Lethbridge Transit Master Plan. Final Report Presentation July 17, 2017

Transcription

1 Lethbridge Transit Master Plan Final Report Presentation July 17, 2017

2 Agenda CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT 1. Master Plan Process 2. Existing System Evaluation 3. Community Engagement 4. Vision and Value Statements 5. Translating The Vision PARA TRANSIT 1. Access-A-Ride Review

3 TODAY

4 Existing System Current Service Standards: 30 min route frequency 400m walk distance. Bus stops with high levels of boarding correspond to: - Main employment areas - Terminals/Transfer points. - Post-secondary institutions. Average transit travel time is double of any other mode. 40% of transit users are students, 24% are workers. 1,230,618 trips in 2015.

5 Existing System CUTA Comparative Performance of Peer Systems (2014/15) City Province Annual Revenue Hours Annual Rides Rides/Hour Lethbridge AB 86,000 1,230, Red Deer AB 158,600 3,850, Medicine Hat AB 90,000 1,250, St. Albert AB 91,500 1,648, Sault Ste Marie ON 84,200 2,011, Thunder Bay ON 144,400 4,196, Kelowna BC 151,200 4,849, Nanaimo BC 113,200 2,712, Central Fraser Valley (Abbotsford-Mission) BC 109,000 2,347, Kamloops BC 98,000 3,354, Prince George BC 63,500 1,966, Average 110,400 2,818, Source: Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) Fact Book 2015; BC Transit, 2015

6 Existing System Assessment System performance was evaluated using data from Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) for similar-sized Canadian cities, Lethbridge Transit Serving Standards and observation of transit system and operations. System meeting current Lethbridge Service Standards for coverage and frequency. Service coverage and frequency same throughout day, regardless of demand. Ridership numbers are stagnant and system is under-utilized. Avg. 14 rides/hour/per route well below CUTA Peer Comparison. Access focused on Downtown and the University of Lethbridge. Long route travel times (indirect routes). Non-direct transfers that increase travel times. System cannot expand due to complexity of routes.

7 Community Engagement 20 engagement sessions with Public, Stakeholders, Transit Advisory Committee, Project Steering Committee, City Administration. Surveys, on-line conversations, sounding boards, message boards, workshops, Open Houses, pop-up engagements, 100 K Days. Transit Staff participated on Steering Committee and Drivers had opportunity to review and provide comments on transit routing.

8 Community Engagement Key Engagement Highlights Participated in two 100K Day Open Houses. Met with Transit Advisory Committee and City Community Design Committee. Two Pop-up Open Houses each at Lethbridge College and University of Lethbridge. Pop-up Open House at Nord-Bridge and Lethbridge Senior Citizens Organization Centres. Formally attended City CIC Meeting and provided update on Transit Master Plan process. Transit Drivers were invited to and did attend the May 3, K Day to review proposed transit routing options. Route coordination between the Transit Master Plan and Cycling Master Plan study teams. Regular update meetings with City Project Steering Committee.

9 Community Engagement -What We Heard Increase the attractiveness (more service, faster, direct trips). Improve transit efficiency (empty bus concerns). Reduce cost of transit for students. Promote simplicity and user friendliness. Make routes less circuitous. Improve expansion opportunities without affecting entire system. Increase trip frequencies. Make fundamental changes to meet growth and improve service.

10 Transit complements existing Strategic Plans. Designed to support the vitality of the Downtown. Designed to support growth on the periphery. It is a high quality, and convenient service. Part of daily life for moving around Lethbridge Supports a more compact urban form.

11 This is the way that Lethbridge Transit intends to operate to achieve the vision. The service values the customer. The service operates in an efficient manner to reduce the ecological footprint of the City. The service is inclusive and helps create choice in the way residents move about the City.

12 Translating the Vision Create a layered transit network. Offer more options to reach the same destination. Easily grow with City, minimal disruption to the network. Create simple, direct routes. Create routes with a definitive and clear purpose. Higher Frequency routes on major corridors serving major destinations (FTN) Supplements the Frequent layer by providing transfer options and reducing walk distance From local areas to local services and providing transfer opportunities to Frequent and Local routes Shared ride service for those unable to use the conventional transit service (Access-A-Ride)

13 Implementation Phasing (Staged Phase Implementation based on Ridership, Revenues and Council Decision) Each Term can be implemented in stages.

14 Progression of Change

15 Long Term Plan

16 Four Frequent Routes

17 Six Local Routes

18 Ten Community Routes

19 Implementation Considerations The four-year fiscal planning cycle means that any changes are dependent on the overall financial prioritization of the City and approved by Council. Each phase is strategic and not based on any set of years. A stepped approach is required within each phase to match the fiscal cycle.

20 Estimated Operating Cost Summary Existing System Operating Cost based on approved 2017 Transit Budget. Costs shown are high-level estimates based on proposed Operational Plan. Estimated Operating Cost reflects operating cost of service improvements and provision for non-revenue costs (Consistent with CUTA methodology). Excludes Capital Costs (Fleet / Infrastructure). Forecast System Performance Phase Annual Rides Rides per Hour Average Cost per Ride Annual Net Operating Cost* ( X 1000) Estimated Cost Recovery** Existing System Short Term Medium Term Long Term 1,230,600 1,498,600 3,398,700 5,466, $10.30 $9,952 21% 14 $10.19 $11,976 22% 19 $ 7.72 $18,770 28% 23 $ 6.27 $22,260 35% * Total Operating Cost less fare revenue ** Fare revenue contribution to offset Total Operating Cost

21 The Way Forward (Tactical Implementation Plan) The Implementation Phase is where the Drivers and the Route Planning Committee are heavily involved. All routes will be tested for driveability, safety and amendments made as required to ensure most efficiency.

22 Access-A-Ride Review

23 Access-A-Ride Review System Peer Comparison City Population Annual Trips* Cost Per Trip Trips per hour One-Way Fares Guelph, ON 121,668 49,792 $ $3.00 Thunder Bay, ON 109,000 74,602 $ $2.75 Milton, ON 100,000 15,496 $ $3.50 Brantford, ON 94,586 61,855 $ $3.00 Strathcona County, AB 92,490 18,234 $ $5.00 Lethbridge, AB 95, ,119* $19.00* 2.41 $2.90 Rocky View County, AB 87,701 20,211 $ Variable Sarnia, ON 71,420 32,556 $ N/A St. Albert, AB 61,970 10,739 $ $3.25 Average 92,093 44,400 $ * Includes Personal Care Attendant/Companions For Purposes of Comparison

24 Access-A-Ride Review System Strengths Reasonable cost per trip compared to peers. Fleet allocation generally matches well with ridership throughout most hours of the day, (excepting AM & PM peaks). Salary parity; positive practice to reduce operator turnover. Improved program oversight since joining the Lethbridge transit fleet. Recent addition of same day service availability.

25 Access-A-Ride Review System Weaknesses Current eligibility screening process does not match industry practice. - Very likely a portion of riders could use conventional transit for some trips. 70% subscription rate (regular scheduled trips to AHS, Day Programs, etc.) during weekdays means capacity often not available for same day or occasional trips particularly during AM and PM peaks. - Times of day when non-subscription riders know not to expect service. - Current unmet trip/denial rate does not accurately reflect capacity constraints. Lower fares a disincentive to use conventional transit. Lack of clear service and eligibility parameters creates confusion for customers/staff.

26 Access-A-Ride Review Short Term Recommendations Determine the purpose of Access-A-Ride services, i.e.: - Transportation for seniors/others affiliated with agencies, OR - Transportation for those with disabilities who cannot use transit conventional service. Significant overhaul of the eligibility policy and protocols is required. - Ensure community involvement in the revision of policies and eligibility criteria. Revise and enforce an effective no-show policy. Ensure conventional service is customer friendly for people with disabilities (driver training, maintenance of accessibility features, calling out stops etc.) Define Operating Standards and Performance indicators.

27 Access-A-Ride Review Long Term Recommendations Optimize vehicle type and size for flexibility and efficiency to guide future fleet purchases. Explore cost sharing options with agencies who utilize Access-A-Ride for their clients on a subscription basis. Currently Lethbridge Transit is paying the full cost of providing these services. Explore private taxi or Ride-sharing options for low demand and nonproductive hours.

28 Questions?