MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
INFORMATION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Stephen Jahns, P.Eng.
Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Engineering and Transportation Division
DATE: July 28, 2011 SUBJECT: CK Transit Service Review - 2011
Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent This report is submitted for the information of Council. BACKGROUND Existing Services - Conventional CK Transit Chatham Conventional is a conventional public transit system operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. CK Transit Chatham Conventional operates four (4) routes within the Community of Chatham on a 30 minute cycle Monday through Saturday from 06:15 through 19:15. These routes are aligned in a radial orientation with all buses travelling in a one-way, counterclockwise direction interlining at the Downtown Transit Terminal. Reference Appendix B for route maps and fare structure.
Table 1: CK Transit – Chatham Conventional Transit – Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time Frequency
Monday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Tuesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Wednesday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Thursday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Friday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Saturday 06:15 19:15 30 minutes Sunday n/a n/a n/a Existing Services - Interurban CK Transit Interurban is a conventional public transit system operated by P.J. Weaver Industries as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Municipality is serviced by three (3) primary routes within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent on a four trips per day cycle Monday through Saturday. Between the Victoria Day
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 2
Weekend and the Labour Day Weekend, CK Transit also operates Seasonal Route S1 which circulates between the Communities of Chatham, Erieau and Mitchell’s Bay. Reference Appendix C for route maps and fare structures. Existing Services – Chatham Accessible Transit CK Transit Chatham Accessible is a curb-to-curb accessible public transit system operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Community of Chatham is serviced by three (3) accessible transit vehicles of varying size which circulate within the approved service area of the Community of Chatham. Currently, there are over six hundred (600) individuals registered to use the service to improve their quality of life within the Community of Chatham.
Table 2: CK Transit – Chatham Accessible Transit - Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time
Monday 08:00 18:00 Tuesday 08:00 18:00 Wednesday 08:00 18:00 Thursday 08:00 18:00 Friday 08:00 23:00 Saturday 09:00 18:00 Sunday 09:00 17:00 The Municipality of Chatham-Kent has received requests to provide extended hours of service to 23:00 and additional bus resources to accommodate greater usage of the accessible service. Such a request is subject to budget deliberations and is allowed for in the existing contract with the service provider. Engineering and Transportation Division will provide a report for referral to the 2012 budget process. Existing Services – Wallaceburg Accessible Transit CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible is a curb-to-curb accessible public transit system operated by Cadillac Cabs Incorporated as a contract service to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. Presently, the Community of Wallaceburg is serviced by two (2) accessible transit vans which circulate within the approved service area of the Community of Wallaceburg. Currently, there are over three hundred and fifty (350) individuals registered to use the service.
Table 3: CK Transit – Wallaceburg Accessible Transit - Approved Hours of Operation Day of the Week Start Time End Time
Monday - Friday 08:00 18:00 Saturday 09:00 17:00 Sunday 09:00 17:00 Service Review In December of 2010, HDR|iTrans was assigned the following tasks associated with the existing transit services in the Community of Chatham:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 3
a. development of a bus shelter and bench policy, b. operational analysis of existing transit routes, c. redesign of existing transit routes and services, d. integration of transit fares, e. assessment of transit vehicles.
This Report This report is submitted to Council for information and in response to the items mentioned above. A complete copy of the report authored by HDR | iTrans is attached as Appendix A. COMMENTS GENERAL Development of Bus Shelter and Bench Policy A detailed Information Report has been authored by Engineering and Transportation Division which outlines the policy to be followed for the evaluation of existing and new transit stops. Please reference Report to Council 3371 for the complete details and strategic direction surrounding this policy. CK TRANSIT CHATHAM CONVENTIONAL SERVICE Operational Analysis of Existing CK Transit Routes Annually, Engineering and Transportation Division staff conducts a ridership survey of the CK Transit Chatham Conventional routes. Analysis of existing 2010 ridership survey data has identified the following:
Table 4: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Summary of Data Analysis of 2010 Ridership Survey Results
Route Boardings per Hour
Total Boardings Transfers Percentage of
Transfers Percentage Revenue
Passengers Revenue
Passengers per Hour Route 1 30.5 397 113 28% 72% 22.0 Route 2 22.1 287 91 32% 68% 15.0 Route 3 17.8 231 56 24% 76% 13.5 Route 4 23.0 299 105 35% 65% 15.0 Overall 23.4 1,214 365 30% 70% 16.3 Several service issues and potential mitigation measures associated with the conventional system have been identified and are provided in the following table:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 4
Table 5: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Summary of Service Issues Identified and Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by Consultant
Service Issues Identified Potential Mitigation Measure Identified by Consultant The radial loop system subjects transit riders to unnecessary, out of direction travel.
• C: Eliminate the existing one-way loop system and adopt a two-way loop pairing as illustrated in Figure 1. Pair Route 1 with Route 3 and Route 2 with Route 4.
• C: Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services could be eliminated and terminate at the YMCA. Alternately, service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours. This would save 1 minute of travel time.
• C: Modify Route 2 Northeast to reduce the overall travel distance without compromising walking distances as illustrated in Figure 1.
• C: For the approximate 5:00PM Route 3 delays caused by railway crossings, CK Transit should provide free taxi service (on-call basis) for those riders who miss their connection.
Passengers travelling inbound and beyond the downtown must transfer to another route if travelling to another quadrant of Chatham. Route 1 Northwest travels into the Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services Complex and requires the longest travel time of all routes. Route 2 Northeast requires additional travel time due to the provision of service to the North Maple Mall. Route 3 scheduled time is well below the system average primarily due to the need to have extra time for the one trip per day where train delay is experienced. Route 3 Southeast is impacted by train crossings in the PM; transfers can be missed or unduly delayed to accommodate transfers.
C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment
Figure 1 – CK Transit Chatham Conventional - Recommended Service Change
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 5
Discussion points related to each potential mitigation measure are presented in the table below:
Table 6: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Discussion Points Regarding Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential Mitigation Measure Discussion Points
Eliminate the existing one-way loop system and adopt a two-way loop pairing as illustrated in Figure 1. Pair Route 1 with Route 3 and Route 2 with Route 4.
C: Adoption of the two-way loop pairing route alignment as illustrated in Figure 1 will reduce but not eliminate the number of transfers between transit vehicles at the downtown terminal. S: A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be adopted and written into the next transit contract. On the surface, this change does not appear to carry an associated cost as revenue vehicle hours appear to be the same pre- and post-modification. Adoption of the two-way loop pairing route alignment will not eliminate the delay issues experienced by Route 3 in the afternoon hours, rather it will reduce the impacts from all four routes down to only two routes.
Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community Services could be eliminated and terminate at the YMCA. Alternately, service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours.
C: This change would save 1 minute of travel time. S: Appendix A illustrates that the greatest number of boardings / alightings are made at the Courthouse stop. A portion of the riders who use this stop may actually patronize other services in this immediate area. As such, a portion of the ridership may not support or have the physical ability to sustain the additional walk required. A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be adopted and written into the next transit contract. On the surface, this change does not appear to carry an associated cost as revenue vehicle hours appear to be the same pre- and post-modification.
C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment
Table 6 (continued): CK Transit Chatham Conventional Discussion Points Regarding Potential Mitigation Measures
Potential Mitigation Measure Discussion Points Modify Route 2 Northeast to reduce the overall travel distance without compromising walking distances as illustrated in Figure 1.
C: This modification will reduce the overall run time of the route. S: Agreed. This minor realignment could be implemented immediately by staff and accompanied with appropriate notices et cetera to convey this modification to the ridership.
For the approximate 5:00PM Route 3 delays caused by railway crossings, CK Transit should provide free taxi service (on-call basis) for those riders who miss their connection.
C: The associated financial impact is estimated to be in the range of $4,000 to $6,500 per year. These estimates are subject to the number of riders who require taxi shuttle service and the frequency of occasions per day / per week that the taxi shuttle service is required. S: Although the proposed taxi shuttle service deals with inconvenienced riders, it may not address the root of the issue. Perhaps the first step is to review the alignment of the route through the Community of Chatham and identify other areas which may be optimized to harvest additional time. A change in alignment immediately in the vicinity of the terminal (shift from Wellington Street over to King Street) would eliminate the need to cross two rail crossings on the outbound of every trip while maximizing right hand turns. Similarly, optimization of use of signalized intersections combined with minor realignments may improve times in the Queen Street and Park Avenue East areas. A modification of this magnitude should only be made in consultation with all stakeholders. Such a consultation could be held prior to the transition to the next transit contract in January 2013. If appropriate, such a modification could then be adopted and written into the next transit contract.
C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 6
Although the HDR|iTrans report did not specifically address the impact that the above modifications may have on ridership levels, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will be greeted with improved ridership. Should a more conservative stance be chosen, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will maintain current ridership levels. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Conventional routes:
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on operational modifications to the existing routes and services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion.
2. Investigate the truncation of Route 1 in the vicinity of the YMCA located on
Courthouse Lane. This shall include consultation with area stakeholders. Engineering and Transportation Division will return to Council with recommendations. Preliminary consultation has indicated a potential adverse impact to other entities offering services in this area.
3. Implement the modification to the alignment of Route 2 as identified in Table 6 above and as recommended by HDR|iTrans.
4. Investigate the possible realignment of Route 3 in the vicinity of the Downtown Terminal to reduce railway crossing events on outbound runs.
CK TRANSIT INTERURBAN SERVICE Operational Analysis of Existing CK Transit Routes The interurban transit service has not yet been fully implemented in Chatham-Kent. As illustrated in Appendix C, three (3) of the four (4) potential primary interurban routes have been rolled out. As part of the 2011 budget process, the final remaining route (suggested as serving the Communities of Chatham, Thamesville and Bothwell) was identified as supplemental pending this service review. Annually, Engineering and Transportation Division staff conducted a ridership survey of CK Transit Interurban Transit routes. 2010 Ridership data is provided in the following table:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 7
Table 7: CK Transit Interurban - Summary of 2010 Ridership Data Month Route A Route B Route C Route D Route S1 Comments January 374 - 100 267 - February 433 - 189 188 - March 546 - 287 258 - April 557 - 281 206 - No service on Good Friday May 469 - 238 211 - No service on Victoria Day (except S1) June 651 - 406 264 - July 691 - 314 250 372 No service on Canada Day (except S1) August 732 - 323 284 714 No service on Civic Holiday (except S1) September 715 - 303 271 54 No service on Labour Day (except S1) October 685 - 314 316 - No service on Thanksgiving November 667 - 326 273 - December 533 - 309 236 - No service on Christmas Total 7,053 -- 3,390 3,024 1,140 Note A: Route S1 was commenced July 1, 2010. In 2011, the route was commenced Victoria Day in May. Several service issues and potential mitigation measures associated with the interurban system have been identified and are provided in the following table:
Table 8: CK Transit Interurban Summary of Service Issues Identified and Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by Consultant
Service Issues Identified Potential Mitigation Measure Identified by Consultant Interurban transit riders are not allowed to be dropped off or picked up within Chatham except at selected stops such as the downtown bus terminal, Chatham-Kent Health Alliance Public General Campus, Riverview Gardens et cetera.
• C: Interurban buses and customers could be allowed to use existing bus stops in the Community of Chatham which are common to their current alignment.
• S: Fare integration is addressed later on in this report. Customers want to transfer between interurban transit
routes and conventional transit routes without paying an additional fare. C: denotes consultant comment S: denotes Engineering and Transportation Division staff comment Although the HDR|iTrans report did not specifically address the impact that the above modifications may have on ridership levels, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will be greeted with improved ridership. Should a more conservative stance be chosen, it may be assumed that any modifications which improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system will maintain current ridership levels. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Interurban routes:
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on operational modifications to the existing routes and services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 8
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion.
2. Implement a process whereby interurban transit runs may board and alight riders
at existing conventional transit stops common to interurban routes.
3. Conduct a Public Information Centre in the Community of Thamesville and the Community of Bothwell to gauge public opinion on the need for the provision of interurban transit to these communities and return the results of this consultation in a Report to Council in anticipation of the 2012 budget process.
CK TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE SERVICES By shifting some riders from specialized services to the conventional transit services, it enables some specialized transit riders to use conventional transit for some of their trips without having to reserve their ride. As the population ages, there will be an increasing reliance and need for accessible transportation services. Reliance will be critical since medical and shopping trips will be required to accommodate the very basic needs of these residents. The issue is even more pronounced in rural areas and communities without affordable transportation options. To provide lower cost accessible services, urban transit fleets and their bus infrastructure are becoming more accessible. Today’s standard transit fleets consist of low floor, wheelchair accessible buses. The review has identified the following items:
• “no show” rides need to be discouraged so as to make more efficient use of transit infrastructure,
• a travel training manual should be developed to encourage and educate appropriate use of the transit system,
• prior to implementing any additional resources for accessible transit, consultation needs to be undertaken to quantify the demand currently not being met by the accessible services,
• a central booking agency may prove beneficial in making efficient use of transit resources in that customers may be matched up with the appropriate mode of transportation (accessible, conventional or even available outside agency volunteers),
• evaluation of the need for accessible services in areas not currently receiving the benefit of such a service.
Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the operational analysis of the existing CK Transit Interurban routes:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 9
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from
Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on accessible services in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for the service while conducting a series of Public Information Centres to gather public opinion.
2. Conduct Public Information Centres in the urban communities currently not
receiving the benefit of an accessible service to gauge public opinion on the need for the provision such services and return the results of this consultation in a Report to Council in anticipation of the 2012 budget process.
It should be noted that a supplemental request regarding increased service hours was made as part of the 2011 budget process and deferred pending this service review. Engineering and Transportation Division will present this supplemental item again for consideration during the 2012 budget process. Should Council wish to direct the implementation upon receipt of this report, extended hours could be funded from the MTO Gas Tax funds (until exhausted) and the Transit Reserve. INTEGRATION OF TRANSIT FARES The various forms of public transportation require municipal investments to enhance the quality of life of all residents of Chatham-Kent while enabling the Municipality to be competitive in attracting businesses. Transit fares must be affordable and fare policies need to be conducive to promoting ridership all while balancing the level of service and the need for fiscal responsibility. Cost Per Revenue Passenger For the information of Council, the table below identifies the net cost per passenger carried (total less fare revenues received) during the 2009 service year.
Table 9: CK Transit System – Summary of Cost Per Revenue Passenger
Service Annual Net Operating Cost ( = Costs – Revenues)
Annual Revenue Passengers
Cost Per Revenue Passenger
CK Transit Chatham Conventional $559,540 257,853 $2.17
CK Transit Interurban $359,880 8,528 $42.20 CK Transit Chatham Accessible $281,140 18,919 $14.86
CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible $99,570 4,559 $21.84
The above table is provided to puts fares within the CK Transit system into perspective. Although the interurban service appears costly on a per passenger basis, the service frequency is minimal (four round trips per transit day) while providing residents affordable
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 10
access to goods and services within Chatham-Kent. Similarly, it can be seen that improvements to the accessibility of conventional transit vehicles may decrease costs as riders may migrate from use of the accessible service (at a cost of $14.86 per revenue passenger) to using the conventional service (at a cost of $2.17 per revenue passenger). Existing Fare Structure In 2009, the CK Transit Chatham Conventional service carried 257,853 urban passengers and collected $380,456 in fare. This translates into an average fare of $1.48 per passenger. Currently, CK Transit Chatham Conventional operates using the following fare structure.
Table 10: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Fare Structure
Category Cash Fares Multi-Ride Pass Cost Multi-Ride Pass Cost per Trip
Multi-Ride Pass Discount
Adult $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 20% Senior $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30% High School Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30% Elementary School Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
Child (Under 5) $1.00 n/a n/a n/a St. Clair College n/a $120.00 $0.90 n/a The table below illustrates a summary of revenue passengers and annual revenues by fare media type.
Table 11: CK Transit Chatham Conventional Revenue Passengers and Annual Revenues by Fare Media Type
Category Fare Media Surveyed Revenue
Passengers
Percentage of Revenue Passengers
Annual Revenue
Passengers
Annual Revenue
Generated
Percentage of Annual Revenues
Adult Cash 244 30.7% 79,140 $158,280 38.2% Ticket 0 0.0% - - 0.0% Multi-Pass 239 30.1% 77,518 $123,324 29.7%
Senior Cash 30 3.8% 9,730 $17,028 4.1% Ticket 0 0.0% - - 0.0% Multi-Pass 83 10.4% 26,921 $33,039 8.0%
Highschool Student
Cash 35 4.4% 11,352 $19,866 4.8% Ticket 6 0.8% 1,946 $3,406 0.8% Multi-Pass 66 8.3% 21,407 $26,272 6.3%
Elementary Student
Cash 13 1.6% 4,216 $7,379 1.8% Ticket 1 0.1% 324 $568 0.1% Multi-Pass 14 1.8% 4,541 $5,573 1.3%
College Pass 22 2.8% 7,136 $6,422 1.5% Child Cash 42 5.3% 13,622 $13,622 3.3% Total 795 100.0% 257,853 $414,778 100.0% Adult fares account for nearly 68% of all fare revenue collected by CK Transit. Conversely, multi-ride pass tickets are relatively more popular with seniors and students. Free transfers are only permitted between CK Transit Conventional routes. Transfers may only be used to transfer onto another route at the Downtown Terminal. Transfers
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 11
may not be used for a return trip on the same route. Transfers account for approximately 30% of all riders boarding passengers of the conventional service per Table 1. The following issues have been identified regarding fares:
• System wide, no fare increases have been imposed since 2006 despite rising system costs,
• CK Transit Conventional transfers are valid only in one direction and must be used on the first transfer bus,
• Transfers between CK Transit Conventional and CK Transit Interurban are not permitted,
• Multi-ride passes require the transit vehicle operator to physically punch the pass adding unnecessary boarding time detracting from route efficiency,
• Chatham-Kent Council has requested an investigation of deep discount annual passes specifically for seniors.
New Fare Strategies There are two fare pricing strategies which will grow system ridership. These are:
• the introduction of time-based transfers, • the allowance of free transfers between CK Transit Interurban and CK Transit
Conventional. Time-based transfers allow customers to transfer to any bus and in any direction for a fixed period of time from the time of issuance. Time-based transfers are currently in place in other transit systems across Canada and are considered revenue neutral in that the resulting reduction in collected fares is offset by the collection of additional fares due to increased ridership upon implementation of a time-based transfer program. As a complementary strategy, there should be free transfers for riders moving from the interurban service to the conventional service. Riders moving from the conventional service to the interurban service could pay the fare premium (the difference between the interurban fare and the conventional fare) when boarding. All transfers should be valid for 60 minutes. Transit Fare Pricing Policies Fare policies should be designed so that the cost structure is easy to understand and enforce and pre-paid customers are rewarded. Concession Fares When recommending fare increases, there should be a common approach that staff can follow in developing the annual budget. As a starting point, the adult exact cash fare
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 12
(ECF) should be the basis of all concession transit fares. Discounted fares should be low enough to attract pre-paid discounts but not too low of a price point. Based on the consultant’s experience, pre-paid media should be charged at 80% of the ECF. Currently, prepaid media discounts are as follows:
Adult: $1.59 per ride versus $2.00 ECF = 20% discount Seniors: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount Students: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount
Deep Discount Annual Senior Pass There is no question that a deep discount annual senior pass (in this instance the request was made to have senior annual unlimited passes available for only $25) will prove popular. Under current conditions, it is simply a lost revenue opportunity which will reflect in the CK Transit budget variance. A preliminary investigation of the financial impacts associated with this request has been estimated to be in the range of $23,000 to $29,000 annually. Should Council wish to direct the implementation of deep discount passes for seniors, the associated revenue loss should be considered during the 2012 budget process and identified in the CK Transit budget as a “grant” extended by Chatham-Kent Council to ensure that this net reduction does not unfairly or negatively impact the net transit cost of service nor the Engineering and Transportation Division budget. It is critical for Council to recognize that the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) would likely result in the need to extend a similar deep discount to seniors travelling via the Chatham and Wallaceburg Accessible services. As the operational costs per rider are approximately $15 and $22 for these services, a passenger using a deep discount pass more than one or two times represents zero cost recovery to the system. Furthermore, some senior riders may shift their transit habits from the conventional system to the accessible system which may result in additional, unmet ride obligations and possibly additional operating cost requirements. Consultant’s Recommended Fare Structure There has been no increase to CK Transit’s schedule of fares since 2006. The consultant has identified the following Fare Pricing Policy:
• increases should be tied to the adult exact cash fare, • multi-pass discount for adults should be based on 22 trips at the exact cash fare, • multi-pass concession fare for seniors and students shall be based on a discount
of approximately 15% of the adult multi-pass cost, • annual fare increases should keep pace with inflation and be applied uniformly
across all fare categories, • children under age 5 who are accompanied by an adult ride free.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 13
The consultant has identified the following Fare Increase Strategy:
• the suggested exact cash fare (for all CK Transit riders) should be increased to $2.25 on September 1, 2011,
• the suggested exact cash fare (for all CK Transit riders) should be increased to $2.50 on September 1, 2012,
• the cash fare for interurban service riders should be increased to $6.00 for all passengers except children under 5 years of age,
• the cash fare for children riding the interurban service should be set at $3.00. The consultant’s proposed fare schedule is summarized in the following table:
Table 12: Summary of Consultant’s Proposed Fare Schedule Conventional Existing Proposed
Category Cash Fare Multi-pass Multi-pass Cost per
Trip Cash Fare Multi-pass
Multi-pass Cost per
Trip
Multi-pass Discount
Adult $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 $2.25 $40.50 $1.84 18% Senior $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30%
HS Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% Elementary
Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30%
Child (U5) $1.00 N/A N/A Free N/A N/A N/A St. Clair College N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A
Interurban Existing Proposed
Category Cash Fare Multi-pass Multi-pass Cost per
Trip Cash Fare Multi-pass
Multi-pass Cost per
Trip
Multi-pass Discount
Adult $5.00 $100 $4.55 $6.00 $108.25 $4.92 18% Senior $4.50 $90 $4.10 $6.00 $92.40 $4.20 30%
HS Student $4.50 $90 $4.10 $6.00 $92.40 $4.20 30% Elementary
Student $4.50 $90 $4.10 $6.00 $92.40 $4.20 30%
Child (U5) $2.50 N/A N/A $3.00 N/A N/A N/A The impact on revenue has been reviewed and a sensitivity analysis has been conducted by the consultant on each of the proposed fare increases. Please reference Appendix A. Adoption of any sort of change to the fare schedule warrants further coordination and investigation in the form of a business plan. Smart Card Technology In 2010, CK Transit carried 270,000 riders who paid a fare; whether exact cash or fare media. A “smart card” system could be implemented to replace all fare media save and except cash. Smart cards essentially act like an electronic purse which may be loaded by the transit rider and used in place of cash, passes and transfers.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 14
Table 13: Benefits of Smart Card Technology Benefit to Riders Include: Benefit to Transit System Include: Benefits to Municipality Include: • eliminates the need
to carry cash, tickets or passes
• eliminates the need to obtain and carry paper transfers
• provides security against lost or stolen passes
• opportunity for more custom-designed fare discounts
• greater flexibility in implementing new fare structures
• reduces boarding times • potential increases in ridership due to
ease of payment • eliminates the need to print and distribute
passes • ease of tracking of revenue and ridership
data, including transfer tracking • reduces the cost of revenue handling • potential link to GPS-based technologies • eliminate underpayment of transit fares
• potential interactions with other municipal services equipped with smart card readers (parking facilities, recreational facilities, sports complexes, libraries, et cetera)
• reduction of cash handled by staff
Table 14: Components of Smart Card System
Fare Transaction Processor Electronic Purse Smart Card Sales Outlets / Kiosks Central System • located near
farebox in vehicle • interacts with the e-
purse smart card • provides an audible
signal to the bus operator that the fare has been paid
• proximity card of approximately the same size as a credit card
• interacts with the fare transfer processor on a proximity basis – no magnetic swipe required
• can be registered by users to track if lost or stolen
• can be located throughout the Municipality
• enable loading of smart cards
• all transactions are managed centrally and recorded in a central database
• capable of tracking ridership statistics
It is anticipated that a Smart Card System could be implemented within Chatham-Kent for at or below $100,000. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the integration of system fares:
1. Implement a time-based transfer system for the conventional and interurban routes. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes.
2. Implement a free transfer system for riders moving from the interurban transit system to the conventional transit system. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes.
3. Implement a fare premium transfer system for riders moving from the conventional transit system to the interurban transit system. Transfers shall be valid for 60 minutes.
4. An evaluation of fares be integrated into activities necessary to update the existing Transit Business Plan and that proposed plan be brought forward for the consideration of Council.
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 15
5. An investigation of available Smart Card technologies and costs be completed and the potential for integration with CK Transit and other municipal services be reported back to Council for consideration during the budget process.
ASSESSMENT OF TRANSIT VEHICLES Current Fleet A summary of the fleets operated by CK Transit is provided below: CK Transit Chatham Conventional – operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited
• Six (6) twenty-two (22) foot Ford diesel buses (4 routes + 2 backup vehicles) • Nineteen (19) passenger seat capacity • One (1) wheelchair list and tie-down position • Circa 2004 and need to be replaced at the end of the current contract 2012
CK Transit Interurban – operated by P.J. Weaver Industries
• Three (3) Champion buses circa 2000 (3 routes) • One (1) Ford diesel bus circa 1999 (backup vehicle) • Twenty (20) seat capacity • One (1) wheelchair list and tie-down position
CK Transit Chatham Accessible - operated by Aboutown Transportation Limited
• Three (3) Ford diesel buses (4 seats plus 4 wheelchair tie-down positions) • One (1) bus (5 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions) • One (1) accessible van (spare – 4 seats plus 1 wheelchair tie-down position) • One (1) bus circa 1999 owned by Chatham-Kent (currently needs to be replaced)
CK Transit Wallaceburg Accessible – operated by Cadillac Cabs
• One (1) accessible van circa 2005 owned by Cadillac Cabs (3 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions)
• One (1) accessible van circa 2001 owned by Chatham-Kent (3 seats plus 3 wheelchair tie-down positions)
• Vehicles will need to be replaced at the end of the current contract 2012 Alternative Fleet Current municipal direction reflects a desire not to own transit vehicle infrastructure. It has been suggested that provincial and federal funding programs be monitored to assess whether ownership of transit vehicles may be of financial benefit to Chatham-Kent. Current transit industry standards for conventional fleets reflect usage of low floor buses to accommodate wheelchair accessibility. This type of vehicle also provides the following benefits to the transit system:
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 16
• wheelchair accessible with no need for operation of a lift (time consuming and detracts from route efficiency),
• wheelchairs can be accommodated via a rear-facing position with little or no need for a tie-down,
• boarding times are reduced for all riders due to the elimination of steps at the bus entrance,
• may divert some accessible patrons to the conventional system (and recognize a lower operating cost per ride),
• easier access for parents with children. Due to vehicle load issues, a longer twenty-eight (28) foot to thirty (30) foot vehicle has been recommended. The floor plan of a sample low floor bus is shown in Appendix D. Moving Forward Engineering and Transportation Division will undertake the following activities related to the transit vehicle fleet:
1. Convene a Transit Advisory Committee (consisting of representatives from Engineering and Transportation Division as well as Chatham-Kent Council, various community stakeholders and organizations, area service providers et cetera) in anticipation of consultation on the proposed low floor transit vehicles in anticipation of the new service contract in January of 2013.
a. Work to develop the Terms of Reference for such vehicles. COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations in this report support the following objectives and strategic directions: A. Health – We are a healthy community
A1: Provide sufficient capacity to sustain community health and economic growth B. Economy – We are a prosperous community
B3: Maintain and enhance new and existing infrastructure to support economic and smart growth opportunities
Desired Outcomes
• Provide safe, accessible, convenient and efficient public transportation • Support new infrastructure investments and modernize existing infrastructure
CK Transit Service Review - 2011 Community of Chatham, Municipality of Chatham-Kent 17
The recommendations will not adversely impact on the remainder of the Community Strategic Plan. CONSULTATION No public consultations were held related to the preparation of this report. Budget and Performance Services was also consulted regarding the content of this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implication associated with the preparation of the HDR | iTrans report is $20,900 + HST. The preparation of this report has been funded by the Engineering and Transportation Division budget (transit budget section) and includes funds encumbered from prior budget years. Prepared by: Reviewed by: ____________________________ _____________________________ Stephen Jahns, P.Eng. Gary Northcott, P. Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Director Engineering and Transportation Division Engineering and Transportation Infrastructure and Engineering Services Infrastructure and Engineering Services Reviewed by: ____________________________ Leo Denys, P. Eng. General Manager Infrastructure and Engineering Services Attachments: Appendix A CK Transit Service Review
authored by HDR | iTrans Appendix B CK Transit Chatham Conventional Route Maps Appendix C CK Transit Interurban Route Maps Appendix D Sample Low Floor Bus Layout Plan (RTC:\Infrastructure & Engineering\I&ES\2011\3358 – CK Transit Service Review – 2011.doc)
Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Infrastructure and Engineering
Services
CKTransit Service Review
Final Report (Revised)
Chatham, ON
July 27, 2011
Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Infrastructure and Engineering
Services
CKTransit Service Review
Final Report (Revised)
Chatham, ON
July 27, 2011
HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd., Suite 300
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (905) 882-4100
Fax: (905) 882-1557 www.hdrinc.com
www.itransconsulting.com
Project # 6479
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Client Project Team
Project Manager Stephen Jahns, P.Eng
HDR | iTRANS Project Team
Principal Wally Beck, C.E.T.
Project Manager Wally Beck, C.E.T.
Technical Team Conor Adami, B. A.Sc.
Advisors
Quality Control
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 i HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 2. C-Ktransit Chatham Conventional Service ................................................................ 4
2.1 Route Analysis ....................................................................................................... 4
3. CKTransit Interurban service ................................................................................... 10 4. Proposed Service Changes .......................................................................................... 12
4.1 Service Issues and Potential Mitigation Measures .............................................. 12 4.1.1 Route Design and Schedule Adherence ..................................................... 12
4.2 Integration of Interurban and Chatham Conventional Transit Services .............. 14 4.2.1 Issues .......................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 14
4.2.3 Impact of Proposed Changes on Ridership ................................................ 14 4.3 Transit Fares ........................................................................................................ 14
4.3.1 Existing Fare Structure ............................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Recommended New Fare Strategies .......................................................... 18
4.3.3 Transit Fares Pricing Policies..................................................................... 18 4.3.4 Smart Card Technology Overview and Benefits ....................................... 22
5. Specialized Transit Overview ..................................................................................... 25 5.1 Service Description .............................................................................................. 25
5.1.1 Handi-Bus .................................................................................................. 25 5.1.2 Wallaceburg Accessible ............................................................................. 25
5.2 General Comments and Observations ................................................................. 26
6. Transit Fleet Strategy ................................................................................................. 28 6.1 Existing Fleet ....................................................................................................... 28
6.2 Alternative CKTransit Conventional Fleet .......................................................... 28
7. Next Steps ..................................................................................................................... 30
Appendices
A. Project Initiation Memorandum
B. Bus Stop, Shelter and Bench Guideline Memorandum
C. Detailed Analysis and Calculations
Tables
Table 2-1: Boardings per Hour ................................................................................................. 9 Table 2-2: Ridership Breakdown .............................................................................................. 9 Table 2-3: Revenue Passengers per Hour ................................................................................. 9
Table 3-1: CKTransit Interurban Services Monthly Ridership............................................... 10 Table 4-1: Cost per Revenue Passenger .................................................................................. 15 Table 4-2: CKTransit Chatham Conventional Transit Fare Structure .................................... 15
Table 4-3: Revenue Passengers by Fare Media Type ............................................................. 16
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 2 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Table 4-4: Annual Revenues by Fare Type ............................................................................ 16 Table 4-5: CKTransit Interurban Transit Fare Structure ........................................................ 17 Table 4-6: Proposed Fare Structure ........................................................................................ 21 Table 4-7: Annualized Revenues based on Proposed Fare Structures .................................... 21
Exhibits
Exhibit 2-2: Route 1 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2-3: Route 2 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 6 Exhibit 2-4: Route 3 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 7
Exhibit 2-5: Route 4 Operations Summary ............................................................................... 8
Exhibit 4-1: Conventional Transit Recommended Service Changes ...................................... 13
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 3 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
1. INTRODUCTION
In November 27, 2010 HDR | iTRANS met with Chatham-Kent staff to prioritize a number
of tasks related to improving schedule reliability, bus stop design policies, potential
integration of urban and interurban services, transit fare policies, and fleet design.
On January 27, 2011 a notice to proceed was given to undertake the following assignments:
Assignment 1: Project Initiation and Review of Documentation (completed)
Assignment 2: Bus Shelter and Bench Policy (completed)
Assignment 4: Route Operating Analysis
Assignment 5: Route and Service Redesign
Assignment 6: Transit Fare Integration
Assignment 7: Vehicle Assessments
Assignments 4 through 7 are addressed in this report while Assignments 1 and 2 were
completed and summarized in separate technical memorandums for staff reference purposes.
Assignments 1 and 2 can be found in this document under Appendix A and Appendix B
respectively.
Upon completion of the tasks, a review of the existing business model relative to the
respective roles of the municipal and private sectors would be undertaken in advance of the
expiry of the existing service provider contracts with Aboutown and WindRide.
To address the tasks and expedite the time lines, best practices were brought to the study. The
report is designed to be presented to Council for consideration and, upon approval in
principle, be presented to public stakeholders for input.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 4 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2. C-KTRANSIT CHATHAM CONVENTIONAL
SERVICE
The CKTransit Chatham conventional service has four routes offering 30 minute all day
service from 6:15am to 7:15pm Monday through Saturday, excluding statutory holidays.
CKTransit operates a radial route network with all buses travelling in a one-way, clockwise
direction (i.e. loop service), meeting at the downtown terminal at half-hour intervals to
enable timed transfers.
Route 1 Northwest
Route 2 Northeast
Route 3 Southeast
Route 4 Southwest
The urban C-K Transit routes are illustrated in Exhibit 2-1.
Exhibit 2-1: Existing CKTransit Chatham Conventional Routes
2.1 Route Analysis
Each autumn (November), transit boarding/ alighting (on/off) and travel time data are
documented by means of a one day transit survey. HDR | iTRANS obtained the 2010
operating statistics which are summarized in Exhibit 2-2 through Exhibit 2-5.
NM
CK
CC
V
CC
JM
CL
CC
L
T
P
CL
C
TVL
TL
SC
NP
HCH
MC
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Term
inal
Fift
h a
t K
ing
Stre
et
Wes
t
Vic
tori
a at
Bar
the
Stre
et
Bar
the
at C
alva
ry C
hu
rch
Bar
the
at K
ent
Stre
et
Bar
the
at D
eno
my'
s A
ud
io
Gra
nd
at
St. C
lair
Gra
nd
wes
t o
f M
cKeo
ugh
Par
k
Gra
nd
at
the
Pin
es (
shel
ter)
Gra
nd
at
155
Gra
nd
Ave
Eas
t
Gra
nd
at
Wo
od
s St
ree
t
Gra
nd
at
St. A
gnes
Ch
urc
h
Gra
nd
at
Luck
y In
n
Gra
nd
at
Skat
epar
k (s
hel
ter)
Gra
nd
at
Co
urt
ho
use
(sh
elte
r)
Gra
nd
at
form
er T
VL
Gra
nd
at
Bu
rger
Kin
g
Gra
nd
at
Stap
les
(sh
elte
r)
Gra
nd
at
Tham
es L
ea P
laza
Gra
nd
at
Zelle
rs (
shel
ter)
Gra
nd
at
805
Riv
ervi
ew D
rive
Ap
ts (
shel
ter)
Gra
nd
at
Pro
fess
ion
al B
uild
ing
(sh
elte
r)
Gra
nd
at
Riv
er R
ow
Ap
ts
Ferg
ie J
enki
ns
at K
ids
Stu
ff D
ayca
re
Ferg
ie J
enki
ns
at C
olle
ge d
rive
way
(sh
elte
r)
Ferg
ie J
enki
ns
at s
occ
er f
ield
McN
augh
ton
at
Un
iver
sity
Dri
ve
McN
augh
ton
at
Kei
l Dri
ve
McN
augh
ton
eas
t o
f K
eil D
rive
McN
augh
ton
at
Cra
ne
Dri
ve
McN
augh
ton
at
Luth
eran
Ch
urc
h
McN
augh
ton
at
Pla
za
Bal
do
on
at
Pla
za (
sid
e en
tran
ce)
Bal
do
on
at
Par
ry D
rive
Bal
do
on
at
Bal
mo
ral R
oad
Bal
do
on
no
rth
of
Bal
mo
ral R
oad
Oxl
ey a
t A
nd
rea
Dri
ve
Oxl
ey a
t Jo
ann
e St
ree
t
Oxl
ey
at P
arry
Str
ee
t
Oxl
ey
at N
ort
hla
nd
Dri
ve
Oxl
ey a
t Th
orn
hill
Cre
scen
t
Oxl
ey a
t Sa
nd
ys S
tree
t
Tim
mo
ns
Cre
scen
t at
Oxl
ey
McF
arla
ne
at 1
00 M
cFar
lan
ce (
shel
ter)
McF
arla
ne
wes
t o
f Ti
mo
thy
Cre
scen
t
McF
arla
ne
east
of
Tim
oth
y C
resc
ent
St. C
lair
at
No
rth
tow
n P
laza
-CIB
C (
shel
ter)
McN
augh
ton
at
Blo
ckb
ust
er V
ideo
McN
augh
ton
at
99 M
cNau
ghto
n (
shel
ter)
Shel
do
n a
t Em
mu
al B
apti
st C
hu
rch
Shel
do
n a
t B
rock
Str
eet
She
ldo
n a
t D
eG
rae
ve D
rive
Shel
do
n a
t C
orn
hill
Str
eet
Shel
do
n a
t P
op
lar
Stre
et
Po
pla
r at
Haz
el S
tree
t
Po
pla
r at
Mea
do
w P
ark
Nu
rsin
g H
om
e
San
dys
at
Acc
ess
Fire
& S
afet
y (s
hel
ter)
Gra
nd
at
Ho
spit
al P
arki
ng
Lot
(sh
elte
r)
Gra
nd
at
Urs
ulin
e A
ven
ue
St. C
lair
at
7Ele
ven
Thir
d a
t P
olic
e St
atio
n
Wel
lingt
on
at
St. J
oe'
s C
hu
rch
Term
inal
Total Daily Boardings Total Daily Alightings Average Weekday Passenger Load
Route Distance 12.7 km
Travel Time
Scheduled 30 min
Actual 28.3 min
Average Travel Speed
Scheduled 25.4 km/h
Actual 26.9 km/h
100
200163
134
Exhibit 2-2: Route 1 Operations Summary
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Term
inal
Kin
g at
Fo
urt
h S
tree
tK
ing
at T
hir
d S
tree
t
St. C
lair
at
Gra
nd
Ave
nu
eSt
. Cla
ir a
t Se
lkir
k St
ree
tSt
. Cla
ir a
t H
& R
Blo
ck
St. C
lair
at
Stan
's F
low
er M
arke
tSt
. Cla
ir a
t P
op
lar
Stre
et
St. C
lair
at
Co
rnh
ill S
tree
tSt
. Cla
ir a
t M
aple
Str
eet
St. C
lair
at
McN
augh
ton
Ave
nu
e
St. C
lair
at
McD
on
ald
'sSt
. Cla
ir a
t W
iltsh
ire
Dri
veSt
. Cla
ir a
t H
akim
Op
tica
l
St. C
lair
at
Jack
son
Dri
veSt
. Cla
ir a
t P
axto
n D
rive
(sh
elte
r)
St. C
lair
at
Cre
rar
Dri
veSt
. Cla
ir a
t G
rego
ry D
rive
St
. Cla
ir a
t A
pp
le A
uto
Gla
ss (
shel
ter)
St. C
lair
at
St. C
lair
Est
ates
St. C
lair
at
TSC
Sto
re
St. C
lair
at
Wal
mar
t/Su
per
Sto
reSt
. Cla
ir a
t M
aryk
no
ll R
oad
St. C
lair
at
Ellis
Str
ee
t
St. C
lair
so
uth
of
Gre
gory
Dri
veSt
. Cla
ir a
t M
aple
Art
Gal
lery
St. C
lair
at
Pax
ton
Dri
ve (
shel
ter)
Jack
son
at
Gle
nw
oo
d D
rive
Jack
son
at
Vic
tori
a A
ven
ue
Vic
tori
a n
ort
h o
f H
enry
O'W
ayV
icto
ria
at H
enry
O'W
ayV
icto
ria
at M
cNau
ghto
n A
ven
ue
McN
augh
ton
at
Eliz
abet
h S
tree
tM
cNau
ghto
n a
t C
edar
wo
od
s C
resc
ent
Del
awar
e at
McN
augh
ton
Ave
nu
eD
elaw
are
at C
ox
Ave
nu
eD
elaw
are
at G
lad
sto
ne
Ave
nu
e
Del
awar
e at
Ter
ra V
ista
Ap
tsD
elaw
are
at 4
0 D
elaw
are
Ave
nu
e A
pts
Del
awar
e at
Fo
rest
Ave
nu
eFo
rest
at
Bed
ford
Str
eet
Fore
st a
t C
ove
rdal
e St
ree
t
Fore
st a
t Ta
ylo
r A
ven
ue
Tayl
or
at T
aylo
r C
ou
rt A
pts
Tayl
or
at n
ort
h o
f Ta
ylo
r C
ou
rt A
pts
Tayl
or
at 8
3 Ta
ylo
r A
ven
ue
Tayl
or
at M
cNau
ghto
n A
ven
ue
McN
augh
ton
at
Car
olin
ian
Pla
ceM
cNau
ghto
n a
t C
SX T
rack
sM
cNau
ghto
n a
t M
on
arch
Dri
ve
McN
augh
ton
at
Mic
hen
er R
oad
Mic
hen
er a
t V
alle
y R
oad
Mic
hen
er s
ou
th o
f V
isco
un
tM
ich
ener
at
Val
ley
Ro
adM
ich
ener
at
Van
ier
Dri
ve
Mic
hen
er a
t A
ber
dee
n S
tree
tM
ich
ener
at
Mea
do
wb
roo
k P
laza
Gra
nd
at
Van
ier
Dri
ve (
shel
ter)
Gra
nd
at
Kin
sway
Ave
nu
eG
ran
d a
t G
ran
dvi
ew A
pts
.
Gra
nd
at
Tayl
or
Ave
nu
eG
ran
d a
t V
an A
llen
Ave
nu
e
Tham
es a
t Sa
lter
Str
eet
Tham
es a
t C
hat
ham
Str
eet
Tham
es a
t V
icto
ria
Ave
nu
e
Fift
h a
t K
ing
Stre
et
Wes
tFi
fth
at
H &
R B
lock
Term
inal
Total Daily Boardings Total Daily Alightings Average Weekday Passenger Load
Route Distance 14.1 km
Travel Time
Scheduled 30 min
Actual 26.2 min
Average Travel Speed
Scheduled 28.3 km/h
Actual 32.3 km/h
100
200
143
84
Exhibit 2-3: Route 2 Operations Summary
55
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Term
inal
Wel
lingt
on
at
Bu
ns
Mas
ter
Will
iam
at
Jud
y La
Mar
sh B
uild
ing
Will
iam
at
Kin
g an
d W
illia
m S
qu
are
Will
iam
at
Gra
nit
e C
lub
Will
iam
at
Cu
ltu
ral C
entr
e (s
hel
ter)
Stan
ley
at W
illia
m S
tree
tSt
anle
y at
Ad
elai
de
Stre
et
Stan
ley
at S
even
th S
tree
tSt
anle
y at
Pri
nce
Str
ee
t N
ort
hP
rin
ce a
t El
lwo
od
Ave
nu
eM
urr
ay a
t Fo
rmer
CC
I dri
vew
ayM
urr
ay a
t P
rin
cess
Str
ee N
ort
hP
rin
cess
at
Co
lbo
rne
Stre
et
Co
lbo
rne
at C
SX T
rack
sC
olb
orn
e at
Hen
ry H
eyn
ick
Sass
at
Co
lbo
rne
Stre
et
Sass
at
Po
lly S
tree
tSa
ss a
t O
PP
Sta
tio
n (
shel
ter)
Par
k A
ven
ue
at L
eno
vers
Par
k A
ven
ue
at P
ark
Stre
et
Par
k A
ven
ue
at W
ilken
son
Str
eet
Par
k La
ne
at S
t. A
nth
on
y St
ree
tP
ark
Lan
e at
Mo
cca
Co
ncr
ete
Par
k La
ne
at S
ou
then
d C
resc
ent
Par
k La
ne
at T
wee
dsm
uir
Ave
nu
e Ea
stTw
eed
smu
ir a
t B
urt
on
Ave
nu
eTw
eed
smu
ir a
t Jo
hn
Str
eet
Joh
n a
t M
erce
r St
ree
tJo
hn
at
Jasp
er A
ven
ue
Joh
n a
t Fr
eela
nd
Ave
nu
eTi
ssim
an a
t P
avey
Str
eet
Tiss
iman
at
Alle
n S
tree
tTi
ssim
an w
est
of
Alle
n S
tree
tTi
ssim
an a
t Q
uee
n S
tree
tC
ecile
at
Ch
ipp
ewa
Dri
veC
ecile
wes
t o
f M
oh
awk
Co
urt
Cec
ile a
t W
yan
do
tt S
tree
tC
eci
le a
t La
cro
ix S
tre
et
Lacr
oix
at
Ind
ian
Cre
ek R
oad
Wes
tIn
dia
n C
reek
at
Fau
ber
t D
rive
Ind
ian
Cre
ek a
t M
cGre
gor
Hig
h S
cho
ol
Ind
ian
Cre
ek w
est
of
McG
rego
r H
igh
Sch
oo
lSt
. Mic
hae
l at
Ind
ian
Cre
ek R
oad
Wes
tSt
. Mic
hae
l at
Ho
llan
d D
rive
St. M
ich
ael a
t Sy
lves
ter
Ave
nu
eSy
lves
ter
at V
and
erp
ark
Dri
veSy
lves
ter
at D
alev
iew
Cre
scen
tSy
lves
ter
no
rth
of
Dal
evie
w C
resc
ent
Sylv
este
r at
Reg
al P
lace
Sylv
este
r at
Tw
eed
smu
ir A
ven
ue
Twee
dsm
uir
at
Fau
ber
t D
rive
Twee
dsm
uir
wes
t o
f La
cro
ix S
tree
tTw
eed
smu
ir a
t K
insm
en A
ud
ito
riu
mTw
eed
smu
ir a
t R
ota
ry P
ark
Twee
dsm
uir
at
Qu
een
Str
eet
Fore
man
at
McG
eorg
e A
ven
ue
Pin
e b
ehin
d K
FCP
ine
at M
aple
Co
urt
Ap
ts (
shel
ter)
Pin
e at
Elm
Str
eet
(min
i sh
elte
r)P
ark
at C
oca
Co
la B
uild
ing
St. G
eorg
e at
Mer
rito
rSt
. Geo
rge
at W
hit
e K
nig
ht
Au
to G
lazi
ng
St. G
eo
rge
at P
ark
Stre
et
Par
k St
ree
t at
Bax
tor
Stre
et
Par
k St
ree
t at
Ad
elai
de
Stre
et
Sou
thW
illia
m a
t Li
qu
idat
ion
Wo
rld
We
llin
gto
n a
t D
ow
nto
wn
Ch
ath
am C
en
tre
Term
inal
Total Daily Boardings Total Daily Alightings Average Weekday Passenger Load
Route Distance 12.9 km
Travel Time
Scheduled 30 min
Actual 25.3 min
Average Travel Speed
Scheduled 25.8 km/h
Actual 30.7 km/h
100
200
84 7848
Exhibit 2-4: Route 3 Operations Summary
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Term
inal
Wel
lingt
on
at
Fors
yth
Seco
nd
at
Po
lice
Lot
Kin
g at
YM
CA
Kin
g at
Lac
roix
Kin
g at
Riv
ervi
ew
Gar
de
ns
Kin
g w
est
of
Ph
yllis
Ave
nu
e
Kin
g at
Ph
yllis
Ave
nu
e
Kin
g at
Win
sto
n C
hu
rch
ill S
cho
ol
Kin
g at
Mer
ritt
Mer
ritt
at
Earl
Str
eet
Mer
ritt
at
Riv
ervi
ew D
rive
Mer
ritt
at
Sen
ior'
s C
entr
e
Mer
ritt
at
Mea
do
w P
ark
Ap
ts
Riv
ervi
ew a
t R
iver
ben
d T
ow
ers
(sh
elte
r)
Riv
ervi
ew a
t R
iver
way
Co
urt
Riv
ervi
ew a
t R
egal
To
wer
s (s
hel
ter)
Riv
ervi
ew a
t K
eil D
rive
Riv
ervi
ew a
t Ti
m H
ort
on
s/C
ar W
ash
Riv
ervi
ew a
t Ir
win
Str
eet
Riv
ervi
ew a
t R
iver
view
Bin
go
Riv
ervi
ew a
t C
om
mu
nit
y Li
vin
g
Her
itag
e at
Pla
za (
op
po
site
Riv
ervi
ew B
ingo
)
He
rita
ge a
t K
eil
Dri
ve
Kei
l at
Ric
e an
d N
oo
dle
Res
tura
nt
Kei
l at
180
Kei
l Dri
ve (
shel
ter)
Ric
hm
on
d a
t fo
rmer
Map
le C
ity
Tire
Ric
hm
on
d a
t P
inn
acle
Fin
ish
ing
(sh
elte
r)
Ric
hm
on
d a
t Ir
win
Str
eet
Sou
th
Ric
hm
on
d a
cro
ss f
rom
Jak
e's
Bea
rin
gs
Ric
hm
on
d a
t Fr
ankl
in S
qu
are
Blo
om
fiel
d a
t C
om
fort
Inn
/Car
Was
h
Blo
om
fiel
d a
t O
rio
le P
arkw
ay
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
Par
kfie
ld (
shel
ter)
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
Ho
war
d D
rive
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
Art
ic Ic
e
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t w
est
of
Kei
l Dri
ve
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t ea
st o
f K
eil D
rive
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
DaS
ilva
Bak
ery
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
St.
Pau
l's C
hu
rch
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
Wed
gew
oo
d A
ven
ue
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
Bak
er S
tree
t (s
hel
ter)
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
Ber
ry S
tree
t
Par
k A
ven
ue
Wes
t at
Ho
ust
on
Ave
nu
e
Lacr
oix
at
stai
rs a
t Ed
gar
Stre
et
Lacr
oix
at
Spen
sor
Stre
et
Lacr
oix
at
Gra
y St
ree
t
Lacr
oix
at
Lorn
e St
ree
t
Ric
hm
on
d a
t D
om
ino
's P
izza
Ric
hm
on
d a
t R
alei
gh S
tre
et
Qu
een
at
Har
vey
Stre
et
Term
inal
Total Daily Boardings Total Daily Alightings Average Weekday Passenger Load
Route Distance 14.5 km
Travel Time
Scheduled 30 min
Actual 26.5 min
Average Travel Speed
Scheduled 28.9 km/h
Actual 32.7 km/h
100
200148
109
Exhibit 2-5: Route 4 Operations Summary
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 9 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
The average travel time and passenger load is calculated for the 25 trips each route makes
during the course of the day. The average actual (surveyed) travel speed is calculated by
dividing the total route distance by the average actual (surveyed) travel time. The scheduled
average travel speed utilizes the scheduled travel of time of the route (30 minutes) rather than
the surveyed travel time. A “by time of day” and “by location” detailed analysis of the same
statistics are provided in Appendix C.
Table 2-1 summarizes the boardings per hour for all four routes. Route 3 is the least utilized
route with 17.8 boardings per hour. Route 1, which serves St. Clair College, is the most
utilized route with 30.5 boardings per hour.
Table 2-1: Boardings per Hour
Route Boardings per Hour
Route 1 30.5
Route 2 22.1
Route 3 17.8
Route 4 23.0
CKTransit Overall 23.4
As shown in Table 2-2, about 30% of CKTransit‟s boardings represent passengers
transferring between two routes. The data shows that the total boardings for all four routes
are composed of comparable levels of transfers and revenue passengers. The timed transfer
system where all buses connect downtown is appropriate given the radial route design typical
of small to medium-sized transit systems.
Table 2-2: Ridership Breakdown
Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Total
Total Boardings 397 287 231 299 1,214
Transfers 113 91 56 105 365
% Transfers 28% 32% 24% 35% 30%
% Revenue Passengers 72% 68% 76% 65% 70%
From the above passenger ridership breakdown, it is possible to determine the number of
revenue passengers each route generates. This information is presented in Table 2-3. The
number of revenue passengers per hour ranges from 13.5 (Route 3) to 22.0 (Route 1), with an
overall average value of 16.3 for CKTransit.
Table 2-3: Revenue Passengers per Hour
Route Revenue Passengers per Hour
Route 1 22.0
Route 2 15.0
Route 3 13.5
Route 4 15.0
CKTransit Overall 16.3
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 10 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
3. CKTRANSIT INTERURBAN SERVICE
CKTransit also provides service for three interurban transit routes linking the community of
Chatham with its surrounding outlying rural communities. These routes are operated by
WindRide. Due to the rural-urban blend of the service area, the demand generated along
these routes is lower compared to the conventional service in the Community of Chatham.
All three routes provide two round trips in the morning (6:15 AM to 11:15 AM) and two
round trips in the afternoon (4:15 PM to 9:15PM), Monday to Saturday. The three routes are:
Route A Chatham/Wallaceburg/Dresden
Route C Chatham/Blenheim/Ridgetown
Route D Chatham/Tilbury/Wheatley
The monthly ridership by route is given below in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: CKTransit Interurban Services Monthly Ridership
There is an additional seasonal route, Route S1, which operates May to September,
connecting the communities of Mitchell Bay, Grande Point, Pain Court, Blenheim, and
Erieau with Chatham. Similar to the year-round routes described above, four round trips per
day are provided. In 2010, Route S1 carried a total of 1,095 passengers. Weekly ridership
ranged from 33 to 107 passengers with the exception of the week of the July 30 when 610
passengers were carried. This was attributed to free weekend service approved by Council.
The routes are operated by WindRide which owns, maintains and operates the three 20-seat
compressed natural gas vehicles, along with a smaller, spare vehicle in order to provide the
service for the municipality.
The communities of Thamesville and Bothwell, situated northeast of Chatham, currently
have no service and have been identified by staff as potential communities where service
could be expanded based on feedback received during CKTransit staff public consultation.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 11 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
While the interurban service is offered by CKTransit, the $5 cash fare for these services is
higher than that compared to the conventional, and it does not currently offer a transfer to the
conventional routes in Chatham. Riders originating from the interurban services are required
to pay the full fare for CKTransit‟s Chatham Conventional services.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 12 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4. PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES
Based on HDR | iTRANS‟ analysis and observations, and input from municipal, Aboutown
and WindRide staff, a number of issues have been identified. Foregoing actions may be taken
to mitigate these issues, which are summarized in this section.
4.1 Service Issues and Potential Mitigation
Measures
A summary of the issues identified, and the proposed mitigation measures described at a high
level has been compiled below.
4.1.1 Route Design and Schedule Adherence
4.1.1.1 Issues
Route 2 Northeast requires additional travel time due to the provision of service to North
Maple Mall.
Route 3 Southeast is impacted by train crossings in the PM; transfers can be missed or
buses unduly delayed to accommodate transfers.
The radial loop system subjects transit riders to unnecessary, out of direction travel
Passengers travelling inbound and beyond the downtown must transfer to another route if
traveling to another quadrant in Chatham.
The Route 3 scheduled time is well below the system average primarily due to the need to
have extra time for the one trip of the day after 5:00pm to accommodate train delays. If
this was not the case then the route can be extended to serve other areas without adding
additional contract costs.
Route 1 Northwest travels into the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for
Community Services complex. This complex is open weekdays from 8:30am-5:00pm.
Route 1 requires the longest travel time of all routes (28.3 minutes average, leaving only
1.7 minutes for layover)
4.1.1.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures
The current one-way loop system where each route terminates downtown can be
improved upon by interlining all routes into two “figure 8” two-way loop pairings as
illustrated in Exhibit 4-1.
The following pairings may be made:
o Route 1 with Route 3
o Route 2 with Route 4
Route 2 Northeast can be modified to reduce the overall travel distance without
compromising reasonable walk distances. (see Exhibit 4-1).
For the approximate 5:00pm Route 3 delays caused at railway crossings, CKTransit
should provide for taxis to be on call (see Note* below) at the downtown to transport
customers who miss the timed connection at the downtown terminal.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 13 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Route 1 service to the Provincial Courthouse / Chatham-Kent Centre for Community
Services complex can be eliminated and terminate at the new YMCA. Alternatively,
service to the Courthouse could be limited to normal business hours. This will save about
one minute in travel time.
Note*: It is suggested that CKTransit enter into discussions with taxi operators to standby
at the downtown terminal during the time that trains cause delays for Route 3 Southeast
when the bus would not be able to connect with Routes 2 and 4. The unique issue with
Route 3 is one that cannot be fixed unless at-grade crossings were eliminated, which is
not likely. When Route 3 experiences a long train delay, buses waiting for the train will
compromise their schedule integrity and delay passengers on their bus. If the buses depart
on time, those route 3 passengers needing to transfer must wait for the next bus. In either
situation, passengers are inconvenienced. One option to consider is to enter into
discussions with the taxi industry to accept delayed transfer passengers from the Route 3
bus and take them to the nearest bus stop to their destination. The agreement with the
taxis could be for a flat fee of, for example, $15-$25 per occurrence or per day. This
would cost about $4,000 to $6,500 per year based on 260 weekday occurrences per year
and is considered nominal..
Exhibit 4-1: Conventional Transit Recommended Service Changes
These mitigation steps will:
Reduce the travel time for those that are near the downtown by eliminating out-of-
direction travel for some of the customers
Reduce the amount of customers transferring between routes
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 14 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Eliminate buses that are held up by Route 3 train crossing delays (i.e. two buses are
impacted rather than three buses since Route 3 would be interlined with Route 1)
4.2 Integration of Interurban and Chatham
Conventional Transit Services
4.2.1 Issues
Interurban transit customers are not allowed to be dropped off or picked up within
Chatham except at select stops such as the downtown bus terminal, the hospital and the
Riverview Gardens retirement home
Customers want to transfer between interurban and conventional buses without paying an
additional fare
4.2.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures
Interurban buses and customers could be allowed to use existing bus stops along the
Chatham urban area
The issue of free transfers between local and interurban services are addressed in Section
4.3: Transit Fares.
.
4.2.3 Impact of Proposed Changes on Ridership
The study did not specifically address ridership levels since other recommendations in this
report that will impact ridership demand were addressed. It can be hypothesized that the
proposed service changes are positive and that there would be no lost ridership as a result of
the changes recommended. As such, assuming existing ridership would remain at existing
levels is a conservative approach.
4.3 Transit Fares
When dealing with the issue of setting transit fares, the decision is ultimately political.
Recognizing that most transit users are captive and have little or no access to an automobile,
transit fares must be affordable and fare policies should be conducive to promoting ridership.
Generally, trade-offs will be needed to balance the service provided with the need for fiscal
responsibility. Transit management needs a fare policy to provide guidance to
recommendations during the budget process so that it is perceived to be fair and fiscally
responsible.
The various forms of public transportation require municipal investments to enhance the
quality of life of residents in both the urban and rural communities and, in particular, to
enable the urban area of Chatham to be competitive in attracting businesses. To this end, the
investments made have been summarized on a net cost per passenger carried by the various
forms of transportation:
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 15 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
The 2009 net cost per passenger carried (total cost less fare revenues) has been provided for
comparison purposes in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Cost per Revenue Passenger
Service
Annual Net
Operating Cost
(Costs – Revenues)
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Cost per
revenue
passenger
CKTransit Chatham Conventional* $559,540 257,853 $2.17
CK Transit Interurban $359,880 8,528 $42.20
Chatham Handi-Bus $281,140 18,919 $14.86
Wallaceburg Accessibile $99,570 4,559 $21.84
The purpose of the comparison above is to put fares into perspective between the various
service providers. Although the interurban service is costly on a per passenger basis, the
service frequency provided is only minimal (i.e. every two hours) and it enables rural
residents to have affordable travel to access goods and services in Chatham-Kent, and it
enables Chatham residents to access goods and services elsewhere in the municipality.
Another point that can be considered is that as local urban buses become more accessible for
those with mobility aids, there is an opportunity to attract some Handi-Bus patrons to the
urban transit service at a much lower cost ($2.17 versus $14.86 per passenger).
HDR | iTRANS reviewed the current fare structure to assess improvements that can be made
based on best practices to achieve the following:
Increase ridership
Increase ridership revenues
Be considered fair
Enable bus fares to keep pace with inflation
4.3.1 Existing Fare Structure
In 2009, the CKTransit Chatham Conventional service carried 257,853 urban passengers and
collected $380,456 in fares, representing an average fare of $1.48 per passenger.
The CKTransit Chatham Conventional fare structure is summarized below in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: CKTransit Chatham Conventional Transit Fare Structure
Category Cash Fare Multi-Pass
Cost
Multi-Pass
Cost per
Trip
Multi-Pass
Discount
Adult $2.00 $35.00 $1.59 20%
Senior $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
H.S. Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
Elementary
Student $1.75 $27.00 $1.23 30%
Child (U5) $1.00 N/A N/A N/A
St. Clair College N/A $120.00 $0.901 N/A
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 16 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
1Cost per trip obtained from CKTransit 2010 Conventional Service Survey
Based on ridership surveys conducted in November 2010, the percentage of revenue
passengers who utilize the different types of fare media can be calculated. This information is
illustrated in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Revenue Passengers by Fare Media Type
Category Fare
Media
Surveyed
Revenue
Passengers
% of Revenue
Passengers
Adult
Cash 244 30.7%
Ticket 0 0.0%
Multi-Pass 239 30.1%
Senior
Cash 30 3.8%
Ticket 0 0.0%
Multi-Pass 83 10.4%
H.S. Student
Cash 35 4.4%
Ticket 6 0.8%
Multi-Pass 66 8.3%
Elementary
Student
Cash 13 1.6%
Ticket 1 0.1%
Multi-Pass 14 1.8%
St. Clair College Pass 22 2.8%
Child Cash 42 5.3%
Total 795 100.0%
Along with 2009 CUTA ridership statistics, it is possible to forecast the total annual ridership
for each fare media type from the above summarized survey data.. The 2009 fare revenues
collected by customer classification and fare type are estimated in Table 4-4 below.
Table 4-4: Annual Revenues by Fare Type
Category Fare
Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of Annual
Revenues
Adult
Cash 79,140 $158,280 38.2%
Ticket - - 0.0%
Multi-Pass 77,518 $123,324 29.7%
Senior
Cash 9,730 $17,028 4.1%
Ticket - - 0.0%
Multi-Pass 26,921 $33,039 8.0%
H.S. Student
Cash 11,352 $19,866 4.8%
Ticket 1,946 $3,406 0.8%
Multi-Pass 21,407 $26,272 6.3%
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 17 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Category Fare
Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of Annual
Revenues
Elementary
Student
Cash 4,216 $7,379 1.8%
Ticket 324 $568 0.1%
Multi-Pass 4,541 $5,573 1.3%
St. Clair College Pass 7,136 $6,422 1.5%
Child Cash 13,622 $13,622 3.3%
Total 257,8531
$414,7782 100.0%
1Annual Revenue Passengers obtained from CKTransit‟s 2009 CUTA statistics 2Annual revenue generated is higher than value reported in CUTA statistics, the discrepancy is due to small survey sample
size to determine initial fare breakdown given in Table 4-3.
Adult fares account for nearly 68% of all fare revenue collected by CKTransit. Meanwhile,
Multi-Ride tickets are relatively more popular with seniors and students as they tend to be
more cost conscious.
Table 4-5 illustrates the fare structure for CKTransit‟s Interurban Services.
Table 4-5: CKTransit Interurban Transit Fare Structure
Category Cash Fare Multi-Pass
Cost
Multi-Pass
Cost per
Trip
Multi-Pass
Discount
Adult $5.00 $100.00 $4.55 9%
Senior $4.50 $90.00 $4.09 9%
H.S. Student $4.50 N/A N/A N/A
Elementary
Student $4.50 N/A N/A N/A
Child (U5) $2.50 N/A N/A N/A
Free transfers are provided between CKTransit local routes, accounting for about 30% of all
boarding passengers. Transfers are valid between local routes only, which meet at the
downtown terminal but cannot be used on the same route for a return trip (i.e. valid in one
direction only). Transfers are not valid between local and interurban buses.
Based on transit best practices and requests from CKTransit staff, the following issues have
been identified:
Although transit costs have increased, all public transit services – local, interurban and
Handi-Bus – have not seen a fare increase since 2006
Transfers are valid in one direction only and must be used on the first transfer bus
Multi-Pass cards require the bus operator to punch passes; this adds unnecessary boarding
time (i.e. assume 15 passengers per trip x 4 seconds more than a cash fare deposit = 60
seconds)
There is a request from Chatham-Kent council to investigate a deep discount annual pass
for seniors
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 18 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4.3.2 Recommended New Fare Strategies
There are two fare pricing strategies to grow ridership – introducing time-based transfers –
and providing interurban customers with the ability to transfer free to CKTransit urban bus
routes.
4.3.2.1 Time-based Transfers
Timed-based transfers allow customers to transfer to any bus and in any direction for a fixed
period of time from the time of issuance. The policy will allow, for example, a parent to take
their pre-school child to a daycare centre by bus, then board the bus in the same direction to
continue their journey to work without paying an additional fare.
Time-based transfers are currently in place in other transit systems across Canada and are
considered revenue neutral. This means that any reduction in fares collected per trip from
passengers who would have had to pay an additional fare to make the return trip within a
fixed time period, is expected to be offset by the revenue increases from additional ridership
following the introduction of the time-based transfer.
In addition to increasing ridership, having a single colour transfer and design for all routes,
will significantly decrease fare disputes and the fare structure will be simplified for the
benefit of the customers. It should be noted that even if there is measurable loss of revenue
following the introduction of the time-based transfer, the loss can be offset by increasing
fares to compensate.
4.3.2.2 Free Transfers between Interurban and Conventional Bus Routes
As a complementary strategy to enabling interurban transit customers to board and alight at
local Chatham bus stops, fare integration between transit service providers can be
implemented. This is common place in the industry since it is considered a ridership growth
strategy.
Transfers should be free from interurban buses to CKTransit buses while customers
travelling from CKTransit to interurban transit could pay the fare premium when travelling
out of Chatham (interurban fare less the local fare paid). Transfers can be issues to interurban
customers upon alighting the bus in Chatham. It is suggested that the transfer be valid for 60
minutes.
4.3.3 Transit Fares Pricing Policies
Fare policies should be designed so that the cost structure is easy to understand and enforce
and pre-paid fare customers are rewarded at the expense of less frequent transit customers. In
addition, discounted fares, also known as concession fares, are provided in varying degrees
throughout Canada. The bottom line is that the municipality‟s cost to carry a passenger,
regardless of classification, is the same.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 19 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4.3.3.1 Concession Fares
When recommending fare increases, there should be a common approach that CKTransit
staff can follow when developing the annual transit budget. Costs do go up and if it is
Council‟s expectation to off-set additional costs, fare increases will be needed. As mentioned
earlier, there has not been a fare increase since 2006.
As a starting point, the exact cash fare (ECF) for adult customers should be the basis of all
concession transit fares and as such, it will be the highest cost fare category. Discounted fares
should be low enough to attract pre-paid discounts but not too low a price point. Based on the
HDR | iTRANS work in the area of smart card technology and our own municipal experience
in setting fare policy, the pre-paid fare media should be at a price point that is 80% of the
exact cash fare.
The ECF for pre-school children (i.e. under 5 years old) is $1.00, which is 50% of the adult
cash fare. In many transit systems across Canada, pre-school children ride for free. In the
case of the local CKTransit service, it would make sense to follow suit. Combined with a 60-
minute free transfer policy, a parent can board with their child and make a return trip from
shopping for one adult fare. This strategy is customized for the single parent, who in many
cases, must be able to obtain as much value as possible given their limited monetary
resources.
Currently, the single ride discounts are as follows for the 22-ride Multi-Pass card:
Adult: $1.59 per ride versus $2.00 ECF = 20% discount
Seniors: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount
Students: $1.23 per ride versus $1.75 ECF = 30% discount
The current discount in the ECF for students and seniors relative to the adult fare is 12.5%
($1.75 vs. $2.00); however, the Multi-Pass discount is greater, at 22.9% ($27 vs. $35)
The 20% ECF discounts for those adults buying the Multi-Pass is considered reasonable; the
relatively high 30% discount for the Multi-Pass for seniors and students could be lowered to
about 10% to 15%, assuming the discount is to be universal (i.e. more consistency).
4.3.3.2 Deep Discount Annual Senior Pass
Another issue that was to be addressed at a high level is the request for a deep discount
annual senior pass, which very few transit systems across Canada have in place. There is no
question that the pass will prove popular; however, under current conditions it is simply a
lost revenue item that will be reflected in the CKTransit budget. It is ultimately a political
decision.
If a deep annual pass discount is offered to seniors, CK staff estimated the lost revenue at
$23,860 to $28,635 per year. If this is the case, the amount lost should be identified as a grant
provided by Chatham-Kent council in a CKTransit line budget item so that the reduction in
revenue does not unfairly or negatively impact the net transit cost of service. Another
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 20 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
consideration that is not reflected in the lost revenue estimate is the impact on costs and
revenues that could be incurred when the proposed Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act
(AODA) legislation takes effect. A similar deep discounted senior pass would likely have to
be applied for seniors using specialized transit services. If a passenger takes the Handi-Bus
service a few times, there would be zero cost recovery for this user.
The net cost (total cost less total revenues) to carry a CKTransit customer is $2.13 per trip
while the net cost to carry a Handi-Bus customer is $14.86 per trip – a difference of $12.73
per trip. Encouraging eligible seniors to use Handi-Bus, instead of CKTransit for some trips
will likely result in more unmet requests for Handi-Bus, increasing the need to expand
service resource levels.
It should be noted that in Section 6: Transit Fleet Strategy, HDR | iTRANS recommends
that CKTransit purchase low-floor wheelchair accessible vehicles only. They are designed to
attract Handi-Bus customers without the need to reserve service to increase their mobility
and to increase conventional transit use.
4.3.3.3 Recommended Fare Structure
Given there has been no fare increase since 2006, a new fare strategy based on industry best
practices, is proposed. The following is a summary of the recommendations:
1. Fare Strategy Policies:
a. CKTransit local buses should have a time-based transfer that is valid for 60
minutes
b. Interurban customers should be allowed a free transfer to Chatham bus routes,
while local Chatham bus route customers can board interurban buses at a reduced
cost
c. The only cash fare that will be paid is the adult cash fare
2. Fare Pricing Policy:
a. All fare increases should be tied to the adult exact cash fare
b. The Multi-Pass discount for adults shall be based on 20 trips at the exact cash fare.
c. The Multi-Pass concession fare for seniors and students shall be based on a
discount of approximately 15% of the adult Multi-Pass cost
d. Annual fare increases should keep pace with inflation and be applied uniformly
across all fare categories
e. Children under 5 years of age accompanied by an adult shall ride free
3. Recommended Fare Increase:
a. The suggested exact cash fare (for all transit customers in the CKTransit service
within Chatham) should be increased to $2.25 on September 1, 2011 and $2.50 on
July 1, 2012
b. The cash fare for interurban service can be increased to $6.00 for all passengers,
except children under 5 years of age
c. Children under 5 years of age on the interurban service can pay a fare of $3.00
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 21 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4.3.3.4 Impact of Proposed Fare Structure
The proposed fare scheme under the $0.25 cash fare increase and $0.50 cash fare increase,
along with the other proposed fare structure changes discussed in Section 4.3.3.3 is shown
below in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: Proposed Fare Structure
Given the fact that fares have not increased since 2006, HDR | iTRANS has estimated the
ridership and revenue impacts using 2010 ridership statistics and by applying two
assumptions to provide a range.
Assumption 1 (Low Range): Apply the Simpson-Curtin Fare Elasticity Formula, which is
the fare elasticity formula used extensively by transit systems across Canada. Simpson-
Curtin‟s Formula estimates ridership changes based on various changes such as fares or level
of service. The formula theory points to a 3% decrease in ridership for every 10% increase in
fares. This principle was applied to all passenger classifications with the exception of the St.
Clair College Pass. Fare revenues have been forecasted for both cash fare increases ($0.25
and $0.50) and presented below in Table 4-7. Since the first proposed cash fare increase of
$0.25 is not an overall, across-the-board increase in that the concession ECFs have a
proportionally greater increase compared to the adult ECF, it is necessary to forecast the
decreases in ridership for each individual category before revenues can be re-calculated. The
detailed calculations are available in Appendix C.
Assumption 2 (High Range): This assumption assumes that ridership will remain constant.
Table 4-7: Annualized Revenues based on Proposed Fare Structures
Fare Structure Scenario Annualized Revenues
Existing 2010 Forecast $414,7781
$0.25 Fare Increase Assumption 1 - Low Range $441,826
Assumption 2 - High Range $467,019
$0.50 Fare Increase Assumption 1 - Low Range $474,076
Assumption 2 - High Range $518,116
$0.25 Fare Increase $0.50 Fare Increase
Category Cash
Fare
Multi-
Pass Cost
Multi-
Pass
Cost
per
Trip
Multi-
Pass
Discount
Cash
Fare
Multi-
Pass
Cost
Multi-
Pass
Cost
per
Trip
Multi-
Pass
Discount
Adult $2.25 $40.50 $1.84 18% $2.50 $45.00 $2.05 18%
Senior $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% $2.50 $38.30 $1.74 30%
H.S. Student $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% $2.50 $38.30 $1.74 30%
Elementary
Student $2.25 $34.50 $1.57 30% $2.50 $38.30 $1.74 30%
Child (U5) Free N/A N/A N/A Free N/A N/A N/A
St. Clair
College N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A N/A $120.00 $0.90 N/A
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 22 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
1Obtained from section 4.3.1, this value shall be used to be consistent with calculated forecasted revenues associated with
fare increases.
The proposed fare structure under a $0.25 cash fare increase is estimated to increase the
annualized revenues by 6.5% to 12.6%. A $0.50 cash fare increase will rise about 7% from
levels generated by the $0.25 increase, or a 14% to 25% increase in revenues compared to the
existing fares structure and policy.
4.3.4 Smart Card Technology Overview and Benefits
In 2010, CKTransit carried in the area of 270,000 passengers that paid a transit fare – exact
cash fare or Multi-Pass cards - upon boarding and, if required, they obtain a transfer to board
second bus. A fare card, known as „smart card‟, could replace all fare mediums except cash
and paper transfers for cash-paying customers. The smart card would essentially act like an
electronic purse (e-purse) that would be loaded with value by the transit customer and used in
place of cash, passes and transfers.
4.3.4.1 Benefits to Transit Customers
Benefits to the smart card user include:
Eliminates the need to carry exact cash fare, tickets or passes.
Eliminates the need to obtain and carry paper transfers.
Provides increased security against lost or stolen passes.
Opportunity for more custom-designed fare discounts (e.g. “loyalty” card).
4.3.4.2 Benefits to Transit System
A successful smart card implementation will positively change the way business is conducted
and provide numerous transit system benefits that can be realized immediately or over a
period of time:
Greater flexibility in implementing new fare structures such as,
o one-cent multiples rather than 5-cent
o fare by distance for interurban travel
o automatically apply fare integration between urban and interurban services
Reduces bus boarding times.
Increased ridership and revenues (i.e. ridership growth strategy) due to ease of payment.
Eliminates the need to print and distribute passes.
Ease of tracking of revenue and ridership data, including transfer tracking.
Reduces the cost of revenue handling (can be reduced to one day per week from five)
Potential link to GPS-based technologies (to see where customers get on and off buses)
Eliminates the „underpayment‟ of bus fares
4.3.4.3 Other Municipal Benefits
The ability to use the smart card for applications at other municipal services equipped with
smart card readers is possible, such as payment at parking facilities, recreational facilities /
sports complexes, municipal libraries, etc.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 23 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
4.3.4.4 Smart Card Components
The primary components of smart card solutions are outlined below.
Fare Transaction Processor (FTP), which would be located near the existing farebox, is the
unit that interacts with the e-purse smart card. The FTP is modular with no moving parts and
has solid-state construction, requiring little or no maintenance. If the unit is malfunctioning
(rare), it can simply be replaced en-route. As the person boards, the FTP can signal both
visually and audibly whether or not a discount fare is being deducted (e.g. student).
Electronic Purse Smart Card (i.e. e-purse) can come in the form of a proximity smart card
similar in size and thickness of a credit card or a lower cost “e-ticket”. The e-purse smart
card will have a microprocessor embedded to store data. As the customer boards the bus with
their smart card, the proper fare is deducted from the smart card as it is passed by in close
„proximity‟ to the FTP. The smart card-FTP transaction takes less than a second, which
contrasts in comparison to the „magnetic‟ swipe card, most commonly used by the public
(e.g. debit cards, etc.).
Smart cards could be registered or unregistered. If registered, a smart card that is reported as
lost or stolen by the smart card user can have the remaining value loaded onto a replacement
card the next day. In contrast, an unregistered smart card that is lost or stolen cannot be
replaced, which is similar to losing monthly passes or multi-passes.
Point of Sales Outlets / Kiosks – Sales outlets located throughout the region would have
point of sales terminals that enable smart card users to conveniently load value on their smart
card. There are other methods of paying adding value to smart cards such as “auto reload”
whereby a registered user can have value automatically loaded onto their smart card when the
value of the smart card reaches a threshold as determined by the user.
Central System – The smart card transactions must be managed centrally and automatically.
The financial and transit user transactions inherent to the smart card system will be recorded
in a central database system. This provides CKTransit with detailed ridership information by
time of day and route. Ridership can be tracked by card. Also, not unlike the sales of monthly
passes and tickets, when a smart card is loaded with value, the money is transferred to
CKTransit automatically. This would mean that the region would have additional income
from the Transit rider since cash passengers that adopt the smart card will provide an
additional pre-paid revenue source for short-term investment opportunities.
4.3.4.5 Smart Card System Costs
The cost of the smart card technology has been decreasing over the last 10 years and it is
becoming a better understood and accepted method of payment. Although cash will continue
as a form of fare payment, the use of smart card technology industry-wide will become the
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 24 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
transit norm, primarily because it is customer-focused, reduces the cost of revenue
management, and it provides an incentive to increase an individual‟s use of transit.
Subject to a more detailed assessment, a conservative estimate for a smart card system
implementation of CKTransit‟s Chatham Conventional and Interurban services only would
probably be less than $100,000.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 25 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
5. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT OVERVIEW
Chatham-Kent provides wheelchair accessible transit to eligible residents that reside and
travel within Chatham and Wallaceburg. The Chatham service – Handi-Bus - is provided by
Aboutown while the Wallaceburg service – Wallaceburg Accessible – is provided by
Cadillac Cab.
The focus of the HDR | iTRANS assignment was on the local and interurban transit services,
however specialized transit is now becoming more tied to regular transit service across the
country as conventional transit is more affordable and less costly per passenger. By shifting
some riders from specialized services to the conventional transit service, it enables some
specialized transit customers to use conventional transit for some of their trips without
having to reserve their ride. A high-level overview was undertaken of the specialized transit
service to identify issues that may be addressed in the near future.
5.1 Service Description
5.1.1 Handi-Bus
The following provides a summary of the Handi-Bus service:
The existing agreement between Chatham-Kent and Abouttown states that service is
provided to accommodate trips originating and terminating within Chatham only
For destinations outside Chatham, Aboutown charges a minimum 2-hour charter rate of
$123 plus $62.50 per hour thereafter (this is outside of the existing agreement with
Chatham-Kent)
Service is provided curb to curb only
One-way fare of $3.00 ($1.00 higher than the local CKTransit adult fare)
1,454 passengers were carried in 2010
544 passengers using mobility devices (wheelchair, scooters)
387 ambulatory
523 attendants (free)
Service is provided:
Monday – Saturday 8:00 am - 6:00 pm (Note: service sometimes commences
at 7am to accommodate requests)
Friday Evening 6:00 pm - 11:00 pm
Sunday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Priority is given to eligible residents (i.e. those that cannot access or use CKTransit
service) travelling for work, school, medical trip purposes while those travelling for
shopping and socio-recreational purposes are accommodated, when possible
48 hours advanced booking is required
5.1.2 Wallaceburg Accessible
Cadillac Cab operates the Wallaceburg service with one para-transit van. The service can be
described as follows:
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 26 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
The existing agreement between Chatham-Kent and Cadillac Cabs states that service is
provided to accommodate trips originating and terminating within Wallaceburg only
Service is provided curb to curb only
For destinations outside Wallaceburg, a $2.00 per kilometre rate is charged by Cadillac
Cab to the passenger (this is outside of the existing agreement with Chatham-Kent)
One-way fare of $3.00 ($1.00 higher than the local CKTransit adult fare)
Service is provided
Monday – Friday 8:00 am - 6:00 pm
Saturday-Sunday, excluding holidays 9:00am – 5:00pm
584 passengers were carried in 2010
144 passengers using mobility devices (wheelchair, scooters)
273 ambulatory
167 attendants (free)
Priority is given to eligible residents (i.e. those that cannot access or use CKTransit
service) travelling for work, school, medical trip purposes while those travelling for
shopping and socio-recreational purposes are accommodated, when possible
48 hours advanced booking is required
5.2 General Comments and Observations
As the population ages, there will be an increasing reliance on accessible transportation
services as those that age will not, at some point, be able to drive or have access to personal
transportation. Yet their reliance will be critical since medical and shopping trips will be
required just to accommodate their very basic needs. The issue becomes more pronounced in
the rural areas and communities without affordable accessible transit.
The desire to „age-in-place‟ will continue but without access to transportation or volunteers,
residents could be forced to move. This theme is not uncommon and the problem will
accentuate over time.
To provide lower cost accessible services, urban transit fleets and the bus infrastructures are
becoming more accessible. Today‟s standard urban fleet now consists of low-floor
wheelchair accessible buses.
Discussions with the CK staff and Handi-Bus staff revealed the following:
There are no-shows whereby an eligible customer does not cancel a Handi-Bus trip. This
should be discouraged and the bus fare should be charged to the customer.
Getting seniors to know what public transportation is available to them and knowing how
to use it would be a big step to using CKTransit services. In this regard, a travel training
manual would be beneficial
There is a need to both identify and quantify the demand that is not being met,
particularly in the more rural areas and communities. This can start off by undertaking
surveys of the more than 6,000 members of the seniors centres where transportation is
very key
A central booking agency would go a long way to matching a customer up with the
appropriate transportation available to them (e.g. volunteers, etc)
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 27 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
There needs to a better coordination of transportation services to prevent overlap due to
the many operating silos that exist; this approach recognizes there is only one taxpayer
who should not pay for duplicated services.
In other rural municipalities, consideration is being given to the provision of service on select
days, perhaps one or two days a week, in order to accommodate medical and shopping trips
for both physically disabled and on disabled residents.
It can be surmised that more work would be needed in the area of expanding access to public
transportation services and addressing the latent demand in more detail.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 28 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
6. TRANSIT FLEET STRATEGY
6.1 Existing Fleet
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent does not desire to own or maintain its CKTransit urban,
interurban or specialized transit fleets (Handi-Bus and Wallaceburg Accessible).
A summary of the fleets operated are provided as follows:
CKTransit local service operated by About Town:
Six 22-foot Ford diesel buses (4 in service + 2 spares)
19-seat capacity + wheelchair lift and one tie-down position
2004 model, needing to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012)
CKTransit interurban service operated by WindRide:
Three 1999 Champion buses in revenue service
One 2000 Ford F450 spare bus
20-seat capacity
Wheelchair lift + one tie-down position
Handi-Bus provided by About Town:
Three vehicles with 4 seats plus 4 wheelchair tie-down positions
One vehicle with 5 seats plus 3wheelchair positions
One spare vehicle (van) with 4 seats plus 1wheelchair tie-down positions
2004 model, needing to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012)
Wallaceburg Accessible operated by Cadillac Cab:
One 2005 Chevy Express owned by Cadillac Cab
One 2001 Dodge Van spare owned by Chatham-Kent
Each accommodates 3 wheelchair plus 3 seated passengers
Both vehicles will need to be replaced at the end of the contract (December 2012)
6.2 Alternative CKTransit Conventional Fleet
The capital cost in purchasing the transit fleet rolling stock (buses and vans) is reflected in
the transit operating agreements. It can be assumed that with ownership vested with the
operator, the preventative maintenance undertaken is designed to maximize the life of each
vehicle. Although the risk associated with ownership of the rolling stock is avoided, the cost
is reflected in the transit operating agreements. With municipal ownership, there would likely
be savings, particularly if external provincial or federal funding is provided.
For the purpose of this assignment, it will be assumed that the current fleet ownership policy
will not change, although it should be explored further.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 29 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
The current transit industry standard for conventional transit fleets is to have low floor buses
with wheelchair accessibility. This is a customer-focussed design that also benefits transit as
follows:
Wheelchair accessible without the need for a time consuming lift
Wheelchairs can be accommodated through a rear-facing wheelchair position (i.e. little or
no tie-down required)
Boarding times are reduced for all customers since there are no steps
Enables some Handi-Bus customers to use conventional transit without the need to
reserve ahead (i.e. dynamic trip making)
Reduced cost per passenger to the municipality for Handi-Bus customers
Easier access for parents with strollers and the ambulatory disabled
The following is a cost summary for each vehicle option that can be considered for the local
CKTransit urban service, the manufacturer‟s design life:
22‟ (6.7 metre) existing community bus with steps and wheelchair lift
o $90,000 capital cost per vehicle
o Life cycle of 5 years or more (equates to $18,000 per year over 5 years)
o Seating capacity of 15 - 20, with up to 10 standees (assumes 50% of seated
capacity)
30‟ (9.1 metre) low floor community bus
o $185,000 capital cost per vehicle
o Life cycle of 7 years or more (equates to $26,500 per year over 7 years)
o Seating capacity of 25 - 30, with up to 15 standees (assumes 50% of seated
capacity)
40‟ (12.2 metre) heavy duty transit vehicle
o $540,000
o Life cycle of 12 years or more (equates to $45,000 per year over 12 years)
o Seating capacity of 40 , with up to 20+ standees (assumes 50% of seated capacity)
The life cycle of all buses can be extended through rebuilds or by increasing the spare ratio
to reduce the average mileage travelled by buses.
A larger low floor local transit vehicle will better accommodate existing customers, meet the
needs of an aging community, attract some Handi-Bus customers, and accommodate a larger
bus load. Although the cost is double that of the current vehicles that will need to be
replaced, the design life is greater; this minimizes the financial impact.
Given the aforementioned, it is recommended that the Municipality of Chatham-Kent specify
as a minimum, the larger (i.e. 28-30‟) low floor bus be supplied by the successful bidder. In
doing so, the contract should be longer than the standard 5-year contracts in order to reduce
the risk for the successful bidder. Alternatively, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent could
purchase the vehicles.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 30 HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
7. NEXT STEPS
The CKTransit Service Review is a high-level document that provides specific
recommendations relative the transit route design concepts, a way to address the problem of
missed connections due to rail crossing delays, the integration of urban and rural transit
services, the need for larger low-floor community buses, and a new fare pricing policy and
complementary fare strategies,
As a next step, it is proposed that the recommendations of the report be discussed in their
entirety with the transit service providers for their input and then presented to the public at an
open house in Chatham.
There are other tasks that need to be addressed, namely:
The expansion of some service to the rural area and communities not currently being
served.
A review of the current public transportation business model and transit agreements in
place.
A review of AODA requirements and its impacts on transit related infrastructure and
transit services.
The recommendations of this report were not intended to increase transit services and as
such, if service expansion is to be considered, enhanced community input to obtain service
priorities could be obtained and incorporated.
Appendix A
Project Initiation and Documentation
Review
HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd. Suite 300
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (905) 882-4100
Fax: (905) 882-1557 www.hdrinc.com
www.itransconsulting.com
File: 2.0
Project # 6479
Memorandum -
To: Jan Metcalfe, Engineering Technologist, Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Cc: Gary Northcott, Director of Engineering and Transportation
Stephen Jahns, Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Jerry Corso, Engineering Technologist
From: Wally Beck, HDR | iTRANS
Date: March 22, 2011
Re: Transit Assignment #1
Project Initiation and Documentation Review
1. BACKGROUND
HDR | iTRANS met with the Municipality of Chatham-Kent staff on November 27, 2010 to
prioritize our assistance relative to various traffic, transportation and transit assignments.
On January 27, 2011 notice to proceed was given to undertake the following assignments:
Assignment 1: Project Initiation and Review of Documentation
Assignment 2: Bus Shelter and Bench Policy
Assignment 4: Route Operating Analysis
Assignment 5: Route and Service Redesign
Assignment 6: Transit Fare Integration
Assignment 7: Vehicle Assessments
The objective of this assignment is to provide a high level overview of the public
transportation services provided within the Community of Chatham and services that link
other communities within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent to Chatham
2. OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SERVICES
A review of the services provided was summarized based on consultations conducted with Chatham-Kent staff and the transit service providers.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 ii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.1 Local C-Ktransit Service
The local CKtransit system has four routes offering 30 minute all day service from 6:15am to
7:15pm on weekdays and Saturdays, excluding statutory holidays:
Route 1 Northwest
Route 2 Northeast
Route 3 Southeast
Route 4 Southwest
CKtransit operates a radial route network with all buses travelling in a one-way, clockwise
direction (i.e. loop service), meeting at the downtown terminal at half-hour intervals to
enable timed transfers.
A summary of the discussions and issues identified by C-K staff and About Town (service
provider) are provided as follows:
Route travel times are varied by time of day for each route
Route 1 serves the college while Route 2 serves Walmart; they are the longest and busiest
routes
Route 2 has the most difficulty in meeting scheduled times all day due to its length
Route 3 is the shortest route and requires the least travel time except in the late afternoon
when trains are passing through town. Route 3 must traverse railway crossings at 9
locations and as such, this has the following implications:
Route 3 is delayed by about 7-8 minutes, missing the timed transfer downtown
All other routes may need to wait if passengers are needing to transfer to their bus;
bus operators call ahead to let other operators know if customers need to transfer to
their bus
Although Route 3 has the most difficulty meeting scheduled times when trains pass
through Chatham, it has the easiest time catching up on the next run. The train delay
on Route 3 has the greatest impact on Route 1 and 2; since these runs are the longest
distance they have the hardest time making up for the added delay. This degrades
system reliability and customer service for the balance of the day.
Transit Signal Priority is provided to help buses meet schedules (an additional assignment
is underway to address this component)
There is no fare integration between the rural community bus service and C-K Transit;
passengers wishing to transfer between local and rural buses must pay the full fare for
each service
The adult cash fare for CKtransit is $2.00 while the rural community bus fare is $5.00,
regardless of distance travelled
There have been no service increases or fare increases in over 5 years
At 4:15pm, the inter-urban buses leave the terminal. If C-K buses are late, transfers
between C-K and inter-urban buses are not met
About Town owns, maintains and operates a fleet of seven (7) buses described as
follows:
19-passenger equipped with wheelchair lift
4 in-service, 2 regular spares, 1 emergency spare
The buses cost about $80,000 and have been in place since 2004; they will need to be
replaced
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Concern about the lack of coverage along Queens Line/ Richmond Street was identified
by About Town
About Town also owns, maintains and operates four Handi-bus paratransit vehicles that
accommodate four wheelchair positions
Handi-bus service is only provided within Chatham and Wallaceburg.
Diamond fareboxes are used, with revenues counted by C-K daily by route except on
Friday and Saturday, which are combined
The first trip of the day, at 6:15am, data indicates there are no more than 3 passengers on
any of the bus routes
About Town also operates Handi-Bus with two accessible vehicles
Handi-bus only operates within the community of Chatham and the Community of
Wallaceburg; service to residents is complemented by the availability of three wheelchair
accessible taxis
Accessible Service (Handi-bus) in Chatham is operated by Aboutown; the Accessible
Service (Handi-bus) in Wallaceburg is operated by Cadillac Cabs.
2.2 Inter-Urban CKtransit Service
A summary of the discussions and issues identified by C-K staff and Windride (service
provider) are provided as follows:
There are three year-round routes:
Route A: Wallaceburg and Dresden (2am and 2 pm trips)
Route C: Blenheim, Ridgetown and Charing Cross (2am and 2 pm trips)
Route D: Tilbury and Wheatley (2am and 2 pm trips)
There is one summer route, Route S1, that operates June through September, connecting
Mitchell Bay, Grande Point, Pain Court, Chatham, Blenheim, and Erieau (4 trips per day)
Two of the three routes (Tilbury route being the exception) are used well
Transit customers from outlying communities would like to be able to travel to
destinations within Chatham
Windride owns, maintains and operates three 20-seat compressed natural gas vehicles
(25-26‟) plus a smaller vehicle spare
NE county area has no service (e.g. Thamesville: population 1,000)
A recent delegation went to council requesting seasonal service between Rondeau and
Ridgetown be reconsidered
2.3 Observations and Preliminary Suggestions
Based on the input received a number of observations and preliminary suggestions were
discussed with Chatham-Kent and Aboutown with respect to the local CKtransit:
The one-way route design should be replaced with two-way service with consideration
given to a figure 8 two-way loop design (i.e. combining two routes to reduce the number
of transfers required)
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iv HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Route 2 could be reconfigured to reduce travel time while meeting acceptable, industry
standard walk distance thresholds (e.g. 90% of residences within 400 metre walk to bus
stop)
The high floor CKtransit buses should be replaced with larger, low-floor accessible buses
Although Route 3 has the shortest distance and travel time of all routes, it is affected
most by rail traffic. Missed Route 3 connections with buses for the late afternoon trip
(approximately 5pm) are a significant irritant that requires a unique solution since current
efforts are not working in a consistent manner.
The first trip in the morning is lightly loaded and could probably be accommodated by
taxis. The approximately 10 revenue hours saved per week could be used to extend
service by 30 minutes at the end of the day or used to provide a skeleton Sunday service
(2 buses 10am-3pm)
The $2.00 cash fare for adults is reasonable. CKtransit should consider a single time-
based transfer (e.g. 60 minutes) to allow passengers to stop over and board on the next
bus in the same direction or make the return trip at no additional cost.
CKtransit should consider the use of smart card technology, which is considered a
ridership growth strategy
The existing public timetables for all services could be standardized and developed into a
booklet form (this can be contracted out to private sector). Costs can be off-set through
selling of the advertising space or charging a nominal fee to customers (e.g. $0.50 or
$1.00)
Chatham-Kent should consider owning the fleet given external funding programs that
may return, thereby reducing the cost of contracted services since it will mitigate the
financial risk of the contractor.
An Excel based worksheet could be used to provide monthly performance statistics on
each route for planning purposes
Applying walk distance criteria to route design may help provide expanded coverage at
no additional cost
Based on the input received, a number of observations and preliminary suggestions were
discussed with Chatham-Kent and Windride staff with respect to the rural community
service:
Windride buses are not allowed to pick up or drop off customers within Chatham except
at the downtown terminal (e.g. a person cannot be allowed to get off at Walmart forcing
passengers to board the CKtransit Route 2 in the downtown, paying an additional fare
and travelling longer).
Bus fares for the rural communities are relatively inexpensive and, in many cases, costing
less than the fuel cost to operate a private automobile.
A fare by distance pricing strategy (e.g. two zones) may be reasonable for the rural
community service in addition to providing free transfers to CKtransit and allowing
Windride to use local bus stops.
There should be fare integration between the local and inter-urban bus routes.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 v HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.4 Next Steps
Given the findings and level of detail addressed during the project initiation, it is suggested
that the following three assignments be combined since the subject matter overlaps:
Assignment 4: Route Operating Analysis
Assignment 5: Route and Service Redesign
Assignment 6: Transit Fare Integration
Assignment 2 Bus Shelter and Bench Policy can be undertaken independently.
Appendix B
Bus Stop, Shelter and Bench Guideline
HDR | iTRANS 100 York Blvd. Suite 300
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Tel: (905) 882-4100
Fax: (905) 882-1557 www.hdrinc.com
www.itransconsulting.com
i
File: 2.0
Project # 6479
Memorandum
To: Gary Northcott, Director of Engineering and Transportation, Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Cc: Stephen Jahns, Manager, Infrastructure and Transportation Jan Metcalfe, Engineering Technologist
From: Wally Beck, HDR | iTRANS Conor Adami, HDR | iTRANS
Date: June 23, 2011
Re: Transit Assignment #2
Bus Shelter and Bench Guidelines
1. INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this assignment are:
1. Provide a “best practices” technical review that is intended to serve as a policy guide that
will aid the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (herein referred to as “Chatham-Kent”) in how
to manage, install and maintain existing and future bus stops associated with the transit
network.
2. Provide a high level overview of CKtransit‟s existing bus stop infrastructure including
aspects such as stop spacing, bus stop geometry and the provision of amenities such as
shelters, sign posts and benches.
It is intended that this document will be used by Chatham-Ken staff involved in
transportation and land use planning, transportation engineering, traffic operations and transit
operations within the municipality.
This document is organized in a manner that discusses each aspect of a “bus stop zone” (e.g.
spacing, positioning, components such as shelters and benches) one-by-one. This discussion
includes a brief description of the terminology, the options available and the associated
technical (physical and operational) requirements. These technical requirements have been
compiled on a review of best practices across the continent and summarized in a manner that
will allow for simple understanding and implementation. It should be noted that there is no
“set formula” when assessing the spacing, positioning or the amenity requirements for a bus
stop. It is a process that requires a “best fit” situational approach balancing the needs of the
passengers of CKTransit, traffic operations and any additional political considerations.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 ii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Where appropriate, each aspect of bus stop zones will be given in a local context specific to
Chatham-Kent. This includes describing existing conditions, compliance with this best
practices review and opportunities for improvement.
2. BUS STOP ZONE GUIDELINES
A “bus stop zone” – or, simply a “bus stop” – is the area designated exclusively for the
boarding and alighting of CKTransit customers. The definition of “bus stop zone” refers not
only to the actual point at which people board and alight, but also to the physical space
required for a bus to approach, align parallel to the curb and leave from a stopped position.
When buses are absent, other vehicles may treat this area as part of a travel lane but not as a
parking, standing or loading zone.
Bus stop guidelines will enable CKtransit to better serve passengers and function better in the
overall transportation system. Bus stop zones that are poorly integrated in the road network
reduce levels of service for all road users.
Transit accessibility improvements are undertaken to attract new riders, provide universal
accessibility to transit, and ultimately reduce dependency on the automobile. Full-
accessibility improvements include hard-surfaced (preferably concrete) pedestrian links to
sidewalks (bus stop pads), benches, shelters and, possibly, unique and highly visible bus stop
identification markers. Proposed legislation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA) will require all municipalities to meet bus stop design criteria
which allow all riders, regardless of mobility, access to transit services.
2.1 Location Factors
Typically, bus stop zones are located near intersections and any facilities that generate
significant transit trips. These facilities include malls and clinics, as well as others. This
practice seeks to minimize walk distance and potential traffic conflicts. Spacing of bus stops
should be based on a number of criteria, including safety considerations and to meet walk
distance guidelines from nearby developments to bus service.
The average distance between bus stops varies with land use, population density and
pedestrian access but is generally no less than 250 m in urban areas and 200 m in downtown
areas. Back-lotted arterial roads may dictate the need for longer spacing between bus stops.
Typical maximum stop spacing is roughly between 500 m and 600 m for a conventional bus
service, depending on the population or market segment it is intended to serve. Proper bus
stop spacing balances the needs of transit accessibility with transit operations and traffic
management.
Existing CKTransit practices support bus stops in Chatham-Kent have been placed in a
manner that ensures that a pedestrian located along the route has no more than a five minute
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
walk to a bus stop. In effect, this ensures that spaces are no more than 600 m apart, which is
within the recommended maximum stop spacing.
The location of a bus stop may be adjusted to minimize the impact on an adjacent residence
or business; however, safety, operation standards and accessiblity must take priority.
A variety of factors influence the feasibility of establishing a bus stop zone. In general, the
criteria set out in Attachment 1 can be used as a checklist guide to determine where bus stops
should be placed.
2.2 Guidelines for Positioning of Bus Stop Zones
Bus stop zone positions are defined by their relationship to intersecting streets. The three
possibilities are nearside, farside (in relation to the direction of travel), and midblock. The
most suitable position in any given case depends on many of the above-mentioned factors.
However, intersection geometry can constrain the placement of a bus stop to one type or
another. For example, near-side bus stops can interfere with the sight distance of approaching
traffic if a bus is present loading or unloading passengers. The advantages and disadvantages
of each position are described in Table 8.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iv
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Table 8: Comparison of Stop Positions
Advantages Disadvantages
Nearside
Facilitates transfers between routes
when combined with a farside bus
stop on an intersecting route
Less walk distance to/from some
destinations/origins
Transit customers served closer to the
intersection
Bus may stop for traffic signal &
passengers at the same time
Pedestrians may cross street in front of
a bus (dangerous if not signalized)
Stopped bus can obstruct visibility of
intersection and traffic controls
Farside
Least impact on intersection traffic
level of service
Pedestrians cross intersection behind
bus
Passengers encouraged to leave by
rear doors
Bus stop zone length minimized
Best accommodation of bus turning
movements
Buses get a re-entry gap in traffic flow
at signalized intersections
Limited space if more than one bus
uses it
Traffic approaching (straight or
turning onto) bus stop must wait
(possibly in intersection) or move
around bus
Midblock
Particular facilities served, if on-site
pedestrian corridor near bus stop
Convenient for passengers
Walk distance from intersecting streets
is increased
Bus manoeuvring is difficult if re-
entering traffic from a turn-out (bus
bay)
Greater linear curb space is needed,
taking away from street parking
availability
Street capacity reduced if no turn-out
provided
Encourages pedestrian crossings at
mid-block and may create warrant for
pedestrian cross-over
2.3 Bus Stop Zone Dimensions
A bus stop zone‟s length depends on its position. Nearside and midblock zones require the
greatest amount of curb space (35 linear metres). Farside zones need less (26 metres)
because the bus approaches in the curb lane then moves through the intersection without
having to manoeuvre past a parking lane. These dimensions are derived from current traffic
engineering practice and have been tested in several jurisdictions.
Exhibit 2 through Exhibit 4 shows typical stop placement applications.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 v
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.3.1 On-Street Bus Turn-out (Bus Bay)
From the viewpoint of transportation systems management, bus turn-outs privilege occupants
in automobiles at the expense of those in buses. In many cases, transit operators do not
recommend bus turn-outs because of the difficulty of re-entering the traffic stream. This
situation has been improved since the Province of Ontario followed Quebec‟s lead and
implemented the changes to the Highway Traffic Act, that give priority to buses signalling to
exit a bus turn-out. The traditional warrant for establishing a bus turn-out is as follows:
There is no parking in the curb lane.
Traffic volume is less than 500 vehicles per hour in the curb travel lane
during peak periods.
Bus frequency is at least 10 per hour and/or dwell times normally exceed
10 seconds (not the case in Chatham-Kent).
Posted speed limit of 60 km/h or greater.
Bus turn-outs may be used for layover points such as a route terminus. An example of a bus
turn-out, or bus bay, is shown in Exhibit 5.
2.3.2 Bus “Curb-Out”
In addition to the above-noted bus stop locations, another style is sometimes used. It typically
would be found in a downtown or “new urbanism” development where parallel or angled
parking is provided. The curb-out is a reverse bus bay – instead of an area whereby the bus
moves out of the travel lane, the curb projects out past parking areas and the bus stops in the
travel lane. Curb-outs are advantageous as:
Less parking area needs to be removed to allow the bus to have adequate space to serve
passengers.
the bus will not get trapped in a bay by heavy traffic congestion
Regular bays are often unavailable for buses due to automobiles and couriers using them
illegally for parking.
A curb-out style of stop is often promoted as a method of traffic calming. By using a curb-out
when a stop is needed, the roadway at the intersection can be narrowed in order to slow
movement and improve safety. An example of a bus “curb-out” stop arrangement is shown in
Exhibit 6.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vi
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2: Typical Nearside Stop Arrangement
Exhibit 8: Typical Farside Stop Arrangement
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 4: Typical Midblock Stop Arrangement
Exhibit 5: Typical Bus Turn-Out (Bus Pad)
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 viii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 6: Typical "Curb-Out" Bus Stop
Exhibit 12: Typical “Fully-Accessible” Bus Stop
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 ix
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.4 Bus Stop Components
Exhibit 12 illustrates elements that should be included in a fully-developed accessible bus
stop. The fixtures and furniture included at a stop will depend on the amount of use, the
space availability and traffic safety considerations. The addition of special features should be
done in a manner that does not interfere with passengers boarding, alighting, waiting, snow
clearing operations and visibility of passengers waiting at the stop (specifically, when an
advertising shelter is installed). They should enhance the stop, not clutter it.
Amenities such as shelters, benches, garbage containers, newspaper vending boxes and
landscaping must remain clear of the boarding and alighting areas.
2.4.1 Bus Stop Zone Identification and Related Traffic Signage
Bus stop zones are marked by a sign bearing the route number. This sign denotes the point of
boarding, which the operator will align the front doors of the bus.
As shown in Exhibit 12, the stop marker should be mounted so the bottom is between 2 and
3 metres (7 and 10 feet) from the ground. When mounted on a wide pole (such as a hydro
pole or light standard) it should be mounted on the side of the pole with a bracket so that it
visible from both directions along the street and pedestrians can easily see the closest bus
stop. Mounting should be away from the road whenever possible to avoid it being hit by a
bus or other vehicle‟s mirror.
Exhibit 13: Existing Bus Stop on Grand Avenue West
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 x
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Bus stops in Chatham-Kent are usually marked with signs that have their own posts or they
are attached to light standards or hydro poles depending on availability and approval from the
appropriate bodies. Exhibit 13 illustrates an existing bus stop in Chatham as found on Grand
Avenue West. Although the stop marker sign is posted on a light standard, it is placed at an
acceptable height from the sidewalk and it is far enough back from the roadway to avoid
being clipped by traffic. More importantly, the sign is positioned in a manner so that a
pedestrian approaching from either side can see the stop marker.
Where parking demand is heavy and there is the potential for parked vehicles to encroach on
the bus stop zone, supplementary bus stop zone NO PARKING signs may be installed to
mark the zone boundaries. Municipalities typically include provision in their traffic and
parking by-law prohibiting parking within 30 metres either side of a bus stop. By-law
enforcement of No Parking areas is generally provided by the area municipality.
2.4.2 Landing Pads
When there is no curb-face sidewalk, a concrete pad (“landing pad”) should ultimately be
built at all stops as they ensure safe and convenient waiting and alighting at stops. They also
facilitate snow clearing procedures and improve the aesthetics of bus stop zones. The pads
should be 9 m long to accommodate both the front and rear doors of a conventional 12.2
metre bus. Although CKTransit does not operate 12.2 m conventional transit vehicles,
provision should be made to all for future potential and to avoid the costly need to retrofit.
The boulevard width and the likelihood of a shelter being located at that stop will determine
the width of the pad. Exhibit 14 illustrates the basic configuration of the pad.
In the Community of Chatham, landing pads are only available for stops that have bus
shelters. This corresponds to only 28 of the 245 system wide bus stops possessing their own
sidewalk lead-ins. However, many stops are located along curb-face sidewalks, which serve
in and of themselves as the concrete landing pads.
The priority for adding new pads should be based on factors such as:
Safety (i.e. sightlines)
Activity at the stop
Accessibility and AODA
Condition of boulevard
If a curb is already in place
Road reconstruction schedule (make use of opportunities to tie in stop
improvements with other public works activities)
Permanence of routing (i.e. is route intended to remain as is for a reasonable
length of time
In the fullness of time, all stops should have concrete pads included in their design. The
factors above simply outline how to best allocate limited resources to the construction of
pads.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xi
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 14: Bus Stop Landing Pad
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2.4.3 Shelters
The location of transit shelters are determined on the basis of:
Boarding volumes (generally heavier on the inbound direction)
Adjacent land use (e.g. seniors‟ centres, institutional buildings, etc.)
Average wait times
Exposure of bus stop to inclement weather conditions
Whether or not a shelter can be accommodated physically
Political requests
All shelter installations must be approved by the appropriate authorities to ensure traffic
sightline issues are not created by the shelter. Where necessary, encroachment agreements
will need to be sought with adjacent landowners. This will occur when a shelter is warranted,
but there is insufficient room to safely place a shelter on the public right-of-way.
Unless there is a very wide boulevard, shelters should be placed behind the sidewalk as this
improves safety and visibility. Two openings in the shelter, when feasible, reduce entrapment
areas although it can reduce weather protection. Openings preferably face the sidewalk,
especially if the shelter is between the road and the sidewalk. This reduces road splash and
snow clearing problems.
Advertising shelters should be located in such a position as to avoid waiting passengers being
blocked from view of the bus operator by the ad panel.
Chatham-Kent has a total of 28 bus shelters. Half of which these shelters have advertising
panels as illustrated in Exhibit 15. Save and except for one, all of Chatham‟s shelters are
located within the municipal road allowance, which ensures that modifications or
maintenance procedures can occur without any impedance. All of Chatham-Kent‟s shelters
are behind the sidewalks with their openings facing the sidewalk to allow for efficient and
safe boarding. The bus shelter the openings must meet the minimum AODA requirements to
accommodate wheelchair mobility devices.
A bus shelter inventory, as provided by municipal staff, is located in Attachment 2.
2.4.4 Benches
Benches are a component which improves the environment for transit customers waiting for
a bus. Some shelters include benches inside them. At other stops, benches may be added
where there is a warrant for them. Often they will be used at stops that do not warrant a
shelter but do warrant extra services. Both benches and shelters may be installed at busy
stops, assuming there is adequate room and sightlines are not restricted. As much as
possible, benches should be placed so that the passenger will face or have a clear view in the
direction of the approaching bus.
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xiii
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 15: Typical Bus Shelter in Chatham-Kent
In order to maintain clear paths for pedestrian travel and adequate space for queuing, benches
should be placed as follows:
1. With the exception of benches placed in the border area (which is the area between
the sidewalk and the abutting property line – see point 2 below) benches should be
kept:
At least 1.5 metres from the border edge of the sidewalk or bus stop
pad
At least 1.5 metres from the curb edge of the sidewalk or bus stop pad
2.0 metres (plus or minus 0.25 metres) measured as a linear projection
along the length of the bus stop zone from the bus stop identification sign
2. Benches placed in the border area between the sidewalk and abutting property, or
benches placed in an area with no sidewalk, should be kept 1.5 metres from the curb
edge (or vehicular roadside where no curb exists) and 2.0 metres measured as a
linear projection along the length of the bus stop zone from the bus stop
identification sign.
3. Benches may be placed at an angle, in order to face traffic, only if the above-noted
conditions are met.
Chatham-Kent does not currently maintain any bench within its inventory of stops.
2.5 Bus Stop Planning Procedures
2.5.1 Existing Bus Stops
Bus stop zone changes occur in response to service improvements, land redevelopment,
traffic conflicts, public suggestions, and geometric design or traffic control problems
reported by bus operators. CKtransit staff should perform an initial review of requests or
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xiv
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
suggestions for any bus stop zone changes, followed by the necessary internal and municipal
approval process.
2.5.2 Future Bus Stops
It is also recommended that bus stops be identified on all subdivision lot plans where service
will be warranted to ensure future residents are aware ahead of time of potential bus stop
locations and can make a lot purchase decision accordingly. This should minimize future
complaints when bus stops are established.
2.6 Bus Stop Zone Inventory
A comprehensive database should be compiled to list all appropriate information about each
stop. With the advent of GPS-based technologies, CKtransit should consider a digitized
database that can provide all the necessary data about a bus zone, which would be inserted as
a layer in the Municipality‟s GIS database (e.g. latitude, longitude, etc.). It is possible that up
to 30 data fields may be needed as determined by CKtransit. It is also recommended that the
database consist of a link to digital photographs of the bus stop zone that could have up to
four pictures, as follows:
Approach to the bus stop from a bus operator‟s perspective
View from downstream towards the bus stop
The view from the bus stop zone to the area across the street
The view from across the street to the bus stop zone
The bus stop zone attributes, measurements and photos taken could be used for future
accidents investigations or they could eventually be viewed online by the transit customer to
determine whether or not the bus stop is accessible or whether or not the bus stop is linked
closely to nearby destinations. As changes occur to the bus stop, the database can be easily
updated.
2.7 Current State of Accessibility and the
Accesibility for Ontarians with Disbalities Act
(AODA)
Since low-floor wheelchair accessible buses were first introduced in Canada and North
America in 1994, more seniors and those requiring mobility aids were more often able to
travel by conventional bus. It is also recognized that, as the population ages, the need for
accessibility will become more pronounced. As the population ages and the transit fleet
becomes more accessible with the introduction of low floor buses, there is a need to ensure
that those with mobility problems can physically use conventional transit vehicles by being
able to access bus stops. A number of strategies are available.
They include:
Retrofitting, where practical, all existing bus stop areas for wheelchair accessibility
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xv
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Ensuring that all new bus stops are fully accessible
Conducting a bus stop accessibility audit in the CKtransit service area, which includes
photos of the bus stops so that they can eventually be linked to the audit database for use
on the customer website (i.e. bus stop inventory)
Expansion of bus stop accessibility audits to include the identification of accessibility
requirements beyond the bus stop area
The need to inform landowners of accessibility requirements within their site (e.g. from
bus stops to main building entrances)
That bus stop area retrofit priorities reflect a combination of bus stop customer demand
and safety rather than bus stop demand only
That the costs associated with improving accessibility infrastructure should be identified
in a line budget item(s) in order to quantify the Chatham-Kent‟s commitment to
accessibility
The bus stop retrofit program funding should reflect financial strategies that enable more
stops be retrofitted earlier rather than later (i.e. debenture financing rather than capital
from current)
Ensure snow clearing priority and enforcement is given to bus stops and
sidewalks/walkways leading to bus stops
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requirements relative to transit
accessibility will have to be met. By recognizing and addressing the issue early with respect
to the retrofit of new bus stops or the installation of new stops, CKtransit will have taken due
diligence by setting up and implementing a bus stop area retrofit program once the bus stop
inventory has been undertaken.
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, there are a number of different parameters and guidelines that need to be
incorporated when planning and constructing a bus stop. There are traffic, passenger
accessibility, transit vehicle operation and spatial components that must be considered. It is a
trade-off between these components in order to come up with the “best fit” for a particular
location or route. However there are underlying themes associated with this aspect of transit
service and they are summarized below:
With respect to stop spacing along the route, the planning agency must understand that
there is a trade-off between in vehicle travel time and access (walking) time for the
customer.
The decision on whether a stop is will be built as “near side,” “far side,” or “midblock”
stop is a function of adjacent land uses, meeting transit walk distance guidelines (i.e.
ensuring 90% residents are no more than 400 metres from a bus stop), intersection
geometry, and traffic flow conditions. Special attention should be paid to sight distances
for intersection approach volumes.
Bus turn-out pads (or bus bays) favour automobile traffic instead of transit vehicles since it
is difficult to re-enter the flow of traffic. However The Province of Ontario has amended
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xvi
HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
the Highway Traffic Act to enable municipalities to give transit vehicles the right of way
in order to merge to improve this situation.
Bus stop signage must be legible and visible for all pedestrians and vehicles. It should also
be positioned in a manner that will ensure that it will not get damaged by passing traffic.
No Parking signs may be required in bus stop zones to ensure that parked cars do not
block the movements of transit vehicles. The signs should be installed on an as needed
basis based on local observations and experience.
Landing pads should be constructed where a grass boulevard separates the roadway and
sidewalk. This will ensure that passengers will know where to wait and that their
boardings and alightings can occur safely.
Bus shelters and benches located at bus stops can greatly improve the customer‟s
experience, and in turn, their satisfaction with the transit service. However they must be
placed in a manner that does not interfere with pedestrian circulation.
The instalment of a bus shelter is based on many factors such as average waiting times, the
number of boardings and surrounding land uses
Accessibility requirements and the AODA‟s transit requirements foresee the usage of low
floor transit vehicles across the Province. An important aspect is that bus stops will need to
be retrofitted to ensure that the new vehicles will be able serve passengers in a safe
manner.
With respect to these conclusions, it is worthwhile and prudent to put forth some
recommendations or next steps for CKtransit to enact in the near future:
The existing policy of “No more than a 5 minute walk” to a bus stop demonstrates clearly
that CKtransit staff understands the industry standard principles. The existing policy
results in an average stop spacing of 600m, which should continue when more service is
planned.
CKtransit and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent should construct landing pads, where
necessary (i.e. where there is a grass boulevard, if there is space, etc.)
Utilizing this guideline document as a basis, customize a shelter and bench warrant
program (i.e. a checklist) for Chatham-Kent to deal with future requests for shelters and
benches at certain bus stops. Essentially the warrant program will serve as an approval
mechanism so that the municipality can record and track requests made and more
importantly, the decisions relating to them and the municipality‟s reasoning.
CKTransit should implement a bus stop inventory program. This will include a database
and photo(s) that tracks all of the features and components of each bus stop and their
conditions. The inventory will assist in whether or not certain bus stop candidates for any
accessibility-related retrofitting required.
Att. Attachment 1 Bus Stop Location Factor Checklist
Attachment 2 Bus Shelter Inventory
Attachment 1
Bus Stop Location Factor Checklist
FACTOR GUIDELINE CHECKED
Adjacent Land Use Preference is to place adjacent to major trip generators
Sidewalks Preference is where sidewalks exist
Walkways Improves service coverage
Pedestrian Crossings Controlled, supervised or assisted
Driveways Bus should not block driveways
Streetlights Should be adequate illumination at the stop
Transfers between routes Minimize road crossings for transferring
passengers
Route Configuration Consider bus turning movements
Suitability for a shelter Room available; minimize sightline
impacts
Traffic Control Hardware
& Utility poles
Should not block bus doors or visibility
Traffic Controls Signalized intersection
Stop Signs
Landscaping & other
street furniture
Planters & street trees should not block bus
doors
Roadway
alignment/geometry
Maximize sightlines for operators,
motorists and pedestrians
Intersections Minimize impact on sightlines; impact of
slip off lanes
Gradients
Avoid locating stops on upgrades or
downgrades when possible due to noise of
acceleration & slipping in winter
Street Parking All stops are No Parking zones (30 metres)
Traffic Volumes Which locations can minimize impact from
or on motorists
Attachment 2
Bus Shelter Inventory
ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS
Intersection SIDE Location
1. Grand Avenue East North East of Vanier Drive (at Flamingo Motel)
2. Grand Avenue West North At Ursuline College
3. Grand Avenue West East In front of Skate Park (beside Crabby Joe's)
4. Grand Avenue West North In front of Thames Lea Plaza (at Staples)
5. Grand Avenue West North In front of Thames Lea Plaza (at Zellers)
6. Grand Avenue West North West of Keil Drive (at Chatham Tower Apt Bldg)
7. Keil Drive South West Opposite Wheels Plaza (at Minacs)
8. McNaughton Avenue West North West of Galbraith Street (at McNaughton Ave Apts)
9. Park Avenue West South East of Bloomfield Road (at Parkfield/Community Living)
10. Richmond Street North Opposite YA Canada (at 715 Richmond)
11. Sandys Street West North of Grand Avenue West (at Access Fire & Safety)
12. St. Clair Street East North of Gregory Drive (at Apple Auto Glass)
13. St. Clair Street West North of Paxton Drive (at Clairvue Townhouses)
14. St. Clair Street West In front of Nortown Centre (at Shopper's Drug Mart)
NON-ADVERTISING BUS SHELTERS
Intersection SIDE Location
1. Centre Street East At Transfer Terminal
2. Centre Street East At Transfer Terminal
3. Emma Street South At Chatham-Kent Heatlh Alliance
4. Grand Avenue West North East of Campus Parkway (at Medical Bldg)
5. Grand Avenue West* North At Provincial Court Facility
6. McFarlane Avenue South West of Melrose Drive (at Linden Towers)
7. Park Avenue West South At 340 Park Avenue West (Housing Project)
8. Park Avenue East North At Sass Road (O.P.P. Station)
9. Pine Street East Corner of Elm Street
10. Pine Street East North of Eugenie Street (at Maple Court Apts)
11. Riverview Drive North At Orchard Heights Boulevard
12. Riverview Drive* North West of Merritt Drive (at Riverbend Apts)
13. William Street North West North of Stanley Street (at Cultural Centre)
14. Fergie Jenkins Parkway* East At College/Day Care
i
Appendix C
Detailed Analysis and Calculations
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
1. ROUTE LOAD PROFILES
This section will demonstrate the route passenger load profiles based on location. The
average passenger load for four periods, which are listed as below, is given along with a daily
average load. This data is based on CKTransit‟s November 2010 ridership survey.
Early morning: 6:15 AM to 9:15 AM,
Late morning: 9:15 AM to 12:15 PM
Early Afternoon: 12:15 PM to 3:15 PM
Late Afternoon/Early Evening: 3:15 PM to 7:15 PM
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-1: Route 1 Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 iv HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-2: Route 2: Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 v HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-3: Route 3 Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vi HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 1-4: Route 4 Passenger Load Profile
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 vii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
2. ROUTE TRAVEL TIME AND SPEED
PROFILES
This section will demonstrate the route travel time and speed profiles based on the time of
day. This data is based on CKTransit‟s November 2010 ridership survey.
Exhibit 2-1: Route 1 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-2: Route 2 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 viii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2-3: Route 2 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-4: Route 2 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 ix HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2-5: Route 3 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-6: Route 3 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 x HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Exhibit 2-7: Route 4 Average Speed Analysis
Exhibit 2-8: Route 4 Travel Time Analysis
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xi HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
3. FARE INCREASE SENSITIVITY
CALCULATIONS
This section presents the calculations performed in order to calculate the annualized revenues
for the proposed fare increases and other associated fare structure changes presented in
Section 4.3.3.3. For each fare increase, a low range and high range is given. The low range
calculations are based on the Simpson-Curtin Fare Elasticity formula, while the high range
assumes no decrease in ridership. These calculations are presented below in Table
Table 3-1: Annualized Revenues for $0.25 Fare Increase: Low Range (Simpson-Curtin
Formula)
Category Fare
Media
% Fare
Increase
%
Ridership
Increase /
Decrease
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
%
Adult Cash 12.5% -3.8% 76,172 $171,387 38.8% 8.3%
Multi-
Pass 15.7% -4.7% 73,864 $135,976 30.8% 10.3%
Senior Cash 28.6% -8.6% 8,896 $20,017 4.5% 17.6%
Multi-
Pass 27.8% -8.3% 24,677 $38,698 8.8% 17.1%
H.S.
Student
Cash 28.6% -8.6% 10,379 $23,353 5.3% 17.6%
Multi-
Pass 27.8% -8.3% 19,623 $30,772 7.0% 17.1%
Elementary
Student
Cash 28.6% -8.6% 3,855 $ 8,674 2.0% 17.6%
Multi-
Pass 27.8% -8.3% 4,162 6,527 1.5% 17.1%
St. Clair
College Pass 0.0% 0.0% 7,136 $6,422 1.5% 0.0%
Child Cash -100.0% 30.0% 17,709 $ 0.0% -100.0%
Total 246,473 $441,826 100.0% 6.5%
Ticket sales are included as Multi-Pass fares for this exercise
Table 3-2: Annualized Revenues for $0.25 Fare Increase: High Range
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing %
Adult Cash 79,140 $178,065 38.1% 12.5%
Multi-Pass 77,518 $142,704 30.6% 15.7%
Senior Cash 9,730 $21,893 4.7% 28.6%
Multi-Pass 26,921 $42,216 9.0% 27.8%
H.S. Student Cash 11,352 $25,542 5.5% 28.6%
Multi-Pass 21,407 $33,570 7.2% 27.8%
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing %
Elementary Student Cash 4,216 $9,487 2.0% 28.6%
Multi-Pass 4,541 $7,121 1.5% 27.8%
St. Clair College Pass 7,136 $6,422 1.4% 0.0%
Child Cash 13,622 - 0.0% -100.0%
Total 255,583 $467,019 100.0% 12.6%
Table 3-3: Annualized Revenues for $0.50 Fare Increase: Low Range (Simpson-Curtin
Formula)
Category Fare
Media
% Fare
Increase
%
Ridership
Increase /
Decrease
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
%
Adult Cash 11.1% -3.3% 73,633 $184,082 38.8% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 71,423 $146,092 30.8% 7.4%
Senior Cash 11.1% -3.3% 8,600 $21,499 4.5% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 23,862 $41,541 8.8% 7.3%
H.S.
Student
Cash 11.1% -3.3% 10,033 $25,083 5.3% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 18,974 $33,033 7.0% 7.3%
Elementary
Student
Cash 11.1% -3.3% 3,727 $9,316 2.0% 7.4%
Multi-
Pass 11.0% -3.3% 4,025 $7,007 1.5% 7.3%
St. Clair
College Pass 0.0% -3.3% 7,136 $6,422 1.5% 0.0%
Child Cash 0.0% 0.0% 23,022 - 0.0% 0.0%
Total 244,434 $474,076 100.0% 7.3%
Ticket sales are included as Multi-Pass fares for this exercise
Table 3-4: Annualized Revenues for $0.50 Fare Increase: High Range
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing%
Adult Cash 79,140 $197,849 38.2% 25.0%
Multi-Pass 77,518 $158,560 30.6% 28.6%
Senior Cash 9,730 $24,326 4.7% 42.9%
Multi-Pass 26,921 $46,866 9.0% 41.9%
H.S. Student Cash 11,352 $ 28,380 5.5% 42.9%
Multi-Pass 21,407 $37,267 7.2% 41.9%
Elementary Student Cash 4,216 $ 10,541 2.0% 42.9%
Municipality of Chatham-Kent CKTransit Service Review
July 2011 xiii HDR | iTRANS Project # 6479
Category Fare Media
Annual
Revenue
Passengers
Annual
Revenue
Generated
% of
Annual
Revenues
Increased
Revenue
from
Existing%
Multi-Pass 4,541 $7,905 1.5% 41.9%
St. Clair College Pass 7,136 $ 6,422 1.2% 0.0%
Child Cash 13,622 - 0.0% -100.0%
Total 255,583 $518,116 100.0% 100.0%
PARK AV E
PARK AV W
ST CLAIR ST
GRAND AV E
BALDOO
N RD
GRAND AV W
RICHMOND S
T
LACROIX ST
QUEEN ST
KEIL DR S
COLBORNE ST
GREGORY DR W
VICTORIA AV
KING S
T W
MCNAUGHTON AV E
INDIA
N CREEK R
D E
PARK ST MCNAUGHTON AV W
BLOO
MFIELD RD
RIVERVIEW DR
OXLEY DR
GIVEN RD
INDIA
N CREEK R
D W
BEAR LINE RD
SANDYS ST
PIONEER LI
NE
ENGLISH LI
NE
MERRITT AV
CREEK RD
KEIL DR N
RIV
ER
LIN
E
CHARING CRO
SS RD
TWEEDSMUIR
AV W
EASTLAWN RD
COM
MUNICATIO
N RD
QUEENS LINE
KING ST E
HARVEY ST
FOREST ST
CECILE A
V
WO
ODS ST
CREEK RD
TAYLOR AV
MERCER ST LORNE A
V
INSHES AV
SELKIRK S
T
GREGORY DR E
MICHENER RD
JOHN ST
HOW
ARD RD
ELIZABETH ST
RALEIGH ST
DELAWARE AV
MAPLE LEAF DR
GLENW
OO
D DR
SASS RD
JOSEPH ST
WILLIA
M S
T S
SEVENTH LINE E
IRWIN ST
ELLIS S
T
MURRAY ST
FAUBERT DR
LARK S
T
ONEIL ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
PARK LANE
WELLINGTON ST E
RIVER VIEW LINE
TWEEDSMUIR
AV E
SHELDON AV
CHURCHILL ST
COVERDALE ST
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
ST
W
PAXTON DR
GLENMAR AV
BYNG AV
SYLVESTER A
V
WILLIA
M S
T NBALMORAL R
D
VALLEY R
D
JASPER A
V
TISSIM
AN AV
GARNET DR
CANTERBURY ST
JOPLYN ST
PRINCE ALBERT RD
ALLEN ST
CAMPUS PKW
Y
VANIER DR
PARRY DR
BRIAR HILL RD
EUGENIE S
T
OBRIEN D
R
WILL
OWMAC A
V
FIF
TH
ST
SEMENYN AV
PETER ST
HOLLAND A
V
TAYLOR TRAIL
BEDFORD ST
STAN
LEY
AV
MCFARLANE A
V
STEWART ST
MARY ST
LOW
E ST
NORTHLAND DR
CURRIE ST K
EN
T S
T
DEVON RD
VISCOUNT R
D
CRERAR DR
HICKEY DR
FINCH AV
LYNNWO
OD AV
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
SB
AX
TE
R S
T
WYANDOTT ST
BRIARDENE ST
LONDON DR
DE
GG
E S
T
PIT
T S
T
DAHLIA D
R EMMA ST
TECUMSEH RD
PHILLIP S
T
SIEMENS DR
LEESON DR
IVAN ST
Disclaimer: The Municipality of Chatham-Kent takes every precaution to put up-to-date and correct information on all maps published by the Centre for GIS. However, it does not expressly warranty that the information contained in the map is accurate on the date of publication. All users may use this information at their own risk. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent will not entertain any claims arising out of the use of this map or information.This map was produced by the Centre for GIS. If you have any questions or comments regarding the information displayed on this map, or you require more information please contact us at: [email protected]
Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Kilometers
LegendROAD NETWORKBUS TERMINALROUTE 1 (NORTHWEST)ROUTE 2 (NORTHEAST)ROUTE 3 (SOUTHEAST)ROUTE 4 (SOUTHWEST)
POINTS OF INTERESTCALL CENTRE
CHATHAM KENT HEALTH ALLIANCE
CHATHAM KENT SECONDARY SCHOOL
CIVIC CENTRE
COMMUNITY LIVING
COURT HOUSE/SOCIAL SERVICES
JOHN McGREGOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
LIBRARY
MAPLE CITY CENTRE FOR OLDER ADULTS
NORTH MAPLE MALL
NORTOWN PLAZA
ST CLAIR COLLEGE
THAMESLEA PLAZA
THAMESVIEW LODGE
URSULINE COLLEGE - THE PINES
VICTORIA RESIDENCE
SERVICE HOURS:6:15 am to 7:15 pm
FREQUENCY:
MON-SAT EVERY 30 MIN
INQUIRIES: 436-3233
Fares - effective January 1, 2006:Cash Adult $2.00Cash Senior $1.75Cash Student $1.75Child $1.00
Multi-Pass Adult $35.00Multi-Pass Senior $27.00Multi-Pass Student $27.00
St. Clair College Students $120.00 per semester.
GRAND AV W
BALDOON RD
KING S
T W
ST CLAIR ST
LACROIX ST
MCNAUGHTON AV W
VICTORIA AV
OXLEY D
R
RIVERVIEW DR
SANDYS ST
RICHMOND S
T
GRAND AV E
KEIL DR N
GREGORY DR W
MERRITT AV
QUEEN ST
PARK AV W
HARVEY ST
FOREST ST
WOODS ST
LORNE A
V INSHES AV
TAYLOR AV
SELKIRK S
T
ELIZABETH ST
RALEIGH ST
DELAWARE AV
JOSEPH ST
WILLIA
M S
T S
GRAY ST
BEAR LINE RD
LARK S
T
KEIL DR S
TH
AM
ES
ST
SHELDON AV
CHURCHILL ST
COVERDALE ST
EDGAR ST
WELLINGTON ST W
POPLAR S
T
PHYLLIS AV
GLENWO
OD DR
STANLEY AV BYNG
AV
WILLIA
M S
T N
BALMORAL RD
CANTERBURY ST
UN
NA
ME
D 1
2 R
D
ALLEY
FLORENCE ST
PARRY DR
WILT
SHIRE D
R
URSULINE AV
CRYSTAL DR
DOVER ST
FIFT
H S
T
SEMENYN AV
KEIL TRAIL
ARNOLD ST
MCG
UIGAN AV
KERR AV
BEDFORD ST
KING ST E
MURRAY ST
CENTRE ST
MCFARLANE A
V
STEWART ST
ORANG
EWO
OD BLVD
MARY ST
SPENCER AV
CURRIE ST
DEVON RD
BARTHE ST
LLYDICAN AV
GARDEN PATH
CRAVEN DR
DAHLIA D
R
ALPINE A
V
WATER ST
TH
IRD
ST
UNIVERSITY DR
EMMA ST
PHILLIP
ST
ALDEN ST
LEESON DR
UN
NA
ME
D 1
4 R
D
PATTESON AV
ORDON BLV
D
SUDBURY DR
SMITHFIELD CIRCLE
FIRST ST
PRIMROSE LA
NE
FOU
RTH
ST
JOANNE ST
OTTAWA D
R
PHEASANT DR
GALBRAITH ST
WIN
DFIELD
CRES
FAIRCOURT AV
IRIS
COURT
JAMES ST
OAK ST
PATTESON AV
EMM
A ST
LLYDICAN AV
Terminal (northwest side) >Wellington > Fifth > Thames >Victoria > Barthe > Grand (Pines,Courthouse, TVL & Thames Lea Plaza) > St. Clair College > McNaughton > Baldoon > Oxley > Timmins > McFarlane > St. Clair > McNaughton > Sheldon >Poplar > Sandys > Grand (Hospital) >Third > Wellington > Centre > Terminal.
ST CLAIR ST
GRAND AV E
VICTORIA AV
BALDOON RD
MCNAUGHTON AV E
PARK ST
GREGORY DR W
GRAND AV W
OXLEY D
R
MCNAUGHTON AV W
GIVEN RD
SANDYS ST K
ING
ST
W
COLBORNE ST
PARK AV E
GREGORY DR E
KING ST E
PIONEER LIN
E
FOREST ST
WOODS ST
TAYLOR AV
LARK S
T
SELKIRK S
T
MICHENER RD
ELIZABETH ST
DELAWARE AV
GLENWO
OD DR
JOSEPH ST
QUEEN ST ELLIS
ST
MURRAY ST
HARVEY ST
LACROIX ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
WELLINGTON ST E
SHELDON AV
CHURCHILL ST
COVERDALE ST
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
ST
W
POPLAR S
T
PAXTON DR
WILLIA
M S
T S
WILLIA
M S
T N
BALMORAL RD
VALLEY R
D
PARK LANE
CANTERBURY ST
VANIER DR
FLORENCE ST
PARRY DR
WILT
SHIRE D
R
CROSS ST
SASS RD
DOVER ST
FIF
TH
ST
SEMENYN AV
KEIL TRAIL
ARNOLD ST
MARYKNOLL RD
TAYLOR TRAIL
BEDFORD ST
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
N
CENTRE ST
STAN
LEY
AV
MCFARLANE A
V
STEWART ST
DU
KE
ST
MARY ST
LOW
E ST
NORTHLAND DR
DEVON RD
BARTHE ST
CRERAR DR
DUNKIRK D
R
AD
ELA
IDE
ST
S
GARDEN PATH
BA
XT
ER
ST
BRIARDENE ST
CROYDON ST
LANCEFIE
LD P
LACE
LONDON DR
CRAVEN DR
ALPINE A
V HENRY O W
AY
EMM
A ST
LAWSON DR
STONE AV
ROSEDALE DR
IVAN ST
SUDBURY DR
SE
VE
NT
H S
T
FOU
RTH
ST
MAPLE S
T
WEBB ST
DU
KE
ST
Terminal (northeast side) > Wellington >Fifth > King > Third > St. Clair > North Maple Mall > St. Clair > Jackson > Victoria >McNaughton > Delaware (CKSS) > Forest >Taylor > McNaughton (CKSS) > Michener >Grand > Thames > Fifth > Centre > Terminal.
PARK AV E
PARK AV W
KEIL DR S
LACROIX ST
QUEEN ST
KING S
T W
RICHMOND S
T
ENGLISH LI
NE
INDIA
N CREEK R
D E
PARK ST
CO
LBO
RN
E ST
GRAND AV E
CREEK RD
ST CLAIR ST
GRAND AV W
MERRITT AV
CREEK RD
TWEEDSMUIR
AV W
SANDYS ST
VICTORIA AV
INDIA
N CREEK R
D W
EASTLAWN RD
KING ST E
HARVEY ST
FOREST ST
CECILE A
V
WOODS ST
CHARING CROSS RD
MERCER ST
FAIRVIE
W L
INE
LORNE A
V INSHES AV
SELKIRK S
T
JOHN ST
ELIZABETH ST
RALEIGH ST
MAPLE LEAF DR
SASS RD
JOSEPH ST
WILLIA
M S
T S
GRAY ST
MURRAY ST
FAUBERT DR
ONEIL ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
PARK LANE
WELLINGTON ST E
TWEEDSMUIR
AV E
SHELDON AV
CHURCHILL ST
PINE ST
EDGAR ST
POPLAR S
T
GLENMAR A
V OXLE
Y DR
MCNAUGHTON AV W
BYNG AV
SYLVESTER AV
BERRY ST W
ILLIAM
ST N
TAYLOR AV
JASPER A
V
TISSIM
AN AV
DELAWARE AV
CANTERBURY ST
JOPLYN ST
ALLEY
TRAVELLED R
D
ALLEN ST
HOWARD RD
CHIPPEW
A DR
BRIAR HILL RD
EUGENIE S
T
SUNNYSIDE A
V
CROSS ST
ALEXANDRA AV
OBRIEN D
R
WILL
OWMAC A
V
FIFT
H S
T
SEMENYN AV
UNNAMED 11 RD
PETER ST
HOLLAND A
V
KERR AV
CENTRE ST
WEDGEW
OOD AV
STAN
LEY
AV
MCFARLANE A
V
MARIO
N AV
MARY ST
LOW
E ST
CURRIE ST K
EN
T S
T
DEVON RD
LLYDICAN AV
HICKEY DR
LYNNWOO
D AV
HOUSTON ST A
DE
LAID
E S
T S
BA
XT
ER
ST
CROYDON ST
GR
AN
T S
T
DE
GG
E S
T
WATER ST
TH
IRD
ST
EMMA ST
TECUMSEH RD
PHILLIP
ST
WILKINSO
N ST
SIEMENS DR
LEESON DR
HILLCREST AV
STONE AV
ROSEDALE DR
IVAN ST
FIRST ST
UNNAMED 7 RD
UNNAMED 8 RD
EARL DR
EMM
A ST
Terminal (southeast side) > Centre >Harvey > Wellington > William(Cinema 6, Victoria Park, Cultural Centre) > Stanley (Victoria Residence) > Prince >Murray >Princess > Colborne (Wish Centre) >Sass (P.A.B.C. & Call centre) > Park Ave. >Park Lane > Tweedsmuir > John > Tissiman > Queen > Cecile > Lacroix > Indian Creek (John McGregor) > St. Michael > Sylvester >Tweedsmuir > Foreman > Pine > Park Ave. > St. George > Park St. > William > Wellington >Terminal.
PARK A
V W
KEIL
DR S
GRAND A
V W
RIC
HM
ON
D S
T
LACRO
IX S
T
QUEEN S
T
KIN
G S
T W
BLO
OM
FIE
LD R
D
PARK ST
RIVERVIE
W D
R
INDIA
N C
REEK R
D W
MERRIT
T A
V
TW
EEDSM
UIR
AV W
KEIL
DR N
QUEENS L
INE
PARK A
V E
MCNAUG
HTO
N A
V W
BEAR L
INE R
D
KING ST E
HARVEY S
T
BALDO
ON R
D
HO
WARD R
D
CECIL
E A
V
LO
RN
E A
V IN
SHES A
V
COLBORNE ST
RALEIG
H S
T
WO
ODS S
T
WIL
LIA
M S
T S
IRW
IN S
T
GRAY S
T
MURRAY ST
SAND
YS S
T
FAUBERT D
R
LARK S
T
ONEIL
ST
WELLINGTON ST E
CHURCHIL
L S
T
PIN
E S
T
BRISTOL D
R
ED
GAR S
T
WELLINGTON ST W
GRANDE RIV
ER LIN
E
MERCER S
T
BYNG
AV
SYLVESTER A
V
BERR
Y S
T
GARNET D
R
BALM
OR
AL R
D
HIT
CHCO
CK R
D
MCG
UIG
AN A
V
CANTERBURY S
T
ALLEY
TRAVELLED R
D
CAM
PUS P
KW
Y
MAN
NIN
G D
R
WIL
LIA
M S
T N
WIL
CO
X S
T
RIVER V
IEW
LIN
E
EU
GENIE
ST
TW
EED
SM
UIR
AV E
CRO
SS S
T
DOVER ST
FIF
TH
ST
SEM
ENYN A
V
BO
THW
ELL S
T
KEIL
TRAIL
UNNAM
ED 1
1 R
D
PETER S
T
HO
LLAND A
V
CENTRE S
T
WEDGEW
OOD A
V
DU
KE
ST
MARIO
N A
V
MARY S
T
SPENCER A
V
CURRIE
ST
DEVO
N R
D
BARTHE ST
HO
USTO
N S
T
AD
EL
AID
E S
T S
GARDEN P
ATH
BA
XT
ER
ST
W
YAND
OTT S
T
CRAVEN
DR
DUNN A
V
UNIV
ERSIT
Y D
R
EM
MA S
T
SO
URIQ
UO
IS S
T
TECUMSEH RD
NATIO
NAL R
D
HY
SL
OP
ST
PH
ILLIP
ST
LEESO
N D
R
FIRST ST
UNNAM
ED 7
RD
UNNAM
ED 8
RD
EARL D
R
TRAVELLED R
D
Terminal (southwest side) > Centre >
Wellington > King (St. Joe�s) >
Merritt (Maple City Centre) > Riverview
(Community Living, Bingo) > Heritage >
Keil > Richmond (call centre) > Bloomfield >
Park Ave. (Community Living) >
Lacroix (call centre) > Richmond >
Queen (Library) > School > Centre >
Wellington > Terminal.
Farmington Estates
O’BrienSubdivision
WilsonwoodSubdivision
LynnwoodSubdivision
Estates
RiversideMobile Home
Park
St. Clair
TO AND FROMWALLACEBURG
HS
H
COMMUNITY OF CHATHAM
T
HS
BUS TERMINAL
HIGH SCHOOL
H HOSPITAL
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT ROUTE (AND DIRECTION)
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP
ROAD NETWORK
T
Municipality of Chatham-Kent General Disclaimer: The Municipality of Chatham-Kent makes no representation what so ever about the suitability or accuracy of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this document for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. The documents and related graphics published on this document may include inaccuracies and/or errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. The Municipality of Chatham-Kent may make updates and/or changes in the information described herein at any time.
Adults $5.00Seniors $4.50Students (with valid ID) $4.50Children (5yrs & under) $2.50
All fares as "per ride". No transfers will be issued foruse on other CK Transit services.
Fares − effective October 1, 2007:
Please note that riders will be required to presentexact change!
INQUIRIES: 519.354.7433
ROUTE SCHEDULE: A
CK Inter−Urban Route
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP (DEPARTURE TIME SPECIFIED)REFER TO ROUTE SCHEDULE
MORNING BUSESChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham Terminal End
6:15 AM8:35 AM8:45 AM
11:05 AM11:15 AM
AFTERNOON BUSESChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham TerminalChatham HospitalChatham Terminal End
4:15 PM6:35 PM6:45 PM9:05 PM9:15 PM
FREQUENCY: Monday Through Saturday
NOTE: Buses will not depart from the above stoplocations before the times as noted.
Inter−Urban Transit Stop Daparture Times
TO AND FROMCHATHAM
TO AND FROMDRESDEN
TO AND FROMWALLACEBURG
HS
ES
SC
A
CO
L
HIGH SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SERVICE CENTRE
CASINO
ARENA
LIBRARY
RT RACE TRACKP PARK
HS
CC
SC
A
C
H
M
HS
ES
SC
A
CO
L
RT
P
CC
C
H
CALL CENTRE
COLLEGE
HOSPITAL
M MALL
COMMUNITY OF WALLACEBURG
COMMUNITY OF DRESDENINTER−URBAN TRANSIT ROUTE (AND DIRECTION)
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP
CK Inter−Urban Route
ROAD NETWORK
Riders are encouraged to consult the Revenue Canadawebsite for information regarding available tax credits forpublic transportation riders (www.fin.gc.ca).
Ridership Tip !
NOTE: Buses will not depart from the above stoplocations before the times as noted.
ROUTE SCHEDULE: A
INTER−URBAN TRANSIT STOP (DEPARTURE TIME SPECIFIED)REFER TO ROUTE SCHEDULE
MORNING BUSES
Inter−Urban Transit Stop Departure Times
INQUIRIES: 519.354.7433
FREQUENCY: Monday Through Saturday
6:15
AM
4:15
PM
6:45
PM
8:45
AM
6:45 AM7:00 AM7:30 AM7:50 AM8:05 AM8:45 AM9:15 AM9:30 AM
10:00 AM10:20 AM10:35 AM11:15 AM
County Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham TerminalCounty Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham Terminal
AFTERNOON BUSES
4:45 PM5:00 PM5:30 PM5:50 PM6:05 PM6:45 PM7:15 PM7:30 PM8:00 PM8:20 PM8:35 PM9:15 PM
County Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham TerminalCounty Fair MallWallaceburg HospitalDresden ArenaWallaceburg HospitalCounty Fair MallChatham Terminal