Atomic City Transit outlines ADA rides, Saturday pilot and funding outlook to county task force

Anna Brunson, senior business analyst for the county’s Atomic City Transit, told the Los Alamos County Inclusivity Task Force on Sept. 24 that the transit system provides free fixed-route and on-demand service and is expanding access for riders with disabilities through its ASSIST paratransit enrollment process.

The presentation, and a question-and-answer session that followed, covered program enrollment and ridership data, an ongoing Saturday pilot service that began Aug. 2 and is scheduled to end Oct. 25 for evaluation, coordination with schools and regional providers, and the program’s revenue outlook. Task force members pressed staff on audible stop information, signage, a possible downtown transit center relocation and potential service coordination with neighboring systems.

Brunson said Atomic City Transit’s mission is “to provide effective, efficient and reliable transportation services for all,” and that inclusivity is central to that work. “All of our services are free,” she said, noting that free fares remove an economic barrier to mobility for children, seniors and other vulnerable populations.

She described two principal services: fixed bus routes (including seasonal express routes aligned with school bell times) and an on-demand option accessed through the ACT MyRide app or by phone. The on-demand ASSIST program is an ADA‑eligibility stream that requires an application, a doctor’s sign‑off and an in-person intake; approved riders receive an ID that enables extended on-demand hours.

Brunson provided enrollment and ridership figures she said the transit agency recorded: 18 ASSIST applicants in 2023, 10 in 2024 and 17 so far this year (through early September). For the April 1–Sept. 1 reporting window after a software migration, she said the system logged 2,083 completed boardings in that program and an average of about 52 rides per enrolled ASSIST rider during that period — a repeat‑use metric Brunson described as indicating stable demand. She added that 448 riders had been created in the system overall and that on‑time performance (arrival within the published pickup window) for dispatched trips was roughly 96.7 percent.

On service hours, Brunson distinguished ASSIST operating hours from general on‑demand hours: she said ASSIST riders may receive extended Monday–Friday service roughly between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., while general on‑demand MyRide service matches fixed‑route start times and — in a separate reference — is offered for the general public on weekdays from about 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (Brunson described multiple booking channels, with high use of phone booking among ASSIST riders and an approximately 80 percent app‑booking rate on Saturdays for general riders.)

Saturday pilot: Brunson said a weekend Saturday pilot launched Aug. 2 to test resident demand for weekend service; staff will reevaluate permanent implementation after Oct. 25. She told the task force she is distributing a rider survey and working with the county’s public information office to collect community feedback. Brunson said operational constraints — chiefly hiring and retaining drivers with commercial licenses — are the principal limit on expanding weekend service, and she described possible workforce strategies such as hiring non‑CDL drivers for limited, part‑time runs if permissible.

Funding and partnerships: Brunson said the agency’s federal 5311 formula funding has not been affected in the recent administration changes she described. She said the county provides the local match and that funding splits vary by program; she referred to roughly an “eighty‑twenty” split for some allocations and a “fifty‑fifty” split on certain operations items. She warned that systems without county match funds typically face more risk. She also noted that Bandelier National Monument curtailed a seasonal shuttle this year because of its own staffing constraints, which reduced ridership tied to that service and had a “trickle‑down” effect on transit numbers.

Transit center relocation: Task force members asked whether the county had moved forward on a previously studied relocation of the transit center into the town site. James (transit staff) told the group the consultant’s work presented to council more than a year ago showed conflicting needs between the lab and town riders. “What we needed from the transit hub was very different than what, like, the lab needed,” he said, and staff paused the effort because the combined hub concepts then under consideration were not viable.

Accessibility and communication: Members urged expanded tactile and audible tools for riders with low or no vision. Brunson clarified that auditory stop announcements operate on the buses for timed stops and said a software update due the following Friday would boost announcement volume and reliability; she said auditory announcements at stop poles were not currently in place. Task force members also asked about multilingual materials beyond English and Spanish; Brunson said materials have been produced on request and that she would proactively work with public information staff to expand translations if the task force identified target languages or partner organizations to contact (members suggested First Born and the public library as resources).

Regional coordination: Brunson and task force members discussed regional on‑demand offerings and interoperability. She said Atomic City Transit is exploring a longer‑term idea of consolidating schedule and on‑demand information into a single user experience so riders do not need multiple apps for adjacent systems such as Blue Bus, Santa Fe Trails, NMDOT intercity lines and the regional RTD.

Quotes during the meeting focused on service goals and constraints. Brunson said, “We do not foresee any kind of losing transit in the foreseeable future,” while noting that large, sweeping cuts would require reevaluation. James summarized the consultant finding on the transit hub: the needs of lab commuters and town riders diverged and a single hub concept presented “was probably not viable to go forward.”

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes from the prior meeting: voice vote; outcome recorded as approved (voice vote: “Aye”). Mover: not specified on the record; second: James (transit staff). Tally: unanimous by voice (members present: six). Note: minutes approved by voice vote. - Approval of the meeting agenda: voice vote; outcome approved (voice vote: “Aye”). Mover: a task force member (not specified); second: task force member (not specified). Tally: unanimous by voice (members present: six). - Approval of updated task force meeting schedule (Dec. 10, Jan. 21, Feb. 18): motion moved and seconded; outcome approved by voice vote. - Motion to adjourn: approved by voice vote.

What happened next: staff said they will circulate the Saturday‑service survey and follow up on technical fixes (stop announcements, headsign publishing), and Brunson offered to coordinate with task force members on driver training and multilingual outreach. James or transit management will be the contact for further details about any transit center relocation work.

The presentation and follow‑up occupied the bulk of the meeting’s time; task force business in the remaining agenda included scheduling future meetings and brief reports on working‑group activities.