Public Transit Policy Plan Regional Forum Southeast Region - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Public Transit Policy Plan

Regional Forum

Southeast Region

November 1, 2018

SLIDE 2

Agenda

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

¤ Existing services and gaps ¤ Potential solutions

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

Tasks

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

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

Public Outreach

¤ Regional forums ¤ Stakeholder interviews ¤ Online participation

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

SLIDE 7

Current Transportation Services

¤ The Current (part of Southeast Vermont Transit)

¤ Brattleboro Red, White and Blue Lines (revised 10/2018) (Mon-Sat) ¤ Bellows Falls In-Town (Mon-Fri) 4 loops per day ¤ Bellows Falls-Springfield (Mon-Fri) 4 round-trips per day ¤ Bellows Falls-Ludlow ¤ Weekday service – 3 round trips Mon-Fri (all year) ¤ Connects to bus to Rutland at 7:50 a.m. and 4:50 p.m. ¤ Seasonal service – 2 round trips Mon-Sun (ski season) ¤ via Chester on VT 11 and VT 103 ¤ Commuter routes to Lebanon/Hanover/White River Junction ¤ Eight peak direction trips (4 morning, 4 afternoon) ¤ Stop at P&R lot at Exit 6

SLIDE 8

Current Transportation Services

¤ MOOver

¤ Five year-round routes ¤ Wilmington – West Dover (hourly) ¤ Wilmington – Readsboro (commuter trip) ¤ Wilmington – Brattleboro (2 commuter round-trips) ¤ Wilmington – Bennington (4 commuter round-trips joint with GMCN) ¤ West Dover (school days only) ¤ Eight seasonal routes serving Mt. Snow

SLIDE 9

Additional Services

¤ SEVT Demand Response

¤ E&D (vans and volunteer drivers)

¤ Other Human Service

¤ Medicaid transportation provided by GMCN under contract to VPTA

¤ Intercity

¤ Amtrak and Greyhound stops in Bellows Falls and Brattleboro

¤ Private Companies

¤ Several taxis, Golden Cross ambulance (accessible)

SLIDE 10

Click to edit Master title style

Existing Transit

c 5 c 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 Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

133

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Pownal Readsboro Rupert Shaftsbury Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Wallingford Danby Mount Holly Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Tinmouth Wells Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Bennington Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast 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

MOOver The Current GMX / MOOver c 5 c 5 c 5 − − − − − c − c H c H

a b

5

a b

5

a b

5

a b

5

S T

9

S T

30

New Hampshire

Brattleboro

Brattleboro

v SEVT The Current

• Brattleboro (3 routes)
• Bellows Falls In-Town
• US 5 Corridor

v SEVT MOOver

• Local, commuter, and

seasonal routes

v Greyhound on I-91 corridor (not shown)

SLIDE 11

Employment and Retail

¤ Major employers or office/industrial parks

¤ Brattleboro ¤ Mt. Snow

¤ Educational institutions

¤ Marlboro ¤ Brattleboro ¤ Putney

¤ Large retail areas/supermarkets

¤ Brattleboro ¤ Hinsdale

SLIDE 12

Medical and Human Services

¤ Medical facilities

¤ Brattleboro Memorial Hospital ¤ Grace Cottage (Townshend) ¤ Wilmington ¤ Bellows Falls

¤ Human Service Agencies

¤ Bellows Falls ¤ Brattleboro ¤ Westminster ¤ Townshend ¤ Halifax

SLIDE 13

Demographics: Overview

¤ Total population: 45,709 (7.3% of VT population) ¤ Population density: 50 persons per square mile (68) ¤ 29% of population 60+ (24%)

¤ Second highest in the state

¤ 4.9% of population 80+ (4.3%) ¤ 14% of people below the poverty line (11.6%)

¤ Highest in the state

SLIDE 14

Click to edit Master title style

Population Density

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

133

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Pownal Readsboro Rupert Shaftsbury Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Wallingford Danby Mount Holly Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Tinmouth Wells Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Bennington Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast Region

Residents per Sq Mi

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

5

a b

5

a b

5

a b

5

S T

142

S T

9

New Hampshire Brattleboro

v Moderate-high density in Bellows Falls and downtown area of Brattleboro v Moderate-low density in Putney, Brattleboro and US 5 corridor around Bellows Falls v Rural density in the rest

• f the region

SLIDE 15

Click to edit Master title style

Employment

v Highest concentration in Brattleboro and Bellows Falls area v A few large employers (>100) in Townshend and Putney v Smaller employers (<100 employees) scattered throughout region

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

133

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Pownal Readsboro Rupert Shaftsbury Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Wallingford Danby Mount Holly Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Tinmouth Wells Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Bennington Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast Region

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Township Boundary Urban Areas Transit Routes

Employers by Number of Employees

10 - 49 100 - 299 300 - 499 500 + Source: Dun & Bradstreet, 2005 50 - 99

SLIDE 16

Click to edit Master title style

Transit Propensity

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Pownal Readsboro Rupert Shaftsbury Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Wallingford Danby Mount Holly Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Tinmouth Wells Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Bennington Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast Region

Transit Propensity

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

5

a b

5

a b

5

a b

5

S T

142

S T

9

New Hampshire Brattleboro

v Components of Index

• Youth
• Older adults
• Persons with disabilities
• Households with 0-1 cars
• Low-income persons

v Portions of Brattleboro have high propensity v Moderate propensity in Bellows Falls, Dover, and sections of Brattleboro

SLIDE 17

Click to edit Master title style

Older Adults

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Readsboro Rupert Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Danby Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast 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 Most towns in region are above statewide average; largest number in Brattleboro v Significant rise in the

• ver-80 population

expected in next 10-20 years

SLIDE 18

Click to edit Master title style

People with Disabilities

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

133

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Readsboro Rupert Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Danby Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast 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 Athens and Searsburg have the highest concentrations, but Brattleboro and Rockingham the highest numbers

SLIDE 19

Click to edit Master title style

Auto Ownership

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

133

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Readsboro Rupert Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Danby Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast 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

• Brattleboro
• Rockingham

SLIDE 20

Click to edit Master title style

Poverty

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

131

S T

142

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Readsboro Rupert Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Danby Pawlet Arlington Sandgate Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Dorset 10 Miles

[

Southeast 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 Highest percentages in Athens and Searsburg, though numbers small v Brattleboro and Rockingham above average, with significant numbers

SLIDE 21

Click to edit Master title style

Commuting

v Brattleboro draws significant numbers from surrounding towns in VT and NH v I-91 access allows easy commutes from as far as Springfield v VT 30 corridor also contributes significant numbers

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

5

a b

7

S T

35

S T

12

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

153

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

44

S T

142

S T

8

S T

140

S T

133

S T

131 S

T

106

New York Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Pownal Readsboro Rupert Shaftsbury Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Plymouth Reading Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield West Windsor Windsor Springfield Weston Middletown Springs Wallingford Clarendon Danby Ira Mount Holly Pawlet Poultney Shrewsbury Arlington Sandgate Tinmouth Wells Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Bennington Dorset 10 Miles

[

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Destination Zone

Southeast Region

Commuters to Brattleboro

< 10 10 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 499 2,000 + 500 - 1,999

SLIDE 22

Click to edit Master title style

Commuting

v Most commuters to Springfield come from neighboring towns in VT and NH v Access provided by I-91 brings in moderate numbers

Rutland County Bennington County Windsor County Windham County a b

7

S T

35

S T

11

S T

9

S T

103

S T

155

S T

121

S T

30

S T

112

S T

100

S T

106

S T

142

S T

131

S T

8

Massachusetts New Hampshire

Brookline Dover Grafton Guilford Halifax Jamaica Marlboro Glastenbury Landgrove Manchester Peru Readsboro Mount Tabor Somerset Stratton Townshend Whitingham Wilmington Stamford Sunderland Winhall Woodford Cavendish Chester Wardsboro Ludlow Newfane Rockingham Westminster Windham Andover Baltimore Weathersfield Springfield Weston Wallingford Danby Mount Holly Tinmouth Brattleboro Dummerston Londonderry Putney Vernon Searsburg Athens Dorset 10 Miles

[

Regional Planning Commission Boundary Municipal Boundary Destination Zone

Southeast Region

Commuters to Springfield

< 10 10 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 499 2,000 + 500 - 1,999

SLIDE 23

Discussion

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

SLIDE 24

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 25

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 26

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 27

Temporal Service Gaps

¤ Evenings

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

¤ Weekends

¤ Saturday ¤ Sunday

¤ Other limitations in operating hours?

SLIDE 28

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 29

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 30

Technology Challenges

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

SLIDE 31

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 32

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 33

Other Gaps or Travel Challenges

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

SLIDE 34

SLIDE 35

Potential Solutions

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

SLIDE 36

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 37

SLIDE 38

Service Enhancements

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

SLIDE 39

SLIDE 40

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 41

SLIDE 42

Accessibility Improvements

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

SLIDE 43

SLIDE 44

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 45

SLIDE 46

Other Potential Solutions

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

SLIDE 47

SLIDE 48

Priorities

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

SLIDE 49

Stay Involved!

¤ Check project webpage

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

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