final report earthworks transit fixed … of development...6.6 connections to the columbus metro...

FINAL REPORT

EARTHWORKS TRANSIT

FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY In the Earthworks Transit Service Area

Prepared for

The City of Newark, Ohio May 2012

Prepared by

Akron, Ohio

In association with

Mp2planning, llc

i

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Introduction…………………………………………….………………..…………………3 2. Existing Public Transportation Services…………………………….……..…………...5

2.1 Earthworks Transit 2.2 Licking County Transit 2.3 Overlap in Transportation Services 4.3 Peer Analysis

3. Transit-Supportive Community Characteristics………………………..………...…15

3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Population 3.2. Development Character of the Community 3.3 Development Densities

4. Public Involvement and Survey Findings……………………………….…...………27

4.1 Public Meetings 4.2 Stakeholder Meetings 4.3 Community Household Survey 4.4 Survey of Earthworks Transit Riders

5. Fixed Route Bus Service Alternatives…………………………………………………42

5.1 Brief History of Public Transportation 5.2 Route Planning Workshop 5.3 Fixed Route System Alternatives 5.4 Door-to-Door Origin/Destination Patterns 5.5 Financial Analysis of Proposed Alternatives

6. Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….52

6.1 Recommended Fixed Route System 6.2 Recommended Levels of Service 6.3 Operating Budget and Impact on Current Operations 6.4 Capital Program and Budget 6.5 Vehicles 6.6 Connections to the Columbus Metro Area

ii

7. Implementation…………………………………………………………………………..67 7.1 Funding 7.2 Management and Staffing 7.3 Capital Acquisition 7.4 Community Outreach, Education and Marketing 7.5 New Marketing Materials 7.6 Implementation Timetable and Phasing

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………..……70 1. Peer Transit System Review Tables 2. Demographic Characteristics by Census Tract 3. Stakeholders Interviewed 4. Community Household Survey Form 5. Earthworks Transit Rider Survey Form 6. Alternative Service Configurations List of Tables and Figures Tables Table 1: Earthworks Transit & Licking County Transit Board, Operating Years 1996- 2010 Table 2a: Trips Provided by Earthworks Transit and Licking county Transit Service, 4/2011 Table 2b: Trips by Origin/Destination Pairs, Earthworks Transit – All Trips Table 2c: Trips by Origin/Destination, Licking County Transit Board – All Trips Table 3: Fixed Route Operating and Performance Characteristics Table 4a: Demographic Characteristics Table 4b: Selected Demographic Characteristics of the Earthworks Transit Service Area Table 5: Community Household Survey Results Table 6: Earthworks Transit Rider Survey Table 7: Recommended Fixed Route Service Table 8: Recommended Phase 1 –Early Implementation Table 9: Capital Program and Budget Figures Figure 1: Licking County Urbanized Areas and Clusters Figure 2: Days and Hours of Service Figure 3: Earthworks Transit – Dropping off a Rider Figure 4a: Earthworks Transit Trips, April 2011 Figure 4b: Licking County Transit Service Trips, April 2011 Figure 4c: Earthworks Transit Trips to/from LICCO, Inc. Figure 4d: Licking County Transit Service Transit Trips to/from LICCO Figure 5: Population by Census Block Figure 6: Population Age 65 and Older Figure 7: Disabled Persons Age 5 and Older

iii

Figure 8: Persons with Income Below 150% of Poverty Level Figure 9: Households with No Vehicles Figure 10: Composite Target Population Demographics Figure 11: Street Network in Newark and Heath Figure 12: Activity Centers in Newark and Heath Figure 13: Population Density Figure 14a: Population Density by Traffic Zone - Existing Figure 14b: Employment Density by Traffic Zone – Existing Figure 14c: Population and Employment Density by Traffic Zone – Existing Figure 14d: Population and Employment Density by Traffic Zone – Future Figure 15: Re-Establishment of Fixed Route Service May 1967 Figure 16: Preliminary Fixed Route System Figure 17a: Trip Patterns - Weekdays Figure 17b: Trip Patterns – Saturdays Figure 17c: Trip Patterns – Sundays Figure 18: Revised Fixed Route Transit System Figure 19: Recommended Fixed Route System Figure 20a: Recommended North Route 21st Street – Deo Drive Detail Figure 20b: Recommended East Route Figure 20c: Recommended West and Northwest Routes Figure 20d: Recommended Southwest Route Figure 20e: Recommended Central Circulator Route Figure 20f: Recommended Fixed Route System with Central Circulator Route Figure 21: Medium Duty – Low Floor Bus Figure 22: Recommended Fixed Routes and Regional Public Transportation Service

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings and recommendations concerning the feasibility of establishing a system of bus routes in Newark and Heath, Ohio, the service area of Earthworks Transit. SUMMARY FINDINGS Two public transportation systems serve the communities of Licking County:

Earthworks Transit, operated by the City of Newark, provides door-to-door transportation for the general public in the cities of Newark and Heath. This service has operated in several forms since the mid-1980s.

The Licking County Transit Service, operated by the Licking County Transit Board (LCT), provides door-to-door public transportation service to the general public and contract transportation service to the Licking County Board of Developmental Disabilities (LCBDD) and the Licking County Department of Job and Family Services. The LCT was created by the Board of County Commissioners in the late 1990s.

There is a significant overlap and duplication of services on weekdays in Newark, which argues strongly for a close coordination of service or consolidation of the two into a single public transportation system in the county.

An evaluation of development patterns, socio-demographic characteristics, street network and current and projected development character supports the development of a system of fixed bus routes in Newark and Heath.

A review of peer public transportation systems similar in size to Earthworks Transit and which operate fixed route bus service points to the feasibility of such service in Newark and Heath.

Key leaders and stakeholders in the community believe strongly in the benefits that fixed route bus service could bring. Significant numbers of people, older adults, people with disabilities, low income families, the homeless, and public school children, do not have adequate personal mobility to meet their life needs.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS A system of fixed route bus service in Newark and Heath should be

established.

A system of routes should be implemented as follows:

2

North Route - service to northern Newark, giving riders access to commercial, retail and restaurant locations for shopping and access to employment opportunities

East Route - access along East Main Street out to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV)

West Route - West Main Street to the extensive hospital services at the Licking Memorial Hospital, medical services close to the hospital and the Medical Center of Newark and the industrial area businesses along Tamarack Road

Northwest Route - access to Newark High School, the Ohio State University (OSU) - Newark and the Central Ohio Technical College (COTC).

Southwest Route - connecting Newark and Heath, providing access to the many commercial, retail, restaurant and motel locations in Heath, for shopping and employment

Central Circulator Route – operating on Granville Road to Newark High School, OSU-Newark and COTC, soothe of the square into neighborhoods south of the railroad tracks and the East Main Street corridor near downtown.

Fixed route bus service should operate on weekdays and Saturdays. Demand is not presently high enough to warrant service on Sundays.

Fixed route bus service should be available every sixty (60) minutes on weekdays and Saturdays between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm, with limited service available during evening hours.

During limited weekday morning and late afternoon hours, bus service should operate every thirty (30) minutes.

Opportunities exist to leverage state and federal funding through the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) to support the establishment of fixed route bus service.

Existing public transportation services for the general public in Newark and Heath do not receive any local financial assistance. ODOT provides the funding required for eligibility for available federal funding.

For fixed route and door-to-door public transportation service to be healthy and sustainable in Licking County, local communities and the general public should embrace the need to provide local financial resources to support its development.

3

1. INTRODUCTION The Earthworks Transit Fixed Route Feasibility Study was conducted to assess the feasibility of establishing a fixed route system in Newark and Heath (Figure 1). Public transportation service is presently provided in Newark and Heath by Earthworks Transit, providing demand-responsive service through a contract by MV Transportation. Before April 2009, demand-responsive service was provided as the Newark-Heath Taxi-Token Program, operated by a local taxi company. Federal funding is available to support this transportation service through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5307 Urban Program apportionments to the Newark, OH Urbanized Area. Required non-federal funds are provided by ODOT. FTA funding is received by both Earthworks Transit and Licking County Transit Service (LCT) as designated recipients by agreement between the two systems. LCT provides public transportation services to communities in Licking County outside of Newark and Heath. ODOT funding is allocated by formula separately to each system.

Figure 1: Licking County Urbanized Areas and Clusters

4

The study of fixed-route transit feasibility includes a review of the current demand-responsive service, with the study to provide recommendations for improvements in this service. The study will produce an evaluation of fixed-route transit service options for the Newark – Heath area. The study included a general public survey as well as active and collaborative involvement of the residents of Newark and Heath, Earthworks Transit riders, community stakeholders, the business community and elected officials. Finally, federal, state and local financial capabilities and limitations were evaluated to determine the fiscal feasibility for the level of public transportation services that are recommended. Through this study, the consultant, with the involvement of Earthworks Transit and City of Newark staff, determined that a fixed route service was feasible based on demand, public input, and fiscal feasibility. A set of fixed routes was developed and a program for implementation defined. This report presents the steps that led to that conclusion and the details of the various work products.

5

2. EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 2.1 Earthworks Transit Public transportation service, Earthworks Transit, in Newark and Heath is presently paratransit service, provided under contract by MV Transportation. It operates in the cities of Newark and Heath in Licking County. Currently, the service is a demand response service. It formerly was known as the Newark-Heath Taxi-Token Program, operated by a local taxi company until April 2009. Earthworks Transit service is available from 6 am to 9 pm on weekdays, Saturdays from 10 am to 6 pm, and Sundays from 8 am to 3 pm (See Figure 2). A trip scheduled on the day of travel (Same Day service) is available, but at higher fares than trips with reservations made in advance. Earthworks Transit operates off hours service (Enhanced) from 5 am to 6 am and 9 pm to 11 pm on weekdays.

Figure 2: Days and Hours of Earthworks Transit Service

6

Earthworks Transit also will pick up riders in areas served by LCT when LCT service is not available. Earthworks Transit provides approximately 49,000 trips annually on an operating a budget of about $840,000 (Table 1). As noted above, the current organizational framework of Earthworks is relatively new. Service is managed by a Transit Operations Coordinator. Figure 3 shows an Earthworks Transit bus making a dial-a-ride pick-up at the Licking County Family YMCA.

Figure 3: Earthworks Transit – Dropping off a Rider

2.2 Licking County Transit The Licking County Transit Services, established in July 1998, is the demand responsive public transportation system for Licking County residents living outside the cities of Newark and Heath. LCT provides demand response transportation throughout the County, provided under contract by First Transit. LTC has service contracts with two Licking County agencies, Licking County Job and Family Services (LCJFS) and the LCBDD. LCT is owned, operated and governed by the citizens of Licking County through the Licking County Transit Board. LCT provides about 77,000 passenger trips per year at a budget of approximately $1.5 million (Table 1).

7

Table 1

2.3 Overlap in Transportation Service A selected review of trips provided by ET and LCT shows a considerable overlap of service within ET’s Newark-Heath service area. Selected trips provided during the month of April 2011 were reviewed. Trips were reviewed within the structure of the Licking County Area Transportation Study (LCATS) traffic analysis zones.

Prior to contracts with LCJFS and LCDD, Earthworks Transit provided transportation for LCBDD clients to LICCO, Inc. in Heath. LICCO, Inc. provides employment for people with developmental disabilities through contracts that it has with businesses in central Ohio. LICCO Inc. was able to take advantage of ET’s service rather than transporting clients on LCBDD vehicles, paying the fare for these trips. Since LCT has initiated its contract transportation service to LICCO, increasingly, LCT has been making pickups of LICCO workers within Newark and Heath that formerly were transported by ET. LCT is also now picking up LCJFS clients that were formerly being transported by ET. In earlier years, before ET started, these clients were transported by taxicab through the Newark-Heath Taxi-Token Program. Earthworks Transit and LCT trips are shown in Tables 2a and 2c. Table 2a shows the trips that ET and LCT provided in April 2011 by day of the week. Tables 2b and 2c show trip origin and destination pairs, by whether or not these trips

8

began and or ended within the urbanized area within Newark and Heath (ET’s service area, or outside this area. As Table 2a shows, virtually all, or over 97%, of ET’s April 2011 trips were urbanized area-based. This should not be surprising since ET’s service area is the two communities. The table shows the magnitude of LCT contract trips in relation to trips for the general public. Where ET carried 3,541 general public trips, LCT carried 1,213.

Table 2a

Day of Week

Earthworks

Transit

General

Public

Job and

Family

Service

Board

of DD Total

Sundays 60 0 0 0 0

Mondays 532 278 590 1,318 2,186

Tuesdays 705 203 674 1,255 2,132

Wednesdays 585 281 579 1,261 2,121

Thursdays 705 188 671 1,133 1,992

Fridays 770 263 507 1,329 2,099

Saturdays 184 0 51 0 51

Monthly Total 3,541 1,213 3,072 6,296 10,581

Licking County Transit Service Trips

Trips Provided by Earthworks Transit and Licking County Transit Service

April 2011

The focus of trip-making within and to and from the urbanized area by both transit systems is strong. The overlap is unavoidable in the absence of pro-active, high-level coordination and integration of services.

Table 2b

Pick Up Location Drop Off Location Trips Percent

Urban area w/in Newark/Heath Urban area w/in Newark/Heath 2,982 84.2%

Urban area w/in Newark/Heath Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath 264 7.5%

Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath Urban area w/in Newark/Heath 202 5.7%

Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath 93 2.6%

Totals 3,541 100.0%

Trips by Origin/Destination Pairs ‐ All Trips

Earthworks Transit

April, 2011

Looking at the same stratification of trips for LCT (Table 2c), the overlap between ET and LCT service is striking. Fully, 34% of LCT trips are wholly within the urbanized area. Another 49% of LCT trips either begin or end within the urbanized area. Only 18% of LCT’s trips are to and from locations outside the urbanized area.

9

Table 2c

Pick Up Location Drop Off Location Trips Percent

Urban area w/in Newark/Heath Urban area w/in Newark/Heath 2,904 33.5%

Urban area w/in Newark/Heath Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath 1,187 13.7%

Urban area w/in Newark/Heath Outside Licking County 834 9.6%

Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath Urban area w/in Newark/Heath 1,275 14.7%

Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath 378 4.4%

Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath Outside Licking County 519 6.0%

Outside Licking County Urban area w/in Newark/Heath 908 10.5%

Outside Licking County Licking County, outside UZA w/in Newark/Heath 531 6.1%

Outside Licking County Outside Licking County 125 1.4%

Totals 8,661 100.0%

Trips by Origin/Destination Pairs ‐ All Trips

Licking County Transit Board

April, 2011

The overlap is evident visually by looking at Figure 4a and 4b which show origin/destination patterns for ET and LCT. Figures 4c and 4d show origin/destination patterns of trips that Earthworks Transit and LCT provide to LICCO, Inc. on Industrial Parkway in Heath. Note the significant number of LCT trip origins and destinations that are within Newark. This points to the likelihood that coordination, integrate of trips and consolidation of services between the two agencies would improve the productivity, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of service.

10

Figure 4a: Earthworks Transit Trips

11

Figure 4b: Licking County Transit Service Trips

12

Figure 4c: Earthworks Transit Trips to/from LICCO, Inc.

13

Figure 4d: Licking County Transit Service

Transit Trips to/from LICCO

2.4 Peer Analysis A draft peer review was conducted for Earthworks Transit as part of the fixed route feasibility analysis. Peers were looked at relative to Ohio Urban Systems (FTA 5307), Ohio Rural Systems (FTA 5311), and non-Ohio systems from bordering states. Information on peer transportation systems can be found in Appendix 1. The systems reviewed were:

Ohio 5307 Earthworks Transit Licking County Transit Allen County RTA Richland County RTA Sandusky Transit System Steel Valley RTA

1

Ohio 5311 Ashland Public Transit Athens Transit Huron County Transit Marion County Transit Southeast Area Transit

Non-Ohio Macatawa Area Express (Holland, MI) Harbor Transit (Grand Haven, MI) Anderson, IN Transit System Terra Haute Transit Utility (Terra Haute, IN

Characteristics for selected systems are presented in Table 3.

Ohio 5307 Comparisons

When viewed against its 5307 peers, Earthworks carries fewer riders on an annual basis than any of the systems. This is likely a factor of either the systems having larger population bases or, as in the case of Steel Valley RTA (which has a smaller population base than Earthworks), operating fixed route service in addition to dial-a-ride service. Earthworks annual operating costs are the lowest of any system. The Earthworks service area’s population density is comparable to densities in Richland County and Steel Valley RTA, both of which operate fixed route service. The density is lower than in Allen County, which also operates fixed route service. Detailed tables with peer system data are shown in Appendix 1.

In terms of performance, its passengers per mile and passengers per hour are comparable to the demand response statistics for its peers with the exception of Sandusky Transit which performs slightly better. Its cost per vehicle hour is lower than the cost per vehicle hour for Licking County Transit, Allen Valley RTA, and Richland County RTA and slightly higher than Sandusky Transit and Steel Valley RTA. From the standpoint of fixed route feasibility, it certainly appears that Earthworks Transit is in a position to provide service similar to those of its peers that have fixed route service in terms of population and population density. Adding fixed route transit will add cost as those of its peers that offer fixed route all have higher annual operating costs.

Ohio 5311 Comparisons

Earthworks has fairly similar operating characteristics to its 5311 peers with the exception of Marion County Transit which carries many more passengers at significantly lower costs per passenger and cost per hour. (It should be noted

13

that sometimes when basing these analyses on publicly available reports there are discrepancies in reporting methodologies.) Of the 5311 systems listed, only Southeast Area Transit has fixed route service. Earthworks Transit‘s service area population is the fourth highest of the six systems reviewed with Southeast Transit having the largest at 124,938. In terms of performance, Earthwork’s cost per hour is slightly higher than the systems listed. Given the information available, there is no strong case for or against fixed route service, when compared with similar 5311 services. In many cases it becomes a local decision based on demand and other factors. Non-Ohio Transit Systems

Several transit systems in Michigan and Indiana were reviewed. While MAX’s service area populations and density were generally comparable, all of the systems carried more passengers. Three (MAX, Anderson, Terra Haute) have fixed route service while Harbor Transit is a long-established service that currently is planning expansion into an adjoining township. With the exception of Terra Haute, Earthworks demand response operating cost per vehicle hour is lower than the demand response costs of the other systems. All of the systems with fixed route service have significantly lower cost per passenger for fixed route than demand response, which is to be expected. It can be concluded that if Earthworks implements fixed route service, its cost per passenger would be lower on that service. It should be noted that the Macatawa Area Express, which is in Holland and has a similar service area population to Earthworks, put in fixed route service in 2000 and it continues to grow in ridership.

Peer Systems with Fixed Route Service Table 2 presents comparative operating and performance data for systems of similar size to Earthworks Transit; the information shown for these systems are for their fixed route service only. This offers an opportunity to develop guidelines for estimating the impact of fixed route transit service for Earthworks Transit in the Newark – Heath service area.

In looking at the feasibility of fixed route service provided by Earthworks Transit, based on the information available from the peer transit systems, especially similarly sized systems, it appears that such fixed route service would be feasible and successful for ET.

Summary

Overall, from the review of peer systems, fixed route service appears to be feasible in the Newark – Heath area. As noted, this is often a local decision based on unique characteristics and needs. But, given that a number of communities similar to Newark successfully operate fixed route service, at a much lower cost per passenger than demand response service, it suggests that

14

moving in this direction would be positive for Earthworks Transit. Developing a fixed route system in the Newark and Heath service area offers a significant opportunity to meet travel needs not currently being met and offering riders currently using door-to-door service an alternative way to get around. The result should be significant growth in Earthworks Transit’s riders

Table 3

Allen

County RTA

Richland

County RTA

Steel

Valley RTA

Southeast

Area Transit

Holland

MI (MAX)

Anderson

IN

Terra

Haute TU

All

Systems

Operating Characteristics

Riders 190,446 239,744 120,878 51,069 218,535 153,963 299,876 1,274,511

Operating Cost $1,082,979 $1,151,253 $1,089,801 $738,052 $1,748,921 $1,651,709 $2,093,783 $9,556,498

Farebox Revenue $93,247 $145,542 $36,144 $31,458 $94,074 $110,768 $144,948 $656,181

Vehicle Hours 13,840 18,226 11,542 10,090 31,008 20,554 37,236 142,496

Fares

Adult $1.00 $1.50 $1.00 $1.00 ??? ??? ???

E & D $0.50 $0.75 $0.50 $0.50 ??? ??? ???

Youth $0.75 $0.75 none $0.75 ??? ??? ???

Performance Characteristics

Cost per rider $5.69 $4.80 $9.02 $14.45 $8.00 $10.73 $6.98 $7.50

Cost per hour $78.25 $63.17 $94.42 $73.15 $56.40 $80.36 $56.23 $67.07

Average Fare $0.49 $0.61 $0.30 $0.62 $0.43 $0.72 $0.48 $0.51

Farebox Recovery 8.6% 12.6% 3.3% 4.3% 5.4% 6.7% 6.9% 6.9%

Riders per hour 13.8 13.2 10.5 5.1 7.0 7.5 8.1 8.9

Fixed Route Operating and Performance CharacteristicsEasthworks Transit and Peer Transit Systems with Fixed Route Service

15

3. TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS When studying the feasibility of establishing or expanding the coverage of fixed-route bus service, there are a number key characteristics in a community that impact the successful introduction of new fixed-route transit service. These characteristics fall into three categories:

1. Demographic characteristics of the population 2. Development character of the community 3. Population and employment densities

3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Population Tables 4a and 4b present demographic information for the Cities of Newark and Heath and Licking County. Ohio data is included for comparison. The graphics presented in Figures 4 through 9 illustrate population patterns that can be indicative of a propensity to use fixed route transit service.

Table 4a: Demographic Characteristics

Characteristic State of Ohio Licking County City of Newark City of Heath

Population 11,536,504 166,492 47,573 10,310

Over Age 65 1,622,015 22,087 6,894 1,741

Housing Units 5,127,508 69,291 21,976 4,426

Owner Occupied 3,111,054 46,908 11,193 2,720

Renter Occupied 1,492,381 17,081 8,647 1,411

Source: U.S. Census 2010

Table 4b: Selected Demographic Characteristics

of the Earthworks Transit Service Area Earthworks Transit

Newark Heath Newark/Heath Total

Total Population 47,132 8,873 56,005

Population Age 65 and over 6,524 1,407 7,931

% 65 and over 13.8% 15.9% 14.2%

Persons 5 and over 41,873 7,785 49,658

Disabled persons 9,106 1,403 10,509

% Disabled 21.7% 18.0% 21.2%

Persons poverty status det. 46,015 8,611 54,626

Low Income 13,427 2,102 15,529

% Low Income 29.2% 24.4% 28.4%

Occupied Housing Units 19,707 3,613 23,320

0 Vehicle Households 2,060 185 2,245

% 0 Vehicle 10.5% 5.1% 9.6%

Source: 2005‐2009 American Community Survey 5‐year estimates, except for disability data,

which is from the 2000 census

City of

Characteristic

16

The graphics shown in Figures 5 through 10 illustrate characteristics that planners use to evaluate the potential for fixed route transit service. These include population density, population over age 65, people with disabilities, low income persons, and households with no vehicles. As can be seen when reviewing these graphics, older adults, persons with disabilities and low income families are particularly concentrated in the center of Newark. This area would be the core of any fixed route service provided, if implemented. As noted above, the density in the community indicates that a fixed route transit service should be viable.

Figure 5: Population by Census Block

17

Figure 6: Population Age 65 and Older

18

Figure 7: Disabled Persons Age 5 and Older

19

Figure 8: Persons with Income Below 150% of Poverty Level

20

Figure 9: Households with No Vehicles

21

Figure 10: Composite Target Population Demographics

Note: The data for development of this Figure is in Appendix 2.

3.2. Development Character of the Community

In looking at the character of a community or group of communities like Newark and Heath for fixed-route transit service feasibility, three characteristics have an impact on feasibility:

1. The street network and its character 2. The location and size of activity centers 3. Population and employment densities, or in other words, are there

concentrations of people in residential areas or at destinations they need to reach that support the development of fixed route transit service

As the map of the Newark – Heath street network in Figure 11 shows, the street network and its character are consistent with that of an older community which Newark is. The street network connects downtown Newark as the focal point and also connects residential areas with activity centers along major corridors that people in the community want and need to reach. Newark is not a typical

22

suburban community which has a street network that does not lend itself well to a system of fixed routes. Newark's streets generally follow a grid pattern which lends itself to transit service as it provides multiple and direct connections to areas of the city. Such a grid pattern also helps to avoid long, circuitous routes that are inefficient and result in increased cost.

Figure 11: Street Network in Newark and Heath

It is important to focus on locations that people want or need to reach. It is important, also, to focus on locations of reasonable size that attract significant numbers of vehicle trips already. These are the places to which people travel. These locations include

Downtown Newark Shopping centers and big-box stores Hospitals and medical services Major employers Educational institutions, especially high school, colleges and universities Social services agencies, both public and not-for-profit

23

It is particularly significant that many of the social service agencies that transit dependent people have to reach are located in downtown Newark. There are two commercial centers, one in the 21st Street/Deo Drive area of northern Newark and the other in Heath along State Route 79, as seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Activity Centers in Newark and Heath

3.3 Development Densities Population and employment densities, usually measured in persons per square mile, show areas where people either live or work in close proximity to others, in residential areas or at destinations. Fixed route service should focus on areas of highest density to be as cost-effective as possible. For example, one of the industry standards is that fixed route transit can be supported in areas with a density of 2,000 people per square mile or greater. As can be seen in Figure 13, much of Newark has that density. And, while the density in Heath is generally less than 2,000 persons per square mile, there is extensive commercial development. Consequently, in looking at population

24

and employment density together, there are sufficient concentrations of activity in residential areas and the areas of activity that they want or need to reach. In Figure 13, we look at population density alone, within Newark and Heath. The population and employment densities shown in Figures 14a through 14d, from the Licking County Area Transportation Study’s (LCATS) long-range plan, show that the development is dense in Newark, areas of Heath and selected areas elsewhere in Licking County.

Figure 13: Population Density

We see combined population and employment densities in Licking County in 2010, the present condition, and 2035, LCATS long-range plan forecast year. For 2035, densities are not forecast to change significantly. Densities are still most significant for fixed route transit service in Newark and portions of Heath. Looking at the 2035 densities shows higher density development in western Licking County adjacent to Franklin County, particularly in the Reynoldsburg, New Albany, Pataskala and Hebron areas as population and jobs move east out of Franklin County.

25

Figure 14a: Population Density by Traffic Zone - Existing

Figure 14b: Employment Density by Traffic Zone – Existing

26

Figure 14c: Population and Employment Density by Traffic Zone – Existing

Figure 14d: Population and Employment Density by Traffic Zone – Future

27

4. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND SURVEY FINDINGS Public outreach to involve the community and people who may have an interest in fixed route service, or serve people with transportation needs is extremely important in developing any services. That applies to the development of a system of fixed bus routes as well. The consultant engaged the community in a variety of outreach efforts during the study. These included:

Three rounds of public meetings (June, August, November 2011) Comment cards at public meetings Stakeholder meetings and interviews Presentations to City Councils in Newark and Heath Meetings with selected surrounding communities Household survey of the general public in Newark and Heath Survey of Earthworks Transit riders

4.1 Public Meetings Public meetings were held in June, August and November. The purpose of the two June meetings, held on June 15, 2011, was to introduce the fixed route transit feasibility study to the community, explaining the focus of the study, the key elements of the study and the timeline for completion and when subsequent public meetings would be held. The factors that are significant to the feasibility and development of fixed route transit service were presented. Active discussion occurred at the meeting. Strong interest was expressed by those in attendance that the Newark – Heath area needs a system of fixed route service for a number of reasons. The chief reasons are that there are significant numbers of transit-dependent people in the area that do not have access to public transportation service and that Earthworks Transit’s existing dial-a-ride service is too expensive for the most transit-dependent people. Two public meetings were held on August 31, 2011 to present preliminary findings on the development of a system of fixed routes for the Newark – Heath service area. A preliminary system of fixed route service was prepared and presented at the meetings. This offered attendees an opportunity to learn about the routes and to offer comments on how useful or responsive to needs they felt the routes were. A final public meeting was held on November 1, 2011, presenting the recommended system of fixed route transit to the public and, again, offering the public the opportunity to respond to the recommendations.

28

4.2 Stakeholder Interviews As a part of the feasibility study for a fixed route bus service for the Newark and Heath area, input was sought from people and entities that might be impacted by or have an interest in such a service. On June 15, 16, and 17 and July 12 and 13 of 2011, stakeholders were interviewed on their perspective on the prospect of a fixed route bus service for the Newark and Heath area. Topics of discussion included the populations that could use and/or might need a fixed route bus service, places to which a fixed route service should go within the Newark/Heath area, and ways that the current transportation system could be improved. A total of thirty-eight (38) persons were interviewed and are listed in Appendix 3. The populations identified as most likely to be the populations to benefit from a fixed route bus service were the unemployed, the disabled and elderly, and students. The unemployed and people of lower economic status would be able to use a fixed bus route as access to job services, job training, vocational rehabilitation, and to jobs themselves. A particular segment with a significant need for service is homeless persons. Significant numbers of low income persons are limited to walking and riding bicycles to reach destinations they need to reach. Earthworks Transit’s door-to-door service is simply too expensive to use on a regular basis. People with disabilities and the elderly could use the service to get access to medical care and as a way of getting around the community. Students could use the bus service to get to, from, and around the Ohio State University Newark Campus, the Central Ohio Technical College and Denison University. It was suggested that a direct route bus service could do much to improve the employment issues of the area. Transportation issues affect many aspects of gaining and keeping employment in the Newark and Heath area. Families that have no personal transportation or have only one car when both parents work would be able to use a fixed route bus service to provide the transportation these workers need to get to their jobs. A fixed bus route could also provide access to child care when the parents are working. Also, there are programs for vocational rehabilitation and job training but it is hard for people to get to these services with the current transportation system. It is also difficult for people to keep jobs due to lack of transportation, especially if they work hours that extend beyond the standard work day. It was also suggested that the Heath area has jobs available and a fixed route bus service would allow job seekers access to find these jobs and keep them. It was proposed that a fixed route bus service would be of great benefit to the elderly and those with disabilities. People with disabilities and the elderly often

29

have medical appointments but don’t have access to reliable transportation. In addition to medical services in the Newark and Heath area these people sometimes need to travel to Columbus for medical needs which can’t be met in Newark or Heath. A fixed bus route service would allow access to a range of needs for this population including doctors, senior centers, medical centers, and Title III nutrition services. Students are another population that would benefit from a fixed route bus service. Some high school students in the Newark and Heath area don’t have access to transportation to and from school and some must walk long distances to get to school. These students also don’t have access to after school programs because they don’t have transportation that allows them to get to these programs. College students at the Ohio State University Newark Campus, Denison University, and Central Ohio Technical College students would also benefit from access to fixed route bus service, especially if they don’t have personal transportation. In addition, parents of students at the OSU-Newark have requested public transportation for their students. In discussing some of the populations that would benefit from a fixed route bus service, several locations to which a fixed bus service should reach have been mentioned, including job training and vocational services, the OSU-Newark, Denison University, and COTC campuses, and various medical services. In addition it was suggested that a fixed route bus service could also provide access to the local malls, shopping areas and downtown area. Such a bus service could also provide access to things such as sporting events, religious services, and other activities. Several suggestions were made for improvements to the current transportation system. A common suggestion was that there isn’t adequate transportation currently for nights and weekends and a fixed route bus service could compensate for this. As mentioned previously, a connection to COTA would also be a boon to the current transportation system, allowing access to Columbus and the Ohio State University main campus. It was suggested that a fixed route bus service would allow patrons a reliable transportation schedule on which to depend and be able to get to work on time and to get to appointments at the proper time. In addition, a fixed route bus service could work with the Department of Aging to provide transportation for the elderly and allow them access to the community. Generally, it was agreed that the Newark and Heath area could benefit from a fixed route bus service. Such a service would allow people better access to employment, medical services, local educational institutions, shopping areas,

30

and the community at large. It would also provide consistent and reliable transportation to those who don’t currently have it. 4.3 Community Household Survey A general public survey was conducted. The methodology was a mail-back survey. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of households in the Newark/Heath area. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix 4. The surveys were mailed July 7, 2011 and data collection ended on August 12. The survey results are presented in Table 5. This covers all closed-ended survey responses received during the survey period. The following results, presented in Table 5, also include means and medians where the response options are scaled items. In calculating those statistics, "No response" or similar options have been removed from the computations, although still included in the calculation of frequencies. Over 80 percent of respondents never use the transit system or don’t know about it. About eight percent reported using it a few times per year. About two percent said they use the service a few times per week. Of those that do use Earthworks Transit (Question #2), the largest percentage use the same day service. When asked about the biggest obstacle to using the service about 30 percent reported that they don’t know how to use it and 47 percent marked “other.” “Other” responses generally were “don’t need it, have a car, etc.” Interestingly, though very few people reported using transit, when asked if they thought it was important for travel in the Newark/Heath area in the future almost 50 percent thought it was important in the future and over 37 percent said it was somewhat important. The survey included a question about the feasibility of using the service if a fixed route service was put in place. Seventeen percent of respondents reported they would be “very likely” to use the service while 30 percent said they would be “somewhat likely.” Fifty percent of the respondents marked “other”. A similar question was posed with the intent of determining whether people would trust the service enough to use it for time sensitive trips such as getting to work. About 14 percent said they would be “very likely” to use it for these type trips and 22 percent said they would be “somewhat likely” to use it. Sixty percent said they would not be likely to use it. All three of these questions point to a fairly positive response to the viability of fixed route transit. Given that the percent of the general public in any community that use transit is less than 10 there appears to be considerable potential based on these results. Respondents were asked their primary daily destination and about 25 percent said it was Newark, seven percent said Columbus, and five percent said Heath.

31

About 35 percent said it was “not applicable.” Respondents were asked what would be most likely to cause them to use the transit service. About 28 percent reported that the price of gas would be an important factor. Two questions were asked about financial support. Question 9 asked about their willingness to support a small property tax increase. About seven percent said they would be “very likely” to support a tax and about 25 percent said “somewhat likely.” Similarly, Question 10 asked whether respondents would favor a 1/4% sales tax in Licking County. Over 40 percent said they would be “very or somewhat likely” to support such a tax. So, while not overwhelming, there is some support for some local initiatives to fund transit. This fixed-route feasibility study is being conducted in conjunction with two other studies: one looking at the possibility for a multi-modal transportation center in Newark and the other looking at the feasibility of a streetcar system. Respondents were asked how important a transportation center would be for transportation services and economic development. Twenty-five percent said it was “very important” and over 40 percent said “somewhat important.” A similar question was asked about the streetcar concept and 20 percent thought it was “very important” and 33 percent said it was “somewhat important.” Fifty-three percent of the respondents were female and most were over age 30. About 35 percent were over age 65. A final question asked about whether respondents had a disability that made it difficult for them to travel outside the home. Slightly more than 11 percent of respondents reported such a condition. The respondents had a range of annual household incomes with distribution among the various categories (less than $25,000, $26,000 to $40,000, etc.) being fairly equal. The highest percentage of those who reported had household incomes of higher than $60,000. About three quarters of respondents were from Newark. In summary, the survey results are fairly typical for a community of this type. The results do seem to indicate fairly conclusively that fixed route transit service would be used if put in place.

32

Table 5 Community Household Survey Results

1. How often do you or anyone in your family use EARTHWORKS TRANSIT service? (Please select one only.)

Legend Response Choice Frequencies Count

1 Often (several times per week) 2.2% 9

2 Occasionally (a few times per month) 2.94% 12

3 Seldom (couple of times each year) 7.59% 31

4 Never 72.79% 297

5 Don't know about Earthworks Transit 11.27% 46

6 No response 3.18% 13

Total (N) 408

Mean 3.77

Median 4.0

2. Which of the EARTHWORKS curb-to-curb services have you or your family member(s) used in the past year? (Check all that apply.) Note: the Super Saver and Enhanced programs are reduced fare options.


1 Super Saver (1-14 day advance reservation) 4.41% 18

2 Enhanced (2-14 day advance reservation) 2.45% 10

3 Same Day (Call today-Travel today) 7.1% 29

4 Don't use Earthworks Transit 87.25%

356


Total (N) 408

3. Which of the following is the biggest obstacle to your using Earthworks Transit more often? (Please check only one)


1 Doesn't go where I need to go 4.9% 20

2 Takes too much time 5.39% 22

3 Don't know how to use it 28.92% 118

4 Other: _____________________ 47.3% 193


Total (N) 408

33

4. To what extent do you believe public transportation services in the Newark/Heath area will be important for travel in the future?


1 Very Important 49.26% 201

2 Somewhat Important 37.5% 153

3 Not Important 10.04% 41


Total (N) 408

Mean 1.59

Median 1.0

Standard Deviation 0.67

5. Earthworks is considering fixed route bus service. Fixed route bus service differs from our current service in that buses would travel along specific routes on a time schedule. If the service was convenient, how likely are you or your family to consider riding the bus for some of your TYPICAL trips?


1 Very Likely 17.4% 71

2 Somewhat Likely 30.14% 123

3 Not Likely; Why? ________________________________ 50.73% 207


Total (N) 408

Mean 2.34

Median 3.0

6. If the fixed route bus service was convenient, how likely is it that you would consider riding the bus for some of your TIME-SENSITIVE trips, such as getting to work?




3 Not Likely; Why? ________________________________ 60.78% 248


Total (N) 408

Mean 2.49

Median 3.0

34

7. For employment or school, what is your primary daily destination?


1 Newark 25.49% 104

2 Heath 5.63% 23

3 Granville 3.18% 13

4 Hebron 1.22% 5

5 Utica 0

6 Newark Industrial Park 0.24% 1

7 Mid-Ohio Industrial Park 0

8 Major employer elsewhere in Licking County 1.22% 5

9 Columbus 7.35% 30

10 Major employer outside Licking County 3.18% 13

11 Not applicable 35.53% 145


Total (N) 408

8. Which of the following would most likely cause you to consider using Earthworks Transit (or if you already use it, use it more often)? (Please check only one).


1 Price of Gas (over $5/gallon) 27.69% 113

2 Ability to get to a destination in less than 30 minutes 12.74% 52

3 Ability to get to the bus stop 12.74% 52

4 Other (please specify) ____________________________ 28.92% 118


Total (N) 408

9. How likely is it that you would favor a small property tax increase in Newark and Heath for public transportation services?




3 Not Likely 67.89% 277


Total (N) 408

Mean 2.61

35

Median 3.0

10. Alternatively, how likely is it that you would favor a one-quarter percent sales tax in Licking County for public transportation services?




3 Not Likely 56.61% 231


Total (N) 408

Mean 2.46

Median 3.0

11. We are evaluating the opportunity for a transportation center in Newark. This would be a building in a central location where buses, taxis, possibly trains, as well as bicyclists and pedestrians could all come together. How important is such a center for transportation services and economic development?






Total (N) 408

Mean 2.01

Median 2.0

12. We are also evaluating the opportunity for a streetcar system in the Newark area. How important is such a system for transportation services and economic development?






Total (N) 408

Mean 2.22

Median 2.0

36

13. What is your gender?


1 Male 43.62% 178

2 Female 53.18% 217


Total (N) 408

14. What is your age?


1 Under 18 0

2 18 - 24 1.71% 7

3 25 - 30 3.67% 15

4 31 - 49 20.58% 84

5 50 - 65 36.76% 150

6 66 and over 34.06% 139


Total (N) 408

15. Do you have a disability that makes it difficult for you to travel outside the home independently?


1 Yes 11.51% 47

2 No 84.55%

345

3 Don't Know 1.22% 5


Total (N) 408

16. What is your approximate household income?


1 $25,000 or less 17.15% 70

2 $26,000 to $40,000 17.64% 72

3 $41,000 to $60,000 12.0% 49

4 $61,000 or over 20.09% 82

5 Prefer not to answer 30.14% 123

37


Total (N) 408

17. Within which community do you live?


1 City of Newark 76.47% 312

2 City of Heath 15.93% 65

3 Other (please fill in): ____________ 6.61% 27


Total (N) 408

4.4 Survey of Earthworks Transit Riders The consultant team designed a rider survey for Earthworks Transit. The survey was administered by an intern on City staff and the results were compiled by the consultant. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix 5. Table 6 presents the survey results. The following discussion summarizes the findings of the survey. The highest percentage of respondents uses transit service on a weekly basis (i.e., not every day but one or more days a week). This is fairly common for pure demand response transit service. Over 50 percent of the respondents have used the service for over a year. Interestingly, 31 percent have started using the service in the last six months. Most respondents stated they used the bus because they don’t drive or don’t have a car. Almost all respondents thought the service provided was excellent or good. About half of the respondents used the Super Saver Service for Elderly and Disabled. Sixty-one percent of the respondents said they would definitely (38%) or possibly (23%) use fixed route service if it was convenient and went where the respondent needed to go. Twenty-seven percent said they would definitely not use it. When asked what days of the week the service should be available most respondents who answered the question said every day, including Saturday and Sunday. About 61 percent of the respondents were female and most had annual household incomes of under $40,000. In summary, there were no surprises in the survey findings. The results are consistent with what one would find in other transit rider surveys on demand response systems. There clearly is a solid level of satisfaction with the existing service and there is an indication that respondents would use a fixed route service if it was available.

38

Table 6 Earthworks Transit Rider Survey

How often do you ride the EARTHWORKS bus? (Check only one)

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Daily 21.3% 10 Weekly 59.6% 28 Monthly 2.1% 1 Occasionally 17.0% 8

answered question 47skipped question 0

Why do you ride EARTHWORKS? (Check One)


Response Count

Don't drive 43.2% 19 No car 27.3% 12

Saves gas/money 2.3% 1 Good for the environment 2.3% 1

Prefer not to drive 0.0% 0 Other 25.0% 11

answered question 44 skipped question 3

39

Please rate EARTHWORK's service

Answer Options Excellent Good Average Fair Poor Response Count

Driver helpfulness and courtesy 33 13 1 0 0 47Comfort and cleanliness of bus 28 15 2 0 0 45

Destinations I can reach 31 12 0 2 0 45Cost of riding - the fare I pay 29 11 0 0 1 41

Days and hours service is available

26 11 3 1 1 42

Bus pick-ups and drop-offs on-time 30 12 1 0 0 43

answered question 47skipped question 0

40

EARTHWORKS is considering putting in fixed route service. The current curb to curb service would still be available. The fixed route service would be less expensive and

available throughout the day. Would you:


Response Count

Definitely use it if it was convenient and went where you needed to go? 38.3% 18

Possibly use it if it was convenient and went where you needed to go?

23.4% 11

Be not likely to use it? 10.6% 5 Definitely not use it? 27.7% 13


On what days of the week should fixed route service be available? (Check all that apply)


Response Count

Weekdays 88.2% 30 Saturdays 76.5% 26 Sundays 73.5% 25


What is your age group?


Response Count

Under 16 0.0% 0 17-29 14.9% 7 29-45 14.9% 7 46-60 34.0% 16

Over 60 36.2% 17 answered question 47 skipped question 0

What is your gender?


Response Count

Male 38.6% 17 Female 61.4% 27


41

What is the primary language spoken in your household?


Response Count

English 97.9% 46 Spanish 0.0% 0

Other (please specify) 2.1% 1 answered question 47 skipped question 0

What is your combined household income?


Response Count

Less than $20,000 41.9% 18 $21,000-$40,000 25.6% 11 $40,000 and over 2.3% 1

Prefer not to answer 30.2% 13 answered question 43 skipped question 4

42

5. FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE DEVELOPMENT 5.1. Brief History of Public Transportation The Newark – Heath area has a rich public transportation services history, from being a national center for the production of Interurban rail cars to streetcar lines to fixed route bus service provided by a private transportation company franchised by the City of Newark. As it happened across the country, most public transportation services transitioned from private to public services, or went out of business in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is uncertain when fixed route service ceased to operate in the Newark – Heath area. However, a review of published newspaper records shows that fixed route service was under serious challenge in the late 1960s. Figure 15 below shows an advertisement for the re-establishment of fixed route service in May 1967. According to articles, it appears that a new private company had received an operating franchise, following closure of the previous company.

Figure 15 Re-Establishment of Fixed Route Service

May 1967

Source: Newark Advocate May 1967.

43

5.2 Route Planning Workshop The consultant team facilitated a route planning workshop with Earthworks Transit and Newark City staff. The purpose of the workshop was to identify at a preliminary level a conceptual fixed route network which could then be analyzed for further development and cost effectiveness and, at a later date, be presented to the public. The preliminary concept is shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Preliminary Fixed Route System

The discussion during the planning workshop focused on how Earthworks Transit could best serve the area while complementing its demand response service and service provided by LCT without duplication. The following highlights key points of emphasis developed during the workshop.

The major work center for the (LCBDD) is the LICCO, Inc. facility in Heath. Staff would like to have a variety of pass options for the fixed route.

44

Much of LCT’s door-to-door service is operated as subscription service, meaning that schedules for rider pick-ups and drop-offs can be scheduled for several days to a week ahead.

Seventy percent of ETs trips are advanced reservation. Service is provided to 11:00 pm because when service was transitioned

from the Taxi-Token Program, taxi service was running 24 hours/7days a week. Service after 9:00 pm is advanced call only (Enhanced).

General public (non-Elderly/Disabled) trips have increased from 20% at the outset in 2009 to 27% currently. Part of reason is that some LICCO, Inc. riders are shifting from ET to the LCT service.

Total average daily trips on a typical weekday for Earthworks are 190, maximum vehicles in service are 11, and the core service operates from 6:00 am to 6:00pm

Fixed route would be more cost effective, 21st Street on the north side of Newark and State Route 79 in Heath are the main commercial areas. The main medical services are on the west side of Newark. These would be primary destination points.

Rider complaints stem mostly from the uncertainty of return trips from medical appointments. Riders do not schedule a return trip; instead they call for a pick-up when their appointment is over.

People would like to see more weekend routes and weekend hours. ET operates three buses on Saturday and two buses on Sunday. There is some limited service being provided to school-age students and

some day care centers under contract for the service. The prime time for trips to LICCO, Inc. is 8:00 am to 10:00 am; the prime

time for trips leaving LICCO is 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm. As LCT provides more contract service trips within Newark and Heath, ET peaks may shift.

A possible fixed route: Heath Wal-Mart past LICCO, Inc. to the Wal-Mart store in north Newark, encompassing the Virtual Triangle (highest concentration of elderly, disabled, and low income) area shown on demographic maps.

Newark High school is off Granville Street east of 21st Street The Hollander Swimming Pool is located on the north east side of the City,

off Waterworks Road and east of Mount Vernon Road. It is scheduled to re-open in summer 2012, should be served by a fixed route.

The YMCA on Church Street is a good place for transit to connect to the bike path.

45

The medical services are centered on the west side of the City along West Main Street.

East Main Street is primarily a low income area and is more racially diverse. Washington Square Apartments south of East Main Street are low income public housing.

An affordable fixed route option may result in increased ridership for Earthworks Transit.

Reasons for fixed route service would include: More effective service; Increased ridership; More transportation opportunities for people, etc.

Could increase budget if get contracts or other sources Alternatives for service development should include the following: Fixed route with complementary paratransit in current service area Fixed route with complementary paratransit per FTA guidelines (Licking

County would pick up rest) Fixed route with Licking County covering paratransit Route deviation Maintain current service

This information was considered during the development of a preliminary fixed route network. As can be seen, six primary routes are proposed all meeting in downtown Newark. They generally cover the areas with sufficient population and/or employment density throughout the service area. The dashed areas on the routes are links that would run at additional times during weekdays to provide employment trips. 5.3 Fixed Route System Development Alternatives The development of a system of fixed routes will necessitate policy decisions about how paratransit service requirements are met, relative to FTA guidelines. Whenever fixed route service is operated, the transit operator must provide complementary paratransit service for those who are not able to access the fixed route service. Complementary paratransit service is required for a public transportation system offering fixed route service to maintain compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Both Earthworks Transit and LCT currently provide paratransit service and either one of them could continue the provision of paratransit service. The five

46

alternatives presented below describe options to integrate fixed route service and paratransit service in the community: 1. Fixed route with complementary paratransit in current service area

Under this option, ET would develop a fixed route service and provide complementary paratransit curb-to-curb service in its current service area. In some cases, this would exceed the FTA requirement that demand response service be available for those further than ¾ miles on either side of a fixed route. The benefits of this option are that the entire current area would have the opportunity to have the same service as today with the expectation that sufficient riders would ride the fixed route service at a significantly lower cost per passenger. Riders would also have more flexibility in scheduling their trips so there could be incremental increases in the numbers of overall trips made per year on ET. A policy decision that would have to be made is whether the complementary paratransit service would only be available to qualified senior or ADA-eligible passengers or whether the general public would be able to ride.

2. Fixed route with complementary paratransit per FTA guidelines (Licking

County would pick up rest)

Under this option, the implementation of fixed route service with paratransit service offered by Earthworks Transit is limited to no more than the minimum FTA standards; LCT would provide paratransit service to those living outside the Earthworks Transit complementary paratransit service area.

3. Fixed route with Licking County covering paratransit

With option three, Earthworks Transit would focus solely on fixed route service while LCT would provide all paratransit in the service area. As above, a policy decision that would have to be made is whether the complementary paratransit service would only be available to qualified senior or ADA-eligible passengers or whether the general public would be able to ride.

47

4. Route deviation

Route deviation service is a hybrid service in that general routes are operated meeting designated time points in specific corridors while deviating off the route to pick up people unable to walk to a bus stop or for whom the walk is judged to be too long. Thus, route deviation replaces the need for complementary paratransit service. When riders living off route have a scheduled trip, the driver will “deviate” off the route, pick up the rider or riders, and then return to the route to continue the trip. The benefit of this service is it achieves some cost efficiency because not every rider needs curb-to-curb service. The routes can have scheduling and operational problems particularly in spread out areas. In addition, travel time for those using this service is likely to be longer than for regular fixed route service.

5. Maintain current service

Maintaining the current service would essentially allow Earthworks Transit to continue to provide a door-to-door transit service that meets the needs of its relatively limited rider population. The benefit would be that people who need and understand how to use the service will be able to continue. The drawback of this option is that there will be minimal opportunity to garner new ridership or achieve additional community benefits. In addition, the same issues associated with the current service would still exist such as service not affordable for many users, need to schedule in advance, unable to be sure of time of return trips.

5.4 Door-to-Door Origin/Destination Patterns The origin/destination patterns of trips that Earthworks Transit provides on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays were evaluated in relation to the six fixed route service corridors identified for the route planning workshop. These patterns are shown in Figures 17a through 17c. Especially on weekdays, the trip patterns show the principal corridors of travel for Earthworks Transit’s door-to-door riders. The patterns show similarly for Saturdays as well. On Sundays, the patterns are scattered and the number of riders is significantly less than weekdays and Saturdays.

48

Figure 17a: Trip Patterns - Weekdays

49

Figure 17b: Trip Patterns – Saturdays

Figure 17c: Trip Patterns – Sundays

50

Following discussions with City staff and public presentations, a “second-cut” of the system was defined and is presented in Figure 18. As Figure 18 shows, there are some fairly major changes in this second version including an additional route serving the southeast area of Newark. These options were then evaluated for cost effectiveness to determine whether the City would have the financial resources to implement them. Assuming a certain percentage of riders would be diverted from the demand response service, the added cost to the City would be less than the total cost of the fixed route service. The financial, operating and performance characteristics of fixed route service are presented below, in association with the final recommended fixed route system.

Figure 18: Revised Fixed Route Transit System

51

5.4 Financial Implications of Fixed Route Alternatives

At this point, a more detailed financial analysis of the proposed system was completed. Key characteristics of service were defined, including service span, service frequency, and days of operation.

Service span means the hours of the days that service is available to the public, such as 6:00a.m. - 6:00p.m.

Service frequency means how often buses operate on a route, usually expressed as the waiting time, or headways, between buses, such as every 60 minutes or every 30 minutes.

Days of operation refer to weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays As the service span lengthens, service frequency gets shorter and days of operation are expanded to include Saturdays and Sundays, the operating cost of providing service becomes more expensive. Based on a review of the evaluation of fixed route service alternatives, demographic analyses, expressed needs for service, and current door-to-door operations, core service should operate on weekdays and Saturdays with a span of service from 6:00am to 6:00pm. Three operational alternatives were examined:

Operation of each route as an individual entity

Two other alternatives involved operating two versions of an interlined system

With an interlined system, routes are paired up to operate more efficiently and to provide a higher level of direct travel for riders. These alternatives were then evaluated with headways generally in the 45 to 60 minute range with some service every 30 minutes during morning and evening peak hours.

52

6. RECOMMENDATIONS The draft “second cut” of recommendations was presented to the public in meetings in July, 2011. The meetings are discussed in detail in Section 2 of this report. Based on the input received in these meetings and continuing discussion with staff, including review of the financial feasibility of the fixed route service, a recommended fixed route network was prepared. This is presented in Figure 19. 6.1 Recommended Fixed Route System It is recommended that Earthworks Transit implement a system of fixed routes in its Newark – Heath service area. The following six specific routes are recommended:

North Route East Route West Route

Northwest Route Southwest Route Central Circulator Route

Service should be operated on weekdays and Saturdays. Presently, there does not appear to be sufficient demand for service on Sundays. Earthworks Transit should continue to operate its door-to-door service on weekdays and Saturdays, rather than restrict access only to those riders who are unable to use the new fixed route service. In other words, Earthworks Transit should not limit its door-to-door service to only complement fixed route service, as minimally required by federal regulations. This policy should be reviewed by Earthworks Transit periodically as the use of fixed route service grows. A reasonable interval for such a review would be three to five years. It is important policy changes not be made immediately. Riders need time to learn about and use fixed route service, and not be forced to make a change right away. It is expected that a reasonable number of riders currently using door-to-door service will shift and use fixed route service. This is expected to happen for two reasons:

1. For riders able to get to a bus stop, they like the certainty of a bus schedule and not having to call in advance to schedule a ride.

2. The fare for fixed route service is lower than the fare for door-to-door service.

Fixed route service on weekdays and Saturdays should operate from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. There may be a limited need for later evening service, especially on weekdays to accommodate work trips. However, Earthworks Transit should look at alternative ways to provide this later evening service.

53

The system of routes is presented in Figure 20a – 20f. Each route is presented in the following figures and specific routing and access to activity centers is discussed.

Figure 19: Recommended Fixed Route System

The North Route (Figure 20a) would provide service to northern Newark, giving riders access to commercial, retail and restaurant locations for shopping and access to employment opportunities. These opportunities are most prevalent on 21st Street north of Pierson and along Deo Drive. In summer months, this route would also serve the Hollander Pool. It is recommended that the route operate between downtown Newark and northern Newark on Hudson Avenue and Mount Vernon Road. Service would operate on Mount Vernon Road to Pierson Boulevard, then west on Pierson to 21st Street, operating a clockwise loop on Pierson, 21st Street, Deo Drive and Mount Vernon Road. Such a clockwise loop affords access to major retail and grocery shopping on Deo Drive on the store side of the street, so riders will not have to cross Deo Drive.

54

The Social Security office is on 21st Street, north of Deo Drive. Selected trips should provide access there. During summer months, this route can provide access to the Hollander pool east of Mount Vernon Road. While the joint vocational school is north of Deo Drive, it is not expected that service would be necessary, unless special access needs arise.

Figure 20a: Recommended North Route

21st Street – Deo Drive Detail

55

The East Route (Figure 20b) would provide access along East Main Street out to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Access would also be provided to the Opportunity Links job training site of the Licking County Department of Job and Family Services and the Licking County Aging Program which is moving its services to a building adjacent to the Opportunity Links job training site.

Figure 20b: Recommended East Route

It is recommended that the route operate north of East Main Street along Everett so that northern neighborhoods have closer access to service. State Route 16 limits walk access to East Main Street rather severely. Limited service is also recommended for the low-income housing apartments south of East Main Street, through provision of a circulator route. The specific nature of this service is discussed below as part of the Central Circulator route.

56

Two routes are shown in Figure 20c, the West Route in blue and the Northwest Route in yellow. The West Route would operate out of downtown Newark on West Main Street, providing access to the extensive hospital services at the Licking Memorial Hospital and medical services close to the hospital. Further, this route would serve the Medical Center of Newark and the industrial area businesses along Tamarack Road. The Northwest Route would operate out of downtown Newark on Granville Road. This route would provide access to Newark High School, the Ohio State University - Newark and the Central Ohio Technical College which share the same campus. An extension during peak hour periods could provide access to the State Farm Insurance Company complex further west on Granville Road and the Granville Rd park-and-ride as well. Longer term, this route could be extended to the City of Granville.

Figure 20c: Recommended West and Northwest Routes

57

The Southwest Route, shown in Figure 20d, connects Newark and Heath, providing access to the many commercial, retail, restaurant and motel locations in Heath, for shopping and employment access and also the Licking County Port Authority on Irvingwick Drive. This route operates out of downtown Newark on Church Street, providing direct access to the Licking County YMCA complex on Church Street. Operating on 21st Street also provides access to Newark Catholic High School. Operating into Heath, this route provides access to LICCO, Inc. on Industrial Parkway and the new Goodwill store.

Figure 20d: Recommended Southwest Route

The Central Circulator Route is shown in Figures 20e and 20f. In Figure 19e, the route itself is shown; in 19f, the route is shown with other routes showing as well. This central circulator route achieves a number of objectives and enhances the structure of a system of fixed routes in Newark and Heath.

58

The central circulator would operate from downtown out Granville Road providing direct service to Newark High School and OSU-Newark and COTC further west on Granville Road.

The central circulator would provide service on the south side of Newark, south of the railroad tracks. The tracks present a significant barrier for people in south side neighborhoods in reaching fixed route service that would operate on West Main Street.

The central circulator would provide service on the western end of the East route, serving neighborhoods north and south of East Main Street.

This service and Northwest routes would provide service every 30 minutes on the western portion of the route. The central circulator should operate hourly to OSU-COTC. Initial service could be introduced during morning and afternoon peak hours. With the Central Circulator operating hourly, the Northwest route would only need to provide about six trips a day (3 am peak, 1 midday, 2 pm peak).

Figure 20e: Recommended Central Circulator Route

59

Figure 20f: Recommended Fixed Route System with Central Circulator Route

6.2 Recommended Levels of Service Fixed route public transportation service should operate on a dependable schedule that is easy for the public to remember. Further, it is important that the service be available on the days and during the hours that people need it. Existing Earthworks Transit service is available on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. The hours that service is available are as follows:

Weekdays: 6:00 am to 9:00 pm Saturdays: 10:00 am to 6:00 pm Sundays: 8:00 am to 3:00 pm

Enhanced service, at a higher fare, is available as follows:

Weekdays: 5:00 am to 6:00 am; 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm Saturdays; 8:00 am to 10:00 pm

60

It is recommended that core fixed route service is available as follows:

Weekdays: 6:00 m to 6:00 pm Saturdays: 6:00 am to 6:00 pm Sundays: No fixed route service

Provision should be made for service to start as early as 5:00 am and as late as midnight. Since the demand for such service is low, it is probably best that Earthworks Transit continue to offer this as enhanced door-to-door service. It is recommended that both weekday and Saturday service operate every hour. Further, to best accommodate travel to and from work, service in the morning and late afternoon should operate every half-hour for three hour periods. The needs of the market should inform when this peak hour service should begin and end. With existing fares for door-to-door service, it is recommended that the fare for fixed route service be as follow:

$1.00 - Adult fare $0.50 - Older adult/person w/ disability $0.75 - Student Free - Transfer

With the substantial business development in southern Heath and further south, service will need to be tailored to serve employers in this area. Service here should be in addition to core service recommended above. Earthwork Transit should work with employers, the chamber of commerce and agencies that place clients in training and employment to design and initiate this service. Table 7 presents estimated costs, revenues, hours of service, annual riders and sources of revenues of fully recommended service. Alternative costs are presented, ranging from $35.00 to $60.00 per hour of service. If ET is able to implement fixed route service with an amendment to their service contract and no additions, costs could be at $35.00 per hour or less for the incremental costs. If however, we take the experience of peer transportation systems as an indicator, the cost per hour could be as high as $60.00 per hour. This reflects, in part, the higher cost of providing fully developed fixed route service, with the attendant operation/ supervisory costs, marketing and community education costs and general higher level of management staffing required. Providing fixed route service as recommended would require over 25,000 vehicle hours of service annually. Annual riders are estimated conservatively

61

based on the experience of peer transportation systems. Operating costs are estimated to range between $893,000 and $1.5 million. Earthworks Transit should explore options for the Licking County Transit to absorb some or all of its door-to-door service, specifically as it is operating presently, meaning with no change in days and hours of service, or fares.

Table 7

Characteristic $35.00 $45.00 $60.00

Operating cost $893,305 $1,148,535 $1,531,380

less Farebox Revenue $36,783 $36,783 $36,783

Net Operating Cost $856,522 $1,111,752 $1,494,597

Federal Share $428,261 $555,876 $747,298

Local and State Share $428,261 $555,876 $747,298

Vehicle Hours of Service 25,523 25,523 25,523

Annual Riders 71,737 71,737 71,737

SERVICE ALTERNATIVE INCLUDING EVENING & JOB ACCESS

Estimated Earthworks Transit Fixed Route

Annual Operating Budget, Riders and Hours of Service

Assumed Cost/Hour

RECOMMENDED FIXED ROUTE SERVICE

Earthworks Transit could start initial service limited to 60 to 75 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, with no peak hour weekday service and no early morning or late evening service. With this level of service, the cost of service would be reduced significantly. As Table 8 shows, the 13,614 annual vehicle hours of service would be nearly half those for the fully recommended service. Operating costs would be considerably lower as well, ranging from $476,500 to $816,800, depending on Earthworks Transit’s service contract and staffing levels required. While peak hour and job access services will be important, the fact that mobility for so many

62

people in the Newark-Heath area is so limited and door-to-door service is too expensive, implementation of this base level and configuration of service would improve mobility significantly.

Table 8

Characteristic $35.00 $45.00 $60.00

Operating cost $476,490 $612,630 $816,840

less Farebox Revenue $22,780 $22,780 $22,780

Net Operating Cost $453,710 $589,850 $794,060

Federal Share $226,855 $294,925 $397,030

Local and State Share $226,855 $294,925 $397,030

Vehicle Hours of Service 13,614 13,614 13,614

Annual Riders 44,427 44,427 44,427

RECOMMENDED PHASE I ‐ EARLY IMPLEMENTATION

60 to 90 Minute Service, No Peak or Early/Late Service

Estimated Earthworks Transit Fixed Route

Annual Operating Budget, Riders and Hours of Service

Assumed Cost/Hour

The next step may be to increase service to 60 minutes all day on weekdays and Saturdays, with 30 minute peak hour service on weekdays. 6.3 Operating Budget and Impact on Current Operations Earthworks Transit’s ability to implement fixed route service will depend on a number of factors. These include:

1. Stability of state funding received from the Ohio Department of Transportation to maintain existing door-to-door service levels

2. Local funding from Newark and Heath, to match the higher level of federal funding being spent on service

3. The ability to shift 1-2 vehicles from door-to-door to fixed route service

63

4. A closer, collaborative delivery of service by Earthworks Transit and Licking County Transit Service

5. Indications from current Earthworks Transit riders that they may shift from door-to-door service to using fixed route service

Presently, neither the City of Newark nor the City of Heath provides any local funding for the provision of Earthworks Transit’s door to door service. Thus, the ability to continue to provide and improve public transportation service is fully dependent on a continuation and increase in state funding from the Ohio Department of Transportation. This is probably unlikely since the level of state funding has been decreasing for a very long time, at least going back to the early 1990’s. It appears very likely that Earthworks Transit and the Licking County Transit Board will initiate discussions about merging the two public transportation systems into one county-wide system. This is encouraging for several reasons:

1. The overlap of service, especially in the City of Newark, is significant. 2. A countywide system organized through the Licking County Transit Board

has the ability, through the Licking County Commissioners, to seek voter approval of a property tax to provide local funds.

3. Alternatively, creation of a new regional transit authority by legislative action by the Cities of Newark and Heath and the Board of County Commissioners, would enable the regional transit authority itself to seek voter approval of a property or a sales and use tax.

As is usually the case, where communities invest local financial resources in public transportation services, those services are more robust, more responsive to community needs and more sustainable over the long-term. While the economic and financial climate is challenging, this is a discussion that local officials should have so that a sufficient level of fixed route services can be provided. 6.4 Capital Program and Budget In implementing a system of fixed-routes, Earthworks Transit should make capital investments in vehicles that are suited to fixed-route service, and bus stop signs, benches and shelters to accommodate the riding public. A capital program of approximately $2.4 million is recommended, as presented in Table 9. Most of the budget would support the acquisition of ten (10) vehicles. The proposed capital program and budget is presented in Table 6 below. Though not specified, Earthworks should purchase vehicles with rider amenities such as bike racks and Wi-Fi service.

64

Acquisition of vehicles can take an extended period of time. There are several ways by which Earthworks Transit may begin fixed route service earlier while new buses are on order. A logical means by which to do this would be to incorporate the provision of vehicles in to its service provider contract. Once new buses are placed in service, its provider contract can be revised.

Table 9

Number of

Units Unit Cost Total Cost

Revenue Service Vehicles 10 $225,000 $2,250,000

Bus‐mounted Bike Racks 10 $900 $9,000

Bus Stop Signs 150 $50 $7,500

Benches 24 $450 $10,800

Shelters 12 $6,000 $72,000

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $2,349,300

Capital Program and Budget

Eartworks Transit Fixed Route System

Concerning vehicles, Earthworks Transit should invest in medium to heavy duty vehicles of no more than 30-feet in length. Vehicles should be low-floor. Such vehicles provide for level access at curb side where sidewalks prevail and a gentle slope in areas without sidewalks. Low-floor buses significantly improve access for people in wheelchairs and other assistive devices. A side benefit is that boarding is also significantly easier for parents with strollers. 6.5 Vehicles It is recommended that service would be operated with 30-foot vehicles similar to the one shown below in Figure 21. These vehicles are medium duty buses with an estimated 10-year service life. Comparatively, full-size heavy duty buses have an estimated service life of 12 years. So, the medium duty buses should hold up well to the daily requirement of operating for twelve hours. Such service requires a sturdier bus than door-to-door service requires.

65

Figure 21 Medium Duty – Low Floor Bus

Clearly, the most significant capital expense is for vehicles. While new vehicles as presented here would be most desirable, suitable vehicles may be available at other public transportation systems through transfer of federal grant contract responsibility, saving considerably. While this should not be viewed as a continuing solution, it may help immeasurably in making the start of service affordable. 6.6 Connections to the Columbus Metro Area The system of recommended fixed routes is shown in Figure 22, within the regional context of services operated by the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA). COTA’s present operating policies do not permit them to operate service beyond the Franklin County border. The proposed fixed route system focused closely on the Newark-Heath service area. As such, connections with COTA services would require additional services. The distance between Newark-Heath fixed route service and COTA services is shown in Figure 22.

Bus Characteristics Length = 30 feet Medium duty Low floor Ramp access Service life = 10 yrs Passengers = 26 or Passengers = 18 Wheelchairs= 2 Cost: $225,000

66

Figure 22 Recommended Fixed Routes and Regional Public Transportation Service

67

7. Implementation Implementation of fixed route service will require extensive effort by Earthworks Transit staff in a number of ways, including:

Funding Management and staffing Vehicle acquisitions Rider benefits and amenities

Community outreach, education and marketing

New marketing materials

7.1 Funding Earthworks Transit, in all likelihood, will require additional local funding to implement fixed route service. The options to achieve this have been reviewed earlier. Earthworks Transit has an opportunity to seek federal funding from a number of sources:

1. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom funding through ODOT could be sought for establishing service to industrial parks in Heath and south of Heath.

2 Earthworks Transit should seek Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funding for fixed route service in the State Route 79 corridor in Heath and the 21st Street corridor in Newark

3. Earthworks Transit should seek federal funding from non-5307 sources for implementation of capital requirements for fixed route service. Earthworks Transit should work collaboratively with the Licking County Area Transportation Study (LCATS) to seek JARC/New Freedom and CMAQ funding from the Ohio Department of Transportation.

7.2 Management and Staffing It is likely that implementation of fixed route service will require expansion of current staff and would include staff associated with Earthworks Transit’s contract service provider. For Earthworks Transit, this would include more significant management of services, with attendant focus on community relations. Further areas of staff function would include:

Marketing and advertising Community outreach and education Travel training

68

Mobility management and collaboration with communities and human service agencies

7.3 Capital Acquisition For fixed route service to develop fully over time, Earthworks Transit will need to make capital investments in a number of areas. These include:

Vehicle acquisition – Purchase of new vehicles was discussed above. With the long lead-time for new vehicle purchase, Earthworks Transit should consider the following options:

Purchase or lease of used vehicles Capital cost of contracting - Vehicles provided by contract

management company

Fare collection equipment can be simple or sophisticated. While an electronic fare collection system is desirable, cost suggests simple drop boxes that do not register fares. Simple counters can be used by drivers to count riders.

Other capital investments provide amenities for riders. Costs for these were presented in Table 8 and include:

Bus stop signs (flag stop system at outset; signs at major locations; system wide)

Benches Shelters Bicycle racks on buses

7.4 Community Outreach, Education and Marketing Extensive community outreach, education and marketing will be necessary for fixed route service to be successful, especially since there is no recent history or experience with such service. This outreach should include development of an extensive travel training program focused on two markets:

1. Existing Earthworks Transit door-to-door riders who may wish or be able to use fixed route service

2. New riders who have never or rarely used door-to-door service

Earthworks Transit should work closely with communities and agencies that service people who need improved mobility to meet their needs for employment training, getting to jobs, accessing medical services and just generally getting around.

69

7.5 New Marketing Materials To successfully implement fixed route service, Earthworks Transit will have to complete the following:

Preparation of public timetables for the new routes Preparation of a map showing the system of fixed routes Extensive upgrade and expansion of its web site so that riders can get

access to information about fixed route service via the web site. Future development should include a trip planner and phone applications

so that riders can get quick and convenient access to information to make fixed route service travel decisions. Social media options such as Facebook and Twitter should be developed.

7.6 Implementation Timetable and Phasing If financial resources permit, it is reasonable to implement fixed route service by mid-year 2012. This would be enabled by an amended contract with Earthworks Transit’s current service provider, with the service provider supplying the vehicles required for fixed route service. Phasing based on recommendations presented earlier would ease the financial and vehicle requirements.

70

APPENDICES

71

APPENDIX 1 Peer Transit System Review Tables

72

Transit Characteristic

Fixed

Route

Demand

Response Total

Fixed

Route

Demand

Response Total Fixed Route

Demand


Demand

Response Total

Fixed

Route

Demand


Demand

Response Total


Passengers Carried 49,280 77,302 190,446 13,346 203,792 239,744 25,023 264,767 102,608 120,878 1,899 122,777

Vehicle Miles of Service 213,157 778,565 185,543 50,834 236,377 242,694 90,349 333,043 274,233 167,860 13,920 181,780

Vehicle Hours of Service 19,186 34,655 13,840 4,308 18,148 18,226 8,729 26,955 27,397 11,542 2,024 13,566

Financial Characteristics

Operating/Admin Costs 838,877$ 1,547,251$ 1,082,979$ 319,806$ 1,402,785$ 1,151,253$ 413,951$ 1,565,204$ 1,070,747$ 1,089,801$ 84,485$ 1,174,286$

Federal Assistance 437,940$ 330,091$ 743,833$ 188,957$ 932,790$ 657,390$ 216,024$ 873,414$ 698,239$ 635,893$ 54,356$ 690,249$

State Assistance 58,323$ 18,680$ 99,976$ ‐$ 99,976$ 120,962$ 120,962$ 55,216$ 20,906$ 20,906$

Farebox Revenues 108,632$ 29,941$ 93,247$ 15,182$ 108,429$ 145,542$ 23,602$ 169,144$ 177,815$ 36,144$ 2,346$ 38,490$

Local Assistance 21,411$ 158,317$ 188,647$ ‐$ 188,647$ 39,021$ 19,719$ 58,740$ 380,840$ 380,840$

Other Revenues 2,901$ 117,354$ 4,131$ 121,485$ 125,186$ 31,166$ 156,352$ 125,747$ 166,904$ 166,904$

Total Revenues 838,876$ 1,547,251$ 1,373,390$ 265,803$ 1,639,193$ 1,198,610$ 324,280$ 1,522,890$ 1,117,705$ 1,256,701$ 56,702$ 1,313,403$

Performance Measures

Passengers per Mile 0.23 0.10 1.03 0.26 0.99 0.28 0.37 0.72 0.14

Passengers per Hour 2.57 2.23 13.76 3.10 11.23 13.15 2.87 9.82 3.75 10.47 0.94

Cost per Passenger 17.02$ 20.02$ 5.69$ 23.96$ 4.80$ 16.54$ 10.44$ 9.02$ 44.49$

Cost per Vehicle Mile 3.94$ 1.99$ 5.84$ 6.29$ 4.74$ 4.58$ 3.90$ 6.49$ 6.07$

Cost per Vehicle Hour 43.72$ 44.65$ 78.25$ 74.24$ 63.17$ 47.42$ 39.08$ 94.42$ 41.74$

System Characteristics

Service Area Population 55,506 90,685 81,256 80,172 48,200 22,646

Service Area (sq mi.) 31 657 34 50 42 13

Population Density (ppsm) 1,791 138 2,390 1,603 1,148 1,742

Weekday Service Span 6 a ‐ 9 p 6 a ‐ 6 p 6:45 a ‐5:15 p 6:45 a ‐ 5:15 p 7 a ‐ 6 p 7 a ‐ 6 p 6 a ‐ 6 p 6:30 a ‐ 6:10 p 6:30 a ‐ 6:10 p

Number of Employees 19 4 19 7 17 4 23 12 1

Number of Vehicles 14 24 19 16 18 13

Fares

Base 6.00$ 6.00$ 1.00$ 2.00$ 1.50$ 3.00$ 2.00$ 1.00$ 2.00$

E&D 3.00$ 3.00$ 0.50$ 2.00$ 0.75$ 3.00$ 1.00$ 0.50$

Youth 0.75$ 2.00$ 0.75$

Transfer

Contact Information

Name/Position Anne Arnott Cathleen Sheets Rose Christian Kathy Adams Tom Schwan Frank Bovina

Telephone 740‐670‐7708 740‐670‐5180 419‐222‐5745 419‐774‐5684 419‐621‐8462 710‐282‐6145

Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Source: ODOT Status of Public Transit in Ohio ‐ 2011

Steel Valley RTAEarthworks Transit Licking County Transit Board Allen County RTA Richland County RTA Sandusky Transit System

Earthworks Transit Peer Review Ohio Systems—Urban (FTA 5307)

73


Fixed

Route

Demand

Response Total

Fixed

Route

Demand

Response Total

Fixed

Route

Demand

Response Total

Fixed

Route

Demand

Response Total

Fixed

Route

Demand


Demand

Response Total


Passengers Carried 49,280 32,821 59,312 22,293 184,068 51,069 58,715 109,784

Vehicle Miles of Service 213,157 130,011 117,794 222,771 196,563 122,453 380,038 502,491

Vehicle Hours of Service 19,186 12,885 8,506 11,021 20,583 10,090 22,979 33,069


Operating/Admin Costs 838,877$ 513,131$ 455,417$ 393,161$ 772,462$ 738,052$ 1,107,076$ 1,845,128$

Federal Assistance 437,940$ 229,834$ 207,192$ 185,284$ 335,144$ 353,296$ 529,945$ 883,241$

State Assistance 58,323$ 78,600$ 95,000$ 62,878$ 163,352$ 130,604$ 195,907$ 326,511$

Farebox Revenues 108,632$ 53,464$ 41,033$ 22,594$ 102,174$ 31,458$ 47,187$ 78,645$

Local Assistance 21,411$ 18,837$ 92,942$ 127,350$ 142,895$ 1,814$ 144,709$

Other Revenues 2,901$ 63,839$ 12,169$ 17,777$ 2,880$ 51,761$ ‐$ 51,761$

Total Revenues 838,876$ 513,131$ 455,417$ 393,161$ 772,462$ 738,052$ 1,108,706$ 1,846,758$


Passengers per Mile 0.23 0.25 0.50 0.10 0.94 0.59 0.18

Passengers per Hour 2.57 2.55 6.97 2.02 8.94

Cost per Passenger 17.02$ 15.63$ 7.68$ 17.64$ 4.20$ 10.11$ 19.22$

Cost per Vehicle Mile 3.94$ 3.95$ 3.87$ 1.76$ 3.93$ 5.97$ 3.48$

Cost per Vehicle Hour 43.72$ 39.82$ 53.54$ 35.67$ 37.53$


Service Area Population 55,506 21,249 40,500 59,487 66,217 97,585

Service Area (sq mi.) 31 9 7 493 114 1,187

Population Density (ppsm) 1,791 2,361 5,786 121 581 82

Weekday Service Span 6 a ‐ 9 p 7 a ‐ 9 p 7 a ‐ 7 p 5:30 a ‐ 8:30 p 8 a ‐ 4 p 6 a ‐ 6:30 p 6:30 a ‐ 6 p

Number of Employees 19 10 7 14 19 34 15

Number of Vehicles 14 9 5 7 13 27

Fares

Base 6.00$ 5.00$ 1.00$ 2.00$ 1.25$ 1.00$ 2.00$

E&D 3.00$ 2.50$ 0.50$ 0.60$ 0.50$ 2.00$

Youth 0.60$ 0.75$ 1.50$

Transfer

Contact Information

Name/Position Anne Arnott Ellie Grubb Sharlene Plott Lucinda Smith Jeff Marsh Steve Connell

Telephone 740‐670‐7708 419‐289‐8622 740‐592‐3338 419‐668‐6245 740‐387‐7153 740‐454‐8573

Email [email protected] elliegrubb@ashland‐ohio.com [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Source: ODOT Status of Public Transit in Ohio ‐ 2011 *2011 data wasn't available

Southeast Area TransitEarthworks Transit Ashland Public Transit Athens Transit Huron County Transit Marion County Transit

Earthworks Transit Peer Review Ohio Systems—Rural (FTA 5311)

74


Fixed

Route

Demand


Demand

Response Total

Fixed

Route

Demand


Demand


Demand

Response Total


Passengers Carried 49,280 218,535 95,217 313,752 129,982 153,963 25,216 179,179 299,876 16,240 316,116

Vehicle Miles of Service 213,157 388,671 407,694 796,365 263,263 281,363 126,451 407,814 346,609 40,987 387,596

Vehicle Hours of Service 19,186 31,008 32,487 63,495 25,085 20,554 10,240 30,794 37,236 8,163 45,399


Operating/Admin Costs 838,877$ 1,748,921$ 1,919,883$ 3,668,804$ 1,430,811$ 1,651,709$ 550,569$ 2,202,278$ 2,093,783$ 259,418$ 2,353,201$

Federal Assistance 437,940$ 808,980$ 319,894$ 1,010,138$ 1,082,302$

State Assistance 58,323$ 1,653,189$ 560,103$ 340,832$ 318,495$

Farebox Revenues 108,632$ 94,074$ 104,889$ 198,963$ 107,011$ 110,768$ 50,251$ 161,019$ 144,948$ 43,649$ 188,597$

Local Assistance 21,411$ 853,700$ 395,839$ 677,551$ 763,807$

Other Revenues 2,901$ 153,972$ 47,964$ 12,738$ ‐$

Total Revenues 838,876$ ‐$


Passengers per Mile 0.23 0.56 0.23 0.49 0.55 0.20 0.87 0.40

Passengers per Hour 2.57 7.05 2.93 5.18 7.49 2.46 8.05 1.99

Cost per Passenger 17.02$ 8.00$ 20.16$ 11.01$ 10.73$ 21.83$ 6.98$ 15.97$

Cost per Vehicle Mile 3.94$ 4.50$ 4.71$ 5.43$ 5.87$ 4.35$ 6.04$ 6.33$

Cost per Vehicle Hour 43.72$ 56.40$ 59.10$ 57.04$ 80.36$ 53.77$ 56.23$ 31.78$


Service Area Population 55,506 69,764 16,722 59,734 59,614

Service Area (sq mi.) 31 42 11 45 18

Population Density (per square mile) 1,791 1,661 1,520 1,327 3,312

Weekday Service Span 6 a ‐ 9 p

Number of Employees 19

Number of Vehicles 14 11 17 24 15 7 8 10 3

Fares

Base 6.00$

E&D 3.00$

Youth

Transfer

Contact Information

Name/Position Anne Arnott Linda LeFebre Tom Manderscheid Kris Ockomon Duke Bennett

Telephone 740‐670‐7708 616‐928‐2486 616‐842‐3220 765‐648‐6000 812‐232‐9467

Email [email protected] www.catchamax.org www.cityofanderson.com/CATS www.terrehaute.in.gov

* Earthworks Transit Data Source: Public Transit in Ohio 2011

Earthworks Transit* MAX (Holland, MI) Harbor Transit (Grand Haven, MI) Anderson, IN Transit System Terre Haute Transit Utility (THTU)

Earthworks Transit Peer Review Non-Ohio Systems

75

APPENDIX 2 Demographic Characteristics by Census Tract

76

Census Tract Population

Age 65

and over

Persons,

Poverty

Status

Determined

Low‐

Income

Occupied

Housing

Units

No Vehicle

Households

Population

5 and over

Disabled

persons

% 65 and

over

%

Disabled

% 0 Vehicle

Households

% Low

Income Number

Census Tract 7528 4,570 642 4,570 1,417 2,009 118 4,167 629 14.0% 15.1% 5.9% 31.0% 1

Census Tract 7533 6,503 1,291 6,101 1,500 2,655 183 5,255 1,101 19.9% 21.0% 6.9% 24.6% 1

Census Tract 7539 3,698 662 3,698 385 1,614 53 3,614 316 17.9% 8.7% 3.3% 10.4% 1

Census Tract 7531 4,303 765 4,041 685 1,604 67 3,618 774 17.8% 21.4% 4.2% 17.0% 2

Census Tract 7522 3,412 272 3,404 1,486 1,388 116 3,119 727 8.0% 23.3% 8.4% 43.7% 2

Census Tract 7525 3,493 383 3,190 1,035 1,271 244 3,138 833 11.0% 26.5% 19.2% 32.4% 3

Census Tract 7501 911 89 911 698 523 208 815 240 9.8% 29.4% 39.8% 76.6% 3

Census Tract 7504 2,264 231 2,253 1,080 911 78 2,361 656 10.2% 27.8% 8.6% 47.9% 2

Census Tract 7507 3,593 537 3,399 889 1,550 224 3,308 833 14.9% 25.2% 14.5% 26.2% 3

Census Tract 7510 3,228 188 3,114 1,291 1,038 85 2,519 555 5.8% 22.0% 8.2% 41.5% 2

Census Tract 7513 3,410 410 3,382 1,323 1,490 158 3,444 739 12.0% 21.5% 10.6% 39.1% 3

Census Tract 7516 3,373 664 3,356 878 1,530 165 3,039 583 19.7% 19.2% 10.8% 26.2% 2

Census Tract 7519 3,978 397 3,955 1,165 1,664 195 3,716 883 10.0% 23.8% 11.7% 29.5% 3

Census Tract 7536 2,017 316 2,017 215 828 46 1,776 390 15.7% 22.0% 5.6% 10.7% 2

Census Tract 7541 7,252 1,084 7,235 1,482 3,245 305 5,769 1,250 14.9% 21.7% 9.4% 20.5% 2

Source:2005‐2009 American Community Survey 5‐year estimates, except for disability data, which is from the 2000 census

2005 to 2009

Selected Demographic Characteristics of the Earthworks Transit Service Area

Census tracts highlighted in yellow for a specific demographic represent a tract where the demographic group represnets a higher percentage of the

population than the average for the Newark ‐ Heath service area.

77

APPENDIX 3 Stakeholders Interviewed

78

Name Position Organization

Descender, David Director Catholic Social Services

Young, Tom Director Center for Visually Impaired

Bradley, Michael Director, Capital Projects and Planning Central Ohio Transit Authority

Yania, Kristine Service Planner Central Ohio Transit Authority

Johns, Mark Mayor City of Heath

Burton, Kimberly Development Director City of Newark

Diebold, Bob Mayor City of Newark

Hall, Jeff Treasurer City of Newark

Schill, Aaron Assistant Director/City Planner City of Newark

Henderson, Sandy Director East Mound Community Development

Mason, Kimberly Director Family Health Services

Young, Tim Executive Director Goodwill Industries

Hefley, Doug Member Heath City Council

Christian, Kimberly Transportation Planner/Data Resource Manager Licking County Area Transportation Study

Hill, Matthew Transportation Planner Licking County Area Transportation Study

Mapel, Sandie Technical Study Director Licking County Area Transportation Study

Minklei, Lisa Coordinator LCHI Continuum of Care

Bibler, David Executive Director Licking County Aging Program, Inc.

Miller, Kyle Director, Adult Services Licking County Board of Developmental Disabilities

Hottinger, Cheri President Licking County Chamber of Commerce

Kramer, Connie Director Licking County Coalition of Care

Fisher, John Director Licking County Job and Family Services

Frame, Kristen Compeer Coordinator Mental Health America of Licking County

Frantz, Mary Anne Principal Planner Mid‐Ohio Regional Planning Commission

Lawler, Robert Director, Transportation Mid‐Ohio Regional Planning Commission

Robinson, Lynn Manager, Ride Solutions Mid‐Ohio Regional Planning Commission

Hockman, Chad Staff MV Transportation

Moyer, Jason General Manager MV Transportation

Kennedy, Irene Council Member At Large Newark City Council

Anderson, Jeffrey Treasurer Newark City Schools

Devoll, Josh Linkage Coordinator Newark City Schools

Representatives Newark Freedom School

Berry, John

VP for Enrollment Management and Student Life‐

COTC, Director of Student Life‐ Ohio State NewarkOSU‐Newark/COTC

Williams, Jerry Franchise Owner Scotts Lawn Service

Sutton, Max Newark Mayoral Candidate Sutton Law Firm

Scott, Stacy Director The Works Museum

Carpenter, Donna Executive Director United Way of Licking County

Bohren, Ed Director YMCA

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS COMPLETED

79

Appendix 4 Community Household Survey Form

80

EARTHWORKS TRANSIT Public Transportation Survey

1. How often do you or anyone in your family use EARTHWORKS TRANSIT service? (Please select one only.)

Often (several times per week) Occasionally (a few times per month) Seldom (couple of times each year)

Never Don’t know about Earthworks Transit

2. Which of the EARTHWORKS door-to-door services have you or your family member(s) used in the past year? (Check all that apply.) Note: the Super Saver and Enhanced programs are reduced fare options.

Super Saver (1-14 day advance reservation)

Enhanced (2-14 day advance reservation)

Same Day (Call today-Travel today) Don’t use Earthworks Transit

3. Which of the following is the biggest obstacle to your using Earthworks Transit more often? (Please check only one)

Doesn’t go where I need to go Takes too much time

Don’t know how to use it Other: _____________________

4. To what extent do you believe public transportation services in the Newark/Heath area will be important for travel in the future?

Very Important Somewhat important Not important 5. Earthworks is considering fixed route bus service. Fixed route bus service differs from our current service in that buses would travel along specific routes on a time schedule. If the service was convenient, how likely are you or your family to consider riding the bus for some of your TYPICAL trips?

Very Likely Somewhat Likely

Not Likely; Why? ________________________________

6. If the fixed route bus service was convenient, how likely is it that you would consider riding the bus for some of your TIME-SENSITIVE trips, such as getting to work?

Very Likely Somewhat Likely

Not Likely; Why? _____________________________

7. For employment or school, what is your primary daily destination?

Newark Heath Granville Hebron Utica

Newark Industrial Park Mid-Ohio Industrial Park Major employer

elsewhere in Licking County

Columbus

Major employer outside Licking County

Not applicable

8. Which of the following would most likely cause you to consider using Earthworks Transit (or if you already use it, use it more often)? (Please check only one).

Price of Gas (over $5/gallon) Ability to get to a destination in less than

30 minutes

Ability to walk to the bus stop Other (please specify)

____________________________ -OVER-

81

9. How likely is it that you would favor a small property tax increase in Newark and Heath for public transportation services?

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely 10. Alternatively, how likely is it that you would favor a one-quarter percent sales tax in Licking County for public transportation services?

Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not Likely

11. We are evaluating the opportunity for a transportation center in Newark. This would be a building in a central location where buses, taxis, possibly trains, as well as bicyclists and pedestrians could all come together. How important is such a center for transportation services and economic development?

Very Important Somewhat important Not important 12. We are also evaluating the opportunity for a streetcar system in the Newark area. How important is such a system for transportation services and economic development?

Very Important Somewhat important Not important 13. What is your gender?

Male Female 14. What is your age?

Under 18 18 - 24

25 - 30 31 - 49

50 – 65 66 and over

15. Do you have a disability that makes it difficult for you to travel outside the home independently?

Yes No Don’t Know 16. What is your approximate household income?

Less than $25,000 $26,000 to $40,000

$41,000 - $60,000 $61,000 or over

Prefer not to answer

17. Within which community do you live?

City of Newark City of Heath

Other (please fill in): ____________

Thank You!

82

Appendix 5 Earthworks Transit Rider Survey Form

83

2011 EARTHWORKS Transit Passenger Survey

1. How often do you ride the EARTHWORKS bus? (Check one only)

Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally

2. How long have you been riding EARTHWORKS? 0-6 months 6 months-1 year Longer than 1 year

3. Why do you ride EARTHWORKS? (Check ONE)

Don’t drive No car Saves gas/money Good for the environment Other ________________________________________

4. Check your three (3) primary destinations when you ride the bus.

Work School Shopping Medical Social/Visit Friends Appointments Other (Specify) ______________________________________________

5. Please rate EARTHWORKS’s service. Excellent Good Average Fair Poor No Opinion

Driver helpfulness and courtesy Comfort and cleanliness of bus Destinations served Hourly service Cost of fares Hours (6 am-7pm) On-time reliability

6. EARTHWORKS is considering putting in fixed route, fixed schedule service. The current curb to curb service would still be available. The fixed route service would be less expensive and available throughout the day. Would you:

Definitely use it if it was convenient and went where you needed to go? Possibly use it if it was convenient and went where you needed to go? Be not likely to use it?

Definitely not use it?

7. How do you pay the bus fare? Cash Bus pass Not applicable, I ride free Senior over age 65 ADA eligible

8. What is your age group?

Under 16 17-29 29-45 46-60 Over 60

9. What is your gender? Male Female 10. What is the primary language spoken in your household?

English Spanish Other (specify)____________________

11. What is your combined household income?

Less than $20,000 $21,000-$40,000

$40,000 and over Prefer not to answer

THANKS!

84

APPENDIX 6 Alternative Service Configurations

Detailed Development of Recommended

and Phase 1 Fixed Route System

85

Text Table 6 Detail

Fixed Route Development Characteristics ‐ Alternative Inter‐Lined Service

RECOMMENDED FIXED ROUTE SERVICE ‐ SERVICE ALTERNATIVE INCLUDING EVENING & JOB ACCESS

Earthworks Transit Fixed Route

256 52 308 $45.00

Alternative Route Interlines One‐Way Two‐Way One‐Way Two‐Way

Weekdays Saturdays Weekdays Saturdays Total Weekdays Saturdays Total

FIXED ROUTE SYSTEM

East ‐ West Interline

East Main Route ‐ Base w‐Everett Loop 3.49 6.99 16.0 13.1 26.2 3.8 30 60 0.5 18 12 2,304 312 2,616 $74,880 $10,140 $85,020 $117,753

West Main Route ‐ Base and Extension 4.82 9.63 16.0 13.5 36.1 8.9 45 60 0.8 18 12 3,456 468 3,955 $112,320 $15,210 $128,529 $178,013

INTERLINE 62.3 12.7 60 60 1.3 36 24 5,760 780 6,571 $187,200 $25,350 $213,549 $295,766

North ‐ Southwest Interline

North Route ‐ Two‐Way, Outbound and Inbound (Wal‐Mart only) 6.60 16.0 24.8 5.3 30 60 0.5 18 12 2,304 624 2,928 $74,880 $20,280 $95,160 $131,797

Southwest Route to Boeing/Port Authority 6.35 12.70 16.0 47.6 12.4 60 60 1.0 12 12 3,072 624 3,696 $99,840 $20,280 $120,120 $166,366

INTERLINE 72.4 17.6 60 60 1.5 30 24 5,376 1,248 6,624 $174,720 $40,560 $215,280 $298,163

Southside / Northwest Circulator

Southside Route ‐ Circulator 2.99 5.31 16.0 19.9 10.1 30 60 0.5 12 12 1,536 624 2,160 $49,920 $20,280 $70,200 $97,227

Northwest Route square to OSU Newark ‐ Base Route 2.37 4.74 16.0 17.8 12.2 30 60 0.5 12 12 1,536 624 2,160 $49,920 $20,280 $70,200 $97,227

INTERLINE 37.7 22.3 60 60 1.0 24 24 3,072 1,248 4,320 $99,840 $40,560 $140,400 $194,454

ALTERNATIVE 4 ‐ TOTAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 3.8 90 72 14,208 3,276 17,515 $461,760 $106,470 $569,229 $788,383

Adjusted to 4 buses in service 4.0 14,961 3,450 18,443 486,233 112,113 599,399 830,167

EVENING SERVICE ‐ 2 BUSES

Evening Service 6:00pm to midnight ‐ Weekdays 90 2.0 6 3,072 3,072 $99,840 $0 $99,840 $138,278

Evening Service 6:00pm to 9:00pm ‐ Saturdays 90 2.0 6 624 624 $0 $20,280 $20,280 $28,088

ANNUAL TOTAL ‐ EVENING SERVICE 90 2.0 6 6 3,072 624 3,696 $99,840 $20,280 $120,120 $166,366

ALL SERVICE INCLUDING EVENING SERVICE 17,280 3,900 21,211 561,600 126,750 689,349 954,749

JOB ACCESS SERVICE TO Heath/Hebron Industrial Parks

Southwest Route to Boeing/Port Authority 7.18 14.36 16.0 53.9 6.2 60 60 1.0 12 6 3,072 312 3,384 $99,840 $10,140 $109,980 $152,322

LOS

Headway

Vehicles

Required

Operating Days Operating Cost per Hour = $32.50

Daily Vehicle Hours Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours Annual Operating Cost

Route MilesOperating

Speed (MPH)

Running Time (minutes)Recovery

Time

Cycle

Time

86

Text Table 7 Detail

Fixed Route Development Characteristics ‐ Alternative Inter‐Lined Service

RECOMMENDED PHASE I ‐ EARLY IMPLEMENTATION ‐ 60 to 90 Minute Service, No Peak or Early/Late Service

Earthworks Trasnit Fixed Route Service

256 52 308 $45.00

Alternative Route Interlines One‐Way Two‐Way One‐Way Two‐Way

Weekdays Saturdays Weekdays Saturdays Total Weekdays Saturdays Total

FIXED ROUTE SYSTEM

East ‐ West Interline

East Main Route ‐ Base w‐Everett Loop 3.49 6.99 16.0 13.1 26.2 3.8 30 75 0.4 12 12 1,229 250 1,478 $39,936 $8,112 $48,048 $66,546

West Main Route ‐ Base and Extension 4.82 9.63 16.0 13.5 36.1 8.9 45 75 0.6 12 12 1,843 374 2,242 $59,904 $12,168 $72,872 $100,927

INTERLINE 62.3 12.7 60 60 1.0 24 24 3,072 624 3,721 $99,840 $20,280 $120,920 $167,474

North ‐ Southwest Interline

North Route ‐ Two‐Way, Outbound and Inbound (Wal‐Mart only) 6.60 16.0 24.8 5.3 30 75 0.4 12 12 1,229 624 1,853 $39,936 $20,280 $60,216 $83,399

Southwest Route to Wal‐Mart 4.84 9.69 16.0 13.6 36.3 8.7 45 75 0.6 12 12 3,072 624 3,721 $99,840 $20,280 $120,920 $167,474

INTERLINE 61.1 13.9 60 60 1.0 24 24 4,301 1,248 5,573 $139,776 $40,560 $181,136 $250,873

Southside / Northwest Circulator

Southside Route ‐ Circulator 2.99 5.31 16.0 19.9 10.1 30 60 0.5 12 12 1,536 624 2,160 $49,920 $20,280 $70,200 $97,227

Northwest Route square to OSU Newark ‐ Base Route 2.37 4.74 16.0 17.8 12.2 30 60 0.5 12 12 1,536 624 2,160 $49,920 $20,280 $70,200 $97,227

INTERLINE 37.7 22.3 60 60 1.0 24 24 3,072 1,248 4,320 $99,840 $40,560 $140,400 $194,454

ALTERNATIVE 3 ‐ TOTAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 3.0 72 72 10,445 3,120 13,614 $339,456 $101,400 $442,455 $612,800

Eastside Route ‐ Short Circulator 2.53 3.01 16.0 11.3 3.7 15 60 0.3

Southside Route ‐ Circulator 2.99 5.31 16.0 19.9 10.1 30 60 0.5

LOS

Headway

Vehicles

Required

Operating Days Operating Cost per Hour = $32.50

Daily Vehicle Hours Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours Annual Operating Cost

Route MilesOperating

Speed (MPH)

Running Time (minutes)Recovery

Time

Cycle

Time

final report earthworks transit fixed … of development...6.6 connections to the columbus metro...

Documents