McFarland City Council
April 8, 2026

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 99
Figure 46 Responses to "Do you normally ride the following?" (n = 14) 29% 29%
43%
McFarland Dial-A-Ride Kern Transit None of the above
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 100
Opinions on Improvements
The survey provided a short description of four proposed improvements, which are described further in the Recommendations chapter (Chapter 7). Respondents were asked if the improvement would benefit them, their family, or their neighbors. The answer choices were:
(1) yes, (2) no, or (3) not sure.

Overall, most respondents reported that all the improvements would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors. Across improvements, no respondents said they were “not sure” about if the proposed change would be beneficial. Figure 47 summarizes the results of the seven questions. Further analysis and detail on each of the seven improvements is included on subsequent pages.

Figure 47 Summary of Responses to Questions on Benefits of Improvements Improvement
Number of “Yes”
Responses
Number of “No”
Responses
Number of “Not Sure”
Responses
Improvement #1: Later
Weekday Service 11 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Improvement #2: New
Saturday Service 11 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Improvement #3: Add
Second Driver on
Weekdays
11 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Improvement #4:

Advance Reservations 11 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Improvement #5: Kern
Transit Route 110 to
Wonderful Industrial
Park
8 (73%) 3 (27%) 0 (0%)
Improvement #6: Kern
Transit Route 110 to
Wasco Walmart
9 (82%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%)
Improvement #7: Kern
Transit Route 110 to
Delano Walmart
10 (91%) 1 (9%) 0 (0%)

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 101
Improvement #1: Later Weekday Service
Currently, McFarland Dial-A-Ride operates on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Improvement #1 proposed extending weekday service to 6 p.m.

Respondents overwhelmingly supported Improvement #1. All respondents (11 respondents) reported that Improvement #1 would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors (Figure 48).

Figure 48 Responses to "Would Improvement #1 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 11) 100%
0% 0%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 102
Improvement #2: New Saturday Service
McFarland Dial-A-Ride does not currently operate on weekends. This improvement would introduce new Saturday service.

Respondents were also in support of Improvement #2. All respondents (11 respondents) said the improvement would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors (Figure 49).

Figure 49 Responses to "Would Improvement #2 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 11) 100%
0% 0%
Yes No Not sure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 103
Improvement #3: Add Second Driver on Weekdays
Currently, McFarland Dial-A-Ride has only one driver to provide service on weekdays. This improvement would add a second driver and vehicle on weekdays.

All respondents said Improvement #3 would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors (Figure 50).

Figure 50 Responses to "Would Improvement #3 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 11) 100%
0% 0%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 104
Improvement #4: Advance Reservations
Currently, The City of McFarland operates on a first come-first served basis. Riders call in to book a ride when they are ready to travel. Improvement #4 would allow passengers to make advance reservations for all trips, or just time-sensitive trips such as medical appointments, work, or transfers to Kern Transit Route 110.

All respondents (11 respondents) said Improvement #4 would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors (Figure 51).

Figure 51 Responses to "Would Improvement #4 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 11) 100%
0% 0%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 105
Improvement #5: Kern Transit Route 110 to Wonderful Industrial Park Improvement #5 would change the alignment of Kern Transit Route 110 to serve Wonderful Industrial Park in Shafter. The route would operate along Santa Fe Way/Central Valley Highway and 7th Standard Road.

Most respondents (8 respondents) said the improvement would benefit them, their families, or their neighbors. Three respondents, representing 27% of respondents, said the improvement would not be beneficial for them (Figure 52).

Figure 52 Responses to "Would Improvement #5 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 11) 73%
27%
0%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 106
Improvement #6: Kern Transit Route 110 to Wasco Walmart This improvement would shift the alignment of Kern Transit Route 110 in Wasco to serve the Wasco Walmart. The route would use Griffith Avenue, Margalo Street, and Central Avenue.

Most respondents (9 respondents) said the improvement would be beneficial for them. Two respondents, representing 18% of respondents, said the improvement would not be beneficial for them, their families, or their neighbors.

Figure 53 Responses to "Would Improvement #6 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 11) 82%
18%
0%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 107
Improvement #7: Kern Transit Route 110 to Delano Walmart Improvement #7 would change the alignment of Kern Transit Route 110 to serve the Delano Walmart. The route would use Woollomes Avenue.

Almost all respondents (10 respondents) said Improvement #7 would be beneficial. Only one respondent said the improvement would not be beneficial (Figure 54).

Figure 54 Responses to "Would Improvement #7 benefit you, your family, or your neighbors?" (n = 11) 91%
9%
0%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 108
Prioritization of Improvements
Respondents were asked to rank the improvements in the order they think should be implemented, with 1st being highest priority. Responses to this question helped the consulting team prioritize the implementation of the proposed improvements.

Figure 55 shows the results of the prioritization exercise. A weighted average was computed to understand which improvement ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on. The weighted average was computed by multiplying the number of responses by the response ranking, summing these products, and then dividing by the total number of responses for each improvement. For example, for Improvement #1, the weighted average was computed by:

1. Multiplying the 4 responses for 1st choice by 1 (4 x 1 = 4)

2. Multiplying the 3 responses for 2nd choice by 2 (3 x 2 = 6)

3. Multiplying the 2 responses for 3rd choice by 3 (2 x 3 = 6)

4. Multiplying the 0 responses for 4th through 7th choices by the respective ranking (example: 0 x 4 = 0 for 4th choice ranking)

5. Summing the above values and dividing them by the total responses (16 / 9) to get the weighted average of 1.78
A lower weighted average score indicates that an improvement should receive higher priority. Looking solely at the weighted averages, Improvement #1 Later Weekday Service and Improvement #3 Add Second Driver on Weekdays received the highest priority across the seven proposed improvements. This was followed by Improvement #2 New Saturday Service and Improvement #7 Kern Transit Route 110 to Delano Walmart, respectively.

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 109
Figure 55 Survey Respondents' Ranking of Improvements (n = 9) Improvement
Number of
1st Choice
Answers
Number of
2nd Choice
Answers
Number of
3rd Choice
Answers
Number of
4th Choice
Answers
Number of
5th Choice
Answers
Number of
6th Choice
Answers
Number of
7th Choice
Answers
Total
Responses
Weighted
Average
Improvement #1:

Later Weekday
Service
4 (44%) 3 (33%) 2 (22%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 1.78 Improvement #3:

Add Second
Driver on
Weekdays
5 (56%) 2 (22%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 1.78 Improvement #2:

New Saturday
Service
0 (0%) 4 (50%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 2.63 Improvement #7:

Kern Transit
Route 110 to
Delano Walmart
1 (13%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 3 (38%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 3.63 Improvement #4:

Advance
Reservations
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 3 (33%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 9 4.78 Improvement #6:

Kern Transit
Route 110 to
Wasco Walmart
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 5 (63%) 0 (0%) 8 5.38 Improvement #5:

Kern Transit
Route 110 to
Wonderful
Industrial Park
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 4 (50%) 8 6.25

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 110
Information on Transportation Options
A question was asked about how respondents would prefer to receive information about their transportation options. About 64% of respondents (7 respondents) said they would like to look up information online and navigate it on their own to find information about their transportation options. Other respondents (2 respondents for each option) said they would prefer to text message or online chat with a professional coordinator or broker who manages the issue. No respondents reported a preference for a friend or caretaker handling the issue, or for a phone call with a professional coordinator or broker who handles the issue (Figure 56).

Figure 56 Responses to “How would you like to find information about your transportation options?” (n = 11)
64%
0% 0%
18% 18%
Look up
information online
and navigate it
myself
Have a friend or
caretaker handle
the issue
Phone call with a
professional
coordinator/broker
who handles the
issue
Text messaging
with a professional
coordinator/broker
who handles the
issue
Online chat with a
professional
coordinator/broker
who handles the
issue
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 111
Write-In Responses
Respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional feedback on the proposed improvements. The open-ended comments included support for an additional driver and vehicle. Respondents also expressed the need for longer service hours during weekdays and new Saturday service.

The five open-ended responses were as follows:
 “There are many students who use the Kern Transit to go to college and come back home. If the new routes are included it will take even longer for those students to get to McFarland from school in Bakersfield. So in my opinion, if those 3 new routes are added there should be many more bus drivers that take different routes so that the ride isn’t longer. I have a cousin who takes the bus to BC and she has to wait for the 5:45pm bus to take her back to McFarland. Which takes about 2-3 hours just take make it back home. If those new routes are added it’ll be even longer for her get home. There should be more buses with different routes and more drivers. Also with extended hours during weekdays. Many bus drivers would probably not like that but I would think it would be best to also pay them more as well.”  “When transit is unavailable for the day, the public should be notified when trying to call for Dial-A-Ride, by message or social media.”
 “Adding a second driver on weekdays/weekends would allow for the older people in our community to get out more. Saturday service is also highly important for those who need to run errands as well! I love these ideas because it is promoting more accessible/sustainable transit options for our growing community."  “Honestly, the driver Jaime is the best.”
 “We agree with the proposals, and it would benefit us since we have children in schools a bit far from home. It would be great to have another driver and another vehicle because there isn't enough room for everyone. If the vehicle were bigger, then yes, it would be very good to have more transportation.” (translated from Spanish)

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 112
Respondents were also asked “Do you have suggestions on improvements we have not discussed that you would like to see?”
Four respondents provided further feedback:
 “In the past, the city used to have a person answering the transit incoming calls and then relaying them to driver. This was changed to have driver receive calls directly because some calls were not being relayed to driver by dispatcher. I think the driver should be receiving calls directly. Providing an earpiece or hands free phone are options to alleviate safety concerns.”
 “Do something about the grape field behind Price St, brings bad air quality and causes health issues with all those chemicals being airborne. Chemicals like that should not be so close to households.”
 “Adding more drivers for the Dial-A-Ride or even a McFarland bus with routes/stops just in town for students/community members would be ideal, safer, and more sustainable.”
 “I "gave" the McFarland improvement more; it is the most beneficial to me. If people knew that it is beneficial and they really need it, they would be ready on-time for pick up [but because they are not] so the vehicle must wait, and it gets delayed so people should not complain. So, making reservations would be great.” (translated from Spanish)

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 113
Demographics
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to fill out anonymous, optional demographic information on age, race and ethnicity, annual household income, vehicle ownership, and whether they have any disabilities or are a veteran.

Age
As shown in Figure 57, out of 11 responses, 55% (6 respondents) were young adults ages 18 to 24 years old. The rest of the respondents (5 respondents) were adults ages 25 to 64 years old.

Figure 57 Responses to “What is your age?” (Optional) (n = 11) 0%
55%
45%
0%
17 years old or younger 18 to 24 years old 25 to 64 years old 65 years old or older 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 114
Race and Ethnicity
Figure 58 shows the results for the question about racial and ethnic identity. All participants who provided their racial and ethnic identity (11 respondents) identified as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, or Latine.

Figure 58 Responses to "Which of the following races/ethnicities do you identify with?" (Select all that apply) (Optional) (n = 11)
0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0%
American
Indian,
Alaska
Native, or
Indigenous
East Asian Black or
African
American
Hispanic,
Latino,
Latina, or
Latine
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
South Asian White Other
identity
(please
describe)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 115
Annual Household Income
Figure 59 shows the annual household income of the respondents. Out of eight responses, 50% of respondents (4 respondents) reported an annual household income of less than $50,000, and the other 50% of respondents (4 respondents) reported an income of $50,000 to $99,000.

Figure 59 Responses to "What is the approximate combined income for your household?" (Optional) (n = 8)
50% 50%
0% 0% 0%
Fewer than
$50,000
$50,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,000
$200,000 or
greater
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 116
Vehicle Ownership
Respondents were asked how many vehicles their household has, and the results are shown in Figure 60. Most respondents (6 respondents) have one vehicle in their household. Two respondents, making up 22% of respondents, have two or more vehicles, while one respondent does not have a vehicle.

Figure 60 Responses to "How many vehicles are in your household?" (Optional) (n = 9) 11%
67%
22%
0 1 2 or more
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 117
Riders with Disabilities
Respondents were asked if they have a disability that requires a mobility device or other assistance (such as a cane, walker, wheelchair, scooter, or service animal), and the results are shown in Figure 61. All 11 respondents indicated that they do not have a disability that requires a mobility device or other assistance.

Figure 61 Responses to "Do you have a disability that requires a mobility device or other assistance?" (Optional) (n = 11)
100%
0%
No Yes (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 118
Veterans
The last demographic question asked respondents if they are a veteran of the armed forces, with the responses shown in Figure 62. All 11 respondents said they are not veterans.

Figure 62 Responses to "Are you a veteran of the armed forces?" (Optional) (n = 11) 100%
0%
Yes No
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 119
9 IMPROVEMENT PHASING
This chapter outlines how Nelson\Nygaard believes the 25 recommendations detailed in Chapter 7 should be implemented by the City of McFarland. The TDP is a five-year plan, and the improvement phasing matrix that follows is set up to organize which recommendations should be implemented during which year of the plan.

The recommendations are intentionally staggered throughout the life of the plan to not overwhelm the agency in the first few years. Simpler and lower-cost recommendations can be implemented sooner, including items such as improving customer communications by updating the website or creating educational brochures for the vanpool/carpool program.

Many recommendations are interdependent on others. For example, Recommendation A-1 (Track Performance Data) should ideally be implemented after electronic recordkeeping (Recommendation O-3) and a dedicated admin support/dispatcher position (Recommendation O-1) are implemented. Interdependent recommendations are indicated in the matrix.

This implementation plan was used in the development of financial plan, discussed in the next chapter.

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 120
IMPACT OF PHASE 2 OUTREACH

FEEDBACK ON IMPLEMENTATION
The Phase Two public survey asked riders which recommendations should be prioritized given the limited financial resources that the City of McFarland may have (see results in Figure 55 on page 109). Among the four improvements identified specifically for McFarland Dial-A-Ride (Improvements 1 to 4), improvements ranked as follows:

Priority Improvement
1st
(tied)
Improvement #1: Later Weekday Service
Improvement #3: Add Second Driver on Weekdays
3rd Improvement #2: New Saturday Service
4th Improvement #4: Advance Reservations
Improvement #3: Add Second Driver on Weekdays should be considered a top priority from a system reliability and resiliency standpoint. Nelson\Nygaard recommends this improvement be implemented in the first year of the plan (see Recommendation S-1 in matrix).

Improvement #1: Later Weekday Service should be implemented next based on prioritization input from the public. Nelson\Nygaard recommends this improvement be piloted in the second year of the plan (see Recommendation S-2 in matrix).

Improvement #2: New Saturday Service should be implemented third based on prioritization input from the public (see Recommendation S-3 in matrix). Nelson\Nygaard recommends this improvement be piloted in the fourth year of the plan to allow time for the City to pilot and evaluate extended weekday service in the second and third years.

Improvement #4: Advance Reservations are contingent on having a dispatcher in place who can take calls and schedule trips. Once a dedicated dispatcher is onboarded (Recommendation O-1), new dispatching software is acquired (Recommendation O-4), and a second driver is added for capacity (Recommendation S-1), advance reservations can be implemented. Advance reservations are being recommended for implementation in year 4 (see Recommendation A-6 in matrix).

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 121

IMPLEMENTATION PHASING TABLE
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) S-1 Add a Second Driver to
Weekday Service McFarland Continue hiring, onboarding, and training second driver S-2 Pilot Extended Weekday Service McFarland
 Establish evaluation metrics to
evaluate pilot
 Advertise and conduct 9-month
pilot
 Evaluate pilot at the 6-month
mark and collect customer
feedback
 Make decision to discontinue or
make pilot permanent before
end of 9-month pilot
If pilot successful, secure funding
to make permanent
S-3 Pilot Saturday Service McFarland
 Establish evaluation metrics to
evaluate pilot
 Advertise and conduct 6-month
pilot
 Evaluate pilot at the 4-month
mark and collect customer
feedback
 Make decision to discontinue or
make pilot permanent before
end of 6-month pilot
If pilot successful, secure funding
to make permanent
S-4
Improve Kern Transit
Connectivity to Destinations
Outside McFarland
Kern Transit Lead,
McFarland, Wasco,
Shafter, and Delano
support
Work with Kern Transit to evaluate
feasibility and costs of this and the
three other potential alignment
changes proposed for Route 110
Support Kern Transit with any
potential pilot program and/or
community outreach needed
S-5
Investigate Kern Transit Service
to New McFarland Park and
Ride Facility
Kern Transit Lead,
McFarland Support
Begin discussions with Kern
Transit about feasibility of serving
the new transit center
Finalize alignment and other
details for serving the new transit
center in advance of the park and
ride lot opening this year
S-6 Coordinate Senior
Transportation
Wasco, Shafter, and
McFarland with Kern
Transit Support
Discuss with Shafter, Wasco, and
Kern Transit about feasibility and
potential structure
Develop formal plan and
agreements, if necessary
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) O-1
Create a Dedicated
Administrator
Support/Dispatcher
McFarland
Reorganize staffing responsibilities
or create a dedicated admin
support/dispatcher

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 122
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) O-2 Improve Coordination with Kern
Transit McFarland, Kern Transit
Add Kern Transit coordination item
to standing Kern County transit
operators meeting agendas
O-3 Transition to Electronic Record
Keeping McFarland
Implement electronic
recordkeeping after a dedicated
admin support/dispatcher position
has been created
(Recommendation O-1)
O-4 Jointly Procure New
Dispatching Software
Kern COG lead,
McFarland and other
agencies support
Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County. Investigating a
shared dispatcher
(Recommendation O-7) could be
completed concurrently, if desired.
 Develop structure for
procurement and cost sharing
agreements.
 Begin procurement process
 Select vendor and onboard all
participating agencies
 Conduct necessary training
O-5 Establish Countywide Driver
Training Program
Kern COG lead,
McFarland and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and build out structure of
program
 Connect with potential industry
and education partners
Continue development of program Finalize and roll out program O-6 Establish Countywide Grant
Resource Program
Kern COG lead,
McFarland and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
Identify volunteers to be part of a
task force to formally evaluate and
build out structure of program
Finalize and roll out program
O-7
Investigate Shared Dispatcher
and/or Transit Coordinator
Position with Wasco and
Shafter
McFarland, Wasco,
Shafter
Begin discussions with the cities of
Wasco and Shafter. Discuss
details and potential issues to
examine and study further. Jointly
procuring dispatching software
(Recommendation O-4) could be
completed concurrently if desired.
 Complete evaluations and
discussions and decide whether
to implement the
recommendation or not.
 If implemented: Develop
applicable cost sharing
agreements and procedures
 Launch shared dispatching
program

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 123
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) O-8
Explore Opportunities to Share
Zero-Emissions Vehicle
Maintenance Expertise
Kern COG lead,
McFarland and other
agencies support
 Begin discussions with other
interested transit operators in
Kern County
 Identify volunteers to be part of
a task force to formally evaluate
and determine feasibility
 Begin evaluation and feasibility
assessment
 Continue evaluation and
feasibility assessment
 Begin building out structure of
program
 Review plans with agency
partners
Begin implementation Continue implementation
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) A-1 Track Performance Data McFarland
Begin tracking performance data
after electronic recordkeeping
(Recommendation O-3) and a
dedicated admin
support/dispatcher position has
been created (Recommendation
O-1)
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
Ongoing monitoring – Continue to
review performance data on a
regular basis (quarterly or semiannually) and make adjustments as needed to ensure service is
performing well
A-2 Promote Vanpool/Carpool Use McFarland
Develop brochure showing transit
options available in McFarland
Begin discussions with major
employers to raise awareness of
vanpool/carpool options
A-3 Improve Customer
Communication and Website McFarland
 Update McFarland Transit
website
 Develop a communication plan
to let riders know about service
disruptions
A-4 Update Farebox Recovery
Compliance Policy McFarland Develop strategy when new guidance is released A-5 Develop Rider Code of Conduct McFarland Develop and post a set of rules for rider behavior and conduct
Continue development and
implementation if needed
A-6 Allow Advance Reservations McFarland
Implement advance reservations
for all trips or just time sensitive
trips, such as medical, school,
work, and transfers to Kern Transit
Route 110 after implementing a
second driver, a dedicated
dispatcher, and dispatching
software (Recommendations S-1,
O-1, and O-4)
A-7 Create a Zero-Emission
Transition Plan McFarland
McFarland to complete a zeroemission transition plan in-house or hire consultant support

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 124
Number Recommendation Responsibility Year One (FY 2027) Year Two (FY 2028) Year Three (FY 2029) Year Four (FY 2030) Year Five (FY 2031) C-1
Continue Development of New
Transit Facility and Park and
Ride Lot
McFarland Secure funding for new park and
ride lot and new transit facility
Secure funding for new park and
ride lot and new transit facility
Construct new park and ride lot
and new transit facility
C-2 Procure Replacement Vehicles McFarland
Continue current procurement
process to purchase two vehicles.

If a second driver is hired
(Recommendation S-1), one of the
new vehicles would be a fleet
expansion. The other would be a
vehicle replacement.

If second driver is hired
(Recommendation S-1), start new
procurement process to replace
second vehicle beyond its useful
life.

C-3 Procure Additional Vehicle McFarland
Continue current procurement
process to purchase two vehicles.

If a second driver is hired
(Recommendation S-1), one of the
new vehicles would be a fleet
expansion. The other would be a
vehicle replacement.

C-4 Continue to Fill Gaps in
Sidewalk Network McFarland
 Optional: Develop a sidewalk
prioritization plan to identify the
areas of greatest need and
options for phasing and
continuing investment
 Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is
secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured
Continuous implementation –
Implement as funding is secured

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 125
10FINANCIAL FORECAST
As part of this TDP Nelson\Nygaard developed a five-year financial model to understand projected revenues and
expenditures for the life of the plan. Using projections built off historical data, these forecasts are meant to provide a high-level view of the City’s financial health, upcoming capital projects, and capacity to implement recommendations.

DATA SOURCES
Data for past revenues and expenditures was primarily obtained from California State Controller reports. In cases where data from the California State Controller was missing or incomplete, data was supplemented by agency budgets and the National Transit Database (NTD). Data on ridership and revenue hours primarily came from NTD reports and is supplemented by State Controller reports in more recent years if NTD data is missing.

Kern COG provided data on grant and state formula funding, such as Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP), Federal 5311, and Transportation Development Act funds.

Information on capital spending, including new fleet and facilities, was obtained directly from the City of McFarland.

FINANCIAL MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS
The model relies on a series of assumptions that allow current revenues and costs to be forecast in the future. Changing one or more of the assumptions can dramatically impact the future financial forecast. Assumptions built into the model include:
 Vehicle replacement costs and timeframes, including agency-provided data and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) useful life schedules  Scheduled capital projects
 Cost for providing an hour of revenue service

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 126
 Number of service hours budgeted per year
 Inflation rates for administrative labor, fuel, maintenance contracting, and other necessary costs
 Population and employment growth (used as an indicator for the potential growth of revenues)
 Necessary administrative and overhead costs
Projections are in nominal dollars, and future years are adjusted based on past performance or reliable projections, when available. Some important notes about projections and assumptions include:
 Inflation forecasts are based on Federal Reserve 10-year projections.  Revenues from sales and use taxes and formula grant funding are projected based on a composite of inflation, population growth, and employment growth for Kern County.
 Labor, fuel, and other expenditures that increase or decrease along with service provided are calculated at a per-service-hour rate, then adjusted upward for inflation.

This allows service hour projections to directly affect costs. Other expenditures that do not vary with service provided, like utilities or facility costs utilities, are adjusted based on inflation alone.
 Farebox revenue is projected using the average revenue per passenger from the last reported fiscal year multiplied by projected ridership. Since fares are not automatically adjusted for inflation each year, per-passenger revenue remains consistent even if ridership is projected to change.
 For capital spending, if the agency had estimates, those estimates were used. When no agency estimate was available, capital costs were estimated based on a variety of sources, including the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Transit Fleet Cost Model, vehicle price menus from the Washington and Ohio state governments, and the CALSTART Infrastructure Insite cost estimation tool.  The model assumes replacement of vehicles using standard FTA useful life timelines unless otherwise specified in agency documents.

LIMITATIONS
The financial model’s output and summaries are only as accurate as the data and assumption inputs into the model. The model and associated outputs are Nelson\Nygaard’s best attempt at capturing the City’s revenues and expenses. Model reliability to predict cashflow into the future with a reasonable degree of certainty assumes a stable regional economy.

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 127
The model is sensitive to operations revenue inputs. A significant portion of funds come from state Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funding; however, in some circumstances, jurisdictions are allowed to flex it to other transportation uses, including road construction and maintenance. It is sometimes unclear how much LTF funding is being used for transit, and small changes in allocation can substantially change the projection.

REVENUE SOURCES
Transit agencies in Kern County receive funding from a variety of sources, including state and federal grants, local taxes, and fares. Revenue sources can be used on operating and maintenance (O&M), capital, or both. The following list summarizes the revenue sources included in the model along with a brief description of what they can be used for.

State Funding Sources
 Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
− A ¼ cent sales tax that is administered at the state level and then allocated to the jurisdiction where the funds are generated, through Kern COG. While this funding is intended for transit use, jurisdictions are allowed to flex it for road construction and maintenance, provided certain criteria are met.
 State Transit Assistance Fund (STA)
− This funding is generated by a statewide tax on diesel fuel and allocated in a similar manner to LTF funding.
 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)
− This funding is generated by California’s Cap and Trade program and allocated to transit providers for use as operating or capital funds.  Zero-Emission Transit Capital Program (ZETCP)
− State grant formula funding administered by Kern COG and eligible for use purchasing zero-emission vehicles or refueling infrastructure.  Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)
− TIRCP is a formula grant administered by Kern COG that can be used for a variety of capital purposes, including electrification and capital projects that improve service or safety.
 State of Good Repair (SGR)
− State of Good Repair funding can be used to replace or repair transit capital assets, including vehicles and facilities.

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 128
Federal and Local Funding Sources
 5311 Grants
− 5311 grants are provided by the FTA to support rural transit operations and are based on a formula, which includes service area population, ridership, and other factors. The money can be used for operations or capital.  Fares and Local Revenue
− McFarland Dial-A-Ride is currently fare-free and has not spent a substantial amount of local dollars on transit in years examined as part of this cost model.

Figure 63 displays the projected revenues for McFarland Dial-A-Ride for the next five years.

These projections are based in part on historical trends and projections from Kern COG.

Figure 63 Revenue Sources for McFarland Dial-A-Ride, FY27–31 Revenue
Source FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Projected Operating Revenue
LCTOP $37,233 $39,095 $41,050 $43,102 $45,258
FTA 5311 $95,486 $100,261 $105,274 $110,537 $116,064
Projected Capital Revenue
SGR $49,638 $50,879 $52,151 $53,455 $54,791
ZETCP $43,583 $87,166
Total Revenue $225,941 $277,401 $198,475 $207,095 $216,113 Sources: Nelson\Nygaard Projection

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 129
Overall, the City of McFarland is seeing steady growth in 5311 and LCTOP funding, which provide most of the operating funds in the future. 5311 grants have grown at about 6% annually, exceeding inflation, and are nearly sufficient to cover operating costs on their own.

However, there is not enough revenue to implement additional service.

The City has access to other revenue sources in the form of LTF and STA funding, which is currently allocated primarily for non-transit purposes. This funding is theoretically enough to pay for the City’s current transit service and any potential service improvements. Figure 64 shows the historical allocation of these funds towards transit. Our projections assume none of these funds are used to fund transit in the future.

Figure 64 City of McFarland LTF and STA Funding Received, FY22–25 Revenue Source FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025
Total LTF and STA Funding $677,125 $849,746 $972,862 $983,489 Percent Used on Transit 1% 12% 0% 0%
Source: Kern Council of Governments, 2025
The City of McFarland also receives a steady stream of capital funding in the form of SGR grants, which can be used to repair or replace vehicles and facilities. The City has stated that all TIRCP and ZETCP funding is earmarked for the new transit facility and park and ride.

MAJOR EXPENSES
Transit agencies incur two main types of costs, operating and capital. Operating costs are those related to day-to-day transit operations, including labor, gas, and office space. Capital costs include fleet and facility costs. Figure 65 shows the anticipated operating and capital expenses for McFarland Dial-A-Ride in the future. Details on what is included or not included follows the table.

Figure 65 Expenses for McFarland Dial-A-Ride, FY27–31
Cost FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Projected Operating Costs
Operating
Expenses
(Labor, Fuel,
and
Maintenance)
$125,579 $128,719 $131,937 $135,235 $138,616
Total Costs $125,579 $128,719 $131,937 $135,235 $138,616 Sources: Nelson\Nygaard Projections

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 130
Operating Expenses
Operating costs can be broken down into variable costs, which increase or decrease along with service, and fixed costs, which are relatively steady. Variable costs include driver labor, fuel, maintenance, tires, and possibly contracted services. Fixed costs include administrative labor, utilities, or facilities costs, which do not change with small changes in service. The costs included in Figure 65 shows the anticipated costs to continue operating transit service in the future at existing service levels.

Capital Expenses
The City of McFarland’s capital costs are primarily related to fleet replacement and expansion and facilities. The City has not provided information on the exact capital costs it expects to incur from FY 2027 to FY 2031; however it is likely that the City’s new transit facility and park and ride will cost at least $1 million. Much of this is expected to be funded using grant money. Given the uncertainty around future capital funding needs, Figure 65 does not include any capital expenses beyond fleet replacement.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND

IMPROVEMENT COSTS
McFarland Dial-A-Ride currently has a strong financial position, consistently running surpluses of more than $30,000, which have developed into a large reserve over the time examined in the financial model. However, this is not sufficient to implement all the proposed recommendations. Adding a second driver and vehicle alone could place substantial strain on the finances of the City of McFarland if no additional revenue is identified or re-directed from other uses. Other annual commitments, such as the dedicated dispatch position or expanded service if made permanent, could worsen the fiscal situation.

Figure 66 displays the current net position and the reserve between FY2027 and the end of the plan in FY2031. The reserve is calculated from the first year of the financial model (FY2022) and does not reflect any previous savings the Agency may have. It also provides the estimated costs of implementing each recommendation and the net position if all are implemented. For costs with a range due to different implementation options, a high and low estimate is given, and a best-case overall position is provided. These costs are planning-level estimates given in 2025 dollars.

As shown, the City’s net financial position is negative every year, assuming the lower end of costs is realized. Large capital costs such as vehicle acquisition and replacement also quickly deplete any reserve McFarland Dial-A-Ride has. The City can likely apply for grant funding

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 131
that would cover the bulk of these capital costs through SGR or other California state grant programs.

To fully implement the recommendations that pull from the operating budget, the City will likely need to identify additional revenue sources as they are typically more difficult to fund with grant revenue. Possible revenue sources include resuming fare collection, although it would be a very small revenue stream, or reallocating more LTF and STA funds to transit operations.

Creative implementation of the recommendations by the City, such as staggered workdays or shift times, and collaborating with the Cities of Shafter and Wasco, and Kern Transit, may reduce costs and allow more recommendations to be implemented within available funding means.

The City’s new transit facility is not accounted for in this analysis due to a lack of data on costs. It is likely that a substantial portion of the cost can be covered by grant funding, from sources such as ZETCP or SGR, but the overall cost and the proportion that will need to be covered by other funds is unknown.

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 132
Figure 66 City of McFarland’s Financial Position, Baseline and with Recommendations, FY27–31 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031
Projected Baseline Net Position and Reserve
Net Position $100,362 $148,682 $66,538 $71,860 $77,497
Net Reserve $494,195 $642,877 $709,416 $781,276 $858,773 Estimated Recommendation Costs
S-1 Second
Driver and
Vehicle
$(100,000) $(100,000) $(100,000) $(100,000) $(100,000)
S-2 Extended
Service Pilot $0–$(40,000)
S-3 Saturday
Service Pilot $(10,000)
O-1 Dedicated
Admin/Dispatch
O-7 Shared
Admin/Dispatch
$(50,000)–
$(80,000)
$(50,000)–
$(80,000)
$(50,000)–
$(80,000)
$(50,000)–
$(80,000)
$(50,000)–
$(80,000)
A-7 Create
Zero-Emissions
Fleet Transition
Plan
$(10,000)–
$(50,000)
C-2 Procure
Replacement
Vehicles
$(100,000)–
$(200,000)
C-3 Procure
Additional
Vehicle
$(100,000)
Sum of Costs $(360,000)–
$(530,000)
$(150,000)–
$(220,000)
$(150,000)–
$(180,000)
$(160,000)–
$(190,000)
$(150,000)–
$(180,000)
Projected
Deficit
$(259,638)
minimum
$(1,318)
minimum
$(83,462)
minimum
$(88,140)
minimum
$(72,503)
minimum
Sources: Nelson\Nygaard Projection

McFarland Transit Development Plan Final Report
Kern Council of Governments 133

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 Nelson\Nygaard’s financial model shows that the City of McFarland should be able to operate Dial-A-Ride service at existing service levels over the next five years based on projected growth in operating funds. Existing revenues are not sufficient to add service.
 Over the last four years, the City has been spending between 0% and 12% of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) funding on transit operations. The City may need to consider reallocating additional LTF and STA funding to transit to implement all recommended service improvements.
 The City of McFarland’s capital costs are primarily related to fleet replacement and expansion and facilities. The City has not provided information on the exact capital costs it expects to incur from FY 2027 to FY 2031; however it is likely that the City’s new transit facility and park and ride will cost at least $1 million. Much of this is expected to be funded using grant money. Given the uncertainty around future capital funding needs, our financial model does not include any capital expenses beyond fleet replacement.
 Because grant revenues usually cannot be used to pay for operations the City will likely need to identify additional resources to implement all service and operations recommendations. Possible revenue sources include resuming fare collection, although it would be a very small revenue stream, or reallocating more LTF and STA funds to transit operations.
 Creative implementation of the recommendations by the City, such as staggered workdays or shift times, and collaborating with the Cities of Shafter and Wasco, and Kern Transit, may reduce costs and allow more recommendations to be implemented within available funding means.

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-1
APPENDIX A:

COUNTYWIDE

DEMOGRAPHIC MAPS

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-2
Figure 1 Kern County Population Density
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-3
Figure 2 Percentage of People of Color in Kern County
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-4
Figure 3 Percentage of Veterans in Kern County
Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimate

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-5
Figure 4 Percentage of People with Disabilities in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-6
Figure 5 Percentage of Older Adults (65 Years and Older) in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-7
Figure 6 Percentage of Young Adults (18-24 Years Old) in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-8
Figure 7 Percentage of People in Poverty in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-9
Figure 8 Percentage of Population with Limited English Proficiency in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-10
Figure 9 Percentage of Households with Zero Vehicles in Kern County Source: ACS 2023 5-Year Estimate

Transportation Development Plan Appendix A Countywide Demographics Kern Council of Governments A-11
Figure 10 Employment Density in Kern County
Source: LEHD 2022

Transportation Development Plan County-wide Demographics Appendix Kern Council of Governments A-12
Figure 11 Employment Density of Low-Wage Jobs in Kern County Source: LEHD 2022

McFarland Transit
Development Plan – City
Council Presentation
Ezra Pincus-Roth, AICP
April 8, 2026

1 Agenda
▪ Purpose of Tonight’s Presentation
▪ Overview of Project
▪ Existing Conditions
▪ Recommendations
▪ Implementation Plan

Purpose of Tonight’s Presentation
▪ Provide an overview of the McFarland Transit Development Plan ▪ Highlight key findings and recommendations
▪ Answer any questions
▪ Request adoption of the final report

3 What is a Transit Development Plan (TDP)?
▪ Short-term (5 year), costconstrained plan to improve transit service
▪ TDPs must be updated regularly
as part of the California
Transportation Development Plan
Act
▪ We’re conducting 9 TDPs, as
indicated in the map

4 Our Approach with Developing this Plan
▪ The TDP is your document – It is designed to be reflective of your needs/priorities – The TDP is a roadmap for improving transit in your community – Can help provide justification for budgeting/grant application requests ▪ This was a collaborative process!
▪ The public:
– Provided input on needs/challenges with transit in McFarland ▪ The consultant:
– Provided an initial assessment of opportunities
▪ City staff:
– Provided feedback on initial recommendations
– Elevated concerns/asked questions
– Flagged items they were hoping to include in the plan

5 Existing Conditions

▪ Reserve trip when ready to ride (first come,
first served)
▪ Operates weekdays from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.
▪ Operates only in city limits
▪ Average of 70 rides per day
7 Overview of McFarland Dial-A-Ride

▪ Public Survey (English and Spanish)
– Open from late June to early July 2025
– 11 questions
– 6 people responded
▪ In-person outreach with bi-lingual staff
– Rode transit vehicles
8 Phase 1 Outreach
Objective: Identify needs,
opportunities, and challenges
with transit in McFarland

▪ Public Survey (English and Spanish)
– Open from mid October to mid November 2025
– 14 people responded
▪ Virtual Public Meeting – October 22, 2025
– English and Spanish slides/audio
– 4 community members attended
9 Phase 2 Outreach
Objective: Get feedback on proposed
recommendations and priorities for
implementation

Areas to Improve
▪ Limited staffing - Only one driver (Second driver hired and now operating) ▪ Service is limited - Service ends at 4 p.m. on weekdays. No weekend service. ▪ Transit vehicles need to be replaced (Two new vans have been purchased) ▪ New transit facility needed
▪ Concerns from survey:
– Transit does not run when I need it
o Later weekday service
o Weekend service
– Need service for long-distance trips, like Walmart
– No one answers the phone
– Need more drivers and vehicles

10 Recommendations

Overview of Recommendations
▪ 25 recommendations
▪ Service (6 recommendations) – Covering the service itself ▪ Capital (4 recommendations) – Capital investments: Bus stops, transit facility, sidewalks ▪ Operations (8 recommendations) – Back-end aspects of running the service ▪ Administrative/Policy (7 recommendations) – Admin functions related to service

12 Key Recommendations
We’re covering just the highlights during tonight’s presentation. See final report for more information.

Service Category
▪ Pilot extended weekday service
▪ Pilot Saturday service

13 ▪ McFarland Dial-A-Ride operates on weekdays
from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.
▪ We heard from the public:
– Transit does not run when it is needed
▪ Improvement 1: Earlier and later weekday service
(7 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
– Deployed as a six-month pilot program
▪ Improvement 2: New Saturday service
– Hours of operation to be determined
– Deployed as a six-month pilot program
14 Extended Weekday Service and New Saturday Service
Key challenge: Staffing
Suggested approach: Six-month pilot

▪ Establish clear metrics before the pilot starts
– Can be quantitative – Ridership, cost, riders per hour – Can be qualitative – Customer satisfaction, riders without access to vehicles, riders that would not have otherwise been able to take the trip during regular hours ▪ Metrics are up to the City to set
▪ Consider establishing a rider focus group to develop these metrics and help launch the service
▪ After the pilot: Evaluate using the metrics and determine whether pilot should be made permanent
– City would need to discuss staffing/funding to make permanent 15 Suggestions for a Successful Pilot

Key Recommendations
Capital Category
▪ Continue development of new transit facility and park & ride Operations Category
▪ Coordinate with Cities of Wasco and Shafter on a shared dispatcher/transit coordinator ▪ Coordinate with other agencies in Kern County on:
– Sharing zero-emissions vehicle maintenance expertise
– Jointly procuring new dispatching software
– Establishing a county-wide driver training program
Administrative/Policy Category
▪ Improve customer communications/website

16 Financial Plan
▪ Our estimates show the City can fund both existing service AND pilot the two recommended service expansions
▪ Additional revenue needed to make the service expansions permanent – May be possible to reallocate Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) funding to cover more transit operations
▪ Additional funding also needed for the new transit facility ▪ Collaboration with other agencies may reduce barriers/costs for implementation (e.g., sharing staff, joint procurement)

17 ▪ Summary table of recommendations, with
estimated costs and responsible parties
▪ Detailed writeup
– Why something was proposed
– How the recommendation can be implemented
18 More Information in Final Report

Implementation
Plan

Final Report includes suggested implementation plan
▪ Plan covers the next five years
– Recommendations can be implemented sooner or later than suggested ▪ The TDP is a list of projects to be undertaken or mini studies to be done ▪ Some recommendations require further study
▪ There is no “penalty” if a recommendation is not implemented or further evaluation determines a fatal flaw

20 Thank you! Any questions?
We would like to request adoption of this plan by the McFarland City Council 21 Ezra Pincus-Roth AICP, Senior Associate
[email protected]