August $172,400 $31,800 $112,000 $35,000 $351,200 5.4 9.5 2.9 5.1 5.5

September $175,600 $14,300 $54,300 $14,100 $258,300 3.9 7.4 2.4 6.3 4.2

October $72,000 $20,500 $92,500 3.6 2.9 3.4

November $74,600 $74,600 3.8 3.8

December $67,400 $67,400 5.9 5.9

Total $1,292,300 $141,200 $443,200 $105,400 $1,982,100 4.6 7.3 2.8 4.8 4.6

Operating Subsidy Per Passenger Trip Marginal Farebox Ratio

February $16.80 $16.80 25% 25%

March $20.96 $20.96 21% 21%

April $20.66 $20.66 22% 22%

May $16.73 $14.55 $61.85 $22.16 26% 28% 8% 21%

June $23.75 $12.97 $52.82 $25.68 19% 31% 10% 18%

July $18.23 $8.38 $43.51 $17.20 $19.11 24% 41% 12% 25% 23%

August $22.77 $5.63 $49.84 $15.24 $19.77 20% 50% 10% 27% 23%

September $33.83 $8.69 $62.27 $11.33 $28.85 15% 40% 8% 33% 17%

October $24.09 $31.20 $25.37 19% 16% 19%

November $22.21 $22.21 21% 21%

December $12.41 $12.41 32% 32%

Total $21.43 $8.75 $51.32 $16.79 $21.70 21% 40% 10% 26% 21%

Source: LSC

Route

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 37

Ridership and Performance Analysis by Run

A detailed analysis was conducted of the average daily ridership and performance analysis for the

individual runs on all YARTS routes (pre-COVID). To reflect peak summer, shoulder season and winter

conditions, this analysis was conducted for July 2019, September 2019, and January 2020, respectively.

The analysis included the following elements:

• Monthly ridership per run was identified from the monthly Contractor Monthly Reports and

divided by the runs per month to result in the average daily ridership by run. Note that the

ridership and runs conducted on the free-fare day in January were excluded.

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

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

above.

• Various contract rates were applied to each route depending on time of year and whether a

YARTS-owned or VIA bus was used. Systemwide farebox revenue and ridership was also used to

calculate an average passenger fare of $5.13. This value was then subtracted from the marginal

operating cost per run to yield the marginal operating subsidy per run. A series of performance

measures were then calculated for each run:

o Boardings per revenue mile

o Boardings per revenue hour (“productivity”)

o Cost per Passenger Boarding

o Subsidy per Passenger Boarding

o Farebox Ratio (ratio of passenger fares to marginal operating cost)

The resulting summaries are included in Appendix C. The date was analyzed in Table C-3 through C-6 (for

the average July day), Tables C-7 through C-10 (for the average September day) and Table C-11 (for Route

140 on the average January day). This information will be used to assess route and scheduling

alternatives. A review of this data indicates the following:

• As measured by passenger boardings per mile, the best runs are the 120 Route weekend runs in

September with up to 0.61 passengers per mile. The 140 Route morning short run from Mariposa

to the Valley is also a good performer at 0.55.

• Passenger boardings per hour are also highest on the September weekend 120 Route runs with

up to 15.9 boardings per hour. The 3:15 PM westbound departure on the 140 Route in July is also

relatively high at 11.9 on weekdays and 10.2 on weekends/holidays. On the other end of the

spectrum, some of the 41 Route runs carry as few as 1.3 passengers for every hour of operation.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 38

• The best performing runs by cost per passenger-trip are the weekend/holiday Route 120 service

with runs requiring as low as $6.74 in subsidy in September and $8.47 in July.

• The subsidy per passenger-trip (costs minus fare revenues) are lowest on the 120 Route

September weekend runs, ranging from $1.60 to $2.10 per passenger-trip. On the other extreme,

some of the 41 Route runs require more than $100 in subsidy per passenger served.

• The weekend September 120 Route runs are also the best performing runs as measured by

farebox ratio (fare revenue divided by operating costs), with runs covering between 71 and 76

percent of costs. This value falls below 10 percent on some of the 41 Route runs.

YARTS CONNECTIONS

YARTS service provides important connections to various modes of travel and transit, thereby enhancing

its value in providing non-vehiclular access to Yosemite. Greyhound bus and Amtrak rail connections are

available in Merced and Fresno. Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) bus connections to YARTS are

available in Mammoth Lakes connecting to Reno, Nevada, and southern California. Additionally, the

Merced Regional Airport (airport code MCE) operates one commercial airline, and the Fresno Yosemite

International Airport (FAT) is served by five domestic and two international airlines. Mammoth Lakes

Airport has direct flights from Denver, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and San Diego available,

with service varying by season. YARTS does not directly serve the airport in Mammoth but serves within 8

miles.

A key connection for YARTS service is to and from Amtrak San Joaquin rail service in Fresno and

particularly in Merced. Over the last few years (since the SRTP was completed), there has been a cut in

daily rail service, from eight trains per day in each direction down to four trains per day. Current rail

service times are as follows:

Merced

Northbound: 7:23 AM, 11:23 AM, 3:23 PM, 7,23 PM

Southbound: 10:45 AM, 12:45 PM, 4:45 PM 8:45 PM

Fresno

Northbound: 6:12 AM, 10:16 AM, 2:16 PM, 6:16 PM

Southbound: 11:49 AM, 1:49 PM, 5:49 PM, 9:49 PM

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

Stockton.

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

• A one-day trip between the Bay Area and Yosemite Valley is still possible, combining Train 710

(departing Oakland at 7:36 AM, arriving at Merced at 10:45 AM) with YARTS Bus 140-13

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 39

(departing Merced at 10:55 AM, arriving in the Valley at 1:41 PM), along with YARTS Bus 140-16

(departing the Valley at 4:35 PM, arriving in Merced at 7:05 PM) with Train 719 (departing

Merced at 7:23 PM, arriving in Oakland at 10:29 PM).

• Another useful rail/bus connection is between Train 716 (depart Oakland at 1:36 PM, arrive in

Merced at 4:45 PM) with YARTS Bus 150-15 (depart Merced at 6:00 PM, arrive in the Village at

8:36 PM).

• Leaving the Valley, YARTS Bus 140-12 departs the Valley at 8:15 AM and arrives at Merced at

10:46 AM, tranferring to Train 713 departing Merced at 11:23 AM and arriving in Oakland at 2:27

PM.

Reflecting the longer travel times, connections to/from Southern California are not as convenient.

Traveling from Los Angeles Union Station, Train 711 arrives in Fresno at 6:12 AM and provides a short

connection time with YARTS Bus 41-1 6:38 AM departure to the Valley (arriving at 10:02) but requires the

passenger to board a bus at Union Station at 1:00 AM. The other feasible connection has a slightly more

feasible Los Angeles departure time (5:00 AM, arriving via Train 713 at 10:16 AM) but then requires

almost a three-hour layover before the 1:10 PM departure of YARTS Bus 41-6 (arriving at the Valley at

4:45 PM). In the other direction, YARTS Bus 41-2 (Valley departure at 11:15 AM, Fresno arrival at 2:45

PM) requires a two-hour layover before the 5:49 departure of Train 716, arriving (via bus) in Los Angeles

at 10:35 PM. The other southbound option is the YARTS Bus 41-6 (departure at 6:00 PM, arriving in

Fresno at 9:30 PM) and Train 718 (departing at 9:49 PM, arriving in Los Angeles via bus at 2:15 AM).

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 40

This page intentionally left blank

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 41

Chapter 4

YARTS CAPITAL OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

The YARTS program relies on a combination of YARTS-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by the

contractor (currently VIA). As previously discussed, the cost of operating contractor-owned vehicles is

higher than the cost of operating YARTS-owned vehicles. Until recently, this cost was calculated by

contracted vehicle-hour for the provision of services, but more recently, the cost is built into the fixed

monthly cost. Either way, operating the non-YARTS vehicles incurs a higher cost. To further complicate

the matter, YARTS is facing the following challenges:

• The YARTS-owned fleet is aging, with all the buses reach the end of their useful life benchmark

within the next five years.

• California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations requires YARTS to move toward a zero-

emission fleet, likely battery electric buses or hydrogen electric buses.

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

hydrogen fueling stations.

• The new technologies are expensive.

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

environments.

• Installing supporting infrastructure, particularly in a National Park, may have environmental

and/or physical challenges.

• Grant funding for buses and infrastructure is limited.

This chapter further discusses these challenges, focusing on the fleet requirements for replacement. The

pros and cons of the various technologies will be explored.

YARTS FLEET

The YARTS fleet consists of ten high quality over-the-road coaches as shown in Table 15. Nine additional

vehicles are provided by VIA. The vehicles are fueled with clean diesel and carry 49 passengers with 2

wheelchair securement positions. The vehicles were purchased between 2010 and 2015 and have a

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

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 42

useful life benchmark of 12 years or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first. Due to the high mileage of

YARTS routes, the vehicles are expected to expire based on mileage rather than age, with five expiring in

the coming year, two more in 2022, and one each in the years 2023, 2024, and 2025.

YARTS Versus VIA Vehicle Use

As discussed above, costs incurred by YARTS services depends on whether a YARTS-owned bus is used or

a bus provided by the service contractor. The need for the contractor to provide buses also has the

potential to limit the pool of possible contractors. As a result, the proportion of service operated by

YARTS versus VIA buses is an important factor. Table 16 presents a summary of vehicle-hours operated

monthly in 2019 by bus type. Reflecting the fact that the current winter service plan requires less buses

than the size of the YARTS fleet, in winter virtually 100 percent of service is operated using YARTS-owned

buses. At the other extreme, in August almost half (49 percent) of total YARTS service was operated using

VIA buses. By route, this data reflects that the 41-Fresno route is operated using contractor buses, while

on the 120/Sonora and 395/Mammoth routes contractor buses are only used when necessary due to

YARTS-owned buses being out of service. For the key 140-Merced Route, YARTS buses provide 84 percent

of the service over the course of the whole year, but only 49 percent in the busiest month of August.

Table 15: YARTS Vehicle Fleet - Replacement Needs

Fuel

Bus ID

Make / Model Year

Mileage

Type In Service

By Date

By Mileage

501 D4500 Commuter Coach 2010

491,695 Diesel 4/23/2010 4/20/2022 1/11/2021

502 MCI Intercity Coach 2012 448,239

Diesel 10/24/2011 10/21/2023 1/31/2022

503 MCI Intercity Coach 2012 430,992 Diesel 10/24/2011 10/21/2023 7/3/2022

504 MCI Intercity Coach 2012 455,443 Diesel 10/24/2011 10/21/2023 11/28/2021

505 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 456,582 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 11/18/2021

506 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 458,739 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 10/30/2021

507 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 454,599 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 12/6/2021

508 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 408,421 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 1/19/2023

509 MCI D4500 Bus 2015 313,554 Diesel 1/26/2015 1/23/2027 5/8/2025

510 MCI D4500 Bus 2015 348,025 Diesel 1/21/2015 1/18/2027 7/7/2024

Note 2: Mileage as of October 30, 2020.

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

Source: YARTS

Description

Useful Life Benchmark

Note 1: Each bus has 49 seats and 2 wheelchair tie-down positions; no bicycle racks; under-bus storage (luggage and large

items), plus over-seat storage for carryons; restroom.

Note 4: At an average of approximately 41,200 miles in use annually per vehicle (based on 2019), the lifespan is expected to

reach expire by mileage rather than date.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 43

MOVING TOWARD ZERO EMISSIONS

California Air Resource Board Regulations

In December 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) introduced the Innovative Clean Transit

(ICT) Regulation to replace the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. The ICT requires all public transit agencies

to gradually transition to a 100-percent zero-emission bus fleet and encourages them to provide

innovative first and last-mile connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders. This regulation also

provides various exemptions and compliance options to provide safeguards and flexibility for transit

agencies through this transition.

Beginning in 2029, 100 percent of new purchases by transit agencies must be Zero Emission Buses (ZEBs),

with a goal for full transition by 2040. There are only two allowable ZEB technologies: Battery Electric

Buses (BEBs) and hydrogen fuel cell buses. This role applies to all transit agencies that own, operate, or

lease buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds (such as YARTSP). It

includes standard, articulated, over-the-road, double‑decker, and cutaway buses.

Flexibility Options

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

requirements, including:

Table 16: YARTS versus VIA Bus Use - Calendar Year 2019

Month

YARTS

Bus

Hours

VIA Bus

Hours

YARTS

Bus

Hours

VIA Bus

Hours

YARTS

Bus

Hours

VIA Bus

Hours

YARTS

Bus

Hours

VIA Bus

Hours

YARTS

Bus

Hours

VIA Bus

Hours

Total

Hours

YARTS

Bus

Hours

VIA Bus

Hours

January 964

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 964 0 964 100% 0%

February 773 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 773 0 773 100% 0%

March 969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 969 0 969 100% 0%

April 970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 970 0 970 100% 0%

May 1,173 76 189 0 0 0 0 423 1,361 499 1,860 73% 27%

June 1,088 273 585 0 0 0 0 756 1,673 1,029 2,702 62% 38%

July 789 518 556 49 445 0 0 770 1,790 1,337 3,127 57% 43%

August 693 714 543 55 409 40 0 778 1,644 1,587 3,231 51% 49%

September 817 520 221 0 197 0 0 370 1,235 890 2,124 58% 42%

October 807 24 0 0 226 0 0 0 1,033 24 1,057 98% 2%

November 875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 875 0 875 100% 0%

December 913 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 913 6 919 99% 1%

Total 10,830 2,130 2,093 104 1,277 40 0 3,097 14,200 5,372 19,571 73% 27%

% - Annual 84% 16% 95% 5% 97% 3% 0% 100% 73% 27%

% - August 49% 51% 91% 9% 91% 9% 0% 100% 51% 49%

Source: YARTS

140-Merced

120-Sonora

395-Mammoth

41-Fresno

Combined Services

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 44

• Bonus credits for early ZEB purchases to recognize transit agencies that took more risks by early

purchases of innovative technologies; credit is based on each early acquisition of a zero-emission

bus per the schedule in the regulation.

• Zero-emission mobility options to encourage innovation in providing first- and last-mile

connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders; and

• Formation of a joint ZEB group to allow transit agencies to work together to collectively comply

with the ZEB purchase requirements.

Provisions for Exemptions of a ZEB Purchase

To ensure transit service is not adversely impacted, the regulation has exemptions for circumstances that

are beyond a transit agency’s control. Providing that all required information is correct and complete,

exemptions will be granted upon request under the following circumstances:

• When the needed ZEB type is not available;

• When daily mileage needs cannot be met;

• When gradeability needs cannot be met;

• When incremental capital or electricity costs for depot-charging battery electric buses cannot be

offset after applying for all available incentive and funding programs;

• When there is a delay in infrastructure construction; or

• When a transit agency declares a financial emergency.

Potential exemptions for YARTS need to be explored, but it is possible that YARTS circumstances may

meet multiple conditions listed.

Zero Emissions Technology

As both BEBs and hydrogen fueled vehicles are increasingly added to public transit fleets, the

opportunities and challenges associated with them are becoming clearer, though much has still to be

learned and tested for both technologies. The two types of vehicles are discussed below, along with the

required infrastructure, as well as the pros and cons, of each type.

Battery Electric Buses

There are three primary manufacturers of battery electric buses available in California: Proterra, Motor

Coach Industries (MCI), and Build Your Dreams Co Ltd (BYD):

• Proterra battery-electric buses and battery packs are manufactured at a plant in Burlington,

California. Proterra sells several types of all-electric transit vehicles, some of which are used within

the region. Proterra buses are a part of the transit fleet in Fresno, Stockton, Modesto, as well as in

Yosemite Valley (as part of the fleet providing the Yosemite Shuttle). Proterra's Catalyst series

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 45

includes transit buses ranging from 35 feet to 40 feet in length and various battery configurations.

Buses are charged through an overhead charging station that is placed at maintenance facilities as

well as at route terminals. Proterra has partnered with the Belgium firm Van Hool to develop an

over-the-road battery-electric coach, which might be appropriate for YARTS services. This bus is

soon to be on the market but is still in development, and the range is yet to be announced.

• MCI has two new all-electric models: the MCI J4500e CHARGE, and the MCI D45 CRTe LE CHARGE,

due to be available in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

• BYD is a subsidiary of the Chinese company and operates out of Lancaster, California. BYD sells ten

types of battery-electric buses, including 23-foot, 35-foot, 40-foot, and 45-foot motor coaches. BYD

vehicles have Alternating Current (AC) technology, whereas Proterra has Direct Current (DC)

technology—something to consider when installing charging stations.

Cost of Battery Electric

The initial outlay of a BEB is much higher than a diesel bus at approximately $920,000 compared to

$650,000, with prices fluctuating based on supply and demand and technological advances. Furthermore,

infrastructure for charging the vehicles can be a significant cost. Developing the infrastructure not only

requires that the chargers be purchased and installed, but also that the grid for charging has the capacity

to provide the energy. Quick charging can be done en route but requires more stations, while slow

charging is typically done overnight. Maintenance costs, however, are significantly lower for electric

vehicles than for diesel-fueled vehicles, reflecting the fewer moving parts.

Capability of Battery Electric

Beyond the issue of vehicle cost, a key factor regarding battery electric buses is the potential range

between charges. Buses with a range of 120 – 150 miles have been available for several years, which

limits the viability of the buses for YARTS routes. Some manufacturers have recently announced new

technology that can operate up to 350 miles between charges. However, mileage claims by manufactures

often do not reflect the requirements to also power onboard heating and cooling systems (particularly

heating systems), or to operate on steep grades

—an important consideration for YARTS services. YARTS

routes range from 84 to 111 miles one way, and in summer, each bus operates an estimated average of

between 175 to 228 miles.

To be able to depend on BEBs, YARTS would have to carefully plan which

routes (if any) could be served by the limited range, thereby complicating scheduling. Additionally, one of

the factors which increases operating costs is the break-down of aging buses, and if a BEB cannot reliably

operate on a route, this too would increase the operating cost for YARTS.

This is based on the average miles per day per route in July 2019, divided by the peak number of buses in

service. Actual mileage by bus varied from this estimate.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 46

Charging Infrastructure for Battery Electric Buses

A ZEB fleet requires charging equipment. These can take the form of slow-charge stations at the vehicle

storage facility (for charging overnight) or fast-charge facilities at an outlying location, which typically

requires 10 minutes to provide sufficient charge for an hour’s operation. Identifying the appropriate

charging strategy and location requires addressing several issues:

• Is there adequate space for charging equipment to be installed at a publicly owned facility in

outlying locations such as somewhere in Yosemite Valley, Tuolumne, and/or Mammoth Lakes?

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

• Providing adequate charging capacity may require extensive upgrades in the electrical system both

on-site as well as in nearby power substations and supply lines, such as an upgrade from a 240-volt

service to a 480-volt service. What is the electrical supply available at potential locations, and what

are the cost implications of any necessary system upgrades?

• For major power users (such as a transit system with full BEB fleets), electrical rates typically vary

by load and by time of day. What are the long-term operating cost impacts of various charging

scenarios?

These issues will need to continue to be explored before a vehicle acquisition strategy can be

recommended. However, it should be noted that Yosemite National Park currently has two BEB chargers.

Working with the Yosemite Conservancy and “Adopt-a-Charger” (a non-profit group), Yosemite National

Park now has two Proterra 60 KW chargers and a 480-volt charging station. The chargers use DC charging

(rather than AC). Aramark is currently using one installed at the ice rink site in Yosemite Valley to charge

two Proterra buses in use for the Yosemite Shuttle. The other charger is in storage, with plans to install it

near Yosemite Lodge once a small building has been installed (to reduce visual impact).

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses

Another option for zero emission buses is hydrogen fuel cell buses. Fuel cell vehicles still have batteries,

but they are much smaller and lighter than those in battery electric vehicles. Because fuel cell vehicles

store energy in the form of hydrogen, their batteries can be anywhere from 6 to 50 times smaller than a

battery electric vehicle. The reduced battery weight can be particularly advantageous for vehicles that

need a lot of power but also need to maximize their payload.

Fuel cell vehicles also have a fuel tank. Combined with the lighter battery, this energy system allows them

to operate at longer ranges than battery electric vehicles because they store more energy at a higher

density. Studies that focus on efficiency and well-to-wheel analyses find that fuel cell vehicles could be

competitive at ranges over 250 miles. However, critically, fuel cell vehicles require significantly more

fueling infrastructure than battery electric vehicles. While battery electric vehicles can potentially plug

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 47

directly into the existing electricity grid, fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen fuel that requires production,

transportation, and storage. Fuel cell vehicles cost in the range of $1.2 million apiece.

Hydrogen Fuel Stations

Infrastructure is the costliest difference between fuel cell and battery electric vehicles because of the

sheer number of stakeholders involved in the hydrogen fuel supply chain. There are efforts to grow the

fuel cell vehicle market in California, but it depends on large government investments. Fueling

infrastructure and hydrogen production costs comprise between 30-60 percent of total fuel cell vehicle

deployment costs in 2020. Stations generally cost between $1-2 million, depending on geography. Station

capacity generally ranges from 200 to 600 kg/day, enough to fill between 6 and 20 buses. In comparison,

electric charging stations in Philadelphia cost roughly $1 million all-in for a fleet of 25 battery electric

buses.

The closest hydrogen fuel station to Merced is 90 miles away at Harrison Ranch in Coalinga. For hydrogen

fuel cell to be practical, one or more stations would need to be built within the YARTS service area,

preferably in Merced. Given the cost, building a station would likely need to be a multi-user endeavor.

YARTS Active Vehicle Acquisition Grant

In May 2019, YARTS submitted an FTA 5339 grant application to retrofit six buses as battery-electric,

estimating the total cost to be $5.1 million. The $765,000 required for local match included $720,000

from the CalSTART HVIP (Hybrid Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Program), and $45,000

from the YARTS reserve fund. However, the $850,000 per-bus price was found to be inadequate, and

MCAG has been negotiating with Caltrans to alter the grant to best support the YARTS program.

YARTS FACILITIES

YARTS does not own any administrative, maintenance, operations or fueling facilities, instead relying on

the contractor or others to provide these. Currently (and since the inception of YARTS), the contractor

(VIA) owns the maintenance and operations facility which houses drivers, mechanics, and administrative

staff for day-to-day operations. Additionally, eight to ten of the YARTS buses are stored here. This site is

located at 300 Grogan Avenue in Merced.

YARTS Vehicle Storage

As mentioned, YARTS-owned vehicles are stored at the VIA yard in Merced. However, when the Route

120 West and Route 120/395 East are operating, three vehicles are stored at the Black Oak Casino in

Tuolumne and another two are parked overnight along the side of a road (the east side of Minaret Road

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

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 48

just north of Forest Trail, at a shoulder chain-up area) in Mammoth Lakes. VIA-owned buses are stored in

Merced and Fresno on VIA property.

Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County—Transit Facility

The Transit Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) of Merced County owns the maintenance and operations facility

recently built at 1950 Wardrobe Avenue in Merced, California. The site is currently being used by First

Transit under their contract to operate Merced’s “The Bus”. Should the VIA yard on Grogan no longer be

available under a new contract, YARTS could potentially use the TJPA facility as well, though

accommodating two contractors on one site is complicated and creates the potential for conflicts,

particularly for shared maintenance space.

The Wardrobe Avenue site is approximately 65.4 acres and includes:

• A 99,000 sf (1650’x60’) shop building

• A 52,500 sf (1050’x50’) operations building

• A 3,000 sf (60’x50’) service building

• A fenced yard behind the buildings with

o 72 parking spaces for large buses,

o 25 parking spaces for small buses, and

o 16 parking spaces for additional vehicles

• 97 parking spaces in front of the buildings composed of

o 5 spots that are ADA accessible,

o 3 spots that are for electric vehicles

o 8 spots that are for clean air vehicles and,

o 81 for additional vehicles

• A bus wash

• Two above-ground fuel tanks and fuel dispensers

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 49

Chapter 5

FUNDING HISTORY AND OPPORTUNITIES

YARTS FUNDING SOURCES

YARTS has historically used a combination of federal, state, and local funding for operations and capital

revenues for the transit program. This chapter provides a review of the past use of revenues for YARTS, as

well as an overview of the status of funding programs, and projections for future availability of such

programs (to the extent possible). Recent events, such as wildfires and the Coronavirus pandemic, have

emphasized the need for YARTS to be responsive to outside impacts, and to provide services within a

sustainable funding framework. To do so, it will be important to address urgent capital equipment needs,

while identifying a sustainable level of operating funds.

YARTS Income and Expenses

Due to separate agreements with MCAG and Fresno County, two budgets are included in review: one for

SRs 140, 120, 120/395 (Merced Contract budget) and one for SR 41 (Fresno Contract budget). Table 17

depicts the expenses for Merced for the last three years, the current year and projected for the upcoming

year. The past and current budgets indicate the following:

• Operating costs range from $2.43 million in 2018 – 19 (a year when Yosemite National Park was

closed for over a month during peak summer season due to the Ferguson Fire) to $3.16 million

projected for the current fiscal year (FY21).

• Not including planning expenses, the contract costs are consistently between 61 to 70 percent of

the overall operating expense, and the MCAG administrative costs are consistently 7 to 15

percent of the operating expense.

• Overall expenses, not including planning costs, decreased by 25 percent in FY19, increased by 14

percent the next year, with an expected increase in the adopted budget for FY21 showing

another increase of 23 percent. This swing in operating costs indicates a pressing need to

maintain an operating reserve.

Table 18 shows the revenue for the Merced contract with over a dozen sources in each year. The main

stays of funding include Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311(f) funds for intercity service, National

Park Service contributions, and Local Transportation Funds (LTF) from the counties of the JPA as well as

fare revenues. These funding sources will be discussed in greater detail in this chapter.

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

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 50

Table 19 shows the expenses and revenues for the Fresno Contract. Because Fresno County is not part of

the JPA, these costs are negotiated separately. Expenses are primarily for the contract operations, fuel,

Table 17: YARTS Expenses by Year - Merced Contract

Actual

Actual Actual Adopted Projected

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22

Operating Expenses

Professional Service-YARTS NPS Special

$8,850

$0 $0 $0

Marketing, CMAQ

$160,466 $100,223 $95,596 $200,000 $200,000

Professional Service-Contracts $2,044,048 $1,599,903 $1,615,438

$1,931,353 $1,931,353

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

Prof Service-MCAG Administration $277,865

$170,930 $293,205 $465,506 $479,471

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

$0 $0 $0

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

Audit fees $0

$12,319 $4,000 $8,000 $8,000

FEMA/CALOES

$329,760 $0 $0 $0 $0

Legal Services & Other Services

$0 $6,500 $11,050

$8,423 $9,000

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

Communication $0 $5,606

$5,893 $6,000 $6,180

Insurance - General Liability $12,874

$13,999 $12,867 $13,500 $13,905

Membership $614

$644 $674 $0 $700

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

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

Short Range Transit Plans $91,316

$106,145

$0 $0 $0

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

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

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

COVID-19

$0 $0

$246,479 $0 $0

Working Reserve $0 $0 $0

$775 $0

Total Operating Expenses

$3,063,559 $2,434,436

$2,629,596 $3,150,820 $3,168,138

Capital Expenses

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

Farebox Purchase

$0 -- $0 $15,800 TBD

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

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

Note 1: Marketing became the CMAQ fund in FY 19. Note 3: Rent & Lease Structure, Transpo, Equipment

Note 2: Repair of Mariposa PNR sinkhole. Note 3: Does not include depreciation

Source: Actual/budgeted expenses and revenues per YARTS. Projections by LSC

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 51

and MCAG administration. While fuel costs are not part of the contract, some years they were reported

together. As of FY21, MCAG has added a continency and capital expense cost to cover administrative and

capital costs and plans to continue this practice.

Revenues for Fresno include fares, National Park contributions, and contributions by the Fresno Council

of Governments (COG). Table 20 shows a summary of the operating costs and revenues for the Merced

Table 18: YARTS Revenues - Merced Contract

Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Projected

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22

Operating Revenues

5311(f) Operating $212,685 $292,501 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

5311(f) Planning (SRTP) $32,855 $67,145 -- -- --

CMAQ-Merced $143,657 $104,337 $90,109 $200,000 $200,000

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) $55,000 $55,000 $33,000 $16,500 $16,500

FEMA/CALOES $331,091 -- -- -- --

National Park Service $345,000 $345,000 $376,625 $376,625 $376,625

National Park Service - Special Project, Marketing $627,000 $603,000 $824,288 $827,163 $827,163

CARES Act Funding -- -- -- $326,779 --

Local Transportation Funds (LTF) - Merced $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

Mariposa County $191,482 $191,000 $191,000 $190,000 $190,000

Mono County $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000

State Transit Assistance (STA) $66,834 $40,405 $105,394 $34,278 $34,278

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) $0 $33,038 $13,673 $28,775 $28,775

Farebox Revenue $533,158 $408,967 $356,693 $266,301 $311,500

Greyhound - Merced $3,474 $6,980 $12,105 $0 $0

Interest & Other Income -General Ops $8,354 $25,660 $36,547 $11,000 $11,000

Amtrak $361,655 $360,562 $274,739 $263,000 $263,000

Other Revenue (YARTS owned buses and Passes) $0 $25,833 $182 $0 $0

County Short Range Transit Plans $77,848 $4,868 -- -- --

Fresno Staffing Service -- -- $25,000 $25,000

Total Operating Revenues $3,325,093 $2,899,296 $2,954,355 $3,205,421 $2,923,841

Capital Revenues

State of Good Repair -- $8,986 -- $17,421 TBD

Capital from Fresno -- -- -- $26,341 TBD

Farebox LCTOP -- -- -- $15,800 TBD

Farebox - for Capital Improvement -- -- -- $14,200 TBD

Bus and Bus Facilities FTA 5539(b) -- -- -- $4,353,000 TBD

Greyhound - Merced -- -- -- TBD

Total Capital Revenues $0 $8,986 $0 $4,426,762

Total Revenues $3,325,093 $2,908,282 $2,954,355 $7,632,183 $2,923,841

Source: Actual/budgeted per YARTS. Projections by LSC

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 52

and Fresno contracts, and the combined total for the past five years. Costs varied by as much as 30

percent or $1.18 million.

Table 19: YARTS Expenses and Revenue by Year - Fresno Contract

Actual Actual Actual Adopted Projected

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22

Operating Expenses

Professional Service-Contracts $800,000

$518,726

$475,961 $478,830 $478,830

Prof Service-MCAG Administration $40,000 $2,149

$36,745 $25,000 $25,000

Prof Service-MCAG Administration-Branding, Media

$50,000 --

-- $15,000 $15,000

Short Range Transit Plan --

$4,868 -- -- --

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

Contingency 5% + 5% Capital Expense --

-- --

$47,883 $47,883

Total Operating Expenses $890,000

$596,111

$512,706 $636,713 $638,813

Operating Revenues

Total Farebox - Fresno $59,629

$62,809 $59,316

$55,000 $55,000

Amtrak-Fresno $5,000 $2,748

$902

$4,200 $4,200

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

Greyhound - Fresno

$4,017 $2,638 $4,000 $4,000

Fresno COG $480,371

$177,414

$158,731 $373,513 $373,513

Total Operating Revenues $890,000 $591,989

$512,212 $636,713 $636,713

Source: Actual/budgeted per YARTS. Projections by LSC

Table 20: YARTS Total Operating Expenses and Revenue by Year

Actual Actual Actual

Adopted Projected

2017-18

2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

2021-22

Operating Expenses

Merced Operating Expenses

$3,063,559 $2,434,436 $2,629,596

$3,150,820 $3,168,138

Fresno Operating Expenses $890,000

$596,111 $512,706 $636,713

$638,813

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

Operating Revenues

Merced Operating Revenues $3,325,093 $2,434,436

$2,629,596 $3,150,820 $3,168,138

Fresno Operating Revenues

$890,000 $591,989 $512,212 $636,713 $636,713

Total Operating Revenues $4,215,093 $3,026,425

$3,141,809 $3,787,532 $3,804,851

Net Income (Loss) $26,560 ($4,122) ($493) $0 ($2,100)

Source: Actual/budgeted per YARTS. Projections by LSC

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 53

Budget Projections

Tables 18 through 20 also show the actual and adopted budgets (as provided by MCAG staff) and include

projections for the 2021 – 22 fiscal year. The projections are based on recent trends, the revised MCAG-

VIA contract, and an inflation rate of 3 percent for items such as fuel and labor. Given these assumptions,

YARTS appears to be financially sound for the time being. However, several major factors could impact

future costs and revenues.

Expense Variables

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

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

factors, including:

o Whether the contractor uses YARTS buses or must provide additional vehicles

o Whether YARTS or the contractor provides a maintenance and operations site

o The amount of dead head required in the service plan, as well as the need to house vehicles

and staff at off-site locations.

• Administrative expenses—MCAG has on occasion absorbed the administrative costs on behalf of

YARTS when YARTS revenues were low. The administrative costs should be better identified, which

may impact the cost, but also should improve predictability.

Revenue Variables

• Yosemite National Park generates funds for YARTS through a portion of entrance fees

(approximately $2.00 per single vehicle). With changes in visitation to the park, this may

eventually affect revenues available to YARTS.

• The National Park provides funding based on an assumed level of service. If this is greatly

reduced, this may also impact the level of funding received for YARTS.

• Farebox revenues have been decreasing.

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

• CARES Act funding—already received, with a potential for a second round of funds—is a short-

term source of revenue but may help address capital needs.

• LTF monies are tied to sales tax revenue, specifically a quarter-cent sales tax collected statewide

and returned to the county of collection (minus a state collection fee). As discussed further

below, reductions in retail sales could result in parallel changes in LTF funding.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 54

Taxable Sales Trends as an Indicator of Local Transportation Fund

As of this writing, forecasts of LFT revenues by the participating counties are not available. However,

State Department of Finance data for the quarter including April to June of 2020 is a useful indication of

how COVID-19 is impacting taxable sales and thus LTF sales tax income. Retail sales are shown in Table 21

for the second quarter of the last three years for regional counties, and for the State of California as a

comparison. The trend shows the area is doing better than California as a whole. Tuolumne County

actually showed an increase in taxable retail sales in 2020. However, both Mono Mariposa and Mono

Counties, which contribute LTF to YARTS, had large drops in taxable sales from previous years—down

41.2 percent in Mariposa and 31.0 percent in Mono County. The reduction in retail sales, if long term,

may impact Mariposa and Mono Counties’ ability to contribute LTF to YARTS. Merced County, which

contributes the highest proportion of LTF, had a 7.7 percent decrease in taxable sales in 2020. In

comparison, Fresno County had a relatively small reduction of 3.0 percent.

FEDERAL SOURCES OF REVENUE

Federal funding accounted for 40 to 64 percent of operating revenues over the past four fiscal years, in

increasing proportions. Federal sources of funding YARTS relies on are described below.

FTA 5311(f) Grant Funding

The FTA Section 5311 formula funding program provides supplemental funding for public transit service

in non-urbanized areas which have populations of fewer than 50,000 residents, as quantified by the

United States Census Bureau. The FTA apportions formula funds to each state on an annual basis. The

California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail and Mass Transportation (DRMT) is the

designated grantee for California. The DRMT Rural Transit and Intercity Bus Branch manages the 5311

and 5311(f) programs. 5311 funding is apportioned as follows:

Table 21: Countywide Retail Sales Trends in YARTS Service Area

County/Area 2018 2019 2020

Fresno County $3,929,687,664 $4,135,071,158 $4,011,156,443 5.2% -3.0%

Madera County $442,946,407 $464,141,843 $475,302,798 4.8% 2.4%

Mariposa County * $58,769,973 $61,341,480 $36,069,855 4.4% -41.2%

Merced County * $807,968,313 $887,904,896 $819,341,360 9.9% -7.7%

Mono County * $65,011,144 $69,760,855 $48,128,753 7.3% -31.0%

Tuolumne County $187,852,799 $197,661,926 $204,009,376 5.2% 3.2%

YARTS JPA Area $931,749,430 $1,019,007,231 $903,539,968 9.4% -11.3%

Statewide Total $176,223,785,852 $184,616,986,601 $152,362,296,481 4.8% -17.5%

* = Included in the YARTS JPA Area

% Change

Second Quarter (Apr-Jun) Total Taxable Sales

2018 to

2019

2019 to

2020

Source: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration,

https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/charts.htm?url=TaxSalesByCounty, accessed 11/4/20

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 55

• 75 percent Regional Apportionment—This funding share is apportioned to non-urban areas

based on the size of the rural population. This apportionment is distributed to Transportation

Planning Agencies (TPA) whose county or region contains a non-urbanized area. The TPA submits

a Program of Projects that identifies subrecipients and projects to receive Section 5311 funds in

their planning area. This must be completed by December 31st of each year. Additionally,

subrecipients must complete and submit a Section 5311 Program Application and all other

required submittals by the appropriate deadline.

• 15 percent Intercity Bus Program—This funding share is apportioned to the Rural Intercity Bus

Program (known as FTA 5311(f)).

• 10 percent State Administrative Expenses—This funding share is apportioned to State

Transportation Agencies to fund the administration of the 5311 & 5311(f) grant programs.

YARTS relies on FTA Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program grant funding for operations, receiving

$222,000 in FY 2018 and 2019, and expecting $300,000 in FY 2020. This is a reliable funding source.

Changes to the allocation occur when additional services qualify for the intercity funds.

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

required every five years.

FTA 5339 Grant Funding

The FTA Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities program provides capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and

purchase buses, vans, and related equipment as well as to construct bus-related facilities. FTA apportions

a discretionary component and a small urban (population 50,000 to 200,000) formula component to

governors of each State annually. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the

designated recipient FTA 5339 program funds for small urban and rural areas of the State and distributes

funds to eligible sub-recipients (public agencies and private nonprofit organizations engaged in public

transportation).

YARTS applied for and was awarded a $4.3 million FTA 5339 grant for the purchase of buses in FY19. The

original grant included the purchase of six electric buses. An electric bus (Proterra) was test-driven in

January 2019 and determined to function adequately. However, the vehicle was not fully loaded and not

all factors were considered (such as the potential for one of the six-pack batteries to fail). Additionally,

the cost of the six buses were significantly underestimated, and perhaps most significantly, the

infrastructure for charging the buses is not yet in place. YARTS is in discussions with Caltrans to revise the

grant.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program—Merced

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program funds transportation as part of

the effort to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. CMAQ has been reauthorized under every

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 56

successive Transportation Bill up to and including the FAST Act in 2015. The FAST Act provides funding to

areas in nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide, and/or particulate matter. In

addition, those States that have no nonattainment or maintenance areas still receive a minimum

apportionment of CMAQ funding for either air quality projects or other elements of flexible federal aid

highway spending. The City of Merced is a nonattainment area and allocates a portion of its CMAQ funds

to YARTS. The CMAQ funds are used for marketing purposes and is shown as an expense in Table18. The

revenues have ranged from $90,000 to $200,000 annually.

National Park Service

The U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (NPS) provides funding to YARTS as described in

the Cooperative Agreement in Chapter 2. A set-aside of $5.00 per $35.00 entrance fee is earmarked for

transportation, with approximately $2.00 per single-vehicle entrance designated for the Mariposa Grove

Shuttle and $3.00 per single-vehicle entrance set aside for YARTS. Furthermore, the NPS pays an annual

lump fee to cover basic operations and administrative costs, and then a negotiated rate based on the

amount of service provided. The base contribution was $345,000 in FY18 and FY19, increasing to

$376,625 in FY20, and $379,500 in FY21. The additional contribution was $581,000 in FY18, $603,000 in

FY19, and $824,288 for FY20 and FY21. While there is a deal of uncertainty related to visitation and

entrance fees, there are no indications that funding will be cut soon.

Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)

The Federal Lands Access Program (Access Program) was established to improve transportation facilities

that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands. The Access Program

supplements State and local resources for public roads, transit systems, and other transportation

facilities, with an emphasis on high-use recreation sites and economic generators. YARTS is eligible for the

funds as it serves Yosemite National Park.

The Access Program is funded by contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund and subject to

obligation limitation. Funds are allocated among the States using a statutory formula based on road

mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation.

Projects are selected by a Programming Decision Committee (PDC) established in each State. The PDCs

request project applications through a call for projects. The frequency of the calls is established by the

PDCs. The grant requires a 11.47 percent local match. The allocation for California is approximately $30

million annually, with the bulk going for road construction projects.

YARTS received $50,130 in FY 2018, $50,130 in FY 2019, and is anticipating $16,500 in FY 2020. YARTS

uses FLAP revenues to fund free fares and/or kids’ fares. This funding source should be explored for other

potential uses, such as facilities.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 57

Great American Outdoor Act

The Great American Outdoors Act, signed into law on August 4, 2020, provides up to $1.9 billion annually

for each of five years for the National Parks and Public Lands Restoration Fund. This will be generated by

energy development fees and be used for infrastructure and maintenance of facilities on Federal

recreation lands (National Parks, National Forests, wildlife refuges and recreation areas) as well as for

American Indian schools. It also commits approximately $900 million per year in oil and gas royalties to

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The key focus of funding for National Parks is on addressing

deferred maintenance. The US Department of the Interior has already made funding decisions. For

Yosemite, the selected projects include campground improvements, rehabilitation of Glacier Park Road,

and improvements to an electrical transmission line. Nationwide, no projects involve transit buses or bus

facilities. This funding program overall has a low potential to address YARTS capital needs.

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was a response to the Coronavirus

pandemic and included funding for transit programs. This was a one-time, emergency funding source.

YARTS received $326,779 in CARES funds, $246,479 of which was spent in FY 2020, with $80,300

remaining. The CARES funds were paid to VIA to offset loss of revenues due to park closures. A

subsequent amount of $654,000 has been provided, which will help to continue to offset losses due to

closures. A second Covid-19 Relief Bill has been approved by Congress, which includes $14 billion for

mass transit agencies. The funds will be available for operating and capital projects, and some grants may

require a local match.

STATE SOURCES OF REVENUE

The Transportation Development Act (TDA) was enacted by the California Legislature to improve existing

public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. This law provides

funding to be allocated to transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional

transportation plans.

TDA established two funding sources: The Local Transportation Fund (LTF), and the State Transit

Assistance (STA) fund. Providing certain conditions are met, counties with a population under 500,000

(according to the 1970 federal census) may also use the LTF for local streets and roads, construction, and

maintenance. The STA funding can only be used for transportation planning and mass transportation

purposes.

Local Transportation Funds (LTF)

As also discussed above, Local Transportation Fund (LTF) is derived from a quarter-cent of the general

sales tax collected statewide. The State Board of Equalization, based on sales tax collected in each county,

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 58

returns the general sales tax revenues to each county’s LTF. Each county then apportions the LTF funds

within the county based on population.

Merced County LTF

Merced County allocates $300,000 annually for operations of the YARTS program. As mentioned, Merced

taxable sales are down 7.7 percent in 2020 over the prior year.

Mono County LTF

Mono County contributed $35,000 in LTF in FY18 and FY19, increased to $40,000 for FY20 and FY21.

Mono County taxable sales have declined by 31 percent in 2020 over the year prior.

Mariposa County LTF

Mariposa County contributed $191,000 in LTF in FY18, FY19, and FY20, and $190,000 in FY21. Mariposa

County relies heavily on tourism, and taxable sales dropped by 41.2 percent in the early half of 2020

compared to 2019.

State Transit Assistance

State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are appropriated by the legislature to the State Controller’s Office

(SCO). The SCO then allocates the tax revenue, by formula, to planning agencies and other selected

agencies. Statue requires that 50 percent of STA funds be allocated according to population and 50

percent be allocated according to transit operator revenues from the prior fiscal year. This funding source

is less stable than LTF funds and has ranged from a low of $23,000 in FY18 to a high of $105,000 in FY20.

Because of the unpredictability, it is best use for more discretionary purposes.

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)

The LCTOP was created to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce

greenhouse gas emission and improve mobility with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities.

Approved projects in LCTOP support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit

facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance as well as other costs to operate

those services or facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose

service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of the total moneys received shall

be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. As such, YARTS has used the funds

to provide free fares. YARTS has received between $13,673 and $33,038 in LCTOP revenues the past

several years.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 59

LOCAL SOURCES OF REVENUE

Local funds have provided 19 to 34 percent of the operating revenues over the past four fiscal years, in

decreasing proportions each year. Local sources of revenue are described below.

Farebox Revenue

Farebox revenues are an important source of revenue as they represent the users’ direct contribution to

the service. The YARTS fare structure was presented in Chapter 3 and Tables 8 through 12. Farebox

revenues have provided between 12 to 17 percent of the operating revenue (not including Greyhound

and Amtrak revenues, which contribute to the farebox revenue). Farebox revenue is budgeted to bring in

$266,301 in the current fiscal year, which is nine percent of the operating revenues. Due to coronavirus,

services have been offered with reduced or free fares for much of the season.

Greyhound Merced/Fresno

Greyhound services interline with YARTS in Merced and Fresno, allowing passengers to book a Greyhound

trip from San Francisco, Visalia, or Bakersfield all the way through to Yosemite. The passenger is quoted

and pays one fare, but a portion of the fare is paid to Greyhound and a portion to YARTS. As shown in

Table 18, this generated between $1,000 to $12,105 in the past several fiscal years, but due to service

cuts, Greyhound is no longer generating fares in Merced. As shown in Table 19, $4,017 was generated on

Fresno Greyhound in FY19, $2,638 in FY20, with $4,000 projected for FY21.

Amtrak

Like Greyhound, YARTS passengers can book rail tickets with connections to YARTS to continue on to

Yosemite or other YARTS destinations. Additionally, Amtrak has a contract with YARTS to maintain a

minimum level of service to meet passenger rail services in both Merced and Fresno to provide this

service.

Amtrak revenues for Merced ranged from a high of $363,000 in FY18, to $274,739 in FY20, with the

budgeted amount at $263,000 for FY21. In Fresno, Amtrak fares generated between $902 in FY20 (due to

COVID-19) and $5,000 in FY18.

Fresno Staffing Service

The Fresno staffing service revenues shown in Table 18 are reimbursement funds to cover MCAG’s costs

when they work on the Highway 41 service issues on behalf of the Fresno COG.

Interest and Other Income

Interest and other miscellaneous income ranged from $5,000 in FY18 to $36,547 in FY20. The

miscellaneous income is generated by interest on funds and sales of passes.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 60

SUMMARY—THE FUTURE FUNDING OF YARTS

YARTS operations and funding are complex due to multiple contracts and obligations, and the multi-

jurisdictional service area. Over time, YARTS has developed a sound institutional structure and

operational plan—though both continue to evolve and respond to continual challenges. This Strategy

Study seeks to use the lessons learned through the institutional, operational, and funding histories to

create a flexible and sustainable transit program to meet the goals set forth in the JPA bylaws. While

YARTS has secured the necessary funds for operations over the years, the crux of addressing funding

issues is to ensure that service plans do not result in costs that exceed available revenues. There also is

the possible need to reserve a portion of local funds to build a capital local match reserve fund.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 61

Chapter 6

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR YARTS

INTRODUCTION

Based upon the data and issues presented in previous chapters of this document, and working

closely with MCAG staff, the AAC, and the JPA Board, the recommendations presented in this

Chapter have been developed. The strategies are intended to address the following key near-

term issues facing YARTS:

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

• The beneficial need to expand the YARTS-owned fleet to avoid the need for contractor-

provided vehicles.

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

• Changes in ridership patterns and connecting Amtrak San Joaquins service that impact

the optimal service plan.

• Assuring sustainable funding not only for operations but also for ongoing administration

and capital needs.

Furthermore, an overall goal of this study is to define a scope of work for the Request For

Proposals (RFP) that will guide the selection of a contractor at the end of the current service

contract in November 2022, as well as maximize the potential for a competitive bid process. A

draft RFP should be developed by the Summer of 2021 in order to provide potential bidders with

an opportunity to observe YARTS service in full operation.

In short, this plan would reduce services in order to generate the local funds (within existing available

local resources) to replace the aging YARTS-owned fleet and expand it to reduce long-term operating

costs. This chapter first presents service recommendations with a focus on reductions in service to

generate local match funding. Next, capital recommendations are presented, followed by financial and

institutional strategies. This plan also reflects the recent decision to end funding provided through Fresno

Council of Governments at the end of the Summer of 2022 operating season, which in turn will impact

the 41 Route.

SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following presents recommended service modifications to all routes. Table 22 presents a summary of

the recommended service modifications, while Table 23 presents details of the analysis. It should be

noted that the cost estimates are based on the current contracted cost of $57.89 per revenue hour, plus

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 62

Table 22: Recommended Service Reduction Plan to Generate Local Capital Match Funding

Also Reflecting Elimination of Fresno Participation and Recommended Oakhurst-Valley Service

Service Plan Element

Marginal

Operating

Cost

Change in

Operating

Subsidy

Ridership

Vehicle-

Hours

Peak Buses in

Operation

Ridership

Vehicle-

Hours

Ridership

Vehicle-

Hours

Drop Run 2, Year-Round -$33,000 -$12,500 -$45,500 -$36,800 -1,700 -387 0

Drop Runs 1 and 8, Year-Round -$118,000 -$45,900 -$163,900 -$140,700 -4,500 -1,419 -1

Total -$151,000 -$58,400 -$209,400 -$177,500 -6,200 -1,806 -1 60,305 13,060 -10% -14%

120

Route

Reduce 2 Runs per Day to Groveland --

Valley

-$40,000 -$16,400 -$56,400 -$52,800 -700 -507 0 16,135 2,197 -4% -23%

395

Route

Eliminate Service After September 15 -$16,000 -$6,100 -$22,100 -$17,800 -830 -190 0 6,279 1,318 -13% -14%

-$207,000 -$80,900 -$287,900 -$248,100 -7,730 -2,503 -1 82,719 16,574 -9% -15%

Eliminate All Service -$128,000 -$100,100 -$228,100 -$178,600 -8,636 -3,097 -3 -- -- -- --

Initiate Oakhurst-Valley Service $64,000 $63,000 $127,000 $88,600 5,900 831 2 -- -- -- --

Net Change -$64,000 -$37,100 -$101,100 -$90,000 -2,736 -2,267 -1 8,636 3,097 -32% -73%

-$335,000 -$181,000 -$516,000 -$426,700 -16,366 -5,600 -4 91,355 19,671 -18% -28%

TOTAL 4 Routes -- With Oakhurst-Valley Svc

-$271,000 -$118,000 -$389,000 -$338,100 -10,466 -4,769 -2 91,355 19,671 -11% -24%

TOTAL 4 Routes -- If 41 Route Eliminated

Route

140

Route

2019 Total

Percent Change

From 2019

TOTAL 3 Routes -

Excludes Consideration of

41 Route

Plan Element Annual Impact

Change in

Fixed

Operating

Cost

Total Change

in Operating

Cost

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 63

Farebox

Marginal

Operating

Route Hours Miles Runs Days/Yr Hours Miles Ridership

Revenue

Subsidy

ROUTE 140

Summer

2 1.5 51 -1 63 -95 -3,213 -$8,000 0 -400 -$2,000 -$6,000 4.2 $15.00

Non-Summer 2 1.5 51 -1 195 -293 -9,945 -$25,000 0 -1,300 -$6,700 -$18,300 4.4 $14.08

Total -387 -13,158 -$33,000 0 -1,700 -$8,700 -$24,300 4.4 $14.29

1 2.5 87 -1 63 -158 -5,481 -$14,000 -300 -$1,500 -$12,500 1.9 $41.67

8 3 87 -1 63 -189 -5,481 -$15,000 -400 -$2,100 -$12,900 2.1 $32.25

Total -347 -10,962 -$29,000 -1 -700 -$3,600 -$25,400 2.0 $36.29

1 2.5 87 -1 195 -488 -16,965 -$42,000 -1,300 -$6,700 -$35,300 2.7 $27.15

8 3 87 -1 195 -585 -16,965 -$47,000 -2,500 -$12,900 -$34,100 4.3 $13.64

Total

-1,073

-33,930 -$89,000 0 -3,800 -$19,600 -$69,400 3.5 $18.26

Year Round

Total

-1,419 -44,892 -$118,000 -1 -4,500 -$23,200 -$94,800 3.2 $21.07

3.2 87 -1 88 -282 -7,656 -$22,000 -1,200 -$6,200 -$15,800 4.3 $13.17

14 2.5 87 -1 88 -220 -7,656 -$19,000 -700 -$3,600 -$15,400 3.2 $22.00

Total -502 -15,312 -$41,000 -1 -1,900 -$9,800 -$31,200 3.8 $16.42

7 3.2 87 -1 273 -874 -23,751 -$70,000 -4,700 -$24,100 -$45,900 5.4 $9.77

14 2.5 87 -1 273 -683 -23,751 -$59,000 -4,700 -$24,100 -$34,900 6.9 $7.43

Total -1,556 -47,502 -$129,000 0 -9,400 -$48,200 -$80,800 6.0 $8.60

Year Round

Total -2,058 -62,814 -$170,000 -1 -11,300 -$58,000 -$112,000 5.5 $9.91

Route 120

Reduce 2 Runs per Day to Groveland -- Valley

-1.44

-37 4 88.00 -507 -13,024 -$40,000 0 -700 -$3,600 -$36,400 1.4 $52.00

Reduce 3 Runs per Day to Groveland -- Valley

-1.44 -37

6 88.00 -760 -19,536 -$60,000 0 -1,100 -$5,600 -$54,400 1.4 $49.45

Eliminate Service After Labor Day

3.25 84 6 -9 -176 -4,536 -$14,000 0 -430 -$2,200 -$11,800 2.5 $27.44

Route 395/120 East

Eliminate October Service

7.3

220 1 -11 -80 -2,420 -$7,000 0 -250 -$1,300 -$5,700 3.1 $22.80

Eliminate Sept 15-30 svc

7.3 220 1 -15 -110 -3,300 -$9,000 0 -530 -$2,700 -$6,300 4.8 $11.89

Eliminate Service After September 15

7.3 220 1 -26 -190 -5,720 -$16,000 0 -830 -$4,300 -$11,700 4.4 $14.10

Oakhurst - Valley Service

Inbound 2.1 48 2 103 433 9,888

Outbound 1.9

48 2 103 398 9,888

Total 831

19,776 $64,000 2 5,900 $38,400 $25,600 7.1 $4.34

Marginal

Operating

Subsidy /

Psgr

Annual

Marginal

Operating Cost

Table 23: YARTS Alternative Service Reductions Analysis

1-Way Run

Parameters

Psgr-Trip /

VSH

Daily Service

Annual

Change in

Peak Buses

Drop Run 2

Drop Runs 1 and 8

Drop Runs 7 and 14

Summer - June 1

to Mid-Sept.

Summer

Winter

Summer

Winter

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 64

a fuel cost of $0.80 per mile (which is not included in the contract). Additionally, because we are

recommending service reductions of approximately 24 percent, it is reasonable to assume the overhead

costs under a new contract will be reduced by half this amount (12 percent), or an additional $32.31 per

service hour. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that reduction in services results in a cost

savings of $90.20 per hour and $0.80 per mile. Table 23 shows these impacts as the change in the

marginal operating cost, plus the change in the fixed operating cost.

Analysis of 140 Route Modifications

The existing utilization of buses over the course of a summer day is important in defining which service

options can reduce the number of buses needed to operate YARTS service. This is a straightforward

process for the 120 Route (as all three routes are in operation at once) and the 395/120 Route (with both

buses in operation at once). Table 24 shows the vehicle utilization over the course of a day for the 140

Route. As shown, six buses are in operation (including layover time in the Valley and deadhead time) over

much of the day, with a peak of seven buses in the 10 AM hour.

The focus of reductions on the 140 Route is a reduction in the number of daily runs. In assessing the best

way to accomplish this, the individual runs were reviewed. Some runs are needed to meet key train

connection times in Merced, specifically eastbound departures from Merced at 10:30 AM and 5:45 PM

and westbound departures from YNP at 8:15 AM and 4:35 PM. Other runs also need to be operated to

position buses for these Amtrak connection runs. Note that this analysis is based on the pre-COVID-19

schedule and ridership levels, though the current run numbering system is used.

Eliminate Run 2

Run 2 currently starts in Midpines at 5:54 AM on weekdays (year-round). The bus is deadheaded up from

Merced to start the run. Even before COVID-19 in 2019, ridership on this route was low at 5.1 passengers

per day in July, 5.2 in September and 3.4 in January. In 2020, ridership dropped to 0.9 riders per day in

July and only 0.4 in September.

Eliminating this run would reduce annual marginal operating costs by a total of $33,000 per year—$8,000

in the summer operating season and $25,000 in the remainder of the year, as shown in Table 23.

Assuming that ridership would return to pre-pandemic levels and that half of the reduction in riders on

this run would also result in a lost rider on the return trip, a total of 1,700 passenger-trips per year would

be lost (400 in the summer season and 1,300 in the remainder of the year). Considering the loss in

revenue, this would generate a subsidy savings of $24,300 per year. The cut in service would reduce

ridership by 4.4 passengers for every hour of reduced service and save roughly $14.29 in marginal subsidy

for every passenger-trip lost. Note that the service cut does not reduce the peak number of buses needed

to operate YARTS 140 Route service as this peak occurs later in the summer operating day.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 65

Table 24: Existing Buses Required In Service by Time of Day -- 140 Summer Schedule

2 Solo

1 & 4 3 & 6 5 & 8 7 & 10 9 & 14 11 & 12 13 & 16 15 & 18

4:45 AM 1

5:00 AM

Merced

5:15 AM 2

5:30 AM

Merced 3

5:45 AM

Midpines 3

6:00 AM

Merced 4

6:15 AM 4

6:30 AM 4

6:45 AM

Merced 5

7:00 AM 5

7:15 AM Merced

YNP

7:30 AM 4

7:45 AM 4

8:00 AM

YNP 5

8:15 AM YNP 5

8:30 AM 5

8:45 AM

YNP

Mariposa Merced 6

9:00 AM 6

9:15 AM 6

9:30 AM 6

9:45 AM

YNP 6

10:00 AM 6

10:15 AM

10:30 AM YNP Merced 7

10:45 AM 7

11:00 AM

Merced 7

11:15 AM 6

11:30 AM 6

11:45 AM YNP 6

12:00 PM 6

12:15 PM 6

12:30 PM 6

12:45 PM 6

1:00 PM 6

1:15 PM 6

1:30 PM YNP 6

1:45 PM 6

2:00 PM 6

2:15 PM 6

2:30 PM YNP

2:45 PM 6

3:00 PM 6

3:15 PM

YNP

3:30 PM 6

3:45 PM 6

4:00 PM 6

4:15 PM YNP 6

4:30 PM YNP

4:45 PM 6

5:00 PM 6

5:15 PM YNP

5:30 PM

Merced

5:45 PM

Merced Merced 6

6:00 PM YNP 5

6:15 PM 5

6:30 PM 5

6:45 PM Merced Mariposa 5

7:00 PM 4

7:15 PM 4

7:30 PM Merced 4

7:45 PM 2

8:00 PM 2

8:15 PM 2

8:30 PM YNP 2

8:45 PM

Merced YNP 2

9:00 PM 1

9:15 PM 1

9:30 PM 1

9:45 PM 1

10:00 PM 1

10:15 PM Midpines 1

10:30 PM 1

10:45 PM 1

11:00 PM

11:15 PM 1

Note 1: Including layover in YNP and deadhead time.

Deadhead To

Merced

# of Buses in

Operation

Period Start Time

Run Pairs

Deadhead

From Merced

Deadhead

From Merced

Deadhead To

Merced

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 66

Eliminate Runs 1 and 8 and Shift Run 10 to a 3:15 PM Departure

Of the other runs not needed for Amtrak connections, the lowest ridership (pre-COVID-19) is on the 5:00

AM eastbound run (Run 1) and the 4:15 westbound run (Run 10). However, as Runs 1 and 8 operate on

weekdays only, this option would eliminate the existing Runs 1 and 8, and shift Route 10 to a 3:15 PM

departure. Ridership on Run 8 (departing the valley at 3:15 PM) is higher than on Run 10 (4:15 PM

departure), indicating that passengers would be better served if the Run 10 schedule is shifted to 3:15

PM. (The outbound Run 4, which provides an important Amtrak connection, would be paired with

remaining Run 3.) The impacts would be as follows:

• In the summer only, eliminating these runs would reduce marginal operating costs by $29,000

per year. Ridership would drop by 700 per year, resulting in a loss of $3,600 in farebox revenues

and a net reduction in marginal operating subsidy needs of $25,400 per year. This would reduce

the number of buses needed to operate YARTS by one.

• In the non-summer operating seasons, marginal operating costs would be reduced by $89,000

per year. Ridership would drop by 3,800 per year, resulting in a loss of $19,600 in farebox

revenues and a net reduction in marginal operating subsidy needs of $69,400 per year. As peak

bus fleet needs occur in the summer, this option would not change the peak fleet needs.

• Over the whole year, marginal operating costs would be reduced by $118,000, ridership by 4,500,

fare revenue by $23,200, and required marginal operating subsidy by $94,800.

Cutting these runs in the summer would be a better option than in the non-summer seasons. In the

summer season, ridership would be reduced by 2.0 passengers per vehicle-hour of service and $36.39 in

marginal operating subsidy would be saved for every passenger eliminated. In comparison, these figures

would be 3.5 and $18.26 in the non-summer seasons. However, both reductions offer improvements in

efficiency and are recommended.

Other Changes Considered But Not Recommended

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

recommended at present:

• If additional subsidy savings are needed, the next paired set of runs that should be considered are

the 6:45 AM eastbound departure (Run 7) and the 5:15 PM westbound departure (Run 14).

However, this would have a substantially greater impact on ridership (a loss of approximately

11,300 passengers per year) and is therefore not recommended.

• Another alternative would be to shorten some of the 140 Route runs to provide Mariposa-

Yosemite Valley service only. In concept, this would allow a single bus and driver to make multiple

round-trips per day. It would not currently be effective to operate additional trips between El

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 67

Portal and the Valley, given the limited lodging and intercept parking opportunities in El Portal.

round-trip between Mariposa and the Valley requires roughly four hours of running time. This

means that a bus making an early morning eastbound run into the Valley would not be able to

start a second eastbound run until roughly 10:30 AM. This would provide additional capacity for

travel into the Park in the mid-day, such as for Mariposa visitors that want to have a leisurely half-

day trip to the Park, or day visitors driving to Mariposa in the morning and park-and-riding to the

Park. However, there already is available YARTS capacity for these trips, such as existing Run 140-

11 (10:15 AM eastbound service from the Mariposa Park-and-Ride and Run 140-13 (a noon

eastbound departure). Ridership on these existing runs is relatively low, with roughly 35 percent

existing passenger load factor. Given the low potential to generate new ridership and an

estimated annual marginal operating cost of $24,000, this option is not considered further as part

of this Strategy Study. However, it may be a valid element of a longer-term plan if additional

intercept parking (particularly in the El Portal area) is developed.

Analysis of 395 Route Modifications

Reduce Fall Days of Service

Options to reduce 395 Route operating subsidy requirements are limited. The 395 Route currently

provides only two round-trips per day, which is a reasonable minimum level of service that provides at

least a few options for passengers. The ridership pattern (reflecting the relative lodging capacity)

indicates that a shortened service only as far east as Lee Vining would not be effective. In addition,

previous service providing a shorter run between Mammoth Lakes and Tuolumne Meadows was not

effective and generated only low ridership. Given this, the only realistic means of reducing service on this

route is to consider reduction in the days of service. As the start of service is defined by when Tioga Pass

opens, this in actuality is limited to possibly moving up the season end date.

In 2019, the 395 Route was operated until October 11

, with a single-round trip after August 31

. Two

options were considered, as discussed below:

• Eliminate Service After September 30: Ridership figures indicate that approximately 250

passenger-trips (or 125 round-trips if all make a round-trip) are served after September 30.

Eliminating this service would reduce marginal operating costs by $7,000 and reduce operating

subsidy by $5,700 per year. $22.80 marginal subsidy would be saved per passenger-trip

eliminated or 3.1 per vehicle-hour.

• Eliminate Service After September 15: If service were ended after the second weekend after

Labor Day (roughly September 15

), the subsidy savings would be increased to $16,000, while

the reduction in ridership would total 830. Overall, YARTS marginal operating subsidy would be

reduced by $14.10 for every passenger-trip lost (a loss of 4.4 per vehicle-hour).

Note that a longer term strategy of expanding intercept parking in El Portal served by short YARTS runs may well

be feasible but would have an implementation period longer than the focus of this Strategy Study.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 68

While the first option (eliminating service after September 30) offers a better cost savings per passenger

trip, it does not significantly decrease the operating cost for the 395 Service. To provide additional capital

local match funding and since the cost-effectiveness and productivity of the service in late September is

relatively low, it is recommended that service be eliminated after the second weekend in September

(approximately September 15

Analysis of 120 Route Modifications

Route 120 is operated in summer only, over a relatively short season (mid-June to mid-September). The

three round-trips operated per day are some of the most effective overall runs in the YARTS system. As

such, options to reduce the number of runs or the days of service were not considered. However, a

detailed evaluation of the ridership by route segment indicates that the portion of the route west of

Groveland is very ineffective, indicating the potential to reduce costs by shortening the route.

Reduce Two Runs of 120 Route to Groveland-Yosemite Valley

It is recommended that two runs of the 120 Route be reduced to service between Groveland (Mary

Laveroni Community Park) and Yosemite Valley. Table 25 presents a summary of ridership by stop for the

busy summer month of July in 2019 and 2020. As indicated, of all boardings outside the National Park in

July 2019, 92 percent were between Groveland and the park boundary, while only 8 percent were west of

Groveland. This ratio was even more skewed in 2020, with 94 percent between Groveland and the park

boundary and 6 percent to the west. As a result of this low ridership and the fact that roughly 55 percent

of the operating cost is generated by the one hour and 45-minute schedule time per one-way trip west of

Groveland, the current service results in a marginal subsidy of $52.00 per one-way trip served west of

Groveland, or $104 in public funding for every passenger provided with a round-trip.

Table 25: Route 120 Average Daily Ridership in July

Stop #

% Outside YNP

# % Outside YNP

Black Oak Hotel 0.8 1.2% 0.5 1.0%

Sonora Best Western 1.7 2.5% 1.0 2.2%

Cal Inns Washington 1.1 1.6% 0.9 2.0%

Jamestown 2.1 3.1% 0.3 0.7%

West of Groveland 5.7 8.3% 2.7 5.9%

Mary Laveroni Park 7.6 11.1% 3.9 8.5%

Yosemite Pines RV Park 29.8 43.6% 18.9 41.0%

Buck Meadows Resort 4.7 6.8% 6.0 13.0%

Yosemite Lakes Campground 20.5 30.1% 14.6 31.7%

Outside the Park 68.3 100% 46.2 100%

Big Oak Flat 2.0 2.0

Crane Flat Gas Station 0.5 0.2

Yosemite Visitors Center 73.6 48.5

Total 148.2 107.1

Source: VIA Monthly Reports

2019

2020

Average Daily Boardings

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 69

Reducing two of the routes to serve daily roundtrips from Groveland to Yosemite would generate

$40,000 in annual marginal operating subsidy savings. This modification will reduce ridership by 700 per

year or an average of 8 per day (assuming that none of the ridership generated by the Jamestown

-Black

Oak Casino stops choose to drive to Groveland to catch the bus). Though the service west of Groveland is

inefficient, it still allows an opportunity for Tuolumne County residents and visitors to access YARTS from

Sonora, which is desirable in the near-term to determine if the service can be sustainable. An example

schedule is shown in Table 26. As indicated, some lower activity stops on the longer run are served on

request only to make a more “express” run between Sonora and the Park and allow slightly later morning

departure times from Sonora and Jamestown.

June 22 to September 11

Run 120-2* Run 120-4

Run 120-6*

Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 3:30 PM 4:30 PM

5:30 PM

Crane Flat

4:05 PM 5:05 PM

6:05 PM

Big Oak Flat/Park Entrance Gate 4:19 PM 5:19 PM

6:19 PM

Rush Creek Lodge 4:24 PM 5:24 PM

6:24 PM

Yosemite Lakes Campground 4:29 PM

5:29 PM 6:29 PM

Buck Meadows Restaurant 4:56 PM 5:56 PM

6:56 PM

Yosemite Pines RV Park 5:01 PM 6:01 PM

7:01 PM

Groveland - Laveroni Park 5:18 PM

6:18 PM 7:18 PM

Jamestown - Rocca Park

REQ

Downtown Sonora - Heritage Inn REQ

Sonora Best Western REQ

Black Oak Hotel and Resort

8:50 PM

Run 120-1*

Run 120-3 Run 120-5*

Black Oak Hotel and Resort 6:50 AM

Sonora Best Western

7:10 AM

Downtown Sonora - Heritage Inn 7:25 AM

Jamestown - Rocca Park 7:35 AM

Groveland - Laveroni Park

REQ 9:00 AM 10:00 AM

Yosemite Pines RV Park 8:10 AM 9:10 AM

10:10 AM

Buck Meadows Restaurant REQ

9:24 AM 10:24 AM

Yosemite Lakes Campground

8:41 AM 9:41 AM 10:41 AM

Rush Creek Lodge 8:46 AM 9:46 AM 10:46 AM

Big Oak Flat/Park Entrance Gate 8:59 AM 9:59 AM 10:59 AM

Crane Flat 9:09 AM 10:09 AM 11:09 AM

Yosemite Visitor Center 9:44 AM 10:44 AM 11:44 AM

* Note -- Only Operated Through August 31.

Table 26: 120 Route Reduced Schedule

Location

Big Oak Flat, Rush

Creek, Yosemite Lakes

Bucks Meadows,

Groveland

Bucks Meadows,

Groveland

Crane Flat

Sonora, Jamestown

Big Oak Flat, Rush

Creek, Yosemite Lakes

Yosemite → Groveland → Sonora

Sonora → Groveland → Yosemite

Eliminated

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 70

Other Changes Considered But Not Currently Recommended

Reducing all three of the daily round-trips on the existing full route to Sonora and Black Oak Casino would

generate $60,000 in annual marginal operating subsidy savings and would improve overall efficiency of

the route. While this change may be desirable in the long term, a more moderate reduction is currently

recommended to still allow an opportunity for visitors and residents to use YARTS from Sonora.

Another option would be to eliminate the nine days of service (using a single bus only) currently operated

after the Labor Day weekend until the 3

weekend in September. This would generate a modest marginal

operating subsidy savings ($14,000) but would eliminate service in a period of the year when ridership is

growing, so therefore it is not recommended.

Analysis of Route 41 Service

The Fresno Council of Governments has recently confirmed that funding for the Route 41 service will end

once the existing Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are fully expended at the end of the

Summer 2022 operating season. This will result in the cessation of service to/from Fresno after the 2022

operating season. However, the ridership generated in the Oakhurst area has been relatively strong and

has the potential to grow with the expansion of lodging in the community. A review of the Route 41

ridership data during August of 2019 and 2020 is presented in Table 27. As shown, for 2020 (that

generated higher daily ridership than 2019), fully 74 percent of boardings outside of the National Park

was generated at the Oakhurst and Tenaya Lodge stops, compared with only 4 percent at the Coarsegold

stop, 5 percent at the Chukchansi stop and a total of 17 percent at the Fresno stops. This is consistent

with the strong pattern of ridership from the other immediate “gateway” communities (such as

Groveland and Mariposa) on YARTS. A reasonable strategy is therefore to consider a service for the

southern gateway community of Oakhurst.

Based on a review of the existing Route 41 ridership and service plan, a reasonable operating plan for this

service would be as follows:

• The service would start from the Oakhurst Community Park on Civic Circle, near the Library. This

has the ability to provide overnight parking for buses (if the contractor chooses to do so) and to

provide some informal park-and-ride parking for persons staying or living in the Oakhurst area.

• In addition to the existing stops served by Route 41, a new stop could be served at the recently-

constructed Fairfield Inn on the northern side of Oakhurst, which is also adjacent to the Holiday

Inn Express on one side and the Hampton Inn on the other.

• A conceptual schedule is provided as Table 28, showing two AM northbound runs (departing at

7:30 AM and 9:00 AM) and two PM southbound runs (departing the Yosemite Valley Visitors

Center at 3:30 PM and 5:00 PM). There is sufficient existing ridership in this corridor to warrant

two buses and providing two schedule options expands the variety of potential trip choices for

travelers. If demand warrants and funding is expanded, additional daily runs could be considered.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 71

Table 27: Route 41 Average Daily Ridership in August

Stop #

% Outside YNP

Fresno Airport (FAT) 7.8

21%

3.3 7.8%

Amtrak/Greyhound 5.9 15% 1.7 3.9%

North Fresno 4.3 11% 2.3 5.4%

Chukchansi 2.4 6% 2.1 4.8%

Coarsegold Historic Village 4.0 10% 1.7 4.1%

Oakhurst Best Western 11.0 29% 19.4 45.5%

Tenaya Lodge 2.7 7% 12.1 28.4%

Outside the Park 38.2 100% 42.6 100.0%

The Mariposa Grove 4.1 2.0

Wawona Store 3.9 0.8

Yosemite Visitor Center 33.5 35.6

Total 79.6 81.0

Source: VIA Monthly Reports

Average Daily Boardings

2019

2020

June 1 - Sept 12

Run 41-1 Run 41-3

Oakhurst Community Park 7:30 AM 9:00 AM

Oakhurst Best Western 7:34 AM 9:04 AM

Oakhurst Holiday Inn / Hampton Inn /

Fairfield

7:38 AM 9:08 AM

Tenaya Lodge 7:56 AM 9:26 AM

The Mariposa Grove 8:06 AM 9:36 AM

Wawona Store 8:26 AM 9:56 AM

Yosemite Visitor Center 9:36 AM 11:06 AM

Run 41-2 Run 41-4

Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 3:30 PM 5:00 PM

Wawona Store 4:30 PM 6:00 PM

The Mariposa Grove 4:50 PM 6:20 PM

Tenaya Lodge 5:00 PM 6:30 PM

Oakhurst Holiday Inn / Hampton Inn /

Fairfield

5:18 PM 6:48 PM

Oakhurst Best Western 5:22 PM 6:52 PM

Oakhurst Community Park 5:26 PM 6:56 PM

Table 28: Example Oakhurst-YNP Schedule

Oakhurst → Yosemite

Location

Oakhurst

Wawona, Mariposa

Grove, Fish Camp

Yosemite → Oakhurst

YNP

Wawona, Mariposa

Grove, Fish Camp

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 72

• A reasonable operating season would be from June 1 through the second weekend of September

(or roughly 103 days per year). This also could be expanded as warranted and as funds allow. This

service would operate 8.06 vehicle-hours and 192 vehicle-miles of service per day, or 831 vehicle-

hours and 19,776 vehicle-miles over the full season.

At the assumed rate of $57.89 per vehicle service hour and $0.80 per vehicle-mile for fuel, the annual

marginal operating cost of this service would be $64,000.

Ridership on this service can be estimated based on existing ridership generated by run and by stop and

factored to reflect the change in the calendar of service. Annual ridership is estimated to total 5,900

boardings per year. Note that this does not reflect any growth in ridership demand due to new lodging in

the Oakhurst area, which could well increase ridership. Based on existing fare revenues, adjusted to

reflect the change in service, an estimated average fare per passenger-trip of $6.50 is assumed. Over the

course of the operating season, this totals $38,400 per year. Subtracting the fare revenue, a total of

$25,500 in marginal subsidy funding would be required (not including fixed costs, capital funding and

management/marketing). Additional discussion of the financial and institutional aspects of this service is

provided later in this chapter.

The Oakhurst-YNP service would perform relatively well: it would carry 7.1 passenger-trip per vehicle

service hour, compared with the systemwide average of 4.6 in 2019 (pre-COVID-19). The service would

nearly match the best performing route in the YARTS system by this measure of 7.3 generated by the 120

West service. Comparing the operating subsidy (operating costs minus passenger fares) to the number of

passenger-trips, this service would require roughly $4.34 in marginal operating subsidy per passenger-

trip.

As an aside, another option was considered that would extend this route south the additional 12 miles to

start and end at the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino. Over the course of the season, this would add

approximately 400 vehicle-hours and 2,300 vehicle-miles to the service, increasing operating costs by

$58,000. Ridership (per existing boarding data) would only increase by 700 per year. Considering fare

revenue, operating subsidy would increase $53,200 per year. This additional service would be relatively

inefficient, generating only 1.7 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour and requiring $76 in subsidy per

additional passenger-trip. It therefore should only be operated if additional funding is made available to

extend the route.

Recommended Service Modifications

The change in overall YARTS services and ridership was evaluated both for the core service operated for

the existing JPA members (the 140, 120 and 395 Routes), as well as for all existing routes including the 41

Route. For the three core services combined, the recommended service modifications would:

• Reduce service by a total of 2,503 annual vehicle-hours, or 15 percent of current service for the

three core routes. Note that the proportion of reduction is equal at 14 percent on the 140 Route

and 395 Route, and higher (23 percent) on the 120 Route.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 73

• Reduce ridership by 7,730 annual one-way passenger-boardings, or nine percent of 2019

ridership on the three core routes. This ridership loss is relatively modest (4 percent) on the 120

Route, reflecting the low existing ridership on service west of Groveland. As the drop in ridership

is less than the drop in service levels, this strategy would overall improve the performance

measures for the YARTS program.

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

Route).

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

reserve fund.

If the current 41 Route service is replaced with a smaller Oakhurst-Valley service, this would reduce

service on this corridor by 73 percent while reducing ridership by 32 percent and the number of buses in

operation by one additional bus. The overall YARTS system would operate 4,769 less vehicle-hours per

year (a 24 percent reduction) and would serve 11 percent fewer passenger-trips than in 2019.

It should be noted that under the current operator contract, a reduction in service hours of greater than

15 percent triggers a contract renegotiation. As presented in Table 22, under this strategy plan the overall

services would be cut by 24 percent. However, a new contract will be negotiated by then, and the

reductions would not occur until the 2023 operating season.

CAPITAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Bus Fleet Improvements

The appropriate fleet improvement strategy for YARTS is impacted by several factors as discussed below:

fuel type, vehicle size, and operating plan requirements.

Recommended Fuel Strategy

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies requires that public transit

programs start purchasing alternative fuel vehicles (Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) or hydrogen) as 25

percent of bus purchases starting in 2026, with full conversion expected by 2035. It is recommended that

YARTS delay implementation of conversion to an alternative fuels fleet for at least five years. There are

several reasons why Zero Emissions Buses (ZEBs) are not currently viable and would reduce the overall

ridership and environmental benefits of the transit program:

• Of the two ZEB options (Battery Electric Buses (BEBs) or hydrogen), the region does not have the

fueling infrastructure needed for hydrogen fueled buses. Providing sufficient hydrogen fueling

facilities at the various operating termini of the YARTS routes (at a per-site cost on the order of

$2,000,000) would be excessively expensive.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 74

• The distances that BEB buses would need to travel without a mid-day charge in Yosemite National

Park exceeds the range that currently available models can reliably operate, particularly given the

additional power needed to climb mountain grades, operate air conditioning (such as in the

Central Valley in summer) and operate heating systems (such as in the Park in winter). The

roughly 4,000 feet of elevation gain between Merced and Yosemite Valley and the 6,000 feet of

gain from the Valley to Tioga Pass are examples of the challenging conditions.

• The region also lacks existing electric vehicle charging capacity. Where there are small charging

locations in the region (such as in Yosemite Valley, Sonora, Mammoth Lakes, Mariposa and

Merced), these are sized for private autos and lack the electrical capacity for charging a bus fleet.

Establishing charging facilities for buses often includes expansion of local electrical substations

and potentially upgrading transmission lines. Defining the necessary level of upgrade to the

limited electrical grid (particularly within the Park) has yet to be conducted. This should be

conducted in consideration of overall electrical vehicle charging requirements (such as for Valley

Shuttle buses, charter buses, commercial vehicles, and private autos). Making the necessary

modifications could potentially require extensive environmental review, delaying when actual

operation of BEBs can be initiated.

• BEBs are much more expensive than diesel buses—on the order of $1,300,000 per bus compared

with $750,000 per bus (with necessary chain and communications equipment), or 75 percent

more. As YARTS is a JPA, it lacks a dedicated source of funds available for the local match, and the

financial capacity of the largely-rural local member jurisdictions is very constrained. As a result,

local matching funds for bus purchase grants will need to be generated by reductions in

operating subsidy costs resulting from cuts in service. Doubling these local match costs thus

would double the necessary cuts in service and increase the loss of YARTS ridership. The resulting

increase in auto use would expand the environmental impacts of overall access to Yosemite, such

as greenhouse gas emissions.

• Over-the-road coaches, which have proven to be the appropriate vehicle type for the majority of

YARTS routes, have only recently started to be available from manufacturers in BEB models. Like

any new technology, there is a substantial “learning curve” with regards to a new BEB model

type, during which manufacturing processes are refined, dependability increases, and costs tend

to decrease. Given the very limited local resources available to YARTS, it is prudent to allow this

learning curve to occur prior to investment in the new technology.

Given these factors, it is recommended that YARTS work with Caltrans to modify the existing BEB grant

award to instead purchase six diesel buses.

Bus Size Recommendations

YARTS has historically used over-the-road coaches with a 50-passenger capacity to serve all routes. These

buses are relatively comfortable for the long-distance trips required for YARTS, are designed to provide a

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 75

smooth ride over mountain roads and provide plenty of space for luggage. Given the critical need and

high cost to replace buses, it is appropriate to review the type and size of buses required. The next

smaller standard bus size are 35-foot-long models. Considering the space needed for a restroom and for

luggage, these vehicles have seating for a maximum of 30 passengers.

VIA records daily passenger loads by route and run. Using this data from July 2019 for each trip pair

(meaning the same bus serving both the inbound and outbound trip), the average load was analyzed,

along with the 90

percentile load, 95

percentile load, and maximum load. Given YARTS is a discretionary

service for most passengers, their comfort is an important aspect of the service. In order to minimize the

number of potential riders that would be denied service, we assumed a 95

percentile passenger load to

estimate what size bus is required for each run (with the potential to deny additional reservations on 5

percent of the runs).

As shown in Table 29, the 95

percentile loads ranged from lows of 8 passengers on the 5:54 AM run

from Midpines to Merced and 20 passengers on the 4:05 PM Yosemite to Mammoth run, to highs of 47

passengers on the 5:00 PM Yosemite to Mammoth run as well as 50 passengers on both the 6:40 AM

Tuolumne County to Yosemite and 4:00 PM Yosemite to Tuolumne County runs.

We made several assumptions to arrive at the required bus size. First, every run with a 95

percentile

load of 30 passengers or less could potentially be operated with a smaller bus, and every run with 31 or

more passengers would require a larger bus. However, in regard to the Highway 395 service between

Mammoth Lakes and Yosemite, only two buses are used in service and they are parked 175 miles from

the YARTS operation base in Merced. The buses should be interchangeable as potential back-ups, and

therefore both should be large buses. The analysis was also adjusted to reflect the recommended

reductions in service, specifically (1) two of the round-trips that could be operated using a smaller bus are

proposed to be eliminated and (2) the replacement of the existing three daily Route 41 runs with two

daily shorter runs is expected to increase ridership on the remaining runs, thereby requiring large buses

on both remaining runs. Based on these factors, at 2019 ridership levels, three round-trips could be

operated using smaller buses (all on the 140 Route), while the remaining 11 round-trips (including two on

the 41 Route) would require full-sized buses.

Beyond accommodating existing (2019) ridership loads there are other factors that need to be considered

in identifying the appropriate bus size:

• The purchase price of smaller buses is less than the larger over-the-road coaches. A 30-passenger

medium-duty bus costs approximately $350,000 from the manufacturer, or on the order of

$400,000 with necessary equipment, compared with a total cost of approximately $750,000 for a

diesel over-the-road coach. However, larger buses have a longer useful life benchmark (ULB) of

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 76

Table 29: YARTS Bus Size Requirements

Based on Summer 2019 Passenger Loads

Existing Route/Run

Pairs

Average

90th

Percentile

95th

Percentile

Maximum

Recommended For

Elimination?

140 Route

M to Y 5:00 AM

9 11

14 16 Yes

Y to M 9:05 AM

19 21

29 32 No

M to Y 5:30 AM

16 18

27 No

Y to M 3:40 PM

15 21

23 No

M to Y 6:00 AM 21

23 32

35 No

Y to M 3:15 PM 29

44 48 No

M to Y 6:45 AM

24 27

37 40 No

Y to M 4:15 PM

20 23

34 Yes

MPS to Y 9:00 AM

15 17 23 25

Y to M 4:35 PM

13 14 19 21

M to Y 8:45 AM

22 25

35 38

Y to M 5:15 PM 13 15

20 22

M to Y 10:30 AM

25 28 38

42 No

Y to M 6:00 PM

24 28

38 41 No

M to Y 5:45 PM 16

25 28 No

Y to M 8:17 PM

12 13

20 No

Mid to M 5:54 AM 5 6

8 9

8 Small Yes

395 Route

MM to Y 8:00 AM

15 23 26 30 No

Y to MM 5:00 PM

28 43

47 50

MM to Y 6:45 AM 13 20

22 25

Y to MM 4:05 PM 12

18 20

23 No

120 Route

TC to Y 7:40 AM 24 37

39 44 No

Y to TC 4:30 PM 22 33 35

39 No

TC to Y 6:40 AM 33

50 50 50 No

Y to TC 4:00 PM 35

50 50

TC to Y 8:40 AM 15 24

25 28 No

Y to TC 5:35 PM 19

31 34 No

41 Route

F to Y 5:37 AM

17 24

26 32

Y to F 11:15 AM 8 12 13 16 No

F to Y 7:50 AM 15

21 23 28 No

Y to F 4:06 PM 20 28 31 38 No

F to Y 11:15 AM

9 13 14 17 Yes

Y to F 5:46 PM 13

18 19 24 Yes

M = Merced MM = Mammoth Mountain Route

Small Large

Y = Yosemite

TC = Tuolumne County 140 Route

3 4

Mid = Midpines F = Fresno 395 Route

0 2

Note 1: Paired runs per driver run cuts July 2019.

120 Route

41 Route

0 2

Total

Note 3: Shows the higher passenger load required for the paired runs to determine bus size.

Note 5: Buses should be interchangable for services due to overnighting in remote locations.

Note 6: Shift of existing demand to fewer runs would increase ridership over capacity of a smaller bus.

Potential Remaining Route Pairs by Necessary Bus Size

Note 2: Calculated based on reported passenger loads

by route and run for July 2019.

Note 4: Assumes buses with 95th percentile loads 29 and under can use small buses, and 30 or more require large buses.

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Estimated Passenger Load

Paired 95th

Percentile

Bus Size

Required

Small

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 77

12 years or 450,000 miles, compared to just 7 years of 200,000 miles on 30-passenger medium-

duty small buses, which cost approximately $350,000. On an annual basis, smaller vehicles

require $57,000 in capital compared with $62,000 for a full-sized bus, or $5,000 less per year. On

a local basis, the fact that federal or state grant programs will typically fund 80 percent of the

capital costs means that the cost savings to the YARTS JPA is only on the order of $1,000 per bus

per year (or $3,000 for the three smaller buses). Therefore, due to the lesser useful life, smaller

buses do not offer a significant cost savings.

• The operating cost savings of smaller buses is not as significant as might be first thought. The

largest element of the operating costs associated with any transit service is driver wages and

benefits, and these do not change between a 30-passenger bus and a 50-passenger bus (as both

require the same level of driver licensing). There can be some modest reduction in fuel costs

(depending on the variation in costs), but overall savings in operating costs are typically in the

range of 5 percent to 10 percent.

• Smaller buses are less comfortable than over-the-road buses, which is a significant issue for

tourists and recreationists traveling long distances for leisure.

• Luggage space would be required to be provided in the passenger compartment on smaller

buses, further reducing the seating capacity and increasing the constraints on the riders YARTS is

able to serve in peak periods.

A disadvantage of having a mixed fleet (both large and small buses) is that they cannot be used

interchangeably. Larger buses are therefore required for back-up. A mixed fleet also increases the cost of

maintaining adequate inventory of spare parts as well as mechanic training.

The final key consideration is that purchasing smaller buses for a portion of the fleet would reduce the

YARTS program’s ability to accommodate any future increase in ridership. Given these various

considerations, it is recommended that YARTS continue to pursue a fleet of fully over-the-road coaches.

Overall Fleet Improvement Strategy

The long-term sustainability of the YARTS program would best be achieved through acquisition of a fleet

of diesel powered over-the-road coaches to operate the service plan (including spares) without the need

for contractor-supplied buses. As shown in Table 9, with the service modifications recommended above,

YARTS service (excluding any service on the 41 Route) requires a maximum of 11 buses in peak operation.

At a standard 20 percent spare ratio and a minimum of one spare per route, three spare vehicles are

needed to provide reliable service, for a total of 14 vehicles in the fleet.

At a cost of $750,000 per vehicle (including equipment), the new fleet will require $10,500,000 in total

funding. At a 20 percent local match requirement, total local funding is $2,100,000.

YARTS Strategic Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Merced County Association of Governments Page 78

Depending on future discussions with Madera County, three additional buses may be needed in the

YARTS fleet (two in peak service plus one spare), bringing the total fleet requirements up to 17 buses.

These three additional buses would require $2,250,000, including a $450,000 local match. Over the

course of the 12-year life of the vehicles, the annual local match for these three vehicles would total

$37,500.

As an aside, one potential option may be to purchase up to nine buses currently owned by VIA

Adventures and used in the YARTS service. These buses are 2014-year models, with the exception of on

2013-year model and thus are through slightly more than half of their useful life by age. The purchase

price of these vehicles is not known. In addition, the mechanical condition of these vehicles is also not

currently known, but typically maintenance costs associated with older buses tend to climb significantly

as buses near the end of their lives. If grant funding can be obtained to offset 80 percent of the cost of a

full new fleet, the YARTS program would have lower operating (maintenance) costs for a significantly

longer number of years and would also put off the need for expensive investment in ZEB technologies for

a longer period. Pursuing a 100 percent new fleet is therefore recommended, though purchase of the

used vehicles may be a fallback strategy if funding limitations require it.

YARTS administrative staff should therefore work with Caltrans to shift the existing grant allocation from

battery electric buses to six over-the-road diesel coach buses. Depending on the Madera County

participation, other grant opportunities should be pursued to obtain 11 to 13 additional buses for YARTS

over the next five year.

Establish YARTS Facilities

At present, YARTS relies on contractor-owned facilities for bus storage and maintenance in Merced and

Fresno, bus parking on private (lodging property) land in Tuolumne County and bus parking along the side

of a state highway (a chain-up area) in Mammoth Lakes. The lack of publicly owned facilities is a

detriment in several ways:

• The contractor costs associated with providing facilities is reflected in higher ongoing operating

costs. As the proportion of local funds for operating is higher than for capital, over time this

results in higher costs to YARTS JPA members.

• The requirement that a contractor must provide facilities reduces the potential pool of possible

contractors, decreasing competition and potentially resulting in higher costs.

• Public investment in electric bus charging equipment requires publicly owned (or long-term

leased) locations. The lack of these locations is currently an impediment to implementing a BEB

fleet.

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

vandalism to the buses.

YARTSStrategicPlanLSCTransportationConsultants,Inc.

MercedCountyAssociationofGovernments  Page79

YARTSshouldpursuethepurchaseofafacilityinMercedsufficienttostorethe140Routefleet(and

potentiallybusesusedinOakhurst‐YosemiteValleyservice).Dependingontheabilitytomaintainthe

fleetattheexistingTJPAfacilityinMerced,thissitemayalsoneedtoaccommodatevehiclemaintenance

functions.

Securedparkingfacilitiesshouldalsobeidentified(preferablyatexistingpubliclyowned

corporateyards)inGroveland,MammothLakes,andpotentiallyOakhurst.



Thetotalcostoffacilitiesiscurrentlyuncertainandwilldependonthevariousfactorsdiscussedabove.It

willcertainlyincreasetheneedfor localcapitalfunding.



INSTITUTIONALPLAN



Consider Madera County as a YARTS JPA Member



Ifcurrentdiscussionsregardinglong‐termservicebetweenMaderaCountyandYosemiteValleyare

successful,itwouldbeoptimalforMaderaCountytobecomeafullmemberoftheYARTSJointPowers

Authority(asTuolumneCountyrecentlydid),ratherthanthisservicebeoperatedonashort‐term

agreement.The

currentagreementfortheRoute41servicehasshownthedifficultiesassociatedwitha

short‐termapproachasitaddsuncertaintytocapitalplanning(busfleetsize,alternativefuels,facilities)

andtheyear‐to‐yearallocationofadministrative/marketingresources.



The“fee”forJPAmembershipdefinedforTuolumneCountywasidentifiedbased

ontheaveragelocal

subsidypervehicle‐hourofservice.Factoringthefeedefinedseveralyearsagoforinflationand

multiplyingbytheannualvehicle‐hoursofserviceidentifiedinTable2yieldsavalueontheorderof

$30,000.Overthelastfewyears,however,theneedforlocal

capitalfundingforbuspurchaseshas

becomeclear.Asdiscussedabove,theannuallocalmatchrequirementsforthreebusesneededfor

MaderaCountyservice(twoinoperationplusonespare)wouldbeapproximately$37,000.Atotalcost

forJPAmembershipthatwouldsupporttheMaderaCountyservice(andcapital)wouldtherefore

beon

theorderof$67,000.Optimally,thisissuewouldberesolvedintimetobereflectedinthedraftRequest

ForProposalspublishedinthesummerof2021.



ForMaderaCountytoinitiatetheOakhursttoYosemiteservice,theywouldneedtojointheYARTSJPA

witha$67,000

annualcontributionandpayaportionoftheoperatingcostoftheservice.Theoperating

costincludesthe$64,000marginaloperatingcostshowninTable23(thecontractor’svariablecost),and

$63,000asaproportionofthecontractor’sfixedfee(calculatedbasedon$1,130,115for14,902hoursof

service,or

$75.84perhourofservice,andassuming831hoursofservice).Thetotalcostwouldtherefore

be$194,000.Ridershipisexpectedtogenerate$38,400,bringingtheannualsubsidyto$155,600.As

thereareavarietyofpotentialotherfundingsources(suchasNationalParkServicefundingandthe

FederalTransitAdministration

5311Fprogram)thespecificfundingneededfromlocalMaderaCounty

sourcesshouldbeaddressedinthebudgetingprocess.



YARTSStrategicPlanLSCTransportationConsultants,Inc.

MercedCountyAssociationofGovernments  Page80

Bid the 395 Route Service as a Separate RFP Option



Atpresent,theYARTSoperationscontractscopeofworkincludesallfourindividualroutes.Theinclusion

ofthe395Routeserviceinparticularhasthepotentialtoreducethenumberofcapabletransit

contractorfirmsinterestedintheYARTScontractduetothechallengesofmanagingoperationssofar

removed

fromtheotherservices.Asitisimportanttomaximizethepotentialforcompetitivebidding,itis

recommendedthattheRFPbedevelopedthatallowsanindividualcontractortooptionallybidonthe395

Routeservice,theremaining(westside)service,orboth.



LSCrecognizesthatMCAGmanagementoftwoseparate

operationscouldpotentiallyincrease

managementstafftimerequirements.However,allowingforseparatebiddingofthetwoscopesofwork

couldyieldabetteroutcomeforYARTSasawhole.



Change the MCAG Management/Marketing Contract from Annual to Multiyear



Theyear‐by‐yearnatureofthecurrentMCAGcontractforYARTSmanagementandmarketingaddstothe

administrativeburdentotheorganization,andlimitsMCAG’sabilitytoplanforstaffinglevelsand

ongoingmarketingefforts.Giventhelong‐termsuccessofthisarrangement,thiscontractshouldbe

modifiedto

atleastathree‐yearterm,andpreferablyafive‐yearterm.



Improve Coordination With Other Public Transit Services



YARTSprovidestheopportunityforconnectionswithothertransitservicesintheYosemiteRegion,

includingESTAan dinternalparkshuttles.WhiledetailedserviceplanningisnotthefocusofthisStrategy

Study,YARTS/MCAGstaffshouldcontinuallyconsidermeansofcoordinatingwiththeseotherservicesto

maximizetheusefulnessofthe

YARTSservicestotheYosemiteRegionasawhole.Inparticular,the

upcomingESTAShort‐RangeTransitPlanprocesswillprovidetheopportunitytoconsiderimproved

connectionsbetweenESTA andYARTSservicesalongtheUS395corridor.



ATTACHMENTS:

Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure

Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends

Appendix C: YARTS Boarding and Alighting Data

Appendix A: YARTS Fare Structure

Table A-1: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 120 Sonora to Yosemite

FROM

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Sonora/Jamestown

Round‐trip — — $14 $7 $24 $10 $26 $12 $38 $18

One‐way — — $7 $4 $12 $5 $13 $6 $19 $9

Groveland/BuckMeadows

Round‐trip $14 $7 — — $10 $3 $12 $5 $24 $10

One‐way $7 $4 ——$5 $2 $6 $3 $12 $5

YosemiteLakes/Rush

Creek/BigOak

Flat

Round‐trip $24 $10 $10 $3 ——$8 $3 $14 $7

One‐way $12 $5 $5 $2 ——$4 $1 $7 $4

CraneFlat

Round‐trip $26 $12 $12 $5 $8 $3 — — $10 $4

One‐way $13 $6 $6 $3 $4 $1 ——$5 $2

YosemiteValley

Round‐trip $38 $18 $24 $10 $14 $7 $10 $4

——

One‐way $19 $9 $12 $5 $7 $4 $5 $2 ——

YARTS



bus



fares



includes



free



admission



Yosemite



National



Park,



well



one



free



child



ride



(12



and



under)



per



adult



ticket



purchased.



Reduced



fares



are



for



seniors



(62+),



children



(12



and



under



without



adult



paid



fare),



and



persons



with



disabilities.

Source:



https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120



October



20,2020

Sonora/Jamestown

Groveland/Buck

Meadows

YosemiteLakes/Rush

Creek/BigOakFlat CraneFlat YosemiteValley

Table A-2: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 140 Merced to Yosemite

FROM

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Merced

Round‐trip — — $10 $4 $20 $8 $20 $8 $26 $13 $38 $18

One‐way — — $5 $2 $10 $4 $10 $4 $13 $7 $19 $9

CatheysValley

Round‐trip $10 $4 ——$8 $4 $8 $4 $20 $8 $26 $13

One‐way $5 $2

 ——$4 $2 $4 $2 $10 $4 $13 $7

Mariposa

Round‐trip $20 $8 $8 $4 ——$6 $2 $10 $4 $20 $8

One‐way $10 $4 $4 $2 ——$3 $1 $5 $2 $10 $4

Midpines

Round‐trip $20 $8 $8 $4 $6 $2 — — $10 $4 $20 $8

One‐way $10 $4 $4 $2 $3 $1 ——$5 $2

$10 $4

ElPortal

Round‐trip $26 $13 $20 $8 $10 $4 $10 $4 — — $12 $5

One‐way $13 $7 $10 $4 $5 $2 $5 $2 ——$6 $3

YosemiteValley

Round‐trip $38 $18 $26 $13 $20 $8 $20 $8 $12 $5 ——

One‐way $19 $9 $13 $7 $10 $4 $10 $4 $6 $3 ——

YARTSbusfaresincludesfreeadmissiontoYosemiteNationalPark,aswellasonefreechildride(12andunder)peradultticketpurchased.

Reducedfaresareforseniors(62+),children(12andunderwithoutanadultpaidfare),andpersonswithdisabilities.

Source:https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120,10‐18‐2020

YosemiteValley

Merced CatheysValley Mariposa Midpines ElPortal

Table A-3: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 41 Fresno to Yosemite

FROM

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Fresno

Round‐trip — — $17 $10 $23 $14 $34 $20

One‐way — — $9 $5 $12 $7 $18 $10

Coarsegold/Oakhurst

Round‐trip $17 $10 $5 $2 $8 $5 $23 $13

One‐way $9 $5 $3 $1 $5 $3 $12 $7

FishCamp/MariposaGrove/Wawona

Round‐trip $23 $14 $8 $5 $15 $9

$15 $9

One‐way $12 $7 $5 $3 $9 $5 $9 $5

YosemiteValley

Round‐trip $34 $20 $23 $13 $15 $9 ——

One‐way $18 $10 $12 $7 $9 $5 ——

Source:



https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120,



October



18,



202

Fresno

YARTSbusfaresincludesfreeadmissiontoYosemiteNationalPark,aswellasonefreechildride(12andunder)per

adultticketpurchased.

Reducedfaresareforseniors(62+),children(12andunderwithoutanadultpaidfare),andpersonswith

disabilities.

Coarsegold/

Oakhurst

FishCamp/Mariposa

Grove/Wawona YosemiteValley

Table A-4: YARTS Fare Structure - Highway 120 E./395 Mammoth Lakes to Yosemite

FROM

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Regular

Dis‐

counted

Round‐trip — — $12 $6 $20 $10 $26 $15 $38 $22 $46 $26 $52 $30

One‐way — — $6 $3 $10 $5 $13 $7 $19 $10 $23 $13 $26 $15

JuneLake

Round‐trip $12 $6 — — $10 $4 $20 $10 $26 $15

 $36 $20 $42 $24

One‐way $6 $3 ——$5 $2 $10 $5 $13 $7 $18 $10 $21 $12

LeeVining

Round‐trip $20 $10 $10 $4 — — $10 $4 $20 $10 $26 $15 $38 $24

One‐way $26 $15 $5 $2 ——$5 $2 $10 $5 $13 $7 $19 $12

Round‐trip $26 $15 $20 $10 $10

 $4 — — $10 $4 $20 $10 $26 $15

One‐way $26 $7 $10 $5 $5 $2 ——$5 $2 $10 $5 $13 $7

WhiteWolf

Round‐trip $38 $22 $26 $15 $20 $10 $10 $4 — — $10 $4 $20 $10

One‐way $19 $10 $13 $7 $10 $5 $5 $2 ——$5 $2 $10 $5

CraneFlat

Round‐

trip $46 $26 $36 $20 $26 $15 $20 $10 $10 $4 — — $10 $4

One‐way $23 $13 $18 $10 $13 $7 $10 $5 $5 $2 ——$5 $2

Round‐trip $52 $30 $42 $24 $38 $22 $26 $15 $20 $10 $10 $4 ——

One‐way $26 $15 $21 $12 $19 $10 $13 $7 $10 $5 $5

$2 ——

YARTSbusfaresincludesfreeadmissiontoYosemiteNationalPark,aswellasonefreechildride(12andunder)peradultticketpurchased.

Reducedfaresareforseniors(62+),children(12andunderwithoutanadultpaidfare),andpersonswithdisabilities.

Source:https://yarts.com/tickets‐and‐fares/#sonora‐hwy‐120

MammothLakes

TuolumneMeadows

YosemiteValley

MammothLake JuneLake LeeVining

Tuolumne

Meadows

WhiteWolf CraneFlat YosemiteValley

Table A-5: YARTS Commuter Pass Prices

Merced

Catheys

Valley Mariposa Midpines ElPortal

Yosemite

Valley Fresno

Hwy41/145

Park&Ride

Coarsegold/

Oakhurst

Tenaya

Lodge/

Wawona

Yosemite

Valley

Merced Fresno

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

‐‐ $47 $94 $120 $173 $220

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

‐‐ $42 $126 $168 $252

10round‐trips $24 $47 $60 $87 $110 10round‐trips $21 $63 $84 $126

Cathey'sValley

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$47 ‐‐ $47 $74 $128 $173

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$42 ‐‐ $100 $126 $210

10

round‐trips $24 $24 $37 $64 $87 10round‐trips $21 $50 $63 $105

Mariposa

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$94 $47 ‐‐ $26 $80 $100

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$126 $100 $33 $59 $126

10round‐trips $47 $24 $13 $40 $50 10round‐trips $63 $50 $17 $30 $63

Midpines

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$120 $74 $26 ‐‐ $53 $100

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$168 $126 $59 $17 $84

10round‐trips $60 $37 $13 $27 $50 10round‐trips $84 $63 $30 $9 $42

ElPortal YosemiteValley

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$173 $128 $80 $53 ‐‐ $47

Monthly

Passor20

roundtrips

$252 $210 $126 $84 ‐‐

10round‐trips $87 $64 $40 $27 $24 10round‐trips $126 $105 $63 $42

YosemiteValley

MonthlyPassor20

roundtrips

$220 $173 $100 $100 $47 ‐‐

10round‐trips $110 $87 $50 $50 $24

Passescanbepurchaseddirectlyfromthebusdriver.YARTSCommuterPassesarenon‐refundableandnon‐transferrable

Monthlypassesarevalidforthemonthinwhichtheyarepurchased

10‐and20Round‐trippassesexpireafter90days

Source:



http://yarts.com/wp‐content/uploads/2015/07/Hwy‐140‐Commuter‐Pass‐Price‐Schedule.pd

Highway140

Hwy41/145Park&Ride

Coarsegold/Oakhurst

TenayaLodge/Wawona

A$10discountforstudentsappliestoallcommuterpasses.StudentsmustshowavalidstudentIDfromanareaschooltoreceivethediscountwhenpurchasingthepass.Nootherdiscountsapply

From

Highway41

Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Boardings Per Season

Figure B-1: YARTS Systemwide Ridership History by Season

Summer Shoulder Winter

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure B-2: SR 140 Route Annual Ridership by Season

Summer Shoulder Winter

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2016

2017

2018

2019

Figure B

-3: US 395/SR 120 E. Route Annual Ridership by Season

Summer

Shoulder

Winter

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure B-4: SR 120 W. Route Annual Ridership by Season

Summer Shoulder

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure B

-5: SR 41 Route Ridership History by Season

Summer Shoulder Winter

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

Month

NPS

Employees

Child Free

Paid Fare

Amtrak

(Paid)

Total

Total Paid

January

122 81 2,693 454 3,350 3,147

February

255 142

3,454 280 4,131 3,734

March

257 93 3,709 467 4,526 4,176

April

322 152 3,696 687 4,857 4,383

May

317 130 4,591 785 5,823 5,376

June

423 233 6,156 520 7,332 6,676

July

491 474 7,267 777 9,009 8,044

August

307

364 6,307 594 7,572 6,901

September

235 132 5,059 656 6,082 5,715

October

271 86 2,632 503 3,492 3,135

November

220 69 3,290 406 3,985 3,696

December

215 308 5,125 651 6,299 5,776

Total 3,435 2,264 53,979 6,780 66,458

60,759

Percent 5.2% 3.4% 81.2% 10.2% 100.0% 91.4%

Note: Passenger fare categories changed in October 2017

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Table B-2: 2019 Route 120 West Boardings by Fare Type

Month

NPS

Employees

Child Free

Adult

(Paid)

Amtrak

(Paid)

Total

Total Paid

May 2 35 932 - 969 932

June - 262 2,994 20 3,276 3,014

July - 354 4,239 - 4,593 4,239

August - 410 3,142 - 3,552 3,142

September 3 117 1,528 - 1,648 1,528

Total 5 1,178 12,835 20 14,038 12,855

% Total 0.0% 8.4% 91.4% 0.1% 100.0% 91.6%

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Table B-3: 2019 Route 120/395 Boardings by Fare Type

Month

NPS

Employees

Child Free

Adult

Paid

Amtrak

(Paid)

Total

Total Paid

May

- 90 1,969 23 2,082 1,992

June - 53 2,238 5

2,296 2,243

July

- 6 1,211 27 1,244 1,238

August - 7 650

0 657 650

Total 0 156 6,068 55 6,279 6,123

% Total 0.0%

2.5%

96.6%

0.9% 100.0% 97.5%

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

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

Month

NPS

Employees

Child

Free

Adult

Paid

Amtrak

(Paid)

Total

Paid

May 5 129 811 38

983 849

June

8 71 1,835 110 2,024 1,945

July 1 107 2,269 133 2,510

2,402

August 1 60 2,062 124 2,247 2,186

September 3 117 1,528

0 1,648 1,528

Total

18 484 8,505 405 9,412 8,910

% Total 0.2%

5.1% 90.4% 4.3% 100.0% 94.7%

Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Table B-5: YARTS Boardings by Stop

Avg Daily

Boardings

% Total

% Outside

Park

Avg Daily

Boardings

% Total

% Outside

Park

Merced Airport 1.1 0% 1% 2.0 1% 1%

Merced Transpo 19.5 7% 11% 13.2 5% 8%

Amtrak Station 30.8 11% 18% 27.1 9% 16%

Catheys Valley 0.5 0% 0% 0.4 0% 0%

Midtown Mariposa 13.3 5% 8% 9.6 3% 6%

Roadside Rest Stop 9.3 3% 5% 6.5 2% 4%

Mariposa Park & Ride 21.0 7% 12% 29.1 10% 17%

AutoCamp 10.3 4% 6% 3.3 1% 2%

Midpines County Park 3.4 1% 2% 2.5 1% 1%

Midpines Post Office 2.5 1% 1% 2.4 1% 1%

Yosemite Bug Hostel 15.3 5% 9% 8.0 3% 5%

Cedar Lodge 16.7 6% 10% 5.5 2% 3%

NPS Maintenance 6.0 2% 3% 2.3 1% 1%

Barium Mine Rd 5.7 2% 3% 0.2 0% 0%

El Portal Post Office 2.6 1% 2% 1.6 1% 1%

Yosemite View Lodge 14.9 5% 9% 5.5 2% 3%

Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 71.5 25% 53.1 18%

Yosemite Valley Lodge 23.3 8% 16.6 6%

Curry Village 23.0 8% 14.4 5%

Totals 290.6 203.2

Boardings

% Total

Park

Boardings

% Total

Park

The Village 4.5 7% 20% 0.8 1% 1%

Mammoth Mountain Inn 3.2 5% 14% 1.7 1% 2%

Juniper Springs Resort 0.8 1% 3% 1.1 1% 1%

Mammoth Lakes Park/Tavern Rd 0.1 0% 0% 2.1 1% 3%

Shilo Inn 6.4 10% 28% 7.6 5% 10%

June Lake 1.5 2% 6% 29.8 20% 40%

Mono Basin Visitors Center 1.1 2% 5% 4.7 3% 6%

Lake View Lodge 2.4 4% 10% 20.5 14% 28%

Tioga Mobil Gas 3.0 4% 13% 3.8 3% 5%

Tuolumne Meadows Store 2.3 3% 2.0 1% 0

Tuolumne Meadows Visitor Center 8.0 12% 0.5 0%

Crane Flat Gas Station 0.3 0%

Yosemite

73.6 50%

Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 33.7 50% 148.2

Totals 67.2

Boardings

% Total

Park

Fresno Airport 7.8 10% 20%

Amtrak/Greyhound 5.9 7% 15%

North Fresno 4.3 5% 11%

Chukchansi Gold 2.4 3% 6%

Coarsegold 4.0 5% 10%

Oakhurst Best Western 11.0 14% 28%

Pines at Bass Lake 1.3 2% 3%

Tenaya Lodge 2.7 3% 7%

Mariposa Grove 4.1 5%

Wawona Store 3.9 5%

Yosemite Valley Visitor Center 33.5 41%

Totals 81.0

Yosemite Pines RV Park

Peak Summer (July 2019)

Peak Winter (December 2019)

140 Route

Peak Summer (July 2019)

395 Route

Peak Summer (July 2019)

120 Route

Black Oak Hotel

Sonora Best Western

Heritage Inn Sonora

Jamestown - Rocca Park

Groveland - Laveroni Park

Totals

41 Route

Peak Summer (July 2019)

Buck Meadows Resort

Yosemite Lakes Campground

Rush Creek Lodge

Big Oak Flat Park

Crane Flat Gas Station

Appendix C: YARTS Ridership Performance

TableC‐1:140RouteAverageDailyRidershipbyRun

Run Start/End

July Sept Jan

1S MercedtoYosemite

5:00AM

9.3 6.4 12.2

2S MercedtoYosemite

5:30AM

17.0 9.7 12.9 9.3

1XW/2W Cathey'sVly‐Valley 5:45AM

6.6 9.5

7S MidpinestoYosemite

5:54AM

5.1 5.2 3.4

2aS MercedtoYosemite

6:00AM

21.8 7.8 28.7 9.8

3W MercedtoYosemite

6:40AM

15.3

3S MercedtoYosemite

6:45AM

21.8 15.9 17.0 21.4

4S/4XW MercedtoYosemite

8:45AM

19.0 11.7 13.8 30.4 25.4 15.1

3aS MariposatoYosemite

9:00AM

12.5 7.2 20.8 9.2

5S/5W MercedtoYosemite

10:30AM

25.0 16.4 13.8 23.6 22.4

5Extra MercedtoYosemite

10:30AM

25.0 20.1

MercedtoYosemite 5:25PM

14.0 14.1

6S MercedtoYosemite

5:45PM

18.3 18.3 11.9 19.1

8W YosemitetoMerced 8:20AM

18.5 16.6

8S YosemitetoMerced

9:05AM

19.5 20.6 16.9 19.4

9W YosemitetoMerced

2:20PM

17.2 18.6

8aS YosemitetoMerced

3:15PM

29.7 22.1 25.6

9S YosemitetoMerced

3:40PM

14.7 7.7 12.4 9.8 7.6

10S/11W YosemitetoMerced

4:15PM

19.8 15.5 16.1 20.4 19.4 20.9

11S YosemitetoMerced

4:35PM

10.2 10.8 18.2 8.7

9W/12W

YosemitetoMerced 5:05PM

13.2 15.5

11aS YosemitetoMerced

5:15PM

12.1 8.9 19.6 11.1

12 YosemitetoMerced

6:00PM

22.0 14.0 29.8 20.4

14 YosemitetoMerced

8:17PM

11.0 4.1 13.6 7.8

Starting

Time

Weekday Weekend/Holiday

Run Start/End

July Sept

120Route

S1E TuolumnetoYosemite

6:40AM

29.9 40.6 51.0

S2E TuolumnetoYosemite

7:40AM

22.2 26.0 29.3 49.2

S3E TuolumnetoYosemite

8:40AM

16.1 13.9 49.0

S1F YosemitetoTuolumne

4:00PM

33.5 37.9 51.0

S2F YosemitetoTuolumne

4:30PM

22.5 24.4 19.2 49.0

S3F YosemitetoTuolumne

5:35PM

16.9 24.4 49.0

395Route

1M MammothtoYosemite 6:45AM 15.5 19.3 14.9 17.9

2M MammothtoYosemite 8:00AM 14.4 9.8

1Y YosemitetoMammoth 4:05PM 26.7 25.7 32.0 27.5

2Y YosemitetoMammoth 5:00PM 11.8 9.6

41Route

21 YosemitetoFresno 11:15AM 9.0 11.6 9.0 10.8

23 Yosemite

toFresno 4:06PM 19.8 11.9 20.6 15.6

25 YosemitetoFresno 5:46PM 10.5 5.6 16.1 10.7

22 FresnotoYosemite 5:37AM 17.9 8.0 15.6 11.7

24 FresnotoYosemite 7:50AM 13.9 10.0 18.3 8.8

26 FresnotoYosemite 11:15AM 7.5 9.1 11.3 7.4

Starting

Time

Weekday Weekend/Holiday

TableC‐2:120,120/395,&41RouteAverageDailyRidershipby

Run

TableC‐3:July2019RunAnalysis‐‐140Route

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

Fare

Revenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

RevenueHour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

1S MercedtoYosemite 5:00AM 87 2.50 $383.75 9.3 $47.83 $335.92 0.11 3.7 $41.18 $36.05 12%

2S MercedtoYosemite 5:30AM 87 2.60 $399.10 17.0 $87.26 $311.84 0.20 6.5 $23.48 $18.34 22%

2aS MercedtoYosemite 6:00AM 87 2.90 $445.15 21.8 $111.76 $333.39 0.25 7.5 $20.45 $15.31 25%

3S MercedtoYosemite 6:45AM 87 2.90 $445.15 21.8 $111.76 $333.39 0.25 7.5 $20.45 $15.31 25%

3aS MercedtoYosemite 9:00AM 87 2.90 $445.15 12.5 $63.93 $381.22 0.14 4.3 $35.74 $30.61 14%

4S MariposatoYosemite 8:45AM 55 3.20 $491.20 19.0 $97.29 $393.91 0.34 5.9 $25.91 $20.78 20%

5S MercedtoYosemite 10:30AM 87 3.00 $460.50 25.0 $128.56 $331.94 0.29 8.3 $18.39 $13.25 28%

6S MercedtoYosemite 5:45PM 87 2.60 $399.10 18.3 $94.03 $305.07 0.21 7.0 $21.79 $16.65 24%

7S MidpinestoYosemite 5:54AM 51 1.50 $230.25 5.1 $26.13 $204.12 0.10 3.4 $45.23 $40.09 11%

8S YosemitetoMerced 9:05AM 87 3.00 $460.50 19.5 $99.86 $360.64 0.22 6.5 $23.67 $18.54 22%

8aS YosemitetoMerced 3:15PM 87 2.50 $383.75 29.7 $152.59 $231.16 0.34 11.9 $12.91 $7.78 40%

9S YosemitetoMerced 3:40PM 87 3.00 $460.50 14.7 $75.60 $384.90 0.17 4.9 $31.27 $26.14 16%

10S YosemitetoMerced 4:15PM 87 3.00 $460.50 19.8 $101.73 $358.77 0.23 6.6 $23.24 $18.10 22%

11S YosemitetoMerced 4:35

PM 87 2.50 $383.75 10.2 $52.50 $331.25 0.12 4.1 $37.52 $32.39 14%

11aS YosemitetoMerced 5:15PM 87 3.00 $460.50 12.1 $62.06 $398.44 0.14 4.0 $38.09 $32.95 13%

12 YosemitetoMerced 6:00PM 87 2.80 $429.80 22.0 $112.93 $316.87 0.25 7.9 $19.54 $14.40 26%

14 YosemitetoMerced 8:17PM 87 2.80 $429.80 11.0 $56.46 $373.34 0.13 3.9 $39.07 $33.94 13%

OverallRoutePerformance 1,411 47 $7,168.45 289 $1,482.27 $5,686.18 0.20 6.2 $24.82 $19.69 21%

Weekends/Holidays(2)

2S MercedtoYosemite 5:30AM 87 2.60 $399.10 12.9 $66.16 $332.94 0.15 5.0 $30.96 $25.83 17%

2aS MercedtoYosemite 6:00AM 87 2.90 $445.15 17.4 $89.54 $355.61 0.20 6.0 $25.52 $20.39 20%

3S MercedtoYosemite 6:45AM 87 2.90 $445.15 28.7 $147.15 $298.00 0.33 9.9 $15.53 $10.40 33%

3aS MercedtoYosemite 9:00AM 87 2.90 $445.15 20.8 $106.65 $338.50 0.24 7.2 $21.42 $16.29 24%

4S MariposatoYosemite 8:45AM 55 3.20 $491.20 30.4 $156.27 $334.93 0.55 9.5 $16.13 $11.00 32%

5S MercedtoYosemite 10:30AM 87 3.00 $460.50 23.6 $120.91 $339.59 0.27 7.9 $19.55 $14.42 26%

6S MercedtoYosemite 5:45PM 87 2.60 $399.10 11.9 $61.03 $338.07 0.14 4.6 $33.57 $28.44 15%

8S YosemitetoMerced 9:05AM 87 3.00 $460.50 16.9 $86.69 $373.81 0.19 5.6 $27.27 $22.13 19%

8aS YosemitetoMerced 3:15PM 87 2.50 $383.75 25.6 $131.18 $252.57 0.29 10.2 $15.02 $9.88 34%

9S YosemitetoMerced 3:40PM 87 3.00 $460.50 9.8 $50.19 $410.31 0.11 3.3 $47.10 $41.96 11%

10S YosemitetoMerced 4:15PM 87 3.00 $460.50 20.4 $104.94 $355.56 0.23 6.8 $22.52 $17.39 23%

11S YosemitetoMerced 4:35PM 87 3.00 $460.50 18.2 $93.53 $366.97 0.21 6.1 $25.27 $20.14 20%

11aS YosemitetoMerced 5:15PM 87 2.50 $383.75 19.6 $100.46 $283.29 0.22 7.8 $19.61 $14.47 26%

12 YosemitetoMerced 6:00

PM 87 2.80 $429.80 29.8 $152.85 $276.95 0.34 10.6 $14.43 $9.30 36%

14 YosemitetoMerced 8:17PM 87 2.80 $429.80 13.6 $69.58 $360.22 0.16 4.8 $31.71 $26.57 16%

OverallRoutePerformance 1,273 43 $6,554.45 299 $1,537.13 $5,017.32 0.24 7.0 $21.89 $16.75 23%

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

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐4:July2019RunAnalysis‐‐120RouteSonora

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

FareRevenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

Revenue

Hour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

S1E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

6:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 29.9 $153.29 $190.33 0.36 9.3 $11.51 $6.37 45%

S2E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

7:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 22.2 $113.86 $229.76 0.26 6.9 $15.49 $10.36 33%

S3E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

8:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 16.1 $82.83 $260.79 0.19 5.0 $21.29 $16.16 24%

S1F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

4:00PM 84 3.30 $354.35 33.5 $172.19 $182.17 0.40 10.2 $10.56 $5.43 49%

S2F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

4:30PM 84 3.30 $354.35 22.5 $115.49 $238.86 0.27 6.8 $15.75 $10.62 33%

S3F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

5:35PM 84 3.30 $354.35 16.9 $86.79 $267.56 0.20 5.1 $20.96 $15.82 24%

OverallRoutePerformance 504 20 2094 141 $724.45 $1,369.46 0.28 7.2 $14.84 $9.70 35%

Weekends/Holidays(2)

S1E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

6:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 40.6 $208.17 $135.44 0.48 12.7 $8.47 $3.34 61%

S2E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

7:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 29.3 $150.57 $193.05 0.35 9.2 $11.71 $6.58 44%

S3E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

8:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 13.9 $71.29 $272.32 0.17 4.3 $24.74 $19.61 21%

S1F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

4:00PM 84 3.30 $354.35 37.9 $194.48 $159.87 0.45 11.5 $9.35 $4.22 55%

S2F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

4:30PM 84 3.30 $354.35 19.2 $98.67 $255.69 0.23 5.8 $18.43 $13.30 28%

S3F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

5:35PM 84 3.30 $354.35 24.4 $125.47 $228.88 0.29 7.4 $14.50 $9.36 35%

OverallRoutePerformance 504 20 $2,093.91 165.3 $848.66 $1,245.25 0.33 8.5 $12.66 $7.53 41%

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐5:July2019RunAnalysis‐‐120/395RouteMammoth

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

FareRevenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

RevenueHour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

1M MammothtoYosemite

6:45AM

110 3.80 $408.04 15.5 $79.68 $328.36 0.14 4.1 $26.29 $21.15 20%

2M MammothtoYosemite

8:00AM

110 3.80 $408.04 14.4 $73.73 $334.32 0.13 3.8 $28.41 $23.28 18%

1Y YosemitetoMammoth

4:05PM

110 3.50 $375.83 26.7 $137.12 $238.71 0.24 7.6 $14.07 $8.94 36%

2Y YosemitetoMammoth

5:00PM

110 3.50 $375.83 11.8 $60.66 $315.17 0.11 3.4 $31.80 $26.67 16%

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

Weekends/Holidays(2)

1M MammothtoYosemite

6:45AM

110 3.80 $408.04 14.9 $76.42 $331.62 0.14 3.9 $27.41 $22.27 19%

2M MammothtoYosemite

8:00AM

110 3.80 $408.04 9.8 $50.19 $357.85 0.09 2.6 $41.73 $36.60 12%

1Y YosemitetoMammoth

4:05PM

110 3.50 $375.83 32.0 $164.26 $211.57 0.29 9.1 $11.74 $6.61 44%

2Y YosemitetoMammoth

5:00PM

110 3.50 $375.83 9.6 $49.05 $326.78 0.09 2.7 $39.33 $34.20 13%

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

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐6:July2019RunAnalysis‐‐41RouteMammoth

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

FareRevenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

Revenue

Hour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

YosemitetoFresno 11:15AM 113 4 $704.74 9.0 $46.43 $658.31 0.08 2.1 $77.91 $72.78 7%

FresnotoYosemite 5:37AM 113 4 $659.51 17.9 $91.69 $567.82 0.16 4.3 $36.92 $31.79 14%

YosemitetoFresno 4:06PM 111 4 $693.07 19.8 $101.73 $591.34 0.18 4.6 $34.97 $29.84 15%

FresnotoYosemite 7:50AM 112 4 $647.84 13.9 $71.16 $576.67 0.12 3.4 $46.73 $41.60 11%

YosemitetoFresno 5:46PM 111 4.30 $690.15 10.5 $54.13 $636.02 0.10 2.5 $65.45 $60.31 8%

FresnotoYosemite 11:15AM 111 4 $644.92 7.5 $38.73 $606.19 0.07 1.9 $85.47 $80.34 6%

OverallRoutePerformance 671 25 $4,040.22 78.7 $403.87 $3,636.35 0.12 3.1 $51.35 $46.22 10%

Weekends/Holidays(2)

YosemitetoFresno 11:15AM 112 4 $697.28 9.0 $46.20 $651.09 0.08 2.1 $77.48 $72.34 7%

FresnotoYosemite 5:37AM 211 8 $1,219.80 15.6 $79.85 $1,139.95 0.07 2.0 $78.42 $73.28 7%

YosemitetoFresno 4:06PM 111 4.30 $690.15 20.6 $105.87 $584.28 0.19 4.8 $33.46 $28.33 15%

FresnotoYosemite 7:50AM 111 4.00 $642.00 18.3 $93.68 $548.32 0.16 4.6 $35.18 $30.05 15%

YosemitetoFresno 5:46PM 222 8.60 $1,380.30 16.1 $82.70 $1,297.60 0.07 1.9 $85.67 $80.54 6%

FresnotoYosemite 11:15AM 222 8.00 $1,284.00 11.3 $58.17 $1,225.83 0.05 1.4 $113.29 $108.16 5%

OverallRoutePerformance 988 37 $5,913.53 90.9 $466.46 $5,447.07 0.09 2.5 $65.07 $59.94 8%

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐7:September2019RunAnalysis‐‐140Route

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

Fare

Revenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

RevenueHour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11S YosemitetoMerced 4:35

PM 87 3.00 $460.50 10.8 $55.44 $405.06 0.12 3.6 $42.64 $37.51 12%

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

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

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

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

Weekends/Holidays(2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 YosemitetoMerced 6:00

PM 87 2.80 $429.80 20.4 $104.94 $324.86 0.23 7.3 $21.02 $15.89 24%

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

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

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐8:September2019RunAnalysis‐‐120RouteSonora

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

FareRevenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

RevenueHour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

S2E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

7:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 26.0 $133.46 $210.16 0.31 8.1 $13.22 $8.08 39%

S2F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

4:30PM 84 3.30 $354.35 24.4 $125.25 $229.11 0.29 7.4 $14.52 $9.39 35%

OverallRoutePerformance 168 7 $697.97 50.4 $258.70 $439.27 0.30 7.8 $13.85 $8.72 37%

Weekends/Holidays(2)

S1E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

6:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 51.0 $261.78 $81.83 0.61 15.9 $6.74 $1.60 76%

S2E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

7:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 49.2 $252.54 $91.07 0.59 15.4 $6.98 $1.85 73%

S3E

Tuolumneto

Yosemite

8:40AM 84 3.20 $343.62 49.0 $251.52 $92.10 0.58 15.3 $7.01 $1.88 73%

S1F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

4:00PM 84 3.30 $354.35 51.0 $261.78 $92.57 0.61 15.5 $6.95 $1.82 74%

S2F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

4:30PM 84 3.30 $354.35 49.0 $251.52 $102.84 0.58 14.8 $7.23 $2.10 71%

S3F

Yosemiteto

Tuolumne

5:35PM 84 3.30 $354.35 49.0 $251.52 $102.84 0.58 14.8 $7.23 $2.10 71%

OverallRoutePerformance 504 20 $2,093.91 298.2 $1,530.66 $563.25 0.59 15.3 $7.02 $1.89 73%

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐9:September2019RunAnalysis‐‐120/395RouteMammoth

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operatin

gCost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

FareRevenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

RevenueHour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

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

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

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

Weekends/Holidays (2)

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

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

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

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐10:September2019RunAnalysis‐‐41RouteMammoth

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

FareRevenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

Revenue

Hour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

Subsidyper

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

YosemitetoFresno 11:15AM 111 4.30 $690.15 11.6 $59.31 $630.84 0.10 2.7 $59.72 $54.59 9%

FresnotoYosemite 5:37AM 111 4.00 $642.00 8.0 $41.06 $600.94 0.07 2.0 $80.25 $75.12 6%

YosemitetoFresno 4:06AM 112 4 $697.28 11.9 $61.03 $636.26 0.11 2.7 $58.65 $53.52 9%

FresnotoYosemite 7:50AM 112 4 $649.13 10.0 $51.33 $597.80 0.09 2.5 $64.91 $59.78 8%

YosemitetoFresno 5:48PM 112 4 $697.28 5.6 $28.52 $668.77 0.05 1.3 $125.51 $120.38 4%

FresnotoYosemite 11:15AM 112 4 $649.13 9.1 $46.77 $602.37 0.08 2.3 $71.25 $66.11 7%

OverallRoutePerformance 670 25 $4,024.98 56.1 $288.02 $3,736.97 0.08 2.2 $71.73 $66.60 7%

Weekends/Holidays(2)

YosemitetoFresno 11:15AM 111 8.60 $1,380.30 10.8 $55.61 $1,324.69 0.10 1.3 $127.41 $122.28 4%

FresnotoYosemite 11:15AM 111 8.00 $1,284.00 11.7 $59.88 $1,224.12 0.11 1.5 $110.06 $104.92 5%

YosemitetoFresno 5:37AM 117 5 $741.51 15.6 $80.07 $661.44 0.13 3.4 $47.53 $42.40 11%

FresnotoYosemite 7:50AM 115 4 $674.10 8.8 $45.34 $628.76 0.08 2.1 $76.31 $71.18 7%

YosemitetoFresno 5:46PM 111 4.30 $690.15 10.7 $54.75 $635.40 0.10 2.5 $64.70 $59.57 8%

FresnotoYosemite 11:15AM 111 4.00 $642.00 7.4 $37.98 $604.02 0.07 1.9 $86.76 $81.62 6%

OverallRoutePerformance 676 34 $5,412.06 65.0 $333.64 $5,078.42 0.10 1.9 $83.26 $78.13 6%

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis

TableC‐11:January2020RunAnalysis‐‐140Route

Run Start/End

Starting

Time

Revenue

Miles

Revenue

Hours

Operating

Cost(1)

Passenger

Boardings

Estimated

Fare

Revenue

Operating

Subsidy

Boardingsper

RevenueMile

Boardingsper

RevenueHour

Costper

Passenger

Boarding

per

Passenger

Boarding

Farebox

Ratio

Weekdays

1XW Cathey'sVly‐Valley 5:45AM 69 2.10 $225.50 6.6 $34.06 $191.43 0.10 3.2 $33.98 $28.85 15%

Exp.MercedtoYosemite 5:00AM 87 2.50 $268.45

12.2

$62.53 $205.92 0.14 4.9 $22.04 $16.90 23%

3W MercedtoYosemite 6:40AM 87 3.20 $343.62 17.0 $87.03 $256.59 0.19 5.3 $20.27 $15.13 25%

4XW MercedtoYosemite 8:45AM 87 3.00 $322.14 13.8 $70.93 $251.21 0.16 4.6 $23.31 $18.18 22%

5W MercedtoYosemite 10:30AM 87 3.30 $354.35 13.8 $70.93 $283.43 0.16 4.2 $25.64 $20.51 20%

5Extra MercedtoYosemiteXtra 10:30AM 87 3.00 $322.14 25.0 $128.32 $193.82 0.29 8.3 $12.89 $7.75 40%

6W MercedtoYosemite 5:25PM 87 3.20 $343.62 14.0 $71.86 $271.75 0.16 4.4 $24.54 $19.41 21%

7WOct MidpinestoMerced 5:54AM 51 1.50 $161.07 3.4 $17.50 $143.57 0.07 2.3 $47.25 $42.11 11%

8W YosemitetoMerced 8:20AM 87 2.80 $300.66 18.5 $94.73 $205.94 0.21 6.6 $16.29 $11.16 32%

9W YosemitetoMerced 2:20PM 87 2.60 $279.19 17.2 $88.19 $190.99 0.20 6.6 $16.25 $11.12 32%

10XW YosemitetoMerced 3:40PM 87 2.90 $311.40 12.4 $63.46 $247.94 0.14 4.3 $25.19 $20.05 20%

11W YosemitetoMerced 4:15PM 87 2.80 $300.66 16.1 $82.83 $217.84 0.19 5.8 $18.63 $13.50 28%

12W Yosemiteto

Merced 5:05PM 87 3.00 $322.14 13.2 $67.90 $254.24 0.15 4.4 $24.35 $19.22 21%

OverallRoutePerformance

1077 36 3855

183.2

$940.27 $2,914.67 0.17 5.1 $21.04 $15.91 24%

Weekends/Holidays(2)

2W Cathey'sVly‐Valley 5:45AM 69 2.10 $225.50 9.5 $48.76 $176.73 0.14 4.5 $23.74 $18.60 22%

3W Merced‐Yosemite 6:40AM 87 3.20 $343.62 15.3 $78.28 $265.34 0.18 4.8 $22.53 $17.40 23%

4XW Merced‐Yosemite 8:45AM 87 3.00 $322.14 15.1 $77.64 $244.50 0.17 5.0 $21.30 $16.17 24%

5W Merced‐Yosemite 10:30AM 87 3.30 $354.35 20.1 $103.30 $251.05 0.23 6.1 $17.61 $12.47 29%

6W Merced‐Yosemite 5:25PM 87 3.20 $343.62 14.1 $72.50 $271.11 0.16 4.4 $24.33 $19.19 21%

8W YosemitetoMerced 8:20AM 87 2.80 $300.66 16.6 $85.34 $215.33 0.19 5.9 $18.09 $12.95 28%

9W YosemitetoMerced 2:20PM 87 2.60 $279.19 18.6 $95.60 $183.59 0.21 7.2 $14.99 $9.86 34%

11W YosemitetoMerced 4:15PM 87 2.80 $300.66 20.9 $107.15 $193.51 0.24 7.5 $14.40 $9.27 36%

12W YosemitetoMerced 5:05PM 87 3.00 $322.14 15.5 $79.56 $242.58 0.18 5.2 $20.78 $15.65 25%

OverallRoutePerformance

765 26.00 $2,791.88 145.8 $748.13 $2,043.75 0.19 5.6 $19.16 $14.02 27%

AverageDaily PerformanceAnalysis