central oregon intergovernmental councilnov 30, 2012 · central oregon intergovernmental council...

Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Regional Transit Master Plan (RTMP)

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 30, 2012

Meeting Agenda

Introductions

Project Update – Updated survey results

– Existing conditions

Transit Demand Estimates – Methodology

– Regional (inter-community)

– Local (intra-community)

– Regional Transit Guidelines

Next Steps – Service alternatives

– Next TAC meeting

2

PROJECT UPDATE

RTMP Study Goals

Identify how transit can support regional transportation and sustainability goals

Establish a vision for transit in Central Oregon

Identify and secure a local source of funding for transit

Ensure CET remains an integrated regional transit service

Identify short-term, cost-neutral “fixes” to service

Develop a “vision” plan for the long-term (20 years) – Vision important for describing what the region will be getting

when bringing funding proposals to the voters

4

RTMP Study Schedule

Task Schedule

Existing Conditions and Planning Baseline Draft complete

Community Preferences and On-Board Surveys

Draft complete

Future Transit Demand Ongoing; draft memo in mid December

Recommended Bus Routes and Services January/February 2013

Regional Transit Funding Sustainability Plan

March/April 2013

Plan Implementation Measures May/June 2013

UPDATED SURVEY RESULTS

Overview of Survey Efforts

Cascades East Transit On-Board Passenger Surveys – Bend

• Completed between 3/12 and 3/17 (presented at last TAC)

– Community Connector • Completed between 4/25 and 5/4 (presented at last TAC)

– Local Public Bus • Completed 6/6 – 6/12 (not presented at last TAC meeting)

Community Preferences Survey – Completed in Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties

– General public telephone survey

– 800 total surveys (400 Bend, 200 Redmond, 200 rest of three counties)

7

Local Public Bus On-Board Survey: Overview

Riders on seven local public bus (Dial-A-Ride) services – General public demand-

responsive service

Survey did not include Bend Dial-A-Ride – Service for persons with

disabilities and low-income seniors

8

Local Public Bus On-Board Survey: Goals

Similar to Bend and Community Connector survey, but less focused on trip level data

– Usage patterns

– Level of transit dependency

– Perceptions of service

– Potential improvements

– Most important elements to maintain (help prioritize service cuts)

– Desire for fixed-route service

9

31%30%

12%11%

7%3%

2%2%

1%

Would not have made this tripSomeone would drive me

Other/Multiple WaysWalk

Driven carUsed social service provider

BicycleTaxi

Wheelchair or scooter

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%Percent of Respondents

N=166

Local Public Bus On-Board Survey: Usage Patterns

About a third are relatively new riders (< 1 year)

Residents primarily use the service in their own community – As high as 81% of Redmond

residents

Over a third use a disabled fare

Nearly a third would not have made the trip and nearly a third would have driven by someone else – Similar to Community Connector

– But only 7% would have driven themselves (vs. 30% for Community Connector)

10

Length of Use

Mode of Access

Local Public Bus On-Board Survey : Rider Improvement Priorities

Weekend service – Saturday > Sunday

Same day rides

Later evening service

Fixed-route, no reservations

Same general priority for Redmond residents as for overall riders

11 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Same-Day Rides

Saturday

Fixed-Route

Later Evening

Sunday

Expanded Service Arean=65

Redmond Residents (Most Important )

All Riders

Local Public Bus: Key Findings

Strong potential for local fixed route in Redmond – 82% said “Yes” or “Maybe”

when asked if they would use local fixed route (compared to 49% for all communities)

– Strong desire for same-day rides

– Strong desire for service on weekends

Supported by demand estimates (presented later)

12

Would you use fixed route?

Community Connector On-Board Survey: Key Findings

13

Strong demand for school- and work-based trips – 44% of trips are for school; ~33% for work

Strongest trip pairs include Madras, Redmond and Bend

Moderate demand between Redmond>Prineville and Prineville>Bend

Strong transfer rate to fixed routes in Bend (36%) and to other CC routes (34%) – Strongest connection to Route 3 in Bend (COCC)

Walk access most common (37%), followed by Get a Ride (25%), Drive and Park (20%) and Local Public Bus (17%)

Community Connector On-Board Survey: Key Findings

14

High usage – 84% use CC multiple times/week

Very high rate of new users (66% less than one year) – New users less satisfied with the service

Moderate rate of transit dependence – 32% would not have made trip; 31% drive; 25% get a ride

Students and workers less satisfied with the service

Priority would be to maintain service during peak periods

Weekend service a priority; also better amenities (esp. in Redmond)

Community Preferences Survey: Key Findings

Compared to other public services, transit had the lowest performance – Related to those less familiar with transit, but not necessarily

less supportive

– Renters, younger people and lower-income residents give transit a higher rating

Relatively low familiarity with transit services, but high name recognition (somewhat higher in Bend)

Twice as many very strongly agree that public transit is needed for those without other transportation options (compared to other benefits) – Only about 15% disagree that public transit provides some

benefits

15


43-48% of residents support a $25/$100K property tax for transit – Somewhat stronger

support in Redmond

Much lower support for making the tax increase permanent – Again, slightly higher

support in Redmond

16

Property tax increase ($25/$100K)

Making this tax increase permanent?


Stronger support among residents who are familiar with transit

Renters and low/high income more likely to support tax increase

17

In favor of property tax increase ($25/$100K) by familiarity with transit

Support for tax increase:

Tenure Income

Community Input and Market Research Report

18

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing Conditions - Plans

County Coordination Plans and CTWS Coordination Plan contemplate/prepare for regional transit – Little detail to guide transit service scale/details

Most community TSPs acknowledge role of transit, but do not provide guidance on service or funding – Exceptions include [draft] Redmond Transit Master Plan,

Redmond TSP, Bend Transit Plan (nearing completion)

Therefore – need for Regional Transit Master Plan – Anticipate findings/outcomes to be adopted into TSPs

Existing Conditions – Regional Data

TABLE 1: REGIONAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

Area Crook County

Deschutes County

Jefferson County

State of Oregon

United States

Total Population 20,978 157,733 21,720 3,831,074 308,745,538 % poverty level 14% 10.5% 19% 14% 13.8%

% unemployment (2011)* 14.8% 12.4% 13.2% 9.5% 8.9% % persons age 65+ 20% 15.6% 15.3% 14.3% 13.3%

% persons age 18-24 6.1% 7.4% 8.3% 9.4% 9.9% % persons w/ disability 15.9%** 12.8% 17.2%** 13.4% 12.0%

% of persons under driving age 10.6% 10.5% 11.5% 10.2% 10.9% % of households without a

vehicle available 2.7% 4.4% 4.2% 7.7% 8.9%


Population Growth Forecasts:

Crook County: – 2010 Census: 20,839

– 2000 OEA forecast had predicted: • 2010 – 23,051

• 2020 – 27,590

• 2030 – 32,796

• 2040 – 38,553

Deschutes County – 2010 Census: 160,338

– Coordinated Population Forecast had predicted: • 2010 - 166,572

• 2020 – 214,145

• 2025 – 240,811


Population Growth Forecasts:

Jefferson County: – 2010 Census: 21,720

– 2000 OEA forecast had predicted: • 2010- 22,168

• 2020 – 26,065

• 2030 – 30,831

• 2040 – 36,094


TABLE 1: 2011 ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR CENTRAL OREGON CITIES

Labor Force Employment Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%)

Crook County 9,135 7,787 1,348 14.8%

Prineville city 3,252 2,782 470 14.5%

Deschutes County 80,216 70,299 9,917 12.4%

La Pine CDP 2,986 2,229 757 25.4%

Sisters city 541 454 87 16.1%

Redmond city 12,829 11,522 1,307 10.2%

Jefferson County 9,931 8,152 1,239 13.2%

Culver city 336 320 16 4.8%

Madras city 2,453 2,090 363 14.8%

Metolius city 343 260 83 24.2%

Oregon 1,991,873 1,803,602 188,271 9.5%

Source: Oregon Employment Department

Existing Conditions – Regional Data Table 1: Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties Industry Employment Forecast by major industry type, and selected sub-industry categories, 2010-2020

2010 % of Total

payroll employ.

2020 Change % of Total

payroll employ.

Total payroll employment 72,160 100% 84,660 12,500 100%

Total private 59,870 83% 71,140 11,270 84%

Educational and health services 10,350 14.3% 13,190 2,840 15.6%

Health care and social assistance 9,640 13.4% 12,400 2,760 14.6%

Health care 8,180 11.3% 10,540 2,360 12.5%

Leisure and hospitality 9,960 13.8% 11,610 1,650 13.7%

Accommodation & food services 8,210 11.4% 9,590 1,380 11.3%

Professional and business services 7,020 9.7% 8,350 1,330 11%

Government - Public 12,290 17% 13,520 1,230 16%

Federal government 1,480 2.1% 1,380 -100 1.6%

State government 1,670 2.3% 1,780 110 2.1%

Local government 9,140 12.7% 10,370 1,230 12.3%

Local education 4,800 6.7% 5,210 410 6.2%

Manufacturing 5,120 7.1% 6,200 1,080 7.3%

Source: Oregon Employment Department, 2010-2020 Projections


Senior (60+) population forecasts Crook County

– 22% of current population – Expected to hold at that % through 2040 – However, persons that are 80+ will grow from 4% to 6% of the

total pop.

Deschutes County – 22% of current population – Steady growth expected – 24% by 2015, 28% by 2020, 32% by

2040

Jefferson County – 20% of current population – Steady growth expected – 24% by 2020, 27% by 2040

Existing Conditions – Population Density

Redmond: Population Density

Existing Conditions – Employment Locations

Redmond: Employment Locations

Existing Conditions – Intercommunity Commuting Patterns

Existing Conditions – Existing Transit Service and Activity Centers

Redmond: Existing Transit Service and Activity Ctrs.

Existing Conditions – Transit Service

34

CET serves all 8 incorporated Cities with a variety of services: – Local Fixed-Route in Bend (7 routes), with complementary

paratransit – Local general public dial-a-ride in the other 7 communities.

• Service boundaries are the UGB in Culver, Madras, Metolius, Prineville, and Redmond

• Service boundaries extend outside the UGB in La Pine and Sisters due to local settlement patterns

• M-F service, generally 7am to 5:30 or 6pm • Sisters – Tuesday service only (senior meal)

– Community Connector Shuttles connecting all 8 communities and Warm Springs – fixed schedule, some interim stops

– Seasonal services: Mt. Bachelor Shuttle in the winter and Ride the River in the Summer

Average Daily Ridership (Oct 2012)

35

Community Connector Rides/Month

Avg Daily

Madras-Redmond 973 42 La Pine-Bend 943 41 Sisters-Redmond 259 11 Prineville-Redmond 1,645 72 Redmond-Bend 3,602 157 Warm Springs-Madras 140 6 Culver/Metolius-Madras 211 9 Airporter 19 1

7,792 339

Local Public Bus (DAR) Rides/Month

Avg Daily

Prineville 1,540 67 Redmond 5,490 239 La Pine 856 37 Madras 890 39 Sisters 83 17

8,859 398

Sept '12 Oct '12Avg Daily Avg Daily

Community Connector

338 339 0%

Local 438 398 -9%

% Change

Existing Conditions – Transit Service

36

Quick Overview of Service Numbers

Most community connector shuttle trip #s increasing – Redmond-Bend highest performer, increasing rapidly

– WS-Madras, Sisters-Redmond = lowest numbers

Local DAR trips showing slight declines, due to eliminating same-day reservations

Redmond = ~66,000 local trips/year (Bend was at 100,000 trips/year with twice the population when it converted to fixed route)

TRANSIT DEMAND ESTIMATES

Purpose of Future Demand Estimates

Travel demand model does not address transit

Identify future (2030) transit market potential (local and regional)

Identify service types appropriate for local communities and regional connections

Basis for developing local and regional service options

Basic Methodology

Total trips (Travel Demand Model) – Inter- and intra-community daily trips

• Current year: Adjust from 2003 base year to 2012 (e.g., straight-line)

• Future year: 2030

Transit ridership (CET) – Convert 2012 “unlinked” Community

Connector trips to “linked” trips assigned to O-D pairs

– Local public bus trips

Evaluate market potential using adjustment factors – Low–Medium–High

Estimate 2030 potential transit trips based on adjustments – Qualitative and data-driven factors

Validate Future Demand Estimates

Model data validated using other sources: – Work trips – LEHD

– College trips – COCC enrollment growth and projections

– Non-work trips – local knowledge/TAC input

– Intra-Community: National Household Travel Survey

– Peer data – mode split, productivity

Account for additional destinations (e.g., seasonal) or smaller markets

40

Assessment of Market Potential

Worker flows (LEHD data)

Presence of major regional employers, activity centers or non-work generators (qualitative) – Including seasonal demand generators (e.g., Mt. Bachelor, Sun River,

etc.)

Travel distance (cost) and/or congestion constraints (time)

Parking constraints, e.g., availability, cost, etc. (qualitative)

Quality of connections between local and regional routes

Demographics (e.g., high low-income population, etc.)

Level and projected growth of overall travel demand in each corridor (Travel Demand Model)

Other factors? Political support? Stakeholder input?

41

Local Market Assessment Factors

42

Work Trips

% Change

2003 2012 2030 2012-30 2010 2012 2012

Redmond 44,218 75,482 134,536 78% 2,187 239 0.32%Prineville 21,832 31,847 50,766 59% 1,204 67 0.21%Madras 30,132 38,646 54,728 42% 850 39 0.10%Sisters 3,101 5,363 9,636 80% 115 17 0.31%La Pine 1,772 2,504 3,886 55% 25 37 1.49%OVERALL 101,055 153,843 253,552 65% 4,381 398 0.26%

Travel Demand Model - All Trips

Model Base Year

Intermediate Estimate

Model Future Year

Communities

Transit Trips

LEHD Live & Work in

Community

CET Daily Ridership

Transit Mode Share

Regional Market Assessment Factors

43

Work Trips

% Change

2003 2012 2030 2012-30 2010 2012 2012RedmondBend 4,902 6,906 10,692 55% 2,178 51 0.7%Prineville 625 895 1,403 57% 199 17 1.9%Madras Area 611 924 1,516 64% 168 16 1.7%Sisters 192 325 575 77% 78 0 0.0%La Pine 2 3 5 84% 16 - 0.0%

Travel Demand Model - All Trips

Redmond

From To

Transit Trips

Model Base Year

Intermediate Estimate

LEHD Commute

Flows

Model Future Year

CET Daily Ridership

Transit Mode Share

Next Steps

Develop service improvement options based on assessment of future transit markets – Local

– Regional

Estimate likely ridership response to potential future service improvement options – Frequency

– Service span

– New regional connections

– Improved fixed-route connections

– Marketing/branding

– Enhanced vehicles/facilities

44

TRANSIT SERVICE GUIDELINES

45

Local Service Types

Service Type Description

Fixed Route Local service with fixed route and schedules (e.g., 30-60 minutes). Requires complementary ADA Paratransit (curbside pickups/dropoffs).

Deviated Fixed Route

Local service with optional deviations (e.g., ¾ mile area) along a route to make curbside pick ups/drop offs on demand.

Flex Route Local service with some fixed timepoints but offers curbside pickups/drop offs on demand in a defined zone.

Demand-Responsive (Dial-A-Ride)

Point-to-point local service with curbside pickups/drop offs on demand.

46

Potential Local Service Types (Future)

Dial-A-Ride Flex-

Route Fixed-Route

Community Limited

Days Weekdays

Seven Days/Week

Redmond

Prineville

Madras Area

La Pine

Sisters

Initial Assessment

?

?

Regional Service Types

48

Service Type Description

Community Connector

Existing services operated between cities in the Central Oregon region

Community Connector (Enhanced)

Higher level of service; regular frequency (all-day); more direct connections; premium vehicles; higher amenities

Commuter-Oriented Express service connecting one or two primary destinations; park-and-ride based; peak-only; high amenity

Shared Ride (Carpool/Vanpool)

Shared ride, driven by one of the passengers, typically to place of employment; Reverse commute or dispersed employment sites

Potential Regional Service Types (Future)

To/From To/From Community Connector

(Existing)

Community Connector (Enhanced)

Commuter Oriented

Shared Ride

(Carpool/Vanpool)

Redmond Bend

Madras

Prineville

Sisters

Bend La Pine

Prineville

Sisters

Prineville Madras

Madras Warm Springs

Initial Assessment

central oregon intergovernmental councilnov 30, 2012 · central oregon intergovernmental council...

Documents