Post on 09-Nov-2021
transcript
Pembroke Transit Feasibility Study
Phase 1 Public Consultation
August 2021
Why is this study taking place? Pembroke currently has no local
transit The City’s 2019-2022 Strategic
Plan identifies transportation and transit as a specific priority
What will this study do? Determine an optimal transit
solution (if any) for Pembroke’s residents, businesses, and visitors.
Set the stage for a potential Phase 2 study examining implementation
What does this public consultation material do? Provide information on the transit
solutions analyzed Present draft recommendations on
the optimal transit solution Invite input from the public on the
findings and recommendations
Introduction
TRAVEL DEMAND MARKET ANALYSIS
Transit needs to serve people’s travel needs Six fundamental questions:
Transit provides a means for people to travel. Effective transit service is aligned with people’s travel habits.The answers to the six fundamental questions about people’s travel in Pembroke will be used to inform the type and scope of a potential transit service in the city.
MARKET ANALYSIS – The Six Questions
WHEREare people travelling?
NorthSouthEastWest
…
WHOare the people
travelling?
AgeIncome
Languages…
WHATare people travelling
to?
HomeWorkplace
SchoolMedical facility
Shops…
WHYare people travelling?
LeisureEducation
Work…
WHENare people travelling?
Time of day
HOWare people travelling?
Car driverCar passenger
BikeWalk
…
As the economic centre, the city attracts workers both from within Pembroke and beyond. In the long-term, the large number of cross-boundary trips provides an excellent opportunity for mutually beneficial partnerships between the City of Pembroke and the communities in the surrounding area. Algonquin College students without access to a vehicle must live within walking distance.
MARKET ANALYSIS – Where…?
Work Trips
Source: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-400-X2016325
Majority of Pembroke residents commute within city Significant proportion of jobs in city filled by residents Algonquin College commuting destination for students
Photo: Cwmartin8. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Algonquin College
As the region’s economic centre, Pembroke has a wide range of amenities to serve its residents, visitors, and people from the communities in the surrounding area.
MARKET ANALYSIS – What…?
31%
8%
45%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Home to/fromworkplace
Home to/fromeducation
Home to/fromother
Not home-based
Prop
ortio
n of
Trip
s
Trip Purpose
Port PerryOrilliaOrangeville
Similar communities show that trips to/from places other than work or education are most common
Commutes to/from places of work and education provide reliable market for transit
The split between trip purposes is fairly consistent between communities of a similar size and economic status. The communities in the graph have been chosen for their similarity to Pembroke
MARKET ANALYSIS – Why…?
Trip Purpose in Similar Communities
Source: Transportation Tomorrow Survey (2016)
Pembroke’s population skews older Personal income levels are lower than for Ontario Over a third (36%) of Pembroke’s residents have
moved here within past five years
NB: All references to “Renfrew” refer to the Census District, which includes both Renfrew County and the City of Pembroke.
MARKET ANALYSIS – Who…?
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
0 to
45
to 9
10 to
14
15 to
19
20 to
24
25 to
29
30 to
34
35 to
39
40 to
44
45 to
49
50 to
54
55 to
59
60 to
64
65 to
69
70 to
74
75 to
79
80 to
84
85 to
89
90 to
94
95 to
99
> 1
00
Perc
ent o
f Res
iden
ts
Age Range (Years)
Pembroke
Renfrew
Ontario
Age of Population Annual Personal Income
Source for all charts: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-316-X2016001
Residence Five Years Ago
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
with
out t
otal
inco
me
< $1
0k
$10k
to $
20k
$20k
to $
30k
$30k
to $
40k
$40k
to $
50k
$50k
to $
60k
$60k
to $
70k
$70k
to $
80k
$80k
to $
90k
$90k
to $
100k
> $1
00k
Perc
ent o
f Res
iden
ts
Annual Personal Income
Pembroke
Renfrew
Ontario
Commutes split evenly between under and over 15 mins Roughly half of commutes start between 7am and 9am Census data shows most trips to/from work involve a car Strong proportion by active modes (walking and cycling)
Longer trips are an easier target for transit.The dominance of car-related travel is to be expected given the choices currently available to residents. A similar situation is expected for other types of trips within the city.Transit trips generally begin and end with a walk to/from a bus stop. This means that Pembroke’s strong walkability will help any transit service.
MARKET ANALYSIS – When…? How…?
Commute Start Time
Commute start time and duration sources: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-316-X2016001Commute mode source: 2016 Census. Catalogue Number 98-400-X2016329
Commute Duration Commute Mode
Car driver81%
Car passenger
9%
Activemodes10%
MARKET ANALYSIS – Implications for Transit in Pembroke (1)
Finding Implication for transit
Where? High proportion of home / work trips are within the city
Commuting within Pembroke can provide a reliable source of transit demand. There are long-term opportunities for inter-municipal partnerships to serve cross-boundary trips.
Algonquin College students limited in where they can live
Transit service would broaden the number of places students can live in the city, potentially allowing the College to serve a greater number of students.
What? Rich in amenities and employment sites Transit should provide service to destinations across the city, not just specific areas.
Why? Places not work or education attract the most trips.
Opportunity to serve variety of trips throughout the day, not just peak period commutes to work.
Who? Population skews older Seniors more likely to not use a car for medical or financial reasons; key market for transit
Personal income levels are lower than average
Expect greater proportion of people without access to car; reinforces the need for and benefits of transit service
High proportion of new residents Opportunity to promote transit to new residents, creating long-term riders.
MARKET ANALYSIS – Implications for Transit in Pembroke (2)
Finding Implication for transit
When? Commutes split evenly between under/over 15 mins
Pembroke’s compact size means transit journey times must be short to be competitive with other modes. Longer trips within city are a good target for transit
Half of commutes start between 7am and 9am
Will inform the decisions regarding when service is provided in Phase 2 of the study
How? 90% of residents use car to commute
Transit can provide new ways for people to access jobs and other things they need
Strong proportion by active modes
Demonstrates Pembroke has good walkability – important for people walking to/from transit stops.
Transit service in Pembroke would have the opportunity to serve a wide variety of destinations and trip types across the city.
These findings informed the analysis of transit options.
TRANSIT SUPPLY OPTIONS
All the aspects examined in this study will consider the needs for both conventional and specialized transit.The term “specialized transit” is used to refer to transit service for people with disabilities who cannot otherwise use transit service.The term “conventional transit” refers to transit intended for use by the general population.
Transit options
What the service looks like to the user, such as fixed-route or demand-responsive
SERVICE DELIVERY
Who runs the service, such as the municipality or a private contractor
OPERATOR
How the service is operated, such as the size and fuel type of the vehicle
VEHICLE
Where and whenservice is provided, such as whether a route serves a particular community.
This will be covered in Phase 2 of the study, subject to funding.
SERVICE
The options for providing transit in Pembroke depend on four areas, each covering a different aspect:
Access: how do passengers access transit services? Routing: how is the transit vehicle’s route decided? Journey time: how much certainty does the model
provide? Sharing: how often do passengers share the vehicle
with other passengers? Cost basis: what drives the operating costs? Vehicle size: how large are the typical vehicles? Productivity: how many boardings per hour can the
model expect to accommodate? Goals: what overarching goals does the model best
serve?
There is a range of possible service delivery models. Each has its own distinctive attributes that provide different answers the questions shown on the left.There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer to each question – different models work in different circumstances.
SERVICE DELIVERY – Key Questions
Model Fixed Route
Deviated Route
Scheduled Demand-
Responsive Connector
Demand-Responsive Connector
Point-to-Point
Door-to-Door
Taxi / Rideshare Vouchers
Walk to / from transit stops
Fixed
Fixed
Most of the time
Per vehicle
Access
Routing
Journey time
Sharing
Cost base
Curbside pick-up / drop-off
DynamicSemi-dynamic
Individual
Dependable Variable Individual
NoSometimes
Per passenger
Largest (40-foot buses) Smallest (sedan)
Highest Lowest
Predictable / efficient Personal / flexible
Vehicle size
Productivity
Service goal
FIXED FLEXIBLE DEMAND RESPONSIVE
Scheduled start/end times at one or more points, but otherwise demand-responsive service
The diagram shows the wide range of possible service delivery models, each with its own distinctive attributes. None are better or worse than the other. Rather, the right model depends on local conditions.
SERVICE DELIVERY – Models
Like fixed-route, but potentially detours to a different route in response to customer needs
Demand-responsive service between a transit hub and people’s start / end points in a pre-set area
Passengers are picked up/dropped off at pre-set points (that is, transit stops), with the routing set on the fly
Vehicle picks up passengers from outside their origin point, and drops them off at their destination
Uses taxis or ride-share (such as Lyft), with the City paying some form of subsidy for each trip
Operates along a pre-set route, following a schedule of when to serve each stop.
Definition
Fixed route service and point-to-point demand responsive are both suitable models for conventional transit in Pembroke.Door-to-door demand responsive service is only a suitable model for specialized transit in Pembroke.
SERVICE DELIVERY – Assessment
Model Fixed Route
Deviated Route
Scheduled Demand-
Responsive Connector
Demand-Responsive Connector
Point-to-Point
Door-to-Door
Taxi / Rideshare Vouchers
FIXED FLEXIBLE DEMAND RESPONSIVE
AssessmentPembroke doesn’t have separate areas to deviate a route to
Pembroke could be served by a single one-way loop
Inter-city service has only one trip/day each way
Commercial areas and amenities are not clustered in a single location
Population density not low enough to justify for most trips.
Pembroke is an urban community, with good pedestrian connectivity.
Shared models will offer better productivity (and hence lower costs per rider)
SUITABLE
Conventionalonly
NOT SUITABLE
NOT SUITABLE
NOT SUITABLE
SUITABLE
Conventional only
SUITABLE
Specialized only
NOT SUITABLE
Definition
Suitability
Scheduled start/end times at one or more points, but otherwise demand-responsive service
Like fixed-route, but potentially detours to a different route in response to customer needs
Demand-responsive service between a transit hub and people’s start/ed points pre-set area
Passengers are picked up/dropped off at pre-set points (that is, transit stops), with the routing set on the fly
Vehicle picks up passengers from outside their origin point, and drops them off at their destination
Uses taxis or ride-share (such as Lyft), with the City paying some form of subsidy for each trip
Operates along a pre-set route, following a schedule of when to serve each stop.
A transit operator’s responsibilities include employing and training drivers and maintenance staff, ensuring vehicles operate on-time, and refueling and cleaning vehicles.The three options presented here are all used by municipalities with transit service in Ontario and elsewhere.
OPERATOR – Models
• City employs all the people to manage, operate and maintain the transit vehicles
• City also procures and own the vehicles and associated facilities.
• Typical for larger systems (30+ vehicles)
• Demand-response systems will contract out software aspects, even with in-house vehicle operations done
IN-HOUSE OPERATION
• City pays a private contractor, who in turn employs all the people to manage, operate and maintain the transit vehicles.
• Fixed-route service: planning / scheduling / customer information still done by the City
• Demand-responsive service: contractor does (dynamic) routing / scheduling / customer information
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR
• City contracts with a government agency (which may be another municipality) that operates transit to provide services.
• Service model and operating hours typically controlled by other government agency
• Easier to integrate cross-boundary services
OTHER GOVERNMENT
Each of the three options have their advantages and disadvantages. The ability to directly control any aspect of transit brings with it the need for appropriate expertise to manage that aspect.
OPERATOR – Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages:• Full control of customer
experience and transit assets
• No contract oversight required
IN-HOUSE OPERATION
Advantages:• Quick start-up with low
up-front costs• Can draw on external
management expertise• City retains control over
service levels
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR
Advantages:• Quick start-up with low
up-front costs• Can draw on external
management expertise
Disadvantages:• Full capital cost
required to start services
• Requires internal management experience
Disadvantages:• Can only adjust service
within parameters of contract
• Contract oversight required
• Indirect control of customer experience
Disadvantages:• Service levels typically
controlled by third party
• Contract oversight required
• Indirect control of customer experience.
OTHER GOVERNMENT
Vehicle ownership• The City could own the transit vehicles but contract out
operations. This allows the City to take advantage of third-party grants for vehicle purchases. Also provide the City with full control over the type of vehicle and on-board amenities.
Maintenance facilities• Given Pembroke’s distance from any other local transit system, it
would probably save money for a private contractor to use City facilities for storing / maintaining transit vehicles.
• This avoids the need to drive vehicles a large distance to/from an out-of-town facility each day at the start/end of service.
Promotion and marketing• City has the strongest incentive to increase transit use, so this
role would default to them.• If using transit requires an app, app creator could provide training
to potential users, or those who help potential transit users
A successful transit system is about more than day-to-day running of the service. The City has opportunities to be involved with other aspects of transit service provision, regardless of whether a contracted operator is involved.
OPERATOR – Non-operational Aspects
Key factors• Pembroke’s low population means the transit fleet will be small• City is starting a new service, so no in-house expertise• No opportunities for contracting with another government agency
Draft recommendations:• Use private contractor for operations• City owns the transit vehicles if possible• Consider providing space at City-owned facility for maintenance• Conduct promotion and marketing jointly with operator
OPERATOR – Assessment and Recommendations
Type Standard bus Passenger van Minivan Sedan
Example Nova Bus LFS Ford Transit Passenger Van Honda Odyssey Toyota Corolla
Capacity 30 to 60 12 to 18 4 to 7 1 to 4Lifespan 10 to 12 years 10 to 12 years 6 to 8 years 6 to 8 years
Price $500-600k $50-100k $35-75k $20-75k
Suitable for… Fixed-routePTPDR *
Fixed-routePTPDR
SpecializedPTPDR
Specialized SpecializedAvailable fuel options
DieselHybridElectric
GasolineDiesel
GasolineDieselHybrid
GasolineDieselHybridElectric
There are a wide variety of vehicles that can be used for transit services. This section identifies the broad types of vehicles used for transit, the service delivery models they are suitable for, and the required fleet size. It then recommends the vehicle type and discusses the potential for using electric vehicles for transit service.
VEHICLE – Types Available
* PTPDR = point-to-point demand-responsive
Assessment considered:• Fleet size required for a Pembroke-specific service• Reasonable service levels and passenger usage per vehicle• Lifecycle costs (capital costs plus lifespan operating costs)
Draft recommendation for fixed-route service: standard buses• Lowest lifecycle costs (High cost per vehicle, but higher capacity
means fewer vehicles required, lowering operating costs)• Wheelchair-accessible minivans would be used for any parallel
specialized service. Draft recommendation for demand responsive
service: passenger vans• Lowest capital, operating and lifecycle costs• Same vehicles would provide (door-to-door) specialized service.
VEHICLE – Assessment
Availability• Electric standard buses available; no
issue with Pembroke summers / winters• Electric passenger vans not
commercially available Costs
• Capital cost of electric buses is substantially higher (50-100% more)
• Third party grants available vehicle purchases
• Operating costs are lower (savings on fuel and maintenance)
• Lifecycle costs seem to be roughly similar, but real-world assessment is still ongoing
Charging• Given the likely service models and
number of vehicles, charging would be entirely at the maintenance facility
Draft recommendations:• If suitable electric vehicles available for
selected service delivery model, then City should take advantage of any third-party grants to reduce their operational costs
• If third party grants not available, then City should consider its desired cashflow profile.
VEHICLE – Electric Vehicles
Fixed-route Operates along a pre-set route,
following a schedule of when to serve each stop.
Buses pick up/drop-off passengers at stops along the route
Passengers consult schedule (possibly through an app)
Journey time known in advance
Point-to-point demand responsive Passengers are picked up/dropped
off at pre-set points (that is, transit stops), with the routing between set on the fly
Passengers book trips through app, website or phone line
Journey time depends on trips made by other passengers
Suitable Service Delivery Options for Analysis
This is not intended to be the final set of stop locations the City should use, but to illustrate a plausible way this service model would function in Pembroke.Stop locations were chosen to limit walking distance to 400m, or about five minutes walk. Additional stops were placed at key trip generators (hospital, malls, seniors’ homes and Algonquin College).
Point-to-Point Demand Responsive Service: Illustrative Example
This is not intended to be the final route the City should use, but to illustrate a plausible way this service model would function in Pembroke.The route would operate as one-way loop. The routing minimizes walk access distance, while limiting the time a transit vehicle takes to cycle through the route to one hour. Stops would be regularly spaced along the route.
Fixed-Route Service: Illustrative Example
Factor Point-to-point demand responsive service
Fixed-routeService
Stop locations Anywhere needed Limited to locations on the route
Walk to stop Max 400m (5 minutes walk)Could be less
Max 650m (7.5 minutes walk)Hard to change
Wait time 5-15 minutes (typical average for this type of service)
30 minutes with service running every 60 minutes10 minutes with service running every 20 minutes
In-vehicle time
10-15 minutes (typical average, given Pembroke’s size)
30 minutes with one-way service15 minutes with two-way service
Typical total journey time + 5 minutes walk to stop
+ 15 minutes wait time+ 15 minutes in-vehicle time+ 5 minutes walk to stop= 35 minutes
One-way loop, every 60 minutes:+ 7.5 minutes walk to stop+ 30 minutes wait time+ 30 minutes in-vehicle time+ 7.5 minutes walk to stop= 75 minutesA two-way loop every 20 minutes reduces this to 40 minutes.
The assessment of the potential operator models and vehicle types showed that suitable options are available for both suitable service delivery models.The slide and the next summarize their relative merits across various factors to identify the preferred approach
Preferred Service Delivery Approach (1)
Factor Point-to-point demand responsive service
Fixed-routeService
Specialized service
Can use same vehicle fleet and software platform as conventional transit service.Easier start-up and lower operational complexity.
Requires separate vehicle fleet plus bespoke booking platform.Start-up and operations more difficult
Operator model
Private contractor a viable option. Private contractor a viable option.
Vehicle type Viable options are available.Electric vehicles not commercially available
Viable options are available.Electric vehicles available, but their use could delay implementation.
Preferred model
With the exception of electric vehicle availability, point-to-point demand responsive service is either superior or the same as fixed-route service across all factors.
Preferred Service Delivery Approach (2)
Draft recommendations:• Use point-to-point demand responsive service for conventional
transit service• Use door-to-door demand responsive service for specialized
service, with same vehicle fleet as conventional
PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Potential partners for the City in delivering a successful transit service could include: Other municipalities
• Long-term potential for cross-boundary services • Coordination with other potential municipal transit services
Major trip attractors• Includes shopping malls and other common destinations• Transit vehicle access to site to optimize stop location
Educational institutions• Additional travel option for high school students• Broadens potential living areas for post-secondary students
Seniors’ residences• Staff can help residents with booking process• Transit would supplement existing transport options
The City has the potential to partner with various organizations. These partnerships would help transit by supporting transit use, as well delivering benefits to the partners.
Discussions with potential partners are currently at a preliminary stage, with positive feedback so far.
Partnership Opportunities
Key Findings There are wide range of people
who would benefit from transit provision within the city
Transit could serve a wide variety of travel markets and trip types
There are feasible options for transit service in Pembroke that fulfil these needs
Partnership opportunities exist with multiple organizations in and around Pembroke
Draft Recommendations Service delivery
• Conventional: point-to-point demand responsive service
• Specialized: door-to-door demand responsive service
Vehicles• Passenger vans; shared fleet for
conventional and specialized service• Assess electric vehicles when available
Operator:• Private contractor for operations; City
owns the transit vehicles if possible• Joint promotion and marketing
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Thank-you for your participation Please take the online survey Please send any comments to:
Next steps for the study:• Incorporate comments from public and other engagement• Report to Council on Phase I recommendations • Process with Phase II (subject to Council approval), covering
detailed implementation issues
Conclusion
Elijah McKeownTourism and Digital Media Officer
City of Pembroke(613) 735-6821 ext. 1515emckeown@pembroke.ca
Tom WillisSenior Project Manager
Paradigm Transportation Solutions(416) 479 9684 ext. 503
twillis@ptsl.com
www.ptsl.com Connect with usParadigm Transportation Solutions Limited