Table 5.2 - Priority Project Evaluation
Goal Metric
1.A Pilot
microtransit
service in
Anaheim
Canyon
1.B Pilot
microtransit
service in
Anaheim Hills
2.0 Introduce
more
amenities at
stops
3.0 Implement
a schedule for
ATN fixed
routes
4.0 Streamline
and simplify
ATN routes
5.0 Improve
ATN app and
website
6.0 Increase
sign visibility
and
information at
bus stops
7.0 Fill gaps in
missing
sidewalk to
connect rail
stations and
bus stops
8.0 Highcapacity transit
on Euclid Ave,
La Palma Ave,
Lincoln Ave,
Harbor Blvd,
Ball Rd,
Anaheim Blvd,
Katella Ave,
and/or State
College Blvd
9.0 More
frequent OCTA
service on the
top 8 ridership
routes in
Anaheim
(Route 37, 38,
42/42A,
43/543, 46, 47,
50, and 57)
10.0 More
frequent offpeak and
weekend
Metrolink
service
11.0 Transit
speed/
reliability
improvements
for Ball Road,
Lincoln
Avenue,
Anaheim
Boulevard,
Katella Ave,
and La Palma
Avenue
12.0 Simplify
fare structures
and establish
fare transfer
agreements
between all
transit
agencies
operating
within Anaheim
13.0 Implement
east-west
connector
between ARTIC
and the
convention
center
Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Goal 1:
Improve transit access
1.1 Change in number of people
within ¼ mile of stops for fixed
routes (or in on-demand zones)
3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.2 Change in number of jobs within
¼ mile of stops for fixed routes (or in
on-demand zones)
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.3 Change in amount of missing
sidewalk within a half mile from top
ridership stops
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.4 Improves customer experience
with services or at stops
2 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Goal 1 Average 2 1.25 1.25 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 1.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 Goal 2:
Improve mobility
2.1 Increases number of people who
can reach top destination areas* in
under an hour on transit
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 3 1 0 0 2
2.2 Potential to reduce travel times
and improve service reliability for
transit passengers
N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 2 3 0 3
Goal 2 Average 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 1.5 1.5 0 2.5
Goal 3:
Advance connectivity
for low-wage jobs and
low-income households
3.1 Improves first- and last-mile
connectivity to bus stops and
stations
3 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2
3.2 Improves connectivity in
disadvantaged/EJ communities
3 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 0 0
Goal 3 Average 3 1.5 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 3 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 0 1 * (1) Disneyland, Convention Center; (2) ARTIC, The Grove, Anaheim Stadium, Honda Center; (3) Downtown Anaheim, Pearson Park Amphitheater Scoring Note: A higher score means the recommendation should be prioritized first for evaluation and execution, while lower-scoring recommendations should be evaluated later.
Goal Metric
1.A Pilot
microtransit
service in
Anaheim
Canyon
1.B Pilot
microtransit
service in
Anaheim Hills
2.0 Introduce
more
amenities at
stops
3.0 Implement
a schedule for
ATN fixed
routes
4.0 Streamline
and simplify
ATN routes
5.0 Improve
ATN app and
website
6.0 Increase
sign visibility
and
information at
ATN stops
7.0 Fill gaps in
missing
sidewalk to
connect rail
stations and
bus stops
8.0 Highcapacity transit
on Euclid Ave,
La Palma Ave,
Lincoln Ave,
Harbor Blvd,
Ball Rd,
Anaheim Blvd,
Katella Ave,
and/or State
College Blvd
9.0 More
frequent OCTA
service on the
top 8 ridership
routes in
Anaheim
(Route 37, 38,
42/42A,
43/543, 46, 47,
50, and 57)
10.0 More
frequent offpeak and
weekend
Metrolink
service
11.0 Transit
speed/
reliability
improvements
for Ball Road,
Lincoln
Avenue, Katella
Ave, and La
Palma Avenue
12.0 Simplify
fare structures
and establish
fare transfer
agreements
between all
transit
agencies
operating
within Anaheim
13.0 Implement
east-west
connector
between ARTIC
and the
convention
center
Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Goal 4:
Minimize environmental
impacts
4.1 Potential to increase transit
ridership
2 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 3
4.2 Potential for impacts to adjacent
residents/businesses due to
construction
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -2 -3 3 3 2 0 -3
4.3 Potential to reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT)
2 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 3
Goal 4 Average 2.33 2.33 1.67 1.67 1 1.67 1.67 0.67 1 3 2.33 2 0.67 1 Goal 5: Support and
encourage economic
development
5.1 Improves service (hours and/or
frequency) to top 3 destination
areas*
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 2
5.2 Improves transit stop/station
amenities in the top 3 destination
areas*
0 0 3 0 0 0 N/A 0 3 0 0 0 0 2
Goal 5 Average 0.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.5 1 0 0 2
Goal 6:
Deliverability
6.1 Within the control of the city 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 -3 -3 1 -3 0
6.2 Ability to implement quickly -1 -1 1 0 -2 2 2 -2 -3 -1 -1 -2 0 -3 Goal 6 Average -0.5 -0.5 1.5 0 -1 1 1.5 0.5 -1.5 -2 -2 -0.5 -1.5 -1.5 Goal 7:
Serves growth areas
7.1 Improves service (hours and/or
frequency) to the three big growth
areas**
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 2
7.2 Improves and increases
amenities in the three big growth
areas**
0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2
Goal 7 Average 0.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.5 1 0 0 2
Recommendation Average
Recommendation
1.A Average
Recommendation
1.B Average
Recommendation
2.0 Average
Recommendation
3.0 Average
Recommendation
4.0 Average
Recommendation
5.0 Average
Recommendation
6.0 Average
Recommendation
7.0 Average
Recommendation
8.0 Average
Recommendation
9.0 Average
Recommendation
10.0 Average
Recommendation
11.0 Average
Recommendation
12.0 Average
Recommendation
13.0 Average
1.44 0.938 1.06 0.47 0.35 0.65 0.75 1.00 1.29 1.24 0.76 0.76 0.06 0.941 Recommendation Rank 1 7 4 12 13 11 10 5 2 3 8 8 14 6
* (1) Disneyland, Convention Center; (2) ARTIC, The Grove, Anaheim Stadium, Honda Center; (3) Downtown Anaheim, Pearson Park Amphitheater **Resort Area, Anaheim Canyon, Platinum Triangle
Scoring Note: A higher score means the recommendation should be prioritized first for evaluation and execution, while lower-scoring recommendations should be evaluated later.
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report Appendix A - Potential Intersection
Improvements Additional Information
This appendix provides detailed descriptions and potential performance benefits for a range of intersection and corridor-level improvements introduced in Section 3.3.4 of this report. Each strategy is designed to enhance bus speed, reliability, and overall operational efficiency within Anaheim’s transit network. These summarized improvements are grounded in national best practices, pilot programs, and academic research, offering insights into expected outcomes when deployed individually or in combination. While not all treatments are immediately deployable or universally applicable, the information serves as a foundational reference for prioritizing and piloting contextsensitive upgrades across the city’s transit corridors. Actual performance outcomes will depend on site-specific conditions, service characteristics, and integration with existing infrastructure.
1. Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
Description:
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) modifies signal timings to reduce delay for transit vehicles by extending green lights or shortening red phases when a bus approaches. TSP can be passive, active, or adaptive, and is most effective along high-ridership corridors with frequent service. When implemented strategically, TSP improves transit travel times, schedule adherence, and service reliability.
Potential Improvements:
• 10–20% reduction in travel time
• 15–30% improvement in schedule adherence
• Reduced variability in service
Sources: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 118, Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide
https://ssti.us/wpcontent/uploads/sites/1303/2012/04/tcrp118_BRT_Practitioners_Guide.pdf
2. Queue Jump Lanes
Description:
Queue jump lanes are short, dedicated lanes at intersections that allow buses to bypass queued traffic and proceed through intersections ahead of general vehicles. Paired with signal phases that provide early green or bus-only movement, these treatments improve transit speed and reduce congestionrelated delays.
Potential Improvements:
• 5% to 15% reduction in transit travel times
• Better performance during peak hours
Sources: TCRP Report 118, Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide https://ssti.us/wpcontent/uploads/sites/1303/2012/04/tcrp118_BRT_Practitioners_Guide.pdf
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report
3. Transit-focused Signal Coordination
Description:
Transit-focused signal coordination aligns green lights along a corridor to support continuous bus movement. Unlike traditional car-focused signal coordination, transit-focused signal coordination uses actual bus speeds and dwell times to optimize signal progression. This technique improves the predictability and flow of service on corridors with closely spaced intersections.
Potential Improvements:
• 5–15% improvement in average bus speeds
• Up to 50% reduction in stops at red lights
Sources: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Signal Timing Manual (Chapter 11) https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16039/
4. Far-Side Bus Stops
Description:
Far-side stops are placed after intersections, allowing buses to clear signals before picking up or dropping off passengers. This improves the effectiveness of TSP and signal coordination and avoids intersection blockages or conflicts with turning vehicles.
Potential Improvements:
• Reduces red-light delay at stops
• Improves TSP efficiency
Sources: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_19-b.pdf
5. Peak-Hour Bus-Only Lanes
Description:
These lanes operate exclusively for transit vehicles during peak travel times, often repurposing curb or parking lanes. They provide buses with a clear path during rush hour and can revert to general use or parking during off-peak periods. This cost-effective approach improves service without major road reconfiguration.
Potential Improvements:
• 10–25% improvement in peak-hour reliability
• Faster bus travel in congested corridors
Sources: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-BTS-BRT-RP-003-10_Rev1.pdf
6. Full-Time Dedicated Bus Lanes
Description:
Dedicated bus lanes are reserved 24/7 for transit vehicles. These can be curbside or center-running Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report and are typically marked and enforced with signage, paint, or physical barriers. When paired with TSP and queue jumps, they offer rail-like service for high-capacity corridors.
Potential Improvements:
• 20–40% reduction in corridor travel times
• Reliability significantly improved
Sources: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 183 A Guidebook on Implementing Transit-Supportive Roadway Strategies. Transportation Research Board. 2016. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/21929/a-guidebook-on-transit-supportive-roadwaystrategies
7. Adaptive Signal Control (ASC) for Transit
Description:
Adaptive Signal Control uses real-time data to adjust signal timing based on current traffic conditions and vehicle presence, including transit vehicles. When integrated with Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) or GPS data, ASC prioritizes bus movements dynamically, allowing the signal system to respond to variability in demand and delays.
Potential Improvements:
• 10–25% reduction in transit delay
• Enhanced responsiveness to congestion or special events
Sources: TCRP Report 118, Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide https://ssti.us/wpcontent/uploads/sites/1303/2012/04/tcrp118_BRT_Practitioners_Guide.pdf
8. Signal Retiming and Corridor Optimization
Description:
Signal retiming for transit involves updating cycle lengths, offsets, and green splits to align with bus operations, stop locations, and speeds. Retimed corridors allow smoother bus progression and improved service reliability, particularly when integrated with real-time performance data.
Potential Improvements:
• 5–20% reduction in transit travel time
• Improved reliability and reduced bus bunching
Sources: TRB TCRP Report 183
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/21929/a-guidebook-on-transit-supportive-roadwaystrategies
9. Transit Bus Automation (FTA STAR Plan)
Description:
FTA’s Strategic Transit Automation Research (STAR) Plan promotes the integration of automated technologies in bus systems. The focus areas include safety systems, precision docking, and fully autonomous shuttles. Pilots are underway to explore how automation can improve efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness.
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report Potential Improvements:
• Improved schedule precision
• Reduced human error and accidents
• Lower long-term labor costs
Source: FTA Automation Research
https://www.transit.dot.gov/automation-research
10. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) for Transit Buses
Description:
ADAS includes technologies like collision avoidance, lane-keeping assistance, and adaptive cruise control. These systems support drivers in operating safely and efficiently, reducing the likelihood of accidents and enabling smoother operations.
Potential Improvements:
• Fewer collisions and incidents
• Better passenger comfort and smoother braking
Source: FTA ADAS Demonstration Program
transit.dot.gov/grant-programs/advanced-driver-assistance-systems-adas-transit-busesdemonstration-and-automated
11. Digital Twins for Transit Operations
Description:
Digital twins are real-time virtual simulations of transit networks that help model and test operational scenarios. Cities like Singapore use them for traffic flow analysis, capacity planning, and infrastructure investments.
Potential Improvements:
• Data-driven decision making
• Predictive maintenance and optimization
Source: urbantransportnews.com/news/9-innovative-technologies-enhancing-public-transportefficiency
12. Autonomous Shuttle-as-a-Service (ASaaS)
Description:
ASaaS uses driverless, on-demand electric shuttles for last-mile service. These vehicles are being tested in city centers and business campuses to fill gaps in traditional networks.
Potential Improvements:
• Reduced operational costs
• Sustainable and low-emission mobility
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09763
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report Appendix B - Bus Stop Analysis Detailed
Methodology and Raw Scoring
To better understand why some bus stops in high transit propensity areas experience low ridership, a structured methodology was developed to identify, evaluate, and score each stop. This process included spatial analysis, literature review, field observation, and performance scoring. The methodology is organized into three key steps:
1. Establish the Stops to Be Studied
2. Establish Metrics to Evaluate Stops Based on Service, Access, and Amenities
3. Scoring Approach
1. Establish the Stops to Be Studied
The first step in the analysis involved identifying which bus stops warranted further examination. The goal was to focus on stops that appear to underperform relative to the transit demand suggested by their surrounding land use and demographics. Using ArcGIS Pro, a comprehensive dataset of bus stops in Anaheim was analyzed using two selection criteria:
• Low Ridership: Fewer than 500 boardings per month across both Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) services. • High Transit Propensity: Located within a parcel or zone with a Transit Propensity Score greater than 1.1. The Transit Propensity Index is based on factors such as population density, employment density, income levels, and auto ownership.
A 115-foot buffer was applied to parcels with high transit propensity to ensure that all adjacent bus stops—on both sides of the street—were captured. This analysis resulted in a list of 64 bus stops citywide that were targeted for further evaluation.
2. Establish Metrics to Evaluate Stops Based on Service, Access, and Amenities Drawing from a combination of academic research, local transit design guidelines, and national best practices, we organized our evaluation framework into three primary categories: Service, Access, and Amenities. These categories and their specific elements were informed by:
• OCTA’s Transit-Supportive Design Guidelines (2023)
[https://www.octa.net/pdf/OCTATransit-SupportiveDesignGuidelines.pdf] • NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/ • Academic research documenting the relationship between stop-level conditions and ridership, including:
o Kim et al. (2020): “The Connections Between Bus Stop Amenities, Bus Ridership, and ADA Paratransit Demand”
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.019]
o Ray et al. (2006): “How the Built Environment Affects Ridership” [https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/TTA 20Final 20Report.pdf] o Shi et al. (2021): “Does Improving Stop Amenities Help Increase BRT Ridership?” [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.11.010]
• Visual inspection using Google Street View
• Field data from the City of Anaheim’s Bus Stop Trash Collection GIS layer • Transit schedule data from April 2024
• Traffic congestion information from City operations staff and corridor analysis Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report Metrics were selected not only for their technical validity but also for their practical usefulness in understanding and addressing the unique challenges of Anaheim’s transit environment. Each metric provides insight into how a bus stop functions from the perspective of current and potential riders, particularly those with limited mobility or fewer transportation options. Additionally, the metrics were vetted for their ability to inform actionable improvements, ensuring the evaluation process leads to realistic and impactful recommendations. The following guiding principles were used in determining whether to include a metric:
1. Relevance to Ridership
Metrics were prioritized if they have been shown in academic or applied research to influence transit use, especially among vulnerable populations. For instance, studies such as Kim et al. (2020) and Shi et al. (2021) provided empirical support for the inclusion of shelters, seating amenities, and lighting fixtures as meaningful predictors of ridership and user satisfaction.
2. Alignment with Regional Design Guidelines
The OCTA Transit-Supportive Design Guidelines served as a foundational document. Metrics such as sidewalk completeness, curb ramps, pathway width, and wayfinding elements were selected because they represent regionally accepted standards for supporting transit.
3. Feasibility of Data Collection
Metrics had to be collectable using existing tools such as Google Street View, Anaheim’s Bus Stop Trash Collection GIS application, or published service schedules. This ensured consistency and reduced the burden of new fieldwork.
4. Equity and Accessibility Considerations
Metrics that reflect the needs of seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income populations were emphasized. For example, curb ramps, shade, and benches not only improve usability but also support Title VI and ADA compliance goals.
5. Ability to Normalize or Score Objectively
Only metrics that could be scored on a consistent 0–4 scale were included. For binary conditions (e.g., presence of a bus stop amenity), full points for the criterion were awarded.
For continuous conditions (e.g., distance to a crosswalk), thresholds were developed based on best practices and planning judgement to normalize them to a 0–4 scale.
Table A.1 is a summary of the metrics used in each category.
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report Table A.1 – Transit Stop Scoring Metrics
Category Metric Description
Service
Frequency of Service Peak-period headways; stops with ≤20-minute service scored highest.
Span of Service Number of service hours on a typical weekday.
Schedule Variability Difference between midday and PM peak travel times.
Traffic Congestion Presence of traffic backups along the bus route.
Real-Time Information Availability of real-time arrival displays.
Signage and Maps Presence of route signage and schedule information.
Peak Load Direction Service skews toward AM or PM peak periods.
Access
Curb Ramps Presence of ADA-compliant curb ramps at the stop intersection.
Pathway Width Compliance with the 48-inch minimum accessible path width.
Sidewalk Coverage Presence of complete sidewalks within ¼ mile.
Crosswalk Coverage Number of marked crosswalks at the intersection (0–4).
Proximity to Crosswalk Distance (in feet) from stop pole to nearest crosswalk.
Proximity to Perpendicular
Crossing Distance to the nearest perpendicular crossing.
Proximity to Return Stop Distance to the return-direction bus stop.
Bicycle Facilities Presence of bike racks or secure bicycle storage.
Amenities
Shelter Availability of a shelter or canopy.
Seating Availability and condition of benches or leaning rails.
Trash Receptacles Presence of trash bins.
Shade Coverage Shade provided by trees, shelter, or nearby buildings.
Lighting Lighting is present at the stop (e.g., shelter, streetlight).
Cleanliness Visual assessment of litter and general maintenance.
Visibility & Obstructions Sightlines and absence of hiding spaces.
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
(CPTED) Principles
Whether the stop design supports passive surveillance.
Emergency Call Box Availability of emergency communication devices.
Art or Branding Presence of local artwork or stop branding.
Nearby Businesses Presence of adjacent businesses that may contribute to foot traffic and safety.
Source: CR Associates
A final consideration in selecting metrics was balanced across the three categories. While Service, Access, and Amenities each contain diverse types of measures, all were weighted to ensure that each category had a meaningful impact on the overall score. This structure recognizes that:
• A stop with great amenities but poor access may still discourage use. • A well-connected stop without reliable service will not retain riders. • A frequent route without basic comfort and safety features may be underutilized.
3. Scoring
Once the appropriate metrics were selected and data was collected for each stop, a consistent scoring system was developed to quantify performance across all three evaluation categories. Each stop was scored on a 0 to 4 scale for every individual metric, with 4 representing the most favorable condition Anaheim Transit Master Plan
FINAL Task 3 – Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations Report (e.g., full accessibility, frequent service, excellent amenities), and 0 representing the least favorable or absent condition. This scale was chosen to maintain consistency across both binary (e.g., presence of a bench: yes or no) and continuous (e.g., distance to nearest crosswalk) data types.
To ensure fairness and comparability:
• Binary metrics were assigned a value of 0 or 4 (e.g., a stop either has a trash can, or it doesn’t). • Continuous metrics (e.g., service span in hours, proximity to return stop in feet) were normalized using clearly defined threshold ranges, based on planning standards, regional practice, or observed variation in the data.
• For intersection-based metrics like crosswalk coverage, adjustments were made to avoid penalizing T-intersections or midblock stops, which may have fewer crosswalks by design.
After individual metric scores were calculated, they were grouped by category. The Service Score, Access Score, and Amenities Score, for each stop were calculated by averaging the normalized metric scores within each respective category. These three scores were then combined to create a composite score (out of 12), which reflects overall stop performance across all evaluation dimensions. The composite score was a critical component of the analysis, as it provided a single, comparable measure of how each stop performed holistically, enabling the Project Team to identify stops with the greatest need for intervention and to surface broader patterns. For example, the composite scores helped reveal whether underperforming stops tended to lack certain amenities, offered infrequent service, or were physically disconnected from surrounding neighborhoods.
Control Stops Used to Validate the Scoring Framework
To evaluate the internal validity and reliability of the scoring framework, two control stops were included in the analysis. These stops were intentionally selected to represent conditions outside the core evaluation set, allowing the project team to assess whether the scoring methodology accurately reflects expected performance based on known ridership and land use characteristics.
1. Anaheim Boulevard & Lincoln Boulevard
• Reason for Selection: This stop was chosen because it represents a High Ridership / High Transit Propensity location.
• Role in Validation: It served as a benchmark for what a well-performing stop should score within the framework, based on both demand potential and actual use. • Scoring Outcome: This stop scored among the highest in the dataset, with relatively strong marks in Service and Amenities, confirming that the framework appropriately reflects quality and usage when both infrastructure and demand align.
2. Harbor Boulevard & Katella Boulevard
• Reason for Selection: This stop was selected for its High Ridership / Low Transit Propensity characteristics and located next to major trip generators (Disneyland, Convention Center and numerous hotels).
• Role in Validation: This stop helped evaluate whether the scoring system could differentiate between rider volume driven by land use context versus rider volume enabled by stop quality and service.
• Scoring Outcome: Despite high ridership, this stop scored lower on Transit Propensity but still rated highly in Service and Amenities, consistent with its function as a key regional destination node. This suggests that the scoring system can reflect diverse types of transit success—both demand-based and design-supported.
OUTREACH
SUMMARIES
C
CITY OF ANAHEIM TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
107
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
Technical Working Group Meeting #1 Summary
Location: Virtual Meeting (Zoom)
Subject: TWG Meeting #1
Meeting Date: 05/14/25
Meeting Time: 2:00-4:00pm
Attendees
Project Team
• City of Anaheim Project Team: Joe Alcock, David Kennedy • CRA: Tony Mendoza, Matthew Parrent, Lars Christiansen • Nelson Nygaard: Kyle Taniguchi
Technical Working Group Members
• City of Anaheim: Maureen Richardson (Community Services Supervisor), Lisandro Orozco (Senior Planner), Sergio Ramirez (Director of Economic Development) • Anaheim Convention Center: Mindy Abel
• Anaheim Transit Network: Diana Kotler
• OCTA: Jorge Duran, Charles Main, Megan Taylor
• ARTIC Management: Jason Davis, Eva Martin
• Caltrans: Seth Cutter, Grace Owen
• Yorba Linda: Tony Wang
• Buena Park: Deepthi Arabolu
• LOSSAN: James Cambell
• SCAG: Priscilla Freduah-Agyemang
TWG Purpose, Goals, and Agenda
• The Technical Working Group (TWG) serves to provide input on the development of the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP), specifically from the perspective of the transit service and transportation organizations serving Anaheim residents, workers, and visitors, neighboring cities, and local, regional, and state planning agencies.
• The goals of the meeting were as follows:
o Provide an overview and scope of the ATMP
o Review existing conditions findings
o To present draft ATMP goals
o Collect input on key needs and priorities
o Outline next steps for feedback integration
Discussion
The discussion portion of the TWG meeting followed the presentation of existing conditions and draft ATMP goals. It began with a Zoom poll that asked TWG meeting attendees to rank the goals of the ATMP. “Improve Transit Access,” “Improve Mobility,” and “Serve Growth Areas” each received votes as the highest-weighted priority goals. Among the goals that did not receive first-place votes, “Advancing Connectivity for Low-Income Communities” was the highest-weighted priority. The results are presented in Figure 1.1 below:
Figure 1.1 – Anaheim Transit Master Plan Goals Ranking Results
Discussion of TWG Survey Results
After completing the ATMP goals poll, TWG members were shown results from the TWG Survey. As part of their preparation for the TWG meeting, members were asked to complete a survey in advance of the meeting. Nine (9) TWG members responded to the TWG Survey. The TWG Survey posed 13 questions, and its purpose was two-fold: First, to document TWG perspectives on the following topics:
• ATMP goals
• Critical gaps and weaknesses in the transit system serving Anaheim • Improvements to consider for inclusion in the ATMP
• Transit modes/services to prioritize
• Alternative transit technologies to consider
• Key trends that should inform the ATMP
• Data and metrics that should be used for the ATMP
• Identifying challenges for improving transit
• Funding or policy strategies for the ATMP
• Emerging transportation trends that could be incorporated into the ATMP • Potential partnerships for developing the ATMP
• Changes or events on the horizon that could inform the ATMP • Opportunities for the ATMP
The second purpose of the survey was to prompt a discussion of these topics by the TWG, which provided the opportunity for TWG members who had not completed the survey to offer their thoughts and opinions during the meeting. The TWG discussed select questions that were prioritized by the Project Team due to time constraints and given their importance for project analyses.
TWG Discussion on ATMP Goals
The first TWG Survey questions (1 and 2) inquired about ATMP Goals. Figure 1.2 presents the results of the 9 TWG members who responded to these questions. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Improve Transit Access
• Improve Mobility
• Advance Connectivity for Low-Income Communities
• Minimize Environmental Impacts
• Support and Encourage Economic Development
• Deliverability
• Serve Growth Areas
• Other
Figure 1.2 – Results of TWG Survey QuesƟons 1 and 2
TWG members asked for clearer definitions of goals like “deliverability” and “mobility,” suggested that the ATMP should be aligned with city and regional plans, noted service gaps, emphasized tourism, and called out the need for a vision to provide a framework for ATMP goals. TWG members also oƯered new goals and refined the goals presented to them (see the last row of Table 1.1). Table 1.1 summarizes key discussion points of ATMP goals.
Table 1.1 - Summary of TWG Member Comments on Goals
Discussion Points
• There is a strong baseline for transit; increasing frequencies could provide a short-term benefit. • The definitions of key terms—particularly "deliverability" and "mobility"—were unclear. Suggested clarifications included:
• Deliverability = Feasibility of implementation under city control • Transit Access = May mean service area, flow, or equity, depending on interpretation • Mobility = Includes flow of people, first/last mile, and interconnectivity • Success metrics should be tied to a broader vision—TWG members wanted better alignment with long-term city and regional plans.
• There is a major service gap in Anaheim Hills a, especially for seniors and people who are transit-dependent but not categorized as low-income.
• High-density areas like the Platinum Triangle (23,000 housing units planned) need expanded transit options. • The tourist experience is very important. The current transit system in Anaheim is difficult for visitors to navigate; there’s a need for seamless payment and improved wayfinding. • A vision is needed to provide a framework for the goals—how do they align with other city plans, regional goals, and large-scale events like the Olympics?
• Recommendations suggested new or refined goals:
• Improve first/last mile (FLM) connections
• Enhance the overall transit experience
• Improve payment options
TWG Discussion on Critical Gaps and Weaknesses
The next TWG survey question asked participants to identify critical gaps and/or challenges in the transit systems serving Anaheim. This was an open-ended question. Figure 1.3 presents feedback from TWG members who responded to this question.
Figure 1.3 – Survey Responses on Critical Gaps and Weaknesses TWG members discussed the public s confusion or ignorance about Anaheim s transit systems. They noted that Anaheim s transit system lacked a cohesive means for disseminating transit information and called for improving bus infrastructure, connectivity, and frequency. They also mentioned the incorporation of microtransit to improve transit in Anaheim. Table 1.2 presents TWG Member discussion points stimulated by this question.
Table 1.2 - Summary of TWG Member Comments on Critical Gaps and Weaknesses Discussion Points
• There is a lack of cohesive transit information in Anaheim —referenced San Francisco’s advanced transit apps as a model.
• Harbor Boulevard is a major corridor but needs enhanced bus infrastructure (e.g., dedicated or peak-period lanes) and better integration with the OC Streetcar.
• Poor connectivity between ARTIC and Downtown Anaheim; limited bus frequency makes it difficult to travel east-west.
• The Anaheim Canyon business district lacks convenient last-mile connections from the train station. • For Anaheim Hills, large buses on residential roads are not ideal—microtransit or circulators could be a better fit.
• Tourists are unaware of ATN’s offerings and find the system confusing.
TWG Discussion on Improvements for Transit Service in Anaheim The TWG then discussed improvements for transit service in Anaheim. Figure 1.4 presents the results of the 8 TWG members who responded to this ranking question. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Improvements to first/last mile of Anaheim s active transportation network (e.g., walking, bicycling, scooter/skateboarding, rolling) to and from bus stops and rail stations in Anaheim • Improvements to Anaheim s bus stops and rail stations (e.g., shelters, signage, lighting, seating) • Improvements to the speed and reliability of buses on Anaheim s roads • Improvements to passenger amenities at bus stops and rail stations in Anaheim • Increased bus frequency all day on bus routes with high ridership • Increased hours of service for buses operating in Anaheim • Improved or new service to areas with little or no service (e.g., Anaheim Hills) Figure 1.4 - Results of TWG Survey Question 4
The members of the TWG called out frequency and transit stop comfort (seating and lighting in particular) as key improvements needed in Anaheim s transit system. There was also a robust discussion of how bicycling amenities could be integrated into the transit system. Table 1.3 presents a summary of TWG member comments on this question.
Table 1.3 - Summary of TWG Member Comments on Improvements Discussion Points
• Bus frequency is equally as important as amenities.
• Comfort and safety at stops—including seating and lighting—are essential to rider confidence. • Stop infrastructure is inconsistent across the city due to reliance on variable grant funding and private vendors. • There’s a potential to integrate stop upgrades like bike racks, seating, and FLM tools with mobility hubs to increase grant funding competitiveness.
• Research from other cities shows that even low-cost additions like bike racks significantly increase ridership. • Persistent bicycle theft (1 in 3 stolen in some areas) is a deterrent; opportunities exist to leverage technology and case studies from other cities to reduce this.
TWG Discussion on Transit Modes/Services to Prioritize for Improvement, Development, or Integration in the Transit Service in Anaheim Next, the TWG discussed transit modes/services for prioritization for improvement, development, or integration in the transit systems serving Anaheim. Figure 1.5 presents the results of the 8 TWG members who responded to this question. Members were limited to a selection of up to three. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Fixed-Route Bus (e.g., frequency and/or span of service) • Metrolink (e.g., frequency and/or span of service)
• Express bus (e.g., new destinations)
• Bus rapid transit (e.g., OC Bus Rapid, upgraded existing lines) • Light rail transit
• Streetcar
• Microtransit (such as FRAN)
• Trolley (rubber tired, branded)
• Other (please specify)
Figure 1.5 - Results of TWG Survey Question 5
TWG members commented on the need for regional integration with local applicability, and emphasized microtransit as an important option in Anaheim s transit system, particularly for underserved communities.
Table 1.4 presents a summary of the discussion generated by TWG Member comments on this topic.
Table 1.4 - Summary of TWG Member Comments on Transit Modes/Services to Prioritize Discussion Points
• The results leaned toward regional services over local options. • Recent Metrolink service changes include a 20% increase in frequency and clockface scheduling. • Despite not being selected, microtransit remains an important option, especially for areas with lower demand or difficult access.
• Balance needed between regional mobility and local accessibility—especially for economic development and workforce travel.
TWG Discussion on Alternative Transit Technologies
The TWG then discussed the results of TWG Survey Question 6, which inquired about Alternative Transit Technologies. Figure 1.6 presents the results of the 8 TWG members who responded to this question.
Members were limited to a selection of up to three. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Autonomous shuttles
• People movers
• On-demand ridesharing
• Trackless trams
• Aerial gondolas
• Emerging mobility platforms like Mobility-as-a-Service apps • Other (please specify)
• None of the above
Figure 1.6 - Results of TWG Survey Question 6
TWG discussion of Alternative Transit Technologies noted support for both digital and infrastructure technologies. Table 1.5 presents notes on TWG Member comments on this question.
Table 1.5 - Summary of TWG Member Comments on Alternative Transit Technologies Discussion Points
• Preferences for these technologies surprised some attendees—there was an expectation that TWG members would be more inclined to emphasize digital tools rather than physical infrastructure. • Some technologies, like aerial gondolas, were seen as unconventional choices for Anaheim. • The feedback reflects a range of views—technical attendees may be thinking at a different scale than the public.
TWG Discussion on Data and Metrics for Evaluating the ATMP’s Success The final TWG Survey question that the TWG discussed was the data or metrics that TWG members recommend for measuring the success of the ATMP. Figure 1.7 presents the results of the 8 TWG members who responded to this question. This was an open-ended question.
Figure 1.7 - Results of TWG Survey Question 8
TWG members had a robust discussion of data and metrics for evaluating the success of the ATMP. A host of metrics, as well as references to relevant studies (which also contain useful metrics), were oƯered by TWG members as important for ATMP evaluation. These are presented in Table 1.6:
Table 1.6 - Summary of TWG Member Comments on Data Metrics Discussion Points
• Traffic flow and congestion reduction around the Anaheim Resort (e.g. Harbor Blvd and Katella corridors)— important to both transit and general circulation.
• An ongoing OCTA Transit Optimization Study and the Anaheim Resort Pedestrian Mobility Study were cited as potential resources for metrics.
• Congestion at shared access points (e.g., Uber lots, hotel zones, key intersections in the Resort) hampers bus reliability.
• Bus frequency and coverage enhancements—such as the newly extended Route 553 rapid line—are seen as benchmarks.
• Emphasis on using high-capacity transit corridors (e.g., Katella) and long-range visioning via OC Transit Vision Master Plan.
• Participants suggested tracking metrics:
• Speed and reliability
• Ridership growth
• Safety and theft metrics
• Perception and use of transit by tourists and residents • Implementation of amenities at Tier 2/3 bus stops (not just top 100 busiest) • First and last mile accessibility
• Equity of access for underserved populations
• Potential for grant application success
TWG Survey Questions Not Discussed by the TWG
Due to time limitations, the TWG did not address the following TWG Survey questions:
• Demographic or ridership trends (Question 7)
• Funding or policy strategies (Question 9)
• Emerging trends (Question 10)
• Potential partnerships (Question 11)
• Other open-ended opportunities (Question 12)
The following figures (Figures 1.8 – 1.14) present the responses from the TWG Survey for each of these questions.
Figure 1.8 inquired about trends that should guide the ATMP.
Figure 1.8 - Results of TWG Survey Question 7
Figure 1.9 inquired about challenges to improving transit in Anaheim.
Figure 1.9 - Results of TWG Survey Question 9
Figure 1.10 asked about funding or policy strategies to support transit improvements in Anaheim.
Figure 1.10 - Results of TWG Survey Question 10
Figure 1.11 inquired about emerging transportation technology trends that could be incorporated into the ATMP.
Figure 1.11 - Results of TWG Survey Question 11
Figure 1.12 asked about potential partnerships to enhance transit oƯerings and promote ridership in Anaheim.
Figure 1.12 - Results of TWG Survey Question 12
Figure 1.13 inquired about changes or events on the horizon that should be taken into consideration in the ATMP.
Figure 1.13 - Results of TWG Survey Question 13
Finally, Figure 1.14 asked about additional opportunities to be addressed in the ATMP.
Figure 1.14 - Results of TWG Survey Question 14
Summary of Common Themes and Recommendations
1. Improved Clarity and Alignment on Goals
• Repeated calls for clearer definitions of goals like “deliverability” and “mobility.” • Participants stressed alignment with the City s General Plan, Olympic infrastructure, and state and regional transit initiatives.
2. Focus on Access, Frequency, and First/Last Mile Connectivity • Emphasis on improving existing services rather than launching entirely new systems. • Multiple mentions of:
o Enhancing route frequency
o Reducing wait times
o Creating seamless first/last mile access, pedestrian links, or microtransit
3. Regional Integration with Local Applicability
• Recognition that many workers and riders come from outside Anaheim. • Integration with regional services like Metrolink and OCTA is viewed as essential but should be paired with intra-city improvements.
4. Need for Better Transit User Experience
• Improved signage, seating, lighting, wayfinding, and real-time info tools seen as critical. • Especially important in tourist-heavy areas (resort, ARTIC, downtown).
5. Opportunity and Interest in Microtransit and Emerging Tech • While microtransit received few survey votes, some saw it as a potential solution in underserved areas like Anaheim Hills.
• Participants urged further exploration of technology-enabled service delivery.
6. Safety, Vandalism, and Maintenance as Barriers
• Multiple concerns were raised about bike theft, vandalism of bus shelters, and cleanliness. • Some suggested integrating secure mobility hubs and better lighting to mitigate this.
7. Long-Term Visioning and Funding Alignment
• Calls for the plan to accommodate future transit needs through:
o Strategic advocacy
o Grant applications
o Alignments with initiatives like Project V and state funding opportunities TWG Meeting Conclusion
The TWG meeting concluded with initial next step findings and project next steps. 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
Community Working Group Meeting #1 Summary
Location: Virtual Meeting (Zoom)
Subject: Community Working Group (CWG) Meeting #1
Project No: 2024.0810
Meeting Date: 05/21/25
Meeting Time: 9:30-11:30 am
Attendees
• City of Anaheim Project Team: Joe Alcock, David Kennedy • CRA: Tony Mendoza, Lars Christiansen, Annabel Grealish • Nelson Nygaard: Carolyn Chu
Community Working Group Members
• Anaheim Transit Network: Ken Jarocki
• City of Anaheim: Emily Perez (Neighborhood Services Supervisor), Rafael Cobian (City Traffic Engineer), Brian Chwan (Project SAY), Enrique Mutis (Anaheim Livability Lab), Sandy Lozeau (Community Development Deputy Director), Maureen Richardson (Community Services Supervisor)
• Courtyard Anaheim Resort/Convention Center: Timothy Ransom • Disney: Judy Hernandez
• Disneyland Resort: Kevin Gidden
• Disney Real Estate Council: Deanna Detchemendy
• Kaiser Permanente: OC Carlos Urquiza
• Visit Anaheim: Christina Dawson
• West Anaheim Organization: John Peterson
CWG Purpose, Goals, and Agenda
• The Community Working Group (CWG) serves to provide input on the development of the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP), specifically from the perspective of major employers and community and non-profit groups.
• The goals of the meeting were as follows:
o Provide an overview and scope of the ATMP
o Review existing conditions findings
o Present draft ATMP goals
o Collect input on key needs and priorities
o Outline next steps for feedback
Discussion
The discussion porƟon of the CWG meeƟng occurred aŌer the presentaƟon of exisƟng condiƟons and draŌ ATMP goals. It began with a Zoom poll that asked CWG meeƟng aƩendees to rank the goals of the ATMP. “Improve Transit Access” and “Improve Mobility” were the highest-ranked goals, followed by “Advance Connectivity for Low-Income Communities.” The results are presented in Figure 1.1 below:
Figure 1.1 – Anaheim Transit Master Plan Goals Ranking Results Discussion of Technical Working Group Survey Results
After completing the ATMP goals poll, CWG members were shown the results of a Technical Working Group (TWG) Survey that TWG members were asked to complete in advance of their meeting. The CWG did not discuss the results of every survey question; rather, the Project Team prioritized three questions/results to discuss given their importance for project analyses.
CWG Discussion on ATMP Goals
The first TWG survey question that was discussed was TWG responses to the ranking of ATMP goals.
Attendees were asked to rank the transit plan goals with 1 being the highest priority and 7 being the lowest.
Figure 1.2 presents the results of 9 responses to the TWG survey, which served as a prompt for additional CWG discussion of goals. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Improve Transit Access
• Improve Mobility
• Advance Connectivity for Low-Income Communities
• Minimize Environmental Impacts
• Support and Encourage Economic Development
• Deliverability
• Serve Growth Areas
• Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Improve Transit Access
Improve Mobility
Advance Connectivity for Low-Income
Communities:
Minimize Environmental Impacts
Support and Encourage Economic Development
Deliverability
Serve Growth Areas
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Figure 1.2 – Results of TWG Survey Question 1
CWG comments on ATMP goals focused on transit needs for low-income communities, areas where transit should be prioritized, transit comfort and stigma concerns, and where the elderly reside in Anaheim. Table
1.1 presents the summary of CWG comments oƯered during the discussion of these goals in response to the TWG’s survey results.
Table 1.1 – Summary of CWG Member Comments on ATMP Goals Discussion Points
• Low-income communities are not necessarily (served by) Transit Oriented Development (TOD); “Improve transit access to” more fully covers TOD, though there are some low-income people served by TOD.
• For some communities, including low-income communities, public transit is not just an option, but the only option.
• Public transportation has a stigma and is seen as not the most convenient, but it should be improved so the stigma can be improved to increase ridership. • We want to be able to serve important growth areas like Disney and OC Vibe with transit. If it’s not easy to get to these places, people will not come. • Addressing connectivity gaps will be a critical and cost-eƯective solution. If access and mobility are addressed, transit will naturally serve low-income communities. • The City of Anaheim can share data about where people have called in about transit areas that are uncomfortable to be waiting. Test piloted environmental programs for lighting, etc.
• Can make a case for all categories; they could all be a top priority. • Over 60+ population is increasing in eastern parts of Anaheim.
CWG Discussion on Improvements for Transit Service in Anaheim The next TWG Survey question that the CWG discussed was about transit improvements in Anaheim. TWG members were asked to rank each of the options, with 1 being the highest priority and 7 being the lowest.
The results presented in Figure 1.3 are the final scores, with the highest scores reflecting the aggregate highest priorities. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Improvements to first/last mile of Anaheim’s active transportation network (e.g., walking, bicycling, scooter/skateboarding, rolling) to and from bus stops and rail stations in Anaheim • Improvements to Anaheim’s bus stops and rail stations (e.g. shelters, signage, lighting, seating) • Improvements to the speed and reliability of buses on Anaheim’s roads • Improvements to passenger amenities at bus stops and rail stations in Anaheim • Increased bus frequency all day on bus routes with high ridership • Increased hours of service for buses operating in Anaheim • Improved or new service to areas with little or no service (e.g. Anaheim Hills)
Figure 1.3 - Results of TWG Survey Question 4
CWG member comments focused on transit safety, increased conflicts and congestion generated by more widespread usage of ride-hailing services, the possibility of autonomous vehicles, what data should be brought to the analysis of transit needs in Anaheim, how dedicated ROW will be needed to address transit demand, and the eƯiciency of BRT. Table 1.2 presents the summary of CWG comments oƯered during this discussion.
Table 1.2 – Summary of CWG Member Comments on Transit Improvements in Anaheim Discussion Points
• Crosswalks near Disneyland are unsafe. Have seen emergency responders responding to someone hit in the crosswalk multiple times.
• It is dangerous near the Uber pickup lot on Harbor Boulevard near Disney; drivers are speeding.
• As a separate project, the City is considering putting bollards in to protect pedestrians and doing a pedestrian feasibility study for pedestrian bridges over Harbor Boulevard. • City of Anaheim: As an older city, we’ve been reactionary to transportation changes (i.e., Lyft, Uber), but we should be anticipatory in this plan. When Uber and Lyft became more popular, they were simply added to the taxi area which jammed the space. In the near future, smaller shuttles that can be reserved on an app should be considered alongside transit areas. It will be critical to build out infrastructure to meet innovative transportation.
• Driverless technology is available – how can Anaheim respond as this type of technology grows? It could be helpful for first- last-mile planning. • We should leverage the data we already have so that we can inform decision-making (Streetlight, Replica, mobile data). We can see what trips are most redundant and build a strong case for improvements using mobile data.
• Congestion will grow with new areas (e.g., OC Vibe) growing, dedicated right of way (ROW) will be important to deal with that.
• Bus rapid transit (BRT) is one of the most eƯicient ways to move people with minimal infrastructure investment. A CWG member wants the project team to leverage all the resources we have to source intelligent findings.
CWG Discussion on Potential Partnerships to Enhance Transit and Promote Ridership
CWG members then discussed the results of TWG Survey Question 12, which inquired about potential partnerships to enhance transit and promote ridership in Anaheim. This was an open-ended survey question.
Figure 1.4 - Results of TWG Survey Question 12
CWG members identified a variety of organizations to consider partnering with, including major employers in Anaheim, human service agencies, neighborhood groups, public schools, and other transportation service providers. Table 1.3 presents the summary of CWG comments oƯered during this discussion.
Table 1.3 – Summary of CWG Member Comments on Potential Partnerships to Enhance and Promote Transit in Anaheim
Discussion Points
• Stigma with transit: Kaiser employees would rather commute in their cars rather than take public transportation. May be a lack of knowledge of services available. Kaiser can help promote transit options available to their staƯ and members. • Even though Anaheim is a big city, we have a small-town feel. The City can connect with many human services agencies to get information. We can leverage tools like Anaheim Alert to get the word out.
• Neighborhoods have their own messaging networks (Facebook, WhatsApp). Rider education and rider training would be helpful. Clear and concise information is important (including for people who may not speak English). School districts could be a valuable partner for promoting transit services to youth.
• Northgate Market is the third largest employer behind Disney and Kaiser. Their staƯ and customers could be good to connect with.
• A CWG member would love to see a partnership with Tesla and Boring company who worked with the Las Vegas Loop.
• Since Uber and Lyft want to work in the city, can we create partnerships. • It is important to serve early morning commuters who may need to get in and out of lots early, and can leave their cars overnight if needed.
Discussion of Public Survey Results (as of May 21, 2025) CWG members were then asked to comment on Public Survey results, of which there were six responses at that time. The CWG was not asked to comment on all the Public Survey results (to date), but instead to discuss questions most vital for project analysis.
CWG Discussion on Why People Don’t Use Transit in Anaheim The first Public Survey question that the CWG discussed was why people don’t use transit in Anaheim.
Respondents were asked to select all that apply. Figure 1.5 presents the results of the survey question at the time of the CWG meeting. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Too hard to get to or access
• Takes too long due to the number of transfers
• Stops are physically uncomfortable
• Stops do not feel secure
• Transit is confusing
• I prefer to use another mode
Figure 1.5 - Results of Public Survey Question 8
CWG members discussed why people do not use public transit in Anaheim. Reasons identified in participant comments included concerns over safety, transit accessibility and reliability, problems with bus stops, and the stigma associated with public transit. Table 1.4 presents a summary of comments shared by CWG members on this survey question.
Table 1.4 – Summary of CWG Member Comments on Why People Don’t Use Public Transit in Anaheim Discussion Points
• Concerns over safety while waiting for a bus or riding on a bus. One experience can determine whether someone would ride transit again. Accessibility and reliability: it takes a shorter time to drive than wait for and ride a bus. If people have groceries or kids, it might be easier to use a car.
• On La Palma, Canyon Area, and State College, the bus stops are obstructed with overgrowth or unhoused people sleeping on the bench – this can make it uncomfortable to wait.
• City has a 1-mile grid bus system; it could be up to a 20-minute walk to a bus stop if you’re in the center of a grid square. When adding wait time and transfer, it adds up. The grid system is unwalkable.
• A CWG member shared this article: OC compared to a Toronto suburb: Increased headways and increased timed service improved ridership. • We’re working against how Southern California was designed to prioritize freeways. Transit should have a “cool factor” to make people want to ride transit.
CWG Discussion on Satisfaction with Public Transit Options in Anaheim CWG members were then asked about Public Survey question 10, which asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with public transit options in Anaheim. Respondents were only able to select one option.
Figure 1.6 presents the results of the survey question at the time of the CWG.
Figure 1.6 - Results of Public Survey Question 10
However, rather than focus on the results of this question, the CWG’s conversation diverged into a discussion of how the survey is and will be distributed. There was also a request for a flyer to be shared with Mobile Family Resource Centers (the Project Team followed through on this request). One commentor suggested pursuing transit projects that use equipment other than buses, such as monorail. Table 1.5 presents a summary of the discussion that occurred at this time in the meeting.
Table 1.5 – CWG Discussion Prompted by the Public Survey Question on Satisfaction with Transit in Anaheim
Discussion Points
• The survey will be distributed to have a broader reach. City is working with OCTA to promote it at transit stops and buses.
• The survey should be distributed to people who don’t ride transit to understand why they don’t. Outreach should consider extending to hotels, businesses, etc. • Request for a flyer to share with Mobile Family Resource Centers. Incentives drive responses.
• Survey is available in English and Spanish. The City is working with PMO to push this survey out, especially around the open house.
• A CWG member asked, Have we thought about forward looking projects like a monorail or a large project that might solve the problem? We’ve been really focused on buses. As a future-looking city, we should be looking toward bigger projects. The longer we wait, the harder it is to build them.
• The City is committed to East West connection between ARTIC and the Resort. They are exploring BRT, driverless vehicles, etc.
CWG Discussion on New Transit Technologies to Encourage Transit Use The next Public Survey Question discussed by the CWG was question 19, “What new transit technologies or transit services would encourage you to use transit more often?” Respondents were asked to select all that apply. Figure 1.7 presents the results of the survey question at the time of the CWG. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Micro-transit (on-demand shared rides in smaller vehicles) • Micromobility (bikes, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), etc.) • Autonomous shuttles
• Mobility-as-a-Service (an application that seamlessly connects multiple transportation options -- such as public transit, rideshare, and bike share -- into one easy-to-use system for planning, booking, and payment)
• Other (please specify)
Figure 1.7 – Results of Public Survey Question 19
CWG member comments on this Public Survey question indicated support for BRT, mobility as a service, and autonomous vehicles. One member reminded the Project Team to keep active mobility (mobility achieved through human propulsion such as walking, bicycling, scooting, skateboarding, and the use of wheelchairs) in mind when developing the ATMP. Table 1.6 presents a summary of comments made by CWG members on this question.
Table 1.6 – Summary of CWG Member Comments on New Transit Technologies Discussion Points
• Support for BRT, MaaS, autonomous vehicles, which are all available now. • Active mobility – how does it fit into this project? This is an important and lasting way that people will travel.
CWG Discussion on Transit Stop Amenities
The CWG was then asked to comment on results from Public Survey Question 20, which asked about the amenities one would like to see at transit stops. Survey respondents were asked to select all that apply.
Figure 1.8 presents the results of the survey question at the time of the CWG. Note: The full response options read as follows:
• Benches
• Leaning rails
• Seating pedestals
• Trash receptacles
• Shelters
• Lighting
• Route and schedule information (static)
• Real-time bus arrival/departure information at transit stops • Bicycle racks
• Other (please specify)
Figure 1.8 – Results of Public Survey Question 20
CWG members indicated that comfort and safety concerns were guiding their responses to this question, which included adding shade, lighting, and real-time monitoring at transit stops. Table 1.7 presents a summary of CWG comments on this question.
Table 1.7 – Summary of CWG Member Comments on Amenities at Transit Stops in Anaheim Discussion Points
• Shade
• Lighting – important for gender equity (i.e., women feeling safe/comfortable at transit stops)
• Real-time monitoring like a camera system may help people feel safer, especially at night.
CWG Meeting Conclusion
The CWG meeting concluded with initial next step findings and project next steps. 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
Public Survey Summary of Results
Introduction
A critical piece in the development of the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP) is public outreach and engagement. One important tool that was part of the ATMP’s Outreach Toolkit was a Public Survey.
The purpose of the Public Survey was to gather input from the general public on their experience with and opinions about transit services and operations, transit priorities, challenges, and recommendations. The Public Survey, written in English and Spanish, was launched on May 9, 2025 and was originally scheduled to be closed on June 6, 2025; however, in order to give the public more time to engage the survey, the closing date was extended to July 9, 2025. The promotion of the Public Survey occurred through announcements at meetings and through the distribution of a flyer (see Figure 1.1). The flyer was posted on the City of Anaheim’s website, on ATN bus routes (displayed in digital form), and at available Clear Channel-controlled transit stops. The Public Survey was also promoted at the project’s first Technical Working Group (TWG) and Community Working Group (CWG) meetings, as well as the first Public Open House (May 14, 2025, May 21, 2025, and June 4, 2025, respectively).
Figure 1.1 – ATMP Public Survey Promotional Flyer
.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Public Survey Results
Survey Response and Respondent Information
Number of responses and stratified by language
A total of 182 survey responses were received. One hundred seventy-two (172) survey responses were submitted in English, and 10 were submitted in Spanish.
Respondents’ home zip-codes
One hundred seventeen (117) survey respondents reported residing within the City of Anaheim, while 35 indicated they lived in surrounding areas, including Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, and Ventura County. A total of four respondents noted that they reside outside the state, although one respondent, who gave a home zip-code of 92901 (Chesire, OR), may have intended to type 92801, as they also reportedly live in Anaheim according to their response to a different survey question. If so, then the total number of survey respondents who reside within the City of Anaheim is 118.
Respondents’ roles: Resident, employee, or visitor of Anaheim Survey respondents were asked if they were residents, employees, or visitors to Anaheim; they could select all that applied. The majority of respondents reported residing in Anaheim (116) and/or working in Anaheim (69), with fourteen (14) reported visiting Anaheim. Those who selected 'Other' indicated that they reside in neighboring cities.
Respondents who are members of the TWG or CWG
Four (4) of the 182 respondents who took the public survey are members of the ATMP TWG or CWG.
Respondents’ Transit Use
Respondent’s use of public transit in Anaheim
Respondents were asked if they currently use public transit in Anaheim. Of the 145 respondents who answered this question, 54% (number of respondents, or “n”=78) use public transit, while 46% (n=67) do not. The perspectives of transit users and non-transit users are compared in responses to selected questions.
Transit services used most frequently
Those who answered “yes” to using transit (n=78) were asked which transit services in Anaheim they use most frequently. Respondents were able to select all that apply to them. Of the respondents who supplied an answer to this question, just over 80% use OCTA most frequently, while just over 40% use Metrolink, and approximately 20% use Amtrak; 10% of respondents use Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) most frequently. Figures 1.2a and 1.2b present these results among English and Spanish survey responses, respectively.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.2a – Transit Services Used Most Frequently (survey responses in English) Figure 1.2b – Transit Services Used Most Frequently (survey responses in Spanish) 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Three of the five respondents who selected “Other” (reported in Figure 1.2a) specified that they use Free Rides Around the Neighborhood (FRAN) service most frequently.
Reasons that respondents use transit services
Survey respondents were asked what they use transit services for. They were given the following options to choose from; they could select all that apply:
• Commute to/from work or school
• Access entertainment or recreation
• Visit family and friends
• Access shopping/retail
• Access health care
• Travel regionally in Southern California
• Access airports
The most common reason for using public transit among those who took the survey in English was commuting to and from work or school (65%). About half of the respondents take transit to access entertainment, and visiting family and friends received and/or using transit for recreation activities (second and third most common answer, respectively). See Figure 1.3a for a graphical representation of these results.
Among the ten participants who took the survey in Spanish, visiting family and friends was the leading reason for using transit, followed by commuting to school or work and accessing entertainment. See Figure 1.3b for a graphical representation of these results.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.3a – Reasons Respondents Use Transit Services (survey responses in English) Figure 1.3b – Reasons Respondents Use Transit Services (survey responses in Spanish) 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Why non-transit users do not use public transit
When asked if respondents use public transit, those who answered “no” were asked why in two ways. First, they were given a set of options to choose from (and could select all that apply). Second, if they answered “transit was confusing” among those options, respondents were then asked to elaborate on that response. On the first question, respondents were given the following to select:
• Too hard to get to or access
• Takes too long due to the number of transfers
• Stops are physically uncomfortable
• Stops do not feel secure
• Transit is confusing
• I prefer to use another mode
The most frequent response among those who took the survey in English being “preference of another mode” (just over half of respondents who don’t take transit), almost half indicated “takes too long due to the number of transfers” as their main reason. Difficulty accessing transit was the third most common reason (30%). Figure 1.4a presents the results in graphical form.
Leading responses to the Spanish-only survey were a three-way tie of “too hard to get to or access,” “stops do not feel secure,” and “prefer to use another mode.” Figure 1.4b presents those results in graphical form.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.4a – Why Respondents Don’t Use Public Transit (survey responses in English) Figure 1.4b - Why Respondents Don’t Use Public Transit (survey responses in Spanish) 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Respondents who selected “Transit is confusing” (n=9, only among the surveys taken in English) elaborated that public transit is difficult to use due to limited guidance, confusing schedules, and unclear route information. They stated that routes are often inefficient for reaching key destinations, making driving feel faster, easier, and more cost-effective. Overall, public transit is perceived by nontransit users as inconvenient and impractical compared to other options. Error! Reference source not found. presents survey responses, organized by theme.
Table 1 – Elaborations on “Transit is Confusing” among Non-Transit Users Theme Responses
Lack of Clear
Guidance &
Information
There’s no guidance or maps
More information needed to understand routes and times. Don’t know when and where exactly the bus will come by. Identifying bus routes and schedule delays is confusing Navigation &
Technology Barriers
You need an app to navigate transportation.
I used FRAN but it is only available to Downtown Anaheim.
Schedule & Route
Inefficiencies
Schedules are hard to read, routes take long vs taking direct transportation.
No easy way to get from ARTC to Downtown or to Downtown Disney.
Cost & Practicality
Concerns
It’s more cost-effective to drive to work, and it isn’t easy to use public transportation for recreational activities.
Satisfaction with public transit options in Anaheim
All survey respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with public transit options in Anaheim. Respondents could select only one option. Error! Reference source not found. depicts the public’s level of satisfaction with the transit system. As one can see, responses are concentrated toward neutrality (toward the middle), with “Neutral/Not satisfied or dissatisfied” receiving the highest proportion (37% of those who answered this question) of any single response, and the fewest votes going toward the extremes of very satisfied or very dissatisfied. It should be noted that 30% of respondents gave overall “satisfied” responses, while 33% gave overall “dissatisfied” responses.
With regard to levels of satisfaction of transit users and non-transit users, Table 2 shows greater satisfaction with transit in Anaheim among transit users than non-transit users. Among transit users, nearly half (47%) rated their experience with transit in Anaheim as overall satisfactory. By contrast, among non-transit users, only 13% rated their experience with transit as overall satisfactory. 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Table 2 – Level of Satisfaction with Public Transit Options in Anaheim Level of Satisfaction Transit
Users
NonTransit
Users
Total
Votes
Very satisfied 12
(17%)
1 (2%) 13
(10%)
Somewhat satisfied 21
(30%)
7 (11%)
28 (20%)
Neutral/not satisfied or dissatisfied 19
(27%)
30 (48%)
49 (37%)
Somewhat dissatisfied 16
(23%)
18 (28%)
34 (26%)
Very dissatisfied 2 (3%) 7
(11%)
9 (7%)
Total 70
(100%)
63 (100%)
133
(100%)
Survey respondents were then given an option to elaborate on their answer to the previous question regarding satisfaction with public transit options in Anaheim. Error! Reference source not found. provides summary response themes by respondents’ level of satisfaction.
Table 3 – Summary Response Themes by Respondents’ Reported Level of Satisfaction with Public Transit Options in Anaheim
Satisfaction Rate Response Theme
Very satisfied
Professionalism
Health benefits
Cost-efficient
Somewhat satisfied
Limited service accessibility and
convenience
Need for system coordination and clarity
Connectivity opportunities
Lacks cleanliness and safety
Neutral/not satisfied or
dissatisfied
Connectivity gaps
Limited accessibility
Lacks reliability
Cleanliness and Safety Concerns
Information and Support gaps
Somewhat dissatisfied
Concern about service frequency, hours,
and connectivity
Infrastructure and investment gaps
Safety and cleanliness concerns
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Limited accessibility
Very dissatisfied
Severe service gaps
Operational reliability issues
Safety concerns
Survey respondents value the professionalism of transit staff, the health benefits of using transit, and some cost efficiencies. However, most feedback points to concerns with service quality.
Recurring issues around reliability, frequency, and operating hours further reduce convenience.
Safety and cleanliness are also major concerns, potentially underscoring the need for greater enforcement, social services, and investment in infrastructure, maintenance, and service improvements.
Survey Respondents’ Opinions on Transit Improvements
Survey respondents were asked to rank six transit improvements in terms of importance. The highest ranked improvements were improved on-time arrivals and accessing more places, followed by more frequent buses and accurate real-time displays. Error! Reference source not found.a presents respondent average weighted rankings (e.g., the most important improvement to a respondent would receive a weight of six (6), the least important improvement a weight of one (1)) of transit improvements per respondent.
Table 4a – Ranking of Transit Improvements, All Respondents Rank Transit Improvements Score
1 Improved on-time
arrivals
4.4 2 Accessing more places 4.3
3 More frequent buses 4.0
4 Accurate real-time
arrival displays
3.5 5 Improved bus stops/rail
station amenities
(transit shelters and
lighting)
2.7 6 Reduced transfers 2.1
Transit Improvement Rankings of Transit and Non-Transit Users Improvement rankings between transit-users and non-transit users reflect somewhat different priorities, with transit users ranking improved on-time arrivals first, and non-transit users ranking accessing more places first. Table 4b presents these results. Note that 61 transit users answered this question, while 54 non-transit users answered this question.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Table 4b – Transit Improvement Rankings by Transit Users and Non-Transit Users Transit
User
Ranking
Transit Improvement Score
NonTransit
User
Ranking
Transit Improvement Score
1 Improved on-time
arrivals
4.6 1 Accessing more places 4.6
2 More frequent buses 4.1 2 Improved on-time arrivals 4.1 3 Accessing more places 4.1 3 More frequent buses 3.8
4 Accurate real-time
arrival displays
3.6 4 Accurate real-time arrival
displays
3.5 5 Improved bus stop/rail
station amenities
2.5 5 Improved bus stop/rail
station amenities
3.0 6 Reduced transfers 2.2 6 Reduced transfers 2.0
The Role of Transit in Anaheim’s Future Growth
Survey respondents were asked about the role of transit in Anaheim’s future growth. Respondents could select up to three responses from the following options:
• Reducing traffic congestion
• Supporting tourism
• Connecting neighborhoods
• Connecting to the region
• Access to jobs/employment
• Access to school (all levels)
• Other (please specify)
Most respondents identified reducing traffic congestion (n=65), accessibility to locations of employment (n=50), connecting neighborhoods (n=49), and access to schools (n=46) as the top four roles of transit for Anaheim’s future growth. Additionally, 12 participants selected “Other,” citing priorities such as infrastructure investments, accessibility enhancements, safety improvements, and expanded connectivity. One participant also suggested that fostering more respectful interactions between drivers and passengers could further support these efforts. Figures 1.5a and 1.5b present respondent results on this question for surveys taken in English and Spanish, respectively.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.5a – The Role of Transit in Anaheim’s Future Growth (survey responses in English) Figure 1.5b – The Role of Transit in Anaheim’s Future Growth (survey responses in Spanish) 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Priority Geographic Areas and Specific Locations in Anaheim Needing Transit Service Survey respondents were then shown a map of Anaheim, organized by geographic subregions, and were asked to identify the first, second, and third priority areas needing transit service. Figure 1.6 presents the map that respondents were shown.
Figure 1.6 – Map of Anaheim Geographic Areas
Survey respondents provided the following results:
• The highest-ranked first-priority areas were 4A, 1A, and 6B. • The leading second-priority areas were 4B, 3B, and 2B. • The third-priority areas are 2B, 4A, and 5A.
The fact that 4A and 2B are identified by survey respondents in two of the three priority listings indicates that these may be areas of greatest transit need, according to respondents.
Respondents were then given the option to specify particular neighborhoods, streets, landmarks, or locations associated with each of their priority areas where they feel improved transit service is needed. This was an open-ended question. Thematic results were:
• Tourism, entertainment, and large venues
• Transit hubs and regional connectors
• Major corridors and streets
• Residential and subregional areas
• Community facilities and services
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Error! Reference source not found. presents the list of all specific locations in need of transit service, organized by theme.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Table 5 – Specific Locations in Need of Transit as Related to Identified Priority Areas Theme Responses
Tourism,
Entertainment
& Large
Venues
Disneyland / Disneyland Resort
Between Disneyland and Garden Walk
Between Disneyland and OC Vibe
Between Disneyland and ARTIC
Anaheim Resort District
Anaheim Convention Center
Angel Stadium
Honda Center
Stadiums (general)
Knott’s Berry Farm / Little Arabia
Residence Inn (Garden Grove)
Platinum Triangle
Center City
Transit Hubs
& Regional
Connections
ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, incl. no northbound bus route)
Anaheim Canyon Metrolink
On the way home / catching Metrolink (commuter trips) Lincoln–East Stop
Lincoln & Harbor (noted with 3C reference)
Lincoln & Anaheim Blvd
Harbor & Ball
Regional transfer: Corona, Santa Ana, Fullerton, Placentia Unincorporated areas (general)
Major
Corridors &
Streets
Harbor Blvd
Anaheim Blvd
Lincoln Ave (general, incl. Lincoln & Beach Blvd, Lincoln & State College, Lincoln & Anaheim Blvd)
Ball Rd
Brookhurst St.
Euclid St.
Magnolia Ave
Broadway (general, incl. Broadway from Dale to State College, Broadway & Cerritos)
Katella Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
La Palma Ave
La Palma & State College (homeless issues noted)
La Palma & Harbor
Imperial Hwy
Riverside Fwy (91)
Lakeview Ave
State College Blvd
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
East St.
Western & Danbrook
Residential &
Subregional
Areas
Anaheim Hills (general)
Anaheim Hills Festival
Anaheim Hills Subregion
Anaheim Hills Rd & Nohl Ranch Rd
Loop around Santa Ana Canyon, Weir Canyon & Serrano Ave Santa Ana Canyon (general)
Santa Ana Canyon Rd
Save Ranch area
Central Anaheim
West Anaheim
East Anaheim
South Anaheim
Community
Facilities &
Services
Schools (general, including high schools, junior highs, school sites)
Brookhurst JH / Savanna HS Area
Brookhurst Park
Ponderosa Park Family Resource Center (FRC)
Miraloma FRC
East Anaheim Community Center
Downtown Anaheim Community Center
Boysen Park
Family Resource Centers (general, repeated multiple times) Community Centers (general, incl. 1A, 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 5A, 5C references)
Libraries
Police Stations
Destinations in the City of Anaheim that Should be Prioritized for Transit Services Survey respondents were then asked a similar but different question about transit service needs in Anaheim, this one focused on destinations (and not necessarily tied to priority areas identified earlier). This was also an open-ended question. Thematic results were:
• Tourism, entertainment, and large venues
• Downtown, corridors, and surrounding neighborhoods
• Community and residential areas
• Schools, libraries, and services
• Transit and employment hubs
• Other/Outside Anaheim
Error! Reference source not found. presents priority destinations identified by survey respondents, organized by theme.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Table 6 – Destinations in Anaheim that Should be Prioritized for Transit Service in the City of Anaheim
Theme Responses
Tourism,
Entertainment
& Large Venues
Disneyland / Disneyland Resort
Anaheim Resort Area
Anaheim Convention Center
Angel Stadium
Honda Center
OC Vibe
Platinum Triangle
ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center) The Block (Outlets at Orange)
Knott’s Berry Farm
Sports stadiums, arenas, and large venue areas (general) Downtown,
Corridors &
Surrounding
Neighborhoods
Downtown Anaheim & surrounding neighborhoods
West Anaheim (noted for underserved service)
Anaheim Blvd corridor
Harbor Blvd corridor
Brookhurst / Broadway
Brookhurst / Magnolia
Euclid corridor
Beach Blvd & Lincoln corridor
State College & La Palma / Harbor & La Palma (noted for homelessness issues)
Broadway (general)
Sunkist area
Community &
Residential
Areas
Local neighborhoods & homes (general)
East Anaheim (connection to Downtown, Community Center, and City Hall)
Outskirts of the city (general)
Older adult centers & program hubs
Community Centers (general, incl. 3C, 5C, 1B references) Family Resource Centers (general)
Youth Centers
City Hall
Schools,
Libraries &
Services
High schools (all JHS & HS)
Junior highs (general)
School sites & school zones
Libraries (public)
Parks & outdoor amenities
Doctors & medical services
Grocery stores & shopping plazas
Shopping centers & malls (general)
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Transit &
Employment
Hubs
ARTIC (regional rail / bus connections)
Industrial hubs (noted need for replacement of OCTA Route 153)
Transit depots (general)
Train stations (general)
Airport connections (including SNA – John Wayne Airport) Regional transfer hubs in OCTA network
Other / Outside
Anaheim
Newport Beach (regional connection)
Yorba Linda (regional connection)
New transit technologies or transit services to encourage transit use Survey respondents were asked what transit technologies, equipment, or services would encourage more transit use. Respondents could select all that apply among the following options:
• Micro-transit (on-demand shared rides in smaller vehicles) • Micromobility (bikes, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), etc.) • Autonomous shuttles
• Mobility-as-a-Service (an application that seamlessly connects multiple transportation options -- such as public transit, rideshare, and bike share -- into one easy-to-use system for planning, booking, and payment)
The results presented in Figure 1.7a (including results noted in the caption) show that all potential new technologies or services were favored at relatively similar rates, except for autonomous shuttles, which received less interest. Eleven (11) respondents selected “Other” and specified the implementation of protected bike lanes, improvements to sanitation and safety, bus-only lanes and rail projects (light rail, monorail, and streetcar each mentioned). One respondent expressed opposition to the potential deployment of autonomous shuttles. 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.7a – New Transit Technologies to Encourage Transit Use (survey responses in English) Note: The results above are for respondents who took the survey in English. Three results were also provided from surveys of transit users taken in Spanish: one selecting Micro-transit (on-demand shared rides in smaller vehicles), one selecting Micromobility (bikes, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), etc.), and one selecting Mobility-as-a-Service.
New transit technologies or transit services to encourage transit use, by transit and non-transit users We are also interested in transit user versus non-transit user perspectives on what new transit technologies would encourage transit use. Transit-users selected “Micromobility” (n=22), “Mobilityas-a-Service” (n=19), and “Mirco-transit” (n=18) as leading technologies that would encourage additional transit use. Six (6) transit-users selected “Other” and specified a range of preferences, including the implementation of bus rapid transit, bus only lanes, signal timing, bike lane, light rail, and cleaner and safer amenities.
Non-transit users selected “Micro-transit” (n=23) and “Micromobility” (n=21) as the two leading transit technology improvement incentives. In addition, five (5) survey respondents added the following technologies: light rail, streetcars, and non-autonomous vehicle buses.
Figures 1.7b and 1.7c presents survey responses in chart form, for transit-users and non-transitusers, respectively. 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.7b – New Transit Technologies to Encourage Transit Use, According to Transit Users Note: The results above are for transit user surveys taken in English. Two results were also provided from surveys of transit users taken in Spanish, one selecting Micromobility (bikes, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), etc.), and the other selecting Mobility-as-a-Service.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.7c – New Transit Technologies to Encourage Transit Use, According to Non-Transit Users Note: The results above are for non-transit user surveys taken in English. One result was also provided from surveys of transit users taken in Spanish; they selected micro-transit (on-demand shared rides in smaller vehicles).
Amenities at Transit Stops
Survey respondents were then asked what kind of amenities would you like to see at transit stops? Respondents could select all that apply from the following options:
• Benches
• Leaning rails
• Seating pedestals
• Trash receptacles
• Shelters
• Lighting
• Route and schedule information (static)
• Real-time bus arrival/departure information at transit stops • Bicycle racks
• Other (please specify)
The results presented in Figure 1.8a (including results noted in the caption) show that Real-Time Bus Arrival/Departure Information (n=65), Lighting (n=64), and Benches (n=60) received the strongest support, followed by Trash receptacles (n=47) and Shelters (n=44). Six respondents indicated 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
“other”: Shade and greenery, including specifically for ADA purposes, sanitation and cleanliness, ticketing machines, and restricting unhoused populations from accessing transit stops.
Figure 1.8a – Amenities at Transit Stops (survey responses in English) Note: The results above are from respondents who took the survey in English. Results were also provided from surveys taken in Spanish, with three respondents each selecting benches and lighting, and one respondent each selecting trash receptacles, real-time bus arrival/departure information, and bicycle racks.
Transit Stop Amenities, by Transit Users and Non-Transit Users The final comparison that we draw between transit users and non-transit users who took the survey is on the question of preferred transit stop amenities. Transit users favored benches (n=34) and real-time route and schedule information (n=32) as the leading preferred transit stop amenities. Four respondents who indicated “other” specified shade and greenery, including specifically for ADA purposes, sanitation, and ticketing machines.
Non-transit users selected lighting (n=38), real-time bus arrival/departure information (n=34) as leading preferences. For the two who selected “Other,” one included a request for a sun cover, and the other selected facility cleanliness and restricting unhoused populations from accessing transit stops.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figures 1.8b and 1.8c present preferred transit stop amenity responses in chart form, for transit users and non-transit users, respectively.
Figure 1.8b – Preferred Amenities at Transit Stops, According to Transit Users Note: The results above are for transit user surveys taken in English. Two results were also provided from surveys of transit users taken in Spanish, with both selecting benches and lighting, and one selecting trash receptacles, real-time bus arrival/departure information, and bicycle racks.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 1.8c – Preferred Transit Stop Amenities, According to Non-Transit Users Note: The results above are for non-transit user surveys taken in English. One respondent was from surveys of non-transit users taken in Spanish; that respondent selected benches and lighting.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Final Thoughts to Share
In the final survey question, respondents were given the opportunity to provide qualitative feedback on the following topics:
• Transit Expansion & Connectivity
• Bike & Road Infrastructure
• Accessibility & Rider Comfort
• Safety & Security
• Cleanliness & Maintenance
• Affordability & Equity
• Rider Experience & Amenities
The feedback highlights priorities around expanding transit and connectivity, adding bike-friendly infrastructure, improving accessibility, safety, and cleanliness, offering more affordable fares, and enhancing the overall rider experience with better amenities and service. Error! Reference source not found. included any remaining thoughts participants offered, organized by topic.
Table 7 – Final Thoughts Offered by Survey Respondents
Theme Responses
Transit
Expansion &
Connectivity
“I would love to see an autonomous street car travel between Disneyland, Artic, OC Vibe, Anaheim Stadium, and Garden Walk.” “It would be great if guests to Anaheim could take a street car to Artic, hop on the Metrolink, transfer at Union Station, and take a LA Metro straight to LAX.”
“Expand OC Streetcar.”
“Please consider installing bus only lanes in traffic heavy corridors such as the stretch of Habor Blvd going through Disneyland. I also think that the cancelled transit project known as the Centerline should be brought back…”
“Look into reviving the Centerline Project; that would be cool… Also, maybe more frequent buses on some of the lines.”
“Connect OC Streetcar up Harbor to Anaheim Resort. Then split route one way north up Anaheim Blvd and south down Harbor to connect to Fullerton Depot/Transit Plaza, with another line down Katella to ARTIC.”
“I’m tired of growing up with dumb politicians saying ‘LETS ADD ONE MORE LANE’. I want the city to actually take initiative and make public transit a high priority.”
“A metrorail that runs late would save so much traffic and help reduce incidents and make Anaheim much more reliable.
Bike & Road
Infrastructure
“2 wheel safe infrastructure, focus on ‘network effect’.” “There should be more bike lanes throughout Anaheim.” Accessibility &
Rider Comfort
“Softer seats and more space for wheelchairs and handicap and disabled only front seats. Disabled people take time to sit and the bus takes off before we sit this is dangerous.”
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Safety &
Security
“Armed security at Major intersections. Security in heavily traveled routes. Free rides like they do in other countries.”
“Less homeless in the busses and public areas.”
“As a young adult I fear being alone at the bus stop and I want to improve our community in every way possible.”
Cleanliness &
Maintenance
“Clean the seats more often with all the unhoused people who ride the bus it makes it difficult to sit after they have sat especially if they haven’t showered.”
Affordability &
Equity
“Better discounts for Seniors and more Free day rate in special occasions for everyone.”
“Affordable or free transportation to allow patrons to get to our free programming and events. Free or affordable bus passes for community.”
Rider
Experience &
Amenities
“Open a Starbucks inside the ARTIC. That would bring more people into the station and motivate them to use public transportation.” “Great team that deals with day to day driving.”
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
TO: Joe Alcock, Principal Transportation Planner, City of Anaheim FROM: Lars Christiansen and Monique Chen, CR Associates DATE: August 29, 2025
RE: June 4, 2025 Public Open House Summary
Introduction and Attendance
On Wednesday, June 4, 2025, the City of Anaheim, with CR Associates, hosted an Open House as a means of public outreach and input for the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP). The event was held from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Anaheim Downtown Community Center and drew a total of 11 attendees, including eight (8) from the public.
Figure 1 presents a photograph of the sign-in sheet, on which four of the eight attendees signed up.
Figure 1 ATMP Open House Sign-In Sheet
Attendees also included Enrique Mutis, who is a member of the ATMP’s Community Working Group, and Anaheim City Council Member Kristen Maahs. The City of Anaheim’s Lisandro Orozco was also in attendance. One attendee is a member of the West Anaheim Organization.
Project Team members attending and facilitating engagement were Joe Alcock (City of Anaheim), Tony Mendoza (CR Associates), Lars Christiansen (CR Associates), Zeltzin Angon (CR Associates), Trevor Briggs (CR Associates), Isabel Sheng (CR Associates), Carolyn Chu (Nelson/Nygaard), and Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard).
On the pages that follow are Figures 2 through 8, images of community members and Project Team members at the Open House.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 2 – Joe Alcock (City of Anaheim) presenting
Figure 3 – Community Members engaging Open House exhibits with Zeltzin Angon (CR Associates), Isabel Sheng (CR Associates), and Tony Mendoza (CR Associates) facilitating 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 4 – Joe Alcock and Lisandro Orozco, City of Anaheim 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 5 – City of Anaheim Councilmember Kristen Maahs speaking while Tony Mendoza (CR Associates) Joe Alcock (City of Anaheim) listen
Figure 6 – Community Members Engaging Exhibits while Zeltzin Angon (CR Associates, obscured), Isabel Sheng (CR Associates), Trevor Briggs (CR Associates), and Lars Christiansen (CR Associates) facilitate 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 7 – Carolyn Chu (Nelson/Nygaard) and Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard) Figure 8 – Community Members Talking and Engaging Exhibits, with Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard) facilitating
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Event Program
The event was programmed into two major parts: First, a presentation that provided an overview of the project; please see Appendix A, the ATMP Open House presentation PowerPoint (in .pdf format).
Second, an open feedback period when attendees were encouraged to visit exhibits, provide feedback on those exhibits, and interact with Project Team staff at each exhibit.
How the Event Unfolded
Although we had planned to begin the presentation within 15 minutes of the start of the event, we found that attendees began their direct engagement with the exhibits right away. Sensing that they were immediately engrossed in the exhibits and not wanting to interrupt that engagement, we waited until approximately 5:45 to begin the presentation. The presentation lasted about 20 minutes, after which attendees re-engaged exhibits. The event concluded just before 7:00 PM.
Exhibit Input Summaries
The maps and boards displaying key issues and elements of the ATMP were displayed on tables and easels, with sticky notes, dots, pens, comment cards, and Project Team staff as resources for attendees to supply their input. What follows are summaries of input by topic, with photos of the results of input on each board. To view the detailed notes taken or noted by Project Team members, please refer to this document: Anaheim TMP Open House 06042025 Outreach Notes.docx.
Where Attendees Take Transit
Upon entering the Open House, attendees were asked to sign-in and then indicate on a map where they take transit and for what purpose. Figure 9a shows the entire board including the dot key, while Figure 9b is a close-up image of the results of where and why attendees take transit. Attendees take transit for working and to visit primarily in the Resort Area, while they use transit at home in downtown and the western edge of Anaheim.
One attendee also expressed that gentrification might lead to increased vehicle (car) use, which would interfere with bus service. Another attendee works and visits outside of Anaheim, while a different attendee expressed the desire for more direct bus service between downtown and Disney as well as high-speed rail connections to Palm Springs and other destinations east of Anaheim. Finally, two attendees expressed that they like to visit the Resort Area. 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 9a – Where Attendees Take Transit Board with Results Figure 9b – Where Attendees Take Transit Board with Results, close-up 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
ATMP Goals
Attendees were asked to prioritize the goals that should guide the ATMP by placing dots on the board and/or adding goals to the board. Figure 10 shows the results of attendee feedback on ATMP goals.
Leading goals were Improving Transit Access and Improving Mobility. In addition to what is displayed on the board, attendees also recommend expanding transit hours to accommodate workers who work at large organizations with late (e.g., 11:00 PM) closing times.
Figure 10 – ATMP Goals with Results
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Average Daily Traffic
Attendees supplied feedback (shown in Figure 11) about Lincoln Avenue, Harbor Boulevard from Disneyland (Katella Avenue) to Lincoln Avenue, and La Palma Avenue at Baxter Street. At Lincoln Avenue, there is a concern about traffic safety near schools located on or near Lincoln Avenue near I-5.
The intersection at Lincoln Avenue and Citron Street has lots of students, and the attendee recommends moving the transit stop benches further away from the road. Regarding Harbor Boulevard from Disneyland to Lincoln Avenue, there is a need for more headway between Route 543 and Route 43, as their differing stops can result in the two buses moving in tandem. Regarding La Palma Avenue at Baxter Street, near Sycamore Junior High School, there is a lack of benches and shade at the transit stops there.
Figure 11 – Average Daily Traffic with Results
Bus Stop Amenities
Attendees provided input on the kinds of bus stop amenities they would like to see at Anaheim bus stops. As shown in Figures 12a and 12b, shade features and improved lighting received the highest level of support. Beyond the feedback supplied on these two boards, attendees also reported that there needs to be public signage communicating transit features or practices (such as how to put one’s bike on the bus bike rack), signage to deter crime and belligerent behavior at transit stops, and signs that light up when activated to communicate to drivers that passengers are waiting. A desire to install cameras to record litterers was also mentioned.
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 12a – Bus Stop Amenities with Results, 1 of 2
Figure 12b – Bus Stop Amenities with Results, 2 of 2
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Span of Service
Attendees reported that bus service should run on Western between Lincoln and Orange, and that Anaheim Hills had shorter service hours and no service past Imperial Highway. Feedback on this topic is shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13 – Span of Service with Results
Frequency of Service (Peak and Midday)
Regarding Peak Frequency of Service (see Figure 14), attendees noted that OCTA bus 43 stacks with two arriving simultaneously, thereby requiring riders to wait 20 minutes for the next bus. OCTA bus 59 has low frequency. There were no comments on Midday Frequency of Service (see Figure 15). 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 14 – OCTA Frequency of Service (Peak) with Results Figure 15 – OCTA Frequency of Service (Midday) with Results 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Missing Sidewalks
Attendees noted already improved areas on Sycamore, that it is difficult to get to Lincoln and State College during construction, and that there are multiple times where buses are right behind one another. These notes were expressed verbally; attendees did not supply comments directly on the map, as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16 – Missing Sidewalks Map
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Where Transit is Needed
Attendees provided no comments on the board that inquired about areas of Anaheim that attendees consider to be underserved (see Figure 17).
Figure 17 – Where Transit is Needed
Additional Comments
In addition to comments made on exhibits or during engagement with said exhibits, Project Team members and attendees interacted on various Anaheim transit topics. The following themes emerged from these comments:
• Concerns about transit conditions and services (9)
• Recommendations re: Transit service, stop amenities, payment, and publicity (5) • Socio-economic conditions impacting transit service in Anaheim (2) • ATMP mode emphasis (1)
• New transit technologies (1)
• Support for improving transit in Anaheim (general comment) (1) Table 1 present summaries of additional comments made by attendees, organized by theme.
Table 1 – Summary of Additional Comments made by Attendees, by Theme Attendee Comment Theme
Recommendation to examine new technologies, including monorail, that could connect to ARTIC or be placed on Katella Avenue; this attendee also mentioned gondolas New transit technologies
Consider a streetcar on Harbor Transit service recommendation Concern about unruly/uncivil (including violent) behavior and alcohol use on buses Concern about transit conditions Concern about racist remarks expressed by some riders Concern about transit conditions Buses running infrequently or not at all make it more difficult to escape problem situations that occur on buses
Transit service frequency concern in relation to
concern about transit conditions
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Table 1 – Summary of Additional Comments made by Attendees, by Theme (continued) Attendee Comment Theme
Concern about non-service animals on buses Concern about transit conditions Concern about sticky seats on buses Concern about transit conditions Request to return a bench to its original location at the stop at Lincoln Avenue and N.
Citron Street
Transit stop amenity recommendation
Requested restrictions at stops for people waiting (perhaps loitering) when no bus is scheduled to arrive
Transit stop service recommendation
Requested return of benches and shade at transit stop at Sycamore Junior High School at E La Palma Avenue and N Baxter Street
Transit stop amenity recommendation
Attendee also attended the CWG meeting and felt that there was too much focus on buses at that meeting
ATMP transit mode emphasis
Attendee observed that taking transit between cities within Orange County takes much longer than it should/could
Concern about transit service limitations
Attendee believes that the public is largely unaware of transit service offerings, especially late at night; recommends promotional offers associated with sports events (for example) to address this
Transit service publicity
Density and gentrification will increase car traffic because wealthier newcomers to Anaheim won’t take transit
Socio-Economic conditions impacting transit
use
Attendee expressed that there is no such thing as low-income housing in Anaheim Socio-Economic conditions of Anaheim Concern about location of bus-stops at intersections which may cause cars behind buses to follow too closely and crash into buses
Transit stop location concern
Attendee expressed support for improving transit Support for improving transit Fares are complicated, especially when transferring between providers; a universal far or bus pass would be desirable
Transit payment concern and recommendation
A pre-paid pass that would apply to all providers should also be considered Transit payment recommendation Some OCTA drivers are helpful with providing directions to riders, while other drivers seem to lack an understanding of Anaheim to provide such assistance Comments and concerns about transit
operators’ behavior
714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
APPENDIX A
ATMP Open House Presentation (begins next page)
Anaheim
Transit Master Plan
Public Open House
6/4/2025
6/17/2025 2
Joe Alcock
Project Manager
City of Anaheim
Tony Mendoza
Principal Planner
CR Associates
Welcome
6/17/2025 3
What is the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP)?
Desired Outcome of ATMP
The ATMP seeks to coordinate transit systems
with upcoming development and evolving mobility
needs. New strategies will enhance access,
expand connectivity, and improve the overall
competitiveness of transit as a travel choice.
The Anaheim Transit Master Plan aims
to refresh the 2007 Transit Master Plan
with the City’s vision to provide
efficient and accessible transit options
for Anaheim’s residents, employees,
and visitors.
Project Scope
6/17/2025 4
Major Changes Since 2007 TMP
ARTIC and Anaheim Canyon Stations Opened
ATN Expanded Service
Planning for the 2028 Games
OCTA Priorities Shifted (e.g. Bravo!, Project V, College Pass) Development: OC Vibe, DisneylandForward, Platinum Triangle COVID-19 Changes in Travel Patterns
Microtransit and Demand-responsive Services Emerged as Viable Models Implentation of Metrolink SCORE Improvements
California High-Speed Rail Planning Continues with Anaheim as a Key Node Policy Shifts: State/Federal Funding Now Emphasize Equity, VMT Reduction, and First/Last Mile 6/17/2025 5
Public Input
Provide
Community
Perspectives
and Personal
Experiences
Public Feedback
Helps to Refine
the ATMP and its
Recommendations
Help Align
ATMP with
Community
Priorities
6/17/2025 6
Tonight’s Meeting
• Validate existing conditions findings
• Collect input on key needs and priorities
• Outline next steps for feedback integration
Give us your thoughts
on the development
of the Anaheim Transit
Master Plan
Purpose
• Review existing conditions findings
• Collect input on key needs and priorities
• Outline next steps for feedback integration
Meeting Goals
6/17/2025 7
Where we are
Community Working Group (CWG) Meeting #1
6/17/2025 8
Existing Conditions - Summary
Local, Regional and State Plans and Policy Reviews
Document Transit Service Providers and Current Conditions Service Review – Fixed Route, On-Demand, Senior and
Paratransit
Roadways, Bike and Pedestrian Existing Conditions and Planned Improvements
6/17/2025 9
Plans, Policies, and Projects Reviewed
Examples of Plans and Initiatives Reviewed:
Anaheim General and Bicycle Master Plans
Anaheim Resort Mobility Study, ATN ANNA
Multimodal Transit Plan, DisneylandForward,
OCVibe, Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
Plan
OCTA LRTP, Transit Vision,
and OC Master Plan
California High-Speed Rail and SCAG
RTP/SCS
Metrolink SCORE
LA Metro Rail Network Integration Study
6/17/2025 10
Summary of Themes and Policies Related to
ATMP
Mobility Equity Safety
Reduce
Greenhouse
Gases
Accessibility Economic
Development
Local •••••••• •• ••••• •••••••• •••• ••••••
Regional
•••••••••
••••••••
•••••
••••
••••••
••••••
•••••
•••
•••••
•••••
•••••••
State & Federal •••••• ••• •• ••• •• •••
Transit Providers 6/17/2025 11
Ridership by Stop 6/17/2025 12
Top Ridership Stops 6/17/2025 13
6/17/2025 14
Past Planned Transit Improvements Not Yet Implemented Fares and Transfer Policies Vary and are Complicated
Road Operations – Reliability and Speed
Coordination Opportunities
Opportunities to Enhance Metrolink Service
Driving is the Most Frequent Access Mode to Rail Stations Bus Service Frequencies and Operations
Integration of State and Regional Plans
Enhanced First/Last Mile Connections
Equity-focused Improvements
Existing Conditions - Findings
6/17/2025 15
Fares and Transfer Policies
Variability in the adult cash fare across providers. The difference was most notable between ATN ($4.00) and OCTA ($2.00), for example.
Complexity transferring between providers. Transfers between OCTA and ATN are available for OCTA pass holders only (cash-only single rider [ATN] passengers are ineligible). No free transfers between LA Metro and ATN as well as RTA and ATN.
Transit Agency Single Ride Fare Accepted Payment Methods ATN (ART) $4.00 A-Way WeGo App, Tap2Ride, Cash (at ARTIC Window) OCTA $2.00 OC Bus App, Cash (exact change onboard)
LA Metro $1.75 TAP Card, Mobile App, Cash (exact change onboard) RTA $1.75 (Local); $3.50 (Commuter) GoMobile App, Cash (exact change onboard) Metrolink ~$7–12 (distance-based) Metrolink App, Ticket Machines, Online Amtrak Surfliner ~$12–25 (distance-based) Amtrak App, Ticket Counters, Online 6/17/2025 16
Existing ICU Results, PM Peak Hour
Road Operations
First/Last Mile Connections 6/17/2025 17
6/17/2025 18
Weekday Bus Frequencies and Span of
Service
OCTA Route ATN Route
OCTA Midday Frequencies 6/17/2025
– 2024 19
OCTA Span of Service 6/17/2025 – 2024 data 20
6/17/2025 21
Goals, Objectives and Performance
Measures
Draft Goals
1. Improve Transit Access
2. Improve Mobility
3. Advance Connectivity for Low-Income Communities
4. Minimize Environmental Impacts
5. Support and Encourage Economic Development
6. Deliverability
7. Serve Growth Areas
6/17/2025 22
Public Survey and Tonight’s Meeting
Survey
Public Survey Initial Feedback 6/17/2025 23
6/17/2025 24
Q18 Which destinations in the City of Anaheim should be prioritized for transit services?
Initial Survey Results to date:
• Shopping, theme parks, parks, light rail
• Anaheim Resort
• Disneyland Resort, convention center, Angels Stadium, Honda Center • The large industrial hub needs a replacement for what OCTA route 153 used to accomplish before it was removed. Commuters relied on it to get to work by utilizing public transit. Expanding this area will also draw in the communities to better connection with existing hubs to travel further and more easily.
• Disneyland, Honda Center, Angel Stadium, Platinum Triangle connection to Anaheim Resort • Downtown Anaheim
Public Survey Initial Feedback
6/17/2025 25
Next Steps Outline
Goals, Objectives and Performance Metrics
Demographic and Equity Analysis
Travel Demand and Transit Market Analysis
First/Last Mile Analysis
Operational Improvements
Transit Framework
Market Analysis, Constraints & Initial Recommendations
6/17/2025 26
Thank You
Public Survey live now: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BP9JGX8 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
Technical Working Group Meeting #2 Summary
Location: Virtual Meeting (Zoom)
Subject: TWG Meeting #2
Meeting Date: 09/30/25
Meeting Time: 10:00-11:30am
Attendees
Project Team
• City of Anaheim Project Team: Joe Alcock
• CRA: Monique Chen, Sasha Jovanovic, Lars Christiansen • Nelson Nygaard: Kyle Taniguchi, Carolyn Chu
Technical Working Group Members
• City of Anaheim: Tom Morton (Executive Director), Maureen Richardson (Community Services Supervisor), Lisandro Orozco (Senior Planner)
• OCTA: Charles Main, Greg Nord, Megan Taylor
• ARTIC Management: Jason Davis
• Caltrans: Zachary Paul
• Yorba Linda: Jaime Lai
• SCAG: Priscilla Freduah-Agyemang
TWG Purpose, Goals, and Agenda
• The Technical Working Group (TWG) serves to provide input on the development of the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP), specifically from the perspective of the transit service and transportation organizations serving Anaheim residents, workers, and visitors, neighboring cities, and local, regional, and state planning agencies.
• The goals of the meeting were as follows:
o Recall the overview and scope of the ATMP
o Present outreach to date
o Present draft preliminary recommendations
o Collect input on preliminary recommendations
o Review the schedule and announce next steps
Outreach Overview
After introductions of the Project Team and TWG Members, and a review of the project’s purpose and goals, the project team provided an overview of outreach conducted to date. That overview included the presentation of public survey results regarding respondents’ level of satisfaction with public transit options. That was followed with a high-level summary of stakeholder challenges and opportunities for public transit in Anaheim.
Preliminary Recommendations
The Preliminary Recommendations portion of the meeting provided TWG members an opportunity to give their feedback on an item-by-item basis. The Project Team utilized Mentimeter, the Zoom chat platform, and verbal feedback as ways for TWG members to offer their comments and questions on each of the recommendations.
Recommendations 1, 2, and 3:
1) More Frequent Bus Service for High Ridership Routes
2) Bus Speed and Reliability Improvements
3) High-Capacity Transit Corridors
The first three recommendations, increasing bus service frequency for high ridership routes, improving bus speed and reliability, and improving high-capacity transit corridors were presented as a group. TWG member feedback on these recommendations included several clarifying questions. The first was to inquire as to whether the recommendations were high-level or if there are specific stop locations identified for treatments. The Project Team replied that these are high-level recommendations and welcomed input on possible locations. A representative from OCTA mentioned that they are doing a transit optimization study that includes outreach, and that they would like to meet with the City of Anaheim soon to coordinate recommendations.
Another TWG member inquired about the goal of high-capacity transit corridors and if decisions about mode have been made. The Project Team replied that no decisions had been made beyond identifying corridors. To this, the OCTA representative responded that OCTA has identified the top 3 high-capacity corridors as Harbor Boulevard, State College Boulevard/Bristol, and Beach Boulevard, and that OCTA needs to confer with the City of Anaheim to narrow down possibilities further.
Table 1 presents TWG member comments on Recommendations 1 – 3 utilizing the Mentimeter platform.
The majority of those comments focused on how transit could occupy a priority role in Anaheim. Other comments included the need for transit to benefit municipalities affected by transit development in Anaheim, that transit planning should account for the impact on vehicular traffic, and that transit services should be connected. One member made a specific route frequency suggestion. The TWG member representing SCAG also supplied two best practices resources, one for dedicated transit lanes and the other for prioritizing transit.
Table 1 – TWG Member Comments on Recommendations 1 – 3 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Needs to benefit all aƯected municipalities
Benefit to
aƯected
municipalities
Potential impacts to vehicular traƯic that may need to be addressed Impacts to
vehicular
traƯic
Route 43 frequencies should be increased above the proposed improvements shown on slide
Specific route
frequency
Transit Signal Priority could be eƯective
Transit Signal
Priority as a
strategy
Connections to other services
Transit
service
network
connectivity
May be challenges with political viability for some treatments Political
viability
challenges
Transit signal priority is necessary to improve speed and reliability. It could start with pilots and move to permanent
Transit Signal
Priority as a
strategy
Please review SCAG’s study which shares some best practices:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-3078-dedicatedtransit-lanes-study-final.pdf Dedicated
transit lanes
High-capacity corridors should focus on prioritizing transit operations over vehicular operations
Prioritizing
transit in a
transportation
network
Another SCAG study to check out on best practices:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/3038_scagrdtlstransitpriority_final.pdf Prioritizing
transit in a
transportation
network
Recommendation 4: Increasing Rail Frequency
The fourth recommendation, increasing rail frequency, inspired a discussion of how rail is funded, when it is scheduled to sunset (2041), the challenge of acquiring funding, and the necessity of partnerships to make the case for funding. Two challenges for Orange County’s ability to fund increased frequencies, according to one CWG member, require negotiating BNSF slots and considering funding for future service levels. Table 2 presents TWG member comments on Recommendation 4 utilizing the Mentimeter platform.
Themes from comments on increasing rail frequency included the benefits of increasing rail frequency, that the ATMP should express support for Metrolink improvements, that the recommendation is a requirement for the LA 28 Olympics/Paralympics, and that increasing rail frequency will require transit network connectivity.
Table 2 – TWG Member Comments on Recommendation 4 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Transit Master Plan should include policies that indicate support for Metrolink improvements within Anaheim, including infrastructure improvements.
Indicate
support for
Metrolink
improvements
Required for LA28
Connection to
LA28
With OC Vibe coming online in 2026, an increase in frequency will be beneficial to the district.
Benefit to OC
Vibe and
District
Definitely a good idea as that will help to improve travel times for residents
Benefit to
residents
A couple of issues: Negotiation BNSF slots to increase frequencies along the OC Line need to occur. How will increased frequencies be funded?
Funding and
commercial
rail
negotiation
Connecting services required
Network
connectivity
Recommendation 5: ARTIC – Platinum Triangle – Resort Area Connector The fifth recommendation for a transit service connecting ARTIC, the Platinum Triangle, and the Resort Area generated TWG member comments about gondolas and guideways. The City of Anaheim clarified that this is a high-level recommendation and that the city is exploring technology (mode) options. TWG members expressed that the Connector, whatever form it takes, should connect to other transit services and should be branded and have aesthetic characteristics that convey newness and innovation. The Connector should also be expandable to meet fluctuations (increases) in demand. TWG member Comments and themes for this recommendation utilizing Mentimeter are presented in Table 3:
Table 3 – TWG Member Comments on Recommendation 5 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Gondolas? Mode
Connector project should consider compatibility with OC Streetcar to allow for expanded transit options Compatibility with other transit services Must be super cool and expandable Aesthetics
A connector project should rely on true and tested
technology, like rail or BRT. Mode
Much needed, especially with grade separation or potentially bus only lanes Support
Recommendation 6: Pilot Microtransit Service in Anaheim Hills and/or Anaheim Canyon The sixth recommendation, piloting microtransit services in Anaheim Hills and/or Anaheim Canyon, was met with support while also generating a debate. TWG members supporting the recommendation were enthusiastic and mentioned that it could serve as a first/last mile (FLM) connector to Metrolink. The debate between two TWG members was whether such a service was needed for Anaheim Hills. The member expressing opposition wondered if Anaheim Hills was really suitable for microtransit, and whether or not there are meaningful destinations for such a service, while the member expressing support stated that seniors in Anaheim Hills are demanding transit options and that they are otherwise, practically speaking, trapped without additional service; further, microtransit could link seniors to meaningful destinations.
Another TWG member provided insight on microtransit from SCAG’s point of view, and referenced the RTA’s on-demand service. This member stated the need for long-term solutions beyond a pilot. Project Team members stressed that feasibility studies would be required and would address the concerns raised by the TWG. TWG member comments and themes on this recommendation utilizing Mentimeter are presented in Table 4 below:
Table 4 – TWG Member Comments on Recommendation 6 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Not needed in the Hills or Canyon Need for the recommendation Could be a great first/last mile connection to Metrolink in Anaheim Canyon
Connection with other transit services
Awesome Support for the recommendation
Recommendation 7: Fare Convenience and Standardization
The seventh recommendation to improve fare convenience including standardizing payments across transit services was met with support from TWG members, who also offered comments about desired characteristics of such a system (especially the need to make it simple and straightforward). The Suica card, used for transit services in Japan, was referenced as a model, as was London’s transit payment system. One TWG member reminded the group that the OCTA is working on a new payment system, which might provide a timely opportunity for agencies to coordinate. This same member mentioned that achieving a standardized payment system across transit services will be critical for World Cup and LA28 Olympics/Paralympics. TWG member comments and themes presented via the Mentimeter platform are presented in Table 5 below:
Table 5 – TWG Member Comments on Recommendation 7 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Love the idea. Very convenient for travelers. Support
Keep it simple. The floor should be contactless/tap to pay.
This is especially important for visitors who are only here for a short time.
Desired characteristics
and features
Don’t overcomplicate. Mobile wallet, like Suica card in Tokyo, with reciprocity.
Desired characteristics
and features; who
benefits
Always a good idea to consider. Support
Very important for commuters and visitors. Who benefits Fare payment should be complementary to the
advancement in technology today. Time is now to strive to meet the needs of first time and ongoing users.
Desired characteristics
and features
There is need to consider loop payments Desired characteristics and features
Challenges with multiple agencies considering diƯerent
systems
Challenges of
implementation
Recommendation 8: Improve Legibility of Bus Stop Signage The eighth recommendation, to improve the legibility of bus stop signage at transit stops in Anaheim, was met with support and suggestions for specific sign characteristics. One member noted that achieving consistent signage would run into a challenge when implemented throughout Orange County. Another member stated that a comprehensive bus stop and stop amenity [audit] is needed. That same member referenced downtown Boston where bus stops and signage were consistent and legible.
The discussion about signage also inspired comments about other transit stop characteristics. The TWG member who referenced Boston’s transit stop signage also described other qualities of Boston transit stops (brightness, amenities including outlets and Wi-Fi access) that they believe would have public appeal (electronic telecommunications features may hold a particular appeal to younger people). That member also mentioned that LA Metro is working on mobility hubs that include features for people to charge phones and have Wi-Fi access. They also mentioned that improving transit stops is a big endeavor but it can be achieved incrementally. The City of Anaheim mentioned that ATN is coming closer to City operations, which could be an opportunity for consistency of bus stops within the City. TWG member comments and themes on this recommendation presented via Mentimeter are presented in Table 6 below:
Table 6 – TWG Member Comments on Recommendation 8 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Should be digital Signage characteristics
Consistency is key. If diƯerent stops have diƯerent designs then it will be confusing Signage characteristics
Changes to OC Bus signage might require changes
throughout the county, which could complicate this Challenge of county-wide implementation
Recommendation 9: Add More Amenities to Bus Stops
The ninth recommendation, to add more amenities to bus stops in Anaheim, was met with support and suggestions about particular characteristics. Shade, wayfinding, and safety were each mentioned. One member cautioned that the transit stops shouldn’t be too comfortable.
TWG member comments and themes on Recommendation 9 utilizing the Mentimeter platform are presented in Table 7 below:
Table 7 – TWG Member Comments on Recommendation 9 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Stops shouldn’t be too comfortable Transit stop characteristics Where feasible, shelters primarily for shade. I do not like standing next to a telephone pole for shade. Transit stop characteristics Incorporate wayfinding as well. Safety is key. Transit stop characteristics Recommendation 10: Sidewalk Gap Infill
The tenth recommendation solicited a single question, posed through Mentimeter: “Does the City own ROW for sidewalk creations?” The City of Anaheim’s response was, ‘no, infill would be through dedications and future developments.’
TWG Meeting Conclusion
The TWG meeting concluded with project next steps and the invitation to contact the City of Anaheim’s Project Manager for additional inquiries and/or comments. 714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 609 | Los Angeles, CA 90015 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Anaheim Transit Master Plan
Community Working Group Meeting #2 Summary
Location: Virtual Meeting (Zoom)
Subject: Community Working Group (CWG) Meeting #2
Project No: 2024.0810
Meeting Date: 10/9/25
Meeting Time: 10:00 am - 11:30 am
Attendees
Project Team
• City of Anaheim Project Team: Joe Alcock, David Kennedy • CRA: Monique Chen, Sasha Jovanovic, Lars Christiansen • Nelson Nygaard: Carolyn Chu, Bethany Goad
Community Working Group (CWG) Members
• City of Anaheim: Rafael Cobian (City TraƯic Engineer), Enrique Mutis (Anaheim Livability Lab), Linda Ly (Grants and Homeless Initiatives)
• Anaheim Transit Network: Ken Jarocki
• Angels Stadium: Brian Sanders
• Disney: Karalee Darnell, Judy Hernandez
• Disney Real Estate Council: Deanna Detchemendy
• iAmGroup: Jason Liddell
• Kaiser Permanente: Carlos Urquiza
• OC Vibe: Matthew Hicks
• STC Management: Jonathan Lau (Garden Walk)
CWG Purpose, Goals, and Agenda
The Community Working Group (CWG) serves to provide input on the development of the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP), specifically from the perspective of major employers and community and non-profit groups.
The goals of the meeting were as follows:
• Recall the overview and scope of the ATMP
• Present outreach to date
• To present draft preliminary recommendations
• Collect input on preliminary recommendations
• Review the schedule and announce next steps
Outreach Overview
After introductions of the Project Team and CWG Members, and a review of the project’s purpose and goals, the project team provided an overview of outreach conducted to date. That overview included the presentation of public survey results regarding respondents’ level of satisfaction with public transit options.
That was followed with a high-level summary of stakeholder challenges and opportunities for public transit in Anaheim.
Preliminary Recommendations
The Preliminary Recommendations portion of the meeting provided TWG members an opportunity to give their feedback on an item-by-item basis. The Project Team utilized Mentimeter, the Zoom chat platform, and verbal feedback as ways for CWG members to offer their comments and questions on each of the recommendations.
Recommendations 1, 2:
• More Frequent Bus Service for High Ridership Routes
• Bus Speed and Reliability Improvements
The first two recommendations, increasing bus service frequency for high ridership routes and improving bus speed and reliability, were presented together. Table 1 presents CWG member comments on Recommendations 1 and 2 utilizing the Mentimeter platform. Most comments expressed support for these recommendations; one expressed concern about the cost while another recommended that such changes be promoted to riders. Additional discussion prompted the City of Anaheim to clarify that the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP) is a “blue sky” document with long-term transit priorities to understand what the City should lobby for with operators.
Table 1 – CWG Member Comments on Recommendations 1 and 2 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
Love it! Challenging to tackle but this is a righteous eƯort. Support This is a great idea but $$$ Support
Concern about cost
If times are below ideal, would definitely recommend increasing frequency.
Support
conditionally
Great recommendation. If implemented, it will be important to promote so riders can be aware of new frequency
Support and
recommendation
Make better connections Transit service
network connectivity
Recommendations 3 - 5:
• High-Capacity Transit Corridors
• ARTIC-Platinum Triangle-Resort Area Connector
• Pilot Microtransit Service in Anaheim Hills and/or Anaheim Canyon The third, fourth, and fifth recommendations – high-capacity transit corridors, ARTIC-Platinum TriangleResort Area Connector, and Pilot Microtransit Service in Anaheim Hills and/or Anaheim Canyon – were presented as a group. Table 2 presents CWG member comments on Recommendations 3 - 5 utilizing the Mentimeter platform. Themes from those comments expressed support for these recommendations as well as suggestions to consider bus rapid transit (BRT) as the technology for high-capacity transit, to examine Irvine Connect as a possible microtransit model, and to consider connectivity opportunities with Metrolink. One comment expressed concern about the City of Anaheim’s infrastructural capacity to support the implementation of these recommendations. The final comment in Mentimeter inquired about the neighborhood electric vehicles’ (used by FRAN and other microtransit services) ability to operate in hilly terrain; this comment was echoed by other CWG members. The City of Anaheim stated that the recommendation is not a FRAN-specific solution, nor does it specify vehicle type, and that Los Angeles’s Metro Micro or OCTA’s Community Circulators may be models, and that that a feasibility study is needed.
Additional discussion included an update on high-capacity transit corridors development, which prompted specific questions about Route 543 improvements implementation and timeline. A CWG member inquired about the need for high-capacity transit corridors as well as how they are being defined. The City of Anaheim responded by referencing the examination of peak and non-peak data to determine absolute maximum capacity demand/need, and mentioning various modes that would qualify. The same CWG member suggested that any new connector have good branding; the City of Anaheim agreed that there needs to be a “wow factor” to attract non-traditional riders. With regard to who would run such a service, the City of Anaheim clarified that a concessionaire who can fully develop and implement a the service with vehicles, drivers, routes is a likely option; the City currently anticipates it would be a separate service outside of OCTA, and that there’s a spectrum of possibilities of how it could be run in the longer term.
Table 2 – CWG Member Comments on Recommendation 4 Provided Via Mentimeter Mentimeter Comments Theme
BRT seems to be quick, cheap option Recommendation for Bus Rapid Transit
High-capacity transit is great, is ambitious though so have reservations if Anaheim has infrastructure to support this.
Support, with concern
about infrastructure
capacity in Anaheim
Microtransit seemed really well received in the City of Irvine (IrvineConnect?) and is good immediate solution
City of Irvine’s Irvine
Connect Microtransit
provided as a model
service
I think that Microtransit at Anaheim Canyon would be really helpful to encourage riders to use Metrolink. And maybe coordinate schedules.
Support and
coordination/connectivity
opportunity with Metrolink
Has there been consideration for FRAN feasibility and ability for those vehicles to operate in a non-flat ground environment, specifically AH.
Question about FRAN
services to operate on hilly
terrain
Recommendations 6 - 8:
• Infill Sidewalk Gaps
• Bus Stop Amenities
• Fare Convenience/Standardization
The sixth, seventh and eighth recommendations – infill sidewalk gaps, bus stop amenities, and fare convenience/standardization -- were presented as a group. The Mentimeter inquiry of CWG members’ thoughts about these recommendations resulted in a single CWG member comment that “a single ‘fast’ payment method makes a lot of sense – because cash payments slow down the boarding process.” This comment prompted support from other CWG members regarding the urgent need for a single payment system, including reference to implementing such a system by the 2028 Olympics. New York’s OMNY system, which uses credit cards and fare capping, was reportedly smooth and a good model to consider.
One CWG member expressed concern about removing cash a payment system for riders without access to a credit card. Another CWG member reported that OCTA’s WAVE program is moving toward being cashless.
The City of Anaheim expressed that as a world class city with people arriving from all over the world, we want to move toward world-class payment systems.
Regarding bus stop amenities, a CWG member who works with unhoused populations stated that bus stop amenities are always a concern. They reported that their organization receives complaints from residents who say that unhoused people are blocking transit riders from using transit stops because the shelters are being utilized for camping throughout the day; this causes transit riders to stand some distance from transit stops. The same CWG member reported that the City typically proposes to remove the stop or change the seating. The aim should be to balance bus shelter use for waiting bus passengers without making the design hostile. The City of Anaheim expressed the need to preserve the transit use function of bus stops.
Regarding filling sidewalk gaps, one CWG member expressed support for this recommendation, especially in the Platinum Triangle. They also noted that this would be important but may not happen until new development provides the opportunity to address sidewalk gaps.
CWG Meeting Conclusion
The CWG meeting concluded with project next steps and the invitation to contact the City of Anaheim’s Project Manager for additional inquiries and/or comments. 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
TO: Joe Alcock, Principal Transportation Planner, City of Anaheim FROM: Lars Christiansen and Monique Chen, CR Associates DATE: February 10, 2026
RE: February 3, 2026 Public Open House Summary
Introduction and Attendance
On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, the City of Anaheim, with CR Associates, hosted an Open House as a means of public outreach and input for the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP). The event was held from 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM at the Anaheim Downtown Community Center and drew a total of 11 attendees from the public.
Figure 1 presents a photograph of the sign-in sheet, on which nine of the eleven attendees signed up.
Figure 1 ATMP Open House Sign-In Sheet
One of the attendees, Charles Main of OCTA, is a member of the project’s Technical Working Group (TWG) who attended both TWG meetings. Attendees also included two representatives from Visit Anaheim, Christina Dawson and Pepe Avila. David Kennedy (City of Anaheim) was also in attendance.
Project Team members attending and facilitating engagement were Joe Alcock (City of Anaheim), Sasha Jovanović (CR Associates), Lars Christiansen (CR Associates), Zeltzin Angon (CR Associates), Trevor Briggs (CR Associates), Carolyn Chu (Nelson/Nygaard), and Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard). Zeltzin Angon and Trevor Briggs were available for Spanish-translation needs.
On the pages that follow are Figures 2 through 9, images of community members and Project Team members at the Open House.
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 2 – Joe Alcock (City of Anaheim) presenting
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 3 – Community Member engaging Open House exhibits with Joe Alcock (City of Anaheim), Carolyn Chu (Nelson/Nygaard), and Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard) facilitating 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 4 – Community members signing-in and engaging exhibits, with Zeltzin Angon (CR Associates), Carolyn Chu (Nelson/Nygaard), and Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard) facilitating 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 5 – Community members engaging exhibits with Chu (Nelson/Nygaard), and Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard) facilitating
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 6 –Trevor Briggs (CR Associates), and David Kennedy (City of Anaheim) 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 7 – Charles Main (OCTA representative and TWG member) and Sasha Jovanović (CR Associates) 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 8 – Community Members engaging exhibits with Carolyn Chu (Nelson/Nygaard) and Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard), and Zeltzin Angon at the welcome table (at left) 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 9 – Community member talking and engaging exhibits, with Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson/Nygaard) facilitating
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Event Promotion
The second ATMP Open House was promoted through the City of Anaheim’s Public Information Office, including attendees of the first Open House, and the project’s Technical Working Group and Community Working Group members. Figures 10a and 10b are the flyers for the second Open House in English and Spanish, respectively.
Figure 10a – ATMP Open House #2 Flyers (English)
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 10a – ATMP Open House #2 Flyers (Spanish)
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Event Program
The event was programmed into two parts: First, a presentation that provided an overview of the ATMP project purpose and its development over the past year, followed with brief descriptions of the draft ATMP recommendations; please see Appendix A for the ATMP Open House presentation PowerPoint.
Second, an open feedback period when attendees were asked to visit exhibits, provide feedback on those exhibits, and interact with Project Team staff at each exhibit.
How the Event Unfolded
Early arrival attendees began their direct engagement with the exhibits upon completion of signing up.
Other attendees arrived, and the presentation began five minutes after the scheduled event start. The presentation lasted about 25 minutes, after which attendees (re-)engaged exhibits.
Recommendation Exhibits/Boards
The exhibits (boards) displaying ATMP draft recommendations were displayed on tables, and a “Vote for your Top 3 Recommendations” board was positioned on an easel. Sticky notes, dots, pens, and comment cards were placed in appropriate locations as tools for attendee engagement. Project Team members were stationed at recommendation boards as resources for dialogue and attendee input.
The recommendations were organized into four categories. Table 1 presents how the boards were organized:
Table 1 – ATMP Recommendations by Category and Open House Presentation Organization Category / Exhibit Station Recommendations / Boards
Service Improvements More Frequent Buses
More Frequent Rail Service
Simplify Fares & Establish Transfer Agreements
Microtransit Service in Anaheim Hills/Anaheim Canyon
Bus Stops / Access to Bus Stops Increase Bus Stop Amenities Fill Gaps in Sidewalks
Improve Bus Stop Signage
ATN Improvements Improve the ATN App and Website
Streamline and Simplify ATN Routes
Implement Schedule for ATN Routes
Capital Investments High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridors ARTIC-Platinum Triangle-Resort Connector
Implement Bus Speed and Reliability Improvements
Figures 11a – 11d show Service Improvements boards displayed at the Open House. Figures 12a – 12c show Bus Stops / Access to Bus Stops boards. Figure 13 shows the ATN board. Figures 14a – 14c show Capital Investments boards.
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 11a – More Frequent Buses
Figure 11b – More Frequent Rail Service
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 11c – Simplify Fares & Establish Transfer Agreements Figure 11d – Microtransit Service in Anaheim Hills/Anaheim Canyon 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 12a – Increase Bus Stop Amenities
Figure 12b – Fill Gaps in Sidewalks
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 12c – Improve Bus Stop Signage
Figure 13 – Improve the ATN App and Website, Streamline and Simplify ATN Routes, Implement Schedule for ATN Routes
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 14a – High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridors
Figure 14b – ARTIC–Platinum Triangle–Resort Connector
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 14b – Implement Bus Speed and Reliability Improvements Inquiries and Feedback from Attendees
Attendees asked questions and offered feedback in several ways during the Open House: During the Q&A portion of the opening presentation, in dialogue with facilitators, on comment cards, on sticky notes, and on the final “Vote for your Top 3 Recommendations” board.
Presentation inquiries
The first formal opportunity for attendees to provide feedback was during the Q&A portion of the presentation. Two questions were posed then: The first inquired about ATN recommendations in light of recent news that the organization “will begin an orderly wind-down of operations, with conclusion of service on March 31, 2026” as reported on its website and publicized by local media outlets. Joe Alcock responded that the recommendations for the ATN contained in the draft ATMP were developed before this recent announcement. The second attendee asked when the OCTA streetcar would be returning.
The response given was that plans are for a return in the late summer of 2026.
Dialogue with facilitators
An important means by which attendee questions and comments were expressed was in dialogue with project team facilitators, who were strategically located at the four recommendations stations. Themes from comments were: support for increasing bus services, improving bus stops with amenities, and the impact on bus-only infrastructure on vehicular movements. There were also singular comments on transit communications technology, microtransit use, transit service limitations, OCTA affirmation of recommendations, and questions about the recommendations and the survey. Table 2 presents attendee comments made in dialogue with facilitators, organized by theme. 800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Table 2 – Attendee Comments in Dialogue with Facilitators, by Theme Attendee Comment Theme
Question regarding OCTA Route 543 weekend service returning Bus service Likes the OC Rapid service but it only operates on weekdays. Would like to see OC Rapid run on weekends too. Bus service
Likes the recommended frequency improvements for OCTA buses but thinks 15 minutes is not frequent enough. Bus service
Really would like increased frequencies on OCTA routes 37, 42/42A, 43, 47, and 57 Bus service Real-time arrival information would be a good thing / support for this idea (two attendees); one attendee noted the benefit of this for tourists from other countries (e.g., visiting Disneyland)
Bus stop amenities
Suggestion for bathrooms at bus stops Bus stop amenities Questions about bus-only lanes and their impact on traffic if an existing lane was repurposed into a bus only lane
Bus-only facilities, impact on vehicular
movement
Concerns about bus bulbs creating the potential for vehicular crashes as drivers try to maneuver around a stopped bus
Bus-only facilities, impact on vehicular
movement
Everything these days is phone-dependent; not always easy to navigate with children in tow, and the elderly may have challenges with phones Communications technologies for transit Many of the recommendations were focused in the resort area and asked if the survey results were informed mostly by tourists.
Focus of recommendations and question
about survey results
Microtransit for Disneyland and “the block” would be highly used, especially by teenagers. (Note: Project Team member found that “the block” are the Outlets at Orange which are not technically in Anaheim.)
Microtransit use
In response to increased frequency on the top 8 lines, Charles Main from OCTA said the suggested routes for increased frequency look good! OCTA will be completing corridor studies on State College & Harbor soon, which may support the recommendations for increased frequencies on these corridors. Mr. Main also expressed general support for ATMP recommendations and was going to talk with Pete Sutherland of OCTA to see how they can help with these efforts.
OCTA affirmation of ATMP
recommendations, and of increased
frequency on top 8 lines. OCTA
representatives and current studies may
advance these recommendations.
Would like to take transit to commute to work in Irvine but it takes over an hour on transit versus 20 minutes with driving Transit service limitations Comment cards
Two comment cards were submitted by attendees. The first attendee focused on bus stops / bus stop access, specifically affirming the need to functional sidewalks; they also identified parents with strollers and residents utilizing medical mobility devices as in particular need for reliable sidewalks to access transit services. This attendee noted the need to protect children exposed to the heat and that transit stops should be family-friendly. They requested that bus stops be cleaner, and that real-time information at the stops would be helpful, particularly due to their difficulties with reading such information on a phone. See Figure 15a:
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 15a – Comment Card with focus on bus stops / bus stop access The second comment card affirmed the ATMP recommendations, stating that they are “much needed.” The attendee then expressed the desire for more buses and reduced fares. See Figure 15b:
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Figure 15b – Comment Card with focus on increasing bus service and reduced fares Sticky note on ATN exhibit/board
One comment was placed on the ATN recommendations exhibit/board. That attendee’s comment suggested consolidating transit information in apps such as Google Map or Nave. This attendee expressed that it is easier to navigate a single app than have a transit system focus on segmenting information. See Figure 16 for this comment:
Figure 16 – Comment left on the ATN Board, close-up
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 620 | Los Angeles, CA 90017 | (213) 224-3496 www.cramobility.com
Vote for your Top 3 ATMP Recommendations
Attendees were asked to vote for their top 2 ATMP by placing dots on the board; each attendee was asked to supply a limit of three votes. In response, a clear frontrunner emerged: The recommendation for more frequent OCTA service on top ridership routes (6 votes). Second place was the recommendation to fill gaps in missing sidewalks, and just behind in third place was the recommendation for speed and reliability improvements on major corridors. The first and third place votes share a focus on frequency, speed, and reliability on major routes and corridors. Figure 17 shows the results of attendee votes on this board.
Figure 17 – Vote for your Top 3 ATMP Recommended Improvements Summary of Open House Attendee Feedback
There was overall support for the ATMP recommendations that were presented at the Public Open House. Among the recommendations on which attendees voted, more frequent OCTA service on top ridership routes received the most votes, with the recommendation for filling gaps in missing sidewalks coming in second. Questions about and support for increased bus service and bus stop amenities, including real-time schedule displays, were top themes among attendees. There were several comments about the merits of drawbacks of transit communications technologies. Notably, a representative of the OCTA affirmed the recommendations and specifically for increasing service for the top ridership routes.
Further, the representative stated that OCTA studies currently underway may support select ATMP recommendations, and that they would coordinate with other OCTA representatives to see how OCTA can help with these efforts.
Anaheim
Transit Master Plan
Public Open House #2
2/3/2026
2/19/2026 2
Joe Alcock
Project Manager
City of Anaheim
Welcome
Carolyn Chu
Senior Associate
Nelson\Nygaard
Lars Christiansen
Facilitator
CR Associates
Kyle Taniguchi
Senior Planner
Nelson\Nygaard
Consultant Team
Sasha Jovanović
Senior Planner
CR Associates
Zeltzin Angon
Facilitator
CR Associates
Trevor Briggs
Facilitator
CR Associates
2/19/2026 3
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
Open House Purpose
Outreach Summary
Feedback on ATMP Recommendations
2/19/2026 4
What is the Anaheim Transit Master Plan (ATMP)?
Desired Outcome of ATMP
The ATMP seeks to coordinate transit systems with
upcoming development and evolving mobility needs.
New strategies will enhance access, expand connectivity, and improve the overall competitiveness of transit as a travel choice.
The Anaheim Transit Master Plan aims to
refresh the 2007 Transit Master Plan with
the City’s vision to provide efficient and
accessible transit options for Anaheim’s
residents, employees, and visitors.
Project Scope
2/19/2026 5
Today’s Open House
• Validate existing conditions findings
• Collect input on key needs and priorities
• Outline next steps for feedback integration
Project Update and Review
of Draft Recommendations
of the Anaheim Transit
Master Plan
Purpose
• Present summary of outreach to date
• Collect input on draft recommendations
• Review of project schedule and next steps
Goals
2/19/2026 6
Where we are
Public Open House #2
2/19/2026 7
ATMP Outreach to Date
▪ Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting #1,
May 14th, 2025
▪ Community Working Group (CWG) Meeting
#1, May 21st, 2025
▪ Public Open House #1, June 4th, 2025
▪ Public Survey, Opened May 9th, closed July
9 th, 2025
▪ TWG Meeting #2, September 30th, 2025
▪ CWG Meeting #2, October 9, 2025
Outreach Overview
2/19/2026 8
Level of Satisfaction
▪ Total: Trend toward Neutrality
▪ Transit Users: Satisfied
▪ Non-Transit Users: Neutral and dissatisfied
Public Survey
2/19/2026 9
Challenges Identified by Stakeholders
▪ Transit Access and Service (Location and Frequency)
▪ Transit Safety and Comfort (Service and Transit Stops) ▪ Multiple Regional and City Transit Services (public confusion and fare policy incompatibility)
▪ Public Lack of Familiarity with Transit, Stigma of Transit Outreach Summary
2/19/2026 10
Opportunities Identified by Stakeholders
▪ Increasing Transit Infrastructure, Connectivity, Frequency, and Locations ▪ Transit Service Experience and Transit Stop Improvements (amenities) ▪ Coordination of Regional and City Transit Services (information, fare policies)
▪ Partnerships (Public and Private) for Promoting Transit ▪ New Transit Technologies, Microtransit, and Micromobility Outreach Summary
Recommendations 2/19/2026 11
ATMP Recommendations
13 Recommendations, covering a variety of topic areas:
▪ Service Improvements
▪ Bus Stops / Access to Bus Stops
▪ ATN Improvements
▪ Capital Investments
Service Improvements 2/19/2026 12
ATMP Recommendations
Service Improvements
• Increase bus and rail frequency
• Simplify fares and establish transfer agreements
• Microtransit Service in Anaheim Hills/Anaheim Canyon
Bus Stops / Access to Bus Stops 2/19/2026 13
ATMP Recommendations
Bus Stops / Access to Bus Stops
• Increase bus stop amenities
• Infill sidewalk gaps
• Improve bus stop signage
ATN Improvements 2/19/2026 14
ATMP Recommendations
ATN Improvements
• Streamline and simplify ATN routes
• Implement a schedule for ATN routes
• Improve the ATN app and website
Capital Investments 2/19/2026 15
ATMP Recommendations
Capital Investments
• High-capacity transit (HCT) corridors
• ARTIC – Platinum Triangle – Resort Connector
• Bus speed and reliability improvements
2/19/2026 16
ENGAGEMENT
Please Provide your
Input on the ATMP Draft
Recommendations!
2/19/2026 17
What the exhibits show
• Name of the recommendation
• What the recommendation is
• Benefits of the recommendation
• Images and maps to help visualize the recommendation
2/19/2026 18
2/19/2026 19
Next Steps & Thank You
▪ Finalization of Anaheim Transit Master Plan
▪ City Council Workshop in early 2026
2/19/2026 20
Questions and Comments
Joe Alcock, PTP
Project Manager
City of Anaheim
(714) 765-4957
[email protected]
Contact: