Transit Alternatives Analysis
Final Report To:
Omaha Metro Area Transit
Transit Alternatives Analysis April 2007
METRO AREA TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT April 2007
Prepared for:
Prepared By:
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. I LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... II INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 TRANSIT SYSTEM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................. 2 TRANSIT SYSTEM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................. 3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................................................................ 4 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 PUBLIC I NPUT FROM MEETINGS ............................................................................................................................ 4 MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 4 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................................................................... 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 6 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 PASSENGER SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................... 6 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................... 10 MANAGEMENT/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 10 HUB AND SPOKE ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................................................... 10 STREETCAR/TROLLEY ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................................... 12 BUS RAPID TRANSIT ......................................................................................................................................... 13 CREATION OF A REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY .................................................................................................... 15 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 16 SELECTION OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 17 FARE RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................... 18 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS............................................. 19 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 19 CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSIT CENTERS ................................................................................................................. 19 BUS REHABILITATION PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 19 ROUTE EXPANSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 19 UPGRADED FAREBOXES ................................................................................................................................... 20 I NITIATION OF 30 CONSECUTIVE DAY PASS .......................................................................................................... 20 SCHEDULING, PARATRANSIT, AND CUSTOMER SERVICE SOFTWARE UPGRADES ............................................................. 21 RESULTS OF ON-GOING SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS .................................................................................................. 21
i
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1:
STUDY PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 2
FIGURE 2:
USER/NON-U SER COMMENT/I SSUE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 3:
AVERAGE MONTHLY RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE SEGMENT (2003)............................................................... 7
FIGURE 4:
ON-BOARD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 5:
TRAVEL DISTANCE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY TRIPS ............................................................. 9
FIGURE 6:
MANAGEMENT/TSM ALTERNATIVES CORRIDOR FOCUS AREAS ......................................................... 11
FIGURE 7:
HUB AND SPOKE CONCEPT ....................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 8:
STREETCAR/TROLLEY CONCEPT ALIGNMENT .................................................................................. 13
FIGURE 9:
ANNUAL RIDERSHIP (2002 TO 2006) .......................................................................................... 21
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1:
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX RESULTS ..................................................................................... 16
ii
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
I
NTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW The transit alternatives analysis was an effort by Metro Area Transit (MAT) to develop strategies for improving transit customer service and transit agency efficiency. Seven principal subject areas were identified by MAT to be investigated further. These seven were: Regional Transit Market Analysis Enhanced Transit Corridors / Bus Rapid Transit Analysis Trolley/Streetcar Major Investment Study (MIS) Assessment Institutional Assessment of MAT Analysis of MAT’s Planned Hub and spoke Service Configuration Downtown Circulator Assessment Public Involvement The major levels of effort or emphasis of the alternatives analysis were on the regional market analysis in support of identifying focus areas/corridors, using the product of the market assessment in evaluating transit enhancements in specific corridors and assessment of a hub and spoke concept for the regional service area. The study process, displayed in Figure 1, was focused on the intermediate milestone decisions required to systematically address the goals of identifying operating and technology concepts that would improve transit service in the Omaha area and improve the efficiency that MAT could provide service. The study process is outlined below:
and to provide the desired level of service in a cost effective manner. Through the public involvement program users and non-users were asked to provide input on the quality of current service and to identify areas (both geographical and service-based) that should be improved. The input received through the public input meetings and surveys were critical to establishing the purpose and need for action. Development/Screening of the Alternatives: The alternatives analysis study was initiated in part to assess ideas that MAT staff had developed to address the goal of improving service to the current and potential customers and to improve the efficiency of providing service. Through the course of the study, analysis that would establish the logical basis for the MAT-generated alternatives and potentially uncover additional concepts was conducted. The identified alternatives were evaluated/ screened using criteria based on service efficiency, supporting customer demands and cost. Documentation of the Locally Preferred Alternative. Through the combination of the technical screening process and the public involvement process, the range of alternatives was screened to those that would be pursued by MAT. The selection process took into account the positives and negatives of the range of concepts and the ability to fund implementation and on-going operation of the concept within the significant budget constraints of the transit agency.
Study Initiation/Data Collection: In this stage information on historical and current ridership, regional travel patterns, rider origins and destinations, revenue sources and expenses were collected Purpose and Need for Action: While transit services in Omaha are diligently managed by the MAT Board and staff, there is always the desire to improve the level and quality of service for customers
1
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 1:
STUDY PROCESS
2
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
T
RANSIT
SYSTEM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Transit system and project goals established in the early stages of the work were presented to the public for comment at the first series of public information meetings. Metro Area Transit goals for the system and this study are: Improve Mobility and Enhance Transit Options Improve and Enhance Economic Development, Employment Opportunities and Transit Access to Jobs Promote Efficient Land Development Patterns Enhance the Environment
Natural
Use and
Promote Cost Effective, Supported Alternatives
and Social Locally
The stated goals were critical elements incorporated into the alternatives analysis, including: Development of the purpose and need: The need for action would be to specifically address the system goals. Development of the range of alternatives: The transit improvement alternatives developed and evaluated as part of the study were focused on addressing the transit system goals. Alternatives screening/Selection of the Preferred Alternative: The measures of effectiveness against which the alternatives were evaluated were formulated with the transit system goals in mind.
3
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
P
URPOSE AND
NEED FOR ACTION Maintenance on the bus was an issue.
OVERVIEW Development of the purpose and need for action in the region was derived using in formation gathered through the public involvement process, through staff input and through information gathered from a market assessment.
Transferring from one bus to another needs to be improved. Figure 2 provides a summary of the comments. FIGURE 2: SUMMARY
USER/NON-USER COMMENT/ISSUE
PUBLIC INPUT FROM MEETINGS Persons attending the public meetings were asked to provide input on issues/concerns and likes/dislikes of the current system operations, facilities, staff and management. Meeting participants were made up of system users and non-users. Thus, input was obtained from people familiar with the system and those that were relatively unfamiliar. A summary of comments received through the various public involvement and survey efforts were compiled throughout the initial stage of the study. Comments were organized into ten categories as listed below: General comment on service, which included both positive and negative comments. The hours of service need to be expanded to better accommodate traveler’s schedules, primarily for work trips. The service area for transit needs to be expanded.
MARKET ANALYSIS The focus of the Market Analysis focus was on identifying those travel markets that might benefit from enhancements in transit services. A critical issue is that much of the growth in the Omaha region, especially for residential development, is occurring outside of the current MAT service area.
Comments on the downtown circulator service, including both positive and negative comments.
Through the market analysis, several candidate travel corridors that carried a density of persons that could support additional transit investments were identified. While none of the corridors appears to rise to the level deserving major capital investments for high capacity transit such an exclusive-lane bus rapid transit (BRT) or light rail Transit (LRT), lower cost investments in passenger amenities, traffic operations, and information technology could go a long way in cost-effectively improving customer service and system efficiency.
Need to include light rail transit in the region.
Ideas on service and feature enhancements for these candidate corridors are presented in
Service frequency along a route needs to be increased (reduce headways). Handicapped issues/concerns.
rider
accessibility
Request for additional fare payment options.
4
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Tab #4 – Enhanced Transit Service Strategies. The enhanced transit service summary also includes a special analysis of technology options that would improve customer service and system efficiency. Four of the candidate corridors – Dodge Street, 24th Street, 72nd Street, and US 75 – were subsequently identified as the highest priority and advanced into more detailed assessment with a field inventory of features to support instreet and street-side improvements development. The results of the field inventory are provided in Volume 2, Appendices A through D of this final report.
PURPOSE AND NEED Using the comments, input provided by MAT staff, and the results of the market assessment the following were established as the purpose and need for action: Development in the Omaha metro area has expanded beyond the MAT service limits and there is a population in the region that desires to use transit, but does not have convenient enough service to justify them using it. Thus, there is a local need for additional service coverage. A portion of the population would prefer to use transit for work trips; however, MAT service hours do not coordinate with shift work jobs. Expanding the service hours would be required to better accommodate shift workers. A portion of the population that desires to use transit does not because the frequency of bus service (headway) is limited to one hour (or more), which does not provide a reasonable option to making the trip by auto.
5
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
E
XISTING
CONDITIONS
OVERVIEW
From the information presented in the map, the following conclusions were developed:
The patterns of existing transit service and ridership provide insight into the relative magnitude of the markets currently served. Continuing to provide effective service to existing customers forms the foundation on which enhanced transit services may be built.
Dodge Road is the highest ridership corridor and is also the most intensely developed corridor. Thus, provides direct and through access to a relatively high percentage of all trips made in the region.
Public transportation serves a small share of the total trips made each day in the Omaha metropolitan area. According to the 2000 Census, only 1.6 percent of work trips in Douglas County were made on transit. This represents a decline of approximately 40 percent since 1990. During the decade of the 1990s, automobile ownership (up 14 percent) grew faster than population (up 11 percent) and employment (up 12.5 percent) in Douglas County. Meanwhile, congestion, as reflected by average travel time to work increased by only 4.5 percent, from 17.8 minutes to 18.6 minutes. Average travel time for those using transit was more than double (38.7 minutes) that of those driving themselves (18.0 minutes). Furthermore, one-third of transit trips to work were reported to take 45 minutes or more, while nearly 60 percent of automobile trips took less than 20 minutes.
Routes connecting the downtown area to Crossroad Shopping Center serve the next highest concentration of trips.
Consistent with the general trends suggested by the Census, MAT has experienced a decline in total monthly ridership of 26 percent between the first four months of 2000 and the same period in 2003. In April 2003, average monthly ridership was approximately 289,000 unlinked trips, including downtown circulator routes. Addressing the disadvantages in terms of travel time and customer convenience compared to the private automobile represent some of MAT’s key challenges as it plans the transit services of the future for Omaha. Figure 3 shows monthly ridership (2003) graphically as a system map with line widths proportional to the monthly ridership on routes serving each segment. Where multiple routes serve a segment, the line width is proportional to the total ridership on all routes serving that segment.
The West Center Road corridor supports the second highest concentration of transit trips. The combination of four corridors serving the North Omaha to downtown areas provides the third highest concentration of transit trips.
PASSENGER SURVEY As part of the alternatives analysis MAT developed and conducted an on-board passenger survey. The results are presented in Tab 11 of this report. The purpose of the survey was to obtain from existing riders the following: Origin and destination for the specific trip being taken The typical weekly frequency of the trip type Fare category (adult full fare or some form of discounted fare) Whether or not they would need to transfer to complete the trip Whether or not they had a car available for that trip. In addition, the survey was used as an opportunity to gather additional input from user regarding current service. Patrons were asked to respond to open-ended questions as to their opinion on positive and negative experiences. MAT staff and contract employees conducted
6
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 3:
AVERAGE MONTHLY RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE SEGMENT (2003)
the survey from October 15 through November 5, 2003.
Distribution parameters: Surveys were conducted by temporary personnel during the following periods:
The responses to the survey were a critical input to the assessment of various concept alternatives and phases of the overall alternatives analsyis. Outlined in the following bulletpoints are the key parameters of the survey:
October 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 2003.
Instrument: The survey questionnaire used is displayed in Figure 4. Number of Surveys: Entering the survey process, it was MAT’s intent to obtain a statistically significant number of surveys; which would allow MAT to make more definitive statements regarding current service and not just generalizations. An adequate number of surveys were completed to state that the survey results reflect less than a 5 percent error at a 95% confidence interval.
Hours: 4:30 AM to 6:30 PM. Routes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 35, 40, 55, 96, 97, 111, 122. Responses: A total of 1,894 surveys were conducted over the period. Of the total, 1,209 were defined as “valid” surveys for the analysis. Valid was defined as a survey that had both a locatable origin and destination. Of the surveys that were rejected, most were because a specific north-south and east-west arterial origin and destination were not documented. Origins and Destinations: A desire line summary of the valid origins and destinations is displayed Tab 11.
7
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4:
ON-BOARD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
MAT Onboard Traveler Survey
Route:_______
Time:______
Date:___________ 1.) What are the cross streets of your trip beginning and final destination? Beginning:__________________________________________ Destination:_________________________________________ 2.) Will your trip include a transfer? 1.) Yes 2.) No 3.) How often do you make this trip by bus? 1.) Once a Week 2.) Several Time a Week 4.) What is your fare category? 1.) Adult 2.) Senior/Medicare Card/Disabled
3.) Every Day
3.) Student
5.) Do you have another means to make this trip (car, walk, bike, ect.)? 1.) Yes 2.) No 6.) How satisfied are you with MAT service? 1.) Satisfied 2.) Not Satisfied If passenger has any comments have them write them on the back.
Outlined in the following bulletpoints is a summary of the survey responses: Trip frequency: Once per week: 10% of responses Several times per week: responses
32% of
Every day: 58% of responses Does the current trip include a transfer: Yes:
50% of responses
No:
50% of responses
about various groupings of responses, can be mapped and quantified. From the geocoded information, a trip length frequency distribution was developed as a means of making a quick verification of the percentage of trips that are shorter versus longer. This verification was important in the assessment of fare alternatives that reflected a lower cost “neighborhood” or “local” fare relative to a “through” fare for longer trips. The distribution is displayed in Figure 5.
Fare category: Adult full fare: 81% of responses Senior/Disabled/Medicare: responses
11% of
Student: 8% of responses Do you have another means of making this trip?: Yes:
26% of responses
No:
74% of responses
Satisfied with MAT service?: Yes:
78% of responses
No:
22% of responses
The origins and destinations of each of the valid trips were “geocoded” by inserting the information into the GIS mapping for the region. From this process, information regarding each of the surveys, and queries 8
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 5:
TRAVEL DISTANCE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
OF SURVEY TRIPS 180
160
120
100
80
60
40
20
>10
9.5
10.0
8.5
9.0
7.5
8.0
6.5
7.0
5.5
Miles
6.0
4.5
5.0
3.5
4.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
0 1.0
Number of Responses
140
9
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Concepts evaluated through the alternatives analysis were developed to support the purpose and need and to provide proposals that are consistent with the transit system goals.
implemented AVL or Automatic Vehicle Location capabilities that utilize GPS or Global Positioning System satellites to track the location of transit vehicles.
Alternatives included in the assessment were:
Focus areas/corridor incorporated into the management/TSM alternative are displayed in Figure 6.
Management/Transportation Systems Management (TSM). Included in this range of concepts were sub-alternatives addressing fare changes intended to improve increase revenue that would then be used to partially fund a service change alternative. Implementation of a hub and spoke/circulator form of operations in key corridors or throughout the community. Implementation of fixed guideway rail service (light rail/streetcar) in a portion of the Omaha central core. Expansion of the MAT levy area to include the entire Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan area. Currently, the levy area includes only the city of Omaha. Expansion to cover the entire metro area would establish MAT as a metro authority.
MANAGEMENT/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT The management alternative picked up with the information developed as part of the Travel Market Analysis. The concept was to focus more service in the corridor providing the most opportunities measured in travel density. Improvements would include: Decreases in headways during the peak and/or off-peak periods. Increasing service hours to better serve the later night and earlier morning needs of the highest density areas. Increasing the use of ITS technologies to improve transit on-time performance, traveler information, and transit trip planning. The ITS strategies dovetail with the strategies identified in the operations TSM ideas of modifying service and build on MAT’s already-
Provided in Tab #6 of this volume is a summary of fare issues and strategies including the final recommendation. Material from the presentation to the MAT Board about the fare analysis and recommendations can be found in Tab #2 that contains project presentations to the Board.
HUB AND SPOKE ALTERNATIVE MAT’s existing service configuration is a traditional downtown-focused route structure with secondary foci on transit centers located at key activity centers throughout the service area. Over the years, the Omaha downtown has remained stable in absolute terms as an employment and activity center. Thus, as the region has grown, the downtown as a relative proportion of total regional activity has declined as housing and especially employment and retail activities have decentralized. In response to the changing urban form, the concept of incorporating a multi-centered hub and spoke system was included in the range of alternatives. Downtown Omaha will remain the most important destination, but with a multi-centered hub and spoke system it could be easier for customers to get to other regional activity centers through a more direct manner (i.e. without always needing to travel to downtown first). The foundation of the concept is the transit hubs, or transit centers, at major activity centers where local transit routes (locals) will pulse (timed transfer) with hub connector routes (throughs). Customers staying within a hub service area could find more convenient timed transfers to other local routes. Customers wanting to travel to other major activity centers will find limited-stop connector routes available. A generalized hub
10
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS and spoke concept for the Omaha-Council Bluffs area is displayed in Figure 7. The hub and spoke service analysis performed was labeled a “winners/losers” analysis. It received the name because the bottom line was to determine the distribution of customers concept compared to the existing system. Winners were defined as travel origin and destination pairs for which the hub and spoke system would provide a travel time improvement (decrease) of at least five minutes. Losers were defined as origin/destination pairs for which the new system would provide increase travel time by at least five minutes. Origin and destination pairs where the absolute travel time change was less than five minutes were considered “no change” for this assessment.
the “losers”. That focus might identify strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts of hub and spoke or even determine that some the “losers” were not a big or critical part of the transit market. Subsequent efforts by MAT service planners were intended to further reduce the number of customers whose travel times would increase as a result of the service change. The final service plan is still being constructed and is not reflected in the analysis presented in Tab #5. The analysis also provided MAT with a methodology to continue its own assessment of the distribution of transit benefits and adverse effects brought about by hub and spoke as the planning advances.
Presented in the information contained in Tab Number 5 of this final report is the winners/losers analysis. The analysis documented was conducted at an interim time point in MAT’s hub and spoke planning. Thus, do not reflect current plans and schedules. The results of the documented assessment suggested that more effort be focused on improving the situation for FIGURE 6:
MANAGEMENT /TSM ALTERNATIVES CORRIDOR FOCUS AREAS
11
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 7:
HUB AND SPOKE CONCEPT
STREETCAR/TROLLEY ALTERNATIVE The Downtown and Near North Side MIS was completed by the city of Omaha in 1999. That Major Investment Study investigated the feasibility of fixed guideway streetcar, or trolley service, along: 24th Street from the west side of downtown past Creighton University to North Lake Street. 10th Street from the east side of downtown to the Henry Doorly Zoo and Rosenblatt Stadium. Circulating through the downtown along 10th Street, Capitol Avenue, 17th Street, Dodge Street, 24th Street and Harney Street. A 10th Street connection between the, at that point, proposed arena and convention center. The route would extend approximately 7.2 miles, and include a combination of single and double track lines.
The concept as defined in the earlier MIS project was incorporated intact as an alternative in this work. As part of the alternatives analysis the following was completed to update the 1999 project work elements: Update the ridership estimates to reflect a new horizon year of 2030 (consistent with the MAPA modeling horizon) and parameters of the arena and convention center that has been constructed on 10th Street north of I-480. Review and comment the cost estimates for capital construction and operations prepared as part of the MIS. The route incorporated into the alternatives analysis is displayed in Figure 8.
LOCAL STREETCAR INITIATIVE In 2006 an assessment of a streetcar route concept connecting the Creighton University area through the Old Market area of downtown Omaha via the Qwest Center was completed by Heritage Services. The feasibility
12
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 8:
STREETCAR/TROLLEY CONCEPT ALIGNMENT
analysis was completed with the primary need being addressing economic development potential in the area along Webster Street from Creighton University to the Qwest Center and along 10th Street from the Qwest Center into a downtown loop along Jackson Street, 16th Street and Farnam Street back to 10th Street. An assumption documented in the assessment report is that federal, state or general city funds would not be used to fund construction. Details on operating costs and funding were not available. Metro Area Transit was not approached to be a participant of the feasibility study. 13
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
BUS RAPID TRANSIT The Omaha Transit Alternatives Analysis developed concepts and ideas for improving Metro Area Transit (MAT) services in the Omaha metropolitan area. A sub-alternative to the concept to improve service in the higher density corridors that provide a greater potential for increasing transit ridership is the concept of bus rapid transit (BRT). The goal of incorporating BRT service is to improve transit operating performance, make travel times more competitive with the automobile, provide greater passenger comfort and convenience, and increase ridership. BRT is an integrated system of facilities, services, and amenities that collectively improves the speed, reliability, and identity of bus transit. In many cases, BRT achieves or exceeds the performance and attractiveness of streetcar/trolley or even light rail transit (LRT), but retains the greater operating flexibility and potentially lower capital and operating costs of a bus-oriented service.1 The categories of elements that comprise a BRT system include busways, stations, vehicles, services, routes, fare collection systems, and technology applications that collectively increase performance and evoke a strong positive identity for transit. The package of elements is most effective when BRT services are distinguished from traditional bus transit services in each category. Creating this distinction involves giving BRT as many of the features of rail systems that improve performance, customer convenience, and system identity as possible. There is considerable variation in BRT systems, ranging
from systems that are virtually indistinguishable from light rail systems to systems that are little more than upgraded bus routes. Each system offers a different combination of features in each of these categories. Although BRT research is currently underway to determine empirically the relative cost effectiveness and ridership-generating potential of various features and package of features, no firm decision guidelines yet exist. Based on several decades of experience with mode choice models and behavioral research, features that reduce travel time, such increasing frequency, travel speed, route directness, or reducing dwell time at stops can produce significant ridership impacts. In several recent BRT systems ridership gains have been proportional to travel time reductions.2 The network of corridors shown in Figure 5 was identified in the Market Analysis as having potential for enhanced transit services and is used as the basis for identifying potential BRT corridors, including: Dodge Road/US 6: Including areas along the Dodge Street sections, West Dodge Road, the West Dodge Expressway and West Broadway through Council Bluffs. Kennedy Omaha.
Expressway
through
South
West Maple Road. West Center Road. North Freeway (US 75) through North Omaha. Documentation of ideas as to the various system elements that could be incorporated into the Omaha metro area BRT concept are outlined in Tab #4 of the Appendix. Included in the information are ideas on: Use of a busway or mixed traffic flow. Potential station locations and amenities. Vehicle options relative to the current fleet.
Examples of BRT Stations Concepts
Potential operating schedules. Fare collection
1
Transit Cooperative Research Program. Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume I: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, 2003.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Los Angeles MetroRapid Demonstration Program: Final Report. July 2001. 2
Examples of BRT Vehicles 14
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CREATION AUTHORITY
OF A
REGIONAL TRANSIT
MAT is an instrument of the State of Nebraska with authority boundaries coincident with those of the City of Omaha. Enabling legislation was approved in by the Unicameral in the 2003 session that would allow for creation of a regional transit agency covering the Nebraska portions of the metropolitan area. Today’s transit organizations generally take one of two traditional forms. In smaller communities, transit is frequently run as an operating arm of local government (municipal or county) with services provided within the single jurisdiction. In other instances, transit agencies operate within a single jurisdiction but take the form of an independent operating authority. In both cases, transit is likely to have to compete more vigorously with other local services for priority and funding in an environment where fiscal constraints are often severe. In larger communities and metropolitan regions, public transit is more often provided by an independent, single purpose authority with powers derived from special state enabling legislation typically describing the representative governance structure and powers. Frequently, and as is the case with the current system, enabling legislation or related tax measures authorize the collection of dedicated tax revenues within the designated region. Sales taxes are most frequently used as the dedicated source of funding for transit, although property taxes are the source for Omaha funding. As the metropolitan transit service area includes a number of communities, the concept assumed in this analysis would be the regional single purpose authority governed by a Board comprised of representatives of the jurisdictions included in the authority area. General characteristics of the authority to be addressed in this analysis, or at some future point, include Make up of the policy boards - Generally made by elected officials of the respective member jurisdictions, or the elected officials themselves may serve. The size of policy boards - Ranges widely in a multi-jurisdictional setting. Eight to twelve members is typical.
Service standards and service levels throughout the authority area - Are typically agreed to as a matter of plan and policy and funding responsibilities defined. Consistent levels of service are not generally provided throughout the system coverage as demand could vary widely. Regional enabling legislation or subsequent agreements have provided for “opt-out” provisions, allowing flexibility for individual member jurisdictions to leave the authority (and their financial responsibility) behind, but introducing potential instability in service delivery. The decision to join or to opt out is typically made by local legislative bodies. As suggested above, institutional arrangements for regional transit organization and governance today generally reflect a situation in which the preferred “model” is in the eye of the beholder, and is the result of negotiations among contending and sometimes reluctant “partners.” On the horizon, however, is an emerging model that turns the focus toward a new mission – “managing mobility” – directed toward improving the customer’s travel options with less preoccupation over whose equipment (or resources) might be used in the process. The institution assuming the role of regional manager of mobility may not even own or operate any vehicles or equipment at all, but manages relationships and partnerships with a variety of service providers through agreed upon service standards and revenue sharing arrangements and regular quality monitoring. A key question is whether or not it is important to the region to pursue the notion of mobility management. A resulting question is whether the traditional transit agency wants to (or will seek and be given the authority to) act as a “manager of mobility,” or be content to continue to serve as one of several potential service providers. The report in Tab #9 is a working paper or “think-piece” on the subject of regional governance. It does not provide specific recommendations but rather is intended to encourage discussion of issues critical to selecting an appropriate approach to regionalization if and when the matter comes to the forefront.
15
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING SUMMARY Each of the general alternatives concepts were evaluated relative to the following criteria: Potential to improve mobility and enhance transit options with the metropolitan area. Supports regional economic development goals, employment opportunities and transit access to jobs Promotes efficient land development patterns Potential to enhance the natural and social environment in the metro area through reducing the increase in vehicle miles of travel or vehicle hours of travel. Cost effectiveness. Supported by the community. A matrix-based approach was employed in the alternatives analysis. The resulting matrix is provided in Table 1. TABLE 1:
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX RESULTS
16
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SELECTION OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Through the alternatives assessment a broad range of technology and operating plan strategy alternatives were reviewed relative to a set of evaluation criteria that incorporated review/assessment of: Potential to improve system ridership. Change in travel time for current users. Change in the number of transfers for current users. Feasibility of working within the current MAT labor hour budgets and reuse of current rolling stock. Response from the community obtained through the public involvement program. Consistency with land use plans. Environmental impacts. The technology and operating plan strategy alternatives included: Bus rapid transit. Streetcar/trolley. Hub and spoke mainline neighborhood circulators.
with
Management/TSM/ITS No Action The critical determinant in selection of a locally preferred alternative was the feasibility of being able to implement a revised operating plan or new technology within the current MAT labor hour budget. MAT is currently operating in a financial environment where obtaining increased levels of federal and/or state funding for system improvements unlikely to occur. In addition, the potential to more than marginally increase funding from local source much beyond the annual inflation rate on fuel and operating expenses is restricted by state tax rate lid laws. Thus, funding for capital expenditures and the labor hours required to implement and sustain the range of service changes included in the alternatives analysis requires improving the efficiency of current service provision and/or restructuring current service routes to rework routes that are unproductive. Through the course of the
alternatives analysis MAT staff along with the consultant team attempted to identify hours within the current program that could be shifted to the potential expansion alternatives. The labor hours required to fully implement one or more of the improvement concepts were not readily identifiable within the current system. Thus, due to the inability to either expand the labor hour budget or identify adjustments or efficiency improvements that would establish a pool of hours sufficient to allow the expansion alternatives, the locally preferred alternative was the No Action. The formal outcome of the alternatives analysis was the recommendation of the No Action as the locally preferred alternative, with the additional recommendation of continuing to assess potential system efficiencies. In the period following completion of the alternatives analysis and funding assessment, MAT staff has continued to evaluate each route and various segments of routes to identify potential efficiency improvement that could be attained, which would provide a pool of labor hours for implementation of at least a baseline portion of one or more of the potential improvements. As a result of the ongoing assessment efforts, the following incremental changes have been implemented which result in identifying unproductive routes and reassigning the labor and capital equipment from selected routes to potentially more productive areas of the system, including: Removing mid-day service from Route 10 (South and North). The labor hours and capital equipment saved by removing service from approximately 8:30 AM to 3:00 PM have been reallocated to Route 2 (Dodge Street) to lower the headway from 30 minute service to 20 minute service. Extending Route 8 service miles to provide more accessibility to the Crossroads Shopping Center. Extension or service to Route 8 includes Blondo Street from 72nd Street to 85th Street, 85th Street to Cass Street and then back to
17
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 72nd Street, giving riders more access to shopping. The changes in the system to rework unproductive portions and increase service in the more productive areas has resulted in increased ridership, and has allowed MAT to partially implement the hub concept by adding transit centers at key locations for route transfer hubs. The locations and centers are described in the System Enhancement Activities chapter.
FARE RECOMMENDATIONS Using the fare survey results, the study team developed a model to estimate the change in revenue associated with the same trips as were made during the survey period, but using the design of the hub and spoke route system. This approach assumed no change in travel behavior due to the change to the hub and spoke system (i.e. no induced trips associated with shorter travel times or lower than current fares on local routes, no lost trips due to a potentially longer total trip time, etc.). Using these data, the URS team and MAT explored a number of fare scenarios. The fare and transfer parameters of each are outlined in Tab #6. The final recommendation was for a new fare structure that reflected the following: Preservation of the $1.25 full adult fare for one-way journeys that utilized at least one hub connector route (through). No cost transfers for trips completed within one hour, rather than direction of travel. Complete trips that did not leave the origin local area could be purchased for $1.00, with a 4-hour time window for unlimited travel within the local area, including a return trip on the original route. This fare structure was felt to balance the competing objectives of revenue protection while encouraging the local hub-oriented trips that are not currently being made to any significant degree.
18
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OVERVIEW Completion of the MAT Alternatives Analysis in 2004 was not the end of the planning and improvement assessment process, it signaled the beginning of a focus on incremental implementation of costumer service improvements throughout the system. The range of improvement included new programs to make the system more convenient for users, technology enhancements to improve the efficiency of providing service, construction of new transit centers to provide much improved customer waiting areas, and route expansions to increase the service limits and provide a travel mode alternative to a greater percentage of the metro area. Described in the following sections are a number of the key system enhancements.
be enhanced around the centers to provide better service in those areas.
Proposed Westroads Transit Center
CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSIT CENTERS Based on information obtained from the Alternatives Analysis Study Metro Area Transit began the process of obtaining land and funding for new transit centers in the community which would enhance the riding experience for passengers. With the new transit centers riders will be able to transfer more at transit centers giving them more convenience. After the study was completed Metro Area Transit began work on the South Omaha Transit Center in cooperation Metropolitan Community College and the City of Omaha Library. Metropolitan Community College began an expansion project of their south Omaha campus which included a new public library and transit center. Metro Area Transit also acquired land for a new transit center at Westroads which will give Metro Area Transit a permanent location at that facility. Over the years Metro Area Transit has had to move their transfer locations to different locations around Westroads due to construction projects around that shopping center. Metro Area Transit also acquired land for a transit center at Benson Park. This transit center will provide convenient transferring and circulation in northwest Omaha. As transit centers are built and come online, routing will
Proposed Benson Transit Center
BUS REHABILITATION PROJECT In 2006 Metro Area Transit embarked on a bus rehabilitation project. By the end of 2007 Metro Area Transit will have rehabilitated and reconditioned 31 buses from its current fleet. After going out for bid for new buses Metro Area Transit determined that only 8 new buses could be purchased for the same amount as rehabilitating 31 buses.
ROUTE EXPANSIONS In 2006 Metro Area Transit expanded 2 routes and increased headway on Dodge Street (its major east west route). Dodge Street headway was improved during non-peak from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. Peak time stated the same at 15 minutes. Route 16 was expanded to connect the North Omaha Transit Center with Downtown via the airport. This is the first 19
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS time in many years Metro Area Transit has provided service to the airport. Additionally, Route 16 now serves the Open Door Mission, Douglas County Corrections Facility, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. Route 18 was expanded to provide more service on Blondo Street, 85th Street and Cass Street. With the expansion of service on Route 18, redundant service on 72nd Street was eliminated.
UPGRADED FAREBOXES In March of 2006 Metro Area Transit installed upgraded electronic fareboxes in their fleet of fixed route buses and in the paratransit buses/vans. The upgraded fareboxes replaced existing equipment that was 16 years old. The upgraded fareboxes allow Metro Area Transit the flexibility to introduce new fare payment options for the riding public. The reporting capability allows Metro Area Transit to better analyze route segments for productivity and make better decisions on where service is placed. The upgraded fareboxes help the bus operators by taking transfer fraud confrontations away from them. Transfers are issued by the farebox on a card with encoded information that tells when the transfer was issued. Metro Area Transit is looking at other fare payment options such as Day Passes.
INITIATION PASS
OF
30 CONSECUTIVE DAY
In 2005 Metro Area Transit introduced a 30 Day Pass for the riding public. This pass was initially introduced as a Monthly Pass that was valid for the month in which it was issued. However, with the introduction of the upgraded fareboxes Metro Area Transit introduced a 30 Consecutive Day Pass where the pass, once activated in the farebox, is good for the next 30 days. Riders are able to purchase multiple passes and activate them as needed.
30-Day Pass
30-Day Half Fare Pass
New Farebox 10-Day Ride Pass
20
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SCHEDULING, PARATRANSIT, AND CUSTOMER SERVICE SOFTWARE UPGRADES In 2006 Metro Area Transit began upgrading operational software that was 9 years old. Scheduling, paratransit, and customer service software was running on the Windows NT Operating System and Microsoft was not supporting that product anymore. In looking at various software products Metro Area Transit decided to use Trapeze Software for all three applications. Trapeze was an upgrade which made the project less expensive and Trapeze uses a centralized database for all of its applications which allow for better data integration between the applications. The upgraded software also has better algorithms which will provide Metro Area Transit with better efficiencies in routing fixed route service and paratransit service. FIGURE 9:
RESULTS OF ON-GOING ENHANCEMENTS
SYSTEM
The listed service area changes, customer service amenity improvements and management efficiency programs were all intended to improve the quality of MAT services both from the customer perspective and from a service provision perspective. The product of these changes as resulted in the desired effect of improving service and increasing ridership. Figure 9 displays the change in ridership from 2002 through 2006. As can be observed form the information in the table, systemwide ridership has increased by approximately 14,200 riders per month or by approximately 11 percent in the period since many of the service and customer enhancements have been implemented.
ANNUAL RIDERSHIP (2002 TO 2006)
21
Omaha Metro Area Transit
Transit Alternatives Analysis April 2007
METRO AREA TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT April 2007
Prepared for:
Prepared By:
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. I LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... II INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 TRANSIT SYSTEM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................. 2 TRANSIT SYSTEM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................. 3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................................................................ 4 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 PUBLIC I NPUT FROM MEETINGS ............................................................................................................................ 4 MARKET ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 4 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................................................................... 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 6 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 PASSENGER SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................... 6 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................... 10 MANAGEMENT/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 10 HUB AND SPOKE ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................................................... 10 STREETCAR/TROLLEY ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................................................... 12 BUS RAPID TRANSIT ......................................................................................................................................... 13 CREATION OF A REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY .................................................................................................... 15 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 16 SELECTION OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................................. 17 FARE RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................... 18 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS............................................. 19 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 19 CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSIT CENTERS ................................................................................................................. 19 BUS REHABILITATION PROJECT ........................................................................................................................... 19 ROUTE EXPANSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 19 UPGRADED FAREBOXES ................................................................................................................................... 20 I NITIATION OF 30 CONSECUTIVE DAY PASS .......................................................................................................... 20 SCHEDULING, PARATRANSIT, AND CUSTOMER SERVICE SOFTWARE UPGRADES ............................................................. 21 RESULTS OF ON-GOING SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS .................................................................................................. 21
i
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1:
STUDY PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 2
FIGURE 2:
USER/NON-U SER COMMENT/I SSUE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 3:
AVERAGE MONTHLY RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE SEGMENT (2003)............................................................... 7
FIGURE 4:
ON-BOARD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 5:
TRAVEL DISTANCE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY TRIPS ............................................................. 9
FIGURE 6:
MANAGEMENT/TSM ALTERNATIVES CORRIDOR FOCUS AREAS ......................................................... 11
FIGURE 7:
HUB AND SPOKE CONCEPT ....................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 8:
STREETCAR/TROLLEY CONCEPT ALIGNMENT .................................................................................. 13
FIGURE 9:
ANNUAL RIDERSHIP (2002 TO 2006) .......................................................................................... 21
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1:
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX RESULTS ..................................................................................... 16
ii
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
I
NTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW The transit alternatives analysis was an effort by Metro Area Transit (MAT) to develop strategies for improving transit customer service and transit agency efficiency. Seven principal subject areas were identified by MAT to be investigated further. These seven were: Regional Transit Market Analysis Enhanced Transit Corridors / Bus Rapid Transit Analysis Trolley/Streetcar Major Investment Study (MIS) Assessment Institutional Assessment of MAT Analysis of MAT’s Planned Hub and spoke Service Configuration Downtown Circulator Assessment Public Involvement The major levels of effort or emphasis of the alternatives analysis were on the regional market analysis in support of identifying focus areas/corridors, using the product of the market assessment in evaluating transit enhancements in specific corridors and assessment of a hub and spoke concept for the regional service area. The study process, displayed in Figure 1, was focused on the intermediate milestone decisions required to systematically address the goals of identifying operating and technology concepts that would improve transit service in the Omaha area and improve the efficiency that MAT could provide service. The study process is outlined below:
and to provide the desired level of service in a cost effective manner. Through the public involvement program users and non-users were asked to provide input on the quality of current service and to identify areas (both geographical and service-based) that should be improved. The input received through the public input meetings and surveys were critical to establishing the purpose and need for action. Development/Screening of the Alternatives: The alternatives analysis study was initiated in part to assess ideas that MAT staff had developed to address the goal of improving service to the current and potential customers and to improve the efficiency of providing service. Through the course of the study, analysis that would establish the logical basis for the MAT-generated alternatives and potentially uncover additional concepts was conducted. The identified alternatives were evaluated/ screened using criteria based on service efficiency, supporting customer demands and cost. Documentation of the Locally Preferred Alternative. Through the combination of the technical screening process and the public involvement process, the range of alternatives was screened to those that would be pursued by MAT. The selection process took into account the positives and negatives of the range of concepts and the ability to fund implementation and on-going operation of the concept within the significant budget constraints of the transit agency.
Study Initiation/Data Collection: In this stage information on historical and current ridership, regional travel patterns, rider origins and destinations, revenue sources and expenses were collected Purpose and Need for Action: While transit services in Omaha are diligently managed by the MAT Board and staff, there is always the desire to improve the level and quality of service for customers
1
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 1:
STUDY PROCESS
2
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
T
RANSIT
SYSTEM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Transit system and project goals established in the early stages of the work were presented to the public for comment at the first series of public information meetings. Metro Area Transit goals for the system and this study are: Improve Mobility and Enhance Transit Options Improve and Enhance Economic Development, Employment Opportunities and Transit Access to Jobs Promote Efficient Land Development Patterns Enhance the Environment
Natural
Use and
Promote Cost Effective, Supported Alternatives
and Social Locally
The stated goals were critical elements incorporated into the alternatives analysis, including: Development of the purpose and need: The need for action would be to specifically address the system goals. Development of the range of alternatives: The transit improvement alternatives developed and evaluated as part of the study were focused on addressing the transit system goals. Alternatives screening/Selection of the Preferred Alternative: The measures of effectiveness against which the alternatives were evaluated were formulated with the transit system goals in mind.
3
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
P
URPOSE AND
NEED FOR ACTION Maintenance on the bus was an issue.
OVERVIEW Development of the purpose and need for action in the region was derived using in formation gathered through the public involvement process, through staff input and through information gathered from a market assessment.
Transferring from one bus to another needs to be improved. Figure 2 provides a summary of the comments. FIGURE 2: SUMMARY
USER/NON-USER COMMENT/ISSUE
PUBLIC INPUT FROM MEETINGS Persons attending the public meetings were asked to provide input on issues/concerns and likes/dislikes of the current system operations, facilities, staff and management. Meeting participants were made up of system users and non-users. Thus, input was obtained from people familiar with the system and those that were relatively unfamiliar. A summary of comments received through the various public involvement and survey efforts were compiled throughout the initial stage of the study. Comments were organized into ten categories as listed below: General comment on service, which included both positive and negative comments. The hours of service need to be expanded to better accommodate traveler’s schedules, primarily for work trips. The service area for transit needs to be expanded.
MARKET ANALYSIS The focus of the Market Analysis focus was on identifying those travel markets that might benefit from enhancements in transit services. A critical issue is that much of the growth in the Omaha region, especially for residential development, is occurring outside of the current MAT service area.
Comments on the downtown circulator service, including both positive and negative comments.
Through the market analysis, several candidate travel corridors that carried a density of persons that could support additional transit investments were identified. While none of the corridors appears to rise to the level deserving major capital investments for high capacity transit such an exclusive-lane bus rapid transit (BRT) or light rail Transit (LRT), lower cost investments in passenger amenities, traffic operations, and information technology could go a long way in cost-effectively improving customer service and system efficiency.
Need to include light rail transit in the region.
Ideas on service and feature enhancements for these candidate corridors are presented in
Service frequency along a route needs to be increased (reduce headways). Handicapped issues/concerns.
rider
accessibility
Request for additional fare payment options.
4
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Tab #4 – Enhanced Transit Service Strategies. The enhanced transit service summary also includes a special analysis of technology options that would improve customer service and system efficiency. Four of the candidate corridors – Dodge Street, 24th Street, 72nd Street, and US 75 – were subsequently identified as the highest priority and advanced into more detailed assessment with a field inventory of features to support instreet and street-side improvements development. The results of the field inventory are provided in Volume 2, Appendices A through D of this final report.
PURPOSE AND NEED Using the comments, input provided by MAT staff, and the results of the market assessment the following were established as the purpose and need for action: Development in the Omaha metro area has expanded beyond the MAT service limits and there is a population in the region that desires to use transit, but does not have convenient enough service to justify them using it. Thus, there is a local need for additional service coverage. A portion of the population would prefer to use transit for work trips; however, MAT service hours do not coordinate with shift work jobs. Expanding the service hours would be required to better accommodate shift workers. A portion of the population that desires to use transit does not because the frequency of bus service (headway) is limited to one hour (or more), which does not provide a reasonable option to making the trip by auto.
5
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
E
XISTING
CONDITIONS
OVERVIEW
From the information presented in the map, the following conclusions were developed:
The patterns of existing transit service and ridership provide insight into the relative magnitude of the markets currently served. Continuing to provide effective service to existing customers forms the foundation on which enhanced transit services may be built.
Dodge Road is the highest ridership corridor and is also the most intensely developed corridor. Thus, provides direct and through access to a relatively high percentage of all trips made in the region.
Public transportation serves a small share of the total trips made each day in the Omaha metropolitan area. According to the 2000 Census, only 1.6 percent of work trips in Douglas County were made on transit. This represents a decline of approximately 40 percent since 1990. During the decade of the 1990s, automobile ownership (up 14 percent) grew faster than population (up 11 percent) and employment (up 12.5 percent) in Douglas County. Meanwhile, congestion, as reflected by average travel time to work increased by only 4.5 percent, from 17.8 minutes to 18.6 minutes. Average travel time for those using transit was more than double (38.7 minutes) that of those driving themselves (18.0 minutes). Furthermore, one-third of transit trips to work were reported to take 45 minutes or more, while nearly 60 percent of automobile trips took less than 20 minutes.
Routes connecting the downtown area to Crossroad Shopping Center serve the next highest concentration of trips.
Consistent with the general trends suggested by the Census, MAT has experienced a decline in total monthly ridership of 26 percent between the first four months of 2000 and the same period in 2003. In April 2003, average monthly ridership was approximately 289,000 unlinked trips, including downtown circulator routes. Addressing the disadvantages in terms of travel time and customer convenience compared to the private automobile represent some of MAT’s key challenges as it plans the transit services of the future for Omaha. Figure 3 shows monthly ridership (2003) graphically as a system map with line widths proportional to the monthly ridership on routes serving each segment. Where multiple routes serve a segment, the line width is proportional to the total ridership on all routes serving that segment.
The West Center Road corridor supports the second highest concentration of transit trips. The combination of four corridors serving the North Omaha to downtown areas provides the third highest concentration of transit trips.
PASSENGER SURVEY As part of the alternatives analysis MAT developed and conducted an on-board passenger survey. The results are presented in Tab 11 of this report. The purpose of the survey was to obtain from existing riders the following: Origin and destination for the specific trip being taken The typical weekly frequency of the trip type Fare category (adult full fare or some form of discounted fare) Whether or not they would need to transfer to complete the trip Whether or not they had a car available for that trip. In addition, the survey was used as an opportunity to gather additional input from user regarding current service. Patrons were asked to respond to open-ended questions as to their opinion on positive and negative experiences. MAT staff and contract employees conducted
6
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 3:
AVERAGE MONTHLY RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE SEGMENT (2003)
the survey from October 15 through November 5, 2003.
Distribution parameters: Surveys were conducted by temporary personnel during the following periods:
The responses to the survey were a critical input to the assessment of various concept alternatives and phases of the overall alternatives analsyis. Outlined in the following bulletpoints are the key parameters of the survey:
October 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 2003.
Instrument: The survey questionnaire used is displayed in Figure 4. Number of Surveys: Entering the survey process, it was MAT’s intent to obtain a statistically significant number of surveys; which would allow MAT to make more definitive statements regarding current service and not just generalizations. An adequate number of surveys were completed to state that the survey results reflect less than a 5 percent error at a 95% confidence interval.
Hours: 4:30 AM to 6:30 PM. Routes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 35, 40, 55, 96, 97, 111, 122. Responses: A total of 1,894 surveys were conducted over the period. Of the total, 1,209 were defined as “valid” surveys for the analysis. Valid was defined as a survey that had both a locatable origin and destination. Of the surveys that were rejected, most were because a specific north-south and east-west arterial origin and destination were not documented. Origins and Destinations: A desire line summary of the valid origins and destinations is displayed Tab 11.
7
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
FIGURE 4:
ON-BOARD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
MAT Onboard Traveler Survey
Route:_______
Time:______
Date:___________ 1.) What are the cross streets of your trip beginning and final destination? Beginning:__________________________________________ Destination:_________________________________________ 2.) Will your trip include a transfer? 1.) Yes 2.) No 3.) How often do you make this trip by bus? 1.) Once a Week 2.) Several Time a Week 4.) What is your fare category? 1.) Adult 2.) Senior/Medicare Card/Disabled
3.) Every Day
3.) Student
5.) Do you have another means to make this trip (car, walk, bike, ect.)? 1.) Yes 2.) No 6.) How satisfied are you with MAT service? 1.) Satisfied 2.) Not Satisfied If passenger has any comments have them write them on the back.
Outlined in the following bulletpoints is a summary of the survey responses: Trip frequency: Once per week: 10% of responses Several times per week: responses
32% of
Every day: 58% of responses Does the current trip include a transfer: Yes:
50% of responses
No:
50% of responses
about various groupings of responses, can be mapped and quantified. From the geocoded information, a trip length frequency distribution was developed as a means of making a quick verification of the percentage of trips that are shorter versus longer. This verification was important in the assessment of fare alternatives that reflected a lower cost “neighborhood” or “local” fare relative to a “through” fare for longer trips. The distribution is displayed in Figure 5.
Fare category: Adult full fare: 81% of responses Senior/Disabled/Medicare: responses
11% of
Student: 8% of responses Do you have another means of making this trip?: Yes:
26% of responses
No:
74% of responses
Satisfied with MAT service?: Yes:
78% of responses
No:
22% of responses
The origins and destinations of each of the valid trips were “geocoded” by inserting the information into the GIS mapping for the region. From this process, information regarding each of the surveys, and queries 8
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 5:
TRAVEL DISTANCE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
OF SURVEY TRIPS 180
160
120
100
80
60
40
20
>10
9.5
10.0
8.5
9.0
7.5
8.0
6.5
7.0
5.5
Miles
6.0
4.5
5.0
3.5
4.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
0 1.0
Number of Responses
140
9
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Concepts evaluated through the alternatives analysis were developed to support the purpose and need and to provide proposals that are consistent with the transit system goals.
implemented AVL or Automatic Vehicle Location capabilities that utilize GPS or Global Positioning System satellites to track the location of transit vehicles.
Alternatives included in the assessment were:
Focus areas/corridor incorporated into the management/TSM alternative are displayed in Figure 6.
Management/Transportation Systems Management (TSM). Included in this range of concepts were sub-alternatives addressing fare changes intended to improve increase revenue that would then be used to partially fund a service change alternative. Implementation of a hub and spoke/circulator form of operations in key corridors or throughout the community. Implementation of fixed guideway rail service (light rail/streetcar) in a portion of the Omaha central core. Expansion of the MAT levy area to include the entire Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan area. Currently, the levy area includes only the city of Omaha. Expansion to cover the entire metro area would establish MAT as a metro authority.
MANAGEMENT/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT The management alternative picked up with the information developed as part of the Travel Market Analysis. The concept was to focus more service in the corridor providing the most opportunities measured in travel density. Improvements would include: Decreases in headways during the peak and/or off-peak periods. Increasing service hours to better serve the later night and earlier morning needs of the highest density areas. Increasing the use of ITS technologies to improve transit on-time performance, traveler information, and transit trip planning. The ITS strategies dovetail with the strategies identified in the operations TSM ideas of modifying service and build on MAT’s already-
Provided in Tab #6 of this volume is a summary of fare issues and strategies including the final recommendation. Material from the presentation to the MAT Board about the fare analysis and recommendations can be found in Tab #2 that contains project presentations to the Board.
HUB AND SPOKE ALTERNATIVE MAT’s existing service configuration is a traditional downtown-focused route structure with secondary foci on transit centers located at key activity centers throughout the service area. Over the years, the Omaha downtown has remained stable in absolute terms as an employment and activity center. Thus, as the region has grown, the downtown as a relative proportion of total regional activity has declined as housing and especially employment and retail activities have decentralized. In response to the changing urban form, the concept of incorporating a multi-centered hub and spoke system was included in the range of alternatives. Downtown Omaha will remain the most important destination, but with a multi-centered hub and spoke system it could be easier for customers to get to other regional activity centers through a more direct manner (i.e. without always needing to travel to downtown first). The foundation of the concept is the transit hubs, or transit centers, at major activity centers where local transit routes (locals) will pulse (timed transfer) with hub connector routes (throughs). Customers staying within a hub service area could find more convenient timed transfers to other local routes. Customers wanting to travel to other major activity centers will find limited-stop connector routes available. A generalized hub
10
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS and spoke concept for the Omaha-Council Bluffs area is displayed in Figure 7. The hub and spoke service analysis performed was labeled a “winners/losers” analysis. It received the name because the bottom line was to determine the distribution of customers concept compared to the existing system. Winners were defined as travel origin and destination pairs for which the hub and spoke system would provide a travel time improvement (decrease) of at least five minutes. Losers were defined as origin/destination pairs for which the new system would provide increase travel time by at least five minutes. Origin and destination pairs where the absolute travel time change was less than five minutes were considered “no change” for this assessment.
the “losers”. That focus might identify strategies to mitigate the adverse impacts of hub and spoke or even determine that some the “losers” were not a big or critical part of the transit market. Subsequent efforts by MAT service planners were intended to further reduce the number of customers whose travel times would increase as a result of the service change. The final service plan is still being constructed and is not reflected in the analysis presented in Tab #5. The analysis also provided MAT with a methodology to continue its own assessment of the distribution of transit benefits and adverse effects brought about by hub and spoke as the planning advances.
Presented in the information contained in Tab Number 5 of this final report is the winners/losers analysis. The analysis documented was conducted at an interim time point in MAT’s hub and spoke planning. Thus, do not reflect current plans and schedules. The results of the documented assessment suggested that more effort be focused on improving the situation for FIGURE 6:
MANAGEMENT /TSM ALTERNATIVES CORRIDOR FOCUS AREAS
11
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 7:
HUB AND SPOKE CONCEPT
STREETCAR/TROLLEY ALTERNATIVE The Downtown and Near North Side MIS was completed by the city of Omaha in 1999. That Major Investment Study investigated the feasibility of fixed guideway streetcar, or trolley service, along: 24th Street from the west side of downtown past Creighton University to North Lake Street. 10th Street from the east side of downtown to the Henry Doorly Zoo and Rosenblatt Stadium. Circulating through the downtown along 10th Street, Capitol Avenue, 17th Street, Dodge Street, 24th Street and Harney Street. A 10th Street connection between the, at that point, proposed arena and convention center. The route would extend approximately 7.2 miles, and include a combination of single and double track lines.
The concept as defined in the earlier MIS project was incorporated intact as an alternative in this work. As part of the alternatives analysis the following was completed to update the 1999 project work elements: Update the ridership estimates to reflect a new horizon year of 2030 (consistent with the MAPA modeling horizon) and parameters of the arena and convention center that has been constructed on 10th Street north of I-480. Review and comment the cost estimates for capital construction and operations prepared as part of the MIS. The route incorporated into the alternatives analysis is displayed in Figure 8.
LOCAL STREETCAR INITIATIVE In 2006 an assessment of a streetcar route concept connecting the Creighton University area through the Old Market area of downtown Omaha via the Qwest Center was completed by Heritage Services. The feasibility
12
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FIGURE 8:
STREETCAR/TROLLEY CONCEPT ALIGNMENT
analysis was completed with the primary need being addressing economic development potential in the area along Webster Street from Creighton University to the Qwest Center and along 10th Street from the Qwest Center into a downtown loop along Jackson Street, 16th Street and Farnam Street back to 10th Street. An assumption documented in the assessment report is that federal, state or general city funds would not be used to fund construction. Details on operating costs and funding were not available. Metro Area Transit was not approached to be a participant of the feasibility study. 13
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
BUS RAPID TRANSIT The Omaha Transit Alternatives Analysis developed concepts and ideas for improving Metro Area Transit (MAT) services in the Omaha metropolitan area. A sub-alternative to the concept to improve service in the higher density corridors that provide a greater potential for increasing transit ridership is the concept of bus rapid transit (BRT). The goal of incorporating BRT service is to improve transit operating performance, make travel times more competitive with the automobile, provide greater passenger comfort and convenience, and increase ridership. BRT is an integrated system of facilities, services, and amenities that collectively improves the speed, reliability, and identity of bus transit. In many cases, BRT achieves or exceeds the performance and attractiveness of streetcar/trolley or even light rail transit (LRT), but retains the greater operating flexibility and potentially lower capital and operating costs of a bus-oriented service.1 The categories of elements that comprise a BRT system include busways, stations, vehicles, services, routes, fare collection systems, and technology applications that collectively increase performance and evoke a strong positive identity for transit. The package of elements is most effective when BRT services are distinguished from traditional bus transit services in each category. Creating this distinction involves giving BRT as many of the features of rail systems that improve performance, customer convenience, and system identity as possible. There is considerable variation in BRT systems, ranging
from systems that are virtually indistinguishable from light rail systems to systems that are little more than upgraded bus routes. Each system offers a different combination of features in each of these categories. Although BRT research is currently underway to determine empirically the relative cost effectiveness and ridership-generating potential of various features and package of features, no firm decision guidelines yet exist. Based on several decades of experience with mode choice models and behavioral research, features that reduce travel time, such increasing frequency, travel speed, route directness, or reducing dwell time at stops can produce significant ridership impacts. In several recent BRT systems ridership gains have been proportional to travel time reductions.2 The network of corridors shown in Figure 5 was identified in the Market Analysis as having potential for enhanced transit services and is used as the basis for identifying potential BRT corridors, including: Dodge Road/US 6: Including areas along the Dodge Street sections, West Dodge Road, the West Dodge Expressway and West Broadway through Council Bluffs. Kennedy Omaha.
Expressway
through
South
West Maple Road. West Center Road. North Freeway (US 75) through North Omaha. Documentation of ideas as to the various system elements that could be incorporated into the Omaha metro area BRT concept are outlined in Tab #4 of the Appendix. Included in the information are ideas on: Use of a busway or mixed traffic flow. Potential station locations and amenities. Vehicle options relative to the current fleet.
Examples of BRT Stations Concepts
Potential operating schedules. Fare collection
1
Transit Cooperative Research Program. Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit, Volume I: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, 2003.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Los Angeles MetroRapid Demonstration Program: Final Report. July 2001. 2
Examples of BRT Vehicles 14
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CREATION AUTHORITY
OF A
REGIONAL TRANSIT
MAT is an instrument of the State of Nebraska with authority boundaries coincident with those of the City of Omaha. Enabling legislation was approved in by the Unicameral in the 2003 session that would allow for creation of a regional transit agency covering the Nebraska portions of the metropolitan area. Today’s transit organizations generally take one of two traditional forms. In smaller communities, transit is frequently run as an operating arm of local government (municipal or county) with services provided within the single jurisdiction. In other instances, transit agencies operate within a single jurisdiction but take the form of an independent operating authority. In both cases, transit is likely to have to compete more vigorously with other local services for priority and funding in an environment where fiscal constraints are often severe. In larger communities and metropolitan regions, public transit is more often provided by an independent, single purpose authority with powers derived from special state enabling legislation typically describing the representative governance structure and powers. Frequently, and as is the case with the current system, enabling legislation or related tax measures authorize the collection of dedicated tax revenues within the designated region. Sales taxes are most frequently used as the dedicated source of funding for transit, although property taxes are the source for Omaha funding. As the metropolitan transit service area includes a number of communities, the concept assumed in this analysis would be the regional single purpose authority governed by a Board comprised of representatives of the jurisdictions included in the authority area. General characteristics of the authority to be addressed in this analysis, or at some future point, include Make up of the policy boards - Generally made by elected officials of the respective member jurisdictions, or the elected officials themselves may serve. The size of policy boards - Ranges widely in a multi-jurisdictional setting. Eight to twelve members is typical.
Service standards and service levels throughout the authority area - Are typically agreed to as a matter of plan and policy and funding responsibilities defined. Consistent levels of service are not generally provided throughout the system coverage as demand could vary widely. Regional enabling legislation or subsequent agreements have provided for “opt-out” provisions, allowing flexibility for individual member jurisdictions to leave the authority (and their financial responsibility) behind, but introducing potential instability in service delivery. The decision to join or to opt out is typically made by local legislative bodies. As suggested above, institutional arrangements for regional transit organization and governance today generally reflect a situation in which the preferred “model” is in the eye of the beholder, and is the result of negotiations among contending and sometimes reluctant “partners.” On the horizon, however, is an emerging model that turns the focus toward a new mission – “managing mobility” – directed toward improving the customer’s travel options with less preoccupation over whose equipment (or resources) might be used in the process. The institution assuming the role of regional manager of mobility may not even own or operate any vehicles or equipment at all, but manages relationships and partnerships with a variety of service providers through agreed upon service standards and revenue sharing arrangements and regular quality monitoring. A key question is whether or not it is important to the region to pursue the notion of mobility management. A resulting question is whether the traditional transit agency wants to (or will seek and be given the authority to) act as a “manager of mobility,” or be content to continue to serve as one of several potential service providers. The report in Tab #9 is a working paper or “think-piece” on the subject of regional governance. It does not provide specific recommendations but rather is intended to encourage discussion of issues critical to selecting an appropriate approach to regionalization if and when the matter comes to the forefront.
15
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING SUMMARY Each of the general alternatives concepts were evaluated relative to the following criteria: Potential to improve mobility and enhance transit options with the metropolitan area. Supports regional economic development goals, employment opportunities and transit access to jobs Promotes efficient land development patterns Potential to enhance the natural and social environment in the metro area through reducing the increase in vehicle miles of travel or vehicle hours of travel. Cost effectiveness. Supported by the community. A matrix-based approach was employed in the alternatives analysis. The resulting matrix is provided in Table 1. TABLE 1:
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX RESULTS
16
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SELECTION OF THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Through the alternatives assessment a broad range of technology and operating plan strategy alternatives were reviewed relative to a set of evaluation criteria that incorporated review/assessment of: Potential to improve system ridership. Change in travel time for current users. Change in the number of transfers for current users. Feasibility of working within the current MAT labor hour budgets and reuse of current rolling stock. Response from the community obtained through the public involvement program. Consistency with land use plans. Environmental impacts. The technology and operating plan strategy alternatives included: Bus rapid transit. Streetcar/trolley. Hub and spoke mainline neighborhood circulators.
with
Management/TSM/ITS No Action The critical determinant in selection of a locally preferred alternative was the feasibility of being able to implement a revised operating plan or new technology within the current MAT labor hour budget. MAT is currently operating in a financial environment where obtaining increased levels of federal and/or state funding for system improvements unlikely to occur. In addition, the potential to more than marginally increase funding from local source much beyond the annual inflation rate on fuel and operating expenses is restricted by state tax rate lid laws. Thus, funding for capital expenditures and the labor hours required to implement and sustain the range of service changes included in the alternatives analysis requires improving the efficiency of current service provision and/or restructuring current service routes to rework routes that are unproductive. Through the course of the
alternatives analysis MAT staff along with the consultant team attempted to identify hours within the current program that could be shifted to the potential expansion alternatives. The labor hours required to fully implement one or more of the improvement concepts were not readily identifiable within the current system. Thus, due to the inability to either expand the labor hour budget or identify adjustments or efficiency improvements that would establish a pool of hours sufficient to allow the expansion alternatives, the locally preferred alternative was the No Action. The formal outcome of the alternatives analysis was the recommendation of the No Action as the locally preferred alternative, with the additional recommendation of continuing to assess potential system efficiencies. In the period following completion of the alternatives analysis and funding assessment, MAT staff has continued to evaluate each route and various segments of routes to identify potential efficiency improvement that could be attained, which would provide a pool of labor hours for implementation of at least a baseline portion of one or more of the potential improvements. As a result of the ongoing assessment efforts, the following incremental changes have been implemented which result in identifying unproductive routes and reassigning the labor and capital equipment from selected routes to potentially more productive areas of the system, including: Removing mid-day service from Route 10 (South and North). The labor hours and capital equipment saved by removing service from approximately 8:30 AM to 3:00 PM have been reallocated to Route 2 (Dodge Street) to lower the headway from 30 minute service to 20 minute service. Extending Route 8 service miles to provide more accessibility to the Crossroads Shopping Center. Extension or service to Route 8 includes Blondo Street from 72nd Street to 85th Street, 85th Street to Cass Street and then back to
17
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 72nd Street, giving riders more access to shopping. The changes in the system to rework unproductive portions and increase service in the more productive areas has resulted in increased ridership, and has allowed MAT to partially implement the hub concept by adding transit centers at key locations for route transfer hubs. The locations and centers are described in the System Enhancement Activities chapter.
FARE RECOMMENDATIONS Using the fare survey results, the study team developed a model to estimate the change in revenue associated with the same trips as were made during the survey period, but using the design of the hub and spoke route system. This approach assumed no change in travel behavior due to the change to the hub and spoke system (i.e. no induced trips associated with shorter travel times or lower than current fares on local routes, no lost trips due to a potentially longer total trip time, etc.). Using these data, the URS team and MAT explored a number of fare scenarios. The fare and transfer parameters of each are outlined in Tab #6. The final recommendation was for a new fare structure that reflected the following: Preservation of the $1.25 full adult fare for one-way journeys that utilized at least one hub connector route (through). No cost transfers for trips completed within one hour, rather than direction of travel. Complete trips that did not leave the origin local area could be purchased for $1.00, with a 4-hour time window for unlimited travel within the local area, including a return trip on the original route. This fare structure was felt to balance the competing objectives of revenue protection while encouraging the local hub-oriented trips that are not currently being made to any significant degree.
18
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS OVERVIEW Completion of the MAT Alternatives Analysis in 2004 was not the end of the planning and improvement assessment process, it signaled the beginning of a focus on incremental implementation of costumer service improvements throughout the system. The range of improvement included new programs to make the system more convenient for users, technology enhancements to improve the efficiency of providing service, construction of new transit centers to provide much improved customer waiting areas, and route expansions to increase the service limits and provide a travel mode alternative to a greater percentage of the metro area. Described in the following sections are a number of the key system enhancements.
be enhanced around the centers to provide better service in those areas.
Proposed Westroads Transit Center
CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSIT CENTERS Based on information obtained from the Alternatives Analysis Study Metro Area Transit began the process of obtaining land and funding for new transit centers in the community which would enhance the riding experience for passengers. With the new transit centers riders will be able to transfer more at transit centers giving them more convenience. After the study was completed Metro Area Transit began work on the South Omaha Transit Center in cooperation Metropolitan Community College and the City of Omaha Library. Metropolitan Community College began an expansion project of their south Omaha campus which included a new public library and transit center. Metro Area Transit also acquired land for a new transit center at Westroads which will give Metro Area Transit a permanent location at that facility. Over the years Metro Area Transit has had to move their transfer locations to different locations around Westroads due to construction projects around that shopping center. Metro Area Transit also acquired land for a transit center at Benson Park. This transit center will provide convenient transferring and circulation in northwest Omaha. As transit centers are built and come online, routing will
Proposed Benson Transit Center
BUS REHABILITATION PROJECT In 2006 Metro Area Transit embarked on a bus rehabilitation project. By the end of 2007 Metro Area Transit will have rehabilitated and reconditioned 31 buses from its current fleet. After going out for bid for new buses Metro Area Transit determined that only 8 new buses could be purchased for the same amount as rehabilitating 31 buses.
ROUTE EXPANSIONS In 2006 Metro Area Transit expanded 2 routes and increased headway on Dodge Street (its major east west route). Dodge Street headway was improved during non-peak from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. Peak time stated the same at 15 minutes. Route 16 was expanded to connect the North Omaha Transit Center with Downtown via the airport. This is the first 19
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS time in many years Metro Area Transit has provided service to the airport. Additionally, Route 16 now serves the Open Door Mission, Douglas County Corrections Facility, and Immigration and Naturalization Service. Route 18 was expanded to provide more service on Blondo Street, 85th Street and Cass Street. With the expansion of service on Route 18, redundant service on 72nd Street was eliminated.
UPGRADED FAREBOXES In March of 2006 Metro Area Transit installed upgraded electronic fareboxes in their fleet of fixed route buses and in the paratransit buses/vans. The upgraded fareboxes replaced existing equipment that was 16 years old. The upgraded fareboxes allow Metro Area Transit the flexibility to introduce new fare payment options for the riding public. The reporting capability allows Metro Area Transit to better analyze route segments for productivity and make better decisions on where service is placed. The upgraded fareboxes help the bus operators by taking transfer fraud confrontations away from them. Transfers are issued by the farebox on a card with encoded information that tells when the transfer was issued. Metro Area Transit is looking at other fare payment options such as Day Passes.
INITIATION PASS
OF
30 CONSECUTIVE DAY
In 2005 Metro Area Transit introduced a 30 Day Pass for the riding public. This pass was initially introduced as a Monthly Pass that was valid for the month in which it was issued. However, with the introduction of the upgraded fareboxes Metro Area Transit introduced a 30 Consecutive Day Pass where the pass, once activated in the farebox, is good for the next 30 days. Riders are able to purchase multiple passes and activate them as needed.
30-Day Pass
30-Day Half Fare Pass
New Farebox 10-Day Ride Pass
20
MAT TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
SCHEDULING, PARATRANSIT, AND CUSTOMER SERVICE SOFTWARE UPGRADES In 2006 Metro Area Transit began upgrading operational software that was 9 years old. Scheduling, paratransit, and customer service software was running on the Windows NT Operating System and Microsoft was not supporting that product anymore. In looking at various software products Metro Area Transit decided to use Trapeze Software for all three applications. Trapeze was an upgrade which made the project less expensive and Trapeze uses a centralized database for all of its applications which allow for better data integration between the applications. The upgraded software also has better algorithms which will provide Metro Area Transit with better efficiencies in routing fixed route service and paratransit service. FIGURE 9:
RESULTS OF ON-GOING ENHANCEMENTS
SYSTEM
The listed service area changes, customer service amenity improvements and management efficiency programs were all intended to improve the quality of MAT services both from the customer perspective and from a service provision perspective. The product of these changes as resulted in the desired effect of improving service and increasing ridership. Figure 9 displays the change in ridership from 2002 through 2006. As can be observed form the information in the table, systemwide ridership has increased by approximately 14,200 riders per month or by approximately 11 percent in the period since many of the service and customer enhancements have been implemented.
ANNUAL RIDERSHIP (2002 TO 2006)
21
