Page 1

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

June 4 - Presentation to Council  

GENIVAR's presentation to council for Thunder Bay Transit Master Plan

Advertisement