DOCSLIB.ORG

Westchester County Bee-Line System First and Last Mile Mobility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Westchester County Bee-Line System First and Last Mile Mobility Study WESTCHESTER COUNTY BEE-LINE SYSTEM FIRST AND LAST MILE CONNECTIONS MOBILITY STUDY Prepared by: Craig Lader, Principal Planner Naomi Klein, Director of Planning Planning Division - Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation February 2018 Hugh J. Greechan, Jr., P.E., Commissioner Unified Planning Work Program Project PIN No., PTWS17D00.G01 Project Deliverable: Final Report (cover revised, March 2018) Federal Disclaimer The preparation of this report has been financed through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) in the interest of information exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FTA, FHWA or the State of New York. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The Westchester County Bee-Line System First and Last Mile Mobility Study was funded through the NYMTC SFY 2017-18 Unified Planning Work Program project (First and Last Mile Connections Mobility Study PTWS17D00.G01) which was funded through matching grants from the FTA and from the FHWA. Executive Summary Overview Westchester County exhibits a strong multi-modal transportation network, with the County’s Bee-Line Bus System providing extensive service, particularly in the southern part of the county where population densities are greatest. Coupled with Metro-North Railroad which services to New York City and points north in Putnam and Dutchess Counties, the region’s major transit markets are well served. Yet despite the extensive transit network available, gaps exist, particularly in serving the first and last mile segments of a trip. These first mile/last mile gaps include instances where there is no viable option other than driving to a train station or bus stop, corporate site or any other destination situated outside a corridor that is served by transit. In recent years, Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) 1 such as Uber and Lyft have emerged as a new transportation modal choice in the United States, and have become key players in addressing issues of first and last mile connections. TNCs offer a customized, flexible, and on-demand service that has proven widely popular among users, who also take advantage of their seamless payment systems and driver rating systems. Typically, passengers download an app on their mobile device to request a ride. This report reviews several categories of examples of how TNCs have been used by other transit agencies and municipalities throughout the country to address first and last mile challenges, and discusses the issues to consider if such a partnership were to be implemented in Westchester County. The categories include: Replacement of Under-Utilized Fixed Route Bus Service First-Mile/Last-Mile Connections to Commuter Rail Stations and Bus Stops Off Peak Jobs Access Market Expansion through Micro-Transit Technology Platforms Paratransit Project Goals The goals of a partnership between Westchester County and a TNC should be to enhance overall mobility, increase cost efficiencies, ensure regulatory compliance, ensure equity among users, and provide opportunities to reinvest savings into core fixed route service. Service should not compete with existing Bee-Line fixed route service but should either complement or replace existing service that is inefficient, or serve new markets. The service should also be designed so as not to result in negative externalities such as an increase in traffic congestion. Recommendations Westchester County should initiate a pilot program which would include eliminating one or more of the least efficient routes in the Bee-Line System (listed later in this report), or providing a new service that increases mobility where there is an unmet demand. Possible options include: 1 According to the California Public Utilities Commission TNCs are companies that “provide prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online enabled application or platform to connect drivers using their personal vehicles with passengers.” 3 1. Provide first/last mile trips to a train station, with the municipality holding the contract with the TNC. 2. Provide first/last mile trips to corporate parks in the Interstate 287 Corridor. 3. Provide first/last mile trips to Westchester County Community College from areas such as Tarrytown and Ossining. In addition to defining the type of service to be provided, issues to address in designing a TNC program include: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The Bee-Line System currently provides wheelchair accessible vehicles on fixed route buses, as mandated by the ADA. TNCs are not subject to ADA regulations and their vehicles are generally not accessible to those with disabilities. Equity TNCs trips are used through apps which require a smartphone. A call-in option or other alternative would be needed for people without a smartphone. TNCs also charge by the length of the trip, demand for the trip at the time it is reserved and the type of ride (either solo or shared), which can make the trip cost prohibitive for those who are sensitive to price. Any partnership with a TNC would also have to consider the per trip subsidy that is appropriate to maintain fare equity with Bee-Line fixed route service. Labor Union Issues TNC drivers are generally considered independent contractors, and are not unionized. Transit agencies may find it both legally and politically challenging to substitute a non-unionized workforce for a unionized one. Any partnerships with TNCs may require assurances that there is no net reduction in work performed by union labor used to operate transit services. Operating Arrangements Westchester County operates its fixed route service as a public/private partnership. The current agreement with its contractor does not give the county the flexibility to veer from fixed route service using alternative operating arrangements. Data Sharing TNCs have displayed reluctance, or have even refused to share data with transit agency partners, claiming the information they compile is proprietary. It may be a challenge to structure a TNC partnership that requires TNCs to provide information for federal reporting purposes. The research and case studies presented in this report provide insight to how different transit agencies have dealt with these issues in developing unique strategies for addressing first mile/last mile connections in several areas of the United States. Although there are many challenges and barriers that must be overcome, transportation planners and transit agencies have found ways to work around them to meet their specific needs. 4 Summary of Transportation Network Company Case Studies Orange County Transportation Replaced two Authority and City of San Clemente, underperforming Reported successful, seeking another vendor San Clemente CA Lyft routes to provide ADA accessible vehicles Livermore Amador Replaced one Valley Transit underperforming Authority Dublin, CA Uber & Lyft route Reported successful Replaced one Pinellas Suncoast Pinellas underperforming Reported successful, expanded to include Lyft Transit Authority County, FL Uber route and Wheelchair Transport Reported successful, extended pilot with Lyft, Summit, NJ Summit, NJ Uber Trips to train station reduced parking demand at train station Phoenix, AZ Phoenix, AZ Lyft Trips to bus stops Reported successful Centennial, CO and Denver South Transportation Trips to light rail Minimal ridership due to lack of awareness of Management Assn. Centennial, CO Lyft Line station program Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Trips to 11 train Reported successful, resulted in increase in Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia Uber stations passengers traveling to train stations Altamonte Trips within Altamonte Reported successful, expanded to other Altamonte Springs, FL Springs, FL Uber Springs municipalities Late shift program for Pinellas Suncoast Pinellas disadvantaged Transit Authority County, FL Uber population Reported successful New market between Kansas City Area underserved Discontinued due to low ridership and lack of Transportation Kansas City, downtown marketing, but reported successful as it helped Authority MO Bridj neighborhoods clarify who uses on-demand transportation Replaced transit route; used Via's technology platform in Reported successful, expanded after initial Austin Capital Metro Austin, TX Via geo-fenced area pilot Replaced two West Salem, DemandTrans underperforming bus More expensive to operate and served fewer Cherriots OR Solutions routes riders than the routes it replaced Massachusetts Bay Supplement to Transportation Uber, Lyft & traditional paratransit Reported successful, provided many more Authority (MBTA) Boston, MA one taxi co. service rides and reduced cost 5 Introduction Westchester County, New York is a diverse county that is home to nearly 1 million residents. Bordering New York City to the north, the County has distinct job markets in both urban and suburban settings, and a long history of residents commuting to New York City. Mobility has always been a critical matter for Westchester residents and employees who travel to, from and within the county on a regular basis. Westchester County exhibits a strong multimodal transportation network, providing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BIKE SHARE in LOS ANGELES COUNTY an Analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze
    BIKE SHARE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY An analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze visit us at scag.ca.gov ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) On behalf of Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) BY ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Jean Crowther, AICP Michael Jones Mike Sellinger WITH MOORE & ASSOCIATES Jim Moore Erin Kenneally Kathy Chambers SPECIAL THANKS TO City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation City of Santa Monica City of West Hollywood Bicycle Transit Systems CycleHop And the many community members who gave their time and energy to participate in our outreach efforts and whose insights added to the value and relevance of this study and its recommendations. TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS ..............................1 02 A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS ..........................................3 03 WHAT THE DATA TELLS US ........................................5 04 WHAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS TELL US .................19 05 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE .................27 APPENDICES A - Technology Integration Memo B - Statistical Analysis Methodology and Find- ings C - Agency & Operator Interview Questions D - User Survey E - Survey Results LA BIKE SHARE STUDY 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in The study centered on five core phases of analysis: partnership with Los Angeles Metro (Metro), commissioned a • User Survey: An online and intercept survey targeted existing study to better understand the role of bike share within the Los bike share users, available for 2 months in spring of 2019, Angeles regional transportation system. The results are intended which garnered 351 valid responses (201 from Metro users to guide decision-making related to future system investments and 150 from Santa Monica users) and provided a 95 percent and new shared mobility programs in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Connect Mid-Hudson Regional Transit Study
    CONNECT MID-HUDSON Transit Study Final Report | January 2021 1 2 CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Service Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. COVID-19 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Public Survey ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1. Dutchess County ............................................................................................................................................10 2.2.2. Orange County ................................................................................................................................................11 2.2.3. Ulster County ..................................................................................................................................................11 3. Transit Market Assessment and Gaps Analsysis ..................................................................................................................12 3.1. Population Density .....................................................................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Omni New Haven Hotel 155 Temple Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510
    *** Please note that most airlines are not charging customers to reschedule their flights, and may allow not only changes to day and time, but also which airport you are flying into. Omni New Haven Hotel 155 Temple Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Phone: (203) 772-6664, Fax: (203) 974-6777 FROM UNION STATION (New Haven, CT) TO OMNI HOTEL Option 1: Taxi (approx $7) There are usually many taxis available outside the station. Will cost approx $7. Option 2: Union Station Shuttle Bus (free) http://www.cttransit.com/RoutesSchedules/UnionStation.asp This free service to and from Union Station and downtown New Haven that runs every 20 minutes, Monday-Friday, starting at 6:10am and going until 10:15pm. Get off at the Temple Street (and Crown St) stop. Omni is at 155 Temple St. and less than a 2 min walk from here. Shuttles & taxis are scheduled to run as normal beginning Wed Oct 31st. FROM NEW HAVEN (Tweed Airport) Option: Taxi (approx $15) Easiest and fastest way to get from Tweed airport to the Omni is to take a cab for approx $15 one way. Taxis should be available from the airport, but if you need to call one try 203-777-7777. FROM NEW YORK Manhattan Option 1: Subway/Metro-North (approx $19-25) http://www.mta.info/ 1. Take subway to Grand Central Station -42nd Street. 2. At Grand Central-42nd Street, exit the subway into Grand Central Terminal and transfer to Metro-North's New Haven Line, which will take you from Grand Central to New Haven.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northeastern Wake County – NC Rural Microtransit Service Plan
    Northeastern Wake County – NC Rural Microtransit Service Plan Final Plan – March 2021 Photo by Google Maps KFH Group, Inc. Bethesda, MD | Austin, TX | Seattle, WA Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... ES-1 What is Rural Microtransit? ............................................................................................................ ES-1 Northeastern Wake County Rural Microtransit Service ....................................................... ES-2 Study Tasks .............................................................................................................................. ES-4 Implementation Steps .......................................................................................................... ES-4 Key Takeaways & Recommendations ........................................................................................ ES-5 Chapter 1: Background Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 Northeast Wake County ............................................................................................................. 2 Connecting to Transit .................................................................................................................. 3 The Emergence of Microtransit ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019
    Equity and Shared Mobility Services Working with the Private Sector to Meet Equity Objectives Acknowledgements November 2019 SUMC expresses appreciation to interviewees from the following organizations: Chicago Department of Transportation, District of Columbia, Center for Community Transportation (Ithaca Carshare), Ridecell, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, Capital Metro, Zipcar, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and HourCar. Sarah Jo Peterson, 23 Urban Strategies, LLC, led the research for SUMC, which also included researchers Brian Holland, Erin Evenhouse, and Peter Lauer, under the direction of Ellen Partridge and Sharon Feigon. The paper was edited by Leslie Gray. © 2019 Shared-Use Mobility Center. All Rights Reserved. Shared-Use Mobility Center Chicago, IL 312.448.8083 Los Angeles, CA 818.489.8651 www.sharedusemobilitycenter.org Contents Executive Summary 01 Introduction 06 Equity in Shared Mobility Services: What Is It? 07 Types of Equity Initiatives and Programs 08 Equity Analysis across Multiple Dimensions 08 Understanding Public-Private Partnerships 12 Best Practices for Public-Private Partnerships 13 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 15 Vehicle Sharing Permitting and Partnerships 16 Concerns for Low-Income Communities 18 Focus on Bikeshare: Activists Organize to Advance Equity 20 Case Example 21 Focus on Carshare: Model Programs for Low-Income Drivers 26 Case Example 27 Vehicle Sharing as Part of a Multimodal Lifestyle 29 Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives: 30 Sharing the Ride The Public Sector’s Role:
    [Show full text]
  • Shared-Use Mobility Services Literature Review
    Shared-Use Mobility Services: Literature Review Prepared by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Shared-Use Mobility Services Literature Review Project Manager Michelle Scott Project Principal Annette Demchur Graphics Jane Gillis Kate Parker O’Toole Cover Design Kate Parker O’Toole The preparation of this document was supported by the Federal Transit Administration through MassDOT 5303 contracts #88429 and #94643. Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments. March 2017 Shared-Use Mobility Services—Literature Review March 2017 Page 2 of 84 Shared-Use Mobility Services—Literature Review March 2017 ABSTRACT This document provides an overview of shared-use mobility services, which involve the sharing of vehicles, bicycles, or other transportation modes, and provide users with short-term access to transportation on an as-needed basis. The report defines various types of shared-use mobility services and describes companies and service providers that operate in Greater Boston. It also includes a review of literature on the following topics: • Who is using shared-use mobility services? For example, many users are in their 20s and 30s, and use of these services tends to increase with income and education level. • When and why are they used, and how have these services affected riders’ mobility? The services can vary in terms of how they help users meet their mobility needs. For example, carsharing users report using these services to run errands, while ridesourcing users frequently take them for social or recreational trips.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Transit Task Force Final Report
    New NY Bridge Mass Transit Task Force Final Transit Recommendations February 2014 New York State New York State Thruway Authority Department of Transportation New NY Bridge Mass Transit Task Force Final Transit Recommendations Acknowledgements The members of the Mass Transit Task Force (MTTF) rose to the challenge of meeting larger regional needs, while recognizing that all individual ideas may not be integrated into the final proposal. This collective effort resulted in a set of consensus recommendations supported by all MTTF members. The Co-Chairs of the MTTF, New York State Department of Transportation Commissioner Joan McDonald and New York State Thruway Authority Executive Director Thomas Madison are deeply grateful for the time and effort contributed by each MTTF member, their staff and delegates, and the broader community. The collective contributions of all helped shape the future of transit in the Lower Hudson Valley. February 2014 New NY Bridge Mass Transit Task Force Final Transit Recommendations This page intentionally left blank. February 2014 New NY Bridge Mass Transit Task Force Final Transit Recommendations Contents Page 1 Introduction 1 2 The Mass Transit Task Force 3 3 The Mass Transit Task Force Final Recommendations Summary: A Bus Rapid Transit Network for the New NY Bridge – Simple | Fast | Reliable 7 3.1 What will the BRT system look like? 8 3.2 What does the BRT system offer? 10 3.3 Recommended Short-Term Improvements 11 3.4 Recommended Mid-Term Improvements 12 3.5 Recommended Long-Term Improvements 12 4 History
    [Show full text]
  • Rideco Enables On-Demand Transit Public Sector Private Sector
    RideCo enables On-Demand Transit Public Sector Private Sector Headquarters: Waterloo, Canada | Founded in: 2014 | Patents: US 10248913 SAN ANTONIO 23 services – 10 cities Low density | Vans Low density | Shuttles Fleet Operator | Buses, Shuttles & Sedans LOS ANGELES First-last-mile | Shuttles Mixed density | Shuttles Employee transport | Sedans First-last-mile | Vans Paratransit | Shuttles Employee transport | Shuttles “Most notably unique to RideCo’s “[on-demand transit] has proven to be a true “We are excited to expand our expertise is the advance knowledge game-changer...The service has been “It is a giant Uber bus system pretty partnership with RideCo to of on-demand and emerging tremendously successful as a flexible travel option much. It was almost half the operating provide greater speed and technology and the ability to that helps us become more efficient and provides cost for the town (compared to a accessibility to our communities, leverage data and analytics to model connections to the places our customers go." – continuously circulating bus system).” – while keeping cost extremely opportunities for new deployments.” Jeffrey C. Arndt, President & CEO of San Antonio Jeff Genung, Cochrane Mayor affordable.” - Grab -Los Angeles Metro Metro Public Sector Microtransit Use Cases Low Density Area First-Last-Mile Transit Desert / Mobility Connectivity Overnight Service Case studies | San Antonio Metro Case studies | Metrolinx, Carlsbad Case studies | Jurong, Changi airport Underperforming Long Distance Paratransit Bus Routes Commuter
    [Show full text]
  • Microtransit Public-Private Partnerships
    Microtransit Public- Private Partnerships Sharon Feigon, Executive Director [email protected] S e s s i o n w i l l b e r e c o r d e d & 1 p o s t e d t o o u r w e b s i t e HOUSEKEEPING K e e p t h e s e t h r e e S e e l i n k b e l o w a n d i n c h a t p o i n t s i n m i n d d u r i n g 2 t h e w e b i n a r b o x f o r l i v e t r a n s c r i b i n g : https://tinyurl .com/microtr a n s i t S u b m i t q u e s t i o n s i n t h e 3 Q&A p a n e l 2 Presenters Sharon Feigon, Alvaro Villagran, Executive Program Director, Shared- Manager, Shared- Use Mobility Use Mobility Center Center Casey Gifford, Brian Brooke, Andrei Innovative Deputy Director Greenawalt, Head Mobility Project of Innovation and of Public Policy, Manager, King Performance, Via County Metro Sound Transit Ann Foss, Nicole Freedman, John Spears, Principal Planner, Director of Project Office of Transportation Coordinator, Strategic Planning, Newton, Grand Rapids, MI Initiatives, MA Arlington, TX Agenda • Microtransit overview by SUMC • Introducing Via • First/last mile on-demand transit in Seattle, WA • On-demand transit for seniors in Newton, MA • Paratransit on-demand in Grand Rapids, MI • Full public transit replacement with on-demand in Arlington, TX SHARED -USE MOBILITY CENTER C r e a t i n g a m u l t i m o d a l transportati o n s y s t e m t h a t w o r k s f o r a l l .
    [Show full text]
  • Picture of Property
    EIGMP Realty Phone 914 633 0678 401 Quaker Ridge Rd, Cell: 917 833 2931 EIGMP Realty New Rochelle, NY 10804 Fax 914 633 0678 Email: [email protected] 40 Westchester Ave, White Plains, New York 750SF Retail Space for Rent at $1995 by Owner No warranty or representation, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy of the information contained herein, and same is submitted to errors and omissions. Pg.1 Table of Context I. Executive Summary…………….……………………………………………3 a. Highlights of Offering…………………………..…………………………4 b. Select Businesses within ½ mile of property……….……………………..5 II. Pictures a. Collage…………………………………………………………………….6 b. Aerial View…………………………………..……………………………7 c. Survey……………………………………………………………………..8 III. Market Analysis a. Income Demographics…………………………………...….…..……9-10 b. Sales Demographics……………..………...………………...…...…..11-12 c. White Plains Demographics…………………………...……….…….13-14 EIGMP Realty the owner of the 28-40 Westchester Avenue is pleased to offer 30 Westchester Avenue for rent. It’s a 630 sq ft ground floor store front with a full basement No warranty or representation, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy of the information contained herein, and same is submitted to errors and omissions. Pg.2 of equivalent size. Located on a major business corridor within the affluent White Plains, New York. With traffic flow of 43,171 cars a day in front of the property and with over 200k households with an average income of $143,457 within a 5 mile radius, demographics provide a strong and wealthy local consumer base. The rare combination of visibility, location, high traffic count, convenient access and local demographics make this a huge opportunity for the right entrepreneur.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Range Transit Plan (PDF)
    Short Range Transit Plan FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Adopted May 2021 FY 2021/22 - 2025/26 Golden Empire Transit District Board of Directors Cindy Parra Rueben Pascual Chair Vice Chair City of Bakersfield County of Kern Carlos Bello Leasa Engel Erika Dixon Director Director Director City of Bakersfield At-Large County of Kern A five-member Board of Directors governs Golden Empire Transit District. Two members are appointed by the Bakersfield City Council, two members are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and one member is appointed at-large by the four other Board members. GET coordinates with City of Bakersfield, the County of Kern, and the Kern Council of Governments. Karen King Chief Executive Officer Short Range Transit Plan FY 20/21 – 24/25 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ......................................................1 CHAPTER 2 SERVICE & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ......................... 29 CHAPTER 3 SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 41 CHAPTER 4 PREVIOUS SERVICE REVISIONS ........................................ 79 CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN ...................................... 83 CHAPTER 6 FINANCIAL PLAN ............................................................ 95 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY .................................................................... 100 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................... 115 GET was formed in July 1973 and is the primary public transportation provider for the Bakersfield Urbanized Area. It is the largest public transit system within a 110 mile radius. The District’s legal boundary includes all of the area within the Bakersfield city limits as well as adjacent unincorporated areas. GET serves 16 routes, operating 7 days a week and transporting more than 6 million passengers each year with its fixed-route buses. In addition, GET operates 21 compressed natural gas GET-A-Lift buses.
    [Show full text]