Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, October 6, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Relevance to Transit Development
By mandating joint and cross access
between properties and ensuring safe
ingress and egress, the code promotes
efficient traffic flow and helps minimize conflicts between motorists and pedestrians. These measures support a
well-connected street network, improving
accessibility for pedestrians and transit
users, and can help contribute to a more
transit-friendly environment.

Potential Barriers and
Opportunities to Support
Transit Development

2. Requirements focus primarily on
vehicle access and may not adequately
consider the needs of pedestrians,
leading to potential conflicts and
safety issues. For example, minimum
road widths, ingress/egress requirements, and shared access/cross access do not consider pedestrian access.

Opportunity: Consider strengthening the design standards to adjust minimum road widths, and ensure
ingress, egress, and shared/cross
access minimize conflicts with pedestrian pathways.
261
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

8. Policy for Transit-Supportive Infrastr
uct
ure
CAT Transit Master Plan | 82
Policy assessment and recommendations

16.49: Site and Design
Review
City code section 16.49 outlines the procedures and criteria for the site and design review of new developments and major
modifications. The purpose is to ensure
high-quality design, aesthetic appeal, and
functionality of structures and landscaping
in the city. The code establishes a Site and
Design Review Board, defines the application process, and sets specific standards for architecture, landscaping, pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, and parking.

Relevance to Transit
Development
The code supports transit-friendly development by ensuring new projects provide safe and convenient pedestrian and
bicycle access, and integrating walkways
that could be used to connect transit stops
and neighborhood activity centers. The
code requires landscaping and parking
lot designs that enhance comfort and
safety. Additionally, the site and design
review process mandates that developers
consider the impact of their developments
on the overall aesthetic and functional
integration with the surrounding environment, which can include transit access and services.

Potential Barriers and
Opportunities to Support
Transit Development

1. The code does not explicitly require
the incorporation of transit infrastructure, such as bus stops and shelters, in new developments. Opportunity:

Consider requiring new developments
to contribute a fee into a fund for new
bus stops and other transit amenities,
or to dedicate property in lieu of
the fee. However, such infrastructure
should not be automatically placed
adjacent to new developments, but
rather should be decided in consultation with CAT staff. There are limits on where transit service can operate, and
infrastructure should only be placed
where it is very likely to support future
service operations.

2. While pedestrian walkways are
required, the code does not emphasize
their integration with public transit
stops or the creation of pedestrian-friendly routes specifically for accessing transit. Opportunity:

Consider emphasizing developments
that create walkways that link directly
to existing bus stops abutting the
development site.

3. Site and design review does not require
specific provisions for evaluation of
potential impacts to transit access and
service. Opportunity: Include considerations for transit access and service in the proposed site development and
site plan compliance review.

4. The Design Review Board, Design
Review Commission, and the Planning
Commission do not explicitly include
someone with transit expertise.

Opportunity: Consider including
someone with transit expertise in the
Design Review Board, Design Review
Commission, and/or the Planning
Commission.
262
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

8. Policy for Transit-Supportive Infrastr
uct
ure
CAT Transit Master Plan | 83
Policy assessment and recommendations

16.64: Subdivision -
Design Standards
City code section 16.64 outlines the standards and requirements for the design and development of subdivisions. This
chapter covers a wide range of topics,
including street layout and design, access
requirements, block sizes, easements,
lot configurations, public open spaces,
grading, and improvements. The standards
ensure that subdivisions are designed to
promote public safety, accessibility, efficient traffic circulation, and environmental sustainability.

Relevance to Transit
Development
By ensuring streets are well-connected,
appropriately sized, and equipped with
necessary infrastructure like sidewalks
and bicycle lanes, the code helps ensure
streets provide adequate access and
circulation, enhancing the efficiency and
accessibility of transit services. It also
mandates pedestrian connections in
cul-de-sacs and encourages the use of
low-impact development practices, supporting a safe, sustainable, and walkable urban environment.

Potential Barriers and
Opportunities to Support
Transit Development

1. The code specifies a minimum roadway
and right-of-way width that follow
the Public Works Design Standards,
however, roadway width minimum may
potentially lead to wider roads that are
difficult for pedestrians to cross safely.

Opportunity: Consider amending the
minimum roadway width requirement
based on the Public Works Design
Standards and Transportation System
Plan (TSP) to discourage general-purpose lane widths greater than 11 feet1 .
1 Urban Street Design Guide, National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO):
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ street-design-elements/lane-width/
263
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

8. Policy for Transit-Supportive Infrastr
uct
ure
CAT Transit Master Plan | 84
Policy assessment and recommendations

16.86: Street
Alignments
City code section 16.86 sets forth regulations to ensure adequate space for the expansion, extension, or realignment
of public streets. It aims to promote the
efficient layout of streets and minimize
impervious surfaces. The code includes
provisions for right-of-way widths, street
connectivity, and the inclusion of bikeways
and pedestrian facilities, aligning with
the city’s Transportation System Plan and
Public Works Design Standards.

Relevance to Transit
Development
Promotes a connected grid pattern of
streets, which enhances the transit operation efficiency and access to transit stops.

The code mandates the inclusion of bikeways and pedestrian facilities, ensuring safe and convenient routes. These measures collectively create a well-connected, accessible urban area that can encourage
the use of transit and active transportation.

Potential Barriers and
Opportunities to Support
Transit Development

1. While curvilinear streets and culde-sacs are discouraged and only permitted in cases of extreme topographical challenges, such as excessive slopes, the code does not include
provisions that pedestrian pathways
still be considered in those cases. Note
Code 16.64 (Subdivision – Design
Standards) requires pedestrian connectivity in cul-de-sacs. Opportunity:

Consider including provisions for
pedestrian pathways that improve the
connectivity of the pedestrian network,
in cases where curvilinear streets and
cul-de-sacs would otherwise make the
connectivity of the street network low.

2. There are few traffic signals located
in the city, and even fewer are operated by the City; however, the code has no standards for traffic signals.

Opportunity: Incorporate best
practices for traffic signal design and
operation that incorporate pedestrian
access and safety with elements that
include, accessible pedestrian signals,
leading pedestrian intervals, and
extended crossing times.
264
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

8. Policy for Transit-Supportive Infrastr
uct
ure
CAT Transit Master Plan | 85
Policy assessment and recommendations

16.120: Parks, Open
Space and Recreation
Land
City code section 16.120 outlines the
requirements and procedures for providing parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities within new developments. The
purpose is to ensure the availability of
aesthetically pleasing and functional green
spaces that meet the recreational needs
of Canby’s residents. The code mandates
land dedication or cash in lieu for park
development, sets minimum standards for
open space, and provides guidelines for
the maintenance and preservation of these
areas.

Relevance to Transit
Development
The code supports the development of
transit-friendly environments by ensuring
the provision of parks and open spaces
within new developments, which can be
strategically located near transit stops.

The code promotes walkability and safe,
accessible pathways for pedestrians and
bicyclists, enhancing the connectivity of
green spaces with surrounding neighborhoods. By integrating natural features and greenways, the code can create attractive,
pleasant environments that encourage
the use of active transportation facilities
for purposes beyond recreation, such as
access to transit.

Potential Barriers and
Opportunities to Support
Transit Development

1. The code does not explicitly mention
the integration of parks, open space,
natural parks, and trails with transit
services, and therefore does not
leverage the benefits of transit connectivity to these amenities and the opportunity for improved transit access
through trails. Opportunity: Consider
amending the code to explicitly require
consideration of transit infrastructure,
access, and services a factor for the
City to consider whether to accept land
or cash in lieu for parks, open space,
and trails.
265
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

8. Policy for Transit-Supportive Infrastr
uct
ure
CAT Transit Master Plan | 86
Policy assessment and recommendations
Public Works Design
Standards (December
2019)
The Public Works Design outlines the
guidelines and specifications for public
infrastructure improvements, including
streets, sidewalks, parking, and storm
drainage systems. These standards ensure
that developments meet safety, accessibility, and sustainability criteria, supporting efficient travel and the integration of public
utilities.

Relevance to Transit
Development
By specifying requirements for streets,
sidewalks, traffic calming, and parking,
the standards can help ensure that
urban spaces in Canby are safe, accessible, and efficient for all users, including those walking and relying on transit.

These standards can promote well-connected, transit- and pedestrian-friendly environments.

Potential Barriers and
Opportunities to Support
Transit Development

1. The standards do not require a
minimum width for sidewalks on local
streets and may potentially lead to
inadequate sidewalk space in some
locations if developers are only
required to match the existing width.

Opportunity: Consider specifying a
minimum width for sidewalks on local
streets of 5 feet1.

2. The current standards may not
adequately address the need for
designated curb zones for transit stops,
loading/unloading, and ride-hailing,
which can limit the ability for transit
access and lead to conflicts and unsafe
conditions. Opportunity: Consider
introducing designated curb zones for
transit stops, loading/unloading, and
ride-hailing to better manage curb
space and reduce conflicts. Include the
need to ensure adequate visibility at
intersections between motorists and
pedestrians.

3. Standard curb radii may not always
align with the needs for pedestrian
safety at intersections. Opportunity:

Consider adjusting curb radii standards
1 Urban Street Design Guide, NACTO: https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
street-design-elements/sidewalks/
to 15 to balance motorists’ turning
speeds with pedestrian safety, ensuring
intersections are safe for all users2,3.

Larger radii (up to 30 feet) can be used
along places where buses are expected
to make right turns4.

4. While the standards specify allowable
traffic calming measures, the requirement that each measure be field tested by Canby Fire District when applied
on neighborhood routes/local streets
may limit the ability to implement these
measures. Opportunity: Consider
adjusting the standard and providing
a list of traffic calming measures with
dimensions and specifications that
have been tested by Canby Fire District
to remove potential ambiguity in the
standards.
2 FHWA: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney1/library/countermeasures/09.htm 3 Urban Street Design Guide, NACTO: https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
intersection-design-elements/corner-radii/
4 Transit Street Design Guide, NACTO: https://
nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/
intersections/transit-route-turns/turn-radii/
266
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

8. Policy for Transit-Supportive Infrastr
uct
ure
CAT Transit Master Plan | 87
Policy Recommendations and Design Guidelines
Amendments to City
Code and Policy
The table in “Appendix C: Summary of
Recommended Policies” summarizes
recommended policies aimed at enhancing
pedestrian safety and access, bus stop
siting and design, and transit operations
in Canby. These recommendations are
designed to create a more transit-friendly
environment with safe, comfortable, and
well-connected pedestrian pathways.

Each recommendation addresses potential
barriers to transit development based on
the review of Canby’s code and is linked to
specific sections of the code. Additionally,
the recommendations are assigned a priority level indicating the importance at which the city should implement the recommendation to support a more accessible and efficient transit system for all users.
“Appendix C: Summary of Recommended
Policies” organizes the recommendations
into two primary categories Pedestrian
Safety, Circulation, and Access, and
Bus Stop and Transit Operations. Under
each primary category, there are a set of
sub-categories as such:

Pedestrian Safety, Circulation,
and Access:
• A. Expand sidewalks and pathways for
pedestrian access and circulation.
• B. Promote land use strategies to create
a more walkable urban environment.
• C. Ensure pedestrians and motorists’
shared spaces are safe for all users.

Bus Stop and Transit
Operations:
• D. Create development practices that
support transit operations.
• E. Standardize curb space for multimodal uses.
267
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Appendix A: Public
Engagement
268
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 89
Report for Canby Area Transit TMP Survey
#1
Completion Rate: 89.7%
Complete 78
Partial 9
Totals: 87
Response Counts
Community Survey #1 - Results
269
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 90

1. On average, how often have you ridden CAT in the last year? 33% Once a week
28% A few times a month
17% A few times in the last year
22% I didn’t ride CAT in the last
year
Value Percent Responses
Once a week
A few times a month
A few times in the last year
I didn’t ride CAT in the last year
Totals: 85

32.9% 28

28.2% 24

16.5% 14

22.4% 19
270
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 91

2. Which CAT services have you ridden in the last year? Percent
The 99X
Fixed
Route
The local
Canby
Loop
Dial-a-ride
0 20
40 60
80 Value Percent Responses
The 99X Fixed Route
The local Canby Loop
Dial-a-ride

72.7% 48

65.2% 43

7.6% 5
271
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 92

3. When riding the 99X, what is the closet city you usually begin your trip? 18% Woodburn
8% Hubbard
3% Aurora
40% Canby
28% Oregon City
5% Other:

Value Percent Responses
Woodburn
Hubbard
Aurora
Canby
Oregon City
Other:

Totals: 40

17.5% 7

7.5% 3

2.5% 1

40.0% 16

27.5% 11

5.0% 2
272
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 93

4.Whenridingthe99X,whatistheclosetcityyouusuallyendyourtrip? 15%Woodburn
8%Hubbard
3%Aurora
23%Canby
48%OregonCity5
%Other:

ValuePercentResponses
Woodburn
Hubbard
Aurora
Canby
OregonCity
Other:

Totals:40

15.0%
6 7.5%
3 2.5%
1 22.5%
9 47.5%
19 5.0%
2 273
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 94

5. Within the past year, what travel modes have you used for trips WITHIN Canby? Pick all that apply.

Percent
Driving my
car
Walking Biking Transit Paying for
a car ride
Carpooling,
or being
driven
somewhere
by friends
or family
0 20
40 60
80 Value Percent Responses
Driving my car
Walking
Biking
Transit
Paying for a car ride
Carpooling, or being driven somewhere by friends or
family

42.0% 34

64.2% 52

22.2% 18

56.8% 46

8.6% 7

42.0% 34
274
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 95

6. Within the past year, what travel modes have you used for trips BEYOND and OUTSIDE OF Canby? Pick all that apply.

45.1% 37

23.2% 19

9.8% 8

52.4% 43

11.0% 9

62.2% 51
275
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 96

7. If CAT had additional resources for transit service, what should they spend it on? Please pick up to three answers.

Percent Better frequencies on
weekdays - transit coming
more often so that less
waiting is required
Better frequencies on Saturdays – transit
coming more often so that less waiting is
required
Covering
places
that don’t
currently
have
service.

More local
service for
short trips
within the
city limits.

More
regional
service for
long trips
to other
cities.

Longer
hours of
service
each day
– earlier
morning
and later
evening
Adding
service on
Sundays.

More
rush-hour
service –
around 7-
9 am and
4-6 pm on
weekdays
More
middle of
the day
service –
around 9
am to 4
pm on
weekdays
0 10
20 30
40 Better frequencies on weekdays - transit
coming more often so that less waiting is
required
Better frequencies on Saturdays - transit
coming more often so that less waiting is
required
Covering places that don’t currently have
service
More local service for short trips within
the city limits
More regional service for long trips to
other cities
Longer hours of service each day - earlier
morning and later evening
Adding service on Sundays.

More rush-hour service - around 7-9 am
and 4-6 pm on weekdays
More middle of the day service - around 9
am to 4 pm on weekdays
276
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 97
ValuePercentResponses
Betterfrequenciesonweekdays-transitcomingmore
oftensothatlesswaitingisrequired
BetterfrequenciesonSaturdays–transitcomingmore
oftensothatlesswaitingisrequired
Coveringplacesthatdon’tcurrentlyhaveservice.

Morelocalserviceforshorttripswithinthecitylimits.

Moreregionalserviceforlongtripstoothercities.

Longerhoursofserviceeachday–ea
rliermorningand
laterevening
AddingserviceonSundays.

Morerush-hourservice–around7-9amand4-6pm
onweekdays
Moremiddleofthedayservice–around9amto4pm
onweekdays

26.3%
21 23.8%
19 37.5%
30 20.0%
16 31.3%
25 33.8%
27 38.8%
31 20.0%
16 12.5%
10 277
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 98

8. In general, which do you think is better for service INSIDE of Canby? 63% A short walk to a bus stop, but
a long ride on the bus around town
to go where you are going.
10% A longer walk to a bus stop,
but a short ride on the bus since
the route is more direct to the
where you are going.
27% I’m not sure
Value Percent Responses
A short walk to a bus stop, but a long ride on the bus
around town to go where you are going.

A longer walk to a bus stop, but a short ride on the bus since the route is more direct to the where you are
going.

I’m not sure
Totals: 79

63.3% 50

10.1% 8

26.6% 21
278
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 99

9. Which are the most important places that you think people should be able to easily reach by transit, from Canby? Please pick up to five answers.

Percent
Portland
downtown
Portland
east of the
Willamette
rive
W
r
ilsonville
Oregon
City
Woodburn
Molalla
Salem
Clackamas
Tualatin
Beaverton
Tigard
Lake
Oswego
Sherwood
Other:
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Portland east of Willamette river
Wilsonville
279
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 100
ValuePercentResponses
Portlanddowntown
PortlandeastoftheWillametteriver
Wilsonville
OregonCity
Woodburn
Molalla
Salem
Clackamas
Tualatin
Beaverton
Tigard
LakeOswego
Sherwood
Other:

47.5%
38 22.5%
18 45.0%
36 58.8%
47 36.3%
29 27.5%
22 26.3%
21 45.0%
36 12.5%
10 6.3%
5 3.8%
3 7.5%
6 2.5%
2 11.3%
9 280
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 101

10. When do you usually start work or school?
24% Early mornings (before 7 AM)
56% Morning rush hour 7am – 9am
17% In the mid-day 11am – 3pm
2% Evenings 4pm – 7pm
2% Late night 8pm – midnight
Value Percent Responses
Early mornings (before 7 AM)
Morning rush hour 7am – 9am
In the mid-day 11am – 3pm
Evenings 4pm – 7pm
Late night 8pm – midnight
Totals: 66

24.2% 16

56.1% 37

16.7% 11

1.5% 1

1.5% 1
281
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 102

11. What is your connection to Canby? Choose all that apply.

Percent
I live in
Canby
I work in
Canby
I own a
business
in Canby
I visit
Canby
I own a
secondary
residence
in Canby
0 20
40 60
80 Value Percent Responses
I live in Canby
I work in Canby
I own a business in Canby
I visit Canby
I own a secondary residence in Canby

66.2% 49

25.7% 19

2.7% 2

27.0% 20

1.4% 1
282
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 103

12.Whatisyourage?
6%Under181
7%18to25
17%25to34
7%35to44
15%45to54
17%55to64
22%65andabove
ValuePercentResponses
Under18
18to25
25to34
35to44
45to54
55to64
65andabove
Totals:72

5.6%
4 16.7%
12 16.7%
12 6.9%
5 15.3%
11 16.7%
12 22.2%
16 283
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 104

13. Which ethnic or racial group do you identify yourself? Choose all that apply.

Percent
African
American/Black
Asian or
Asian
American
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Multiracial
Native
American
Prefer not
to answer
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Value Percent Responses
African American/Black
Asian or Asian American
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Multi-racial
Native American
Prefer not to answer

2.8% 2

56.9% 41

22.2% 16

4.2% 3

13.9% 10
284
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 105

14. Please indicate your gender. Choose all that apply.

Percent
Female Male Transgender NonbinaryPrefer not
to answer
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Value Percent Responses
Female
Male
Transgender
Non-binary
Prefer not to answer

39.4% 28

50.7% 36

4.2% 3

2.8% 2

5.6% 4
285
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 106

15.Whatisyourhouseholdincome?
20%Lessthan$25,000
22%$25,000–$49,999
10%$50,000–$74,999
9%$75,000–$99,999
10%$100,000–$149,999
4%$150,000ormore
25%Prefernottosay
ValuePercentResponses
Lessthan$25,000
$25,000–$49,999
$50,000–$74,999
$75,000–$99,999
$100,000–$149,999
$150,000ormore
Prefernottosay
Totals:69

20.3%
14 21.7%
15 10.1%
7 8.7%
6 10.1%
7 4.3%
3 24.6%
17 286
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 107

16. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
83% English
17% Spanish
Value Percent Responses
English
Spanish
Totals: 72

83.3% 60

16.7% 12
287
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 108

17. Do you have a disability that limits your mobility? 24% Yes
76% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes
No
Totals: 72

23.6% 17

76.4% 55
288
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 109

18.Checkallthatapplytoyou:

Percent
Iusea
walker
Ihave
limitedor
novision
Iam
hearing
impaired
Ihavea
cognitive
disability
0 10
20 30
40 50
ValuePercentResponses
Iuseawalker
Ihavelimitedornovision
Iamhearingimpaired
Ihaveacognitivedisability

44.4%4

22.2%
2 11.1%
1 33.3%
3 289
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 110

19.Doyouhaveavaliddriver’slicense?
53%Yes
47%No
ValuePercentResponses
Yes
No
Totals:70

52.9%37

47.1%
33 290
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 111

20. Is a working vehicle usually available for your use? 58% Yes
42% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes
No
Totals: 71

57.7% 41

42.3% 30
291
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 112
Report for Canby Area Transit TMP Survey
#2
Completion Rate: 60.8%
Complete 62
Partial 40
Totals: 102
Response Counts
Community Survey #2 - Results
292
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 113

1. Compared to the Existing Network, the Draft Plan would be better for me. (Check only one)
56% Strongly agree.
40% Somewhat agree.
3% Somewhat disagree.
1% Strongly disagree.

Value Percent Responses
Strongly agree.

Somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree.

Strongly disagree.

Totals: 75

56.0% 42

40.0% 30

2.7% 2

1.3% 1
293
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 114

2. Compared to the Existing Network, the Draft Plan would be better for my friends, neighbors, coworkers, or others I know. (Check only one) 51% Strongly agree. 45% Somewhat agree.
1% Somewhat disagree.
3% Strongly disagree.

Value Percent Responses
Strongly agree.

Somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree.

Strongly disagree.

Totals: 75

50.7% 38

45.3% 34

1.3% 1

2.7% 2
294
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 115

3. Compared to the Existing Network, the Draft Plan would be better for the region overall. (Check only one)
59% Strongly agree.
39% Somewhat agree.
1% Somewhat disagree.
1% Strongly disagree.

Value Percent Responses
Strongly agree.

Somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree.

Strongly disagree.

Totals: 75

58.7% 44

38.7% 29

1.3% 1

1.3% 1
295
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 116

4. CAT cannot implement all these changes at once and needs to understand which are the most important priorities. Imagine you are in charge of transit for the City and you need to decide how to invest some additional budget in the service improvements described earlier. You have 7 coins to spend, so you can only pay for a few improvements. How would you spend this budget? (it is ok if you still have coins left after paying for your preferred improvements)
Item Average Min Max StdDev Sum
Total
Responses
More service in the Canby Loop (cost = 3
coins)

2.8 0.0 3.0 0.8 78.0 28
Extending the 99X to Milwaukie and
downtown Woodburn (but splitting the
route at the Canby Transit Center) (cost =
4 coins)

3.8 0.0 4.0 0.9 128.0 34
Doubling the number of daily buses to
Wilsonville (cost = 2 coins)

1.9 0.0 2.0 0.4 36.0 19
More evening service (cost = 2 coins) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 42.0 21 Offering bus routes and dial-a-ride on
Sundays (cost = 5 coins)

3.4 0.0 5.0 2.2 27.0 8
296
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 117

5. If you could improve service in the Canby Loop, what would you do? 33% Improve the frequency to have
a bus coming every 15 minutes, but
keep the loop running clockwise
only
54% Run the Canby Loop in two
directions, with the bus in each
direction coming every 30 minutes.
12% I don’t have a preference.

Value Percent Responses
Improve the frequency to have a bus coming every 15
minutes, but keep the loop running clockwise only
Run the Canby Loop in two directions, with the bus in
each direction coming every 30 minutes.

I don’t have a preference.

Totals: 57

33.3% 19

54.4% 31

12.3% 7
297
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 118

7. When do you usually start work or school?
28% Early mornings (before 7 AM)
55% Morning rush hour 7am to
9am
16% In the mid-day 11am –3pm
2% Late night 8pm to midnight
Value Percent Responses
Early mornings (before 7 AM)
Morning rush hour 7am to 9am
In the mid-day 11am –3pm
Late night 8pm to midnight
Totals: 51

27.5% 14

54.9% 28

15.7% 8

2.0% 1
298
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 119

8. What is your connection to Canby? (choose all that apply) Percent
I live in
Canby
I work in
Canby
I own a
business
in Canby
I visit
Canby
I own a
secondary
residence
in Canby
0 20
40 60
80 Value Percent Responses
I live in Canby
I work in Canby
I own a business in Canby
I visit Canby
I own a secondary residence in Canby

67.9% 36

17.0% 9

1.9% 1

28.3% 15

1.9% 1
299
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 120

9.Whatisyourage?
13%Under18
11%18to25
24%25to34
13%35to44
11%45to54
15%55to64
15%65andabove
ValuePercentResponses
Under18
18to25
25to34
35to44
45to54
55to64
65andabove
Totals:55

12.7%
7 10.9%
6 23.6%
13 12.7%
7 10.9%
6 14.5%
8 14.5%
8 300
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 121

10. Which ethnic or racial group do you identify yourself? Choose all that apply.

Percent
Asian or
Asian
American
Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latino MultiracialNative
American
Prefer not
to answer
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Value Percent Responses
Asian or Asian American
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Multi-racial
Native American
Prefer not to answer

5.6% 3

53.7% 29

29.6% 16

3.7% 2

11.1% 6

11.1% 6
301
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 122

11. Please indicate your gender. Choose all that apply.

Percent
Female Male NonbinaryPrefer not
to answer
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Value Percent Responses
Female
Male
Non-binary
Prefer not to answer

64.2% 34

32.1% 17

3.8% 2

1.9% 1
302
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 123

12.Whatisyourhouseholdincome?
17%Lessthan$25,000
26%$25,000–$49,999
19%$50,000-$74,999
7%$75,000-$99,999
9%$100,000-$149,999
4%$150,000ormore
19%Prefernottosay
ValuePercentResponses
Lessthan$25,000
$25,000–$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000ormore
Prefernottosay
Totals:54

16.7%
9 25.9%
14 18.5%
10 7.4%
4 9.3%
5 3.7%
2 18.5%
10 303
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 124

13. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
80% English
20% Spanish
Value Percent Responses
English
Spanish
Totals: 54

79.6% 43

20.4% 11
304
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 125

14.Doyouhaveadisabilitythatlimitsyourmobility?
9%Yes
91%No
ValuePercentResponses
Yes
No
Totals:53

9.4%5

90.6%
48 305
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 126

15.Checkallthatapplytoyou:

Percent
Iusea
walker
Iusea
wheelchair
orscooter
0 20
40 60
80 ValuePercentResponses
Iuseawalker
Iuseawheelchairorscooter

75.0%3

50.0%
2 306
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 127

16.Doyouhaveavaliddriver’slicense?
67%Yes
33%No
ValuePercentResponses
Yes
No
Totals:54

66.7%36

33.3%
18 307
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 128

17. Is a working vehicle usually available for your use? 63% Yes
37% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes
No
Totals: 54

63.0% 34

37.0% 20
308
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 129
Report for Canby Area Transit TMP Survey
08/23/24
Completion Rate: 98.1%
Complete 103
Partial 2
Totals: 105
Response Counts
Community Survey #3 - Results
309
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 130

1. Of the changes described in the bus network of the draft Transit Master Plan, what are your main priorities? Choose up to 3.

Percent
The
Canby
Loop as a
two-way
loop
instead of
one-way.

Route 99X
going all
the way
downtown
Woodburn.

Route 99X
going all
the way to
Milwaukie.

Additional
service to
Wilsonville.

Longer
hours of
service on
Saturday
for Route
99X.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Value Percent Responses
The Canby Loop as a two-way loop instead of oneway.

Route 99X going all the way downtown Woodburn.

Route 99X going all the way to Milwaukie.

Additional service to Wilsonville.

Longer hours of service on Saturday for Route 99X.

53.5% 54

31.7% 32

30.7% 31

45.5% 46

40.6% 41 310
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 131

2. Overall, do you feel like the draft Transit Master Plan is headed in the right direction?
46% Strongly agree.
36% Somewhat agree.
4% Somewhat disagree.
2% Strongly disagree.
13% I am not sure.

Value Percent Responses
Strongly agree.

Somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree.

Strongly disagree.

I am not sure.

Totals: 104

46.2% 48

35.6% 37

3.8% 4

1.9% 2

12.5% 13 311
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 132

3. Will the proposed service changes help you get around Canby, or make connections to other regions, without driving?
43% Strongly agree.
33% Somewhat agree.
2% Somewhat disagree.
6% Strongly disagree
16% I am not sure.

Value Percent Responses
Strongly agree.

Somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree.

Strongly disagree
I am not sure.

Totals: 104

43.3% 45

32.7% 34

1.9% 2

5.8% 6

16.3% 17 312
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 133

4. Thinking about your own use of CAT's services, what effect would these changes have?
50% I would ride transit more
often.
24% I would ride transit with the
same frequency as I do now.
2% I would ride transit less often
than I do now.
24% I am not sure.

Value Percent Responses
I would ride transit more often.

I would ride transit with the same frequency as I do
now.

I would ride transit less often than I do now.

I am not sure.

Totals: 103

49.5% 51

24.3% 25

1.9% 2

24.3% 25
313
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 134
ResponseID Response
11 Works good for me!
19 I have no feedback
24 No
31 I do not use transit
44 Can I get a ride to Wilsonville?
45 I believe this is a great idea, good luck!
46 No
47 No
58 nomp
59 I love CAT
60 No
63 No
69 Nah
71 We love the Canby loop
72 Love the idea of bridging the gap between Canby and Wilsonville with pubic transit 78 Later service to Wilsonville would be good
81 Are there any plans to expand to Newberg?
92 No

5. Is there any other feedback you'd like to share?
314
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 135
101 No
102 Son Un transporte muy necesario gracias
103 Would like to have service to Woodburn Walmart mon-sat 104 We love the free Loop!
105 Adding services to people w/children under 5 in unsafe areas. 109 None
112 Would like more evening Loop service
116 Only to Max. I suppose that the Wilsonville location is for WES 119 This is a huge waste of money. Buses drive around empty or almost empty all day. The need is clearly not there for expansion.

ResponseID Response
315
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 136

7. When do you usually start work or school?
33% Early mornings (before 7 AM)
46% Morning rush hour 7am to
9am
13% In the mid-day 11am –3pm
4% Evenings 4pm –7pm
4% Late night 8pm to midnight
Value Percent Responses
Early mornings (before 7 AM)
Morning rush hour 7am to 9am
In the mid-day 11am –3pm
Evenings 4pm –7pm
Late night 8pm to midnight
Totals: 76

32.9% 25

46.1% 35

13.2% 10

3.9% 3

3.9% 3
316
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 137

76.8% 63

13.4% 11

6.1% 5

22.0% 18

6.1% 5
317
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 138

9.Whatisyourage?
15%Under18
5%18to25
14%25to34
27%35to44
12%45to54
14%55to64
14%65andabove
ValuePercentResponses
Under18
18to25
25to34
35to44
45to54
55to64

14.8%
12 4.9%
4 13.6%
11 27.2%
22 12.3%
10 13.6%
11 15%Under18
5%18to25
14%25to34
27%35to44
12%45to54
14%55to64
14%65andabove
ValuePercentResponses
Under18
18to25
25to34
35to44
45to54
55to64
65andabove
Totals:81

14.8%12

4.9%
4 13.6%
11 27.2%
22 12.3%
10 13.6%
11 13.6%
11 318
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 139

10. Which ethnic or racial group do you identify yourself? Choose all that apply.

1.2% 1

2.5% 2

59.3% 48

27.2% 22

2.5% 2
49% 4

10. Which ethnic or racial group do you identify yourself? Choose all that apply.

1.2% 1

2.5% 2

59.3% 48

27.2% 22

2.5% 2

4.9% 4

7.4% 6
319
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 140

11. Please indicate your gender. Choose all that apply.

Percent
Female Male Prefer not
to answer
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Value Percent Responses
Female
Male
Prefer not to answer

61.3% 49

35.0% 28

3.8% 3
If you prefer to self-identify, check box and please do so below: Count Totals 0
320
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 141

12.Whatisyourhouseholdincome?
14%Lessthan$25,000
11%$25,000–$49,999
13%$50,000-$74,999
17%$75,000-$99,999
8%$100,000-$149,999
13%$150,000ormore
25%Prefernottosay
ValuePercentResponses
Lessthan$25,000
$25,000–$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000ormore

13.9%11

11.4%
9 12.7%
10 16.5%
13 7.6%
6 12.7%10

13.9%11

11.4%
9 12.7%
10 16.5%
13 7.6%
6 12.7%
10 25.3%
20 321
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 142

13. What is the primary language spoken in your home?
83% English
16% Spanish
1% Other, please specify:

Value Percent Responses
English
Spanish
Other, please specify:

Totals: 81

82.7% 67

16.0% 13

1.2% 1
Other, please specify: Count
Thai 1
Totals 1
322
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 143

14.Doyouhaveadisabilitythatlimitsyourmobility?
15%Yes
85%No
ValuePercentResponses
Yes
No
Totals:79

15.2%12

84.8%
67 323
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 144

15.Checkallthatapplytoyou:

Percent
Iusea
walker
Iusea
wheelchair
orscooter
Ihave
limitedor
novision
Iam
hearing
impaired
Ihavea
cognitive
disability
0 10
20 30
40 ValuePercentResponses
Iuseawalker
Iuseawheelchairorscooter
Ihavelimitedornovision
Iamhearingimpaired
Ihaveacognitivedisability

27.3%3

36.4%
4 27.3%
3 18.2%
2 27.3%
3 324
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public Engagement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 145

16.Doyouhaveavaliddriver’slicense?
71%Yes
29%No
ValuePercentResponses
Yes
No
Totals:82

70.7%58

29.3%
24 325
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 146

17. Is a working vehicle usually available for your use? 71% Yes
29% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes
No
Totals: 80

71.3% 57

28.8% 23
326
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 147
Stakeholder Interviews Summary
Purpose
We reached out to stakeholders representing interest groups around Canby to learn about their communities’ transportation needs and to inform recommendations for the Transportation Management Plan. During these interviews, we sought feedback from stakeholders’ existing experiences and improvements that would be most useful for themselves, people they know of, and others they are aware of by asking:
• What their community groups top three priorities are for transit improvement in Canby • What would make a Transit Master Plan successful in their community • What CAT is doing well in terms of service that can continue or expand on Who We Engaged With
We reached out to:
• Local school district representatives
• Business/industrial park owners and employees
• Non-profit services, like Canby Center or Canby Adult Center • Senior center, like Hope Village or Casa Verde
• Local organizations, like Bridging Cultures
We heard from:
• Bill Vermillion from Hope Village
• Kristen Wohlers, Canby School District
327
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 148
• Wendy May, Canby Adult Center
• Abdi Lopez, Social Worker at Canby School District
Interview Methods
We conducted three interviews over the phone, one in person and gave interviewees the option to send us email responses to our questions. We provided a brief overview of the project and what kind of feedback we were hoping to receive. Interview questions included:
• What are your community/group top three priorities for transit improvements in Canby? • What would make the Transit Master Plan successful to your community? What about CAT’s service can be improved? • What is CAT doing especially well in terms of service that can continue or expand? • Is there anything else you’d like to add or point out that we have not yet asked about to ensure a successful transit system? If time permitted, we asked the following additional questions to hear stakeholder thoughts on proposed recommendations to the Transportation Management Plan:
• We are considering the idea of adding service to Wilsonville or Milwaukie at the expense of reducing some service to Woodburn. What would you think of that?
• We are exploring the idea of extending the 99X to reach downtown Woodburn (instead of stopping on 99E at the Bi-Mart).

We are also exploring the idea of sending it further north into Milwaukie, to connect with the Orange Line train to Portland.

But to do those things, the CAT Route 99X might have to be split apart at Canby Transit Center. People riding through Canby might have to change buses or wait while the driver takes a break. What would you think of that? 328
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 149
Findings
Priorities for Transit Improvements in Canby
• At the Canby Adult Center folks currently cross the street to get to the bus and wait at a makeshift bus stop that is just a pole. There was a shelter on the property at Canby Adult Center that used to be used as the bus stop for the Canby Loop.

Stakeholders wish CAT can pick up riders at the Canby Adult Center at the shelter on property. • Adding benches to bus stops. Right now, the bus stop across the street from the Canby Adult Center is just a pole, and riders are forced to stand and wait.
• Prioritize service for a large mobile home community off Highway 99. It is a very underserved area because community members cannot walk up to the highway or cross the highway to the next stop. Currently, neither Dial-A-Ride service or paratransit will go there.
• Prioritize Canby citizens being able to get a ride near their home any time of day. • Improve advertisement of services and schedule.
• Prioritize Canby citizens being able to easily get to and from shopping areas or appointments outside Canby like Woodburn, Salem, Tualatin, Tigard, and Portland.
• Prioritize service to Wilsonville, and service to Costco. • Don’t forget about the riders who have no other means of transportation and rely on this service.

What would make the Transit Master Plan successful to your community? What about CAT’s service can be improved?
• Having a shelter inside the Canby Adult Center that is serviced by the Canby Loop. • Adding more stops and more frequent stops to all business areas in Canby. • Advertise tourist-friendly bus routes.
329
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 150
• There is a Denny’s breakfast group of regulars who get together from Hope Village that stakeholders wish service ran early enough for folks to get to, as current service hours aren’t early enough for when this group meets. He mentioned sometimes people use dial-a-ride to get to the Denny’s breakfast group. • For Hope Village riders, Sunday is not a big priority as people already have rides to church. • Service to Woodburn, Salud Medical Center.

What is CAT doing especially well in terms of service that can continue or expand? • Staff are smart, nice, and accommodating. As an example, if folks are ready to go home from the Canby Adult Center early before the bus schedule, staff will call CAT, and the staff are cool about trying to get there early when they can. • The consistency in scheduling of the Canby Loop is great. It goes all day long, and folks know exactly when they can get a ride.
• Dial-A-Ride is working well, and great for folks with mobility issues. • Appreciate that a free or cheap option exists for those who otherwise wouldn’t be able to get around.

Thoughts on Proposed Recommendations
• Not a lot of people are coming to the Canby Adult Center from Woodburn, but a lot of people call looking for services in Woodburn – they are underserved and do not have an Adult Center in Woodburn. It would have a negative impact and isolate people more to have reduced service to Woodburn. • Not a lot of people talk about going to Wilsonville but there’s now Costco and Target so maybe it would be good to add service there.
• At Hope Village, residents from the cottages and garden homes prefer more Oregon City service and/or access to Milwaukie/MAX over the Woodburn Mall or Wilsonville.
• If service extended to Milwaukee would be outstanding and even to Happy Valley. In Happy Valley, there is the Clackamas County courthouse and medical services, so service to Happy Valley and Milwaukee would be outstanding. • Having to transfer at Canby Transit Center would not be a deterrent. 330
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix A: Public E
n
g
a
gement
CAT Transit Master Plan | 151
• Concern for reducing service to Woodburn because of Salud Medical Center- access is already minimal and many clients (social service clients from Canby School District, primarily low income and Spanish speaking) need to go there.

Anything Else
• Canby has grown and so has Woodburn.
• Good questions!
• Hope Village includes:
o 100 affordable living apartments
o 200 cottages & garden homes residences/condos
o And Assisted living
• Hope Village has a bus but no driver. They can work around CAT service when possible.

Questions for CAT
• Can the bus take a left turn into the parking lot of the Canby Adult Center and then get back on the loop route? • Why won’t Dial-A-Ride take calls from community members from the large mobile home community on Highway 99 right outside of Canby?
• What does CAT’s funding look like?
• What is the cost of a ride?
• What care does CAT take to contribute to a healthy environment and decrease air pollution? 331
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Appendix B: Bus Stop
Inventory
332
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan | 153
Bus Stop Inventory
Canby Loop Bus Stops
Stop # Stop ID Bus
Stop
Location
Bus Stop
Amenities
Notes and Recommendations
1 1000 Canby
Transit
Center
§ 2 shelters
§ 3+ benches
§ Map signage
§ Sign and pole
§ Bathrooms
§ Lighting
Midblock bus pull-out. Canby Transit Center is shared with Wilsonville SMART route 3X, and South Clackamas Transportation District’s Molalla to Canby bus route, which use N Ivy St and NW 2nd Ave to access/depart from the transit center. Shared with 99X. 2 102 N Ivy St &
NE 4th Ave
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent. Yellow curb at bus stop.

Near-term recommendation to add green bike conflict markings in the bike-lane. Evaluate ridership and bicycle volumes at this stop.

Long-term recommendation to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on bus platform at curb and mitigate bus/bike conflict. Evaluate drainage and utility conflicts. 333
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bus Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 2 | 154
3 104 N Ivy St &
NE 10th
Ave
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow curb and marked crossings on all four legs of intersection. Near-term recommendation to add green bike conflict markings in the bike-lane. Evaluate ridership and bicycle volumes at this stop. Long-term recommendation to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on bus platform at curb and mitigate bus/bike conflict.
4 108 NE 10th
Ave & N
Locust St
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent.

Mailboxes ~5’ from sign and pole.

Recommend marked crossings across N Locust St. at north and south legs of intersection. Recommend shifting stop closer to intersection.
5 112 N Maple
St &
Maple
Street
Park
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent. Parking lot for park behind bus stop.

Recommend yellow curb. Recommend repurposing a vehicular parking spot in parking lot for bus shelter and adding walkway across landscaping to access sidewalk.
6 114 N Maple
St & NE
16th Ave
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow curb and marked crossing on east leg of intersection.
334
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bus Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 3 | 155
7 116 NE
Territorial
Rd & N
Pine St
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent. Yellow curb at bus stop.

Recommend marked crossing at N Pine St and shifting stop closer to intersection.

Near-term recommendation to add green bike conflict markings in the bike-lane. Evaluate ridership and bicycle volumes at this stop.

Long-term recommendation to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on bus platform at curb and mitigate bus/bike conflict.
8 118 N
Redwood
St & NE
19th Loop
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow curb and marked crossing at NE 19th Loop and across N Redwood St. Recommend “No Parking” signs.
9 120 N
Redwood
St & NE
17th Ave
§ Sign and pole Nearside of tee intersection. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk.

Recommend marked crossings along N Redwood St, on west and east legs of intersection. Recommend yellow curb.
10 122 N
Redwood
St & NE
11th Ave
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Bike lane adjacent.

Short segment of yellow curb from curb return to sign and pole.

Recommend marked crossings along Redwood St, on west and east legs of intersection. Recommend shifting stop away from 335
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bus Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 4 | 156
intersection to not block curb ramp. Recommend green bike conflict markings.
11 202 Sequoia
Pkwy &SE
Hazel Dell
Way
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Signalized intersection. Right turn lane (and bike lane) adjacent.

Recommend bus shelter and seating due to high intersection volumes. Recommend green bike conflict markings for bus merging into through lane.
12 204 301 S
Sequoia
Pkwy
§ Sign on light
pole
Midblock, farside of driveway. Sign on light pole in grass buffer.

Nearby bench and bike rack. Bike lane adjacent.

Recommend shifting stop ~50 feet away from driveway to avoid vehicular conflicts. Recommend paved platform for bus shelter and ADA access to bus. Add green bike conflict markings.
13 206387 S
Sequoia
Pkwy
§ Sign and pole Midblock, at pedestrian path to adjacent building. Sign and pole at curb of concrete buffer area (rest of buffer is grass and trees).

Next to mailbox. Bike lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow curb. Recommend bus shelter.
14 208 SE
Township
Rd &
Sequoia
Pkwy
§ Sandwich
board
Farside. Sandwich board against Speed Limit 30 sign on dirt between fence of cemetery and curb. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend sign and pole, and sidewalk with yellow curb.

Evaluate for drainage and utilities. Recommend remarking crosswalks on west leg.
336
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bus Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 5 | 157
15 210 SE
Township
Rd across from
Baker
Prairie
Middle
School
§ Sign and pole Midblock, farside of driveway. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk.

Bike lane adjacent.

Recommend bus shelter behind sidewalk. Recommend yellow curb and green bike conflict markings.
16 212 SE
Township
Rd & S
Redwood
St
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent.

Near-term recommendation to add yellow curb, shift stop close to intersection, and add green bike conflict markings.

Evaluate stop for ridership and bicycle volumes. Long-term recommendation to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on platform at curb and mitigate bus/bike conflict. Evaluate drainage and utilities.
17 214 SE
Township
Rd & S
Pine St
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent.

Near-term recommendation to add marked crossing on north and south legs, add yellow curb, and add green bike conflict markings.

Evaluate stop for ridership numbers and bicycle volumes. Long- term recommendation to extend curb into parking lane and bike 337
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bus Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 6 | 158
lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on platform at curb and mitigate bus/bike conflict.
18 216 SE
Township
Rd & S
Locust St
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Bus pull -out and bike
lane adjacent. Trees blocking sign as of July 2023.

Near-term recommendation to add green bike conflict markings.

Evaluate stop for ridership numbers and bicycle volumes. Long- term recommendation to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on platform at curb and mitigate bus/bike conflict. Evaluate for drainage and utilities. 19 218 SE
Township
Rd & S Ivy
St
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Bike lane adjacent.

Trees blocking sign in photo provided by CAT.

Recommend yellow curb and green bike conflict markings.

Possibility to pave and add bus shelter on church property. 20 220 S Ivy St &
SW 8th
Ave
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb in vegetated area. Trees blocking sign as of July 2023.

Recommend marked crossing on southwest leg of intersection, crossing SW 8th Ave. Shift stop sign away from intersection.

Recommend adding green bike conflict markings. Evaluate right- of-way (ROW) and consider sidewalk and curb ramp.
338
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 7 | 159
21 222 S Ivy St &
SW 13th
Ave
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Bike lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow curb and green bike conflict markings. 22 224 SW 13th
Ave & S
Fir St
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent.

Near-term recommendation to add yellow curb and green bike conflict markings.

Evaluate stop for ridership and bike volumes. Long-term recommendation to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on platform at curb and to mitigate bus/bike conflicts.
23 226 SW 13th
Ave & S
Elm St
§ Sign and pole Farside, ~100 ft from intersection, more toward midblock. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Bike lane tapers, parking lane adjacent.

Near-term recommendation for yellow curb and adding green bike conflict markings.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 8 | 160
24 228 SW 13th
Ave at S
Aspen
Way
§ Sign and pole Nearside to dead end street driveway (S Aspen Way). Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent.

Yellow curb on nearside and farside of S Aspen Way.

Shift stop east of Baywood Ct to avoid driveway conflicts. Add painted crossing.
25 230 S Berg
Pkwy at
Canby
Communit
y Park
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign on light pole. Sign lists as temporary bus stop. Bike lane adjacent.

Near-term recommendation for yellow curb and adding green bike conflict markings.

Long-term recommendation to add curb ramps and marked
crossing to access park.
26 1030 Hwy OR99E & S
Berg Pkwy
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Shared bus stop with 99X. Midblock. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. No buffer to travel lane. Path to Canby Square Market Center/Safeway parking lot.

Recommend adding yellow paint and installing bus-and-turn lane. 340
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 9 | 161
27 232 SW 2nd
Ave & S
Birch St
§ Sign and pole Midblock between Canby High School driveways. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Yellow curb.

Re-paint crossing across SW 4thAve.
28 234 SW 2nd
Ave & S
Elm St
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow paint. Evaluate right-of-way (ROW) to possibly install bus shelter in mulch area.
29 124 NW 2nd
Ave & N
Douglas
St
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow paint.
30 126 NW 3rd
Ave & N
Aspen St
§ Sandwich
board
Midblock. Sandwich board sign. No parking bus stop side of street. Roll curb.

Recommend yellow paint.
31 128 NW 3rd
Ave & N
Elm St
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend yellow paint. Shift bus stop further away from stop sign to not interfere with intersection.
32 132 NW 3rd
Ave
between
N Holly St
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole at curb at far side of midblock raised crossing. Front-in angled parking east and west of raised crossing. 341
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 10 | 162
99x Bus Stops
Stop # Stop ID Bus
Stop
Location
Bus Stop
Amenities
Notes
1 2000 Oregon
City Transit
Center
(Oregon
City)
§ Shelter
§ Benches
§ Map signage
§ Sign and pole
§ Lighting
§ Trash
receptacles
Farside. Oregon City Transit Center is shared with TriMet routes 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 79, 99, 154, and LIFT. 11th St/Moss St driveway allows connection between McLoughlin Blvd (OR-99E) and Main St.
2 1003 OR-99E &
Jerome St
(Oregon
City)
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Bike lane adjacent.

Trees no longer remain.

Near-term recommendation for yellow curb and adding green bike lane conflict markings.

Evaluate stop for ridership and bike volumes. Long-term recommendation to partner with Oregon City to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalk-level and N
Grant St
342
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 11 | 163
bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on platform and to mitigate bus/bike conflicts.
3 1007 OR-99E at
General
Trailer
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole Nearside driveway of General Trailer. Sign and pole on shoulder (gravel and asphalt).
4 1009 OR-99E &
Haines Rd
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole Nearside flashing signal. No pedestrian crossing. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend lighting.
5 1011 OR-99E &
SE
Territorial
Rd (SB)
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Farside. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt). Flush sidewalk from signalized intersection.

Recommend lighting and bus shelter.
6 1013 OR-99E &
N Redwood
St (SB)
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Nearside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk at signalized intersection.

Recommend green bike lane conflict markings. Consider shifting stop to farside to improve merging back into travel lane. 7 1017 OR-99E &
N Pine St
(SB) (Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Farside. Sign and pole on shoulder. No sidewalk to the north ~250 ft to signalized intersection.

Recommend shifting stop closer to intersection. Add lighting. 343
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 12 | 164
8 1119 S Locust St
between
OR-99E and
SE 2nd Ave
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Bench (recent
ODOT
project)
Nearside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Yellow curb.

Recommend lighting.
9 1000 Canby
Transit
Center
(Canby)
§ 2 shelters
§ 3+ benches
§ Map signage
§ Sign and pole
§ Bathrooms
§ Lighting
Midblock bus pull-out. Canby Transit Center is shared with Wilsonville SMART route 3X, and South Clackamas Transportation District’s Molalla to Canby bus route which use N Ivy St and NW 2nd Ave to access/depart from the transit center. Shared bus stop with Canby Loop.
10 1025 OR-99E & S
Berg
Parkway
(Walgreens)
(SB) (Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Midblock. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk.

Recommend shifting bus stop closer to intersection. Recommend bus and right turn lane up to intersection.
11 1027 OR-99E
before
McLarens
Carpet One
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Consider shifting stop east, on farside of entrance to Dick’s Canby Ford, to increase proximity with Riverside RV Park 99X bus stop. 344
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 13 | 165
12 1029 OR-99E & S
Barlow Rd
(SB) (Canby)
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend shifting stop east, closer to intersection.

Recommend lighting and installing sidewalk to access stop. 13 1033 OR-99E &
Liberty St
(Aurora)
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent.

Near-term recommendation for yellow curb and shifting stop to nearside. Coordinate with ODOT on the following improvements:

Add green bike lane conflict markings. Adjust signal change to allow for through bus movement to share right turn signal. 14 1035 OR-99E at
Ottoway Rd
(Aurora)
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend repainting crosswalk on north and west legs of intersections.
15 1037 OR-99E at
AA
Storage/UHaul
(Aurora)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole on shoulder (gravel). Across from Olds Mobile Park.
16 1039 OR-99E at
the Truck
Scales
(Hubbard)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole on shoulder (gravel). Truck scales entrance on opposite side of bus stop.

Recommend lighting
345
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 14 | 166
17 1041 OR-99E at
Advantage
Self Storage
(Hubbard)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Across OR-99E from residential neighborhood.

Recommend bus shelter and marked mid-block crosswalk.
18 1045 OR-99E &
G St (SB)
(Hubbard)
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole on curb of asphalt sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend lighting.
19 1049 OR-99E &
Pacific Ct

NE (SB)
(Hubbard)
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Bike lane adjacent.

Recommend lighting, yellow curb, and green bike lane conflict markings.
20 1061 1600 Mt
Hood Ave
(Woodburn)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter (by
others)
In parking lot. Accesses back of transit shelter.

Recommend lighting.
21 1004 OR-99E &
Carl Rd
(NB)
(Woodburn)
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Bike lane adjacent.

Recommend green bike lane conflict markings.
22 1008 OR-99E &
G Street
(NB)
(Hubbard)
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Sign and pole on shoulder (gravel).

Recommend lighting.
346
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 15 | 167
23 1010 OR-99E &
Parkway
Ave (NB)
(Hubbard)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole at back of buffer between sidewalk and curb. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend shifting stop north to Rudometkin Dr to utilize existing bus shelter.
24 1012 OR-99E
before
Truck
Scales
(Hubbard)
§ Sign and pole Nearside of truck scales. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend lighting.
25 1014 OR-99E at
Olds
Mobile
Home Park
(Aurora)
§ Sign and pole Nearside to entrance to Olds Mobile Home Park. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend lighting.
26 1016 OR-99E &
Orchard
Ave NE
(NB)
(Aurora)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
Midblock. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Parking lane adjacent.

Recommend shifting stop closer to bus shelter.
27 1018 OR-99E &
3rd St NE
(NB)
(Aurora)
§ Sign and pole
§ Bench
Nearside. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. Parking lane and bike lane adjacent.
347
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 16 | 168
Recommend lighting. Near-term recommendation to add painted yellow curb and green bike lane conflict markings. Install crossing across Pacific Hwy and across 3rd St NE.

Evaluate stop for ridership and bike volumes. Long-term recommendation to partner with City of Aurora to extend curb into parking lane and bike lane, add bike ramps and sidewalklevel bike lane behind bus platform to create more waiting space on platform and to mitigate bus/bike conflicts.
28 1024 OR-99E at
Barlow
House
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole Midblock between Barlow House driveway entrances. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend shifting stop closer to intersection. Recommend lighting and sidewalk to access stop.
29 1028 OR-99E at
Riverside RV Park
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole on curb of sidewalk.

Recommend lighting.
30 1030 OR-99E & S
Berg Pkwy
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Shared bus stop with Canby Loop. Sign and pole at curb of sidewalk. No buffer to travel lane. Path to Canby Square Market Center/Safeway parking lot.

Recommend adding yellow paint and installing bus-and-turn lane. 348
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 17 | 169
31 1038 OR-99E & S
Locust St
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Farside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk.
32 1040 OR-99E
before S
Pine St
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Nearside. Sign and pole on curb of sidewalk. Signalized intersection.
33 1042 OR-99E &
Sequoia
Pkwy (NB)
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Nearside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk. Perpendicular path to Canby Market Center/Fred Meyer. Signalized intersection.

Right turn lane and bike lane adjacent.
34 1048 OR-99E &
SE
Territorial
Rd (NB)
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole
§ Shelter
(recent ODOT
project)
Nearside. Sign and pole at back of sidewalk (ramping down from signalized intersection).

Recommend lighting.
35 1050 OR-99E &
Haines Rd
(NB)
(Canby)
§ Sign and pole Nearside. Far from intersection. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend lighting and shifting stop closer to intersection. 36 1052 OR-99E at
Pearson’s
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole on grass beyond shoulder (asphalt). 349
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 18 | 170
Art Gallery
(Canby)
Recommend lighting.
37 1054 OR-99E
south of
Oregon
City Marina
(Oregon
City)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt and gravel).

Recommend lighting.
38 1056 OR-99E at
Hedges St
(Oregon
City)
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend lighting.
39 1058 OR-99E at
Gerber
Collision &
Glass
(Oregon
City)
§ Sign and pole Midblock. Sign and pole on shoulder (asphalt).

Recommend lighting.
40 1060 OR-99E &
Main St
(NB)
(Oregon
City)
§ Sign and pole Farside. Sign and pole on curb of sidewalk. Bus pull-in area next to sidewalk/parking lot.
350
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 19 | 171
Specific recommendations for bus stop improvements
Stop # Stop ID Bus
Stop
Location
Issues Recommendations
Canby Loop
14 208 SE
Township
Rd &
Sequoia
Pkwy
Bus stop has no pole or
sign. No sidewalk, bus
pad, shelter, seating, or
lighting. No ADA access.

Move stop closer to intersection. Install pole and sign, install bus shelter and seating. Leverage existing lighting at intersection. Install sidewalk with ADA access from
intersection. Re-paint crosswalk markings.
20 220 S Ivy St &
SW 8th Ave
No sidewalk, bus pad,
shelter, seating, or
lighting. No ADA access.

Install bus shelter, seating, and lighting. Install sidewalk access to stop. Install marked crosswalk across SW 8th St. 25 230 S Berg
Pkwy at
Canby
Community
Park
No bus pad, shelter, or
seating. Narrow sidewalk.

No crosswalk to park.

Install bus shelter and seating. Install marked crossing with curb ramps, crossing warning signs, advance “Stop Here
For Pedestrians” sign and stop line.
32 132 NW 3rd Ave
between N
Stop placed on far side of
the midblock raised
crossing, which means the
The sign should be moved nearside of the raised crossing at this location.
351
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 20 | 172
Holly St and
N Grant St
bus will stop in the
crosswalk if it pulls up to
the sign and pole.
99X
4 1009 OR-99E &
Haines Rd
(Canby)
No sidewalks and no safe
pedestrian crossing across
OR-99E to Canby
Regency, a mobile home
community with high
transit ridership.

Add pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks) from Canby
Regency along S New Era Rd to Haines Rd. Coordinate with ODOT on the following improvements: Add a signalized
crossing across OR-99E at Haines Rd.
11 1027 OR-99E
before
McLarens
Carpet One
(Canby)
No sidewalk, bus pad,
shelter, seating, or
lighting. Stop is located
close to 4-lane roadway
with narrow shoulder.

Posted speed limit is 50
mph.

Recommend shifting bus stop closer to adjacent stop at
Riverside RV Park. Add bus pad, shelter, seating, and
lighting. Coordinate with ODOT on the following
improvements:

Add signalized crossing across OR-99E in proximity to stop ID 1028.
16 1039 OR-99E at
the Truck
Scales
(Hubbard)
No ADA access to bus
stop; no marked crossing.

Riders must cross truck
scales entrance with no
infrastructure. Stop is
located next to a
drainage ditch. No
shelter, lighting, or
Add shelter, seating, and lighting. Add ADA access.

Coordinate with ODOT on the following improvements:

Add marked crossing across truck scales entrance. Add
signalized crossing at Shirley Ave NE to improve access to NB bus stop #1012. Consider relocating stop away from
truck scales exit.
352
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 21 | 173
seating is available. Stop
is located close to road;
posted speed limit is 50
mph.
22 1008 OR-99E &
G Street
(NB)
(Hubbard)
No sidewalk, bus pad,
shelter, or lighting.

Limited ADA access to
stop. No delineated
separation between
waiting area and autobusinesses. Install marked
crossing at G St
intersection.

Add shelter, seating, and lighting. Coordinate with ODOT on the following improvements: Install sidewalk from G St to bus stop, with defined edge between travel lane and
automotive lot
24 1012 OR-99E
before
Truck
Scales
(Hubbard)
No ADA access to stop.

No marked crossing. Bust
stop located next to
ditch. No shelter, lighting,
or seating. Stop is located
close to road; posted
speed limit is 50 mph.

Add shelter, seating, and lighting. Add ADA access.

Coordinate with ODOT on the following improvements:

Add marked crossing across 99E.
25 1014 OR-99E at
Olds
Mobile
Home Park
(Aurora)
No sidewalk, bus pad,
shelter, or lighting. No
ADA access to stop. Stop
is located next to
Add shelter, seating, and lighting.

Coordinate with ODOT on the following improvements:

Install sidewalk access from Olds Mobile Home Park to
stop. Add marked crossing to improve access to bus stop #1037.
353
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix B: Bu
s Stop Inventory
CAT Transit Master Plan 22 | 174
drainage ditch. Posted
speed limit is 50 mph.
28 1024 OR-99E at
Barlow
House
(Canby)
No sidewalk, bus pad,
shelter, or lighting. Stop is
located next to driveway
entrance. Posted speed
limit is 50 mph.

Add shelter, seating, and lighting. Shift stop away from driveway.
32 1040 OR-99E
before S
Pine St
(Canby)
No bus pad, shelter, or
seating. Stop is located
adjacent to 5-lane
roadway, no shoulder.

Evaluate right-of-way (ROW). If public ROW, add bus pad, shelter, and seating away from travel lane.
35 1050 OR-99E &
Haines Rd
(NB)
(Canby)
No sidewalk, bus pad,
shelter, seating, or
lighting. Stop is located
adjacent to 4-lane
roadway with wide
shoulder. Stop is located
far from intersection.

Posted speed is 50 mph.

No crossing to SB bus
stop.

Relocated bus stop closer to intersection. Add crossing elements. Add bus shelter, seating, and lighting.
354
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Appendix C: Summary of
Recommended Policies
355
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix C: Summary of Recommended Policies
CAT Transit Master Plan | 176
Summary of Recommended Policies

RECOMMENDATION

RELATED CODE OR
POLICY

PRIORITY
Pedestrian Safety, Circulation, and Access
A Expand sidewalks and pathways for pedestrian access and circulation A1 Require sidewalks in all zoning areas, including residential, residential/commercial, and overlay zones, ensuring continuous and safe pedestrian pathways to access transit services throughout the city.

16.08: GENERAL

STANDARDS AND

PROCEDURES
High
A2 Include provisions that require installing pedestrian pathways when curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs are necessary so that connectivity for people walking to nearby destinations and streets can be maintained.

Note, Code 16.64 (Subdivision – Design Standards) requires pedestrian connectivity in cul-de-sacs

16.64: SUBDIVISION –
DESIGN STANDARDS;

16.86: STREET

ALIGNMENTS
High
A3 Specify a minimum width of 5 feet for sidewalks on local streets to accommodate mobility devices such as wheelchairs and allow two people to pass comfortably or to walk side by side.

PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN

STANDARDS
High
A4 Amend code to explicitly ensure all new developments provide direct pedestrian pathways that connect to transit stops and other key neighboring destinations in the Downtown Canby zone.

16.41: DOWNTOWN

CANBY OVERLAY ZONE
High
A5 Require all new and modified sidewalks in commercial, residential, residential/commercial, and overlay zones include tactile paving surfaces at crosswalks to assist individuals with visual impairments.

16.08: GENERAL

STANDARDS AND

PROCEDURES
High
A6 Emphasize that all developments shall create walkways that link directly to existing bus stops abutting the development site.

16.49: SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW
Medium
A7 Require consideration of transit infrastructure, access, and services as a factor for the City to consider whether to accept land or cash in lieu of parks, open space, and trails.

16.120: PARKS, OPEN

SPACE, AND RECREATION
LAND
Low
B Promote land use strategies to create a more walkable urban environment 356
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix C: Summary of Recommended Policies
CAT Transit Master Plan 2 | 177

RECOMMENDATION

RELATED CODE OR
POLICY

PRIORITY
B1 Consider loosening standards for shared parking spaces to encourage more developments to consolidate and share
parking.

16.10: OFF-STREET

PARKING AND LOADING
High
B2 Remove parking minimums citywide, in specific districts, or in areas proximate to transit stops.

16.10: OFF-STREET

PARKING AND LOADING
Medium
B3 Include decorative fencing as a requirement for parking lot design to separate the lots from pedestrian walkways.

16.10: OFF-STREET

PARKING AND LOADING
Low
C Ensure pedestrians and motorists’ shared spaces are safe for all users C1 Strengthen the design standards to adjust minimum road widths, and ensure ingress, egress, and shared/cross access minimize conflicts with pedestrian pathways.

16.46: ACCESS

LIMITATIONS ON PROJECT

DENSITY
High
C2 Adjust curb radii standards to 15 to balance motorists' turning speeds with pedestrian safety, ensuring intersections are safe for all users. Larger radii (up to 30 feet) can be used along places where buses are expected to make right turns.

Public Works Design
Standards
High
C3 Specify maximum widths for driveways and standards for large turning radii, and right-in-right-out.

16.10: OFF-STREET

PARKING AND LOADING
Medium
C4 Amending the minimum roadway width requirement that limits general-purpose lanes to no greater than 11 feet to encourage motorists to drive at safer speeds and reduce pedestrian crossing distances.

16.64: SUBDIVISION –
DESIGN STANDARDS;
Public Works Design
Standards;
Transportation System Plan
Medium
C5 Provide a list of traffic calming measures with dimensions and specifications that have been tested by Canby Fire District to remove potential ambiguity in the standards that need to be tested for every application.

Public Works Design
Standards
Medium
C6 Include standards for traffic signals design and operation that incorporate pedestrian access and safety with elements that include, accessible pedestrian signals, leading pedestrian intervals, and extended crossing times.

16.86: STREET
ALIGNMENTS;
Public Works Design
Standards
Medium
B
u
s
St
op
a
nd
Tr
a
n
si
t
O
p
D Create development practices that support transit operations erat io n
s
357
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix C: Summary of Recommended Policies
CAT Transit Master Plan 3 | 178

RECOMMENDATION

RELATED CODE OR
POLICY

PRIORITY
D1 Include potential impacts to transit access and operations as a determinant for when a TIS is required and ensure that the potential impact on transit access and operations is considered in the scoping checklist.

16.08: GENERAL

STANDARDS AND

PROCEDURES
High
D2 Include considerations for transit access and service in the proposed site development and site plan compliance review.

16.49: SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW
Medium
D3 Include someone with transit expertise in the Design Review Board, Design Review Commission, and/or the Planning
Commission.

16.49: SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW
Medium
D4 Create standards section for bus stops siting that are near activity centers, follow spacing guidelines, ensure proximity to intersections/crossings, and integrate with pedestrian pathways.

See Bus Stop Guidelines section below for more information.

NEW SECTION Medium
D5 Create standards section for bus stop design that ensure ADA compliance, and clear bus stop zones. Provide shade, seating, lighting, garbage cans, and safe accessible pedestrian paths.

See Bus Stop Guidelines section below for more information.

NEW SECTION Medium
D6 Create standards section for bus stop sign design that ensure proper placement and size of signs that promote visibility and reduce conflicts. See Bus Stop Guidelines section below for more information.

NEW SECTION Medium
D7 Require new developments help pay for creating new bus stops, concrete pads, shelters, and other transit amenities through a fee and/or dedications of property in lieu of the fee.

16.49: SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW
Low
E Standardize curb space for safe multimodal uses
E1 Develop standards for designated curb zones for transit stops, loading/unloading, and ride-hailing to better manage curb space and reduce conflicts.

Public Works Design
Standards
Medium
E2 Specify a requirement for clear-sight triangles at all intersections. Curb space should be clear and no obstructions, including parked vehicles, landscaping, or street furniture, should be within the sight triangle.

16.08: GENERAL

STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES;
Public Works Design
Standards
Medium
358
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Header
Appendix C: Summary of Recommended Policies
CAT Transit Master Plan 4 | 179
List of Resources
Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Accessing Transit, 2022, FHWA. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/fhwasa21130_PedBike_Access_to_transit.pdf Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit, 2011, FTA. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/64496/ftareportno0111.pdf Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities, 2023, USDOT. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_opportunities.pdf Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies, 2008, FHWA. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/transit_guide.pdf Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), 2013, U.S. Access Board. https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
Traffic-Roadway Section, Highway Design Manual, Part 700 Public Transportation and Guidelines, 2024, ODOT:
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Engineering/Documents_RoadwayEng/HDM-0700.pdf Transit Street Design Guide, 2016, NACTO.
https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/ Urban Street Design Guide, 2013, NACTO.
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Accessing Transit, 2022, FHWA. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/fhwasa21130_PedBike_Access_to_transit.pdf 359
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Appendix D: Existing
Conditions Report
360
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Final Network Plan
February 2022
“Advocating and delivering quality
public transportation as a leader within
our community and industry.”
Dan Boyle
& Associates, Inc.
361
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan | 2 Monterey-Salinas Transit Table of Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 3 Why does MST’s network of bus lines need a redesign?.................................................................4 The Challenge of Planning a Good Transit Network in Monterey County.......................................9 2 Key Choices in Redesigning the Network......................................................... 12 Ridership vs. Coverage ...................................................................................................................13 Local vs. Regional Service ...............................................................................................................14 Equality vs. Equity...........................................................................................................................15 3 How Public Input Shaped This Plan................................................................... 16 Phase 1: Understanding the Community’s Values and Priorities .....................................................17 Phase 2: Input Received on the Draft Plan ......................................................................................19 How Comments on the Draft Plan Were Incorporated in the Final Plan .........................................20 4 Key Elements of the Plan.................................................................................. 21 Policy Direction ...............................................................................................................................22 Timeline and Funding Scenarios .....................................................................................................23 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Existing ..................................................................................24 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Medium Scenario ...................................................................25 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Low Scenario..........................................................................26 Existing vs. Future Network Maps – High Scenario.........................................................................27 Higher frequencies and more consistent hours...............................................................................28 Timed transfers for faster local and regional travel. ........................................................................29 Service that is more direct, and less specialized. ............................................................................30 5 Existing vs. Proposed Service by Area ............................................................. 31 Salinas – Existing Service ................................................................................................................32 Salinas – Medium Scenario..............................................................................................................33 Salinas – How many people would be near service? .......................................................................34 Salinas – Low, Medium and High Scenarios ....................................................................................35 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Existing ..............................................................................................36 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Medium Scenario ...............................................................................37 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – How many people would be near service?.........................................38 Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Low, Medium and High Scenarios ......................................................39 Regional Service – Existing .............................................................................................................40 Regional Service – Medium Scenario..............................................................................................41 Regional Service – Low, Medium and High Scenarios.....................................................................42 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Existing...........................................................43 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Medium Scenario............................................44 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Low Scenario ..................................................45 Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – High Scenario .................................................46 6 How would this plan make transit more useful?............................................... 47 More people would be near service, and service would be more frequent....................................48 Most transit trips would take far less time. ......................................................................................49 Change in Average Travel Times Between 15 Key Locations .........................................................50 Trip Examples - Salinas and Boronda ..............................................................................................51 Trip Examples - Salinas to Monterey ...............................................................................................53 Trip Examples - Monterey Bay & Peninsula .....................................................................................54 Trip Examples - Regional.................................................................................................................57 7 Next Steps........................................................................................................ 60 Considerations for Network Implementation..................................................................................61 Project Timeline ..............................................................................................................................62 Appendix A - Summary of Phase 2 Public Outreach Meetings 362
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
| 3 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
1 Introduction
363
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 4
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Why does MST’s network of bus lines need a redesign?
Figure 1: Map of MST’s fixed-route network in Monterey and Seaside, with lines color-coded by frequency.

Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) is considering significant changes to its bus network in the course of this study, the Comprehensive
Operational Analysis (COA). These changes are
being proposed in response to:
• An initial assessment of the issues faced
by the existing network, detailed in the
Choices Report1.
• A consultation with stakeholders and
members of the public about their values
and priorities for transit; and conversations
with bus riders about their experiences with
the existing system.
• Direction from the MST Board of Directors’
Operations Performance Committee to
make changes that respond to the concerns
we heard.

The key reasons for change are summarized in
this section.

1. The last full system
review was over two
decades ago.

Many transit agencies review their entire
network every five to ten years, to make sure
service matches the community’s needs. The
last time MST undertook such a comprehensive study was in the late 1990s.

Many changes have taken place in and around
Monterey County since then. But without
consistent policy on where and how much
service to provide, MST has responded separately to many individual requests for service.

This approach has helped meet well-identified
needs, but has not always contributed to more
effective service for everyone.
1 The full Choices Report and other materials related to this study can be consulted on MST’s website at http://mst.org/coa

2. Most lines operate at
very low frequencies.

The result is a network of many overlapping
lines, each doing something that someone
requested, but mostly running too infrequently
to be worth the wait for anyone else travelling
in the same direction.

Only two MST lines consistently run every
30 minutes or better on weekdays: Line 41 in
Salinas, and Line 20 from Monterey to Salinas.

Almost everything else runs once an hour or
less2.

In fact, nearly half of MST lines operate once
an hour or less3, connecting small numbers of
people to specific buildings or facilities. These
specialized and very infrequent services tend
to overlap with other lines, resulting in a very
complex web of service. The same trip might
require using different routes at different times
of day, and take very different amounts of
time, regardless of traffic conditions.

This is especially pronounced in the Monterey
and Seaside area shown in Figure 1. Many of
the lines on this map operate less than once
an hour, and have very short unique segments.

Because each line has to operate on its own
schedule, overlapping lines don’t result in
high combined frequency.

For example, there may be four direct buses
per hour between Monterey Transit Plaza and
Del Monte Center on weekdays from 7 AM
to 6 PM. However, during that eleven hour
span, there are at least nine 30-minute gaps
between southbound buses.
2 There are two main exceptions: (a) the JAZZ A and B, which each run every 36 minutes on weekdays, and combine to every 18 minutes on Fremont Blvd., and (b) Line 24 from Monterey to Carmel Valley, which operated every 40 minutes on weekdays until September 2021..
3 As of early 2021, 14 of the 32 MST lines currently in operation run eight times per day or less.

A number of MST lines operate just a few
times per day, connecting small numbers of
people to specific buildings or facilities.
364
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 5
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

3. It can take a very long time to get from A to B, even when those places are nearby.

Transit is useful to people when it extends the range of places they can go. But low frequencies mean that few people can use transit to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. This is true even when travelling relatively short distances, as in the following examples.

Example: How do you get from Seaside to Pacific Grove?
Let’s imagine you are a retail worker living in the center of Seaside, and you need to reach your job at Country Club Gate Center in Pacific Grove (6 miles away) for the start of your shift at noon on weekdays. Here’s what you would need to do:

Notice that this trip includes a total of only 29 minutes actually riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at your destination than you would getting there.

The key problem in this example is the low frequency of Line 2. If Line 2 came every 30 minutes instead of once an hour, this could halve the length of the trip. In that case, you could catch a later Jazz B at 11:15, wait only 10 minutes in Monterey to connect to Line 2 at 11:48, and wait only 6 minutes at the end, for a total of 48 minutes.

Example: How do you get from North Salinas to South Salinas? Let’s imagine you are a hospital worker living near North Salinas High School. You need to reach your job at Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital (4.5 miles away) for the start of your shift at 9 AM on weekdays. Here’s what you would need to do:

Notice that this trip includes a total of only 21 minutes actually riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at Salinas Transit Center than on either bus. A fit adult could walk from Salinas Transit Center starting at 8:10 AM and arrive at the hospital at the same time as someone who had waited for Line 48. They might even be able to walk the whole way from home.

The key problem in this example is both low frequencies and the lack of a timed transfer at Salinas Transit Center. If Lines 48 and 49 were timed to arrive together at Salinas Transit Center at 8:25 AM and leave together at 8:30 AM, you could leave home 15 minutes later. If they both came every half hour and were timed to leave Salinas Transit Center at 8:15 AM and 8:45 AM, you could leave home 30 minutes later, for a 48 minute trip.

These are just two of many possible
examples. Many prominent destinations are
served once an hour or less, and people
traveling to them by transit would have
similar or even longer trips.
365
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 6
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

4. Where people live and
work has changed.

The last 25 years have seen important shifts
in where people live and work. Since the late
1990s:
• The population of the greater Monterey
area and rural areas of the North County
have stagnated.
• Marina experienced a significant decline
in the 2000s, but has had the strongest
growth of any community in Monterey
County in the 2010s and continues to have
the largest number of ongoing residential
development projects.
• Salinas has grown slightly but unevenly. The
population has grown significantly in North
Salinas, while it has tended to decline or
stagnated in East and South Salinas.
• Cities in the Highway 101 corridor south of
Salinas grew strongly in the 2000s, but that
growth slowed down significantly in the
2010s.
• The prominence of the military as a source
of economic development has decreased
following the closure of Fort Ord.
• The agriculture, retail, service, hospitality and higher education sectors have all become correspondingly more important.

Although some cities on the Monterey
Peninsula are now showing renewed interest
in growth and development, the structure
of existing water rights means that future
growth will likely be concentrated in the
Highway 101 corridor south of Salinas.

Figure 2: Regional map of change in population density. Growth has largely been concentrated in the outer neighborhoods of Salinas and in the cities of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City. 366
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 7
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Figure 4: Map of MST’s fixed-route network in Salinas, with lines color-coded by frequency. All but two lines (20 and 41) operate once an hour or less.

5. There is unmet demand
for service in Salinas.

Salinas is the largest population and job center
in Monterey County, accounting for 36% of the
population and 30% of jobs. There are good
reasons to think many of the trips that happen
in Salinas could be served by transit.

For one, Salinas is relatively compact and
dense. The entire city of 155,000 people fits
in a 5x5 mile area, and a large share of its
jobs are located either Downtown or on long,
straight main streets. As a result:
• Most bus stops in Salinas are located within
a 1/2-mile of several thousand residents.
• Many of the places people need to go can be
reached in a relatively short trip, that could
be effectively served by frequent transit.

Salinas also has a relatively high poverty rate,
implying that many people are in need of
public services, including transportation. Many
people in Salinas live in large households,
where there are often fewer cars than people
who need to go places.

Despite this, large parts of the city are served
by lines that operate once an hour or less.

With such infrequent service, an able bodied
adult can walk most of the way across Salinas
in the time it takes before the next bus comes.

But very few people have the time to do that.

Figure 3: Table comparing the population and ridership in the Monterey and Salinas areas to the amount of MST weekly scheduled in-service hours.

Population Jobs
% MST Service
(Fall 2020)
% MST Ridership
(Fall 2020)
Monterey Bay and Peninsula
(includes Carmel, Del Monte Forest, Pacific
Grove, Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, Seaside, Marina)
27%
(115,000)
28%
(48,000)
52%
(2,000 hours/week)
45%
(13,000/week)
Salinas
(includes Salinas, Boronda)
36%
(157,000)
30%
(51,000)
35%
(1,350 hours/week)
42%
(12,200/week)
367
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER
+ ASSOCIATES | 8
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Figure 5: How
MST ridership
changed from
Fall 2019 to Fall
2020, by area
of Monterey
County.

6. The pandemic has
brought more focus onto
equity issues.

Establishing the way out of pandemic-era plan-
ning is another key reason for this study. During the pandemic, both MST service levels and ridership declined considerably.

Comparing Fall 2019 to Fall 2020: • MST reduced service by over 30%. • Weekday ridership was almost 75% lower, from over 13,500 to less than 3,700 board-
ings per day on fixed routes.
• Weekend ridership was about 60% lower,
and at par with weekdays. On weekends,
boardings went from about 9,000 board-
ings per day to just under 3,500 per day.

The pandemic especially caused much lower
peak-hour demand. Prior to March 2020, MST
experienced significantly higher ridership on
weekdays between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM and
between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, and provided
a higher level of service in response.

As schools, offices, and many hospitality busi-
nesses either closed or significantly reduced
their operations, rush hour ridership came
down to midday levels. Figure 6 shows that
MST experienced about the same level of rid-
ership from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and no longer
provided additional service at peak hours.

In addition, ridership declines were con-
siderably less steep in areas with many
low-income people of color, suggesting that
a large share of pandemic-era transit riders
have been essential workers.

This is consistent with trends in transit ridership observed throughout California and nationwide.

As the pandemic evolves
and recedes, it will remain
important to understand
the needs of the people
whose travel purposes
are so essential that they
continued even in a public
health emergency.

Figure 6: How
MST boardings
(left) and total
bus departures
(right) per hour
on weekdays
changed from
Fall 2019 to Fall
2020.
368
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 9
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
The Challenge of Planning a Good Transit Network in Monterey County

1. Relatively few people
live in dense parts of cities.

Fixed-route transit relies on the ability and
willingness of strangers to share a vehicle. To
make this possible, several people along any
bus line need to be interested in going to
places the bus is going. To achieve high ridership, you must have many people near bus lines going to many destinations.

There are people and jobs throughout
Monterey County. But there are very few
places where many people live in close
proximity, or where many jobs are located
in a small area.

Almost all of those places appear shaded in
color on the map in Figure 7, and all of MST’s
most productive lines (in ridership terms) focus
on these areas:
• JAZZ A/B: Monterey-Seaside-Sand City.
• Line 18: Monterey-Seaside-Marina
• Line 20: Salinas-Marina-Sand
City-Seaside-Monterey
• Line 41: East Salinas-Downtown Salinas
• Line 49: North Salinas-Downtown Salinas
With few exceptions1, these are the areas
where a well-funded, well-designed and welloperated transit system might be expected to generate high ridership, in the absence
of a global pandemic. Taken together, they
account for only half the population and jobs
of Monterey County.
1 Most notably CSUMB, which does not appear in this map but is a large and growing center between Downtown Marina and Seaside.

Figure 7: Map of combined population and job density in the greater Monterey and Salinas areas. 369
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER
+ ASSOCIATES | 10
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

2. There is no one
“Downtown.”
Even in a spread-out community, it may
be possible to generate significant transit
ridership if there are places where almost
everybody needs to go on a regular basis.

We can identify these places on a map, by
counting how many jobs are within walking
distance of any point. Offices, retail, hotels,
restaurants, social services, colleges, hospitals
and many other destinations are all places
where there are jobs and where people need
to go. Places where many such destinations
are within walking distance of each other are
natural hubs for transit service.

The map in Figure 8 shows us that the largest
such centers are in Downtown Monterey and
Downtown Salinas. This is why MST builds
most of its service around the Monterey Transit
Plaza and the Salinas Transit Center.

But the map also shows a major challenge
in generating high ridership even with this
design: neither of the county’s two largest
centers account for a large share of countywide jobs1.

This reflects what anyone who lives in
Monterey County already knows: there’s no
one “Downtown” where someone could go for
nearly everything they might need.

That means that any successful transit
system in Monterey County needs to
connect the centers of Monterey and
Salinas with a wide variety of smaller desti-
nations that also generate many trips, like
colleges, hospitals, smaller town centers
and suburban shopping centers. 1 There were over 170,000 civilian jobs in Monterey County in 2017.

The most central point in Downtown Monterey was within 1.5 miles of 9,900 jobs (6% of county-wide jobs). The most central point in Downtown Salinas was within 1.5 miles of 14,900 jobs (9% of countywide jobs).

Figure 8: Regional map showing the number of jobs within walking distance, defined as 1.5 miles, or a 30 minute walk by an able-bodied adult.
370
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 11
1 Introduction
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

3. A growing number of
people live very far from
the places they need to go.

The places that are growing the fastest are the
places that are the farthest from significant
concentrations of jobs: Marina, and the cities
of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King
City.

Even in a future with fast bus service and more
rail, when so many people live so far away
from the places they need to go, someone
has to pay the price of distance. Distance
must be crossed, which takes time and money
that can’t be spent towards other things
people value. This means:
• More people bear the cost of owning and
maintaining more cars, to access opportunities that might be accessible by transit if they lived closer in.
• Those who can’t drive or get a ride from a
friend spend hours on transit, and hours
waiting, to cover that distance.
• To serve these often disadvantaged communities more equitably, MST needs to spend more of its budget on distance,
which means less can be spent on high
frequencies or long hours of service, undermining ridership potential. • A long cascade of social, health, economic
and environmental problems follow.

This network redesign examines ways that
transit access can be increased despite
the high cost of distance. But unless future
housing development can be redirected closer
to where most people work, shop, and access
services, the problems caused by distance will
grow worse, and transit alone will not be the
savior.

Figure 9: Regional map showing the number of people living in locations that are near many jobs (in blue) vs. in locations that are near very few jobs (in red).

The fastest growing
places are far from
jobs and services.

Unless future housing
can be directed
closer to where
people need to go,
the problems caused
by distance will
grow worse. More
MST service to farflung places can only
mitigate this issue,
not solve it.
371
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
| 12 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Key Choices in Redesigning the
2 Network
372
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 13
2 K
ey Choices in R
e
designing the Network
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Ridership vs. Coverage
Figure 10: Comparing an imaginary town where transit is run with the goal of maximizing frequency and ridership (left) vs. the same town where transit is run with the goal of providing a little service near everyone (right). The maximum ridership (left) network has very frequent service, but only on the roads where the most people live and work. The maximum coverage network has service on every road, but it doesn’t come very often.

The MST COA is a unique opportunity to rethink the purpose of Monterey County’s transit system. The most basic choice is the degree to which the transit system should be pursuing ridership or coverage.

What is planning for High Ridership?
Designing a network for high ridership serves several popular goals, including:
• Enabling people to use transit to easily get to many jobs and services. • Minimizing pollution and climate impact by replacing car trips with transit trips. • Limiting the growth of congestion.
• Supporting dense and walkable development.

Prioritizing ridership means buses come more often and are convenient for more trips (higher frequency, longer hours) but are available only in places where many people, jobs and destinations are located.

What is planning for High Coverage?
Designing a transit system for high coverage serves different popular goals:
• Ensuring that as many people as possible have insurance against isolation through access to some transit service, no matter where they live. • Ensuring that every community in the county has some service, even if relatively few people live and work there.

Prioritizing coverage means buses serve as many places as possible, but because they are spread out they don’t come often (once an hour or less) and aren’t convenient for many trips.

Why can’t MST do both?
MST can pursue high ridership and extensive coverage at the same time, but the more it pursues one, the less it can provide of the other. Every dollar that is spent providing high frequency along a dense corridor is a dollar that cannot be spent bringing transit closer to each person’s home.

At the moment, about 40% of MST fixed-route service is targeted to maximizing ridership, while the remaining 60% is oriented toward coverage.

Should MST focus more on the services likely to generate the highest ridership, or continue to focus on covering as many places as possible?
373
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 14
2 K
ey Choices in R
e
designing the Network
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Local vs. Regional Service
Because MST is the transit agency for all
of Monterey County, there will always be a
tension in deciding how much transit service
should be provided for:
• Local trips, mostly in the greater Monterey
and Salinas areas.
• Regional trips connecting all parts of the
county to Salinas, Monterey, Watsonville
and points beyond.

This tension is inevitably bound up in the ridership vs. coverage trade-off, because:
• Longer lines cost more to operate at the
same frequency than shorter lines.
• Longer lines cross large areas where no one
gets on the bus, so they serve fewer riders
for every hour the bus runs.

This means that regional bus service tends to
be more expensive to operate than local lines,
while serving fewer passengers.

This is especially true for MST’s longest lines,
like Line 23 (Salinas to King City); Line 84 (King
City to Paso Robles); or the pre-pandemic lines
to San Jose and Santa Cruz.

The more MST spends on regional service,
the fewer resources are available to
provide lower-cost, higher-ridership lines in
urbanized areas. But if MST did not provide
regional lines to the small towns in southern and northern Monterey County, it is unlikely anyone else would step in.

Figure 11: Regional map of combined population and job density.

How much of MST’s service should be oriented toward
the greater Salinas urban area vs. the greater SeasideMonterey urban area vs. regional service? 374
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 15
2 K
ey Choices in R
e
designing the Network
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Equality vs. Equity
Should MST focus mostly on the travel needs of
disadvantaged communities, or consider all travel
demand equally regardless of people’s circumstances?
Figure 12: Regional map of the density of people living in households below 150% of the federal poverty line.

Almost everybody needs to go places on a
regular basis. But some people have fewer
choices than others about how to get around.
• People who don’t own cars can’t drive
their car to get around. But this does
not always mean they need transit. Many
people without cars choose to live in a
location where they can walk or bike to
the places they need to go. They may use
transit only occasionally, and even then
they may have other options like a taxi or
ridehailing service like Uber and Lyft.
• Some seniors and people with disabilities
can’t drive, and so they are more likely to
need public transit to get around. Many of
the people who fit this description will also
have difficulty using transit and may require
ADA complementary paratransit (MST
RIDES).
• People with low incomes generally have
fewer choices about where to live, and
whether or not that place is near the places
they need to go. They are less likely to
own a reliable car, and more likely to live in
a household with fewer cars than drivers.

These factors make it more likely that a lowincome person might need to use transit.

But if transit isn’t available or convenient
enough, they are more likely to rely on
friends and family to give them rides, or to
walk or bike very long distances.

In 2014, Monterey County voters decided to
support the transit needs of seniors, veterans
and people with disabilities by paying for extra
transit service. Measure Q collects an 1/8-cent
sales tax that goes to funding six fixed bus
lines and all of the county’s paratransit trips.

But there has been no explicit funding commitment (by voters or otherwise) to prioritize needs of people with low incomes, who tend
to have the fewest choices about where they
need to go and how to get there.

MST does not currently have the funding
tools to make a commitment comparable to
Measure Q. But MST could decide to prioritize
low-income communities in planning its general-public services, particularly for the portion of services dedicated to coverage.

Would that be the right decision? It depends
on your values.

If you are most interested in universal coverage
with basic transit service, you might not want
to see service to some communities prioritized
over others.

If you are most interested in a system that
maximizes ridership, you might not want to
prioritize service to far-flung and isolated lowincome areas.

Public outreach suggests that such “purist”
views about the ridership vs. coverage tradeoff are rare. Local opinion somewhat favors a stronger focus on ridership, but overwhelmingly favors prioritizing the needs of disadvantaged people and communities in
designing transit service.
375
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
| 16 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
3 How Public Input Shaped This Plan
376
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 17
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Phase 1: Understanding the Community’s Values and Priorities Initial Outreach Process
In the first half of 2021, MST and the consultant
team conducted outreach to hear the community’s opinion on the key choices for the transit network. A more complete description of this
process is available in the Choices Report and
its appendices. Broadly speaking, we heard
from:
• Stakeholder groups. Small group interviews were conducted with over 80 community groups to secure their input
regarding transit needs and priorities.
• Regular MST riders. Nine focus groups
were conducted with English and Spanishspeaking MST riders to explore their experiences with and priorities for the transit
network.
• Members of the general public. A statistically representative survey of 500 households throughout Monterey County
was conducted via telephone, to assess
how the general population believes MST
should allocate services and resources.

The community values
transit for ethical and
practical purposes.

When members of the public were asked
to rate how important it would be for MST
to focus on any of twelve aspects of service
design, a majority considered all of them to be
either “extremely” or “very” important. Very
few consider any of them unimportant.

Simply put, people value public transit, and differences of opinion are matters of degree. Also, they are decisive: almost everyone expressed
an opinion. Very few answered “Not sure.”
The service design aspects that the greatest percentages of respondents rated as “extremely important” are of two types:
• Empathetic. Ethically, people feel it
is important to serve those in need
because of age, disability, or lack of a
personal vehicle. These factors were rated
as “extremely important” by the largest
numbers of respondents.

Figure 13: How
Monterey
County
residents rated
the importance
of different
possible
priorities for
MST transit
service in a
phone survey.
12%
14%
14%
15%
18%
23%
25%
25%
26%
26%
34%
41%
45%
40%
46%
49%
48%
49%
58%
53%
57%
50%
56%
52%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Special tourist services to reduce traffic congestion
Service to all places, even where few people ride
Support denser, walkable development
Increase overall amount of service
Help reduce the growth of traffic congestion
Transportation to high schools
Transportation to colleges & universities
Routes for people to get to stores and appts
Routes that get workers to places where the most jobs are Help limit air pollution and greenhouse gases
Affordable transportation where many people lack vehicles Routes tailored to needs of elderly and disabled
How important is it for MST to provide....

Extremely important Very important Somewhat important
Not very important Not important at all Not sure
• Instrumental. As a practical matter, service
is important to the extent it is useful.

Specifically, this includes getting people
to jobs, school, and shopping, as well as
reducing pollution/greenhouse gases.

Factors least highly valued are special services for tourists and service to all corners of Monterey County, including places where few
people would use it.
377
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 18
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Frequency is more valued
than coverage. Serving
those who need it matters
most.

Broadly speaking, people in Monterey
County appear willing to invest more in
high-frequency services, but only if the
remaining coverage resources are invested
on meeting the needs of high-need groups.

Stakeholder Interviews
Most interviewed stakeholders expressed a
desire for more frequent transit, for reasons
such as:
• “Service workers often have multiple jobs
and need more frequency to make transit a
viable option.”
• “Lack of frequency is a barrier to use.

People would rather get a ride because
transit takes too long.”
• “Frequent transit would open up opportunities for affordable housing grants.” However, other stakeholders noted that
enhanced convenience for some should not
outweigh access for those who lack transportation options.

Rider Focus Groups
Among riders, there was broad belief that
if lines ran more often, more people would
ride and that current riders would ride more
often: “People want to ride the bus, if it’s good
enough.”
When asked if they would trade reduced
coverage for increased frequency, many riders
had difficulty choosing frequency unconditionally and offered “hybrid” solutions to avoid the choice.
• “Frequency on a few well-planned routes
would be better, but please focus on
people who really need the service.”
• “Increase frequency but offer special
services for seniors and persons with
disabilities.”
• “Frequency, but not if it is inequitable.”
Survey Respondents
These views are mirrored in what we
heard from the general public. When asked
directly about the key trade-offs, phone survey
respondents:
• Favored frequent, high-ridership service
(64%) over extensive coverage (35%).
• Favored focusing first on disadvantaged
communities (69%) over treating all communities equally (30%).

The strength of feeling in favor of service for
those who need it most was even more evident
in questions about which types of service MST
should prioritize: over 90% of respondents
thought that “routes tailored to the need
of the elderly and disabled” and “affordable transportation where many people lack vehicles” were either “extremely” or
“very” important. Figure 14: How Monterey County residents responded to key trade-offs in a phone survey.

Telephone Survey Tradeoffs: Should MST…
Focus on providing service to as many places as
possible, even if that means the bus only comes
every hour or two and most trips take a very long
time?
OR
Focus on providing fast and frequent service, that
comes every 15 minutes and takes the most direct
routes, even if that means transit is only available in the areas where the most people live and work?
Focus on service every 15 minutes in areas with lots
of jobs and schools, so that many people can rely on
buses to get to work or school on time, but that
means some people don't have any service?
OR
Provide service every hour or two throughout the
county, so everyone has a little bus service but very
few people can rely on it to get to work or school on
time?
Focus more on the benefits of fairness to all by
providing at least a little service to everyone in all
communities large and small, even if it is slow and
the bus doesn’t come very often?
OR
Focus more on supporting the local economy by
providing fast and frequent service in the areas
where many people could use it to get to work,
school, shopping and other everyday needs?
Focus first on needs of communities where many
people have low incomes, or don’t have reliable
access to a personal vehicle?
OR
Provide service equally to all communities,
regardless of need, income or access to a personal
vehicle?
69%
30%
35%
64%
65%
27%
72%
33%
378
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 19
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Phase 2: Input Received on the Draft Plan
Draft Plan Development
The values and priorities expressed by the
public in Phase 1, along with a technical
assessment of the state of MST’s network and
services, were summarized in the Choices
Report, released in May 2021.

Based on the assessment presented in that
report, the MST Board of Directors Operations
Performance Committee directed the project
team in June to develop a network plan that
would:
• Focus a little more on ridership and frequency, and a little less on coverage to as many places as possible.
• Prioritize the travel needs of people in lowincome communities. • Shift more service to Salinas and regional
needs.

The project team, in collaboration with representatives from local governments, developed a Draft Plan that was released for public
comment in early September.

Outreach Process
Over the course of September and October,
the team gathered feedback on the Draft Plan
by reaching back out to stakeholders, regular
riders and members of the public through:
• Virtual public meetings held in English and
Spanish, and available on YouTube.
• Three focus group meetings with MST
riders contacted in Phase 1, including two
in English (Peninsula, Salinas and South
County) and one in Spanish (countywide).
• Four stakeholder group meetings, where we
heard from representatives of 30 business,
non-profit and government organizations
located throughout Monterey County.
• An online community survey on the
Draft Plan that received 190 responses.

The survey was provided in English and
Spanish, and was promoted on MST’s
website and social media, through e-mails
to stakeholder groups, and with advertisements at transit centers and on the bus.

Key Comments and
Concerns
The following are recurring comments received
from multiple sources over the course of Phase
2 outreach. A report on all comments received
in meetings is in Appendix A to this report.

Positive comments about increased
frequency, timed transfers, and
shorter travel times.

These elements of the Draft Plan were highly
regarded by stakeholders and riders, if accompanied by reduction or elimination of transfer fares. We heard comments such as “Timed
transfers are an excellent idea,” “The reductions
in travel time will be a huge help for Hartnell
students, particularly [...] from South County”,
and “Increased frequencies will help workers.”
Positive comments about new routes
in Salinas.

The proposed routes to Salinas Adult School,
Natividad Hospital and South Salinas were very
popular in meetings and the survey.

Requests to continue serving Social
Service Agencies near Salinas Airport.

This was the strongest concern about the Draft
Plan in meetings, and the second most frequent concern in the online survey. Route 48 previously served several County social service
departments, including the MCDSS One Stop
Center near Salinas Airport. The Draft Plan
route would require riders to walk ½ mile or
more to reach these facilities.

Desire for restoration of long-distance
services, especially to San Jose.

Restoring service to San Jose was raised in
several meetings, and was the most common
request in the online survey. While advocates
acknowledged that most ridership is very
occasional, they saw it as important to provide
CSUMB students with a link to the Bay Area,
provide access to San Jose airport, connect
to VTA and Caltrain, provide access to higher
paying jobs, and serve regional medical trips.

Other requests for long-distance service
included continuing existing service to Big Sur,
and restoring pre-COVID service to Santa Cruz.

Desire for later service in the evening.

Survey respondents in several areas requested
later service, including in Salinas, Carmel,
Pacific Grove and North County.

Some concern about lack of direct
route from CSUMB to Monterey.

Staff and students at CSUMB expressed some
concern about the lack of a direct route from
CSUMB to downtown Monterey. While they
understood the timed transfer being proposed, they wondered if it would be reliable.

Concerns about safety and sanitation
at transit centers.

The expectation of more transfers heightens
the importance of security and sanitation at
the transfer centers. Concerns about this were
raised in both phases of outreach.

Many questions about how changes
will be communicated.

Stakeholders and riders asked how the Final
Plan would be communicated by MST. Many
stakeholders were eager to help educate their
constituents about revised services, but wondered what tools they would have to work with.

CSUMB students and staff were concerned
about how to make the system “less confusing” for students and how to educate them about MST earlier in their time at CSUMB.
379
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 20
3 How Public Inp
u
t Shaped This Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit

2. Restore the route to
Social Services in Salinas
In response to strong feedback from the public
and County Social Services employees, the
project team proposes restoring the former
Line 48 as new Line 96, to allow for continued
service to County services at Schilling Place
and La Guardia Drive. This is made possible
with two changes, compared to the Draft Plan.

Fund new Line 96 with Measure Q
resources, replacing old Line 48.

Many of the users with the highest need for
the services on this route are seniors, people
with disabilities and veterans, so it is appropriate to fund this service with Measure Q funds.

However, in an effort to make judicious use of
Measure Q, the new Line 96 would operate
on weekdays only, at the hours when County
social services and most medical services on
Abbott Street are open.

For now, maintain existing Line 47 as
the shuttle between the Hartnell main
campus and Hartnell-Alisal.

In the Draft Plan, Hartnell-Alisal would have
been connected to transit with a redesigned
Line 48. In the absence of this change, the
most practical way to continue service to this
location is to maintain the existing Line 47
service between the two Hartnell campuses.

However, Line 47 is included in the Medium
Scenario and not the Low Scenario of the
Final Plan. This is to indicate that depending
on future resource constraints, MST may
not be able to justify continued operation
of this route using general funds. Line 47
serves a very specific campus-to-campus need
and is duplicative over much of its path with
the more frequent Line 41.

The project team presented the Draft Plan
and public comments to the Operations
Performance Committee. Based on discussion
with the committee, the following actions were
taken.

1. Maintain the Draft Plan’s
improvements to service
The generally positive reception for the plan
motivated the project team to maintain its key
and most popular elements.

Keep the increased frequencies in
general, timed transfers and added
service in Salinas.

These elements are key to all of the positive
outcomes generated by the plan, and will
make MST service useful to more people on a
day-to-day basis. However, the ability to maintain these elements while remaining within MST’s expected financial resources, means that
MST would not be able to respond to some
requests.

No restored long-distance services
(e.g. San Jose).

Within the resources available in the Medium
Scenario, restoring long-distance routes would
require reducing proposed service somewhere
else, most likely in Salinas or South County.

Based on the popularity of new routes and
higher frequency in Salinas and South County,
the project team judged that it would be preferable to maintain these improvements rather than to restore former long-distance routes.

However, as in the Draft Plan, the High
Scenario includes a proposed route to Gilroy,
connecting to VTA and Caltrain services to the
Bay Area.

No change in service hours.

The Final Plan would generally maintain the
hours proposed for service in the Draft Plan.

Although MST understands the need for more
late evening service, current resource constraints mean that improving evening service would have to come at the cost of reducing
service levels in the daytime.

Public input received during Phase 1 suggested that this would not be acceptable to most community members. Planning the High
Scenario also showed that even with increased
funds, it is difficult to justify increases in
evening service while providing adequate
frequencies for daytime needs.

Keep service from CSUMB to
Downtown Monterey more frequent,
even if it requires a transfer.

Within the resources available in the Medium
Scenario, direct service from CSUMB to
Downtown Monterey would only operate every
60 minutes, instead of every 30. Given the
popularity of increased frequencies, the team
preferred to maintain higher frequency, and to
minimize wait time at the first and last bus stop.

However, the issue of transfer reliability shows
the importance of correctly scheduling Routes
17, 18 and 20. The project team re-checked
that anticipated runtimes would make the
timed transfer at Sand City possible. This
will required continued attention throughout
the implementation phase and once the new
network is up and running.

In the High Scenario, Route 20 would operate
every 15 minutes, and would connect with a
shuttle service every 15 minutes to CSUMB
from a stop in Marina. These higher frequencies (which rely on additional resources not currently available) would make transfers convenient even if they are not perfectly timed.

How Comments on the Draft Plan Were Incorporated in the Final Plan 380
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
| 21 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
4 Key Elements of the Plan
381
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 22
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Policy Direction
Equality vs. Equity
Direction: Prioritize the travel needs
of people in low-income communities.

MST’s existing coverage-oriented service
consists of routes operating once an hour or
less in a mix of suburban, small town and rural
areas at all income levels.

The policy direction is to more specifically
orient coverage service to meet the needs of
low-income communities.

In practice, this means:
• Ensuring coverage is maintained in lowincome areas, even though the overall share of coverage-related service will
decline. The corollary to this is reducing or
eliminating coverage in some affluent but
very isolated or low-density areas.
• Maintaining coverage to key public and
community services used by low-income
people, even if those are located in areas
that are otherwise affluent.
• Eliminating symbolic coverage to far-flung
areas where the bus can only ever serve
extremely small numbers of people.

Local vs. Regional
Direction: Shift more service to
Salinas and to regional needs.

MST’s existing balance of service provides
about:
• 50% of service in the greater SeasideMonterey urban area. • 35% in the greater Salinas area.
• 15% in the rest of the county.

The policy direction is to rebalance service
to provide about:
• 40% of service in the greater SeasideMonterey urban area • 40% in the greater Salinas area
• 20% in the rest of the county
This balance is closer to the share of regional
population and jobs, while acknowledging that
an MST bus line is not the best tool to serve
most isolated rural areas, or most agricultural
jobs.

Increased service in Salinas would largely
be reflected in higher frequencies, while the
increase in regional service would enable
service increases in the Highway 101 corridor
between Salinas and King City.

Ridership vs. Coverage
Direction: Focus a little more on
Ridership, and a little less on Coverage.

MST’s current balance of service tilts slightly
toward coverage. We estimate that about 40%
of existing service is ridership-oriented, while
60% is coverage-oriented.

The policy direction is to move MST’s future
service more toward ridership, and less toward
coverage. Accordingly, this plan would orient
about 60% of service toward ridership, and
40% toward coverage.

In practice, this means:
• Increasing the number of lines that
provide service every 30 minutes or
better, including in some locations every
15 minutes or better.
• Reducing the number of deviations that
MST’s bus lines make along the way. This
allows service to be as direct as possible to
every destination along the route, but will
require some passengers to walk a little bit
further to and from their bus stops.
• Eliminating some of MST’s very infrequent lines, especially if they operate in areas with very low population and jobs
nearby.

Despite the reduced share of coverageoriented service, this plan would provide MST bus service within a half-mile of more people
than the existing network. That is largely a
result of the ways in which coverage service
would be redistributed.

After reviewing the tradeoffs involved and the
input received from the
public, the MST Board
of Directors’ Operations
Performance Committee
has provided the following
direction.

These principles were
the basis for proposed
changes to the MST bus
network in the Draft
Network Plan, and have
been maintained in the
Final Plan.
382
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 23
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Resource Level Annual MST
Service Hours**
Change from
existing
(FY21)
Change from
pre-pandemic
(FY19)***
Low Scenario
Assumes either general fund sources recover very slowly from the pandemic, or insufficient workforce available to operate at full capacity, or both. 163,000 - 3.7% -10.4%
Medium Scenario - Most Likely
Matches MST's budget and workforce targets for FY 2022-2023. 176,000 + 4.0% -3.3% High Scenario
Assumes voters pass a new sales tax including 1/8-cent for service increases, or another similarly-sized new source of funding appears.
228,000 + 34.7% +25.3%
MST COA - Three Funding Scenarios
General Fund Service Only*
* Includes service funded by local taxpayers through the California Local Transportation Fund (LTF), and other state and federal funding sources. Measure Q services are additional and would continue at similar levels.

Services paid for by institutions (e.g. Monterey Trolley, on-campus routes at CSUMB, routes to military bases) are additional and not included in this network study. ** Service hours MST's budget could support if MST directly operated all of its bus lines. MST tends to directly operate routes that require full-sized buses. Routes with smaller buses are often operated by a private contractor at a lower cost. Actual designed levels of service in each scenario are about 10% higher as a result, matching MST's current practice of assigning ~25% of service to the contractor. *** In addition to the losses in general fund service, about 25% of MST's service prior to 2020 was paid for by the military. Military funding for service is not currently expected to return.

Timeline and Funding Scenarios
Timeline: Fall 2022
Following on the release of the Draft Plan,
Phase 2 of public input, and the incorporation
of feedback into the plan, this project team is
proposing this Final Plan for adoption by MST’s
Board of Directors in February 2022.

Because this plan would propose substantial
changes in service, MST expects it will take
several months before it is fully implemented.

The current operator shortage in particular
poses a barrier to swift implementation of the
Medium Scenario. At this time, the expectation is that the redesigned network will be fully operational by late 2022.

Funding Scenarios
As a result, this plan assumes that the redesigned network is most likely to operate with MST’s resources for Fiscal Year 20231,
also called the Medium Scenario. Because
future circumstances remain uncertain, this
plan also includes contingencies for what to do
with different resource levels:
• The Low Scenario is a contingency to
define what might need to be cut if either
(a) MST’s funding sources recover more
slowly than expected from the pandemic,
or (b) MST is not able to hire and retain
enough drivers to operate at full capacity2.
• The High Scenario is for future growth.

Funding for this growth could come from
a new sales tax similar to Measure Q, or
another funding source coming out of new
state or federal programs.
1 MST plans its budget according to fiscal years that start on July 1.

FY 2023 starts on July 1, 2022 and ends on June 30, 2023. 2 Transit agencies nationwide, including MST, have suffered from driver hiring and retention issues since pre-pandemic times.

Figure 15: Table detailing expected resources available for bus lines operated with MST general funds in the Low, Medium and High funding scenarios. 383
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 24
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Existing
Figure 16: The existing regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page represent MST’s existing bus lines. On these maps, each line’s color represents how often the bus operates on
weekdays.

The vast majority (~85%) of MST’s fixed-route
service is operated in the greater SeasideMonterey and Salinas area (Figure 17). The remaining ~15% includes MST’s regional lines
(Figure 16).

Three lines stand out for their frequency. These
are the only services that usually run every 35
minutes or better.
o Line 41, connecting East Salinas to
Downtown Salinas and Northridge.
o The JAZZ A and JAZZ B, between
Monterey and Seaside.
o Line 20 from Salinas to Monterey.

All of MST’s other lines operate once an hour
or less. These tend to have long and circuitous
routings, with many deviations, intended to
maximize the area covered by bus service.

On some lines, the bus follows a different
route at different times of day. Not shown on
these maps is the tendency for each line to
have a specific timetable, with different starting and ending hours.

Figure 17: The existing transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

Reading the Maps
Throughout this report, maps show bus
lines color-coded by midday frequency
on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.
384
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 25
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Medium Scenario
Figure 18: The Medium Scenario regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page reflect the level of
service MST expects to operate in 2022 and
2023. In this scenario:
• Half of MST’s bus lines would run every
15 to 30 minutes. In addition to Lines 20,
41 and the JAZZ, this would include most
of the lines operating in Salinas, and service
every 30 minutes to Carmel-by-the-Sea,
Downtown Pacific Grove, and CSUMB.
• This is in part because most of the infrequent bus lines in the Peninsula would be grouped into fewer straighter lines.
• Increased regional service would mostly be
allocated to service every hour on Line 23
from Salinas to King City. MST would also
replace general public on-call service with
local circulators running every 30 minutes in
Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City.
• Hours of service would be consistent
across the system. Main routes would
operate from 6 AM to 10 PM (9 PM on
weekends), and most smaller routes from 7
AM to 7 PM, as shown on page 28.
• Timed transfers would facilitate easy,
consistent connections between routes
that run every 30 to 60 minutes at key locations, as shown on page 29.

Figure 19: The Medium Scenario transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The Medium Scenario is
the most likely scenario.

It is in effect “the plan,”
barring unforeseen
circumstances.
385
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 26
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – Low Scenario
Figure 20: The Low Scenario regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The Low Scenario is a
contingency plan in case
MST revenues or bus driver
availability were lower than
expected.

Figure 21: The Low Scenario transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page reflect the level of
service MST would operate if the agency
needed to implement the Final Plan with an
8% reduction in service compared to current
expectations. In this scenario:
• In the greater Seaside-Monterey area,
service would be similar to the Medium
Scenario, but more frequent lines would
end service an hour earlier in the evening.
• Service in Salinas would be a mix of routes
operating every 15, 30, and 60 minutes.

This would only be marginally more frequent than it is today. • There would be fewer gains and some
losses to regional service. There would be
no service to the Carmel Valley, and Line
23 would operate every 90 minutes on
average during weekdays.
• Timed transfers would facilitate connections
between routes that operate every 30 to
60 minutes at Monterey Transit Plaza, Sand
City Station and Salinas Transit Center.

The decision to implement the Low Scenario
rather than the Medium Scenario may depend
largely on the timing of new operator hiring.

MST may need to make a
386
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 27
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Existing vs. Future Network Maps – High Scenario
Figure 22: The High Scenario regional transit network with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The High Scenario
represents what MST
could do if voters passed
an 1/8-cent sales tax for
increased general service.

Figure 23: The High Scenario transit network in the Monterey-Salinas area, with routes color-coded by midday frequency.

The maps on this page reflect what MST could
provide if it received substantial new funding,
equivalent in scale to another 1/8-cent sales tax
for increased service. In this scenario:
• Most of Salinas and much of the greater
Seaside-Monterey area would have bus
lines operating every 15 minutes or
better. This would include Line 41 (AlisalNorthridge), Line 49 (North Main), and Line 47 (South Main/Romie Ln.) in Salinas; Line 20
connecting Monterey, Seaside, Marina, and
Salinas; the shared segments of the JAZZ A
and B lines between Monterey and Seaside;
and Line 15, a new shuttle between CSUMB
and Line 20.
• Regional service would remain as in the
Medium Scenario, but with the addition of
a new route to Gilroy, connecting to the
Bay area via Caltrain and Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
bus lines.
• Timed transfers would remain as in the
Medium Scenario for routes operating every
30 to 60 minutes. But the importance of timed
transfers would decline, since more trips could
rely on frequent connections between routes
operating every 15 minutes or better.
387
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 28
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 24 Carmel Valley 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 25X Salinas-CSUMB (in-session only) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Alisal 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 47 Salinas TC - Hartnell East Alisal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - Medium Scenario
The bus comes about every:

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
30 minutes 60 minutes
Higher frequencies and more consistent hours.

To make service more convenient and legible, this
plan would organize almost all MST bus lines into
three categories based on their weekday midday
frequency:
• Lines that run every 15 minutes.
• Lines that run every 30 minutes.
• Lines that run every 60 minutes.

The most frequent lines would operate every 15
minutes from 7 AM to 6 PM on weekdays. Service
on these frequent lines would continue every 30
minutes or better after 6 PM and on weekends.

In the Low and Medium Scenarios, these would include:
• Line 41 (Salinas-Alisal)
• Line 49 (Salinas-North Main)
• Shared segments of the Jazz A and B (Aquarium
- Seaside)
In the High Scenario, this would also include Line 15
(SURF-CSUMB Shuttle), Line 20 (Monterey-Salinas),
and Line 47 (Salinas-Romie Lane).

Most urban lines would operate every 30 minutes
or better from 7 AM to 6 PM on weekdays. Service
on these lines would continue every 60 minutes or
better after 6 PM and on weekends.

This includes routes connecting to major destinations
including Natividad Hospital, CSUMB, downtown
Pacific Grove, and downtown Carmel-by-the-Sea.

In the Low Scenario, frequent and main lines would
end service an hour earlier, at 9 PM on weekdays and
8 PM on weekends.

Most other lines (including most regional lines)
would operate every 60 minutes or better, from 7
AM to 7 PM, seven days a week. Note that Line 23
(Salinas-King City) would have slightly longer hours,
and that Lines 28 and 29 would each run every 120
minutes, but combine to service every 60 minutes
between Salinas and Watsonville.
388
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 29
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Timed transfers for faster local and regional travel.

Existing Service
The existing MST network features several
transfer points, where passengers can connect
between several incoming bus lines. But
because most lines operate on unique frequencies, have different lengths, and operate from different start and end points, there are
very few timed transfers. This means customers end up waiting a long time.

Furthermore, MST customers are discouraged
from transferring by the requirement to pay a
new full fare every time they change buses.

Proposed Final Network
Figure 24 shows how this would change under
the Medium Scenario of this plan.

Nearly every MST bus line in the proposed
network would either:
• Run every 15 minutes or better, meaning it
is always relatively easy to connect to this
line, since the next bus is always coming
soon (on average, in 7.5 minutes).
• Arrive at Monterey Transit Plaza or Salinas
Transit Center at :10 and :40 after the hour,
if it runs every 30 minutes.
• Arrive at Monterey Transit Plaza or Salinas
Transit Center at :10 after the hour, if it runs
every 60 minutes.

Buses would then leave Monterey Transit Plaza
and Salinas Transit Center at :15 and :45 after
the hour, ensuring a maximum 5 minute wait
to connect between most routes. Additional
timed transfers would also be available at Sand
City Station (to CSUMB) and Carmel Rancho
(to Carmel Valley).

Figure 24: Diagram of the timed transfer system in the Medium Scenario.

Important note: under MST’s current fare structure, each transfer requires passengers to pay a second fare. This plan assumes MST will change fares so transfers are either free or significantly discounted. 389
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 30
4 K
ey Elements of the Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service that is more direct, and less specialized.

Existing Service
Figure 25 (below left) shows MST’s existing service in the core of the Seaside-Monterey urban area.

Many of the bus lines shown on this map overlap for long segments, deviating here and there to get service closer to a particular street or building. The light green and gold colors of these lines indicate almost all the routes shown here operate once an hour or less. As a result, many locations are accessible by more than one line, but at totally random frequencies that vary widely throughout the day.

For example, Del Monte Center is served by nine bus lines, each one of which has a slightly different path than the others to Monterey Transit Plaza and Carmel-by-the-Sea. But despite these many routes, a passenger can only rely on a trip to central Monterey or Carmel about every 30 minutes, and that trip could take one of several different routes along the way.

Figure 25: Existing MST bus lines in the core of the Seaside-Monterey area. Figure 26: Proposed MST bus lines in the core of the Seaside-Monterey area in the Medium Scenario.

Proposed Final Plan
Figure 26 (below right) shows how service would change under the Medium Scenario. Even though the plan would include fewer routes and slightly less service overall in the Seaside-Monterey area, many places would have more frequent service.

This is because consolidating service into fewer lines makes it possible to run a regular schedule between major destinations, so a passenger can know that the next bus is always scheduled in the same amount of time, and will take the route they used last time.

In this example, Del Monte Center would only be near three bus lines, but a passenger could still count on service to central Monterey or Carmel-by-the-Sea every 30 minutes. Furthermore, that passenger would always use the same bus line, along the most direct path from Carmel to Monterey. 390
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
| 31 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
391
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 32
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – Existing Service
Line 41 is the only
local route with service
running consistently every
15 to 30 minutes. It operates between Downtown,
Alisal and Northridge, connecting Salinas’ densest
neighborhoods to its largest
destinations.

As a result, Line 41 is useful
for many trips and generates
relatively high ridership.

There are three bus lines on North Main Street,
but the bus usually comes only once an hour (on
Line 49). When Line 29 is in operation, there is a
second bus every other hour. Line 95 only runs four
times a day, and only in the southbound direction.

Most bus lines operate
once an hour or less.

Services like Line 44 and
Line 45 cover many outlying neighborhoods, but
the bus only comes every
75 minutes, which makes
them very difficult to use.

For an able-bodied person,
it’s often faster to walk than
wait for the next bus.

South Main Street and Romie Lane are served
just a few times a day by Measure Q routes primarily targeted for the needs of seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities (Lines 61 and 95).

That leaves many jobs, residents and important destinations a long walk from consistently usable service.

Line 48 is the only all-day local
service in South Salinas. Its routing
is designed to provide access to
social service agencies that have
been placed in isolated locations at
the edge of industrial areas, the 101
freeway, and Salinas Airport.

Salinas is connected to the
rest of the region by Lines 20
(Monterey), 23 (King City), 28
and 29 (Watsonville), and 61
(Marina-VA Clinic)
Reading the Maps
The maps on this and the following page
depict how MST bus lines are currently
organized in Salinas, and how that would
change if this plan were implemented.

These maps are annotated with comments
that explain how the existing network
operates, and how that would change in
the future.

As in the rest of this report, maps show
bus lines color-coded by midday frequency on weekdays. • Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.
392
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 33
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – Medium Scenario
Line 41 would remain
mostly similar to existing
service. It would operate
every 15 minutes a few more
hours on weekdays (7 AM to
6 PM), and every 30 minutes
on weekends.

Line 49 would be upgraded to provide service every 15 minutes from Downtown to Northridge, with service every 30 minutes continuing to Santa Rita. This would provide frequent service in Salinas’ second densest corridor, with many people and jobs nearby.

Most of Salinas would
be served every 15 to
30 minutes, with timed
transfers at Salinas Transit
Center.

This would make it possible
to travel across town in any
direction with just a short
wait for a second bus.

South Main Street and Romie Lane would have
all-day service every 30 minutes on a new Line 43.

Combined with timed transfers at Salinas Transit Center, this would connect many jobs, residents and important
destinations in this area to the rest of Salinas by transit.

Line 96 would go to the same areas the
existing Line 48 goes, on weekdays only.

Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

How Timed Transfers Would Work
Timed transfers would make it possible
to connect from one bus line to another
without a long wait.

Blue lines would arrive at Salinas Transit
Center at :10 and :40 minutes after the
hour, and leave at :15 and :45.

Green lines would arrive at Salinas Transit
Center :10 minutes after the hour, and
leave at :15.

Lines 28 and 29 would alternate, but
there would always be a departure to
Watsonville at :15 after the hour as well.

Red Lines would not have a timed transfer,
but the next bus would be scheduled to
always come within 15 minutes. In practice,
most passengers connecting to and from
red lines at Salinas Transit Center would
experience a 5 to 10 minute wait. On
evenings and weekends, red lines would
function like blue lines.

Salinas would remain
connected to the rest of
the region by Lines 20
(Monterey), 23 (King City),
28 and 29 (Watsonville),
and 61 (Marina-VA Clinic),
but local and regional
connections would be
facilitated by timed
transfers.

A direct route to the
CSUMB campus would
also be reinstated as
Line 25X, with service
once an hour when
classes are in session*.

Line 23 would become much more frequent,
operating once an hour to and from King City.

Line 23 would also remain on Highway 101 coming
into Salinas, allowing for faster travel to and from
cities in the Highway 101 corridor. However, it
would terminate at Salinas Transit Center instead
of continuing to Hartnell College.

A new Line 46 would
serve Natividad Hospital
and Salinas Adult School
every 30 minutes from
Downtown Salinas,
making those destinations
reachable from across the
region.

Line 45 would be shortened,
so that it could operate every
60 minutes instead of every 75
minutes. It would no longer serve
Boronda Road to Northridge.

Line 47 would run every 60 minutes between
Hartnell’s main campus and its Alisal campus. This
is a continuation of a service MST began in mid2021. It is not included in the Low Scenario. 393
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 34
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – How many people would be near service?
Existing Service
Figure 27 (below left) shows how many Salinas residents and jobs are located within a halfmile walk of a stop on an existing MST bus line, and the level of service available on the most frequent route at that stop.
• 77% of Salinas residents and 61% of jobs in Salinas are near an existing MST bus line, regardless of how often that bus line runs.
• But only 44% of Salinas residents and 29% of jobs are located near service that runs about every 30 minutes or better. Most Salinas residents are near either very infrequent service, or no service at all.
• Among residents in poverty, 41% live near service every 15 minutes or better, and 55% live near service every 30 minutes or better. This is almost all related to Line 41, from Downtown to Alisal to Northridge.

Proposed Final Network
Figure 28 (below right) shows the same information, if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented.
• The total number of Salinas residents and jobs near an MST bus line would increase slightly, to 80% of residents (+3%) and 66% of jobs (+5%). • The number of Salinas residents and jobs near service every 30 minutes or better would increase to 66% of residents (+22%) and 54% of jobs (+25%). • 50% of residents in poverty would be near service every 15 minutes or better (+9%). • 74% of residents in poverty would live near service every 30 minutes or better (+19%).

Figure 27: Chart showing the percentage of Salinas residents and jobs within a half-mile walk of existing MST bus lines.

Figure 28: Chart showing the percentage of Salinas residents and jobs that would be within a halfmile walk of MST bus lines in the Medium Scenario. 394
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 35
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Salinas – Low, Medium and High Scenarios
Low Scenario
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan to help define
how MST would react to either (a) lower revenues than
expected or (b) an insufficient number of drivers to
operate the Medium Scenario (or some other unexpected
resource constraint). In the Low Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium Scenario, except for the following changes:
• Red and blue lines would end service an hour earlier
in the evening, at 9 PM on weekdays and 8 PM on
weekends.
• Lines 43 and 44 would operate once an hour instead
of every 30 minutes.
• MST would not operate direct service from Salinas to
CSUMB on the new Line 25X, nor the shuttle between
Hartnell campuses on Line 47.

Medium Scenario
The Medium Scenario would operate as described in
previous pages. The map below is provided for reference and comparison purposes.

Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, the maps on
this page show bus lines color-coded by
midday frequency on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

High Scenario
The High Scenario is designed to show where and how
much MST could increase service if a new funding source appeared in the future. The most likely source for new
funds would be a new countywide 1/8-cent sales tax, if
voters were to approve. In the High Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium scenario, except for the following changes:
• Line 20, Line 47, and the northern half of Line 41 would all be upgraded to run every 15 minutes.
• Line 46 would be extended northward from Natividad
Hospital to Boronda Road and Northridge Mall.
• There would be a new Line 59 to Gilroy, running every 90 minutes and connecting to VTA and Caltrain.
395
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 36
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Existing
Reading the Maps
The maps on this and the following page
depict how MST bus lines are currently
organized in the greater Seaside-Monterey
urban area, and how that would change if
this plan were implemented.

These maps are annotated with comments
that explain how the existing network
operates, and how that would change in
the future.

Lines 1 and 2 cover
Pacific Grove every 60
minutes on long and very
circuitous paths. These
routes maximize coverage, but also ensure that
any transit trip beginning
or ending in Pacific Grove
requires a long wait.

Line 20 provides a regional connection
every 30 minutes between Monterey,
Sand City, Marina and Salinas. This is MST’s
highest-ridership regional route, by far.

Service to CSUMB and parts of
Marina is provided by two MST bus
lines. Both operate once an hour.

Line 16 connects parts of Marina and
student housing to the main campus.

Line 18 connects Monterey, Seaside and
Marina every 60 minutes along a path
that duplicates much of the Jazz routes
and Line 20.

Pre-pandemic, MST operated other lines
(19, 25, 26) under contract to CSUMB.

The Jazz A and B routes
operate every 30 to 35
minutes, connecting Seaside
to Downtown Monterey and
Cannery Row. This is a critical connection between areas where many low-income people
live, and where many jobs and
services are located.

Many very infrequent routes overlap in the hills above Monterey, and in between Monterey and Carmel-by-the-Sea. The complexity of service compensates for challenging pedestrian environments by providing bus stops to many isolated locations. However, for riders, this tends to mean time spent researching the best route as well as a very long wait.

Carmel-by-the-Sea is connected
to Monterey by multiple MST bus
lines, but they all run at different
frequencies and have different endpoints. So even though there might be 3 buses per hour, there is often 30
to 40 minutes between buses.

Specialized commuter routes like Line
11 (Carmel) and Line 21 (Pebble Beach)
provide fast service, but they run just a few
times a day in the morning and afternoon.

These are only useful for workers with very
specific commute hours, who are also
heading straight home after work.

MST also currently offers an
on-call service for trips within
Marina. This service is available
to the general public from 8 AM
to 6 PM, seven days a week.
396
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 37
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Medium Scenario
Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays.
• Red lines run about every 15 minutes.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

How Timed Transfers Would Work
Timed transfers would make it possible
to connect from one bus line to another
without a long wait.

At Monterey Transit Plaza:
• Blue lines would arrive at :10 and :40
minutes after the hour, and leave at :15
and :45.
• Green lines would arrive at :10 minutes
after the hour, and leave at :15.
• Red Lines would not have a timed
transfer, but the next bus would be
scheduled to always come within 15
minutes. In practice, most passengers
connecting to and from red lines would
experience a 5 to 10 minute wait. On
evenings and weekends, red lines
would function like blue lines.

At Sand City Station, Lines 17 and 18
would be scheduled to arrive 3 minutes
before and leave 3 minutes after Line 20.

At Carmel Rancho, Lines 2 and 24 would
both arrive at :40 minutes after the hour
and leave at :45.

Service in Pacific Grove would
be consolidated into a single
Line 1, with service every 30
minutes between Monterey and
Downtown Pacific Grove. It would
then split into a two-way loop to
serve the rest of the city. There
would no longer be service on Del
Monte Blvd. or 17 Mile Dr.

Line 20 would continue to provide
the main regional connection between
Monterey, Sand City, Marina and Salinas.

The Jazz lines would combine
to 15 minute frequency from
Cannery Row to south Seaside,
with each branch (A and B) running
every 30 minutes. This would be
made possible by keeping Jazz A on
Fremont Blvd. at Monterey Peninsula
College (MPC). Some MPC students
and staff would have longer walks,
but many more passengers would
benefit from the more direct routing,
and all passengers would benefit
from the higher frequency.

The complex web of routes in the hills above Monterey would be replaced by three main lines operating at least once an hour. Some areas where the bus runs just a few times a day would lose service.
• Line 2 would connect Monterey to Carmel-by-the-Sea every 30 minutes. • Line 7 would connect Downtown Monterey to Monterey Airport and Ryan Ranch every 60 minutes.
• Line 8 would connect Downtown Monterey to Glenwood and CHOMP via Del Monte Center every 60 minutes.

Carmel-by-the-Sea would be
served primarily by Line 2,
with service every 30 minutes
to Monterey.

An extension of the new Line 8
would also provide senior-oriented service every two hours in Carmel-by-the-Sea and the
Carmel Valley, replacing existing
Lines 91 and 92.

Peak-hour only express
service like Line 11 (SeasideCarmel) and Line 21
(Salinas-Pebble Beach) would
no longer be provided.

CSUMB would be connected to
Marina and Sand City/Seaside every
30 minutes. This would be through a
combination of two hourly routes with
staggered schedules.

Lines 17 and the new Line 18 would
connect Sand City, CSUMB and
Marina via two paths serving different areas of north Seaside and South Marina in old Fort Ord.

Access to Lines 17 and 18 would be
facilitated by a timed transfer to and
from Line 20 at Sand City Station.

Marina on-call
service would no
longer be provided.
397
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 38
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – How many people would be near service? Existing Service
Figure 29 (below left) shows how many residents and jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area are located within a half-mile walk of a stop on an existing MST bus line, and the level of service available on the most frequent route at that stop. • 68% of residents and jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area are near an existing MST bus line, regardless of how often that bus line runs. • But only 39% of residents and 41% of jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area are located near service that runs about every 30 minutes or better. Most residents are either near very infrequent service, or no service at all.
• Among residents in poverty, 15% live near service about every 20 minutes (i.e. the shared segment of the Jazz A and B lines), and 55% live near service about every 30 minutes or better. Many of these residents live in either Seaside near the Jazz A and B, or in Marina near Line 20.

Proposed Final Network
Figure 30 (below right) shows the same information, if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented.
• In the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area, the total number residents and jobs near an MST bus line would decline very slightly, to 67% of residents and jobs (-1%). • The number of residents and jobs near service every 30 minutes or better would increase to 51% of residents (+12%) and 54% of jobs (+13%). • 62% of residents in poverty would live near service every 30 minutes or better (+7%). • 14% of all residents, 30% of jobs, and 18% of residents in poverty would be near service every 15 minutes or better. This would be made possible by eliminating the Jazz A deviation into Monterey Peninsula College and modifying the Jazz routing into Sand City Station.

Figure 29: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs within a half-mile walk of existing MST bus lines in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area.

Figure 30: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs in the greater Seaside-Monterey urban area that would be within a half-mile walk of MST bus lines in the Medium Scenario. 398
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 39
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey Bay & Peninsula – Low, Medium and High Scenarios Low Scenario
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan to help define
how MST would react to either (a) lower revenues than
expected or (b) an insufficient number of drivers to
operate the Medium Scenario (or some other unexpected
resource constraint). In the Low Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium Scenario, except for the following changes:
• Red and blue lines would end service an hour earlier
in the evening, at 9 PM on weekdays and 8 PM on
weekends.
• MST would not operate Line 24 to Carmel Valley
Village. Service in the Carmel Valley would be limited
to a longline of Route 8 to Del Mesa Dr., replacing
existing service on Lines 91 and 92.
• MST would not operate direct service from CSUMB to
Salinas on the new Line 25X.

Medium Scenario
The Medium Scenario would operate as described in
previous pages. The map below is provided for reference and comparison purposes.

In the High Scenario, proposed service would be similar to the Medium scenario, except for the following changes:
• The Jazz A and B would continue operating until midnight, seven days a week, although at lower evening frequencies. • Line 20 (Salinas to Monterey) would be upgraded to run every 15 minutes on weekdays.
• If the SURF! project is completed, a new Line 15 would connect CSUMB to Line 20 for faster regional connections. • Lines 17 and 18 would combine into a single path from CSUMB to Marina Transit Exchange. A new Line 16 would
restore basic coverage to the Abrams Dr. area in Marina. 399
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER
+ ASSOCIATES | 40
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Regional Service – Existing
Reading the Maps
The maps on this and the following pages
depict how MST regional bus lines are
currently organized. These maps are anno-
tated with comments that explain how the
existing network operates, and how that
would change in the future.

Most MST regional lines connect more
rural parts of Monterey County to
Monterey, Salinas and Watsonville.

MST also considers Lines 20, 21 and 61
to be regional, because they originate in
Salinas and go to the greater SeasideMonterey-Marina area. However, these are covered in more detail in prior sections.

As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays. • Blue lines run about every 30 minutes. • Green lines run about once an hour. • Gold lines run less than once an hour.

There are no red lines on this map
because no regional service runs every 15
minutes or better at this time.

Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and
King City are served by: • Line 23, a regional connector to Salinas. It runs 11 to 14 times a day
on weekdays, at widely varying intervals. It tends to run every two hours in the middle of the day.
• Line 84, a twice a day extension of
Line 23 to San Lucas, San Ardo, San
Miguel and Paso Robles.
• On-call services for short local trips
within each city. These often have
very long wait times, especially at
high-demand times.

Big Sur is served
by Line 22. It has
been operating three
times a day every day
during the pandemic,
but was previously a
weekend-only service.

The Carmel Valley
is served by Line 24,
with service every 40
minutes to Carmel-bythe-Sea and Monterey.

Lines 28 and 29 each
operate every two hours,
combining to provide hourly
service between Salinas and
Watsonville.

Line 28 travels via Castroville and
Highway 1. Line 29 travels via
Prunedale and Las Lomas.

Line 55 to San Jose has been
suspended since March 2020.
400
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 41
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Regional Service – Medium Scenario
Line 23 from Salinas to King City would
become more frequent, regularly running every 60
minutes on weekdays and weekends, and every 30
minutes during weekday morning peak hours.

Line 23 would also be faster and more direct:
travel time from Salinas Transit Center to King City
would be 20 minutes shorter, averaging 1 hour and
20 minutes.

This would be made possible by making fewer
deviations on Highway 101; terminating the route at
Salinas Transit Center instead of Hartnell College;
and additional investment in service.

Line 22 to Big Sur
would be discontinued, due to the very
small number of people
and jobs served at a
relatively high cost.

Line 24 from Carmel Valley would operate
every 60 minutes and end at Carmel Rancho,
with a timed transfer to and from Line 2 for trips
to Downtown Carmel, Monterey and points beyond.

Lines 28 and 29 would continue to
provide service between Salinas and
Watsonville at similar frequencies.

Timed transfers would save passengers to and from Watsonville 25 to 55 minutes when connecting
to another bus at Salinas Transit
Center.

As a service with a
very high cost per rider
that does not provide
unique coverage within
MST’s service area, Line
55 to San Jose would
not be restored.

On-call services would be replaced
by investing in local circulators
running every 30 minutes in Gonzales
(Line 31), Soledad (Line 32), Greenfield
(Line 33) and King City (Line 34).

Converting on-call services to regular circulators will ensure higher capacity and shorter, more regular and more predictable wait times.

Line 84 would continue to
operate twice a day to San Lucas,
San Ardo, San Miguel and Paso
Robles, with departures and arrivals
scheduled to match Line 23.

Reading the Maps
As in the rest of this report, this map
shows bus lines color-coded by midday
frequency on weekdays.
• Blue lines run about every 30 minutes.
• Green lines run about once an hour.
• Gold lines run less than once an hour.

There are no red lines on this map
because no regional service is proposed
to run every 15 minutes or better in the
Medium Scenario.

How Timed Transfers Would Work
Timed transfers would make it possible
to connect from one bus line to another
without a long wait.

At Monterey Transit Plaza:
• Blue lines would arrive at :10 and :40
minutes after the hour, and leave at :15
and :45.
• Green lines would arrive at :10 minutes
after the hour, and leave at :15.

At Salinas Transit Center:
• Blue lines would arrive at :10 and :40
minutes after the hour, and leave at :15
and :45.
• Green lines would arrive at :10 minutes
after the hour, and leave at :15.
• Lines 28 and 29 would alternate, but
there would always be a departure to
Watsonville at :15 after the hour as well.

At Carmel Rancho, Lines 2 and 24 would
both arrive at :40 minutes after the hour
and leave at :45.

Line 29 would no longer operate on North Main Street
in Salinas. Instead, it would stay on Highway 101 for a faster travel time. Passengers traveling between North Salinas and Watsonville would need to transfer at Salinas Transit Center. 401
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 42
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Regional Service – Low, Medium and High Scenarios
Low Scenario
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan to help define
how MST would react to either (a) lower revenues than
expected or (b) an insufficient number of drivers to
operate the Medium Scenario (or some other unexpected
resource constraint). In the Low Scenario, proposed
service would be similar to the Medium Scenario, except for the following changes:
• Line 23 from Salinas to King City would operate every 90 minutes (instead of every 60 minutes) in the middle
of the day on weekdays, and on weekends. Morning
peak service would remain every 30 minutes, and
afternoon and evening service every 60 minutes.
• Line 24 to the Carmel Valley would be discontinued.

Medium Scenario
The Medium Scenario would operate as described in
previous pages. The map below is provided for reference and comparison purposes.

High Scenario
The High Scenario is designed to show where and how
much MST could increase service if a new funding source appeared in future. The most likely source for new funds would be a new countywide 1/8-cent sales tax, if voters were to approve. In the High Scenario, proposed service would be similar to the Medium scenario, except for the following changes:
• Line 20 between Monterey and Salinas would be
upgraded to run every 15 minutes.
• There would be a new Line 59 to Gilroy, running every 90 minutes and connecting to VTA and Caltrain for
access to the Bay Area.
402
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 43
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Existing 15 20 30 60 90 ●
4 AM
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
4 AM
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Asilomar-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 2 Pacific Grove-Carmel 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 3 CHOMP-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 7 Del Rey Oaks-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
11 Carmel-Sand City ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 16 Marina-CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Monterey-Marina 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 90 60 60 60 60 60 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 21 Pebble Beach-Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 22 Big Sur-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 23 Salinas-King City 25 60 60 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 60 30 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 24 Carmel Valley 40 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 60 60 60 60 60 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville-Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville-Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 41 Salinas-Alisal 35 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 40 40 40 25 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 60 60 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 25 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 60 60 42 Westridge-Alisal 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 44 Northridge-Salinas 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 45 Northridge-Salinas 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 48 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas-Santa Rita 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 91 Sand City -Pacific Meadows ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 92 CHOMP-Pacific Meadows ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 93 Ryan Ranch-Monterey ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
Monterey-Salinas Transit - Early 2021 Route Frequencies The bus comes about every:
15 minutes
or better
16-25
minutes
26-39
minutes
40-60
minutes
Over 60
minutes
Limited (8 trips or less
per day)
This page shows how often MST buses
are running on existing bus lines.
403
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 44
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Medium Scenario 15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 24 Carmel Valley 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 25X Salinas-CSUMB (in-session only) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Alisal 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 47 Salinas TC - Hartnell East Alisal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - Medium Scenario
The bus comes about every:

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
30 minutes 60 minutes
The Medium Scenario is the most likely
scenario. It is effectively “the plan,”
barring unforeseen circumstances.
404
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 45
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – Low Scenario 15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PM
6 AM
7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 60 60 60 60 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Alisal 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Northridge 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - Low Scenario
The bus comes about every:
30 minutes 60 minutes Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
The Low Scenario is a contingency plan
in case MST revenues or bus driver
availability were lower than expected.
405
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 46
5 Existing vs. Proposed Service
by Area
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Service Frequency by MST Line and Time of Day – High Scenario 15 30 60 ●
5 AM
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
6 AM
7 8 9 10 11 12
PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AM
Jazz A/B Aquarium-Sand City 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Jazz A Sand City via Hilby 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jazz B Sand City via Broadway 60 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 1 Pacific Grove-Monterey 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Two-way loop past Downtown PG 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2 Monterey - Carmel 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 7 Ryan Ranch-Monterey 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 8 Monterey-CHOMP 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Longline to CHOMP, Carmel, Del Mesa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 15 SURF-CSUMB Shuttle 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 16 Marina TE-Abrams 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17/18 Sand City-Marina 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 17 Sand City-Marina via CSUMB 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 18 Sand City-Marina via Monterey Rd 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 20 Monterey-Salinas 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 23 Salinas-King City 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 24 Carmel Valley 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 25X Salinas-CSUMB (in-session only) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 28 Watsonville - Castroville - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 29 Watsonville - Prunedale - Salinas ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 31 Gonzales Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 32 Soledad Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 Greenfield Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 34 King City Circulator 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 41 Salinas-Northridge 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 43 Salinas TC - Romie Lane 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 44 Salinas TC - Boronda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 45 Salinas TC - Sanborn Road 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 Salinas TC - Natividad 60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 47 Salinas TC - Hartnell East Alisal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 49 Salinas TC - North Main 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Longline to Bolsa Knolls 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 59 Salinas - Gilroy ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 61 Veteran's Shuttle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 84 King City-Paso Robles ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 94 Sand City-Carmel ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
95 Williams Ranch-Northridge ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 96 Airport Business Center 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

WEEKDAYS WEEKEND
15 minutes
or better
Proposed MST Bus Line Frequencies - High Scenario
The bus comes about every:
30 minutes 60 minutes Limited (8 trips
or less per day)
The High Scenario represents what
MST could do if voters passed
another 1/8-cent sales tax for service.
406
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
| 47 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
6 How would this plan make transit
more useful?
407
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 48
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
More people would be near service, and service would be more frequent.

Existing Service
Figure 31 (below left) shows how many residents and jobs in Monterey County are located within a half-mile walk of a stop on an existing MST bus line, and the level of service available on the most frequent route at that stop.

When the bus doesn’t come very often, using transit requires lots of waiting; but few people can afford to spend an hour or more waiting for a trip they need to make every day, and fewer people want to. The low frequencies in the existing MST network suggest that most Monterey County residents don’t live near transit that comes often enough to be useful, even if the bus went directly to the places they need to go. • Only 27% of county residents and 20% of jobs are near service that comes about every 30 minutes or better on weekdays.
• Only 10% of residents and 6% of jobs are near service that comes every 15 minutes or better.

Proposed Final Plan
Figure 32 (below right) shows the same information, if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented.

Frequency alone doesn’t guarantee that a new or changed bus line will be especially useful.

But if a bus doesn’t come very often, few people will ever use it for more than occasional trips. As such, the higher frequencies in this plan suggest the plan has the potential to provide service that is useful to more people, for more trips. • The number of people and jobs near service every 30 minutes or better would increase to 46% of county residents (+19%) and 37% of jobs (+17%). This includes a majority of residents in poverty (57%).
• The number of people and jobs near service every 15 minutes would increase to 17% of residents (+7%) and 16% of jobs (+10%).

Figure 31: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs within a half-mile walk of existing MST bus lines in Monterey County.

Figure 32: Chart showing the percentage of residents and jobs in Monterey County that would be within a half-mile walk of MST bus lines in the Medium Scenario. 408
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 49
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Most transit trips would take far less time.

In the following pages, we’ll show you two
different ways to think about how much more
or less time transit trips would take if this plan
were implemented.

Example Trip Itineraries
The most concrete way of understanding
whether transit trips would be shorter or
longer in future is to plot out exactly how long
those trips take today, and how that would
change. This chapter provides nine examples
selected to represent:
• Experiences from many different parts of
MST’s service area.
• A range of trip lengths and purposes.
• In most cases, trips that would need to
occur at a specific time in someone’s day.

The goal is to show what each trip entails,
based on the choices that a reasonable and
able-bodied person could make, if they
needed to get somewhere by a certain time.

In existing service, travel times were calculated by seeking directions from Google for Wednesday, August 18, 20211.

Trip examples in proposed service used the
same start and arrival constraints, making
adjustments to in-vehicle travel time if the path
taken on the bus had changed2.

Trip examples are provided on page 51 to
page 59.
1 In one case (Monterey to East Salinas at 4 PM), Google suggested transit directions that appeared less efficient than what the authors of this report could read from the MST schedules for Lines 20 and

21. In that specific case, the trip example was modified from the original Google directions.
2 For both existing and future trips, the examples assume that (a) a passenger would want to reach their initial bus stop at least five minutes before the bus is scheduled to arrive and (b) a passenger would plan to arrive at their final destination at least five minutes early, to avoid being late if their bus were running late.

Calculating Travel Times
Every transit trip is made up of walking, waiting, and riding.

Most transit trips begin and end with walking (or
rolling) to and from your destinations. The amount
of walking depends on the location of the nearest
relevant bus stop for that trip.

Often when people think of riding somewhere by
transit they only consider the time spent on the bus
or train. It is important to remember that every
transit trip is made up of time spent walking (or
rolling) and time spent waiting.

Waiting doesn’t just happen at the start of your
ride, it also happens at the end. You may not
need to leave the house long before your departure, but if your bus is infrequent, you have to choose between being very early or too late.

For these trip examples, we assume you arrive at
the first stop five minutes early to make sure you
don’t miss the bus. We also count the difference
between your intended and scheduled arrival time
as waiting time.

Time spent riding will mostly remain similar
between the Existing Network and the Draft
Network Plan scenarios, since buses won’t
suddenly run faster on the same roads. However,
there will be some time savings in places where
bus lines would be straighter and more direct.

Walking to and
from a stop
Waiting for the
next bus or train
Riding to your
destination
Trip
Start
Trip
End
Walking
Walking
Waiting
Waiting
Riding
Riding
Waiting at
Destination
Origin-Destination Matrix
It would be impossible to plot out every possible trip that someone does or could make on transit in Monterey County.

To provide a broader perspective on the
degree to which trips get longer or shorter,
page 50 shows a comparison of average
travel times in existing service vs. in the
Medium Scenario of this plan for 15 prominent locations throughout MST’s service area.

Important: Waiting time
counts!
Few people have the liberty of arriving when
they please for all their trips, or to control
their appointments or social activities so they
end exactly at the right time to catch the bus
home. Riding transit means waiting somewhere. The more frequent the service, the shorter the wait.

Both the origin-destination matrix and the trip
examples include the impacts of waiting on
total travel time.
409
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 50
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Travel Time Change Between Key Locations
Weekdays - Medium Scenario
Shorter by over 60 min Shorter by 30 to 60 min Shorter by 15 to 30 min Shorter by 5 to 15 min = Unchanged Longer by 15 to 30 min Longer by 5 to 15 min
Carmel
Valley
Carmel-bythe-Sea CSUMB King City Marina Monterey -
Downtown
PG -
Downtown
Salinas -
Alisal
Salinas -
Downtown
Salinas -
Natividad
Salinas -
Northridge Sand City Seaside Soledad Watsonville
+ 10 min -25 min -65 min -5 min + 10 min -15 min = -5 min -35 min -35 min = + 5 min -55 min -15 min -40 min -80 min -15 min -5 min -30 min -15 min -15 min -50 min -45 min -15 min -5 min -65 min -25 min -85 min -5 min -20 min -15 min -5 min -10 min -45 min -40 min -10 min -15 min -75 min -35 min -60 min -60 min -90 min -40 min -45 min -75 min -80 min -60 min -60 min -35 min -70 min = -30 min = = -35 min -30 min = = -50 min -10 min
-15 min = = -35 min -30 min = -5 min -50 min -10 min
-35 min -35 min -70 min -65 min -30 min = -85 min -45 min = -5 min = -5 min -5 min -35 min =
-25 min -30 min = = -40 min =
= -40 min -40 min -70 min -25 min
-30 min -30 min -95 min -5 min
= -50 min -10 min
-50 min -10 min
-65 min
Monterey - Downtown
Carmel Valley
Carmel-by-the-Sea
CSUMB
King City
Marina
Seaside
Soledad
Pacific Grove - Downtown
Salinas - Alisal
Salinas - Downtown
Salinas - Natividad
Salinas - Northridge Mall
Sand City
Change in Average Travel Times Between 15 Key Locations Existing Service vs.

Medium Scenario
The chart in Figure 33 shows the average
change in travel time by transit:
• When comparing existing service to the
service proposed in the Medium Scenario
of this plan;
• To travel between any two of 15 selected
locations throughout MST’s service area.

The calculated differences in travel time reflect
changes to:
• Frequency. On average, a passenger will
wait half the time between two buses
for the next bus. If a bus comes every 60
minutes, that means a 30 minute wait on
average. If that same bus would come
every 30 minutes in future, the average
wait would only be 15 minutes. The matrix
shows this kind of change as a 15 minute
time savings.
• Timed Transfers. The existing MST
network has very few timed transfers. A
passenger connecting from one line that
runs every 30 minutes to another line that
runs every 30 minutes would need to wait
an average of 15 minutes for their second
bus. This plan includes timed transfers for
all lines that run every 30 and every 60
minutes, so in most cases that wait would
be reduced to 5 minutes. The matrix shows
this kind of change as a 10 minute savings.
• Routing. In some cases, the lines proposed
in this plan take different routes than existing lines. The resulting differences in travel time on the bus (and walking to and from
bus stops) are also taken into account in the
matrix.

Figure 33: Chart showing the average travel time change between the existing service and the Medium Scenario, if a person were using transit to travel between any two of 15 prominent locations in MST’s service area.

Many transit trips would be 30 or more minutes shorter than they are today if this plan were implemented. Few would be longer.
410
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 51
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Trip Examples - Salinas and Boronda
Example no. 1: North Salinas to South Salinas
Imagine you are a hospital worker living near North Salinas High School. You need to reach your job at Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital (4.5 miles away) and your shift starts at 9:00 AM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Notice this trip only includes 21 minutes riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at Salinas Transit Center than on either bus. You might even be able to walk from Salinas Transit Center starting at 8:10 AM and arrive at the hospital and arrive at the same time.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 25 minutes shorter; you would be able to leave your house 25 minutes later, mostly due to less waiting. This is due to the higher frequency on both routes, and an important scheduling detail: many destinations are within a 10 minute bus ride or a 20 minute walk of Salinas Transit Center. By scheduling buses to come into Salinas TC between 8:35 AM and 8:40 AM, and leave again at 8:45 AM, you can reach most of the jobs in South Salinas on time for a 9:00 AM shift start.
411
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 52
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 2: Boronda to Hartnell College
Imagine you live in Boronda and take classes at Hartnell College, 2.5 miles away. The class you need to attend starts at 1:00 PM1. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Notice that you would spend more time at Hartnell waiting for class to start than you would spend actually getting to campus.

If you decided to transfer to Route 20 instead of walking, this would only change where you wait. You would spend 15 minutes more waiting for your next bus at Salinas Transit Center, and 12 minutes less waiting on campus for class to start.

Given how long this trip by transit is for a short distance, you might even consider walking the whole distance, which an able-bodied person would be able to do in about an hour. 1 Many in-person classes at Hartnell College in Fall 2021 are scheduled to start around 9:40 AM, 1:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 30 minutes shorter; you would be able to leave your house 30 minutes later, mostly due to less waiting.

You would experience the time savings if you preferred to transfer to Route 20 instead of walking. In either case, you would now arrive just in time for class, after traveling less than 45 minutes.

As in the prior example, the time savings are due to a combination of higher frequency (in this case, service every 30 minutes instead of every 75 minutes on Route 44) and the timing of arrivals and departures at Salinas Transit Center.

The combined time savings would make transit a much more viable option for this trip. It’s still longer than driving (15-20 minutes including time to park and walk to class), but it’s faster than walking and might be easier than asking a family member for a ride. 412
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 53
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Trip Examples - Salinas to Monterey
Example no. 3: East Salinas to Downtown Monterey
Imagine you are a restaurant worker living in East Salinas. You need to reach your job in Downtown Monterey for the start of your lunch shift at 10:00 AM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

This trip uses two of MST’s most frequent routes, so although it does involve some waiting along the way, this is about as fast as transit can connect two places this far apart while also serving a lot of other major destinations on the way.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip wouldn’t change much. That is because MST has already organized a nearly-timed connection between Line 41 and Line 20 at Salinas Transit Center, and that connection probably wouldn’t shift by more than 5 minutes.

In either case, this kind of service makes it possible to travel regionally from East Salinas, even if you don’t have a car to get around or a carpool of colleagues you can count on. It would, however, still take a long time.
413
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 54
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Trip Examples - Monterey Bay & Peninsula
Example no. 4: Seaside to Pacific Grove
Let’s imagine you are a retail worker living in the center of Seaside, and you need to reach your job at Country Club Gate Center in Pacific Grove (6 miles away) and your shift starts at noon. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Notice that this trip includes a total of only 29 minutes actually riding the bus, and that you would spend more time waiting at your destination than you would getting there.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 9 minutes shorter; you would be able to leave your house a few minutes later, mostly due to the scheduling of connections at Monterey Transit Plaza. Because most buses are scheduled to arrive at Monterey Transit Plaza between 11:05 AM and 11:10 AM, and leave again at 11:15 AM, it would be possible to arrive near your destination a little less early.

This example and the next one are in some ways typical of many trips in the greater SeasideMonterey urban area. Timed transfers and small frequency improvements would allow for marginal improvements on many local trips, but those improvements wouldn’t be as significant as the combination of timed transfers and large frequency improvements in Salinas. This is a function of the policy direction of the plan, which would focus more service in Salinas, and slightly reduce service hours overall on the Peninsula.
414
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 55
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 5: Monterey/Seaside to CSUMB
Let’s imagine you work in an administrative position at California State University - Monterey Bay (CSUMB). You live 6.5 miles away in the Laguna Grande area near the Monterey/Seaside city limits, and your job on campus starts at 8:00 AM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Existing Route 18 is very direct, but only runs every 60 minutes. So getting to campus would take just a few minutes more than driving, but you’d get to work 43 minutes before you were expected to start. Your only alternative using transit would result in arriving 17 minutes late.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get 10 minutes shorter. This is because even though you would need to take two buses, the first one would come every 30 minutes, and you would have a timed connection to the second bus, reducing your overall waiting time and allowing you to leave home 10 minutes later.

However, you would still get to work a little earlier than would be ideal, and this would still remain a much longer trip than driving (15-25 minutes door to door, depending on traffic and parking).

Because you are depending on service every 30 minutes instead of every 60 minutes, You would now be faced with the slightly less dire choice of getting to work either 23 minutes early, or 7 minutes late.
415
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 56
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 6: Monterey to Ryan Ranch
Let’s imagine you live in the Old Town area in Monterey, and you are a senior citizen with regular medical appointments at the CHOMP Outpatient Center in the Ryan Ranch area. Your next appointment is at 2:00 PM. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

If you are not eligible for paratransit, the only way to get to Ryan Ranch on transit is with Line 93, a special-purpose line funded by Measure Q specifically to connect seniors to services and facilities like the medical offices at Ryan Ranch. But Line 93 only runs six times a day, and takes a very long route to Ryan Ranch, so you would spend over an hour and 15 minutes waiting and nearly 45 minutes on the bus for a 6 mile trip.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would become over an hour shorter. This is because the proposed Line 7 would run every 60 minutes and take a much more direct path from Monterey Transit Plaza to Ryan Ranch.

This would still take about twice as long as driving from home. However, there’s no safe way to walk or bike to Ryan Ranch, so transit is the only reasonable alternative. If you live somewhere near a route that would connect to Monterey Transit Plaza, and you couldn’t afford a car or didn’t otherwise need one to go about your daily life, the proposed changes to the network might make using transit a viable option for your medical appointments.
416
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 57
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 7: Soledad to Watsonville
Let’s imagine you live in Soledad, and you need to go to Watsonville (47 miles away) for an appointment at noon. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Because Line 23 doesn’t connect well with either Line 28 or Line 29 to Watsonville, you would end up waiting almost an hour at Salinas Transit Center to get to your destination. As a result, you would have to leave home before 9:00 AM.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would get over an hour shorter. This is because Line 23 would take a faster, more direct path between Soledad and Salinas, allowing it to arrive on time to make a timed connection with Line 28. You would only wait 5 minutes at Salinas Transit Center.

This would still take about twice as long as driving. But this kind of trip is so long that it would be relatively difficult to convince a friend or family member to take you to Watsonville and back in a single day, let alone regularly. By making this trip an hour shorter, this plan would reduce the hassle associated with transit if you didn’t have a car available, or didn’t have a reliable enough car to take a trip that far from home.

Trip Examples - Regional
417
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 58
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 8: Soledad to King City
Let’s imagine you still live in Soledad, but this time you need to go visit a family member at Mee Memorial Hospital in King City, and visiting hours start at noon. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Because Line 23 only runs every two hours in the middle of the day, your last opportunity to get there by noon on the bus requires leaving home before 10:00 AM and waiting over an hour in King City.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

This trip would become over an hour shorter; you could leave home closer to 11:00 AM. This is mostly because Line 23 would run every 60 minutes instead of once every two hours in the middle of the day.
418
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 59
6 How wo
u
ld this plan make transit more usef
u
l
?
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Example no. 9: King City to Hartnell College in Salinas Imagine you live in King City and take classes at Hartnell College main campus in Salinas, almost 50 miles away. The class you need to attend starts at 9:40 AM1. Here’s what you would need to do in Existing Service:

Line 23 would provide a service all the way to Hartnell, but you would arrive 45 minutes before your class starts and have a long wait on campus.
1 Many in-person classes at Hartnell College in Fall 2021 are scheduled to start around 9:40 AM, 1:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

Here’s what the same trip would look like if the Medium Scenario of this plan were implemented:

Line 23 would terminate at Salinas Transit Center. This would give you the choice to either transfer to Line 20 (with a timed connection and a 5 minute wait, as above) or to walk 12 to 15 minutes from Salinas Transit Center to campus (as shown below). Either way, your trip would become over 30 minutes shorter.

The time savings would come from two sources.
• Faster, more direct path on Line 23. The time riding the bus from King City to Salinas would be reduced by over 20 minutes, because the bus would spend more time on Highway 101 and less time traveling within each city along the way.
• Timed connections in Salinas (specifically, scheduling for most bus lines to arrive at Salinas Transit Center at 9:10 AM and leave at 9:15 AM). This means Line 23 would arrive in Downtown Salinas at 9:10 AM, with time for you to reach Hartnell either on foot or with a transfer to a second bus, but not so much time you would spend most of an hour waiting around on campus. 419
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.
| 60 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
7 Next Steps
420
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 61
7 N
e
x
t Steps
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Plan Adoption and Implementation
The Monterey-Salinas Transit COA is combining technical analysis and broad-based community input to develop a post-pandemic
transit network.

So far, this has included the following steps:
• May 2021: Choices Report. This report
(available at http://mst.org/coa) provides
facts about the existing network, and
describes the key choices for future service.

It was developed through a combination
of technical and broad-based community
input.
• June 2021: Committee Direction. The
MST Board of Directors’ Operations
Performance Committee provided the
project team with direction on the key
trade-offs, based on input from the public
and policymakers.
• June-August 2021: Develop a Draft
Network Plan. The project team developed a draft of the redesigned bus network.
• September-October 2021: Public Review
of the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was presented to the public, as detailed in Chapter 3 of this report.
• November-December 2021: Final Plan.

The project team made changes to the
Draft Plan taking into account public
input and discussions with the Operations
Performance Committee. This report presents the Final Plan.

The next steps in the process will be:
• MST’s Board of Directors must decide
whether or not to adopt this plan in
February 2022.
• MST is targeting implementation of the
revised network in late 2022.

Figure 34: Project timeline. This report presents the Final Plan. The next step will be a decision by MST’s Board of Directors to adopt the plan.

If the Board makes this decision, MST staff will then be responsible for implementation over the course of 2022.

Analyze the Network
Community Input
Choices Report
May 2021
Committee Direction
June 2021
Draft Network Plan
August 2021
Community Input Final Plan
February 2022
Board Decision
February 2022
Redesign the Network
Implementation by MST
421
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 62
7 N
e
x
t Steps
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
Key Considerations in Network Implementation
If this plan is adopted, MST will need to take a
variety of operational and policy steps over the
course of 2022 before it can be implemented.

The most critical steps are described on this
page and the next one. This is not intended to
be a complete list or set of recommendations,
but a high-level overview of the main issues to
be addressed.

Operator Recruitment
The most immediate barrier to implementation of any new service at MST is the ongoing shortage of bus drivers. This shortage follows
an unusually high number of resignations and
retirements since the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic, combined with a pause on new driver recruitment and training from early 2020
to mid-2021.

To maintain service reliability in the context of
an operator shortage, MST reduced service in
both September and December 2021. Certain
lines listed as “existing” in this report are not
currently operating, and many have fewer runs
per day than in early 2021.

MST has already begun addressing this challenge, recruiting a new class of drivers in the fall of 2021. But MST still does not have
enough staff to operate all the service that it
can fund.

To restore the reliability of existing service
and ensure that the Medium Scenario can
be implemented as planned, MST must hire
more operators throughout 2022.

Fare Policy Changes
Since 2011, MST has set fares by route type.

Current fare policy does not provide free or
discounted transfers.

As a result, MST fares bear little relationship to
the time or distance travelled by an MST rider.

Many short trips can cost $5 or more simply
because the origin and destination are on two
different routes.

The network proposed in this plan allows MST
to reach more people and jobs with more frequent service. This is made possible by relying on transfers, so riders can move seamlessly
across the region.

To allow riders to take advantage of the
new timed transfer system, MST should
change its fare policy as soon as practical.

The simplest alternative to the existing system
is likely to involve:
• Fewer fare types. Either a single fare
systemwide for boarding the first bus, or
limiting to just local vs. regional routes1.
• Free transfers within a set amount of
time. Many agencies allow riders to board
a second bus for free by showing the ticket
they received upon paying their first fare2.

Typically the transfer is valid if the ticket
was issued in the last 2 hours, otherwise a
new fare is required.

Free transfers are easiest to implement when
all routes charge the same fare. But if MST
1 This could still be modulated with a discount for specific groups (e.g. seniors, veterans and people with disabilities).
2 Because most MST riders pay their fares in cash, this summary discussion is written for a cash-and-ticket system. But similar principles can be applied to electronic ticketing systems and other payment technologies. Contactless tap-in tap-out systems (like the one currently being piloted by MST) make it possible to charge distancebased fares, which relate more clearly to MST’s operating costs.

Work is under way to make this new system more widely usable for riders who currently rely on cash.
needs to continue charging a higher fare
for regional service, transfers from local to
regional routes may require a discounted fare.

For example, if a local fare were $2.50 and a
regional fare were $3.50, then a passenger
might be asked to pay $1.00 upon boarding a
regional bus after taking a local bus.

How would free transfers impact
revenue?
Any change in fare policy comes with financial
risks. It is reasonable to think that if MST collected less fare revenue, this might require MST to operate less service. Ensuring this does
not happen will require careful consideration
of fare levels and transfer discounts before any
changes are made.

Nevertheless, an initial review shows that
MST’s fare collections are a small percentage
of the agency’s revenues. With current policies,
MST expects to collect about $2.7 million in
direct fare revenue in Fiscal Year 2023, compared to a total operating budget estimated at over $55 million3.

Even in a very conservative scenario, this
suggests switching to free transfers would cost
MST about 2 to 3% of annual operating costs4.

This represents far less than the 8% difference
between the Low Scenario and Medium
Scenario in this plan, and there are many
reasons to think the real impact on revenue
would be even smaller.
3 See pp. 27-32 of the MST FY 2022 & FY 2023 Budget, adopted on June 14, 2021. As of Jan 14, 2022, this document is available online at: https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Final-Adopted-FY2022- FY2023-Budgets.pdf
4 In this “very conservative scenario”, we assume that changes to the network attract no new ridership and that 100% of existing trips on MST involve transferring. The latter is obviously not true, but MST does not currently have data on what percentage of its trips involve transfers, so it is useful as a conservative estimate.
422
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES | 63
7 N
e
x
t Steps
Comprehensive Operational Analysis - Final Network Plan Monterey-Salinas Transit
New Bus Stops
Most bus lines included in this plan would run
on the same streets as existing MST service,
and would be expected to use the same bus
stops. However, some lines would operate
on streets where MST does not currently
operate, or operates in a different pattern
(e.g. one-way vs. two-way). As a result, MST
will need to go through a process to:
• Propose bus stop locations, in places
where the planned service pattern requires
new or changed stops.
• Negotiate with the relevant local governments in charge of streets to establish the allowable locations of these stops
and install any necessary ADA-compliant
improvements.

Based on the changes included in the plan, the
project team expects that the greatest number
of new stops will be needed in:
• Salinas, in areas where MST is proposing
entirely new lines and/or restoring service
that has not operated in a number of years.
• Seaside and Marina, specifically the north of
Seaside and south of Marina where service
would reappear on certain streets.
• Pacific Grove, where many areas that currently receive service on one-way loops would in future receive two-way service, in
some cases on different streets.

In addition, new bus stops will be required in
Gonzales, Greenfield, Soledad and King City
along the new path of Line 23 and circulator
Lines 31, 32, 33 and 34. However, the planning
for these bus stops has already been taking
place as a follow-up to the South County
Service Plan adopted in early 2021.

Transit Center Operations
The bus network proposed in this plan
includes timed transfers at four key locations:

Salinas Transit Center, Monterey Transit Plaza,
Sand City Station and Carmel Rancho.

Timed transfers can be a great boon for riders,
but some operational planning is required to
make it possible for multiple buses to arrive
at one station and occupy space next to
each other at the same time. This will require
detailed looks into:
• The arrival and departure path of each
route into the timed transfer station.
• The specific gate or stop each route should
be assigned to.
• Whether any changes might be required
to existing operating practices to allow
enough space for all incoming buses.

The challenge may be greatest at Monterey
Transit Plaza, where 5 different lines (1, 2, 7, 8
and 20) will be scheduled to arrive at the same
time every hour, while MST will also need to
ensure enough space for the Jazz A and B and
Line 94. Currently Monterey Transit Plaza has
only three gates in use, although the physical
space exists to allow for more.

Bus Storage and
Maintenance
MST has existing bus yards in Monterey and
Salinas, and recently opened a brand new facility in King City. This plan envisions a significant increase in service in Salinas, where the existing facility has limited space.

As a result, MST may need to re-think how
certain routes are staged. For example, it may
be necessary to consider staging all buses
for Line 20 in Monterey only and all buses for
Line 23 in King City only, rather than splitting
vehicles between both ends of those routes.

It may also be preferable to designate a single
facility among MST’s bus yard for more heavyduty maintenance and rebuilding, when buses need multiple days of work before getting
back on the road.

Relationship with Intercity
Services
This plan focuses MST mostly on local service.

But people will still need to travel beyond
Monterey County, so it’s important to consider
how MST should connect to intercity services.

Both Amtrak and Greyhound service have
been reduced in the pandemic5, but regional
planning suggests intercity services may
expand in future, with a potential extension of
Caltrain to Salinas and the arrival of new commercial bus companies.

MST expects the main connection point to
future intercity services will be the Salinas
Intermodal Transit Center. This facility includes
the train station and a bus terminal. It is located
1/4-mile north of MST’s Salinas Transit Center,
about a 5 minute walk for most adults.

Given this short distance and limited current
intercity service, this plan would not send any
MST lines into the Intermodal Transit Center.

However, MST may do so in the future, when
intercity service becomes more regular.

Considerations will include:
• Regional connections. MST regional lines
(such as Line 20 to Monterey and Line 23
to King City) may be a higher priority for
intercity connections, because they would
connect many communities to the intercity
network.
• Operability in the schedule. Sending a
bus from MST’s Salinas Transit Center to the
Intermodal Transit Center and back requires
at least 5 minutes. This limits which lines can
connect to long-distance buses and trains
while maintaining the timed transfer system.
5 At time of writing, Greyhound offered 1-2 bus departures per day from Salinas, and Amtrak offered 1 train departure per day.

Timelines for restoration to pre-COVID service levels are unclear. 423
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: General Services
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: General Services – Approval - Res. 25-___, Authorize the Federal Funding Under Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 (49 U.S.C. Section 5310) with Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) and the Execution of Certifications and Assurances, Applications, and Documents; and Authorize the Deputy General Services Director to execute all necessary documentation.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Res. 25-___

RECOMMENDATION
For City Council to approve a resolution authorizing federal funding under the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 (49 U.S.C. Section 5310) with Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG); and Authorize the Deputy General Services Director to execute all necessary documentation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) has been designated by the Governor of the State of California to administer the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 grants for transportation projects for seniors and individuals with disabilities. FCOG will have a call for projects in September 2025 and will be accepting competitive project applications. An application requirement is a City Council-approved resolution authorizing the application and execution of project documents, including the grant application, certifications and assurances, and other necessary documentation. The resolution will authorize the Deputy General Services Director to execute all necessary documentation for the FCOG FTA Section 5310 grant.

BACKGROUND
The FTA Section 5310 program provides formula funding to states for the purpose of assisting organizations in meeting the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities when transportation services provided are insufficient to meet these needs. Formula funds are apportioned by the state Department of Transportation directly to rural and small urban areas.

In large urban areas, the governor designates a recipient. The governor of California has designated the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) as the designated recipient in Fresno County of FTA Section 5310 grants for the purpose of administering the funds in accordance with state and federal laws, statutes, and regulations. 424
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

The FCOG will conduct a call for projects for FTA Section 5310 funds. The funding available for this call is $1,741,617. Funding will be split between Traditional Capital (90%) and Other Capital and Operating Projects (10%). Traditional capital projects include vehicles and other related equipment. Total funding available for traditional capital projects is $1,567,455, with a maximum of $783,727 per project. Other capital and operating projects include a maximum of $174,162 for public transportation capital projects planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities, and/or operating projects that improve access to fixed route service and decrease reliance on ADA complementary paratransit, or alternates that assist seniors and individuals with disabilities.

Clovis Transit will be applying for traditional capital funding to purchase vehicles to support the paratransit service. Paratransit services continue to be in high demand for our community's residents. In the last four years, Clovis Transit has had an increase in ridership of more than one hundred sixty-four percent (164%). Clovis Transit continually strives to provide efficient, reliable, and safe service for all passengers. New vehicles support this effort and ensure we can meet our passengers' transportation needs for medical, employment, and educational services.

The grant application will be for approximately $700,000. This grant requires a local match of 20% for capital projects in FY2026-27. If this grant is awarded, Clovis Transit will provide the local match of approximately $140,000 with Transportation Development Act (TDA) – State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. The grant application also requires an approved City Council resolution with the designation of a staff member to execute the grant application, certifications and assurances, reporting, and all necessary documentation. The resolution (Attachment 1) will authorize the Deputy General Services Director to execute all required documentation for the FTA Section 5310 grant.

FISCAL IMPACT
If awarded, Clovis Transit will be notified in February 2026, allowing staff time to include this funding in the FY 2026-27 budget.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The FTA Section 5310 grant opportunity will provide funding to secure additional vehicles, which will enable us to expand our paratransit fleet and better serve our community’s needs. The demand for paratransit service in Clovis continues to grow, and vehicles are essential to providing safe and reliable transportation.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Following the resolution's approval, staff will complete the Section 5310 grant application and submit it, along with the certifications and assurances and the resolution, to FCOG.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Susanna Herrera, Management Analyst
Reviewed by: City Manager AH
425
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 25-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS AUTHORIZING THE

FEDERAL FUNDING UNDER FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) SECTION 5310 (49 U.S.C. SECTION 5310) WITH FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (FCOG) WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Transportation is authorized to make grants to states through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to support capital projects for non-urbanized public transportation systems under Section 5310 of the Federal Transit Act (FTA C 9070.1G); and
WHEREAS, the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) has been designated by the Governor of the State of California to administer Section 5310 grants for transportation projects for seniors and individuals with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clovis desires to apply for said financial assistance to permit operation of paratransit service in Fresno County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clovis has, to the maximum extent feasible, coordinated with other transportation providers and users in the region (including social services agencies).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis hereby authorizes the Deputy General Services Director to file and execute applications on behalf of the City of Clovis with the FCOG to aid in the financing of capital projects pursuant to Section 5310 of the Federal Transit Act (FTA C9070.1G), as amended.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Deputy General Services Director is authorized to execute and file all certifications of assurances, contracts, or agreements, or any other document required by the FCOG.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Deputy General Services Director is authorized to provide additional information as FCOG may require in connection with the application for the FTA Section 5310 projects.
* * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on October 6, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
426
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to accept the work performed as complete and authorize the recording of the notice of completion for this project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project consists of street improvements on Armstrong Avenue from Alluvial to Nees Avenue, approximately ±0.5 mile. Construction included, grinding, scarify/re-compacting portions of aggregate base, asphalt paving, asphalt driveways, asphalt swales, hauling grindings to landfill, ADA concrete improvements, adjustment of existing sewer and storm drain manholes, water valves to finish grade, pedestrian and timber barricades, funding signs, removal and replacement of trees, traffic markings and signs to current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards.

BACKGROUND
Bids were received on May 20, 2025, and the project was awarded by the City Council to the lowest responsible bidder, Doug Ross, Inc., DBA Central Valley Asphalt, on June 9, 2025. The project was completed in accordance with the construction documents, and the contractor has submitted a request for acceptance of the project.

FISCAL IMPACT

1. Award $562,298.00

2. Cost decrease resulting from differences between estimated Quantities used for award and actual quantities installed $(32,417.12)

3. Contract Change Orders $0.00

4. Liquidated Damages Assessed $0.00
__________
Final Contract Cost $529,880.88
427
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Public Utilities Department, the City Engineer, the Engineering Inspector, and the Project Engineer agree that the work performed by the contractor is in accordance with the project plans and specifications and has been deemed acceptable. The contractor, Doug Ross, Inc., DBA Central Valley Asphalt, has requested final acceptance from the City Council.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

1. The Notice of Completion will be recorded.

2. All remaining retention funds will be released no later than 35 calendar days following recordation of the notice of completion, provided no liens have been filed. Retention funds may be released within 60 days after the date of completion, provided no liens have been filed, with “completion” defined as the earlier of either (a) beneficial use and occupancy and cessation of labor, or (b) acceptance by the City Council per Public Contract Code Section 7107(c)(2).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Rami Abunamous, Engineering Inspector
Reviewed by: City Manager AH
428
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
International
Shaw
Gettysburg
Copper
Dakota
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
Teague
Nees
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Ashlan
Dockery
Minnewawa
Clovis
Sunnyside
Fowler
Armstrong
Temperance
Locan
DeWolf
Leonard
Highland
Thompson
Willow
Peach
Shields
Alluvial
Herndon
McCall

VICINITY MAP
Legend
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
CIP 21-15 Armstrong Avenue Street Improvements Print Date: May 27, 2025 Jorge Aguilera

PROJECT

LOCATION
Attachment 1
429
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services Department
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Partial Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 6086, and reduction of the Performance Surety and Labor and Materials Surety to the appropriate values of the remaining improvements to be completed, located at the southeast corner of Shaw Avenue and Leonard Avenue (Lennar Homes of California, LLC).

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to:

1. Accept a portion of the public improvements for Tract 6086, and authorize recording the Notice of Partial Acceptance; and

2. Authorize the immediate reduction of the Performance Surety from $2,280,000 to $199,104 said reduced amount being equal to 100% the estimated value of the improvements remaining to be completed; and

3. Authorize the reduction of the Labor and Materials Surety from $1,140,000 to $99,552, said reduced amount being 50% of the value of the improvements remaining to be completed; said reduction to occur ninety (90) days after the recording of the Notice of Partial Acceptance, provided no liens have been filed.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner, Lennar Homes of California, LLC, has requested final acceptance of a portion of the public improvements constructed or installed in conjunction with this tract. The public improvements include all those shown on the subdivision improvement plans approved by the City Engineer, with the exception of the following remaining improvements:

1. Dog Creek and Trail Plant Establishment as dictated by the Army Corp of Engineers Restoration Requirements from the headwall inlet structure South of Shaw Ave to the headwall outlet structure North of Loma Vista Parkway from the West Right Of Way Line to the Eastern Back of Curb.
430
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2. Dog Creek and Trail Plant Establishment as dictated by the Army Corp of Engineers Restoration Requirements from South of Gettysburg from the headwall inlet structure the just North of the installed Rip Rap from the West Right Of Way Line to the Eastern Block Wall along the trail.

All of the required improvements submitted for acceptance have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. In accordance with Subdivision Map Act Section 66499.7(d), the value of the remaining improvements is less than 20% of the overall improvements. When completed, the remaining improvements will be submitted to the Council for acceptance. This request for partial acceptance complies with the Policy and Procedures for Partial Acceptance of Subdivision Public Improvements and bond Reductions approved by the Council on December 3, 2007.

The owner has requested a deferment of the remaining improvements described above. All remaining improvements shall be constructed per City Standards and Specifications, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, prior to full final acceptance of the Final Map.

The owner has requested partial acceptance. Staff is recommending approval of their request.

BACKGROUND
City Inspection staff, including those of the various affected departments, has certified that all the public improvements requested for acceptance have been constructed or installed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and standards, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer has furnished the required Maintenance Surety to guarantee the accepted public improvements for a period of one year from the date of Council acceptance.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for periodic routine maintenance, as well as repairs needed as the improvements deteriorate with age and usage, will be incorporated into the annual maintenance budget of the Public Utilities Department as these costs are identified.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Subdivision Map Act provides for partial acceptance of improvements and related reduction of sureties once construction of the required improvements has been completed in compliance with all codes, plans and specifications, and all other required documents have been completed and submitted and the value of the improvements to be accepted exceed 80% of the total value of required improvements.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Record the Notice of Partial Acceptance and release the Performance, Labor and Materials, and Maintenance Sureties as appropriate.
431
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Bruce Bloom, Engineer II
Reviewed by: City Manager AH
432
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

International
Shaw
Gettysburg
Copper
Dakota
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
Teague
Nees
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Ashlan
Dockery
Minnewawa
Clovis
Sunnyside
Fowler
Armstrong
Temperance
Locan
DeWolf
Leonard
Highland
Thompson
Willow
Peach
Shields
Alluvial
Herndon
McCall

VICINITY MAP
Legend
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Tract 6086 Attachment 1
Print Date: July 22, 2025 Daniel Negrete
Tract 6086 - Partial Acceptance
433
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning and Development Services Department
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Planning and Development Services – Approval – Final Acceptance for Final Map for Tract 6107, acceptance of public improvements with authorization to record the Notice of Completion, and release of sureties as required, located at the southwest corner of Shaw and Highland Avenues (Lennar Homes of California).

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to:

1. Accept the public improvements for Tract 6107, and authorize recording the Notice of Completion; and

2. Authorize the release of the Performance Surety immediately and then release of the Labor and Materials Surety ninety (90) days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion, (provided no lien has been filed) and release of Public Improvements Maintenance Surety upon the expiration of the one-year warranty period and provided any defective work has been repaired to the City’s satisfaction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner, Lennar Homes of California, has requested final acceptance of the public improvements constructed or installed in conjunction with this tract. The public improvements include all those shown on the subdivision improvement plans approved by the City Engineer.

The construction or installation of the public improvements is complete. The owner has requested final acceptance. Staff is recommending approval of their request.

All landscaping, including sidewalks along the side yards of lots have been constructed. The construction or installation of the public improvements is complete. The owner has requested final acceptance. Staff is recommending approval of their request.

BACKGROUND
City Inspection staff, including those of the various affected departments, has certified that all the public improvements requested for acceptance have been constructed or installed in 434
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.
accordance with the approved plans, specifications and standards, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer has furnished the required Maintenance Surety to guarantee the accepted public improvements for a period of one year from the date of Council acceptance.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Subdivision Map Act requires that once construction of the required improvements has been completed in compliance with all codes, plans and specifications, and all other required documents have been completed and submitted, final acceptance is required, and the appropriate sureties are released.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Record the Notice of Completion and release the Performance, Labor and Materials, and Maintenance Sureties as appropriate.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Ruben Amavizca, Engineer II
Reviewed by: City Manager AH
435
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

VICINITY MAP
Legend
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Project Loction
September 24, 2025 Ruben Amavizca TM 6107 (Lennar Homes of California) Attachment 1
436
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Utilities Department
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Utilities – Approval – Waive Formal Bidding Requirements and Authorize the Purchase of a 2026 Ford F750 Altec Tree Trimming Truck Model LR856 from Altec Industries, Inc., Utilizing the Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract in the Total Amount of $211,736.37.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to waive the City’s formal bidding requirements and authorize the purchase of one 2026 Ford F750 Altec tree trimming truck model LR856 from Altec Industries, Inc., in the total amount of $211,736.37, including tax and delivery fees, utilizing the Sourcewell Purchasing Contract 091521-NAF.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This vehicle will be used to support the addition of a City tree crew for the maintenance of City trees. There are funds in this fiscal year’s Measure Y budget to purchase one (1) 2026 Ford F750 Altec tree trimming truck from Altec Industries, Inc., for the Public Utilities Department Parks Division. Altec Industries’ bid price of $211,736.37 includes tax and delivery fees and the Sourcewell pricing discount. The new vehicle will meet all emissions requirements.

The Sourcewell Purchasing Contract – formerly the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) contract – is a nationwide public procurement service that makes the governmental procurement process more efficient. All contracts available to participating members have been awarded by virtue of a competitive public procurement process compliant with state statutes.

BACKGROUND
The recommended equipment is available through the Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract, formerly the NJPA contract. Sourcewell is a cooperative purchasing contract that allows a vendor like Altec Industries, Inc., to respond to a Request for Proposals (RFP) that covers a large group of government buyers, and it allows a large group of government buyers with similar interests to leverage their buying power to obtain government-only discounts on products.
437
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funds were included in the 2025-2026 Measure Y budget for the purchase of a tree trimming truck for the Parks Division. The Public Utilities Department has the necessary funds for purchase of the vehicle.

To meet Measure Y goals of “Keeping Clovis Safe & Clean” and “Maintaining Youth & Parks Programs,” funds were included in the 2025-2026 budget for the addition of a City tree crew for the maintenance of City trees and for the purchase of an additional tree trimming truck.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
This fiscal year’s Measure Y budget includes the hiring of additional Public Utilities Department Parks Division staff, requiring the purchase of an additional tree trimming truck. Staff have evaluated the available vehicle and have determined that it meets the needs of the Parks Division. The proposed method of purchasing the vehicles is cost-effective and funds are available.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Purchase orders will be prepared for the City Manager’s approval and sent to the vendor.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Jim Stringfield, Fleet Manager
Reviewed by: City Manager AH
438
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Utilities Department
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Utilities – Approval – Res. 25-___, Authorizing the Submittal of an Application Under the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Public Benefit Grant Program - New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase and Authorizing the City Manager to be the Contract Authority; and Approval – Waive Formal Bidding Requirements and Authorize the Purchase of Five (5) 2025 Chevrolet Silverado EV Crew Cab Work Trucks from Hedricks Chevrolet in the Amount of $359,549.40.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution

RECOMMENDATION

1. For the City Council to approve a resolution authorizing the submittal of 5 grant applications under the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Public Benefit Grant Program - New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase and confirm authorization of the City Manager to be the Contract Authority.

2. For the City Council to approve waiving the City’s formal bidding requirements and authorize purchasing five (5) 2025 Chevrolet Silverado EV crew cab work trucks from Hedricks Chevrolet in the amount of $71,909.88 each for a total of $359,549.40.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District currently has an available grant opportunity called the New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase Program. The purpose of this program is to help fund the purchase of new alternative fuel vehicles which will provide a direct benefit to Valley residents. The grant program identifies alternative fuel vehicles as electric, plug-in hybrid, or alternative fueled vehicles. Under this program, the City is eligible to receive up to $20,000 per vehicle toward the purchase of eligible vehicles, and up to a maximum of $100,000 per calendar year. The program terms require that the City provide a resolution from the Council authorizing the submittal of the application and identifying the individual authorized to implement the new vehicle project.

There are funds in this fiscal year’s Fleet Renewal Budget to purchase five (5) 2025 Chevrolet Silverado EV crew cab work trucks from Hedricks Chevrolet in the amount of $359,549.40 for the Public Utilities Department. The existing vehicles are scheduled to be replaced due to age 439
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.
and the new vehicles meet the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation requirements.

For the purchase of the five work trucks, in accordance with the City Purchasing Manual and Procedures, City staff obtained a price quote from the Sourcewell contracted dealer, National Auto Fleet Group, and a quote from a local dealer, Hedricks Chevrolet. The Sourcewell Purchasing contract – formerly the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) contract – is a nationwide public procurement service that makes the governmental procurement process more efficient. All contracts available to participating members have been awarded by virtue of a public competitive procurement process compliant with state statutes.

The lowest responsible quote was obtained from Hedricks Chevrolet at $71,909.88 each, including tax and delivery fees.

BACKGROUND
The program criteria states that an eligible public agency may purchase a new Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) electric, plug-in hybrid, or alternative fuel vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than or equal to 14,000 pounds for reimbursement up to $20,000 per vehicle, not to exceed $100,000 per calendar year. The agency must be located within the geographical area of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of five (5) 2025 Chevrolet Silverado EV crew cab work trucks from Hedricks Chevrolet is $359,549.40. Obtaining additional funds under this program greatly reduces the cost of acquiring the work trucks by up to $100,000. The Public Utilities Department Fleet Renewal budget has funds available in this fiscal year’s budget to make the purchase.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
This funding program will allow the City to purchase five electric vehicles at a significant discount.

Staff has evaluated the available fleet and has determined the proposed vehicles meet the needs of the Public Utilities Department. Sufficient funds are included in the current fiscal year’s budget.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Staff will complete and submit five (5) Public Benefit Program - New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase grant applications, including the City Resolution. Once SJVAPCD approves the applications, the City will proceed with the purchase of the five vehicles. Purchase orders for the vehicles will be prepared for the City Manager’s approval and sent to the vendor following the execution of an agreement with SJVAPCD securing the grant reimbursement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Jim Stringfield, Fleet Manager
Reviewed by: City Manager AH
440
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 25-___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION

FOR, TO SIGN REQUIRED ASSURANCES, AND TO ADMINISTER THE NEW

ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE PURCHASE PROGRAM WITH RESPECT TO

APPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, OR GRANTS
WHEREAS, several local, state, and federal programs allow public and non-profit transportation providers to apply for administration, capital, and operation assistance programs or grants; and
WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District has a Public Benefit Grant Program for New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase with the objective of funding the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles which will provide a direct benefit to Valley residents; and WHEREAS, City of Clovis City Council must authorize someone by resolution as the “Authorized Individual” to make application for and administer the New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to submit an application for, to sign required assurances, and to administer the New Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase Program with respect to applications for local, state, and federal programs, projects, or grants. * * * * *
The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on October 6, 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
441
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Public Utilities Department
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Utilities – Approval – Waive Formal Bidding Requirements and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with Golden Bell Products, Inc., for Insect Control in Sanitary Sewer Manholes, in the Amount of $221,120.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to waive the City’s formal bidding procedures and authorize the City Manager to execute a two-year contract services agreement totaling $221,120 with Golden Bell Products, Inc., to apply insect control treatment to sanitary sewer manholes within the City of Clovis.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Golden Bell Products, Inc. has the sole source right for distribution and application of Insecta, an EPA-approved and registered product, within the State of California. The application of Insecta is guaranteed for two (2) full years from the date of treatment. The City is currently on a two-year treatment rotation, with one half of the City receiving treatment one year, and the remaining half receiving treatment the following year. This fall, approximately 3,900 sanitary sewer manholes in the area east of Sunnyside Avenue and south of Nees Avenue will be treated.

In fall of 2026, the remaining approximately 4,000 manholes in the area west of Sunnyside Avenue and north of Nees Avenue will be treated. The work includes routine maintenance as defined in Section 2.9.02 (c) of the Clovis Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND
Cockroach populations are common in urban wastewater collection systems worldwide, and if unaddressed, they can become a widespread system problem. Insect activity is detected during routine sewer line cleaning and in response to resident complaints. Wastewater staff actively treat isolated infested sections; however, the treatment provided by Golden Bell Products, Inc., is system-wide and has a longer-lasting residual in comparison to any product historically used by City staff. This treatment has been used for several years within our sanitary sewer collection system and has been the most successful product to control sewer pest infestation. 442
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds were included in this year’s 2025-26 Wastewater Enterprise budget. The cost to provide insect control in roughly half of the sanitary sewer manholes within the City this year is expected to be $107,104. The following 2026-27 fiscal year budget will include sufficient funds – approximately $114,016 – for treatment of the remaining half of the sewer manholes within the City.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
lnsecta is the product which Golden Bell Products, Inc., applies to sewer manholes for insect control. Insecta is the only registered product of its type and active ingredient labeled for use in sewer manholes. The product is a United States EPA-approved formulation that is produced in an EPA-approved facility. The product comes ready to use and since it is a polymerized product, there is no field mixing required, which is not the case with any additive-type product. Golden Bell Products, Inc., has used lnsecta in approximately 85 other cities and sanitation agencies in California. Golden Bell Products, Inc. holds a Qualified Applicator License and is licensed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Public Utilities Wastewater staff have experience working with Golden Bell Products, Inc., and have experienced the superior performance of Insecta.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

1. A contract services agreement will be prepared and executed by the City Manager, subject to receiving performance security that is satisfactory to the City.

2. Approximately half of the sewer manholes in the City will receive insect control treatment in October 2025 and the remaining half will receive treatment in October 2026.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Nicholas Torstensen, Deputy Public Utilities Director Reviewed by: City Manager AH
443
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Workshop - Presentation on Cybersecurity Awareness.

Staff: Jesse Velez, I.T. Deputy Director
Recommendation: Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS: None.

I.T. Deputy Director Jesse Velez will provide a verbal presentation on this item.

Please direct questions to the City Manager’s office at 559-324-2060. 444
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Administration
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Consider Approval – Res. 25-___Adopting a Position of Opposition to Proposition 50 on the November 4, 2025, Ballot, Authorizing Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps.

Staff: Paul Armendariz, Assistant City Manager
Recommendation: Consider
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Res. 25-___

2. Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) Summary of Prop. 50 Legislation

RECOMMENDATION
For the City Council to consider a resolution adopting a Position of Opposition to Proposition 50 on the November 4, 2025, special election ballot, Authorizing Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 8, 2025, on a consensus vote from the Council, staff was directed to bring an item back to the Council to consider approving a Resolution opposing Proposition 50.

Proposition 50 will be on a special election ballot on November 4, 2025, for California voters to consider.

A “yes” vote on this measure means the State would use new, legislatively drawn congressional district maps starting in 2026. California’s new maps would be used until the California Citizens Redistrict Commission draws new maps following the 2030 U.S. Census.

A “no” vote on this measure means current congressional district maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistrict Commission would continue to be used in California until the Commission draws new maps following the 2030 U.S. Census.

BACKGROUND
On September 8, 2025, the City Council, by consensus, directed staff to return with an item for consideration regarding an official position on Proposition 50, which will appear on the November 4, 2025, special election ballot.
445
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Proposition 50
Proposition 50 proposes replacing California’s current commission-drawn congressional district maps with new, legislatively drawn maps starting with the 2026 elections. These maps would remain in place until the Commission redraws districts following the 2030 Census. The proposition also expresses support for independent redistricting nationwide, but it does not change federal law or require any action by Congress or the California Legislature.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION
On September 8, 2025, on a consensus vote from Council, staff was directed to bring an item back to Council to consider approving a Resolution opposing Proposition 50.

ACTIONS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If approved, the Resolution opposing Proposition 50 will be kept on file.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.

Prepared by: Paul Armendariz, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by: City Manager AH
446
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 25-__

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLOVIS ADOPTING A POSITION OF OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 50 ON THE NOVEMBER 2025 BALLOT WHEREAS, Proposition 50, appearing on the November 2025 California ballot, proposes to amend the California Constitution to alter the process for drawing congressional districts; and
WHEREAS, the current process, established by voters, assigns the responsibility for drawing congressional districts to the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission, designed to operate in a non-partisan manner; and WHEREAS, Proposition 50 would transfer the authority to draw congressional districts from the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to the State Legislature; and WHEREAS, the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission was created to ensure fair and impartial district boundaries, including safeguards to keep cities, counties, and local communities together; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 50 would remove existing safeguards intended to maintain the integrity of local communities in the redistricting process; and WHEREAS, Proposition 50 proposes dividing communities, forcing some cities and counties to be split among multiple congressional districts under the measure’s new maps and diminishing their voice in Congress; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Clovis, CA recognizes the importance of maintaining a transparent and independent redistricting process to uphold public trust in electoral systems; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Clovis, CA believes that Proposition 50 undermines the voter-approved framework for fair redistricting in California; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Clovis California, hereby adopts an official position of opposition to Proposition 50 on the November 2025 ballot. * * * * *
447
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

The foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clovis held on October 6, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN
DATED:
______________________________ ______________________________ Mayor City Clerk
448
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

November 4, 2025 Ballot

Page 1 of 10 ends

PROPOSITION 50
Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District
Maps in Response to Texas’ Partisan Redistricting.

Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

ANALYSIS OF MEASURE

BACKGROUND
U.S. Congress
U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress is the part of the federal government that makes laws.

Congress has two parts: the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives (House). Each of the 50 states is represented by 2 senators, with 100 senators in total. The House has 435 members. The number of representatives in the House for each state depends on how many people live in that state. Each member in the House represents an area of the state called a congressional district. California currently has 52 congressional districts. Voters who live in each congressional district elect one member of the House every two years to represent them. The next election for all 435 representatives will be in 2026.

U.S. Census Counts States’ Populations Every Ten Years. The number of people living in an area goes up and down over time. Every ten years, the U.S. Census counts the number of people who live in the U.S. The last census was in 2020, and the next census is in 2030. This count is used to determine how many people live in each state and how many representatives in the House each state gets for the next ten years.

Congressional Redistricting
Each State Draws Congressional District Maps Following the U.S. Census. Every ten years, after the U.S. Census is completed, states draw new congressional district maps to reflect their number of House representatives and where people live. This process is called “redistricting.” Each state decides what process to use to draw its new district maps. When drawing new maps, each state must follow federal laws. For example, each congressional district in the state must represent about the same number of people.

ATTACHMENT 2
449
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

November 4, 2025 Ballot

Page 2 of 10 ends

States Typically Do Not Redistrict Sooner Than Every Ten Years. States typically only draw congressional district maps every ten years, unless a court orders changes to comply with the law. In August 2025, however, the Texas Legislature passed a bill to adopt new maps for the 2026 elections without a court order. Several other states also are considering changes to their maps before the 2026 elections.

Congressional Redistricting in California. State legislatures draw congressional district maps in most states, but some states use commissions to do this job. Before 2010, the California Legislature drew the state’s congressional district maps. In 2010, California voters gave this job to an independent commission known as the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (Commission). The Commission includes 14 members: 5 Democratic members, 5 Republican members, and 4 members who are not registered with either of those political parties. When the Commission draws new congressional district maps, it must follow federal and state laws. For example, state law requires, among other things, the Commission to avoid splitting up neighborhoods or local communities of interest to the extent possible. State law also prohibits the Commission from considering political parties, current office holders, or people running for office when it draws the maps.

Current California Congressional Districts. The Commission drew the current maps for California’s 52 congressional districts. These maps were based on the 2020 U.S. Census and have been used since the 2022 congressional elections.

PROPOSAL
California’s Congressional District Maps
Use Legislatively Drawn Congressional District Maps Until After the Next Census.

Proposition 50 replaces California’s current congressional district maps with new, legislatively drawn maps. (The total number of districts would not change.) Proposition 50’s maps must follow federal law, but they are not required to follow the state requirements placed on the Commission. The state would use Proposition 50’s maps for congressional elections starting in 2026. The state would use these maps until the Commission draws new district maps, following the 2030 U.S. Census.

National Congressional Redistricting
Call for Change in Federal Law. Proposition 50 asks the U.S. Congress to change federal law and propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require redistricting be done by “fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.” Proposition 50 expresses voter support for this idea, but does not change federal law or require any particular action of Congress or the California Legislature.
450
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

November 4, 2025 Ballot

Page 3 of 10 ends

FISCAL EFFECTS
Minor One-Time Costs to County and State Elections Officials. Counties run elections, and the state oversees them. Because most congressional districts in California would change at least some under the new maps, county and state elections officials would need to update election materials. This would result in one-time costs to counties of up to a few million dollars statewide and one-time costs to the state of roughly $200,000. The state amount is much less than one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1 percent) of the state’s roughly $220 billion General Fund budget. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.)

CURRENT AND PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS
This section shows maps of the current and proposed congressional districts (1) statewide, as shown in Figures 1 and 2; (2) in the northern part of the state, as shown in Figures 3 and 4; and (3) in the southern part of the state, as shown in Figures 5 and 6. A description of the census blocks represented by each district in the proposed maps can be found at the following website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB604 451
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

November 4, 2025 Ballot

Page 4 of 10 ends

452
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

November 4, 2025 Ballot

Page 5 of 10 ends

453
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.

November 4, 2025 Ballot

Page 6 of 10 ends

Clovis City CouncilOctober 6, 2025

Clovis City Council
October 6, 2025