1. PRTC Long Range Bus Plan Preparation Invitation for Community Involvement Presented by Alfred Harf PRTC Executive Director December 2006

2. 2 Presentation Overview Introduction and Background 20 minutes Review of Potential Scenarios 25 minutes Open Discussion and Wrap-Up 30 minutes

3. 3 Why Produce Such A Plan? Continuing population (and employment) growth Conditions (in addition to growth) that are prompting more transit service requests –Mounting traffic congestion –Higher costs of automotive use –Growing incidence of people for whom driving is difficult or impossible Long lead times for service expansion –Funding –Equipment acquisition –Facility expansion as required

4. 4 Greater Prince William Area Population Trends 2000-2030 Greater Prince William County area is currently one of the fastest growing in the region Expected to continue, though local government policy decisions can influence magnitude to some degree Note: Metropolitan Washington COG, Round 7.0 Cooperative Land Use Forecasts - Prince William County and Cities of Manassas & Manassas Park Combined

5. 5 Traffic Congestion More wasted time -- on average, a motorist in the region now endures 69 hours of traffic delays a year (up from 51 hours ten years ago).* Traffic growing faster than roadway network -- by 2030, daily vehicle miles traveled in region projected to increase 37%, while only 16% more freeway and arterial lane miles will be constructed.** * Texas Transportation Institute, 2005 Mobility Study ** Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 2003 Constrained Long Range Plan

6. 6 Higher Costs of Auto Use Source: American Automobile Association (AAA), assuming 15,000 miles per year, Average Gasoline Cost per gallon: $2.40 in 2005.

7. 7 Growing Number of People For Whom Driving Is Difficult / Impossible Source: Northern Virginia Transportation Commission – “Senior Mobility Study”, March 2006 More seniors will live in area -- 429% more by 2030. Seniors as a percentage of area population – also expected to grow -- 18% by 2030 (was 8% in 2000).

8. 8 Lead Times Funding –Fares cover only portion of transit operating expense and none of capital expense –Required subsidies take years to arrange Equipment –Typically two years to acquire at minimum Facility expansion –Several years to design and construct

9. 9 What’s Our Starting Point? Unprecedented growth over past few years Existing maintenance facility near capacity Short term plan to expand existing facility over next two years “Buys room” for next five years of growth Longer term need for 2 nd maintenance facility – planning has started Average Daily PassengersActive Bus Fleet

10. 10 Long Range Plan Preparation – PRTC Board’s Direction

11. 11 PRTC Long Range Plan – Background In 2005, the PRTC Board endorsed the development of a long range plan to: –Identify a preferred service policy or set of policies to guide the provision of transit services over 25 years –Evaluate the potential cost of implementing such policies –Balance what’s desired and what’s affordable –Identify traditional funding sources that can support the plan and supplemental funding required to fully fund it –Craft a transit proffer proposal for consideration by Prince William County in the context of the comprehensive plan and proffer policy Authorized retention of consulting firm (HNTB) to assist in the effort

12. 12 What the 2030 Plan is:  A policy guide for bus service expansion  A set of estimated costs and ridership associated with bus service expansion  Estimates of traditional funding levels from federal, state, and local sources to defray a portion of bus service expansion costs  Estimates of resultant funding shortfall  A proposed proffer policy amendment to address the capital funding shortfall (County-based) What the 2030 Plan is not:  A commitment to implement -- such decisions are made as part of annual budget process  A fully detailed description of routing or schedules of each new bus service  A commitment to the adoption of the proposed proffer policy amendment – the Prince William County Board of Supervisors will choose whether or not to adopt Long Range Plan Overview

13. 13 Where we are now in the plan development process Work on Plan Began Focus Groups convened to gather perceptions of PRTC services now and into the future Developed alternatives for analysis Analysis underway Holding public hearing to invite reactions to alternative scenarios Finish analysis/evaluation accounting for public reaction, cost/benefit analysis, and financial feasibility Develop proposed proffer policy PRTC Board Endorsement of Recommendations Spring/Summer 2007 Winter 2006/07 Summer 2005 Fall 2005 Winter 2005/06 Summer/Fall 2006

14. 14 Scenario Overview # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 Which direction should PRTC take between now and 2030? Scenario # 1 Scenario # 2 Scenario # 3 Scenario # 4 Maintain existing service quality goals / policies – service expanded only to the degree that developing areas attain development densities comparable to existing service areas Expanded services to achieve high-end service quality goals / policies and accommodate growth Expanded services wherever projected volumes of transit travel exceed a stated threshold Variation on Scenario # 2 so expanded services confined to more limited service quality goals / policies coupled with growth

15. 15 Service Quality Policy Objectives (Scenarios 2 & 4) – How Are They Defined?

16. 16 Policies Are: –Drawn from the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual* (“the Manual”) Nationally recognized manual providing “consistent set of techniques for evaluating transit quality of service and capacity” –Measurement factors have set of quality standards (graded “A” [best] through “F” [worst]) so standards can be locally chosen as stated goal / policy Only measurement factors suited for long-range plan are used * Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100, Transportation Research Board; 2003

17. 17 Measurement Factors As defined by Manual Service frequency Duration (hours of service) Service coverage (area) Passenger demand vs. capacity (load factor) On—time performance Transit – auto travel time difference Commuter Service Yes No Local Service Yes No Appropriate for Long-Range Planning?

18. 18 Putting Service Quality In Perspective – What Are Our Existing Policies? (continued in Scenario One in areas warranting service) Service TypeService Frequency Service Duration Service Coverage Service Capacity OmniRide/ Metro Direct 1-4 trips/hour (peak) Single mid-day trip on OmniRide 1 trip/hour (Metro-Direct off- peak) 5 hrs/day (OmniRide) 13-16 hrs/day (Metro- Direct) Employment sites with more than or equal to 50 jobs/acre and residential areas with more than or equal to 1.4 dwellings/acre No Standees OmniLink 1-2 trips/hour (peak) 1 trip/hour (off-peak) 14-16 hours/day 45% of transit supportive areas* are served Standees Permissible * Transit Supportive Areas equates to employment areas with 4 jobs/acre or more and residential areas with 3 dwelling/acre or more.

19. 19 Scenario Two Service Quality Goals/Policies Service TypeService FrequencyService DurationService CoverageService Capacity OmniRide Minimum of 3 trips/hour in weekday peak 1 Trip/hour in weekday off-peak No Weekend Service Minimum of 14 hours/day Employment locations with more than or equal to 30 jobs/acre (50 % of the transit supportive areas*) and residential areas with more than or equal to 4 jobs/acre No Standees Metro-Direct Minimum of 2 trips/hour in weekday peak 1 trip/hour in weekday off-peak 1 trip/hour on Saturdays Minimum of 17 hours/day No Change Standees Permissible OmniLink Minimum of 4 trips/hour in weekday peak 2 trips/hour in weekday off- peak 1 trip/hour on Saturdays Minimum of 14 hours/day 12 hours/day - Saturday 80% of transit supportive areas served Standees Permissible * Transit Supportive Areas equates to employment areas with 4 jobs/acre or more and residential areas with 3 dwelling/acre or more.

20. 20 Scenario Three Service Quality Thresholds Service TypeThresholds OmniRide Estimated Minimum of 100 riders Service no less frequent than hourly in peak period Metro-Direct Estimated minimum of 100 riders Service no less frequent than hourly in peak period OmniLink Estimated minimum of 100 riders Service no less frequent than hourly all day More service than hourly to average no more than 23 passengers/trip

21. 21 Scenario Four Service Quality Goals/Policies Service TypeService FrequencyService DurationService CoverageService Capacity OmniRide Minimum of 4 trips in weekday peak (~2 /hr) Single mid-day weekday trip No Weekend Service Minimum of 14 hours/day Employment locations with more than or equal to 30 jobs/acre (50 % of the transit supportive areas*) and residential areas with more than or equal to 4 jobs/acre No Standees Metro-Direct Minimum of 1 trip/hour in weekday peak period (one every 45 min if demand exceeds 150 riders/day) 1 trip/hour in weekday off-peak 1 trip/hour on Saturdays if demand exceeds 500 riders/weekday) Minimum of 17 hours/day 12 hours/day - Saturday No Change Standees Permissible * Transit Supportive Areas equates to employment areas with 4 jobs/acre or more and residential areas with 3 dwelling/acre or more.

22. 22 Scenario Four Service Quality Goals/Policies (continued) Service TypeService FrequencyService DurationService CoverageService Capacity OmniLink Minimum of 1 trip/hour on weekdays If more than 15 riders/hour – 2 trips/hour on weekdays – Saturday service every 90 minutes If more than 20 riders/hour – 3 trips/hour on weekdays – 1 trip/hour on Saturdays – Sunday service every 90 minutes If more than 30 riders/hour – 3 trips/hour on weekdays – Saturday service every 45 minutes – Sunday service every 60 minutes 17 hours/day (Weekday) 17 hours/day (Saturday) 12 hours/day (Sunday) 80% of transit supportive areas* served Standees Permissible * Transit Supportive Areas equates to employment areas with 4 jobs/acre or more and residential areas with 3 dwelling/acre or more.

23. 23 Scenario # 1 – “Maintain Existing Service Policies” Expected Expansion through 2030 Tyson’s Corner District of Columbia Eisenhower Ave. Fort Belvoir OmniRide OmniLink Manassas Area Woodbridge Quantico Georgetown Bailey’s Crossroads / Skyline Dale City Montclair M W Origin Points Legend Gainesville/ Haymarket - G Manassas Area – M Woodbridge/Lake Ridge Area – W W W Lake Ridge W M W G Dulles Area G W Gainesville/ Haymarket / Innovation

24. 24 Scenario # 2 – “High End Service Quality Goals/Policies” New Bus Service Expansion Areas in 2030 Tyson’s Corner District of Columbia Alexandria Area Fort Belvoir OmniRide OmniLink Manassas Area Woodbridge Quantico Dulles Corner Herndon – Reston Area Bailey’s Crossroads / Skyline Ballston/Rosslyn Area Gainesville/ Haymarket / Innovation Dale City Lake Ridge Origin Points Legend Dale City – DC Gainesville/ Haymarket - G Manassas Area – M Montclair – MT Woodbridge/Lake Ridge Area – W DC M MT M W M DC W MT W M DC W Montclair W MT

25. 25 Scenario # 3 – “Service wherever specified ridership thresholds are exceeded” New Bus Service Expansion Areas in 2030 Tyson’s Corner OmniRide OmniLink Dulles Area Manassas Area Woodbridge Quantico Reston Gainesville/ Haymarket / Innovation Dale City Fort Belvoir/ EPG G G M Origin Points Legend Dale City – DC Gainesville/ Haymarket - G Manassas Area – M Woodbridge/Lake Ridge Area – W M M Lake Ridge DC W W W W Alexandria Fairfax City Montclair District of Columbia W Springfield Linton Hall

26. 26 Scenario # 4 – “More Modest Service Quality Goals/Policies” New Bus Service Expansion Areas in 2030 Tyson’s Corner Alexandria Fort Belvoir/ EPG OmniRide OmniLink Springfield Area Dulles Area Manassas Area Woodbridge Quantico Lake Ridge Dale City Central County CC Ballston Area Montclair Innovation W DC CC M M M G G Origin Points Legend Central County - CC Dale City – DC Gainesville/ Haymarket - G Manassas Area – M Woodbridge/Lake Ridge Area – W District of Columbia Herndon – Reston Area W Bailey’s Crossroads / Skyline W CC W W

27. 27 Resultant Service Levels* for Scenarios OmniRide/ Metro Direct OmniLinkTotalIncrease vs. 2005 Existing Conditions (2005) 70,43949,556119,995N/A Scenario 1 (2030) 113,40767,396180,803151% Scenario 2 (2030) 330,741223,934554,675462% Scenario 3 (2030) 99,917114,604214,521179% Scenario 4 (2030) 115,115172,356287,471240% * Annual bus revenue hours

28. 28 Next Steps Conclude analysis/evaluation, readying draft recommendations based on:  Public reactions  Comparative costs and benefits  Member governments’ reactions Invite public reactions to draft recommendations and then finalize Seek PRTC Board Adoption Seek member governments’ sponsorship of new/expanded services over time

29. 29 Your Turn – Which Path Should PRTC Take? Scenario # 1 OR Scenario # 2 OR Scenario # 3 OR Scenario # 4 OR Other Between now and 2030