Transit Master Plan COUNCIL PRESENTATION
June 4, 2012
Buildings
Municipal Infrastructure
Transportation
Industrial
Energy
Environment
2
OUTLINE Conventional Service • Why are improvements to the transit system needed? • How will the plan improve transit service? • Why a transit terminal in the Intercity area? • What are the resource implications of the plan? • What if we did nothing to improve service? Specialized Service
3
Thunder Bay Transit Master Plan
CONVENTIONAL SERVICE
4
WHAT HAVE WE HEARD AND OBSERVED?
Poor service frequency
Lack of direct routes
Unreliable and unpredictable route schedules
Inadequate and uneven distribution of service
Routes require many transfers
Transfers not well accommodated; inadequate time allotted
Lack of two directional service
Route system does not accommodate growth
5
THUNDER BAY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
HOW WILL THE PLAN IMPROVE SERVICE?
6
HOW WILL THE NEW SYSTEM IMPROVE SERVICE? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
More direct routes that match travel demand More frequent service between major destinations Simpler two-directional routes Improved route transfer experience for passengers Enhance equal distribution of services across the City Implement realistic true-to-the-street scheduling
7
1. MORE DIRECT ROUTES THAT MATCH TRAVEL DEMAND Direct Route Model
• Operating more direct routes will help reduce passenger travel time • All routes connect to at least 3 transfer points in the system
Issues Addressed
Observed Pattern of Travel
Lack of direct routes
Inadequate and uneven distribution of service
Routes require many transfers
Transfers not well accommodated
8
2. MORE FREQUENT SERVICE BETWEEN MAJOR DESTINATIONS Proposed Network
• New system, on average, will operate 15-minute service between major destinations during the daytime periods • Allows for shorter wait times at major destinations Issues Addressed
Existing Network
Poor service frequency
Routes require many transfers
Transfers not well accommodated
9
3. SIMPLER TWO-DIRECTIONAL ROUTES Existing Network
• Proposed system will minimize the operation of large on-street loops • Makes routes more direct and less confusing for passengers
Issues Addressed
Proposed Network
Lack of direct routes
Lack of two directional service
10
3. IMPROVED ROUTE TRANSFER EXPERIENCE Proposed Major Transfer Points
• Where a direct route cannot be accommodated, the new system will make transfers easier, safer, and faster • More locations for convenient transfers •Improved amenities at transfer locations • Strategic scheduling to ensure wait times are reduced as much as possible Issues Addressed
Existing Major Transfer Points
Routes require many transfers
Transfers not well accommodated
11
4. MORE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICES ACROSS THE CITY Proposed Direct NorthSouth Route Flows
• New system a better distribution of services that meet changing travel demand • Provides more convenient opportunities between north and south travel of the city
Issues Addressed
Existing Direct NorthSouth Route Flows
Lack of direct routes
Inadequate and uneven distribution of service
12
5. IMPLEMENT REALISTIC TRUE-TO-THE-STREET SCHEDULING • Service monitoring program will ensure consistent on-time performance for customers and ensure easy transfers • New system includes additional service hours to address:
Issues Addressed
• noted reliability concerns • increased passenger activity from forecasted increase in ridership • increased usage by passengers with disabilities
Unreliable and unpredictable route schedules
Transfers not well accommodated
13
WHY A TRANSIT TERMINAL IN INTERCITY AREA? An Intercity terminal is proposed in our service concept because it: • Has emerged as a regional centre and major destination in the city • Shows significant ridership destined to the Intercity area • Provides relief to operations at City Hall • Is strategically located in the geographic centre of the city • Accommodates required route layovers for the new system
14
WHAT ARE THE RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS? Conventional Service
Beginning of new route structure
Existing Operating Operating Hours Total Operating Cost Fare Revenue Recovery Net Cost Capital Total Capital Cost Approved Long-range Capital Budget Total Capital Cost Exceeding Approved Budget
2014
2015
2016
150,000 $ 14,184,000 $ 4,966,000 $ 9,217,000
191,000 $ 17,721,000 $ 5,851,000 $ 11,870,000
195,775 $ 18,061,000 $ 6,477,000 $ 11,584,000
200,669 $ 18,470,000 $ 7,125,000 $ 11,345,000
$1,405,000
$1,480,000
$1,455,000
$1,555,000
$1,405,000
$1,405,000
$1,405,000
$1,405,000
0
$75,000
$50,000
$150,000
Note: Total capital cost in 2013 is $9,355,000 with a total capital cost exceeding approved budget of $7,950,000 – attributed mainly to new Intercity terminal
15
WHAT IF WE DID NOTHING? Limited potential for ridership growth; ridership would stagnate Service will not accommodate the community needs of a growing aging population Existing riders will continue to endure long waits and indirect routes Unnecessary route transfers will continue Will not address the needs of already approved policies:
Growth Plan
Age Friendly Thunder Bay
Strategic Plan
Transportation Demand Management Plan
Vision 2040
16
THUNDER BAY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
SPECIALIZED SERVICE
17
SPECIALIZED SERVICE NEXT STEPS Recommend to commence bringing planning and management inhouse • More effective integration with fixed route service • Integration allows more effective cost control • In-house operation allows quality control consistent with other City services Staff will begin the development of a detailed transition and implementation plan Future budgets will include increases to deal with AODA issues
18
THUNDER BAY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN
THANK YOU
19
NOT INCLUDED IN PRESENTATION
ADDITIONAL SLIDES
20
CONTINUING TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO NEEBING Plan recommended to eliminate service on the existing Route 6 to Neebing Route does not meet current service standards Route operates through a very low-density, rural community not likely to achieve considerable ridership Route operates through an inconvenient and indirect route loop Alternative options to retain service • Reduce or improve existing route service design • Operate trans-cab Service • Operate demand response service • Operate an integrated Service with HAGI
21
Projected Increase in Ridership Over 5 Years
22
Increase in Transit Service Hours 250
Annual Service Hours (Thousands)
Current Service • 150,000 service hours per year • 30 minutes frequency on most routes during peak hours • 40 minute frequency on offpeak and Sundays New Service Model • 190,000 service hours per year • Equal distribution of service • 30 minute headway with a bus every 15 minutes or less at major destinations
200
Additional Reliability Improvements Sunday Saturday Weekday 10 13
150
11
11
23
23
28
100
50
115
115
Existing
Stage 1
140
0 Stage 2
23
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers
ďƒ System designed to reduce passenger transfers and to operate more direct routes to destinations most heavily travelled in the city Examples in the Existing Network
Examples in the Proposed Network
24
Characteristics of the Proposed System More Frequent Service Between Major Travel Destinations Existing Network
Proposed Network
•At least two routes connect between the City’s major destinations •15 minute service between all major destinations
25
Characteristics of the Proposed System Better Service Reliability
Reduce Operating Speed on Routes
Ensure Schedule Adherence
Average Scheduled Speed Existing Routes
18.9
Proposed Routes
17.0
Decreases Operate Stress to Maintain Schedule Adherence
Improved Customer Service
The reduction of scheduled speed is to address : •noted reliability concerns •increased passenger activity from forecasted increase in ridership •increased usage by passengers with disabilities from AODA regulations
26
Early Morning Early Morning
Daytime
Daytime Evening/Sundays
Daytime
Evenings
40- to 45-minute frequency; all routes operate 30-minute frequency; all routes operate 40- to 45-minute frequency; some routes operate
12am
11pm
10pm
9pm
Evenings
Sundays
Early Morning
8pm
7pm
6pm
5pm
4pm
3pm
2pm
1pm
12pm
11am
10am
9am
8am
7am
6am
PROPOSED SERVICE FREQUENCIES
27
Proposed Implementation Strategy
2014 - Key Objectives/Milestones 2013 - Key Objectives/Milestones 2012 - Ground Work/Foundation • Finalize terminal location • Develop Multi-year Barrier Removal Accessibility Plan • Execute recommended fare strategies
• Service review and planning of new system • Develop ITS Strategy and Architecture Plan • Begin terminal build
• Community new route network with public • Implement new network with new terminal
28
WHAT ARE THE RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS? Specialized Service Existing Operating Operating Hours Total Operating Cost Fare Revenue Recovery Net Cost Capital Total Capital Cost Total Capital Cost Exceeding Approved Budget
2014
2015
2016
34,000 $1,900,000 $282,000 $ 1,618,000
42,000 $ 2,546,000 $261,000 $ 2,286,000
44,000 $ 2,646,000 $ 273,000 $ 2,373,000
46,000 $ 3,076,000 $ 286,000 $ 2,790,000
$ 190,000
$ 475,000
$ 570,000
$ 815,000
$ 190,000
$ 135,000
$ 315,000
$ 475,000
29
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - County Park Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Proposed network provides no-transfer connections to all major destinations
30
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - Marina Park Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Proposed network provides additional notransfer connections to Lakehead University
31
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - Jumbo Gardens Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Proposed network provides no-transfer connections to all major destinations
32
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - Upper North Core Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Proposed network provides additional notransfer connections to Lakehead University, Intercity and South Core
33
Characteristics of the Proposed System: Reduction of Transfers - East End Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Proposed network provides additional notransfer connections to Confederation College
34
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - Academy Heights Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ No change to required transfers to major destinations
35
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - Alloy Business Area Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to all major destinations ďƒ Connection to North Core more direct in proposed network
36
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - INNOVA Business Park Area Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to North Core, South Core, Lakehead and Confederation College
37
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - Hudson Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Proposed network provides additional notransfer connections to Lakehead University
38
Characteristics of the Proposed System: Reduction of Transfers - Current River Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to North Core, Intercity and South Core
39
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - North Core Downtown Existing Network
Proposed Network
•
Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to all major destinations
40
Characteristics of the Proposed System: Reduction of Transfers - Northwood Existing Network
Proposed Network
•
Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to all major destinations
41
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - North River Terrace Existing Network
Proposed Network
•
Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to North Core, Lakehead University and Intercity
42
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers - South Core Existing Network
Proposed Network
ďƒ Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to all major destinations
43
Characteristics of the Proposed System Reduction of Transfers – Westfort Existing Network
Proposed Network
•
Existing and proposed network provides notransfer connections to all major destinations