Public Transit Policy Plan Regional Forum Upper Valley Region: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
public transit policy plan
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Public Transit Policy Plan Regional Forum Upper Valley Region: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 19, 2023 408 likes •922 views

Public Transit Policy Plan Regional Forum Upper Valley Region: Orange County and Northern Windsor County October 30, 2018 Agenda Goals of the PTPP Tasks Public outreach Discussion of regional issues Existing services and gaps

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Public Transit Policy Plan

Regional Forum

Upper Valley Region: Orange County and Northern Windsor County

October 30, 2018

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Agenda

¤ Goals of the PTPP ¤ Tasks ¤ Public outreach ¤ Discussion of regional issues

¤ Existing services and gaps ¤ Potential solutions

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Goals of the Project

¤ Develop a 10-year vision for improved transit in Vermont ¤ Update state policies for public transportation ¤ Incorporate human service transportation coordination plan into the PTPP ¤ Identify components of an enhanced statewide transit system in Vermont

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Tasks

¤ Existing Conditions Assessment ¤ Needs Assessment ¤ Recommendations and Implementation ¤ Final Report ¤ Meetings and Outreach

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Recommendations & Implementation

¤ Revise policies, goals, and objectives ¤ Enhance/update performance measurement system ¤ Implementation plan

¤ Statewide initiatives, including strategies for human service transportation

¤ Monitoring plan

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Public Outreach

¤ Regional forums ¤ Stakeholder interviews ¤ Online participation

¤ Project website (https://vtrans.vermont.gov/planning/PTPP) ¤ Web-based survey

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Current Transportation Services

¤ Stagecoach Transportation Services (part of Tri-Valley Transit)

¤ Local Shuttles ¤ Randolph Area Circulator ¤ Bradford Area Circulator ¤ Commuter Routes ¤ 89er North ¤ 89er South ¤ River Route ¤ Shoppers/Part-time Routes ¤ Serving Randolph, Royalton, Chelsea, Hancock, Woodstock, Rochester

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Current Transportation Services

¤ Stagecoach Demand Response

¤ E&D and Medicaid service

¤ Advance Transit – connections to Hanover/Lebanon

¤ Green Route – Wilder ¤ Orange Route – White River Junction ¤ Brown Route – Norwich ¤ ADA paratransit

¤ The Current

¤ Commuter express routes from I-91 corridor to Hanover/Lebanon and White River Junction

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Additional Services

¤ Other Human Service

¤ Volunteers in Action ¤ Thompson Senior Center ¤ VA Medical Center ¤ VT Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired

¤ Intercity

¤ Vermont Translines from Rutland ¤ Greyhound stop in White River Junction ¤ Amtrak stops in Randolph and WRJ

¤ Numerous taxis ¤ Other providers in New Hampshire

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Click to edit Master title style

Existing Transit

c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 c 5 − − − − − − − − c − − − c − − − − − c − − − c − − − − − − c H c H c H c H c H c W c + Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Proctor Rutland Salisbury Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Cavendish Hartland Ludlow Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge Weathersfield West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Brandon Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Ira Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Bristol Huntington Leicester Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Ryegate Barre Moretown Berlin Plainfield Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth West Rutland Granville Hancock Middlebury Ripton Starksboro Lincoln Groton Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

c + Veterans Affairs Center c W Social Security Office c H Hospital c − Higher Education c 5 Retail Center Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Urban Areas

Existing Transit Services

The Current Stagecoach Advance Transit Rural Community Transp. ACTR Vermont Translines Green Mtn. Transit c 5 − − − − − − c +

a b

5

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

5

a b

4

New Hampshire

Hartford Norwich

Hartford & Norwich

v Stagecoach

  • Local shuttles
  • Commuter routes
  • Shopping shuttles

v Advance Transit

  • Line routes
  • Shuttles in

Hanover/Lebanon

v The Current

  • Commuter routes

v Intercity at WRJ

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Employment and Retail

¤ Major employers or office/industrial parks

¤ Hanover/Lebanon (Dartmouth/DHMC/Hypertherm etc.) ¤ Randolph ¤ Hartford (WRJ, Wilder, Quechee)

¤ Large retail areas/supermarkets

¤ Norwich ¤ Hartford ¤ Woodstock

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Medical and Human Services

¤ Medical facilities

¤ VA Medical Center (WRJ) ¤ Gifford Hospital (Randolph) ¤ Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (Lebanon) ¤ Ottauquechee Health Center (Woodstock)

¤ Human Service Agencies

¤ White River Junction (Bugbee Senior Center, Listen Center) ¤ Woodstock (Thompson Senior Center) ¤ Randolph (Clara Martin Center)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Demographics: Overview

¤ Total population: 55,299 (8.8% of VT population) ¤ Population Density: 43 persons per square mile (68) ¤ 28% of population 60+ (24%) ¤ 3.9% of population 80+ (4.3%) ¤ 10.2% of people below the poverty line (11.6%)

¤ Third lowest percentage among 11 regions

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Click to edit Master title style

Population Density

Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Pittsford Proctor Rutland Salisbury Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Cavendish Hartland Ludlow Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge Weathersfield West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Brandon Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Ira Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Bristol Huntington Leicester Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Ryegate Barre Moretown Berlin Plainfield Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth West Rutland Granville Hancock Middlebury Ripton Starksboro Lincoln Groton Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

Residents per Sq Mi

< 100 100 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 - 4,999 5,000 + Regional Planning Commission Boundary Block Group Transit Routes

v Moderate-high density in Wilder/WRJ and Rochester v Moderate-low density in Randolph, Hartford v Rural density in the rest

  • f the region
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Click to edit Master title style

Employment

v Larger employers (100+ employees) located throughout the region along major roadways and New Hampshire border v Smaller employers (<100 employees) in same areas and scattered throughout region

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Click to edit Master title style

Transit Propensity

Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Proctor Rutland Salisbury Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Cavendish Hartland Ludlow Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge Weathersfield West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Brandon Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Ira Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Bristol Huntington Leicester Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Ryegate Barre Moretown Berlin Plainfield Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth West Rutland Granville Hancock Middlebury Ripton Starksboro Lincoln Groton Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

Transit Propensity

Low Low / Moderate Moderate Moderate / High High Regional Planning Commission Boundary Block Group Transit Routes

v Youth v Older adults v Persons with disabilities v Households with 0-1 cars v Low-income persons v Portions of Randolph and Hartford only areas with even moderate transit propensity

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Click to edit Master title style

Older Adults

Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Proctor Rutland Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Hartland Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Barre Berlin Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth Granville Hancock Ripton Lincoln Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Urban Areas

% of Population Over 80 Total Population Over 80

1 1,000 500 Below Average VT Average = 4.3% 1x - 2x Average > 2x Average 750 250

v Focus on people over age 80 as younger seniors overwhelmingly continue to drive v Concentrations seen in Hartford and Randolph; very small numbers elsewhere v Significant rise in the

  • ver-80 population

expected in next 10-20 years

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Click to edit Master title style

People with Disabilities

Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Proctor Rutland Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Hartland Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Barre Berlin Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth Granville Hancock Ripton Starksboro Lincoln Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Urban Areas

% of Population with a Disability Total Population with a Disability

1 3,000 1,500 Below Average VT Average = 14.0% 1x - 2x Average 2x - 3x Average 2,250 750

v Includes four types of disabilities

  • Hearing
  • Vision
  • Cognition
  • Walking

v Concentrations

  • Hartford
  • Randolph
  • Bradford
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Click to edit Master title style

Auto Ownership

Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Proctor Rutland Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Hartland Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Barre Berlin Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth West Rutland Granville Hancock Ripton Starksboro Lincoln Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Urban Areas

% of Households with 1 Person & 0 Cars or 2+ People & 0-1 Cars

1 2,000 1,000 Below Average VT Average = 20.6% 1x - 2x Average > 2x Average 1,500 500

Total Households with 1 Person & 0 Cars or 2+ People & 0-1 Cars

v Considered households with no vehicles and those with two or more members with only one vehicle v Concentrations

  • Hartford
  • Randolph
  • Bradford
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Click to edit Master title style

Medicaid Recipients

Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Proctor Rutland Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Hartland Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Barre Berlin Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth West Rutland Granville Hancock Ripton Starksboro Lincoln Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Urban Areas

% of Population Participating in Medicaid Total Population Participating in Medicaid

1 7,000 3,500 Below Average VT Average = 27.2% 1x - 2x Average > 2x Average 5,250 1,750

v Most towns above average, but small numbers v Hartford has largest number but below average concentration

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Click to edit Master title style

People Below Poverty Level

Orange County Rutland County Caledonia County Caledonia County Chittenden County Windsor County Washington County Addison County a b

4

a b

5

a b

302

a b

5

a b

4

a b

5

a b

7

a b

7

a b

5

a b

302

S T

103

S T

14

S T

17

S T

25

S T

100

S T

73

S T

66

S T

113

S T

107

S T

132

S T

3

S T

116

S T

44

S T

12

S T

125

S T

140

S T

106

New Hampshire

Pittsford Proctor Rutland Barnard Bethel Bridgewater Hartland Plymouth Pomfret Reading Royalton Sharon Buels Hartford Norwich Rochester Stockbridge West Windsor Windsor Woodstock Chittenden Wallingford Clarendon Killington Mendon Mount Holly Pittsfield Rutland Shrewsbury Goshen Chelsea Newbury Ryegate Barre Berlin Barre Fayston Northfield Roxbury Waitsfield Warren Tinmouth Granville Hancock Ripton Lincoln Braintree Brookfield Corinth Fairlee Orange Randolph Strafford Thetford Topsham Tunbridge Vershire West Fairlee Williamstown Bradford Washington 10 Miles

[

Upper Valley Region

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Urban Areas

% of Population Below Poverty Line Total Population Below Poverty Line

1 2,500 1,250 Below Average VT Average = 11.6% 1x - 2x Average > 2x Average 1,875 625

v Used federal definition

  • f poverty

v Similar to Medicaid pattern

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Click to edit Master title style

Commuting

v Most commuters to Randolph come from Randolph, Brookfield, Braintree, and Bethel v Access provided by I-89 brings in moderate numbers from Montpelier, Barre and Northfield v Commuters also come from many other towns, but in smaller numbers

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Click to edit Master title style

Commuting

v Hanover/Lebanon/WRJ area is an important employment destination for Upper Valley residents v 50+ commuters per day from most Orange County communities and a number of Windsor County communities

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Discussion

Transit Goals, Existing Services, Service Gaps/Challenges, Solutions

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Public Transit Goals for Vermont

¤ What should be the policy priorities for public transit in Vermont?

¤ Mobility for non-drivers ¤ Improved air quality ¤ Increased transit access in rural areas ¤ Support for economic development ¤ Choices for commuters ¤ Access to tourist areas ¤ Less dependence on automobiles

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Current Services

¤ What are the strengths of the existing transit network? What services work well? ¤ Other providers not identified?

¤ Human service transportation providers ¤ Volunteer driver programs ¤ Private carriers

¤ Are taxis available and a viable option? ¤ Is Uber/Lyft service available? ¤ Does any service information need to be corrected?

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Geographic Service Gaps

¤ Areas without public transit service ¤ Need to travel across county lines or into other regions ¤ Destinations that are hard to reach ¤ Connections that are feasible but not convenient

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Temporal Service Gaps

¤ Evenings

¤ Do services operate late enough for work or recreational trips?

¤ Weekends

¤ Saturday ¤ Sunday

¤ Other limitations in operating hours?

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Trip Type Gaps

¤ Are residents able to travel for any type of trip they need to make? ¤ What types of trips are difficult or impossible to make?

¤ Medical ¤ Shopping ¤ Work ¤ Recreational/personal business

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Accessibility Needs

¤ Can fixed-route and demand-response vehicles accommodate multiple wheelchairs? ¤ Are paths of travel to bus stops safe and accessible for pedestrians and wheelchair users? ¤ Is more accessible information needed? ¤ Do riders need assistance on vehicles?

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Technology Challenges

¤ Do information sources, trip reservations, or fare payment require a computer or smart phone? ¤ Is that a barrier?

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Information Gaps

¤ Is information about transportation options available, easy to find, easy to use?

¤ Service area ¤ Days and hours ¤ Eligible users and trip types ¤ Fare

¤ What information sources are most useful?

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Affordability Gaps

¤ Are fares reasonable? ¤ Does the cost of any service keep potential riders from using it? ¤ Are cities and towns able to provide sufficient local funding to leverage federal funds and support their residents?

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Other Gaps or Travel Challenges

¤ Are there any other issues we should be aware of or that you’d like to discuss?

slide-35
SLIDE 35
slide-36
SLIDE 36

Potential Solutions

¤ Information ¤ Service Enhancements ¤ Complement Existing Network ¤ Accessibility Improvements ¤ Technology ¤ Other Potential Solutions

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Information

¤ Centralized transportation service directory – Go! Vermont ¤ Trip planning assistance ¤ Trip reservations assistance ¤ Online trip reservations ¤ One-Call/One-Click system including some or all of the above

slide-38
SLIDE 38
slide-39
SLIDE 39

Service Enhancements

¤ Extended service hours ¤ Expanded service areas ¤ More eligible trip types ¤ Out-of-county or out-of-region services

slide-40
SLIDE 40
slide-41
SLIDE 41

Complement Existing Network

¤ Use of available demand-response vehicle seats

¤ Centralized scheduling ¤ Contracting among providers

¤ Volunteer driver program enhancements ¤ Travel training

¤ Fixed route or paratransit services

¤ Flexible voucher program

¤ Agencies sponsor cost of vouchers ¤ Vouchers can be used for trips provided by public, private, or nonprofit

  • perators or friend/family member volunteer driver

¤ Rider “trip banks” or “trip accounts”

slide-42
SLIDE 42
slide-43
SLIDE 43

Accessibility Improvements

¤ Sidewalks or curb cuts ¤ Accessible signals or signage ¤ Bus shelters

slide-44
SLIDE 44
slide-45
SLIDE 45

Technology

¤ Scheduling/dispatching software

¤ Do providers have access to RouteMatch? ¤ Software to match volunteer drivers with trip requests

¤ Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems ¤ Tablets onboard vehicles ¤ Mobile information, reservations, real-time vehicle location (apps)

slide-46
SLIDE 46
slide-47
SLIDE 47

Other Potential Solutions

¤ Other ideas for addressing service gaps and improving mobility in the region?

slide-48
SLIDE 48
slide-49
SLIDE 49

Priorities

¤ Polling/dot voting exercise to establish local priorities among potential solutions to travel challenges

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Stay Involved!

¤ Check project webpage

¤ http://vtrans.vermont.gov/planning/PTPP

¤ Please complete online survey! ¤ Look for and comment on draft PTPP Spring 2019