YARTS STRATEGIC PLAN WORKING PAPER

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

YARTS STRATEGIC PLANWORKING PAPER

Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc

YOSEMITE AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

STRATEGIC PLAN

Working Paper

Prepared for

Merced County Association of Governments 369 West 18th Street

Merced, California 95340

Prepared by

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. PO Box 5875

2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C Tahoe City, California, 96145 530

530-583-4053

January 5, 2021

YARTS Strategic Plan Working Paper

- i -

Table of Contents

CHAPTERS

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

Chapter 2: YARTS Institutional Overview .................................................................................... 2 Institutional Structure of YARTS ................................................................................................................ 2 YARTS Agreements .................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 3: Review of Yosemite Visitation and YARTS Service .............................................. 11 Yosemite National Park Visitation ........................................................................................................... 11 YARTS Services Overview ........................................................................................................................ 15 YARTS Performance Analysis ................................................................................................................... 32

Chapter 4: YARTS Capital Overview ......................................................................................... 37 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 37 YARTS Fleet .............................................................................................................................................. 37 Moving Toward Zero Emissions .............................................................................................................. 39 YARTS Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Chapter 5: Funding History and Availability .......................................................................... 45 YARTS Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................... 45 Federal Sources of Revenue .................................................................................................................... 50 State Sources of Revenue ........................................................................................................................ 53 Local Sources of Revenue ........................................................................................................................ 54 Summary—The Future Funding of YARTS ............................................................................................... 55

Chapter 6: YARTS Outlook ........................................................................................................... 57 YARTS Institutional and Administrative Issues ........................................................................................ 57 YARTS Service Issues ................................................................................................................................ 57 YARTS Capital Issues ................................................................................................................................ 58 YARTS Funding Issues .............................................................................................................................. 59 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix A: YARTS Performance Appendix B: YARTS Ridership Trends Appendix C: Fare Structures

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: NPS Financial Assistance for YARTS Service ................................................................................ 9 Table 2: Monthly Visitor Count (2000 – 2019)........................................................................................ 12 Table 3: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance (1998 – 2019) ............................................................ 14 Table 4: Annual Visitation by Major Entrance Station (2015 – 2019) .................................................... 15 Table 5: 2019 Monthly Visitation by Major Entrance Station ................................................................ 17


- ii -

Table 6: Summary of Existing YART Service ............................................................................................ 19 Table 7: Recent YARTS Service Changes ................................................................................................. 19 Table 8: YARTS 2019 and 2020 Service Quantities by Route and Month ............................................... 21 Table 9: YARTS Ridership History by Route ............................................................................................. 22 Table 10: YARTS Ridership History by Route and Season ....................................................................... 25 Table 11: Route 140 Ridership History by Type ...................................................................................... 26 Table 12: Passenger Boardings by Route by Month 2019 & 2020 ......................................................... 27 Table 13: Route Ridership by Average Weekday and Weekend by Month ........................................... 29 Table 14: YARTS 2019 Performance Analysis by Route and Month ....................................................... 34 Table 15: YARTS Vehicle Fleet – Replacement Needs ............................................................................ 38 Table 16: YARTS versus VIA Bus – Calendar Year 2019 ........................................................................... 39 Table 17: YARTS Expenses by Year (Merced Contract) ........................................................................... 46 Table 18: YARTS Revenues (Merced) ...................................................................................................... 47 Table 19: YARTS Expenses and Revenue by Year – Fresno Contract ...................................................... 48 Table 20: YARTS Total Operating Expenses and Revenue by Year ......................................................... 48 Table 21: Countywide Retail Sales Trends in YARTS Service Area .......................................................... 50

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: YARTS 2020 – 21 Board of Directors ......................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Total Annual Visitors (2000 – 2019) ......................................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Annual Visitors by Season (2000 – 2019) ................................................................................ 13 Figure 4: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance .................................................................................. 14 Figure 5: Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System ..................................................................... 18 Figure 6: YARTS Historic Annual Ridership by Route .............................................................................. 23 Figure 7: 2019 Monthly Ridership by Route ........................................................................................... 28 Figure 8: 2020 Monthly Ridership by Route ........................................................................................... 28 Figure 9: 2019 Average Weekday and Weekend/Holiday Ridership ...................................................... 31


- 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 currently are 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 and including a review of previous plans considering these changing conditions.

This Working Paper is an interim study product, reviewing existing conditions and framing the current issues. It is intended to serve as a resource to the Board, the Authority Advisory Committee and other decision makers in future discussions. This document the groundwork for the analysis by providing an overview of the current institutional framework, reviewing the visitation to Yosemite National Park, analyzing recent service and ridership statistics for YARTS, reviewing capital needs (including bus replacement and zero emission requirements), assessing funding levels, and framing the challenges facing the program. These future discussions and technical analysis will form the basis for final strategies for implementation.

It should be noted at the outset that this plan is looking at conditions beyond the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, which (as of this writing) appears to be on track to occur in mid-2021. Though it is uncertain whether there will be long-term permanent impacts to travel patterns, this analysis focuses on conditions prior to the outset of the pandemic impacts in March 2020.


- 2 -

This page intentionally left blank


- 3 -

Chapter 2: YARTS 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 is presently in the process of joining the JPA. YARTS is overseen by a Board of Commissioners (the Board) which includes six voting members and four non-voting members. Voting members consist of two elected Supervisors from each of the three member-counties, while non-voting members consist of one elected official from Madera County, one elected official from Tuolumne 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, and one each from Madera and Tuolumne Counties, and three from Fresno County. In addition to the JPA, YARTS has a number of 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 planning, operating, managing, and evaluating 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 member 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 defines that the Board has the power to contract with an Administering Agency, enter into 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.


- 4 -

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

YARTS JPA Bylaws

The YARTS by laws 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, of transportation

options

Mariposa County

2 elected Supervisors

Merced County


Mono County


Madera County Supervisor Tom Wheeler

Fresno County Mayor Rhonda Armstrong, City of Kerman/Fresno County

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

Tuolumne County Supervisor John Gray


- 5 -

• 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 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;


- 6 -

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

• Marketing – Prepare and distribute schedules and brochures, oversee the reservation process, maintain website and social media, administer ticket sales, 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 -- 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, 20181. It identified a two-year term, along with the option to extend for up to two additional 1-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.

1 As a result of the term of the contract, the service year is from November 1st to October 31st.


- 7 -

• 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.

• 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


- 8 -

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 YARTS. In addition, it is not feasible for public funding to be used to 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 20/21 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


- 9 -

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, et cetera.

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

Table 1: NPS Financial Assistance for YARTS Service2020 Federal Fiscal Year

RoutesOrigin by County

Round Trips

ProvidedScheduled Dates of

ServiceHours of

Operation 1Days in Service

Recipient Operating

Costs 2 NPS Award

Highway 41, Wawona Road Fresno Madera 3 5/11/20 to 9/11/20 (summer

only) 9 124 $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

1 5/13/20 to 9/30/20 142 $152,082

2 5/25/20 to 8/31/20 102 $218,484

Highway 140, El Portal Road Merced Mariposa 6 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 2 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


- 10 -

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 amount by 3 percent each of the final two years of an extension of the contract. 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.


- 11 -

Chapter 3: Review of Yosemite Visitation and YARTS Service

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK VISITATION

Historic Annual and 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 – 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 years 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. 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-February) 39.7 percent of visitors enter through the South Entrance, followed by Arch Rock at 37.9 percent.


- 12 -

Tabl

e 2:

Mon

thly

Visi

tor C

ount

(200

0-20

19)

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NO

VDE

CTo

tal

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

4,42

2,86

1

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

4,00

9,43

620

1712

0,02

511

9,42

116

6,79

330

2,55

347

1,84

456

5,70

263

3,35

161

5,89

256

6,27

942

9,82

721

7,92

712

7,27

64,

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

5,02

8,86

820

1512

8,31

813

5,31

619

4,66

728

1,32

840

8,12

154

5,23

162

6,00

963

6,93

652

7,40

235

7,22

316

9,42

514

0,24

14,

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

3,88

2,64

220

1310

3,91

011

4,44

016

5,40

923

1,17

837

0,42

250

8,94

161

1,53

855

2,13

746

0,85

527

9,52

616

1,35

613

1,47

93,

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

3,85

3,40

420

1110

0,71

893

,588

100,

433

231,

372

356,

588

503,

741

704,

553

699,

749

533,

502

360,

449

139,

079

127,

621

3,95

1,39

320

1096

,089

100,

379

149,

651

224,

461

382,

414

521,

059

643,

566

659,

857

520,

210

356,

370

148,

459

98,8

933,

901,

408

2009

101,

984

78,7

9513

2,71

123

0,82

839

9,68

348

3,38

258

6,59

164

3,30

047

1,53

034

6,82

615

1,29

711

0,54

53,

737,

472

2008

95,1

2410

7,72

915

3,73

519

9,59

236

1,19

347

3,18

653

9,87

454

3,79

941

6,91

829

5,54

714

6,83

897

,979

3,43

1,51

420

0799

,892

100,

941

135,

925

219,

854

374,

184

466,

054

543,

235

550,

172

417,

882

298,

122

178,

846

118,

321

3,50

3,42

820

0610

4,59

110

1,19

412

5,55

618

9,47

230

9,38

738

2,97

251

0,93

252

8,25

442

1,50

229

8,77

116

5,49

910

4,51

43,

242,

644

2005

91,2

3810

3,75

614

3,33

519

5,38

530

4,55

241

3,12

455

4,56

748

5,64

343

0,13

431

8,50

815

2,67

111

1,23

13,

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

96,7

453,

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

3,37

8,66

420

0210

8,90

611

3,69

514

1,76

618

6,68

229

5,51

143

6,86

251

3,78

957

0,91

442

6,68

430

0,91

914

9,82

811

6,31

13,

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

3,36

8,73

120

0093

,633

103,

444

136,

523

216,

087

317,

009

454,

638

548,

440

546,

981

388,

707

324,

484

144,

958

125,

999

3,40

0,90

3

Aver

age

109,

124

113,

785

154,

389

233,

537

359,

947

492,

642

593,

151

594,

438

474,

293

339,

500

166,

653

130,

469

3,76

1,92

9So

urce

: htt

ps:/

/irm

a.np

s.go

v/St

ats/

SSRS

Repo

rts


- 13 -

3,400,903

3,737,472

4,150,217

5,028,868

4,009,436

0

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)

0

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

Seas

onal

Vis

itatio

n

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

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall


- 14 -

Table 3: Annual Vehicle Count by Park Entrance (1998-2019)Year Arch Rock South Gate Big Oak Flat Tioga Pass Total2019 500,591 356,632 508,295 177,794 1,543,3122018 380,520 181,375 427,409 142,766 1,132,0702017 562,150 488,373 412,740 181,377 1,644,6402016 494,331 575,399 546,804 264,245 1,880,7792015 424,316 497,056 408,943 204,882 1,535,1972014 399,544 479,824 344,345 218,950 1,442,6632013 389,005 450,725 318,088 207,250 1,365,0682012 391,468 446,456 354,446 227,150 1,419,5202011 422,988 445,426 395,178 201,150 1,464,7422010 413,561 455,531 371,634 211,993 1,452,7192009 387,502 442,679 347,999 227,490 1,405,6702008 350,771 423,689 327,177 177,695 1,279,3322007 348,570 451,045 319,034 189,450 1,308,0992006 217,742 452,546 349,106 159,933 1,179,3272005 398,723 384,783 317,504 181,463 1,282,4732004 351,588 385,167 293,620 181,925 1,212,3002003 345,097 400,800 291,748 214,023 1,251,6682002 345,476 384,858 297,869 218,950 1,247,1532001 350,007 375,261 306,554 218,950 1,250,7722000 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

0

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


- 15 -

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 every day except New Year’s Day, Easter Sunday, Thanksgiving and Christmas, 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 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, New Year’s Day.

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

% of All Visitors2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 # % By Type

Arch RockTotal 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 GateTotal 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 FlatTotal 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 PassTotal 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%TOTALTotal 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


- 16 -

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.

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 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-June 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 eliminated, as has service between mid-May and mid-June.


- 17 -

Tabl

e 5:

201

9 M

onth

ly V

isita

tion

by M

ajor

Ent

ranc

e St

atio

n

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Sum

mer

Win

ter

Arch

Roc

kTo

tal R

ecre

atio

n Vi

sitor

s45

,731

45,3

0963

,691

98,7

0412

5,89

114

0,43

514

7,57

313

8,64

013

2,77

596

,401

71,7

7151

,500

22.6

%37

.9%

Tota

l Non

-Rec

Visi

tors

1,62

41,

490

2,13

73,

339

4,24

14,

852

5,20

34,

922

4,57

83,

362

2,50

41,

794

Tota

l Visi

tors

47,3

5546

,799

65,8

2810

2,04

313

0,13

114

5,28

815

2,77

614

3,56

313

7,35

399

,763

74,2

7553

,294

Sout

h En

tran

ceTo

tal R

ecre

atio

n Vi

sitor

s44

,784

48,0

5857

,440

89,2

9612

2,33

314

8,67

317

1,06

516

9,43

312

6,16

810

4,24

559

,724

56,5

6925

.9%

39.7

%To

tal N

on-R

ec V

isito

rs2,

496

2,64

63,

038

4,72

56,

293

7,77

09,

114

9,11

46,

510

5,20

83,

150

3,03

8To

tal V

isito

rs47

,280

50,7

0460

,478

94,0

2112

8,62

615

6,44

318

0,17

917

8,54

713

2,67

810

9,45

362

,874

59,6

07Bi

g O

ak F

lat

Tota

l Rec

reat

ion

Visit

ors

25,9

7318

,104

50,1

1010

9,20

713

6,17

919

6,07

422

5,81

321

4,64

417

8,09

814

7,08

572

,547

40,4

9033

.7%

22.5

%To

tal N

on-R

ec V

isito

rs76

852

71,

440

3,12

33,

911

5,66

36,

516

6,18

85,

118

4,19

32,

079

1,13

7To

tal V

isito

rs26

,741

18,6

3151

,550

112,

330

140,

090

201,

737

232,

328

220,

832

183,

216

151,

278

74,6

2641

,627

Tiog

a Pa

ssTo

tal R

ecre

atio

n Vi

sitor

s0

00

00

016

4,87

117

4,11

914

1,28

096

,856

26,5

570

17.9

%0.

0%To

tal N

on-R

ec V

isito

rs0

00

00

04,

738

4,90

53,

970

2,74

976

30

Tota

l Visi

tors

00

00

00

169,

609

179,

024

145,

250

99,6

0427

,319

0TO

TAL

Tota

l Rec

reat

ion

Visit

ors

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%To

tal N

on-R

ec V

isito

rs4,

888

4,66

36,

615

11,1

8714

,445

18,2

8525

,571

25,1

2920

,176

15,5

128,

496

5,96

91.

5%0.

3%To

tal V

isito

rs12

1,37

611

6,13

417

7,85

630

8,39

439

8,84

750

3,46

873

4,89

272

1,96

659

8,49

846

0,09

823

9,09

415

4,52

8-

-

Perc

ent o

f Tot

alRe

crea

tion

Visit

ors

96%

96%

96%

96%

96%

96%

97%

97%

97%

97%

96%

96%

Non

-Rec

reat

ion

Visit

ors

4%4%

4%4%

4%4%

3%3%

3%3%

4%4%

Sour

ce: N

PS M

onth

ly Y

ear-

to-D

ate

tabl

es. H

etch

Het

chy

entr

ance

dat

a no

t inc

lude

d.

Perc

ent o

f Rec

. Vis

itors


- 18 -


- 19 -

Table 6: Summary of Existing YART Service

41

Service Parameters Summer WinterPeak

SummerShoulder 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-JunEnd Date 30-Sep 10-Jun 31-Aug 30-Jun 31-Aug 30-Sep 11-SepStart Date -- -- -- 1-Sep -- -- --End Date -- -- -- 15-Oct -- -- --Days per Year 111 254 61 52 70 29 811-Way Runs per Day

Weekdays 17 12 4 2 6 2 6 33 21 12Weekends/Holidays 15 9 4 2 6 2 6 31 19 9

Required # of Buses in OperationWeekdays 7 5 2 1 3 1 3 15 9 5Weekends/Holidays 7 4 2 1 3 1 3 15 9 4

Source: LSC

Route

140 120/395 120 Total

Table 7: Recent YARTS Sevice Changes

YARTS 2018 SRTP Service Plan Elements StatusAdd 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 requestExtend 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 ImplementedCombine 41 Route Runs ImplementedDrop The Pines Resort on 41 Route Implemented

Shift Route 41 Runs to Better Serve AmtrakNot 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 ImplementedDrop 41 Route Service After Labor Day Not Implemented

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 PMLast 140 Winter Westbound Run shifted earlier from 5:45 PM to 5:05 PM41 Fresno-Oakhurst and Oakhurst-Fresno runs dropped41 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.

Early AM runs that previously started in Catheys Valley now start in MercedNew 140 Winter Eastbound Run at 8:45 AM140 Winter Eastbound Run at 1:20 PM droppedLast 140 Winter Eastbound Run shifted later from 4:30 PM to 5:25 PMFirst 140 Winter Westbound Run shifter earlier from 9:32 AM to 8:20 AM

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 AMLast 140 Summer Eastbound run shifted later (from 4:30 to 5:45 PM)New 140 Summer Westbound run at 2:30 PM140 Summer Westbound afternoon runs ending in Mariposa dropped from 2 (at 3:15 and 4:35) to 1 at 5:15140 Summer Westbound early AM short run now starts at Midpines, not Mariposa


- 20 -

Summary

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), 9 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 month 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.

Existing Fares

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 age 62 and above, children age 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.


- 21 -

Tabl

e 8:

YAR

TS 2

019

and

2020

Ser

vice

Qua

ntiti

es b

y Ro

ute

and

Mon

th

Mon

thSR

140

SR 1

20 W

.SR

41

SR 1

20

E/39

5TO

TAL

% o

f To

tal

SR 1

40SR

120

W

.SR

41

SR 1

20

E/39

5TO

TAL

% o

f To

tal

2019

Janu

ary

27,7

560

00

27,7

565%

964

00

096

45%

Febr

uary

22,2

430

00

22,2

434%

773

00

077

34%

Mar

ch27

,897

00

027

,897

5%96

90

00

969

5%Ap

ril27

,987

00

027

,987

5%97

00

00

970

5%M

ay37

,099

4,87

212

,138

054

,109

10%

1,24

918

942

3.3

01,

860

9%Ju

ne40

,950

15,1

2021

,420

077

,490

14%

1,36

158

575

60

2,70

214

%Ju

ly42

,325

15,6

2420

,560

13,4

2091

,929

16%

1,40

760

577

044

53,

227

16%

Augu

st42

,325

15,4

5620

,774

13,5

3092

,085

16%

1,40

659

877

844

93,

231

16%

Sept

embe

r40

,167

5,71

29,

856

5,94

061

,675

11%

1,33

722

137

019

72,

124

11%

Oct

ober

24,8

140

06,

820

31,6

346%

831

00

226.

31,

057

5%N

ovem

ber

26,0

580

00

26,0

585%

875

00

087

54%

Dece

mbe

r27

,491

00

027

,491

5%91

90

00

919

5%To

tal

387,

112

56,7

8484

,748

39,7

1056

8,35

410

0%13

,060

2,19

73,

097

1,31

819

,671

100%

% o

f Tot

al68

%10

%15

%7%

100%

66%

11%

16%

7%10

0%

2020

Janu

ary

27,9

870

00

27,9

877%

935

00

093

55%

Febr

uary

26,6

340

00

26,6

347%

891

00

089

15%

Mar

ch23

,442

00

023

,442

6%81

10

00

811

4%Ap

ril14

,783

00

014

,783

4%56

40

00

564

3%M

ay11

,966

00

011

,966

3%49

30

00

493

3%Ju

ne31

,165

4,53

65,

994

1980

43,6

7512

%1,

081

176

211

65.7

1,53

28%

July

42,6

3715

,540

20,6

4613

,640

92,4

6324

%1,

437

601

725

453

3,21

716

%Au

gust

42,3

6112

,718

20,6

4613

,640

89,3

6524

%1,

429

493

725

453

3,10

116

%Se

ptem

ber

35,2

034,

788

3,99

65,

060

49,0

4713

%1,

186

182

185

168

1,72

19%

Tota

l (to

dat

e)25

6,17

837

,582

51,2

8234

,320

379,

362

100%

8,82

71,

452

1,84

71,

139

13,2

6410

0%%

of T

otal

68%

10%

14%

9%10

0%67

%11

%14

%9%

100%

Mos

t Rec

ent 1

2 M

onth

sTo

tal

334,

541

37,5

8251

,282

41,1

4046

4,54

511

,452

1,45

21,

847

1,36

516

,115

% o

f Tot

al72

%8%

11%

9%10

0%71

%9%

11%

8%10

0%

Reve

nue

Mile

s by

Rou

teRe

venu

e H

ours

by

Rout

e

Sour

ce: M

CAG

Sum

mar

y Re

port

s, O

ctob

er 2

020


- 22 -

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 route2, 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 very large 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.

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:

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


- 23 -

• 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:


- 24 -

• 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.

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:

• 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. This decline 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.


- 25 -

Table 10: YARTS Ridership History by Route and Season

Routes 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 2016 2017 2018 2 2019 2020 1 2015-19

Merced SR 140 RouteSummer 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 2019Summer 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 2019Sonora 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 2019Fresno 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 TotalSummer 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 RidershipSummer 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 RidershipSummer 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 RidershipSummer 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, 2020Note 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


- 26 -

Tabl

e 11

: Rou

te 14

0 Ri

ders

hip

Hist

ory

by T

ype

Sum

mer

Shou

lder

Win

ter

Tota

lSu

mm

erSh

ould

erW

inte

rTo

tal

Sum

mer

Shou

lder

Win

ter

Tota

lSu

mm

erSh

ould

erW

inte

rTo

tal

2000

11,8

564,

334

4,64

520

,835

----

----

10,5

623,

756

7,20

421

,522

22,4

188,

090

11,8

4942

,357

2001

10,7

415,

365

12,2

3928

,345

----

----

9,93

94,

938

14,3

4729

,224

20,6

8010

,303

26,5

8657

,569

2002

13,4

847,

178

15,2

3035

,892

----

----

5,56

23,

512

11,7

2620

,800

19,0

4610

,690

26,9

5656

,692

2003

12,7

556,

567

15,4

7434

,796

----

----

5,25

73,

589

11,1

2019

,966

18,0

1210

,156

26,5

9454

,762

2004

13,3

867,

634

14,8

3635

,856

----

----

6,30

93,

636

12,0

7922

,024

19,6

9511

,270

26,9

1557

,880

2005

14,9

277,

849

15,5

9038

,366

----

----

7,60

63,

984

12,7

9024

,380

22,5

3311

,833

28,3

8062

,746

2006

9,03

55,

836

16,0

6430

,935

----

----

1,95

61,

980

12,7

4316

,679

10,9

917,

816

28,8

0747

,614

2007

13,3

906,

929

15,6

1535

,934

2,60

182

12,

307

5,72

95,

330

3,27

611

,283

19,8

8921

,321

11,0

2629

,205

61,5

5220

0817

,008

8,53

217

,889

43,4

293,

735

2,60

66,

961

13,3

027,

654

3,96

212

,024

23,6

4028

,397

15,1

0036

,874

80,3

7120

0914

,876

8,12

017

,081

40,0

773,

152

2,34

35,

567

11,0

627,

045

3,82

912

,857

23,7

3125

,073

14,2

9235

,505

74,8

7020

1016

,795

9,09

420

,740

46,6

293,

376

2,54

16,

391

12,3

087,

566

4,19

712

,904

24,6

6727

,737

15,8

3240

,035

83,6

0420

1119

,958

9,93

219

,728

49,6

183,

685

2,28

45,

090

11,0

596,

495

4,04

912

,740

23,2

8430

,138

16,2

6537

,558

83,9

6120

1220

,562

10,2

0223

,546

54,3

106,

788

2,37

25,

306

14,4

666,

051

3,87

612

,958

22,8

8533

,401

16,4

5041

,810

91,6

6120

1319

,176

11,2

5523

,376

53,8

073,

586

1,88

04,

703

10,1

696,

101

3,55

49,

937

19,5

9228

,863

16,6

8938

,016

83,5

6820

1420

,512

10,6

6124

,857

56,0

303,

851

2,27

25,

686

11,8

093,

646

2,42

97,

807

13,8

8228

,009

15,3

6238

,350

81,7

2120

1519

,286

10,2

7627

,880

57,4

423,

341

2,25

36,

246

11,8

403,

348

1,89

76,

644

11,8

8925

,975

14,4

2640

,770

81,1

7120

1623

,861

13,1

5530

,168

67,1

842,

952

2,15

15,

425

10,5

282,

855

1,57

44,

841

9,27

029

,668

16,8

8040

,434

86,9

8220

1727

,022

14,9

8231

,367

73,3

712,

791

2,18

44,

699

9,67

41,

724

910

3,77

66,

410

31,5

3718

,076

39,8

4289

,455

2018

12,1

8911

,195

28,5

9551

,979

2,36

52,

086

4,31

98,

770

1,48

295

43,

166

5,60

216

,036

14,2

3536

,080

66,3

5120

1923

,490

11,0

1425

,801

60,3

052,

306

1,58

23,

448

7,33

61,

230

560

1,66

23,

452

27,0

2613

,156

30,9

1171

,093

2020

12,8

172,

198

8,71

923

,734

70

1,07

51,

082

200

6285

01,

112

13,0

242,

260

10,6

4425

,928

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al20

0763

%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

%20

1786

%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%20

2098

%97

%82

%92

%0%

0%10

%4%

2%3%

8%4%

Perc

ent C

hang

e ov

er L

ast 1

0 an

d 5

Year

s20

10-1

940

%21

%24

%29

%-1

00%

-100

%-5

3%-8

1%-9

6%-9

8%-9

2%-9

4%-3

9%-8

0%-6

4%-5

8%20

15-1

922

%7%

-7%

5%-1

00%

-100

%-8

0%-9

3%-9

7%-9

8%-9

3%-9

5%-6

1%-8

6%-7

5%-7

2%So

urce

: 201

9-20

20 V

IA M

onth

ly R

epor

ts th

roug

h Se

ptem

ber 2

020

Not

e 1:

Sum

mer

incl

udes

June

, Jul

y an

d Au

gust

. Sho

ulde

r inc

lude

s May

and

Se

ptem

ber.

Win

ter i

nclu

des J

anua

ry to

Ap

ril a

nd O

ctob

er to

Dec

embe

r.

Visi

tor/

Oth

er -

Non

-Am

trak

Visi

tor

- Am

trak

Empl

oyee

sTo

tal R

oute

140


- 27 -

Ridership by Route by Month

2019 and 2020 ridership data 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 January.

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).

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

Year/Month SR 140 US 395/SR 120 E. SR 120 W. SR 41 TOTAL2019

January 2,774 0 0 0 2,774February 3,596 0 0 0 3,596

March 3,802 0 0 0 3,802April 3,848 0 0 0 3,848May 5,823 0 969 983 7,775June 6,909 0 3,276 2,024 12,209July 9,009 2,082 4,593 2,510 18,194

August 7,572 2,296 5,652 2,247 17,767September 5,191 1,244 1,645 872 8,952

October 2,989 657 0 0 3,646November 3,359 0 0 0 3,359December 5,433 0 0 0 5,433

Total 60,305 6,279 16,135 8,636 91,3552020

January 3,924 0 0 0 3,924February 2,838 0 0 0 2,838

March 1,743 0 0 0 1,743April 214 0 0 0 214May 246 0 0 0 246June 1,893 230 497 522 3,142July 5,563 1,704 3,321 2,512 13,100

August 5,361 1,598 2,612 2,460 12,031September 1,952 377 355 401 3,085

Total to Date 23,734 3,909 6,785 5,895 40,323Note: Amtrak/Aramark ridership not included.Source: 2019-2020 VIA Monthly Reports through September 2020

Route


- 28 -


- 29 -

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:

• 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.

Boardings by Stop

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

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 97 141 - - - - - -February 207 317 - - - - - -March 148 142 - - - - - -April 158 173 - - - - - -May 170 191 - - 30 27 28 35June 246 241 - - 111 105 67 68July 276 332 64 75 135 186 75 97August 239 256 74 75 108 130 71 76September 191 230 42 40 48 71 24 41October 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 RouteSR 140 Route


- 30 -

• Not surprisingly, the busiest YARTS stop (on all four routes) is the Yosemite Valley Visitor Center, where 36 percent of total boarding 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 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.


- 31 -

Figu

re 9

: 201

9 Av

erag

e W

eekd

ay a

nd W

eeke

nd/H

olid

ay R

ider

ship

Sour

ce: 2

019-

2020

VIA

Mon

thly

Rep

orts

thro

ugh

Sept

embe

r 202

0

050100

150

200

250

300

350

SR 1

40 R

oute

Aver

age

Wee

kday

Aver

age

Wee

kend

/Hol

iday

s

01020304050607080

July

Augu

stSe

ptem

ber

Oct

ober

US

395

/ SR

120

E. R

oute

Aver

age

Wee

kday

Aver

age

Wee

kend

/Hol

iday

s

020406080100

120

140

160

180

200

May

June

July

Augu

stSe

ptem

ber

SR 1

20 W

Rou

te

Aver

age

Wee

kday

Aver

age

Wee

kend

/Hol

iday

s

020406080100

120

May

June

July

Augu

stSe

ptem

ber

SR 4

1 Ro

ute

Aver

age

Wee

kday

Aver

age

Wee

kend

/Hol

iday

s


- 32 -

• 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 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


- 33 -

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).

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:


- 34 -

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 963February 22,243 22,243 773 773March 27,897 27,897 969 969April 27,987 27,987 970 970May 37,099 4,872 12,138 54,109 1,249 189 423.3 1,860June 40,950 15,120 21,420 77,490 1,361 585 755.8 2,702July 42,325 15,624 20,560 13,420 91,929 1,407 605 770.4 445 3,227August 42,325 15,456 20,774 13,530 92,085 1,406 598 778.3 449 3,231September 40,167 5,712 9,856 5,940 61,675 1,338 221 369.6 197 2,126October 24,814 6,820 31,634 831 226.3 1,057November 26,058 26,058 875 875December 27,491 27,491 918 918Total 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 $15,900February $81,000 $81,000 $20,600 $20,600March $101,500 $101,500 $21,800 $21,800April $101,600 $101,600 $22,100 $22,100May $130,800 $19,700 $66,400 $216,900 $33,400 $5,600 $5,600 $44,600June $203,800 $61,300 $118,500 $383,600 $39,700 $18,800 $11,600 $70,100July $215,900 $64,900 $123,600 $47,800 $452,200 $51,700 $26,400 $14,400 $12,000 $104,500August $215,900 $64,200 $124,900 $48,200 $453,200 $43,500 $32,400 $12,900 $13,200 $102,000September $205,400 $23,700 $59,300 $21,200 $309,600 $29,800 $9,400 $5,000 $7,100 $51,300October $89,200 $24,300 $113,500 $17,200 $3,800 $21,000November $93,900 $93,900 $19,300 $19,300December $98,600 $98,600 $31,200 $31,200Total $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 4.7March $79,700 $79,700 3.9 3.9April $79,500 $79,500 4.0 4.0May $97,400 $14,100 $60,800 $172,300 4.7 5.1 2.3 4.2June $164,100 $42,500 $106,900 $313,500 5.1 5.6 2.7 4.5July $164,200 $38,500 $109,200 $35,800 $347,700 6.4 7.6 3.3 4.7 5.6August $172,400 $31,800 $112,000 $35,000 $351,200 5.4 9.5 2.9 5.1 5.5September $175,600 $14,300 $54,300 $14,100 $258,300 3.9 7.4 2.4 6.3 4.2October $72,000 $20,500 $92,500 3.6 2.9 3.4November $74,600 $74,600 3.8 3.8December $67,400 $67,400 5.9 5.9Total $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 Route


- 35 -

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.

• 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, 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


- 36 -

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 (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).


- 37 -

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 benchmark3

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 orhydrogen fueling stations.

• The new technologies are expensive.

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

• Installing supporting infrastructure, particularly in a National Park, may have environmentaland/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 tie-down positions. The vehicles were purchased between 2010 and 2015 and have a 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.

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


- 38 -

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

FuelBus ID Make / Model Year Mileage2 Type In Service By Date3 By Mileage 4

501 D4500 Commuter Coach 2010 491,695 Diesel 4/23/2010 4/20/2022 1/11/2021

502 MCI Intercity Coach 2012 448,239 Diesel 10/24/2011 10/21/2023 1/31/2022



505 MCI D400 Intercity 2012 456,582 Diesel 5/23/2012 5/20/2024 11/18/2021




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

Description1 Useful Life Benchmark 3

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.


- 39 -

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% 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 YARTS. 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:

• 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.

Table 16: YARTS versus VIA Bus Use - Calendar Year 2019

MonthYARTS

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


- 40 -

• 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 to support each, and various pros and cons of each.

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 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


- 41 -

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 (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 manufacturers 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 miles4. 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.

Charging Infrastructure of Battery Electric

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:

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


- 42 -

• 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. But, critically, fuel cell vehicles require significantly more fueling infrastructure than battery electric vehicles. While battery electric vehicles can potentially plug 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% of total fuel cell vehicle deployment costs in 2020. Stations generally cost between $1-2 million, depending on geography. Station


- 43 -

capacity generally ranges from 200 to 600 kg/day, enough to fill between 6 and 20 buses. In comparison, electric charging stations in Philadelphia cost roughly $1 million all-in for a fleet of 25 battery electric buses.5

The closest hydrogen fuel station to Merced is 90 miles away at Harris 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 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

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


- 44 -

• 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


- 45 -

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 wasclosed for over a month during peak summer season due to the Ferguson Fire) to $3.16 millionprojected for the current fiscal year (FY 21).

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

• Overall expenses, not including planning costs, decreased by 25 percent in FY19, increased by 14percent the next year, with an expected increase in the adopted budget for FY 21 showinganother increase of 23 percent. This swing in operating costs indicates a pressing need tomaintain an operating reserve6.

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.

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, and MCAG administration. While fuel costs are not part of the contract, some years they were reported together. New in FY21, MCAG has added a continency and capital expense cost to cover administrative and capital costs and plans to continue this practice.

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


- 46 -

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 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 17: YARTS Expenses by Year - Merced ContractActual Actual Actual Adopted Projected

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22

Operating Expenses

Professional Service-YARTS NPS Special $8,850 $0 $0 $0 $0

Marketing, CMAQ1 $160,466 $100,223 $95,596 $200,000 $200,000

Professional Service-Contracts $2,044,048 $1,599,903 $1,615,438 $1,931,353 $1,931,353

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

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

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

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

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

FEMA/CALOES2 $329,760 $0 $0 $0 $0

Legal Services & Other Services $0 $6,500 $11,050 $8,423 $9,000

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

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

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

Membership $614 $644 $674 $0 $700

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Expenses

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

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

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

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

Note 1: Marketing became the CMAQ fund in FY 19. Note 3: Rent & Lease Structure, Transpo, Equipment

Note 2: Repair of Mariposa PNR sinkhole. Note 3: Does not include depreciation

Source: Actual/budgeted expenses and revenues per YARTS. Projections by LSC


- 47 -

Table 18: YARTS Revenues - Merced ContractActual 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 $2,923,841Source: Actual/budgeted per YARTS. Projections by LSC

FEDERAL

STATE

LOCAL


- 48 -

Budget Projections

Tables 18 through 20 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,

Table 19: YARTS Expenses and Revenue by Year - Fresno ContractActual 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 YearActual Actual Actual Adopted Projected

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22Operating 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


- 49 -

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 vehicleso Whether YARTS or the contractor provides a maintenance and operations siteo 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, whichmay 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 mayeventually affect revenues available to YARTS.

• The National Park provides funding based on an assumed level of service. If this is greatlyreduced, 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 statewideand returned to the county of collection (minus a state collection fee). As discussed furtherbelow, reductions in retail sales could result in parallel changes in LTF funding.

Taxable Sales Trends as an Indicator of Local Transportation Fund

As of this writing, forecasts of LTF 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 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


- 50 -

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:

• 75% Regional Apportionment --This funding share is apportioned to non-urban areas based onthe size of the rural population. This apportionment is distributed to Transportation PlanningAgencies (TPA) whose county or region contains a non-urbanized area. The TPA submits aProgram of Projects that identifies subrecipients and projects to receive Section 5311 funds intheir 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 otherrequired submittals by the appropriate deadline. YARTS does not receive this funding.

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

% ChangeSecond Quarter (Apr-Jun) Total Taxable Sales 2018 to

20192019 to

2020

Source: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration,https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/charts.htm?url=TaxSalesByCounty, accessed 11/4/20


- 51 -

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

• 10% State Administrative Expenses --This funding share is apportioned to State TransportationAgencies 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, and 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 (Complete Coach Works) 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 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.


- 52 -

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% 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 should consider this source when it becomes available.

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.


- 53 -

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 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 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 ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The State Board of Equalization, based on sales tax collected in each county, 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.


- 54 -

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% of STA funds be allocated according to population and 50% 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 and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50 percent of the total moneys received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities. 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.

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 9 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.


- 55 -

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) 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.

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 funds.


- 56 -

This page intentionally left blank


- 57 -

Chapter 6: YARTS Outlook and Key Strategic Issues

Based on the information provided in this working paper, the next step in the YARTS Strategic Study will be to develop and investigate options to increase the stability of the YARTS program, with regards to service plans, capital improvements and institutional arrangements. Since its inception in 2000, YARTS has operated on a contingent basis. This has given administrators the opportunity to try numerous approaches to operations and has resulted in many iterations of agreements and contracts. The prime lesson from twenty years of operations is that there is demand for service and a will to have it succeed—and a need for a less tentative approach. Key issues that need to be addressed to put YARTS on a more solid footing are discussed below.

YARTS INSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

Much of YARTS’s success depends on the cooperation and efforts of the JPA as overseen by the MCAG. The JPA allows members to provide guidance on service needs, planning and most importantly, funding. Membership in the JPA strengthens the purpose of YARTS and is foundational to the regional nature of YARTS. Tuolumne County is the latest entity soon to join the JPA, leaving Fresno as the only entity under contract but not a member. Additionally, YARTS Route 41 serves Madera County, which may have an interest in joining the JPA, particularly if Fresno decides to discontinue supporting Route 41. Whether Fresno and/or Madera Counties should become members is another issue to address in this Strategy Study, as well as the appropriate funding level of each participant.

Another issue is the role of MCAG, which provides manangement, marketing and grant administration, and transportation planning on behalf of YARTS. In return, YARTS agrees to pay MCAG based on actual costs incurred for this service. In some years, MCAG has provided services without full compensation specifically related to approved reimbursement rates. Furthermore, operating on an annual contract basis provides some uncertainty for MCAG and YARTS, while a multi-year contract could lead to greater stability and better management, and better opportunities for long-term investments and marketing.

Another institutional issue is the multiple definitions of “fiscal year” used in the YARTS program. The JPA identifies a fiscal year of July 1 to June 30, which is consistent with that of the various member entities. The NPS funding agreement and the YARTS-MCAG management contract, however, are based on the Federal fiscal year of October 1-September 30th. In addition, the existing service contract is for a November 1-October 31 period. These multiple overlapping fiscal periods complicates financial planning and accounting, and optimally will be simplified through this strategic plan process.

YARTS SERVICE-RELATED ISSUES

The review of NPS visitations and YARTS ridership trends in Chapter 3 reveal these trends:

• In the near term, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a 57 percent drop in overallridership, including a 60 percent drop on the 140 Route, 58 percent drop on the 120 Route, 32percent drop on the 41 Route and 30 percent drop on the 395/120 Route. NPS ridership andAmtrak ridership have dropped even more (79 percent and 96 percent).


- 58 -

• Absent COVID impacts, there are long-term shifts in YARTS ridership, including:

o Employee ridership has dropped substantially. From a peak of 24,667 trips in 2009, ridership by 2019 dropped to only 3,452. This represents a reduction from 37 percent of total ridership to just 3 percent of the total.

o While shoulder-season ridership has been increasing, summer ridership (June, July, and August) still accounts for nearly half of annual ridership and is most effective in terms of passengers carried per passenger hour.

o Reductions in San Joaquin rail service have reduced the potential for generating YARTS ridership via rail connections, and the requirements for coordinating YARTS service with rail schedules.

o There has been strong ridership growth on the 120 Route—a near tripling of ridership over the last five years. Much of this growth is between Groveland and Yosemite Valley, indicating shorter, more frequent trips might be appropriate. Lodging growth in the Oakhurst area and the potential for park-and-ride use of lodging parking on the 140 corridor could indicate potential for shorter and more frequent trips on these other corridors, too.

o Existing YARTS services vary greatly in their effectiveness, as measured by factors such as passengers per trip/service hour and subsidy required per passenger. There are individual runs that are very ineffective, and merit review.

• Yosemite National Park faces its own challenges, with reduced visitation due to COVID and wildfires. As a major contributor to YARTS funding, and the primary reason for YARTS existence, the parks’ future will influence the direction of YARTS.

These issues will need to be considered in developing the service plan. Furthermore, the operations plan will be limited by the ability to secure replacement vehicles for the aging fleet, which is complicated by the need to move toward zero emission vehicles. A new service contract begins Nov 1, 2022, possibly with a new contractor for the first time, lending urgency in addressing these issues.

YARTS CAPITAL ISSUES

During peak summer, YARTS service requires 15 vehicles in operation, with a need for spares bringing the total to 19. YARTS owns 10 vehicles, and the remainder are leased with an associated increase in operating cost. The buses YARTS owns are all nearing the end of their useful life benchmark (ULB) and will all need replacing within the next five years. CARB rules dictate that by 2026, 25 percent of buses purchased will need to be zero emission vehicles, and 100 percent of purchases starting 2029. Zero emission bus (ZEB) options require supporting infrastructure (potentially including charging stations, upgraded electrical grid(s), hydrogen fuel station, etcetera), and the vehicles are much more expensive


- 59 -

than the clean diesel YARTS currently uses. Most grants require at least a 15 percent local match. At a unit cost of $650,000 (for a diesel-powered over-the-road coach), replacing ten buses would require $6.5 million in funding, with $925,000 local match. ZEB costs are even higher, with a unit cost on the order of $920,000 per bus (or more). This would total $9.2 million for 10 buses and $17.48 million for 19, with a local match of $1.84 million or $3.5 million, respectively.

Compounding this issue, the lack of publicly owned transit operations facilities also negatively impacts YARTS. Contractor costs associated with their facilities increases annual operating costs. In addition, as publicly funded capital improvements for battery electric buses (or hydrogen buses) cannot be made on private land, the lack of public facilities limits the program’s ability to implement zero emission vehicles.

In short, YARTS will either have to come up with large sums of matching funds, or significantly reduce operations. The likelihood is that YARTS will end up somewhere in the middle—increasing capital expenditures, but potentially curtailing services. This Strategy Study will look at options ranging from operating with just YARTS-owned buses (a service plan with a fleet of ten), to more optimistic options with an increase in YARTS-owned vehicles and a YARTS-owned operations facility. Service strategies may be considered which reduce the peak vehicle requirements but offer a longer operating season, or which consider operating shorter trips at higher frequencies. Whatever service plan is recommended, the capital plan will be an integral component.

YARTS FUNDING ISSUES

The funding review presented in Chapter 5 indicates sustainable operations under the status quo—assuming a similar level of expenses and revenues as in the past several years. However, given the fleet replacement issue, the potential for COVID-related economic impacts to reduce local funding and the impending need to initiate a new operations contract as of November 1, 2022, this is not at all the case. First and foremost, YARTS must address any short-term drops in funding, as they potentially emerge over the coming months. Next, the vehicle replacement needs should be addressed. Then YARTS must position itself as an attractive entity for contractors. What would be most attractive to contractors is a situation where they face the least risk: optimally, a turn-key operation wherein the contractor is provided an operations facility for day-to-day operations and maintenance, as well as a reliable fleet of publicly-owned vehicles. Furthermore a contractor will want to know that the entity it contracts with is solvent, and that it is well managed. Many of the issues that challenge YARTS are issues which a contractor will consider in deciding to bid on a contract.

CONCLUSION

While there are many issues facing YARTS at present, the key issues as seen by the Consultant Team in light of the information presented in this document and discussions with decisionmakers and the public are as follows:

• What ongoing annual revenues should we be planning for over the next several years?

• Should a portion of locally-controlled revenues be set aside to build capital improvement funds?


- 60 -

• What is the best strategy to replace and expand the YARTS-owned fleet, in order to reduce or eliminate the need for contractor-provided buses?

• What is the best strategy to address coming requirements for Zero Emission Bus purchases? Is it

in the best interest of the program to put off ZEB purchases as long as possible within the CARB requirements for portions of the YARTS services? Are there ways that YARTS ZEB strategies can “piggyback” on those of other local public transit programs?

• How should YARTS shift to public facilities for storage, maintenance and refueling/recharging in the

four operating base areas?

• In light of the changing demands for YARTS service, are there changes in routes, schedules and the calendar of operations that could make better use of funds available for operations?

• Given the available funding and potential need for capital reserve retention, what is the appropriate service plan?

• Should the Route 41 contracted service be provided indefinitely? Alternatively, should

participation by Fresno and/or Madera entities in the JPA be required after a set date, and if so, what should be the terms of their entry into the JPA?

• What is the best strategy for structuring the new service contract RFP to generate competition

between multiple proposers? For instance, should the RFP allow the option of bidding on only portions of the total service plan (such as the 395 Route, for example)?

• Should the MCAG agreement be multi-year rather than year-by-year to improve planning and

marketing.

While YARTS faces serious challenges as outlined in this Working Paper, its 20-year history and steady institutional framework position it to move forward in a productive capacity. This Strategy Study is being developed to address these challenges and provide a cohesive, sustainable operations plan. Perhaps most critically, the operations plan will provide a framework for developing a sound Request for Proposals for a new operations contractor to be issued in the summer of 2021 (with a start date of November 1, 2022) that can attract a wide pool of competitive proposers.

YARTS STRATEGIC PLAN WORKING PAPER

Documents