1 / 33

PRTC Bus Service Strategic Plan

PRTC Bus Service Strategic Plan. Public Hearing Presentation September 2004. Presentation Outline. Strategic plan background Factors shaping transit service needs Analysis and evaluation approach Candidate new / expanded services examined Recommended services

annalise
Download Presentation

PRTC Bus Service Strategic Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRTC Bus Service Strategic Plan Public Hearing Presentation September 2004

  2. Presentation Outline • Strategic plan background • Factors shaping transit service needs • Analysis and evaluation approach • Candidate new / expanded services examined • Recommended services • Related bus purchase and maintenance / storage facility investment requirements • Other forms of service delivery • Next steps

  3. Strategic Plan Background • Publicly supported bus services in area shaped by multi-year strategic plan • Last such plan developed by PRTC several years ago, and now nearing end of its useful life • PRTC’s governing board wants new (updated) plan produced in FY 2005, timed to dovetail with FY 2006 budget process

  4. Factors Shaping Transit Needs • Population / employment growth in area • Deteriorating traffic conditions • Growing public dissatisfaction with transportation conditions in the area • PRTC survey – citizens’ perceptions of unmet transit needs • Assessment of existing transit services – strengths and weaknesses

  5. 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 Population 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Factors Shaping Transit Needs Population growth in Prince William County, Manassas and Manassas Park – 1990 to 2003

  6. 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 Population 250,000 Employment 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year Factors Shaping Transit Needs • Projected population and employment in Prince William County – 2005 to 2030

  7. Factors Shaping Transit Needs Deteriorating traffic conditions – 1990 - 2003 MeasureChange Since 1990 • Demand • VMT (NOVA counties only) 49% increase • Supply • Lane miles added (NOVA counties only) 9% increase • Demand vs. Supply (Congestion) • VMT per lane mile (NOVA counties only) 37% increase

  8. Factors Shaping Transit Needs • Growing citizen dissatisfaction with transportation in the area Around CountySatisfied? 2000 62.8% 2001 55.1% 2002 57.6% 2003 52.5% 2004 45.7% Around NOVASatisfied? 2001 37.3% 2003 37.1%

  9. Factors Shaping Transit Needs(PRTC Survey – OmniRide) • More frequent service on existing routes • Off-peak service on existing routes • Weekend Metro Direct service (connecting to Metrorail) • New service • To Dulles area • To Tysons Corner • To Rosslyn • To Fort Belvoir • From Haymarket / Gainesville

  10. Factors Shaping Transit Needs(PRTC Survey – OmniLink) • Weekend service • New service • Innovation • Montclair • Haymarket / Gainesville • More frequent service on existing routes

  11. Factors Shaping Transit Needs • Assessment of existing service • Evaluated relative to multiple measures of service quality (defined by the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual -- transit industry guide for such evaluations) • OmniRide and OmniLink separately evaluated to account for inherent differences • Measures • Hours of service • Coverage • Frequency • Passenger seating capacity (loading) • On-time performance • Trips not served • Travel time (relative to auto)

  12. Factors Shaping Transit Needs – Existing Service Weaknesses • OmniRide • Lack of off-peak service • Absence of service in some areas • Haymarket (on “residential” end) • Rosslyn, Tysons Corner, Route 28 / Dulles, and Fort Belvoir (on “destination” end) • Absence of weekend service • OmniLink • Deficient service frequency on existing routes • Absence of service in some areas • Montclair, Haymarket / Gainesville (on the “residential” end) • Innovation and Fort Belvoir (on “destination” end) • Absence of weekend service

  13. Factors Shaping Transit Needs • Assessment of existing services – area peer comparisons from “service per capita” perspective

  14. Factors Shaping Transit Needs • Assessment of existing services – area peer comparisons from “investment per capita” perspective

  15. Candidate Services Examined • New OmniRide routes • Expanded service on existing OmniRide routes • New OmniLink routes • Expanded service on existing OmniLink routes

  16. Candidate Services Examined – New OmniRide Routes • Rosslyn • Haymarket • Tysons Corner (from east and west) • Fort Belvoir • Route 28 / Dulles • Brentsville

  17. Candidate Services Examined – Expanded Service on Existing OmniRide Routes • More peak period Route One corridor service • Mid-day service • Later evening service • Later morning service • Saturday Metro Direct (from east and west) • Increased frequency and Saturday service on Cross-county route

  18. Candidate Services Examined – New OmniLink Routes • Route One supplemental service • Montclair-related • Haymarket / Gainesville-related • Innovation • Route One Fort Belvoir extension

  19. Candidate Services Examined – Expanded Service on Existing OmniLink Routes • Route One corridor • Increased frequency on easterly OmniLink routes • Increased frequency on westerly OmniLink routes • Saturday service on westerly OmniLink routes • Sunday service on both easterly and westerly OmniLink routes

  20. Candidate Services Examined – Evaluation Factors • Customer requests / interest expressed via survey • Daily ridership expectations • Gross subsidy requirement • Gross subsidy per trip • Additional bus requirements • Supportiveness of local jurisdictional goals / objectives

  21. Recommended Services -- Introduction • Two groupings • Those recommended for implementation within next five years (by 2010) • Those seen as desirable later than 2010 • “Later than 2010” group not recommended sooner because • Road improvements have to be completed first to make the services productive and/or • Markets need more time to develop

  22. Recommended Services - OmniRide

  23. Recommended Services - OmniLink

  24. Recommended OmniRide Services Within Next Five Years – Key Financials and Other Measures

  25. Recommended OmniLink Services Within Next Five Years – Key Financials and Other Measures

  26. Desirable Services Beyond 2010

  27. Bus Purchase Needs Within Next Five Years

  28. Funding Requirements For Bus Purchases

  29. Maintenance / Storage Needs • Short-term expansion • Enlarge secure storage lot at PRTC Transit Center, encroaching on employee parking lot • Move employee parking lot to existing commuter lot • Construct replacement commuter lot on undeveloped acreage across from Transit Center • Longer-term expansion • Westerly maintenance facility

  30. Maintenance / Storage Needs – Short Term

  31. Maintenance / Storage Needs – Longer Term • Short-term plan yields total storage capacity of 128 buses • Fleet grows to 134 buses by 2010 assuming all recommended services are implemented as proposed • Indicates need for second maintenance facility • Preferred location on western side of PRTC service area to reduce “dead-head” costs

  32. Alternative Forms of Service Delivery Potentially Warranting Public Support • Forms • Volunteer transportation program • Voucher program • Either could be substitute form of service or supplement to improve mobility even further • Volunteer program already exists • Run by Prince William Area Interfaith Caregivers (aka “Caregivers”) • No public funding at present, limiting its effectiveness • No voucher program in PRTC service area at present, but many examples in jurisdictions to the north

  33. Next Steps • PRTC compiles reactions to draft plan from citizens and PRTC governing board • PRTC finalizes plan for governing board’s consideration / adoption as early as October 2004 • Plan used to shape proposed budget submissions to PRTC member jurisdictions • Member jurisdictions decide which of the recommended services they wish to sponsor (if any) • Implementation thereafter in accordance with sponsors’ decisions • Process begins with the FY 2006 budget

More Related