May 9, 2011 RLS & Associates, Inc. Kent County Transit Needs Assessment Draft Findings and Recommendations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
West Michigan Transit Linkages Study Wednesday, June 4 th, :00 a.m. Grand Valley State University Kirkhof Center Conference Room 2266.
Advertisements

Blueprint for Transportation Excellence Downtown CAG January 16, 2014.
TBITE 05/15/ Heather Sobush, Senior Planner Christopher Cochran, Senior Planner
HART Transit Development Plan June 20, Overview TDP Purpose Plan Elements – Vision Plan – Status Quo Plan – Action Program Next Steps.
Short Range Transit Improvement Plan CITY OF HIGH POINT Sounding Board/Steering Committee Meeting Service Recommendations January 13, 2015.
SR 50/UCF Connector Alternatives Analysis Orange County Board of County Commissioners January 13, 2015.
Transit Development Plan GMTA’s Guide for Future Growth Vision and Strategies October 20, 2011.
[Presentation Date] [Presenter Name, Organization, Title] The Need to Repair & Replace [Your Region’s]Transit Network Presentation to [Organization] [Insert.
Calaveras Transit Intercity Service Feasibility Study Draft Alternatives Presented by: Gordon Shaw, PE, AICP and Genevieve Evans, AICP LSC Transportation.
NEW YORK CITY TRAFFIC CONGESTION MITIGATION COMMISSION NYSDOT Comments on New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Plan Bob Zerrillo, Director, Office.
The Current State and Future of the Regional Multi-Modal Travel Demand Forecasting Model.
Community Transit Solutions for the Suburbs APTA Annual Meeting September 30, 2013.
Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Lee Gibson, Executive Director Roger Hanson, Senior Planner.
Public Private Partnerships Maximizing Opportunities UMA Motorcoach Expo Los Angeles, CA, Feb 17, 2014 Stephen B. Brown, Brown Coach, Inc. Dale Krapf,
Short Range Transit Improvement Plan CITY OF HIGHPOINT Sounding Board Meeting Service Recommendations September 9, 2014.
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lectures 8: The Performance and Condition of Transit in the United States.
The Kalamazoo Transit Story: Kalamazoo Metro Transit and Kalamazoo County July, 2009 Presented By: William J. Schomisch, City of Kalamazoo Transportation.
Calgary Regional Partnership Workshop BC Transit Governance and Funding Experience Bill Lambert, Manager, Transportation Solutions, April 16, 2013.
Human Services Coordinated Transportation Plan Thursday July 20, 2006 GF City Hall Rm A102.
Sketch Model to Forecast Heavy-Rail Ridership Len Usvyat 1, Linda Meckel 1, Mary DiCarlantonio 2, Clayton Lane 1 – PB Americas, Inc. 2 – Jeffrey Parker.
Greater Mankato Transit Redesign Study Study Overview and Initial Existing Conditions September 2011 In association with: LSA Design and Public Solutions.
Transportation 101 June 12, Presenting Agencies  Southwestern PA Commission’s CommuteInfo program  GG & C Bus Company, Inc.  Mid Mon Valley Transit.
Keeping Harris County Moving.. Background Transit needs study in Commissioned by H-GAC and Harris County Transportation Coordinated Council.
Overland Park Public Works Committee – Transit Update June 24, 2015.
Early findings in the Helena’s Planning Process Lisa Ballard, P.E. November 28, 2012.
: Research Question: Would ridership needs in the area of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project be better Served by the implementation of a Bus Rapid.
Transportation 101 August 7, Presenting Agencies  Southwestern PA Commission’s CommuteInfo program  IndiGO: Indiana County Transit Authority 
Sullivan County Coordinated Transportation Plan Proposed Coordinated Transportation Plan.
State of Transportation: Atlanta, GA Chris Clark University of New Orleans 10 February 2011.
Wake County Transit Plan Choose how you move! December 7, 2011 Capital Area Friends of Transit 1.
July 2008 Lee County Transit Authority Concept: An Update.
On-Board Transit Survey Presentation to TCC Dec. 13, 2002 Heather Alhadeff, AICP
Valley Transit Fixed Route and ADA Paratransit Transportation.
NCTPA ACCOMPLISHMENTS. NCTPA Overall Work Program (OWP) Serves as a reference to be used by citizens, planners, and elected officials throughout the year.
Innovations in Transit Planning and Financing Presentation to the 2003 MPO Conference, Muncie IN October 16, 2003.
NEW STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORT GOVERNANCE IN MONTREAL March EMTA Meeting, Madrid.
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING APRIL 22, 2014 CITY OF HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA High Point Short Range Transit Improvement Plan.
Morgan County Transit Discussion UTA Corporate Staff Presentation November 19, 2013.
Implementing Quality and Efficiency in Transit Planning Mike Summerlin Former Chairperson Raleigh Transit Authority.
00 Metropolitan Transit System Transit Serving Point Loma September 23, 2008.
Kern Regional Transit Workshop Kern Council of Governments Marilyn Beardslee Senior Planner.
1 Presented to the Transportation Planning Board October 15, 2008 Item 9 Metrobus Priority Corridor Network.
Siskiyou County Short Range Transit Plan Draft Final Report Presentation to the Steering Committee LSC Transportation Consultants.
Wherever Your Path May Lead …. RTS Takes You There! FPTA /CTD 2015 Annual Training and Expo Marketing Network (FTMN) Session 1 Transit Discount Programs.
Governance issues in case of the Helsinki Region Transport, HSL EMTA General Meeting, Budapest April 2010 Suvi Rihtniemi HSL Helsinki Region Transport.
Agenda Methodology Major Findings –Perceptions of Congestion –Ease of Travel –Transportation Planning Issues –Interest in Using Public Transportation.
Fairfax County Comprehensive Transit Plan and Transit Development Plan Update Fairfax County Comprehensive Transit Plan and Transit Development Plan Update.
Gastonia Transit Expansion Study City Council/Planning Commission Joint Transportation Workshop September 13, 2007.
Placer County Rural Transit Study Expanding Public Transit Service for Rural Placer County.
ANN ARBOR AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Scio Township Area Transit Plan DRAFT – January 2015.
Increasing Success & Credibility of Your Service Through End-User Involvement.
Role in a Livable Community April 5,  Over it’s 40 year history, RVTD has seen service grow in the first 20 years and steady decreases over the.
Valley Metro Update Open House and Public Hearing March 9, 2007.
Transportation Fee FY2016 January 16, Services Provided by Transportation Stinger Buses - Three routes with 10 buses operating weekdays and two.
Analysis of time-of-day pricing in optimizing bus transit service in Westchester County, NY NYMTC September 11 th Memorial Program Jeevanjot Singh Rutgers.
Indianapolis Public Public Hearing – Proposed 2014 Budget Thursday, August 15, 2013 Transportation Corporation.
FY Annual Transit Performance Report Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Review Committee February 26, 2004.
Regional Transportation Plan Draft Hybrid Scenario Transportation Policy Committee 7/22/03.
Metropolitan Council Transit Capital Improvement Program October 10, 2007.
Presentation on Emergency Response for Butte Regional Transit
Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority (RTA) 2016 Transit Planning Process Funded through a Section 5304 Planning Grant 5/23/2018.
Service Routes and Community Transit Hubs: Right Sizing Transit
Transit for Tomorrow strategic plan
FY 2019 Recommended Wake Transit Work Plan
Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA)
GMT NEXT GEN TRANSIT PLAN FARE ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Promoting Shared Rides: Where do Transit Agencies Fit?
Lorain County Transit Needs Assessment
Regional Transportation Authority
HRT Workshop: Transit Strategic Plan and Aug-Dec working items
Presentation transcript:

May 9, 2011 RLS & Associates, Inc. Kent County Transit Needs Assessment Draft Findings and Recommendations

22 RLS & Associates, Inc.  Existing Conditions  Transportation Needs Assessment ◦ Telephone Household Survey ◦ Employer Survey ◦ Demographic Analysis  Transit Service Alternatives  Financial/Governance Alternatives

33

44  A Patchwork of Transportation Services in the Kent County Study Area Exist – Most are Program Related  Non-Program Related Transportation Services Are Limited and Experience Rationing  Existing Services Difficult for Public to Understand

 Development Continues to Accelerate in Locations Outside The Rapid Service Area  Current Transportation Services Do Not Parallel Current Travel Patterns  Population is Aging  Latent Demand Exists for Various Types of Transit Service in the Kent County Study Area 55

66

77

8 Total >15 Population 206,898223,625239,542 Disabled Population 10,52411,32113,218 Percent5.1%5.2%5.5%

 10  Commuter Express Routes – Weekday Peak to Downtown  Route Extensions/New Routes – Expand The Rapid Fixed Route System  Go!Bus – Expand Service Area for Seniors and Disabled Beyond Six Cities  County Demand Response Service – Residents of Kent County Outside Six Cities

 Countywide Public Transportation ◦ County Demand Response - Residents of Kent County Outside of The Rapid Core Service Area ◦ Go!Bus Expansion - Serve More of Kent County  11

 12

 13

DisabledOver 65General Public - <10 miles General Public - >10 miles Go!Bus$3.00$ County Demand Response $3.00$7.00 $8.00  14

Total Operating Cost $7.3m$8.9m$11.3m$13.9m Revenues Millage$5.5m$6.7m$8.5m$10.4m - Fares$0.2m$0.5m$0.6m - MDOT$2.2m$2.1m$2.0m$1.9m  15

 Commuter Express and Route Extensions/New Routes ◦ Four Express Routes ◦ Expand The Rapid Fixed Route Service Area to Rockford, Plainfield, Byron, Gaines, Ada, Caledonia Townships  16

 17

 Total Operating Cost $4.1m$5.1m$6.4m$7.9m Revenues Millage$3.8m$4.7m$6.0m$7.0m - Fares$0.1m$0.6m$0.7m - MDOT$1.2m $1.1m

 County Demand Response/Go!Bus ◦ 35 Vans  Commuter Express/Fixed Route Expansion ◦ 25 Buses ◦ Vehicle Maintenance Facility ◦ Park and Ride Lots ◦ Passenger Amenities i.e. Bus Shelters  19

 Maintain Existing ITP Board  Request County to Place Levy on Ballot  If Successful - County Contracts With The Rapid and/or Other Entities to Provide Service  Add a Non-Voting Member to ITP Board Appointed by County  20

 Marketing/Communications Functions - New Services  Single Point of Contact  Regional Branding/Identity  21

 23 Overall Latent Demand

 24

 25

Service Type Demand Response Fixed Route Commuter Express Market Size 15,50012,9001,730 Ridership150,0001,200,00080,000  26

 Compiled Journey to Work Data by Census Tract  Surveyed 11 Employers and Colleges  Compiled Residences by Zip Code for Employees and Students  27

 29

 30 RidershipVehicle Hours Vehicle Miles Cost Peer Group45,000 Survey124,200 Consensus80,000*3,555106,601$278,062 *Note – Ridership is for Four (4) Routes

 31

 32

 33 RidershipVehicle Hours Vehicle Miles Cost Peer Group1,657,406 Survey1,019,627 Consensus1,200,00062,105705,317$4,858,102

 Open to Seniors, Disabled and General Public  Weekdays/Saturdays and Daytime/Evenings  24-Hour Reservation  Curb-to-Curb Service Provided  Fare - $3-7  34

 35 RidershipVehicle Hours Vehicle Miles Cost Peer Group235,856 TCRP #4+81,314 TCRP B ,100 Survey330,747 Consensus+150,00075,0001,650,000$3,547,344

RLS & Associates, Inc.

 Total $10,736,265$12,083,761$14,008,391 Commuter Express $167,052$188,019$217,965 New/Ext. Route $3,706,883$4,172,129$4,836,641 Go!Bus $1,974,068$2,221,831$2,575,712 County DR $4,888,261$5,501,781$6,378,072

 38 RLS & Associates, Inc. ItemUnit CostNumberTotal Fixed Route Buses$400,00025$10,000,000 Demand Response Vehicles $74,00035$2,590,000 Maintenance Facility $7,600,000 Other – i.e. Shelters, Park and Ride Lots $450,000 Annualized to 2035 – $1.7m

 39 RLS & Associates, Inc Total Operating Expenses $10,736,265$12,083,761$14,008,391 Passenger Fares $364,643 $1,118,780 $1,342,536 Millage $10,609,593 $11,941,191 $13,843,113 MDOT $3,257,727 $3,171,293 $3,066,469 Total Revenue$14,231,963$16,231,264$18,252,188

 Total Operating Expenses $10,736,265$12,083,761$14,008,391 Passenger Fares $364,643 $1,118,780 $1,342,536 Millage $5,304,797 $5,970,595 $6,921,557 MDOT $3,257,727 $3,171,293 $3,066,469 Total Revenue$8,869,517$9,988,439$10,997,896

 Total Operating Expenses $6,609,495$7,439,045$8,623,892 Passenger Fares $234,812 $469,623 $563,548 Millage $5,304,797 $5,970,595 $6,921,557 MDOT $2,002,288 $1,949,164 $1,884,736 Total Revenue$7,541,896$8,389,382$9,369,840

 Total Operating Expenses $4,713,795$5,305,418$6,150,433 Passenger Fares $170,000 $340,000 $408,000 Millage $4,986,509 $5,612,360 $6,506,263 MDOT $1,427,206 $1,389,340 $1,343,416 Total Revenue$6,583,715$7,341,699$8,257,679

 43 RLS & Associates, Inc.

 Expand Service via Purchase of Service Contracts with Cities, Villages and/or Townships  44

 County Purchase of Service Contract ◦ County Levies Millage ◦ Revenue Scenario 2/Service Scenario 2 (County DR and GoBus)  45

 46  Individual Townships, Cities, and Villages Choose to Join ITP  Expand Service Area Using Current Governance Structure  New Members Must Pay The Rapid Millage

 47  The Existing Rapid PTA Replaced by New PTA with Entire County Service Area  Significant Change in Governance  New Members Must Pay The Rapid Millage

 A Group of Municipalities Form a Second PTA in Kent County  Result in Two PTAs Serving Parts of One Urban Area  48

 Service Improvements ◦ 1 st Priority – County Demand Response/ GO!Bus ◦ 2 nd Priority – Extend Routes/Commuter Express  Current System Local Costs – $194,236  Levy – millage = $25.00/Year for $200,000 Home  49