Licking County Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 20

Licking County Transit Board Transit Development Plan

June 2020

Prepared for:

Licking County Area Transportation Study 20 South Second Street Newark, OH 43055

Licking County Transit Board 745 E Main St Newark, OH 43055

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 1 List of Figures ...... 2 List of Tables ...... 4 List of Attachments ...... 5 Licking County Transit Board Members ...... 5 Steering Committee Members ...... 5 Executive Summary ...... 6 Foreword ...... 6 Background ...... 6 Process ...... 7 Recommendations ...... 9 A. Transit Service Overview ...... 14 1. History and Background ...... 14 2. Organizational Structure and Governance...... 14 3. Agency Partners ...... 16 B. Community Assessment ...... 18 1. Location Overview ...... 18 2. Population ...... 18 3. Employment ...... 27 4. Major Non-Employment Trip Generators ...... 33 5. Commuting ...... 36 6. Land Use ...... 38 C. Mission, Goals, and Standards ...... 41 1. Mission ...... 41 2. Goals and Objectives ...... 41 3. Service Standards ...... 43 D. Public Involvement ...... 55 1. On-Board Survey ...... 55 2. Community Survey ...... 61 3. Stakeholder Outreach ...... 68 4. Public Meetings ...... 68 5. Themes, Issues, and Opportunities ...... 69 6. Early Wins ...... 70 7. Draft TDP Public Comment Period ...... 70 E. Transit Service Evaluation ...... 71

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 2

1. Employee and Board Member Interviews ...... 71 2. Capital ...... 71 3. Operations Analysis ...... 75 4. Peer Review ...... 78 5. Performance Measures ...... 79 6. Organization and Staffing...... 85 7. Marketing and Communications ...... 86 F. Service Plan ...... 89 1. Constrained Plan ...... 92 2. Unconstrained Plan ...... 102 3. Proposed Implementation Plan ...... 107 G. Capital Plan ...... 110 1. Constrained Plan ...... 110 2. Unconstrained Plan ...... 112 H. Financial Plan ...... 114 1. Constrained Plan ...... 114 2. Unconstrained Plan ...... 116 I. Additional Recommendations ...... 118 1. Organization and Staffing Framework ...... 118 2. Marketing and Communications ...... 122 J. Compliance ...... 123 1. FTA ...... 123 2. Title VI ...... 123 3. ADA ...... 124 K. Attachments ...... 124

List of Figures Proposed Implementation Plan ...... 11 Proposed Deviated Fixed Routes and Stops: Deviated Route - Alternative B ...... 12 Proposed Fixed Routes and Stops: Fixed Route - Alternative B ...... 13 Figure A.1 - Licking County Transit Board Organizational Chart ...... 15 Figure B.1 - Location of Licking County ...... 19 Figure B.2 - Population Density of Licking County, 2017 ...... 20 Figure B.3 - Population Density of Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017 ...... 21 Figure B.4 - Population Change in Licking County, 2018-2050 ...... 22 Figure B.5 - Transit Needs Index for Licking County, 2017 ...... 25 Figure B.6 - Transit Needs Index for Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017 ...... 26 Figure B.7 - Employment Density of Licking County, 2017 ...... 28 Figure B.8 - Employment Density of Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017 ...... 29 Figure B.9 - Employment Change for Licking County, 2018-2050 ...... 30 Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 3

Figure B.10 - Industrial Parks and Employment Zones in Licking County, 2017 ...... 31 Figure B.11 - Industrial Parks and Employment Zones in Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017 ..... 32 Figure B.12 - Key Destinations for Licking County ...... 33 Figure B.13 - Key Destinations Heat Map for Licking County ...... 34 Figure B.14 - Key Destinations Heat Map for Newark-Heath-Granville ...... 35 Figure B.15 - 2020 and 2050 Licking County Land Use Percentages ...... 38 Figure B.16 - 2020 Licking County Existing Land Uses ...... 39 Figure B.17 - 2050 Licking County Planned Future Land Uses ...... 40 Figure C.1 - Level 1 Stop Amenities ...... 52 Figure C.2 - Level 2 Stop Amenities ...... 52 Figure C.3 - Level 3 Stop Amenities ...... 53 Figure D.1 - Engagement Activities ...... 55 Figure D.2 - Age of On-Board Survey Respondents ...... 57 Figure D.3 - Responses to “Why do you ride the bus? (Check all that apply)” ...... 58 Figure D.4 - Responses to “Why are you riding the bus today?” ...... 58 Figure D.5 - Responses to “How often do you ride LCT?” ...... 59 Figure D.6 - Responses to “How often do you ride the bus for school or job training?” ...... 59 Figure D.7 - Responses to “How often do you take the bus to work?”...... 60 Figure D.8 - Responses to “How often do you ride the bus for health care?” ...... 60 Figure D.9 - Responses to “Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements:” ...... 61 Figure D.10 - Community Feedback Online GIS Tool Interface ...... 62 Figure D.11 - Responses to “Which of the following is most important to you regarding transit?” ...... 64 Figure D.12 - Responses to “What are some concerns you have about Licking County Transit Service?” ...... 64 Figure D.13 - Responses to “I would rather transit service ran…” ...... 65 Figure D.14 - Proposed Routes and Stops, County and Surrounding Area ...... 66 Figure D.15 - Proposed Routes and Stops, Newark-Granville-Heath ...... 67 Figure E.1 - Light Transit Vehicle ...... 72 Figure E.2 - Transit Bus Wheelchair Lift ...... 72 Figure E.3 - Maintenance Facility ...... 74 Figure E.4 - Licking County Transit: Trip Purpose, 2019 ...... 75 Figure E.5 - Licking County Transit: Origin-Destination Heat Map, 2019 ...... 76 Figure E.6 - Licking County Transit: Origin-Destination Heat Map - Newark-Heath-Granville, 2019 ...... 77 Figure E.7 - Stand Alone Countywide Demand Response Service Effectiveness (Passengers per Hour) ...... 80 Figure E.8 - Stand Alone Countywide Demand Response Cost Efficiency (Cost per Hour) .. 80 Figure E.9 - Stand Alone Countywide Demand Response Cost Effectiveness (Cost per Passenger) ...... 81 Figure E.10 - LCT Trends Overview, 2014-2018 ...... 84 Figure F.1 - Proposed Route Alignment Coverage ...... 91 Figure F.2 - Designated Transit Corridors ...... 94 Figure F.3 - Deviated Fixed Route - Alternative A...... 97 Figure F.4 - Deviated Fixed Route - Alternative B...... 101 Figure F.5 - Fixed Route - Alternative A ...... 103 Figure F.6 - Fixed Route - Alternative B ...... 105 Figure F.7 - Proposed Implementation Plan ...... 109 Figure I.1 - Proposed (Future) LCT Organizational Structure ...... 119

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 4

List of Tables Proposed Scenarios at a Glance ...... 10 Table B.1 - Municipalities & Townships within Licking County ...... 18 Table B.2 - Transit Dependent Populations, 2017 ...... 24 Table B.3 - Licking County Top Ten Major Employers, 2017 ...... 27 Table B.4 - Where Those Working in Licking County Reside - Top Five Locations, 2017 ..... 36 Table B.5 - Where Those Who Reside in Licking County Work - Top Five Locations, 2017 .. 37 Table C.1 - Licking County TDP & CP Goals and Objectives ...... 42 Table C.2 - Service Standard Descriptions ...... 44 Table C.3 - Stop Spacing Standards ...... 48 Table C.4 - Service Standards Comparison by Service Type ...... 50 Table C.5 - Cleaning Standards ...... 51 Table C.6 - Bus Stop Amenities by Level ...... 51 Table D.1 - Race/Ethnicity of On-Board Survey Respondents ...... 57 Table D.2 - Survey Results Demographic Comparison ...... 63 Table D.3 - Stakeholders Involved in the TDP Process ...... 68 Table D.4 - Themes, Issues, and Opportunities ...... 69 Table D.5 - Proposed Early Wins ...... 70 Table E.1 - Fleet Roster ...... 73 Table E.2 - Current Technologies and Equipment ...... 75 Table E.3 - Operating Characteristics Overview, 2014-2018 ...... 81 Table E.4 - Service Effectiveness Measures, 2014-2018 ...... 82 Table E.5 - Cost Efficiency Measures, 2014-2018 ...... 82 Table E.6 - Cost Effectiveness Measures, 2014-2018 ...... 82 Table E.7 - Trends Overview (Percent Change), 2014-2018 ...... 83 Table E.8 - Ohio Peer System Existing Staff Roles Comparison ...... 85 Table E.9 - Training Needs Identified by LCT Staff ...... 86 Table F.1 - Scenarios at a Glance: Annual Service Characteristics ...... 90 Table F.2 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative A ...... 96 Table F.3 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative A ...... 96 Table F.4 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative A ...... 98 Table F.5 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative A ...... 98 Table F.6 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative B ...... 99 Table F.7 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative B ...... 100 Table F.8 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative B ...... 100 Table F.9 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative B ...... 100 Table F.10 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative A ...... 102 Table F.11 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative A ...... 102 Table F.12 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative A ...... 104 Table F.13 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative A ...... 104 Table F.14 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative B ...... 106 Table F.15 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative B ...... 106 Table F.16 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative B ...... 106 Table F.17 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative B ...... 107 Table F.18 - Proposed Implementation Timeline (2020–2030) ...... 108 Table G.1 - Constrained Capital Plan Overview ...... 110 Table G.2 - Current Bus Replacement Plan ...... 111 Table G.3 - Unconstrained Capital Plan Overview ...... 112 Table G.4 - Unconstrained Bus Replacement Plan ...... 113 Table H.1 - Constrained Plan: 2020–2025 Needs...... 115 Table H.2 - Constrained Plan: 2020–2025 Revenues Projected ...... 115 Table H.3 - Constrained Plan: 2020–2025 Needs vs. Revenues ...... 116 Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 5

Table H.4 - Unconstrained Plan: 2026–2030 Needs ...... 117 Table H.5 - Unconstrained Plan: 2026–2030 Revenues Projected...... 117 Table H.6 - Unconstrained Plan: 2026–2030 Needs vs. Revenues ...... 117 Table I.1 - Planning-Level FTE Needs for Service Scenario Implementation ...... 119 List of Attachments Attachment A - Service Standards Technical Memorandum Attachment B - On-Board Survey Questions Attachment C - On-Board Survey Results Attachment D - Community Survey Questions Attachment E - Community Survey Results Attachment F - October 2, 2019 Public Meeting Summary Attachment G - October 3, 2019 Public Meeting Summary Attachment H - Comments on Draft Transit Development Plan and Draft Coordinated Plan Attachment I - Employee Interview Memorandum Attachment J - Peer Review Memorandum Attachment K - Organizational and Staffing Management Plan Attachment L - Marketing and Communications Memorandum Attachment M - Schedules for Proposed Service Alternatives Licking County Transit Board Members Member Affiliation Rick Black Licking County Commissioner Brandon Galik City of Pataskala Olivia Biggs Villages Jeff Hindel Townships Deb Cole Citizen at Large Bill Cost City of Newark Dick Morrow City of Heath Steering Committee Members Member Affiliation Chris Harkness LCATS Matt Hill LCATS Cathy Sheets Licking County Transit Jim Lenner Village of Johnstown Deb Young Licking Memorial Hospital Jennifer McDonald Licking County Chamber of Commerce David McManus Licking County Board of Developmental Disabilities Juana Hostin Ohio DOT Bill MacDonald The Ohio State University - Newark Olivia Biggs Licking County Public Health/Licking County Transit Board Nate Keirns Licking County Job and Family Services Deb Dingus United Way of Licking County Ben Broyles Licking Memorial Hospital Rick Black Board of Licking County Commissioners Irene Kennedy Community Member Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 6

Executive Summary Foreword

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted transit services in ways that could not be anticipated when this planning process began in August of 2019. Ridership, funding availability, and other key aspects of planning for and providing transit services have become uncertain and difficult to predict. While this plan was initially developed with a defined implementation timeline beginning in 2020 following the adoption of the plan, these uncertainties may delay various aspects of implementation and require a more measured approach to the addition of new transit services. As outlined in the proposed service plan, incremental changes in services should be carefully evaluated to determine their effectiveness and inform subsequent implementation efforts.

For the purposes of preserving the original recommendations of this plan as determined through public input, stakeholder engagement, and technical analysis, the proposed 2020–2030 implementation timeline has been retained. However, as illustrated in the graphic that concludes this summary, any service changes will be implemented in a gradual, incremental fashion that may not conform to the original schedule as proposed during plan development.

Background

The purpose of the Licking County Transit (LCT) Transit Development Plan (TDP) is to identify transit needs in Licking County and use public input, data, and technical analyses to inform decisions about how to address those needs. The TDP process involves setting goals and objectives for the transit system as well as service, capital, and financial planning.

Prior to January 1, 2019, LCT was operated under contract by private transportation providers. While Licking County owned the transit vehicles and operations facilities, contractors provided maintenance and handled driver hiring and training, insurance, safety oversight, and management. A contract with National Express expired at the end of 2017, at which point the County began working with MV Transportation in 2018. After MV Transportation ended the contract, Licking County absorbed operations of the transit system at the start of 2019. Following this transition, completing a TDP is an important step in determining how LCT should meet the transportation needs of Licking County residents going forward.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 7

Process

The planning process began in August of 2019 and was conducted alongside the planning process for LCT’s Coordinated Plan (CP). The purpose of the CP process is to improve the availability and quality of public transit in Licking County for targeted populations including seniors, individuals with disabilities, those with low income, minorities, and others with limited mobility options. Projects, investments and strategies are identified as part of the CP to improve communication and coordination among public transportation and human services agencies. The TDP and CP were completed concurrently to make the most effective use of public involvement, promote data sharing and efficiency, and maximize consistency between the two plans. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 8

Transit stakeholders and members of the public were involved in the planning process in a number of ways, including:

• Public meetings • Project steering committee make up of transit stakeholders • On-board survey • Community survey and online GIS mapping exercise • Stakeholder interviews and phone calls • Interviews with transit staff and conversations with operators • Online draft TDP public comment period

These methods of engagement led to the identification of the issues and opportunities outlined in the graphic below. In addition to the public process, consultant staff conducted analyses of the existing service, including:

• Inventory of existing fleet, facilities, and technology • Operations analysis • Comparison of LCT to similar transit systems in Ohio and two other states • Past performance using standard transit performance measures • Staffing and governance needs • Marketing and communications

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 9

Recommendations

Based on community and stakeholder input and a review of operational characteristics, three different service scenarios were produced for possible implementation:

• One Cost Neutral Scenario • One Deviated Route service scenario with two alignment alternatives • One Fixed Route service scenario with two alignment alternatives

The cost neutral scenario is based on maintaining the current demand response service that LCT operates along with several lower-cost strategies designed to improve service. The other two scenarios involve establishing route-based services with set stops and schedules. Fixed route service refers to transit with a set route alignment, designated stops, and a fixed operating schedule. Deviated routes are similar to fixed routes but allow buses to deviate from their route to provide service coverage to origins and destinations within a close proximity to that route (typically 0.75 miles) if a request is made ahead of time.

The proposed service scenarios include a combination of the routes proposed below:

• Route 1 (Medical & Government): This is an out-and-back route with service along W. Main St. from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to the Medical/Office space at Tamarack Rd. Span of service: M-F 6AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-6PM • Route 2 (Jobs & Retail): This is a loop route that services Downtown Newark and loops north to Career & Technology Education Centers (C-TEC) and loops back to Main St. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-6PM • Route 3 (Jobs & Retail): This is a loop route that services just west of Downtown Newark, connecting Indian Mound Mall, Southgate Shopping Center, and Moundbuilders Country Club. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM- 6PM • Route 4 (Higher Education): This is a loop route that services both The Ohio State University – Newark and Denison University in Granville. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-6PM • Route 5 (Hebron Route): This is an out-and-back commuter type service, which connects downtown Newark to downtown Hebron, with the possibility to be extended to Buckeye Lake in the future. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat- Sun 6AM-6PM. • Route 6 (Pataskala): This serves as a commuter route with a stop in downtown Pataskala and downtown Newark. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8:45AM, 4PM- 7:45PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-8:30AM, 4PM-6:30PM • Route 7 (Johnstown): This serves as a commuter route with a stop in downtown Johnstown and downtown Newark. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8:45AM, 4PM- 7:45PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-8:30AM, 4PM-6:30PM • Route 7 (Johnstown): This serves as a commuter route with a stop in downtown Alexandria, Johnstown, New Albany (connection to COTA) and downtown Newark. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8:45AM, 4PM-7:45PM, Sat-Sun 6AM- 8:30AM, 4PM-6:30PM

As shown below, Alternative A for deviated or fixed routes include Routes 1-5, while Alternative B includes Routes 1-7. Based on LCT’s reported demand response trips in 2019, Deviated Route - Alternative B would be able to cover 82% of the trips made within Licking County and 77% of all trips (including trips outside of Licking County). Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 10

Proposed Scenarios at a Glance

Vehicle Annual Service Scenario Routes Requirement Cost Estimate Existing Service (Demand Response) - 34 $3,926,057* Deviated Route - Alternative A 1-5 5 $1,394,915 Deviated Route - Alternative B 1-7 7 $1,577,603 Fixed Route - Alternative A 1-5 5 $2,248,773 Fixed Route - Alternative B 1-7 7 $2,543,287 *Based on LCT’s expenses reported to NTD for 2018.

The proposed implementation plan is shown below. Demand response service will continue to be provided county-wide as the proposed scenarios are implemented. Many riders that do not require demand response service may shift to the new deviated or fixed route services as they are implemented. The maps following the proposed implementation plan graphic show the locations of all seven proposed routes with and without a 0.75-mile deviated route buffer (Deviated Fixed Route - Alternative B and Fixed Route - Alternative B).

As described in the foreword, the proposed service plan and other recommendations were developed assuming implementation would begin immediately following TDP adoption. Specific years have been included in the TDP to represent a recommended timeline, however the actual timeline and steps for implementation will depend on performance measures and funding availability as noted in the proposed implementation plan graphic below.

In addition to the proposed service plan, the TDP also provides recommendations related to staffing and governance, marketing and communications, technology and operational improvements, and capital/financial considerations for implementing the proposed service plan.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 11

Proposed Implementation Plan

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 12

Proposed Deviated Fixed Routes and Stops: Deviated Route - Alternative B

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 13

Proposed Fixed Routes and Stops: Fixed Route - Alternative B

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 14

A. Transit Service Overview 1. History and Background

LCT is the sole public transportation provider for Licking County, Ohio. LCT provides demand response transit service across the County to the general public, as well as limited destinations outside the County. LCT was established in July 1998 and is owned, operated, and governed by the citizens of Licking County through the Licking County Transit Board (LCTB).

In 2012, LCT merged with Earthworks Transit, which previously operated demand response, shared-ride, curb-to-curb service in the cities of Newark (the county seat of Licking County) and Heath. Earthworks operations were administered by the City of Newark. Earthworks Transit was the successor to the Newark-Heath Taxi Token Program, which was operated by a local taxi company until April 2009.

2. Organizational Structure and Governance

LCT is currently governed by an appointed seven-member transit board (LCTB) consisting of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and representatives from Licking County and cities, villages, townships and local agencies within Licking County. Board meetings are held monthly at the LCT offices. LCTB’s primary function is to provide oversight of the transit system.

Transit boards have the responsibility of ensuring that transit services are being provided in accordance with federal and state regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, review of operational and financial reports and discussion of anticipated service changes. Board members should work collaboratively with employees at all levels of the organization to achieve compliance. They are responsible for setting policy, while the General Manager should be responsible for implementing policy and overseeing day-today operations.

Figure A.1 shows the current structure of the organization. Agencies that provide technical, financial, or policy assistance are connected via a dotted line and described in greater detail in the “Agency Partners” section below. A brief overview of LCT staff member roles is provided below.

General Manager: The General Manager oversees the overall day-to-day operations of the transit system and works with and reports directly to the board. They also act as the community representative for LCT, perform personnel relations, conduct training, develop and implement policies and procedures, manage grants and conduct planning and marketing for LCT services.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 15

Operations Manager: The Operations Manager is responsible for all street operations, operators, maintenance, dispatching and customer service functions and reports to the General Manager.

Fiscal Officer: The Fiscal Officer is responsible for all financial aspects of transit operations, including budgeting, financial reporting and audits and reports to the General Manager.

Transit Reservationists/Dispatchers: Dispatchers are responsible for interacting with users of the transit system, scheduling rides, and coordinating with Operators to ensure efficient operations.

Transportation Supervisor: The Transportation Supervisor is responsible for overseeing the operators and ensuring that the operators are performing their jobs safely, with good customer service and in a timely manner.

Operators: Operators drive the transit vehicles that make up the LCT fleet. Operators must meet minimum requirements for providing safe, reliable service with good customer service.

Lead Mechanic: The Lead Mechanic oversees the team of mechanics and all repair and maintenance services for the LCT fleet, keeps all maintenance records and proper tools, parts and materials inventories.

Mechanics: Mechanics are responsible for keeping transit vehicles and equipment in safe, reliable operating condition.

Bus Detailer: The Bus Detailer is responsible for maintaining the interior and exterior appearance of transit vehicles to ensure a clean and professional appearance.

Figure A.1 - Licking County Transit Board Organizational Chart

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 16

3. Agency Partners

LCT works with a wide range of local and regional agencies to set policy and deliver services to residents of Licking County.

Policy Partners Licking County Area Transportation Study (LCATS) LCATS is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Newark area and is responsible for multimodal transportation planning. The mission of LCATS is described below:

The main goal of LCATS is to utilize federal transportation funds that are available to the area to produce the most efficient transportation system possible. These funds can be used for studies, projects and improvements, including federal-aid roadways, bridges, transit and enhancement projects. Ensure the transportation system in Licking County supports and encourages appropriate economic development and social activities, while maximizing the efficient use of our natural and human resources and minimizing adverse impacts upon the natural and built environments.1

Board of Licking County Commissioners Licking County is served by a three-member Board of County Commissioners, elected every four years. As a service of Licking County, LCT is ultimately responsible to the Board of Commissioners.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) FTA is an agency with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) that deals specifically with public transportation systems. It provides technical and financial assistance and maintains the National Transit Database (NTD).

Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Office of Transit The ODOT Office of Transit is a provider of technical and financial assistance to public transit systems across the State of Ohio. It administers various grant programs that help fund LCT’s operations.

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) MORPC is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Columbus Urbanized Area, which includes Pataskala and Etna Townships within Licking County. MORPC facilitates regular regional transit service provider coordination meetings among the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), Delaware County Transit, and Licking County Transit. MORPC has also facilitated a formula funding split agreement approved by all parties for the Columbus UZA on file with FTA. For each federal apportionment, MORPC drafts a letter with attachments that is approved by all parties and submits it to FTA for each transit entity’s grant submission.

Central Ohio Rural Planning Organization (CORPO) CORPO is made up of seven counties in the nonmetropolitan areas of central Ohio. It provides transportation planning products and services in these rural counties as well as coordination among rural county transit service providers, mobility managers, engineers, planners, and other stakeholders.

1 “About LCATS.” http://www.lcats.org Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 17

Cities, Villages, and Townships Residents of cities, villages, and townships across Licking County use LCT services. The LCTB includes members representing the interests of these other local governments, which currently do not contribute funds directly to LCT.

Service Partners The organizations identified below work with LCT to provide transportation services for their clients. Stakeholder outreach conducted as part of the TDP process revealed strong interest from the business, medical, and education communities in Licking County in partnering with LCT to fund new or existing services that would serve their respective constituencies.

Licking County Job and Family Services (LCJFS) LCT provides contracted transportation services to clients of LCJFS, an agency that administers various federal, state, and county programs that provide food, medical, and financial assistance as well as employment and social services.

Licking County Board of Developmental Disabilities (LCBDD) The LCBDD provides a wide range of services to residents of Licking County with developmental disabilities from early childhood through adulthood. LCT works with LCBDD to provide contracted transportation services.

Licking County Senior Levy The Licking County Senior Levy is a tax on the citizens of Licking County for the purpose of providing and maintaining services for older adults in the County. LCT receives funding through the Licking County Senior Levy to provide transportation services to older adults.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 18

B. Community Assessment 1. Location Overview

Licking County is located in central Ohio, sharing its eastern border with the counties of Muskingum and Coshocton, its northern border with Knox, its western border with Delaware and Franklin, and its southern border with Fairfield and Perry. The county seat is Newark, Ohio. The County itself contains 16 municipalities and 25 townships (Table B.1). The nearest major city is Columbus, Ohio, which is roughly a 45-minute drive from Newark.

Table B.1 - Municipalities & Townships within Licking County

Municipalities Townships Alexandria Bennington Mary Ann Buckeye Lake Bowling Green McKean Granville Burlington Monroe Gratiot Eden Newark Hanover Etna Newton Hartford Fallsbury Perry Heath Franklin St. Albans Hebron Granville Union Johnstown Hanover Washington Kirkersville Harrison Newark (County Seat) Hartford New Albany Hopewell Pataskala Jersey Reynoldsburg Liberty St. Louisville Licking Utica Madison

There are six major thoroughfares within Licking County, including US Highway (US) 62, State Route (SR) 37, SR 79, SR 161, SR 16, US 40, and Interstate 70 (I-70). The distribution of these thoroughfares creates convenient east and west travel in the region and several direct connections to Columbus (Figure B.1).

2. Population

Licking County has an estimated total of 170,678 residents, according to 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. Data regarding total population from the 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates was utilized to analyze the population density of Licking County. Population density was observed at the block group level per acre. Approximately 40 percent of the population in Licking County is located within the urban areas of Newark, Heath, and Granville. Additional pockets exist in Johnstown, Reynoldsburg, Buckeye Lake, and Utica. A large portion of the county has a population density of less than 500 people per acre (Figure B.2 & Figure B.3).

Based on data provided from the MORPC, projections were used to estimate areas that may experience an increase in population over the next 30 years. Figure B.4 illustrates increases in population density within Licking County. Block groups highlighted in dark orange/red are projected to see population density increases of more than 500 people per acre. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 19

Figure B.1 - Location of Licking County Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 20

Figure B.2 - Population Density of Licking County, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 21

Figure B.3 - Population Density of Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 22

Figure B.4 - Population Change in Licking County, 2018-2050

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 23

Some people depend on transit for travel in their daily lives, and it is helpful to understand how many people in Licking County are truly transit dependent. Transit-dependent population is an indicator for transit demand and measures captive riders (those whose mobility is almost entirely dependent on public transportation). In arriving at transit- dependent population, factors such as age, household drivers, group quarters population and number of household vehicles available are considered.

For the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), staff utilized a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) formula (last modified in 2011 by the Capital Area Transit Authority in Lansing, Michigan) to locate regions containing larger concentrations of driving age citizens with limited to no access to personal automobiles. The analysis used data from the 2017 ACS at the block group level, which provided detailed demographic information applicable to transit-dependent population calculations not attainable from the Decennial Census. The following displays the steps necessary to develop inputs for the transit-dependent population calculation:

• Household Drivers = (population age 18 and over) - (persons living in group quarters) • Transit-Dependent Household Population = (household drivers) - (vehicles available) • Transit-Dependent Population = (transit-dependent household population) + (population ages 10-17) + (non-institutionalized population living in group quarters)

While transit-dependent population is important for quantifying potential transit demand, it is more specific to citizens who are unable to acquire or drive an automobile. Transit- dependent population does not include other socioeconomic metrics that would classify citizens as “Target Transit Riders,” or those more likely to need transit due to health, physical ability, or for fiscal reasons. These subgroups make up a slightly different viewpoint for transit demand compared to transit-dependent population estimates. Target Transit Riders (TTR), for the purposes of this study, include the populations listed below (all subgroup values were retrieved from the 2017 5-year ACS):

• Older adults (people over the age of 65) • Persons with disabilities • People who are members of racial, ethnic, religious and other minority groups • Households who speak limited English • Households living in poverty • Households without a motor vehicle

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations are comprised of people who indicated on the 2017 ACS that they either do not speak English at all or do not speak English well.

To calculate TTR, the six groups listed above were summed at the block group level, representing the total number of riders in each block group. Due to the nature of these demographic characteristics, it is possible, and highly likely, that some people belong to more than one of the population subsets used in the TTR calculation (e.g. someone who is older than 65 may also have a disability). This means that some people were probably counted more than once in the TTR totals. The chance of “double-counting” people with the calculation method is unavoidable because it is impossible to identify which demographic characteristics apply to each individual person in the community. However, for the purposes of this analysis, counting people more than once in the TTR calculation Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 24

can be considered a positive outcome because it considers people who may face more than one barrier to personal mobility.

The Transit Needs Index (TNI) is a combination of the transit-dependent population and TTR as a percentage of the overall population. As acknowledged in the previous section, the likelihood of double counting a person by demographic characteristic in this process is both probable and beneficial to identifying barriers to populations dependent on transit. That is, where someone might be elderly, disabled, and below the poverty line, they are facing cascading factors affecting their mobility.

The effects of this double counting are seen in the map represented in Figure B.5 where the index is very high in many block groups in the urban areas and southwest sections of the MPA. Figure B.6 details the TNI scores within the urban areas of Newark, Heath, and Granville.

In general, areas with high population density also contain populations that have higher transit need, which pinpoints where populations that have higher than normal transit needs (minority groups, older adults, people with disabilities, people in poverty, or people who do not own a car) are located. See Table B.2 and Figure B.5 & Figure B.6.

This analysis also included households below the ALICE Threshold. “ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed, represents the growing number of individuals and families who are working, but are unable to afford the basic necessities of housing, childcare, food, transportation, and health care.”2 Twenty-eight percent of Licking County households were identified as ALICE households.

ALICE groups were added to the original TNI index to determine areas that demonstrated high transit need. Areas of Newark, Heath, Buckeye Lake, and Pataskala all demonstrated high transit need based on the previously mentioned population metrics.

Table B.2 - Transit Dependent Populations, 2017

Minority % of 65 or % of % of % of No % of Total Pop. / Total Disability Poverty Pop. Total Older Total Total Total Car Total Households 12,962 7.6% 26,300 15% 18,826 29% 7,205 11% 3,101 4.8% 176,678 / 64,434

2 The ALICE methodology is available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ktg3ioqxpp6kgle/18UW_ALICE_Project_Methodology_04.01.19.pdf?dl=0 Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 25

Figure B.5 - Transit Needs Index for Licking County, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 26

Figure B.6 - Transit Needs Index for Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 27

3. Employment

Employment data was reviewed at the block group level using Longitudinal Employer- Household Dynamics (LEHD) data. Similar to population, areas of high employment density (more than 5,000 jobs per acre) are concentrated in the urban areas of Newark, Heath, and Granville. New Albany, Johnstown, Hartford, Utica, and areas around Pataskala have an employment density between 250 to 5,000 jobs per acre (Figure B.7 & Figure B.8). Areas with high employment density should be noted as priority locations when planning future transit services.

According to MORPC, employment totals for the County are projected to experience growth over the next 30 years. Block groups near major urban areas are projected to experience the most growth with an increase between 100 to 800 additional jobs, represented by the block groups highlighted in dark green in Figure B.9.

Industrial parks and employment zones are major employment generators for Licking County and are shown in Figure B.10 & Figure B.11. Industrial parks in Licking County are located within Heath (Heath-Newark-Licking County Port Authority), Johnstown (Johnstown Commerce Center), New Albany (Beauty Park), Hebron (Hebron Business Park), and outside of Pataskala (Amazon/Industrial Park). Employment zones are located within Newark, New Albany, Heath, Hebron, Granville, and outside of Pataskala.

Other major employers in Licking County can be found in Table B.3.

Table B.3 - Licking County Top Ten Major Employers, 2017

Number of Employer Employees Amazon Fulfillment Center 4,785 Licking Memorial Health System 2,000 Ascena Retail Group 1,475 The Kroger Co. 1,177 Owens Corning 1,000 AEP Ohio 835 L Brands 800 Anomatic Corporation 800 Denison University 796 State Farm Insurance 750 Source: https://growlickingcounty.org/why-licking-county/major-employers Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 28

Figure B.7 - Employment Density of Licking County, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 29

Figure B.8 - Employment Density of Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 30

Figure B.9 - Employment Change for Licking County, 2018-2050

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 31

Figure B.10 - Industrial Parks and Employment Zones in Licking County, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 32

Figure B.11 - Industrial Parks and Employment Zones in Newark-Heath-Granville, 2017

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 33

4. Major Non-Employment Trip Generators

Major non-employment trip generators considered in this analysis included churches, medical facilities, and historical landmarks, which were considered key destinations within the County.3 Sixty-one percent (372) of these locations are churches, 28 percent (169) are schools (both K-12 and colleges/universities), and 11 percent (64) are hospitals (Figure B.12). The majority of these destinations are located within Newark and Heath with other hot spots in Granville, Pataskala, and Johnstown (Figure B.13 & Figure B.14).

Figure B.12 - Key Destinations for Licking County

400 372

350

300

250

200 169

150

100 64 50 4 0 Church Historic Landmark Hospital School

3 Data on key destinations was provided by LCATS. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 34

Figure B.13 - Key Destinations Heat Map for Licking County

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 35

Figure B.14 - Key Destinations Heat Map for Newark-Heath-Granville

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 36

5. Commuting

Journey to Work profiles were created using the Census Bureau’s OnTheMap tool4 to identify the commuting patterns for employees (Table B.4) and residents (Table B.5) in Newark, Heath, Granville, and Pataskala (these tables only display the top five areas of residency and employment, while totals encapsulate all areas). Generally, both residents and employees of these designated areas are concentrated in the municipalities of Newark, Columbus, Heath, or Granville. Additionally, 65 percent of the residents in these designated areas work outside of Licking County, while 25 percent of all residents work in Columbus.

Table B.4 - Where Those Working in Licking County Reside - Top Five Locations, 2017

Employer Residence Count Share5 Total6 Location Newark city, OH 5,706 27.5% Columbus city, OH 1,070 5.2% Newark Heath city, OH 1,057 5.1% 20,771 Granville village, OH 308 1.5% Zanesville city, OH 258 1.2% Newark city, OH 1,356 17.4% Heath city, OH 515 6.6% Heath Columbus city, OH 500 6.4% 7,810 Zanesville city, OH 124 1.6% Lancaster city, OH 116 1.5% Newark city, OH 491 21.3% Granville village, OH 244 10.6% Granville Columbus city, OH 166 7.2% 2,310 Heath city, OH 130 5.6% Hebron village, OH 50 2.2% Columbus city, OH 517 16.2% Pataskala city, OH 320 10.0% Pataskala Reynoldsburg city, OH 166 5.2% 3,190 Newark city, OH 141 4.4% Beechwood Trails CDP, OH 75 2.4%

4 Available at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ 5 Values are based on all places in Licking County, not just the top five places shown. 6 Values are based on all places in Licking County, not just the top five places shown. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 37

Table B.5 - Where Those Who Reside in Licking County Work - Top Five Locations, 2017

Residence Employer Location Count Share Total Newark city, OH 5,706 26.1% Columbus city, OH 3,776 17.3% Newark Heath city, OH 1,356 6.2% 21,874 New Albany city, OH 504 2.3% Granville village, OH 491 2.2% Newark city, OH 1,057 20.8% Columbus city, OH 885 17.4% Heath Heath city, OH 515 10.1% 5,087 Hebron village, OH 145 2.9% Granville village, OH 130 2.6% Columbus city, OH 521 23.8% Newark city, OH 308 14.1% Granville Granville village, OH 244 11.1% 2,190 Heath city, OH 52 2.4% New Albany city, OH 38 1.7% Columbus city, OH 2,805 38.2 Pataskala city, OH 320 4.4% Pataskala Gahanna city, OH 297 4.0% 7,347 New Albany city, OH 257 3.5% Newark city, OH 216 2.9%

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 38

6. Land Use

Figure B.15 illustrates existing and projected land development percentages throughout Licking County, as reported in the 2020-2050 MTP from the MORPC. Figure B.16 illustrates the current 2020 development patterns throughout the County and Figure B.17 illustrates land uses projected for 2050. The four major current land uses in Licking County are Residential, Agricultural, Vacant Space, and Commercial/Office Space. By 2050, Residential and Commercial/Office spaces are projected to see significant increases. In contrast, the amount of Agricultural land uses is expected to decrease. Other land uses are expected to stay fairly consistent.

Figure B.15 - 2020 and 2050 Licking County Land Use Percentages

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 39

Figure B.16 - 2020 Licking County Existing Land Uses

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 40

Figure B.17 - 2050 Licking County Planned Future Land Uses

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 41

C. Mission, Goals, and Standards 1. Mission

The first steering committee meeting for the Licking County TDP & CP was held on October 1, 2019 at the Licking County Administration Building. At the meeting, consultant staff conducted a goals and objectives workshop with the Steering Committee members. The purpose of the workshop was to review the existing mission statement, develop goals for the TDP, and establish measurable objectives for each goal. The first step during the initial workshop was to revisit the Transit Board’s existing mission statement:

The Licking County Transit Board is dedicated to providing safe transportation to improve the quality of life for the maximum number of Licking County citizens. We recognize that this can best be accomplished by partnering with others in the Licking County community.

Licking County Transit Services are funded, in part, by the Federal Transit Administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation, Licking County Board of Commissioners and users. Additional funding is provided by contracts with agencies to provide transportation services for their clients.

The Licking County Transit Board (LCTB) is a government body established under the laws of the State of Ohio (ORC, Section 306). The LCTB is also an EEO employer.

Workshop participants found the existing mission statement to be too long and agreed that the new mission statement should be more concise. During the discussion, the group also agreed that the new mission statement should emphasize LCT’s commitment to collaboration, connections, reliability, support, and providing service to everyone.

Steering committee members selected the following mission statement as the preferred option:

Licking County Transit works to deliver safe and reliable transportation services in Licking County through quality customer service and collaboration with community partners.

2. Goals and Objectives

Steering committee members also identified the top goal areas for LCT over the next five years. Five priority topic areas were identified:

• Financial efficiency • Partnerships • Mobility, accessibility, and reliability • Innovation and operational technology • Safety and operations

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 42

These topic areas were shaped into the goals shown in Table C.1. Objectives were developed to meet each goal. Effective objectives are specific measures used to hold the agency accountable within a set timeframe. For the purposes of the TDP, the objectives should be completed within five years after the plan is approved. The goals will be met once each of the objectives is executed.

Table C.1 - Licking County TDP & CP Goals and Objectives

Goals Objectives 1. Create a safety plan. 1. Maintain safe and 2. Continue to hold regular safety meetings with all reliable transit staff and drivers. services for Licking 3. Maintain good transit vehicle safety record. County residents. 4. Schedule weekly staff/safety meetings. 5. Adopt customer service standards. 1. Improve communication with transit users via 2. Enhance mobility website, social media, a mobile app, and other for Licking County methods. residents by 2. Implement service recommendations based on improving the completed Transit Development Plan. accessibility and 3. Increase the number and type of options available reliability of transit for users to schedule trips. services. 4. Explore options for serving second and third shift workers. 3. Improve transit 1. Optimize use of RouteMatch software or explore operations through alternatives. innovative 2. Review staff structure and streamline dispatch and scheduling and scheduling process. dispatch 3. Streamline scheduling system. technologies. 1. Improve driver scheduling practices. 2. Implement new zonal fare structure. 3. Pursue grant funding to support service and 4. Develop financial operations. efficiency through 4. Improve marketing efforts to grow transit ridership staff improvements and visibility of LCT. and new sources of 5. Pursue opportunities for advertising on transit funding. vehicles. 6. Explore options for financial contributions from cities in Licking County. 1. Review and update existing contracts with partner organizations. 5. Advance existing 2. Establish an employee shuttle pilot program with and establish new key area employers. partnerships with 3. Work with local educational institutions to meet organizations that student transportation needs. use, provide, or 4. Explore coordination opportunities with manage EmpowerBus, Central Ohio Transit Authority transportation (COTA), Gohio Commute, and neighboring county services inside and transit agencies. outside of Licking 5. Enhance relationships with cities in Licking County County. to develop support for future service changes and financial contributions. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 43

3. Service Standards

a. Introduction

Application of Service Standards In general, a transit system provides services by performing a series of scheduled pick up’s and drop off’s through deviated or fixed routes or demand response services. A predetermined schedule allows riders to plan for their trip prior to entering the system. Each transit system has a series of policies and procedures that govern services to provide uniformity and consistency throughout the system. This section provides an overview of these service standards. Additional details are available in the Service Standards Technical Memorandum (Attachment A).

Service Standards should be continually monitored and refined based on changes to the operating environment in Licking County. Implementation and updating of service is particularly dependent upon financial constraints. Service standards should be reviewed on an annual basis and adjusted accordingly. If the data sources or technology available to LCT changes, the targets and key performance indicators (KPIs) might require an adjustment to ensure they continue to meet the needs of the region.

Service Adjustment Strategies There are many factors that can influence the type of transit service that should be provided to different markets. Typically, population and employment are essential in driving the demand for service. High population, high employment, or a combination of the two set a basic threshold for the type of transit that should serve a given area. If an area with existing service captures a high amount of a threshold, then it makes sense to consider the provision of high quality, high capacity service to the area.

However, providing effective regional service necessitates going beyond the basic provisional thresholds. Open lines of communication must exist between partner agencies and transit providers to understand the requirements for high quality transit service. If an area is not represented by an appropriate market for service, it must be understood that providing a type of service that does not fit the threshold will not be cost effective.

As Licking County continues to grow, it is important that transit providers understand how to allocate resources effectively, and which markets will utilize the provided services. Service standards are policies which guide the implementation of transit service (Table C.2). These standards are unique to the needs of Licking County however they are influenced by best practices. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 44

Table C.2 - Service Standard Descriptions

Standards Individual Standard Description Real Time Data Informs users and service productivity Technology Transit Signal Priority Gets buses through intersections efficiently Off Board Fare Reduces dwell time at stations Collection Route Design A route’s alignment and intuitiveness The distance between stops (impacts Stop Spacing accessibility and speed of service) The distance between routes (to prevent System Route Spacing service overlap) Design: Specific points along a route to keep a bus on Fixed Route Time Points schedule Route Directness The distance of a route from point A to point B Schedule Design Frequency and span of service Bus Stop Standards Amenity allocation and stop placement How quickly a transit agency can respond to a Responsiveness trip request System A combination of on-time performance and Reliability Design: trips turned down Demand Compares time taken to make a trip to an Travel Time Response alternate travel mode (i.e. ride-share, taxi cabs) When a passenger fails to show up for a No-Shows scheduled trip

Current Service Types LCT currently provides only demand response service. Types of transit service are largely dependent on existing markets and land uses. Dense areas containing many trip generators (e.g. Newark-Granville-Heath) will require service types that can effectively serve high demand/ridership numbers (i.e. intuitive, linear routes with high frequencies), whereas areas more suburban in nature will require completely different service to effectively use resources (i.e. farther stop placements and necessary deviations to market clusters).

Future Service Types Licking County Transit’s TDP aims to help the region plan for short-term ways to improve existing transit, as well as implement effective future services. Generally, future transit service provided in Licking County can be grouped into five categories: regional connectors, frequent service, local service, flexible service (route deviation), and low- density service (demand response and complementary paratransit). These categories of service types are used to set unique targets for implementing the service standards. A description of each service type is provided below.

Regional Connectors Regional Connectors are a fixed route transit service that provide service from city to city along a major arterial at high frequencies with limited stops. These routes cover key areas and give users increased accessibility and connectivity to multiple urban areas in a region.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 45

Fixed Route (Frequent Service) Fixed route service that has demand for more frequent service due to destinations and or ridership. Accordingly, frequent fixed route service refers to transit that stays within denser, more urban areas where transit demand tends to be concentrated.

Fixed Route Local Service Fixed route local service refers to transit with a set route alignment, designated stops, and a fixed operating schedule.

Demand Response Demand response or paratransit services typically provide curb-to-curb services and require reservations to be made ahead of time. Some targets differ from other service types as there are no fixed routes or designated stops.

b. Technology Standards

Enhanced technology is critical for an agency’s performance. Ensuring updated technology whenever possible affects how passengers and operators understand the service and its productivity, as well as overall service efficiency.

Real Time/Data Tracking Real time/data tracking technology allows for transit agencies to better understand existing ridership trends. It is recommended that all LCT buses are equipped with the technologies listed below.

Automated Passenger Counters Automated Passenger Counters (APC) are sensors that accurately track boardings and alightings occurring on a transit vehicle. This technology allows service providers to better track ridership trends, and therefore plan and implement better service.

Future Technologies The following technologies are supplementary add-ons that increase service quality but should be discretional options dependent on financial constraints. These technologies should be taken into consideration should LCT have the funding for implementation in the future.

Analytic/Operational Transit Software Transit software exists to help plan, deliver, evaluate, and operate transit effectively (e.g. Remix, Passio, Pantonium, etc.). It is critical for all Licking County partners to collaborate and ensure similar software platforms are used to create a cohesive system.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 46

Transit Signal Priority Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is a tool that prioritizes transit vehicle movement through signalized intersections over other modes of transportation. This is done by decreasing intersection dwell times for transit vehicles by extending green lights or decreasing red lights when the vehicle is present. TSP is relatively cost effective and provides little impact to existing traffic. This method is accomplished through the implementation of detector systems, priority request generators, and software which is programmed to prioritize and grant requests.

Off Board Fare Collection Off board fare collection refers to the practice of providing users the ability to pay for transit fare prior to boarding through at-station kiosks or via smartphone (in place of traditional “front-door” payment methods). With this method fare takes the form of loadable smart cards/credit cards, e-tickets, paper tickets, or smartphone apps. This enhanced fare collection method makes all-door boarding possible, thus reducing dwell times at stations/stops. All-door boarding is typically facilitated by proof-of-payment fare control, where users must be able to show transit operators/staff a purchased ticket if prompted. Both TSP and off board fare collection should be implemented as fixed route service is phased in.

c. System Design

System alignment is critical to both transit efficiency and cost effectiveness. A system should be designed to take citizens where they want to go, in a direct and intuitive manner. Well-designed systems take advantage of existing land uses/market concentrations that best support transit, therefore limiting unproductive routes. The following sections detail practices for efficient system design.

Schedule Design Frequency Frequency is how often a bus arrives at a given stop or departs from a terminal. Higher frequency translates into a reduction in overall travel time by providing freedom to show up to a stop or station and know that the next trip will arrive soon. It also minimizes transfer time on trips where passengers use more than one route. In general, the higher the frequency, the better the route is performing under this measure.

Span of Service Span of service refers to the number of hours during the day transit service is provided. Span of service may apply to a route, segment of a route, or between two specific locations, and may differ by day of week and hour of the day (peak vs non-peak).

Fare Structure Fare setting strategies can vary dependent on population size, services operated, and the characteristics of individual passengers (adult, senior, those with disabilities, students, etc.). A transit agency’s fare structure should be simple, easy to understand, and provide affordable options for all passengers. Transit agencies should consider the share of expenses they need to recover through fare costs, then base fare structure on meeting that goal while keeping fares affordable.

A peer comparison of transit agencies in Ohio offering some form of fixed route service indicated that the majority of these agencies offered fare prices that were between $1.00 to $2.00 for the general public (an average of $1.77) and all agencies offered half off discounted fares for older adults and those with disabilities. Additionally, only a handful of Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 47

transit agencies offered deviated route services. These agencies charged an average fare of $1.42 for the general public with a 50 percent discount for elderly or disabled passengers. Demand response provider services and fare prices vary throughout the state however fare structures were similar. Many demand response providers charge an in-town base fee somewhere between $1.00 and $2.00 for the general public, increase fares for trips to nearby communities to $3.00 or $4.00 and charge more than $4.00 for trips outside of the county. LCT should establish a fixed fare structure for deviated and fixed route services, while establishing a zonal fare structure for demand response trips moving forward. Demand response fares could be structured as follows:

• Base Fare Zone - $2.00

o This base fare would be restricted to the areas where new deviated or fixed route alignments are proposed.

• Zone 2: City Limits - $4.00

o This zonal fare would extend beyond the proposed deviated or fixed route alignments and encompass the municipal city limits that are proposed to be served by deviated route services.

• Zone 3: Within the County - $8.00

o This zonal fare would apply to service provided any distance beyond municipal city limits to the edge of the county line including where connections with neighboring transportation services occur from bordering counties.

Discounts for seniors and disabled individuals under the FTA half-fare guidelines would be maintained at 50% off the applicable general public fares noted above. In addition, fare rates established under fee for service contracts, (i.e. LCBDD or LCJFS) would remain as currently structured.

Responsiveness Same-day service on a space available basis is a good standard for an agency’s responsiveness. This provides the rider with the opportunity to schedule a trip on the same day as long as space is available. This gives riders more flexibility when scheduling trips with the understanding that same-day reservations are not guaranteed but are based on daily capacity. This also allows the agency to fill more seats that might remain empty if a larger reservation period was required. This level of responsiveness also requires more coordination among dispatchers to monitor capacity as rides are requested.

No-Shows Not only do no-shows negatively affect the transit agency, but they can also extend the travel time of another passenger’s trip if the transit agency is not alerted ahead of time. LCT should establish a strict no-show policy that suspends rider’s privileges after a pattern of repeating occurrences. For example, the Ashtabula County Transportation System (Ashtabula, OH) suspends any rider’s privileges after being a no-show three times in a thirty-day period.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 48

Route Design Routes should be intuitive and easy for users to understand/navigate. Route names should be simplified and should be defined by service area. Routes should be designed to best serve the community and the reasons and benefits for each design should be defined. Regardless of the type of design selected, LCT should strive to achieve the following route design strategies:

• Simple route names with one route name when there is service on both sides of the street • Intuitive design to minimize detours and confusing alignments • Operate along high-activity corridors to provide access to key destinations • Ensure optimal travel times for users that maximize transfer opportunities

Stop Spacing The process of spacing stops must balance two considerations: accessibility to bus stops and speed of service. Stops placed closer together provide more coverage to users, however they also cause buses to spend more time at bus stops and therefore can cause routes to be less time efficient. Stop spacing recommendations based on service type are provided in Table C.3.

Table C.3 - Stop Spacing Standards

Service Type Distance Local 0.25 miles Frequent 0.75 miles Regional Connector Varies

Bus stops should be within a close proximity to the passengers being served, typically passengers are willing to walk 0.25 miles to take the bus. It should be a priority for LCT to ensure the region’s transit market is adequately served by public transportation. Given that every transit trip is also a walking trip, Licking County providers and partners should aspire to connect all bus stops to the pedestrian network to further improve safety and comfort for users.

Route Spacing Routes should be spaced in a way to prevent two routes from running parallel and providing similar service to a corridor. In general, routes should remain on corridors equal to or more than a half mile from one another.

Time Points Time points are identified at major stops along a route that the vehicle aims for to maintain schedule. These locations are designated along a route to control the spacing of vehicles (vehicle headway), creating the route schedule for passengers. Best practice suggests time points be placed at strategic points such as major intersections, major trip generators, and at destinations where the highest boarding activity is recorded. Time points are maintained by the driver not leaving the designated stop prior to the scheduled time. This practice contributes to user satisfaction by ensuring the bus does not depart before the scheduled time.

Route Directness Direct routes minimize passenger travel time. Routes should use existing infrastructure to go from point A to point B in the shortest distance. Using arterial streets as much as Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 49

possible typically allows for more direct routes with posted speeds conducive to faster travel. It must be noted that routes may deviate if a market or key destination necessitates coverage (e.g. end of the line terminal loop, employment center/campus, etc.). Further, different types of service may dictate route directness. For example, express routes will be as linear as possible with limited stops, while local routes may provide more coverage and deviations.

Route directness compares how a transit route’s path connecting point A to point B compares to the most direct route (i.e. how an automobile would travel) to connect the same points. This measure is represented by a percentage. For example, regional connector routes have a target percentage of 125 percent. This assumes that regional connector routes should be designed to be, at most, 25 percent longer than the most direct automobile route. The higher the percentage exceeds 100 percent the more deviations are occurring within the route.

Table C.4 provides an overview of service standards related to system design for different service types.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 50

Table C.4 - Service Standards Comparison by Service Type

Stop Span & Days Route Stop Service Type Frequency Amenity On-Time Performance Productivity Propensity of Service Directness Pacing Level 10 hours on weekdays, occurs 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit 5 boardings per Low to Regional during peak 75 minutes Level 3 Center, 85% Timepoints, mile, 20 boards per <125% Varies Medium commute hours, Connectors 75% Stops hour Density no service on weekends 15 hours on weekdays, 12 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit 2 boardings per At least Frequent Medium to 30 minutes hours on Level 2 Center, 85% Timepoints, mile, 30 boards per <125% every High Density Service Saturdays, 9 75% Stops hour 0.75 mile hours on Sundays 15 hours on weekdays, 12 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit 1 boarding per At least Low to Local Service 45-60 minutes hours on Level 1 Center, 85% Timepoints, mile, 15 boards per <175% every Medium Saturdays, 9 75% Stops hour 0.25 mile Density hours on Sundays Maintains fixed route 15 hours on Flexible Service frequency, plus a weekdays, 12 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit 1 boarding per At least Low to (Route capped additional hours on Level 1 Center, 85% Timepoints, mile, 15 boards per <100% every Medium Deviation) timeframe to deviate Saturdays, 9 75% Stops hour 0.25 mile Density from route hours on Sundays

Low Density Span & Days Response Travel Time On-Time Performance Denial Rate No-Shows - Propensity Standards of Service Time

Low Density 15 hours on Same-day 95 percent or better for all Service weekdays, 12 service on 2-5 percent Low to Up to 25 percent longer stops with the assumption <10 percent of hours on space of monthly - Medium (Demand than exclusive-ride trip of a 30-minute window monthly trips Saturdays, 9 available trips Density Response/ Paratransit) hours on Sundays basis

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 51

Appearance and Comfort The exterior and interior appearance of transit vehicles can change the perception of transit for the public. Appearance and comfort can be applied to all aspects of a passenger’s journey from point A to B. As discussed below, proper stop amenities are important for making a passenger’s daily trip comfortable and easy. This also applies to standards for the appearance and comfort of the vehicle itself.

Vehicle appearance should be held to a high standard, to maintain an ideal image in the community it is serving. Vehicles should be cleaned and maintained frequently, both on the interior and exterior. Table C.5 provides suggested frequencies for four common cleaning tasks. This helps send the message of reliability to current and potential riders. Additionally, a passenger’s ride is expected to be comfortable no matter the length of the trip. LCT should strive to maintain comfortable seating and a clean interior environment, while also ensuring trips run smoothly with no unnecessary acceleration or deceleration.

Table C.5 - Cleaning Standards

Procedure Frequency Light interior cleaning (sweeping, trash removal, etc.) Daily Exterior cleaning (power washing) At least once per week Extensive interior cleaning Quarterly Seat Replacement Varies

General vehicle and facility inspections should be part of a transit agency’s typical procedures. These inspections should be paired with quarterly to biannual customer satisfaction surveys, especially as service is increased and extended. Reviewing the needs and concerns of passengers helps a transit agency maintain satisfied passengers while continuing to meet the current and future needs of its ridership. These surveys can identify and rank passenger concerns, which can then create a list of prioritized improvements for the transit agency and allow the agency to shift focus if necessary.

Bus Stop Standards (Fixed & Deviated Routes Only) Amenities Bus stops should create a positive experience for LCT users. Minimum standards for bus stops ensure that a basic set of passenger amenities are provided at each stop location. Different amenity levels are outlined in Table C.6 and should be applied to stops when applicable. In general, available funding, service types, ridership, and transfer totals should all be used to gauge which amenity level should be implemented at a stop. Figure C.1, Figure C.2, and Figure C.3 illustrate how bus stop amenity levels 1, 2, and 3 respectively may appear.

Table C.6 - Bus Stop Amenities by Level

Amenities Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 ADA Accessibility X X X Bus Sign X X X System Information X X X Shelter & Bench X X Sidewalk Connectivity X X Safety Lighting X Trash Bag/Can X Landscaping/Planters X Art/Placemaking X Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 52

Figure C.1 - Level 1 Stop Amenities

Figure C.2 - Level 2 Stop Amenities

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 53

Figure C.3 - Level 3 Stop Amenities

Bus Stop Placement The placement of bus stops impacts route efficiency and rider safety. Important considerations for three common bus stop placements are outlined below:

Far-Side Stops A far-side bus stop is one that follows a signalized intersection, allowing the bus to pass through traffic and for users to board/alight safely near pedestrian infrastructure. This is the ideal stop location as it provides a safe environment for pedestrians and causes the least traffic disruption.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 54

Near-Side Stops Near-side stops are those that are located immediately before a signalized intersection. This allows for boarding and alighting when the transit vehicle is stopped at a red light. This form of stop is less desirable than far-side locations as it can cause the transit vehicle to block through traffic at the light. This can decrease pedestrian sight distances and cause automobile drivers to make unsafe traffic maneuvers. Additionally, dependent on traffic light placement, this placement can cause long idling times for buses should they be held up by a red light.

Mid-Block Stops Mid-Block stops are found along roadways in between signalized intersections. Mid- block stop locations are the least desirable, as they create an unsafe and inconvenient environment for pedestrians as they typically do not provide a crosswalk to reach the other side of the road. It is recommended that mid-block stops, where necessary, are created in tandem with mid-block crosswalk infrastructure to increase safety and efficiency.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 55

D. Public Involvement The planning process for the TDP began in August 2019, with the first round of public engagement taking place in October 2019 and a second round in January 2020. The public comment period for the draft plan took place from April 15 to May 15, 2020. Transit stakeholders and members of the public were involved in the process in a number of ways, including:

• Public meetings and outreach • Project steering committee make up of transit stakeholders • On-board survey • Community survey • Online GIS mapping exercise • Stakeholder interviews and phone calls • Interviews with transit staff and conversations with operators

Figure D.1 provides a timeline of the engagement activities completed over the course of the TDP process. Additional details are provided in the sections below.

Figure D.1 - Engagement Activities

Engagement Activity 2019 2020 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Online GIS Mapping Exercise Online Survey(s) Stakeholder Engagement Public Meetings/Outreach On-Board Survey Driver and Staff Interviews

1. On-Board Survey

Methodology Consultant staff conducted a 21-question on-board survey of LCT users. On-board surveys are designed to assess who currently uses the transit system as well as identify their current trip purpose. Participants are further asked to describe their general thoughts about how they use the service and its strengths and weaknesses. The survey was distributed by consultant staff in person as well as by the drivers.

The in-person portion of the on-board survey was conducted over four consecutive days from September 30 to October 3, 2019. Consultant staff rode LCT buses during normal hours of operation and administered the survey to riders who expressed interest in participating. Conducting the survey in person increased the likelihood of transit riders completing the survey and generated responses from users who may not have taken the survey on their own. It also allowed consultant staff to gather feedback and comments from transit operators.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 56

The survey was available in both paper and electronic (via SurveyMonkey) formats. In addition to the in-person surveys, paper surveys were provided to LCT for drivers to distribute to riders throughout the month of October 2019 and were also made available at the open house meetings on October 2nd and 3rd (see Public Meetings section). A copy of the on-board survey is included as Attachment B.

Key Results Fifty-four surveys were completed during the in-person survey period described above. A total of 102 transit users completed the on-board survey in the electronic or paper format. The sections below outline some of the key results of the survey. Complete results are included as Attachment C.

The on-board survey provided insight into who uses LCT and for what purposes. Some key takeaways from the survey included the importance of transit service for transportation to work, the lack of alternatives, the importance of the service overall, and the frequency with which many users utilize transit services. The needs of current transit users will be key to the final recommendations of the TDP.

The following sections provide a high-level overview of the on-board survey results.

Demographics The majority of survey respondents had a household income less than $25,000 (72 percent), did not have a driver’s license (86 percent), and considered themselves to have a disability (89 percent). Roughly 60 percent of respondents lived in a household with access to one or more vehicles. While these respondents have access to vehicles, it is likely that they live with family members who travel by personal vehicle and cannot or do not want to drive themselves. As shown in Figure D.3 and discussed below, 79 percent of respondents indicated that they can’t drive or don’t like to drive. Taken together, these findings suggest that LCT is an important provider of accessible transportation services for individuals who cannot or choose not to use other modes of transportation.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 57

Table D.1 illustrates the race/ethnicity breakdown of the survey. Most respondents identified as White or Caucasian, with Black or African American making up the second largest racial group. This generally reflects the racial makeup of Licking County, where the largest racial group is White at roughly 95 percent. While the Black or African American group is the second largest in both cases, the share within the survey respondents was almost double the overall county share of roughly five percent.7

Table D.1 - Race/Ethnicity of On-Board Survey Respondents

Race Percent8 White or Caucasian 91% Black or African American 9% American Indian or Alaska Native 2% Another race 2% Hispanic or Latino 0% Asian or Asian American 0% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0%

The largest single age group of survey respondents was 25-44, at 35 percent, followed by 18-24 at 20 percent (Figure D.2). The combined categories representing transit users age 65 and older made up roughly 21 percent, which is slightly higher than the overall percentage in the county (15 percent).9

Figure D.2 - Age of On-Board Survey Respondents

40% 35%

30% 20% 20% 17% 10% 11% 10% 7%

0% Younger 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 or older than 18

Transit Usage Characteristics Responses to the questions discussed below (Figure D.3 through Figure D.9) provide insight into why and how much LCT riders utilize transit services.

As shown in Figure D.3, the single largest reason for transit use is that respondents cannot or do not like to drive, followed by lack of access to a vehicle. Respondents were also asked how they would have made their trip that day if transit service was not available. Forty-two percent indicated that they would not have made the trip, and 41 percent said they would have asked a family member or friend. This suggests that transit provides mobility independence to Licking County residents.

7 Licking County, Ohio. 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Data.census.gov 8 Percentages do not total 100. Respondents could select more than one option. 9 Licking County, Ohio. 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Data.census.gov Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 58

Figure D.3 - Responses to “Why do you ride the bus? (Check all that apply)”

Other (please specify) 6% It is good for the environment 10% It is important to be independent 36% It is convenient 23% To save money 10% Too difficult to get rides from others 31% No access to a vehicle 47% I can't drive or don't like to drive 79%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Survey respondents were also asked to share the purpose of the trip they were undertaking when they received the survey. As illustrated in Figure D.4, nearly half of respondents were utilizing transit services to get to work. Those responding “Other” indicated a destination not listed or multiple destinations such as a combined trip for shopping and a medical appointment.

Figure D.4 - Responses to “Why are you riding the bus today?”

Other (please specify) 19% Taking someone else somewhere 0% Social or recreation 6% Shopping or eating out 2% Health/medical/dental appointment 13% School or job training 13% Errands or personal business 2% Work 45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

In terms of the frequency of transit use, Figure D.5 illustrates that 57 percent of respondents reported that they ride LCT 5-7 days per week. This indicates that transit riders are more likely to be dependent on transportation and use it frequently. This is consistent with the high percentage of respondents utilizing transit services to access employment.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 59

Figure D.5 - Responses to “How often do you ride LCT?”

This is my first time riding the bus 0%

Once a month or less 3%

A few days per month 5%

About once a week 4%

2-4 days per week 30%

5-7 days per week 57%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

On-board survey questions also addressed the frequency of transit use for specific destination types. While most respondents do not use LCT to access school or job training, some use it as many as 5-7 days per week (Figure D.6).

Figure D.6 - Responses to “How often do you ride the bus for school or job training?”

Once a month or less 1%

A few days per month 2%

About once a week 2%

2-4 days per week 9%

5-7 days per week 16%

Not applicable/Never 69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Nearly a third of survey respondents use LCT to get to work 5-7 days per week, while another 28 percent do so 2-4 days per week (Figure D.7). In addition, 38 percent of respondents stated that without bus service they would lose their job, which speaks to the importance or the service for those individuals in the community.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 60

Figure D.7 - Responses to “How often do you take the bus to work?”

Never 38%

Once a month or less 1%

A few days per month 1%

About once a week 1%

2-4 days per week 28%

5-7 days per week 31%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

The majority of survey respondents do not use LCT to access health care. However roughly 13 percent said they rely on the service for this purpose two or more times per week (Figure D.8). In addition, 28 percent of respondents indicated that without access to bus service they would have to skip a few or many doctor visits or prescriptions.

Figure D.8 - Responses to “How often do you ride the bus for health care?”

Once a month or less 12%

A few days per month 12%

About once a week 5%

2-4 days per week 9%

5-7 days per week 4%

Never 58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Transit users were also asked about the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with various statements related to the intangible impacts of transit. As shown in Figure D.9, a majority of respondents have positive impressions of transit. A majority indicated that transit improves their overall quality of life, allows them to live independently, reduces their stress level, increases social interaction, and allows them to make more trips. Eighty-one percent also reported that the bus helps keep them connected to their town.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 61

Figure D.9 - Responses to “Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements:”

1% 4% Using transit improves my overall quality of life 39% 38% 18%

Using transit allows me to live independently 38% 36% 18% 6%

Using transit reduces my stress level 32% 24% 31% 6% 6%

4% Using transit increases my social interaction 33% 34% 19% 10% with other people 2% Using transit allows me to make more trips 38% 41% 13% 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. Community Survey

Methodology Consultant staff prepared a 15-question online survey and GIS-based mapping activity designed to gather input from all members of the community including transit users and non-users. The survey and GIS tool were hosted on a single website using ESRI’s ArcGIS Online platform. The survey was also made available in hard copy at the open house meetings on October 2nd and 3rd, 2019. A hard copy version of the community survey is included as Attachment D.

The GIS mapping activity allowed respondents to place comments on a specific geographic location, identify pickup locations and proposed destinations and propose bus routes by drawing a line on the map (Figure D.10). A version of this activity was also conducted using paper maps at the open house meetings on October 2nd and 3rd, 2019 and the results were transferred to the online tool.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 62

Figure D.10 - Community Feedback Online GIS Tool Interface

Key Survey Results A total of 462 individuals completed the community survey in the electronic or paper format. The sections below outline some of the key results of the survey. Complete results are included as Attachment E.

The community survey provided insight into the transit preferences of Licking County residents who do not currently use transit. Some major themes included concerns with coverage and reliability, a lack of knowledge of existing LCT services, interest in future transit use if concerns are addressed, and an interest in future fixed-route service. The needs of those who do not currently use transit was an important consideration for service planning recommendations.

Demographics The majority of respondents (71 percent) were from Newark, Granville, Heath, Johnstown, or Pataskala. Only five percent of respondents were current LCT users and 77 percent typically travel by driving themselves, compared to 84 percent who drive alone and 0.3 percent who use transit countywide.10 Respondents were roughly 89 percent White, with Blacks and African Americans making up the second largest group at approximately five percent. These were the two largest groups among the on-board survey respondents and in countywide figures as well.

Table D.2 outlines several additional demographic comparisons between the on-board and community survey results.

10 Licking County, Ohio. 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Data.census.gov Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 63

Table D.2 - Survey Results Demographic Comparison

On-Board Survey Community Survey 91% White or Caucasian 89% White 9% Black or African American 5% Black or African American 2% American Indian or 3% Another Race Race/Ethnicity Alaska Native 2% American Indian or 2% Another Race Alaska Native 1% Asian 1% Hispanic or Latino Driver’s License 86% do not have a driver’s 17% do not have a driver’s Status license license Annual Household 72% less than $25,000 41% less than $30,000 Income 85% less than $50,000 55% less than $50,000 89% consider themselves to 20% consider themselves to Disability Status have a disability have a disability 0 vehicles: 40% 78% have access to a car or Vehicle Access 1 vehicle: 27% truck 2 or more vehicles: 33%

Transit Usage As shown in Figure D.11, the highest priority for respondents among the options presented was better bus coverage, or the ability for the bus to reach more destinations. The lowest priority among the four options was door-to-door service. This is a key feature of the existing demand response service, especially for clients with disabilities, including the majority of respondents to the on-board survey.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 64

Figure D.11 - Responses to “Which of the following is most important to you regarding transit?”

160 144 140 120 108 100 100 91 80 60 40 20 0 Better bus When the bus How often the Door-to-door coverage operates bus runs service

Respondents also had the opportunity to select multiple options from a list of common concerns related to transit. Coverage was again the top concern, with reliability, travel times, and span of service also receiving large numbers of votes (Figure D.12).

Figure D.12 - Responses to “What are some concerns you have about Licking County Transit Service?”

Other 120 Transit is not safe 27 Transit is not available on the days I travel 73 The path the bus takes is not direct 78 Transit is not available at the times I travel 107 The bus takes too long to reach my destination 115 Buses are not on time or reliable 120 Transit does not get me where I need to go 139

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Many respondents selected “Other,” and listed a wide variety of concerns including:

• Difficulty with scheduling or frustration with how far in advance trips must be scheduled • Lack of knowledge or uncertainty about what services are provided • “Information about public transit in my area is so difficult to find” • “I don't know much about it; isn't it only on-call for elderly and disabled?” • “There is not any form of public transit in Johnstown”

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 65

When asked “If your concerns are addressed, how likely would you be to ride Licking County Transit in the future?” 62 percent responded that it was “Likely” or “Very Likely,” suggesting potential for future ridership growth. Current LCT users were also among those with concerns. Roughly 50 percent of those who take transit regularly noted they have had issues with scheduling/customer service.

Several questions in the survey asked about various tradeoffs related to how transit service is delivered. Fifty-four percent of respondents indicated that when using transit, they would rather get to their destination faster and walk more, while 46 percent said they would rather arrive slower and walk less. As shown in Figure D.13, 40 percent of respondents would prefer that transit service ran later in the evening compared to 24 percent preferring service earlier in the morning. While 36 percent indicated that the current span of service is sufficient, it should be noted that only five percent of respondents currently utilize LCT.

Figure D.13 - Responses to “I would rather transit service ran…”

Span of service Later in the Earlier in the is fine how it evening, 40% morning, 24% currently is, 36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Finally, respondents were asked the following question related to future types of service: “Would you be interested in fixed-route transit service where vehicles run on regular, scheduled routes with fixed stops?” A majority (57 percent) indicated that they would be interested in fixed-route service. Fixed-route transit service aligns with other priorities identified by the Community Survey, including less focus on door-to-door service and being more willing to walk farther to access transit.

Key Mapping Activity Results Results of the GIS mapping activity included proposed routes, pickup/drop-off locations, and comments tied to specific geographic locations. Figure D.14 illustrates proposed routes and stops for Licking County and the surrounding area, and Figure D.15 illustrates the same information in greater detail for the Newark-Granville-Heath area. This information will help inform service planning recommendations in the TDP.

Respondents also left comments noting various issues and opportunities, including:

• Importance of Licking Memorial Health Systems in addressing needs of disabled, elderly, and those with mobility challenges. • Transportation needs of college/university students • Current and future sites of employment for first, second, and third shift workers, especially industrial areas • Connections to Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) • Connections to major commercial areas for groceries, shopping, etc. • Routes along Main Street and better connections to Downtown Newark, route between Granville and Newark for students and residents, routes to Johnstown and New Albany, route along 30th Street in Newark/Heath • Limited river crossings, food desert - need access to Kroger, Walmart, etc. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 66

Figure D.14 - Proposed Routes and Stops, County and Surrounding Area

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 67

Figure D.15 - Proposed Routes and Stops, Newark-Granville-Heath

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 68

3. Stakeholder Outreach

Local stakeholders can provide a greater understanding of a transit system’s needs, strengths, and opportunities for improvement and were therefore a major focus of the TDP process. Table D.3 provides a list of the stakeholders that were engaged in the planning process. Input gathered from stakeholder meetings has informed the recommendations in the TDP.

Table D.3 - Stakeholders Involved in the TDP Process

Stakeholder Type Organization/Group Licking County Job & Family Services (LCJFS) Licking County Board of Developmental Disabilities (LCBDD) Community Groups United Way of Licking County and Organizations Licking County Aging Program Transport Group Licking County Newark Think Tank on Poverty Heath-Newark-Licking County Port Authority Johnstown Employers Businesses, Hebron Employers (Harry and David, State Chemical, Employers, and Plastipak, Village of Hebron) Economic Pataskala Employers Development Licking County Chamber Manufacturers’ Council Licking County Chamber of Commerce Grow Licking County Community Improvement Corp The Ohio State University at Newark Denison University Education Central Ohio Technical College Career and Technology Education Centers of Licking County Newark K-12 Schools Newark City Engineer South East Area Transit (SEAT) Knox Area Transit (KAT) Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) Transportation and Springfield Transportation Coordinating Committee Regional Planning (Springfield, OH) Office of Transit, Ohio Department of Transportation Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission

4. Public Meetings

Two open house public meetings were held on October 2, 2019 and October 3, 2019 in Newark and Pataskala respectively. The purpose of both meetings was to introduce the project and gather an initial round of feedback to identify issues and inform the service planning process. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting in Newark and approximately 10 people attended the meeting in Pataskala. Major topics discussed are reflected in the list of themes, issues, and opportunities outlined in the TDP. A summary of the October 2 meeting is included as Attachment F and a summary of the October 3 meeting is included as Attachment G. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 69

5. Themes, Issues, and Opportunities

A set of major themes were drawn from the following sources early in the planning process:

• Community Survey • On-board Survey • Public meetings (verbal and written comments) • Stakeholder Interviews • Driver/staff interviews (see the “Transit Services Evaluation” section) • Consultant team observations

The four major themes are outlined below along with specific issues and opportunities related to each (Table D.4). These items have informed the final recommendations of the TDP.

Table D.4 - Themes, Issues, and Opportunities

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 70

6. Early Wins

Based on the themes, issues, and opportunities identified through early public engagement and analysis, the “early wins” shown in Table D.5 were drafted in October 2019 and presented to the Steering Committee in November 2019. The purpose of the proposed early wins was to suggest short-term changes to transit operations that could provide meaningful internal and customer-facing improvements at a low cost without major service adjustments, while paving the way for implementation of the proposed service scenarios. These items represent a point in time and should be reevaluated and updated based on LCT’s evolving needs. Several of the proposals have been incorporated into the recommendations outlined in the TDP.

Table D.5 - Proposed Early Wins

During Project/ Three to Six Months After Planning Process Project Completion

Internal Internal • Driver scheduling • Purchase and install • Routematch staff training surveillance cameras and optimization • Quality of service standards • Staff/driver meetings, (callback times, etc.) employee engagement • Fare box installation • Eliminate paper manifests

External External • No-show policy • Fare structure enforcement • Branding • Employer pilot program (employee shuttle service)

7. Draft TDP Public Comment Period

The public comment period for the draft TDP took place from April 15, 2020 to May 15, 2020. The public comment process was conducted entirely online to protect the health and safety of the community and comply with guidelines on public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The draft TDP and associated attachments were made available for review and download via a centralized website that also included a number of mechanisms for providing comments. A guided survey allowed participants to answer a series of three questions related to the potential impact of the routes proposed in the service plan. A second survey was created to accept open-ended comments on any aspect of the draft documents. Finally, an interactive mapping tool similar to the tool used in the community survey provided an opportunity for members of the public to comment directly on the proposed routes and stops. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 71

In addition to comments from the public, several comments were also received directly from members of the steering committee:

• There were 25 responses to the open-ended survey. • There were 33 responses to the guided survey. • There were seven substantive comments received via the mapping activity. • A total of 13 comments were received directly from steering committee representatives and public agencies.

Attachment H summarizes the substantive comments received on the draft TDP and proposed service plan.

E. Transit Service Evaluation 1. Employee and Board Member Interviews

Consultant staff conducted interviews with transit dispatch, operations, and administrative staff as part of the TDP process. Staff administering the on-board survey spoke with transit drivers to gather additional feedback on transit system operations and working conditions. Interviews with members of the Licking County Transit Board were also conducted in January 2020. A summary of information gathered is included in the Employee Interview Memo (Attachment I). Key takeaways from the employee and driver interviews have been incorporated into the list of themes, issues, and opportunities identified in the TDP and have informed the recommendations.

2. Capital

This section details the current status of LCT’s capital inventory as of January 2020 including fleet, facilities, and technology. Capital investments in the TDP will be based on three conditions:

1. Maintain current service levels 2. Expand service levels 3. Meet future expectations or respond to future conditions

a. Fleet

Currently, there are 38 demand response vehicles within the fleet that are operated at maximum service, leaving no spare vehicles during hours of peak operation. The majority of the vehicles in the fleet are accessible lift-equipped Light Transit Vehicles (LTV) (Figure E.1 & Figure E.2) with the exception of five small ramp equipped Accessible Vans (AV). The current fleet of buses were acquired between 2009 and 2019 and range from marginal to excellent condition, based on age and mileage. ODOT categorizes LTVs to have a scheduled useful life of five years or 150,000 miles, while the small ramp AVs are four years or 100,000 miles. See Table E.1 for more details.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 72

Figure E.1 - Light Transit Vehicle

Figure E.2 - Transit Bus Wheelchair Lift

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 73

Table E.1 - Fleet Roster

Min. Local Useful Rem. Rem. Veh. Vehicle Date in Replace. Useful Actual Fleet Life Life % Year Type Service Year(s) Life Mileage Num. (yrs) (yrs) (mi) (mi) 2018, 35 2009 FRD 350 9/22/2009 5 -6 150,000 433,647 -189% 2023, 2028 38 2010 FRD 350 5/25/2010 5 -5 2021, 2026 150,000 399,585 -166% 39 2010 FRD 350 5/25/2010 5 -5 2021, 2026 150,000 413,740 -176% 40 2010 FRD 450 5/25/2010 5 -5 2022, 2027 150,000 340,311 -127% 42 2010 FRD 450 5/25/2010 5 -5 2022, 2027 150,000 333,630 -122% 1201 2012 FRD 350 9/17/2012 5 -3 2022, 2027 150,000 349,163 -133% 1202 2012 FRD 350 9/17/2012 5 -3 2022, 2027 150,000 355,259 -137% 1204 2012 FRD 350 9/17/2012 5 -3 2022, 2027 150,000 430,350 -187% 1206 2012 FRD 350 9/17/2012 5 -3 2022, 2027 150,000 355,298 -137% 1208 2012 FRD 350 9/17/2012 5 -3 2022, 2027 150,000 447,216 -198% 703 2007 FRD 450 3/8/2007 5 -8 2022, 2027 150,000 391,234 -161% 1401 2014 MV-1 7/24/2015 4 -2 2021, 2026 100,000 281,812 -182% 1402 2014 MV-1 7/29/2015 4 -2 2024, 2029 100,000 260,620 -161% 1403 2014 MV-1 11/3/2015 4 -2 2024, 2029 100,000 283,768 -184% 1404 2014 MV-1 11/3/2015 4 -2 2024, 2029 100,000 191,805 -92% 1405 2014 MV-1 11/10/2015 4 -2 2024, 2029 100,000 218,396 -118% 1601 2016 FRD 350 3/9/2016 5 1 2024, 2029 150,000 258,375 -72% 1602 2016 FRD 350 3/8/2016 5 1 2024, 2029 150,000 258,551 -72% FRD 2024, 2029 1603 2017 3/23/2017 5 2 150,000 153,259 -2% Goshen FRD 2024, 2029 1604 2017 3/23/2017 5 2 150,000 162,333 -8% Goshen FRD 2024, 2029 1605 2017 3/23/2017 5 2 150,000 155,591 -4% Goshen FRD 2024, 2029 1606 2017 3/24/2017 5 2 150,000 151,231 -1% Goshen FRD 2024, 2029 1607 2017 3/24/2017 5 2 150,000 151,231 -1% Goshen FRD 2018, 1608 2017 3/23/2017 5 2 150,000 151,911 -1% Goshen 2023, 2028 FRD 2021, 2026 1609 2017 3/24/2017 5 2 150,000 157,815 -5% Goshen FRD 2021, 2026 1610 2017 3/23/2017 5 2 150,000 173,610 -16% Goshen 1612 2016 FRD 350 5/13/2019 5 1 2022, 2027 150,000 35,491 76% 1901 2019 FRD 350 7/1/2019 5 4 2022, 2027 150,000 25,949 83% 1902 2019 FRD 350 7/1/2019 5 4 2022, 2027 150,000 21,920 85% 1903 2019 FRD 350 7/1/2019 5 4 2022, 2027 150,000 19,220 87% 1904 2019 FRD 350 7/1/2019 5 4 2022, 2027 150,000 18,998 87% 1905 2019 FRD 350 7/1/2019 5 4 2022, 2027 150,000 14,173 91% 1906 2019 FRD 350 7/12/2019 5 4 2022, 2027 150,000 9,688 94% 1907 2019 FRD 350 7/12/2019 5 4 2022, 2027 150,000 11,235 93% 1908 2019 FRD 350 7/12/2019 5 4 2021, 2026 150,000 7,608 95% 1909 2019 FRD 350 7/12/2019 5 4 2024, 2029 150,000 16,942 89% 1910 2019 FRD 350 7/12/2019 5 4 2024, 2029 150,000 19,548 87% 1911 2019 FRD 350 7/12/2019 5 4 2024, 2029 150,000 2,207 99% Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 74

b. Infrastructure/Facilities

LCT operates both an administrative building and a maintenance facility in Newark on County property. The maintenance facility contains a double bay to perform repairs and routine maintenance (Figure E.3). The facility’s small size represents a constraint on LCT operations, as it limits both the size and number of vehicles that can be serviced on- site. Buses are currently stored in a parking lot surrounding the maintenance facility. The administrative building contains a heated and air-conditioned administrative office, dispatching center, break room, and meeting space for transit staff. A steep grade and fencing between the administration and maintenance building creates a barrier that makes foot travel between the two facilities challenging.

Figure E.3 - Maintenance Facility

c. Technology

LCT currently utilizes a variety of technologies and equipment to conduct their day-to-day operations. The transit office uses desktop computers for dispatching and scheduling, maintenance software, email, and other word processing functions, and a phone system for taking customer calls. Transit staff use RouteMatch software for dispatching and scheduling rides. Buses are not currently equipped with video surveillance cameras or basic cash collecting fareboxes, however farebox equipment is on site and LCT has a grant to purchase surveillance cameras. These technologies should be implemented in the near future. Table E.2 provides an overview of technologies currently used by LCT.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 75

Table E.2 - Current Technologies and Equipment

Use/Process Technology/Equipment Dispatch, scheduling RouteMatch Email Microsoft Outlook Budgeting Microsoft Excel Communications Cellular tablets and 2-way radio

3. Operations Analysis

LCT completed over 110,000 demand response trips between October 2018 and October 2019. The leading purposes of these trips were for Employment (48 percent) and Medical (20 percent) as shown in Figure E.4.

Figure E.4 - Licking County Transit: Trip Purpose, 2019

SPECIAL SERVICE Education Personal 1% 6% 5%

Other 19%

None Employment 1% 48%

Medical 20%

The origins and destinations of these trips were fairly well distributed throughout the County with hot spots in Newark, Heath, Pataskala, and Hebron (Figure E.5 & Figure E.6). There are two major hot spots located within the area of Newark-Heath-Granville, which contains the majority of employers and key destinations, as discussed in previous sections. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 76

Figure E.5 - Licking County Transit: Origin-Destination Heat Map, 2019

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 77

Figure E.6 - Licking County Transit: Origin-Destination Heat Map - Newark-Heath-Granville, 2019

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 78

4. Peer Review

A peer review was conducted to evaluate LCT in comparison to four peer systems: two in Ohio, one in Michigan, and one in Indiana. The goal of selecting the peer systems is to focus on Midwest transit systems that operate under similar seasonal conditions as well as similar operating structures. The four systems selected for the LCT peer group were:

• Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit System, Lancaster, OH • South East Area Transit (SEAT), Zanesville, OH • Cass Area Transit, Logansport, IN • Harbor Transit, Grand Haven, MI

The purpose of this analysis is to provide a comparison of common performance measures to evaluate existing services, while also illustrating the performance of systems that provide various service types that could be explored by LCT in the future. Data for the analysis is extracted from FY 2014 to FY 2018 agency profiles available through the FTA National Transit Database (NTD). The full peer review is included as Attachment J.

Key findings of the analysis include:

• LCT is the only system of the peers that provides a demand response only service delivery method. Demand response service generally is more expensive on a per rider basis than deviated or fixed route service due to the nature of providing door to door service for each rider compared to curbside service where riders would walk from a bus stop allowing the bus to travel along a designated route. • Several challenges are common across most systems, including a growth in operating expenses and a decline in farebox recovery. • LCT's cost per rider is highest among the peer systems at $31.43. The increase in cost per rider from 2014 to 2018 was also second highest among the peer systems (22 percent). A contributing factor for the increased cost per rider may be the changeover from two different contract operators in 2017 and 2018. • In terms of cost efficiency, LCT's cost per hour is the group median ($58.28), and cost per mile is second lowest at $2.75. However, LCT saw the highest growth in cost per mile and the second highest growth in cost per hour between 2014 and 2018. • While LCT has the lowest trips per vehicle revenue hour among the peer systems, it was one of only two systems to see this measure increase between 2014 and 2018. • Only LCT and SEAT saw a loss in ridership between 2014 and 2018. • Service types provided by peer systems such as deviated routes and fixed routes may help maintain or grow ridership and contribute to better performance on service effectiveness measures and smaller increases in the costs of providing service.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 79

5. Performance Measures

a. ODOT Performance Management Framework

In early 2015, ODOT released a Statewide Transit Needs Study11 that included a set of recommended strategies and opportunities to improve public transportation in Ohio. The study proposed a five-step performance management system, outlined below:

1. Classify Services 2. Develop Measures 3. Set Benchmarks 4. Provide Assistance 5. Report Annually

The purpose of the performance management system was to:

1. Demonstrate value added to Ohio communities through transit services 2. Understand and track system strengths and weaknesses, and 3. Motivate and facilitate improved performance.

An important component of the proposal was evaluating services rather than systems to create more equitable comparisons. To that end, seven classifications were created: four for fixed routes and three for demand response. LCT was classified as a Stand Alone Countywide Demand Response system. Three measures were proposed to evaluate all systems, with a fourth measure to be used for demand response systems only:

• Passengers per hour • Cost per Hour • Cost Per Passenger • Customer Satisfaction (Demand Response only)

The study also included a sample statewide performance review for 2012 that established benchmarks identifying a “successful” performance standard and an “acceptable” performance standard for the first three proposed measures. For passengers per hour, successful performance was defined as at or above the service classification average. Acceptable performance was defined as one standard deviation below the average. For cost per hour and cost per passenger, successful performance was defined as at or below the service classification average and acceptable performance was defined as at or below one standard above the average.

Using this framework, the analysis was repeated using FY 2018 data. As shown in Figure E.7, LCT was just under the benchmark for a successful system (2.05) in terms of passengers per hour in 2018. In terms of cost per hour, LCT fell just within the acceptable performance range ($59.97) at $58.28 (Figure E.8). When this is translated into cost per passenger, LCT falls within the acceptable range ($24.61 to $32.49) with a cost of $30.67 per passenger (Figure E.9).

11 “Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study: Final Report.” January 2015. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/Transit/TransitNeedsStudy/Pages/StudyHome.aspx Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 80

Figure E.7 - Stand Alone Countywide Demand Response Service Effectiveness (Passengers per Hour)

4.5 4 3.5 3 1.9 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Pike Co. Pike Perry Co.Perry Miami Co. Huron Co. Huron Scioto Co. Carroll Co. Carroll Shelby Co. Shelby Logan Co. Logan Licking Co. Licking Ottawa Co. Ottawa Warren Co. Warren Fayette Co. Fayette Monroe Co. Monroe Morgan Co. Morgan Seneca Co. Seneca Fairfield Co. Geauga Co. Geauga Harrison Co. Harrison Trumbull Co. Hancock Co. Hancock Pickaway Co. Sandusky Co. Sandusky Champaign Co. Champaign Columbiana Co. Columbiana

Passengers per Vehicle Hour Successful Acceptable

Figure E.8 - Stand Alone Countywide Demand Response Cost Efficiency (Cost per Hour)

$70 $58 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $- Pike Co. Pike Perry Co.Perry Miami Co. Huron Co. Huron Scioto Co. Carroll Co. Carroll Shelby Co. Shelby Logan Co. Logan Licking Co. Licking Ottawa Co. Ottawa Warren Co. Warren Fayette Co. Fayette Monroe Co. Monroe Co. Morgan Seneca Co. Seneca Fairfield Co. Geauga Co. Geauga Harrison Co. Harrison Trumbull Co. Hancock Co. Hancock Pickaway Co. Sandusky Co. Sandusky Champaign Co. Champaign Columbiana Co. Columbiana

Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour Successful Acceptable

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 81

Figure E.9 - Stand Alone Countywide Demand Response Cost Effectiveness (Cost per Passenger)

$45.00 $40.00 $30.67 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $- Pike Co. Pike Perry Co.Perry Miami Co. Huron Co. Huron Scioto Co. Carroll Co. Carroll Shelby Co. Shelby Logan Co. Logan Licking Co. Licking Ottawa Co. Ottawa Warren Co. Warren Fayette Co. Fayette Monroe Co. Monroe Morgan Co. Morgan Seneca Co. Seneca Fairfield Co. Geauga Co. Geauga Harrison Co. Harrison Trumbull Co. Hancock Co. Hancock Pickaway Co. Sandusky Co. Sandusky Champaign Co. Champaign Columbiana Co. Columbiana

Cost per Passenger Successful Acceptable

b. Service and Ridership Trends

Operational characteristics over the five-year period of 2014 to 2018 were reviewed using the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) National Transit Database (NTD), which allows transit agencies to report certain annual operational statistics as required by the FTA. The operational characteristics were used to review the amount of service provided (revenue hours) and the amount of service consumed (ridership). The analysis shows how service levels and ridership have changed over the study period and considers both change in service levels and ridership for the entire system.

Overview Licking County Transit serves an area of 683 square miles with a population of 173,448 or a population density of 254 persons per square mile, which has grown by four percent over the five-year period. Table E.3 includes operational characteristics as reported by the Licking County Transit Board. NTD data for this five-year period indicates there has been a decrease in annual passenger trips, annual revenue hours, and annual operating budget over the course of 2014 to 2017, with a slight increase in 2018.

Table E.3 - Operating Characteristics Overview, 2014-2018

Service Service Service Area Annual Annual Annual Area Farebox Year Area Density Passenger Revenue Operating Size Revenue Population (persons Trips Hours Budget (sq. mi.) per sq. mi.) 2014 166,492 683 244 165,738 96,252 $1,709,861 $4,280,832 2015 166,492 683 244 148,771 82,997 $1,407,296 $3,981,344 2016 166,492 683 244 132,773 72,348 $1,065,662 $3,741,628 2017 166,492 683 244 124,503 66,265 $760,865 $3,632,232 2018 173,448 683 254 124,899 67,361 $636,986 $3,926,057

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 82

Service Effectiveness Table E.4 shows changes in service effectiveness measures over the five-year period. LCT saw a gradual increase in trips per revenue hour from 1.7 to 1.9 trips/hour.

Table E.4 - Service Effectiveness Measures, 2014-2018

Trips per Vehicle Trips per Vehicle Year Revenue Hour Revenue Mile 2014 1.7 0.1 2015 1.8 0.1 2016 1.8 0.1 2017 1.9 0.1 2018 1.9 0.1

Cost Efficiency Table E.5 shows changes in cost efficiency measures over the five-year period. LCT saw an increase in both operating expenses per vehicle revenue hour and operating expenses per passenger mile, with an increase of $13.80/hour and $0.48/mile.

Table E.5 - Cost Efficiency Measures, 2014-2018

Operating Expenses Operating Expenses Year per Vehicle per Passenger Mile Revenue Hour 2014 $44.48 $2.19 2015 $47.97 $2.37 2016 $51.72 $2.45 2017 $54.81 $2.44 2018 $58.28 $2.67

Cost Effectiveness Table E.6 shows changes in cost effectiveness measures over the five-year period. LCT saw a twenty-four percent decrease in their farebox recovery percentage (the amount of funds recovered from passenger fares compared to the overall expenses of service), an increase in cost of $5.60 per rider, a decrease in revenue of $5.22 per rider, and a decrease in revenue of $8.30 per revenue hour.

Table E.6 - Cost Effectiveness Measures, 2014-2018

Cost per Revenue Revenue per Year Farebox Recovery % Rider per Rider Revenue Hour 2014 40% $25.83 $10.32 $17.76 2015 35% $26.76 $9.46 $16.96 2016 28% $28.18 $8.03 $14.73 2017 21% $29.17 $6.11 $11.48 2018 16% $31.43 $5.10 $9.46

Customer Satisfaction LCT has not conducted a recent customer/passenger satisfaction survey, making this data unavailable at this point in time. Additional discussion should take place among transit board members to determine the role that customer satisfaction should play in setting goals for LCT moving forward.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 83

Trends Table E.7 shows an overview of trends for LCT between 2014 and 2018. Based on the LCT data reported to NTD, it is evident that LCT experienced a general decrease in ridership and expenses over the period, with a slight increase in operating expenses over the last year (2018). A large decline in farebox recovery also occurred during this period. During the period of 2014 to 2017, LCT experienced high growth in cost per passenger while ridership declined. LCT experienced a small increase in annual passenger trips and revenue hours from 2017 to 2018 (Figure E.10).

Table E.7 - Trends Overview (Percent Change), 2014-2018

Vehicle Vehicle Annual Farebox Operating Revenue Revenue Trips Revenue Expenses Hours Miles -25% -30% -22% -63% -8%

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 84

Figure E.10 - LCT Trends Overview, 2014-2018

Annual Passenger Trips Farebox Revenue 200,000 $2,000,000

160,000 $1,600,000

120,000 $1,200,000

80,000 $800,000

40,000 $400,000

0 $0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Vehicle Revenue Hours Vehicle Revenue Miles 120,000 2,000,000

100,000 1,500,000 80,000

60,000 1,000,000

40,000 500,000 20,000

0 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Annual Operating Expenses $5,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 85

6. Organization and Staffing

As part of the TDP process, consultant staff assessed governance, staffing, and training needs. LCT’s organizational and governance structure is consistent with typical small transit agencies. However, there are a number of short-term actions that should be taken and several long-term actions that should be revisited as the agency continues to evolve. Additional organizational and staffing analysis is included in the Organizational and Staffing Management Plan (Attachment K).

Peer System Comparison Table E.8 provides a side by side comparison of similar staff positions within LCT and two peer systems in Ohio. Changes in the types of service delivered may require additional staff functions.

Table E.8 - Ohio Peer System Existing Staff Roles Comparison

Lancaster-Fairfield Licking County Transit South East Area Transit Public Transit General Manager Transit Director Transit Director Business Director Operations Director Operations Manager Transit Assistant Mobility Manager Fiscal Officer Director GC Office Manager Transit Center Supervisor Lead Mechanic Maintenance Director Transit Safety & Security Transportation Supervisor Lead Operator Supervisor Operators Operators Drivers Dispatcher Transit Dispatchers Scheduler Reservationists/Dispatchers Scheduler Customer Service Representatives Mechanics Mechanics Hostler Mechanic Bus Detailer Building & Grounds Maintenance Administrative Assistant Clerical Assistant Receptionist Greyhound Agent

Staff Training Needs Interviews with transit agency staff were conducted as part of the TDP process to identify strengths as well as areas for improvement. Interview questions and additional items discussed are outlined in the Employee Interview Memorandum (Attachment I). Based on comments received during the staff interviews, there are several needs related to staff training, as shown in Table E.9. Addressing these needs should be a short-term priority for LCT leadership. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 86

Table E.9 - Training Needs Identified by LCT Staff

Employee Category Needs Identified • Refresher driver training • More frequent training meetings Drivers • Annual ride-along from supervisor • Customer service training • More training for dispatch staff in general, especially in scheduling trips Dispatch/Operations • RouteMatch software refresher training needed • Ride-along with drivers • More familiarity with transit service areas • Drivers manual should be rewritten or updated Administrative Staff • Employee mentorship program

7. Marketing and Communications

Quality and consistent marketing are proactive strategies for effective communication between the public and the transit system. Transit marketing can advertise to new riders, communicate with current riders, and advocate for transit support from the public and elected officials. An ongoing marketing program can provide many benefits, including:

• Building awareness of public transit services • Addressing misconceptions about transit services • Increasing ridership by reaching individuals whose needs can be met by transit • Providing complete and accurate information to existing transit users • Influencing decision makers to support public transit • Soliciting feedback from current or potential transit users • Satisfying funding requirements

This analysis draws on a review of LCT’s existing marketing and communications materials as well as stakeholder interviews, public engagement, and existing conditions analyses completed as part of the planning process. Additional details on marketing and communications can be found in the Marketing and Communications Memorandum (Attachment L).

a. Local Transit Market Barriers

There are challenges to marketing and communications in every public transit market. Transit market barriers in Licking County are outlined below. Where applicable, survey and open house comments received during the public engagement process are included to illustrate the barrier being discussed. Identified barriers include:

1. Service Challenges 2. Public Perception 3. Lack of Knowledge of Transit Services 4. Scheduling System 5. Vehicle Appearance 6. Current Passenger Information Resources 7. Work Schedules

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 87

Service Challenges If transit service is not meeting public expectations, the impact of marketing will be limited. Poor customer service, unreliable vehicles, difficulty in hiring drivers, and schedule deviation affect the ability of a transit system to provide the types of benefits that marketing efforts often focus on. Marketing will also have little effect on services that do not meet the needs of potential riders.

“Having to call 2 weeks ahead of time is not feasible for folks.” “Two week advanced notice required”12

Public Perception It is not uncommon for community members to perceive demand response public transportation as being designed to serve only older adults and people with disabilities. However, these services are used by all types of people and have the potential to meet the transportation needs of many others. In addition, public transportation suffers from a general social stigma in many parts of the United States, meaning that many see it as a last resort when they have no other transportation options. If a transit service experiences real or perceived issues that are known within the community, a narrative can grow around a system that impacts public perception.

“I don't know much about it; isn't it only on-call for elderly and disabled?”13

Lack of Knowledge of Transit Services Since traveling via transit generally requires some amount of planning, either through making a ride reservation or reviewing a schedule, the amount and quality of information provided by the agency to the traveling public is key to its success. In order to utilize transit services, the public must know the area served, how much the service costs and how to pay, where to board, how to request a stop or make a transfer, etc.

“Information about public transit in my area is so difficult to find.” “There is not any form of public transit in Johnstown.”14

Scheduling System LCT currently serves many individuals with disabilities but requires that rides be scheduled over the phone. This creates a barrier for people who otherwise use transit as a way to maintain their independence. Since transit is publicly funded, there is a need to ensure effective communication with people with disabilities, older adults, populations with limited English proficiency, and others who may be transportation disadvantaged.

12 Public meeting written comments, October 2, 2019 13 Community Survey response 14 Community Survey responses

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 88

“I provide rides for several individuals who qualify for, but cannot utilize, the current transit system…Several of the riders I serve have hearing and/or speech impairments. They cannot understand the dispatchers. The dispatchers cannot understand messages left. A website-based scheduling option would enable them.”15

Vehicle Appearance LCT’s existing transit vehicles feature simple graphics that make them hard to distinguish from the various other agencies that provide transportation services in Licking County. They also do not feature the LCT logo that is used in other marketing and informational materials, and therefore lack consistency with the other elements of the LCT brand. The LCT phone number is prominently displayed but the LCT website address is not included.

Current Passenger Information Resources LCT’s existing website contains very little information and does not focus on the most important information needed by current riders or potential riders. The service guide brochure is accessible at the bottom of the home page via a link to a PDF, which is more difficult to access for individuals with disabilities who may be navigating using a screen reader compared to providing the information using HTML. In addition, the brochure itself is text-heavy and gives the impression that the service is difficult to use.

Work Schedules Comments received during the public engagement process indicate a need for transit that serves workers who do not work a traditional day shift. As of 2017, the Amazon Fulfillment Center was the largest employer in Licking County, and employment growth is projected for the industrial employers in the western portion of the county. Stakeholder interviews indicated that transportation is a major barrier for employers looking to fill open positions, but LCT does not currently have the capacity to meet this need.

“Would help if service ran to Amazon for all shifts to help employ those with no transportation.”16

b. Target Audiences

Current Riders People who already use transit need information that will allow them to continue using transit to meet their needs. Providing this information is necessary to keep these individuals as current riders. The on-board survey completed as part of the TDP process provides some insight into who currently uses LCT’s services. For example, given the high percentage of riders who consider themselves to have a disability, delivering information in a way that is accessible to these individuals is key.

Potential Riders Potential riders are individuals with transportation needs that may be able to be met by transit. Potential riders who would most likely benefit from transit include youth, seniors, minority populations, people with disabilities, low income families, and persons without access to a car. Making these individuals aware of the benefits of transit and how the

15 Public meeting written comment, October 2, 2019 16 Public meeting written comment, October 2, 2019 Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 89

system works can encourage them to try it. Analyses completed as part of the TDP process shows the presence of large numbers of individuals in Licking County who would traditionally be described as transit dependent. Also, 62 percent of respondents in the Community Survey indicated that they would be “likely” or “very likely” to use transit if the service was improved.

Stakeholder interviews indicated that transportation is also a major barrier for employers looking to fill open positions. If transit can meet the additional demand for work trips, this could be a major source of ridership. The Newark area is also home to a number of educational institutions including The Ohio State University at Newark, Denison University, Central Ohio Technical College, Career and Technology Education Centers of Licking County, and Licking County area K-12 schools which present another opportunity for ridership growth. Marketing efforts should include outreach to these groups that encourages them to try using transit.

“Many students living on the OSU Newark campus do not have cars. This hinders their ability to travel around the city, and therefore limiting the economic impact they have on the city.”17

Non-Riders The remaining community members who are not current or potential riders are non- riders. These individuals may not be a source of future ridership, but they still benefit from the economic and social benefits generated by transit and can therefore be advocates for the system. Some of these community members and organizations, sometimes referred to as “gatekeepers,” can help potential riders learn about and access transit services. Examples of gatekeepers include educational institutions, social services, or employers. This audience needs to receive information about the benefits of transit to the community from transit staff and board members, passenger testimonials, and other means. F. Service Plan Based on community and stakeholder input and a review of operational characteristics, three different scenarios were produced for possible implementation. These scenarios include:

• One Cost Neutral Scenario • One Deviated Route service scenario with two alignment alternatives • One Fixed Route service scenario with two alignment alternatives

The cost neutral solution is based on maintaining the current demand response service that LCT operates along with the strategies outlined in the “Preliminary Implementation Items” section below.

The second scenario developed two options (A and B) that apply a deviated route concept to areas of indicated transit need. These options are identical in terms of service however Option B includes two additional commuter routes to Pataskala and Johnstown. These options both extend the current span of service and add Sunday services. The deviated route will include deviation up to 0.75 miles from all fixed routes. This scenario may reduce demand response trips that can be made with fixed routes while still offering

17 Public meeting written comment, October 2, 2019 Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 90

services to those who may not have the mobility to walk to the nearest fixed route stop. Route alignments were configured to provide coverage to the majority of the key destinations and employment centers as indicated in community engagement activities. Due to the nature of deviated fixed route service operation, both options within this scenario will be more efficient in terms of cost and service compared to the demand response services currently being offered. Service details are outlined in the “Constrained Plan” section below.

Based on LCT’s reported demand response trips in 2019, Deviated Route - Alternative B, which includes all seven proposed routes and a 0.75-mile deviation buffer, would be able to cover 82 percent of the trips made within Licking County and 77 percent of all trips (including trips outside of Licking County), as shown in Figure F.1.

The third scenario maintains the two route alignment options (A and B) and the same service characteristics (frequency and service span) that the second scenario included, but instead of offering a deviated route service, scenario three offers fixed route with complementary paratransit. Complementary paratransit will be offered to the entire county with limitations as to who would be eligible to use the service (i.e. those with mobility issues that prevent them from being able to use fixed route service or certain contract services). This scenario will also congregate trips along the fixed route that would have taken multiple trips with demand response, while still offering services to those who need curb-to-curb service. Depending on the future need for paratransit, this service will prove to be more efficient and effective in terms of cost and service than the current demand response service as the fixed route portion of the service should cover the majority of trips. Service details are outlined in the “Unconstrained Plan” section below.

Table F.1 gives an overview of the operational characteristics and annual cost estimates for each scenario developed.

Proposed schedules for each of the routes presented in the constrained and unconstrained plans are included as Attachment M.

Table F.1 - Scenarios at a Glance: Annual Service Characteristics

Annual # of Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Scenario Trips Service Cost Routes Req. Hours Miles Estimate Existing Service - 34 67,361 394,051 124,899 $3,926,057* (Demand Response) Deviated Route 5 5 24,865 394,069 34,660 $1,394,915 Alternative A Deviated Route 7 7 28,122 574,052 35,768 $1,577,603 Alternative B Fixed Route 5 5 24,865 394,069 34,660 $2,248,773 Alternative A Fixed Route 7 7 28,122 574,052 35,768 $2,543,287 Alternative B *Based on LCT’s expenses reported to NTD for 2018.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 91

Figure F.1 - Proposed Route Alignment Coverage

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 92

1. Constrained Plan

a. Preliminary Implementation Items

While developing service scenarios, the project team identified some opportunities that can be implemented with any scenario or independently to improve the reliability of transportation services in Licking County. Transportation providers benefit from a well- coordinated dispatch system and reliable on time performance, as do the riders. Before a transportation agency can expand service, hours, or add service vehicles to routes, the key building blocks of operation must occur.

The following list of key opportunities was assembled based on stakeholder meeting insights and analysis of current practices by LCT and includes existing or proposed efforts that could be improved or should remain intact. While there may be some cost associated with them, they do not involve major service changes and are therefore part of the “Cost Neutral” scenario.

Designate Transit Corridors From previous analyses, it is clear that there are two corridors (Figure F.2) within the urban area of Newark-Heath-Granville that would benefit from an increased level of transit service. These corridors contain higher densities of employment and population and many of the key destinations suggested through community feedback. By increasing the level of service within these two corridors, trips may be consolidated between riders. The North-South corridor (Highway 13 & 79) connects Newark to Heath, Hebron, and Buckeye Lake, while the East-West corridor (Highway 16) connects Newark to Granville, Pataskala, Alexandria, and Johnstown.

Create a Centralized Transit Hub Since LCT provides service to the entirety of Licking County, this means that trips may stretch from one side of the county to the other. A large portion of the designations for current demand response trips are located near downtown Newark. With increased coordination, a transit hub could offer a central point in downtown Newark that connects trips and larger groups of riders going to similar destinations. This will also create a valuable resource for the future needs of fixed route services, creating a layover point for bus operators. At a minimum, this should include stop amenities such as signage and a shelter. As service and ridership increase, a facility will need to be designated or constructed.

Regional Mobility Management Coordination There are many other partners within the county and region that would benefit from having an agency centralize mobility management efforts. LCT can fill this role, which would improve mobility services to the region through the matching and coordination of various transportation needs with appropriate resources or sets of resources. This would also establish LCT as the primary point of coordination, which creates more demand for LCT services. Transportation needs are continually changing and evolving, and it will be critical for LCT to maintain open channels of communication and engage with the various service providers to ensure transportation needs are being met throughout the county.

Improve Dispatching Service A centralized and coordinated dispatch system is vital to the reliable operation of demand response service. The dispatch system relieves pressure on vehicle operators and provides a reliable contact for riders to reach. Dispatch systems are also vital for tracking and incident response purposes. It was identified through stakeholders and staff that the Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 93

current LCT dispatch system needs improvements. Staff requested additional training to help improve communication between drivers and dispatchers.

Maintain ADA Accessibility Providing ADA accessible vehicles should be a priority for all LCT services. Currently, all of the demand response vehicles used by LCT are ADA accessible, but this is a key priority to maintain as services evolve to meet future needs. As deviated and fixed routes are developed, adding passenger amenities and maintaining accessibility at designated stops will be necessary for compliance with ADA standards. Features that should be considered are establishing an accessible path to the stop (i.e. sidewalk) and addition of bus stop signage, benches or bus shelters.

Improve Data Tracking Ridership is a key statistic for tracking the success of transportation services. Currently, ridership tracking at LCT is reported through the FTA’s NTD, but other characteristics of service need to be recorded to help inform future service adjustments (i.e. passenger satisfaction, detailed trip purpose, near misses, trip capacity ratio, response time). Improved data tracking will help develop service improvements and result in higher quality transportation service. Analyzing data trends periodically (monthly to quarterly) can serve as feedback loop for service adjustments. Additionally, LCT should pair ridership data (passengers per trip, passengers per hour, etc.) with survey data (passenger satisfaction and employee feedback) to support trends and any adjustments made to services. Reviewing internal employee feedback can also identify safety concerns, hazards, and unsuccessful mitigation strategies. Some examples of service adjustment based on data analysis include:

• Extending service span to accommodate passenger needs (i.e. adding Sunday service) • Providing additional training for employees based on employee feedback • Increasing frequency of service or service coverage to areas reported to be underserved by passengers

Utilizing GPS technology can improve safety and security, while providing a platform for the development or utilization of existing smart phone apps, which can greatly improve user experience and routing choices. With the increased use of such technologies comes improved data that can be monitored and analyzed to improve service delivery and efficiency.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 94

Figure F.2 - Designated Transit Corridors

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 95

Improve Regional Connections There is a clear need for better coordination between LCT and clients/partners within the county. By improving the coordination efforts between LCT and county partners, coverage will expand, and ridership will increase, while improving regional connectivity. LCT should work with regional partners such as neighboring county transit systems, COTA, GoBus and Greyhound to establish regional transportation services as well. As there are a variety of other transportation services in the area, it is important to have strategies in place to assess location and time to coordinate transfers between providers. Location and time of day data from the demand response service can be utilized to identify appropriate transfer locations. This project would begin the process for better coordination of transfer activities.

Improve Staffing Schedules LCT should review staff scheduling to identify proper shifts that cover service and maintain appropriate workloads for each operator. Staff interviews indicated that operators were working long shifts and this contributed to poor coordination and less efficient service. Proper scheduling allows operators to work comfortable shifts that ensure quality service is continually provided to LCT’s ridership, while offering schedules to operators on a weekly basis rather than daily.

b. Pilot Route Opportunities

There has been an interest expressed in piloting up to two early win transit projects to specifically service higher education institutions, Licking Memorial Hospital, or high- density employment sites at the industrial parks along Hebron Rd/Highway 79. These pilot projects would involve partnering directly with the university, hospital or employers to either directly fund transit services for their students, customers and employees or deeply subsidize the cost of the service, while still offering general public service to anyone who might benefit from the route. Based on their performance, adjustments could be made later when implementing deviated or fixed route services on a larger scale. More details on these pilot programs will be included as an additional memorandum which will be included as an addendum to the TDP.

c. Deviated Route Alternatives

Two deviated route service alternatives have been developed based on the input from the October 2019 open houses, a Steering Committee service planning workshop in January 2020, and meetings that occurred between stakeholders, community members and the project team.

Deviated Route - Alternative A Route deviation adds extra coverage to a fixed route system, allowing bus operators to deviate from their routes for additional pickups and drop-offs, then return to their fixed route afterwards. This allows operators to pick up passengers who may not live close enough to the fixed route and don’t have the ability to walk to the designated stops. Route deviation can serve as a replacement for complementary paratransit service within a 0.75-mile buffer of the fixed route, but those outside of this buffer may still require additional services.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 96

Deviated Route - Alternative A includes the five routes illustrated in Figure F.3 and listed below:

Service characteristics were estimated based on maintaining at least the current span of service for each route. Trip time and mileage were estimated using real-time drive time estimates from Google Maps. These are estimates and may need to be adjusted based on real-world impacts (i.e. real traffic, passenger loading time, etc.). Based on the service span, travel time and distance estimates, the number of trips and frequency could be estimated, as well as the vehicle requirements. Service characteristics were estimated per average weekday (Table F.2) and weekend (Table F.3), while costs were estimated annually for weekday and weekend services.

Table F.2 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative A

Vehicle Vehicle Frequency Vehicle Span of Service Trips Hours Miles (minutes) Req. Service Route 1 15 145 15 60 1 6AM-8PM Route 2 15 189 24 30 1 5AM-8PM Route 3 12 127 24 30 1 5AM-8PM Route 4 16 294 21 45 1 5AM-8PM Route 5 16 412 16 60 1 5AM-8PM System 73 1,167 100 - 5 -

Table F.3 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative A

Vehicle Vehicle Frequency Vehicle Span of Service Trips Hours Miles (minutes) Req. Service Route 1 13 125 13 60 1 6AM-6PM Route 2 12 197 25 30 1 6AM-6PM Route 3 12 133 25 30 1 6AM-6PM Route 4 13 238 17 45 1 6AM-6PM Route 5 13 257 10 60 1 6AM-6PM System 63 950 90 - 5 -

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 97

Figure F.3 - Deviated Fixed Route - Alternative A

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 98

Annual Metrics To estimate the annual cost of Deviated Route - Alternative A, days of service were assumed to include 253 weekdays and 104 weekend days (excluding holidays). The cost per revenue hour for deviated route service was estimated by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in a Transit Needs Study from 2012 at $49.00, adjusted for inflation this equates to $56.10 in 2020 dollars. After reviewing current service needs, a frequency of at least 60 minutes was maintained per route, while two minutes for each fixed stop was designated (additional time will need to be allotted to account for further deviation) for local and frequent routes and 5 minutes for commuter routes. Annual weekday expenses are shown in Table F.4 and annual weekend expenses are shown in Table F.5. The total cost for this alternative is estimated to be $1,394,915 per year if service is operated with LCT’s current fleet.

Table F.4 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative A

Vehicle Vehicle Service Cost Service Trips Hours Miles Estimate Route 1 3,711 36,584 3,795 $208,168 Route 2 3,669 47,908 6,072 $205,803 Route 3 3,036 32,182 6,072 $170,320 Route 4 3,930 74,435 5,313 $220,469 Route 5 4,006 104,115 4,048 $224,727 System 18,351 295,223 25,300 $1,029,487

Table F.5 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative A

Vehicle Vehicle Service Cost Service Trips Hours Miles Estimate Route 1 1,317 13,033 1,352 $73,902 Route 2 1,284 20,514 2,600 $72,055 Route 3 1,274 13,780 2,600 $71,471 Route 4 1,303 24,770 1,768 $73,124 Route 5 1,335 26,749 1,040 $74,875 System 6,514 98,846 9,360 $365,428

Advantages Deviated Route - Alternative A provides deviated route services within a 0.75-mile buffer from the main service route. This service would be a hybrid service utilizing components of both demand response and fixed route services. It provides more efficient service for the provider and more reliable service for the passengers. This will increase cost efficiency by eliminating current some curb-to-curb trips by allowing passengers to walk a few blocks to their final destination.

Disadvantages Deviated Route - Alternative A does not provide demand response service beyond the 0.75-mile buffer of the deviated route service, therefore additional demand response service would have to be provided separately. This service does not provide service to Pataskala or Johnstown compared to Alternative B. While the deviated route will improve the reliability of service it falls short of the level of reliability achieved through fixed route.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 99

Deviated Route - Alternative B Deviated Route Alternative B includes the seven routes illustrated in Figure F.4 and listed below:

• Route 1 (Medical & Government): This is an out-and-back route with service along W. Main St. from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to the Medical/Office space at Tamarack Rd. Span of service: M-F 6AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-6PM • Route 2 (Jobs & Retail): This is a loop route that services Downtown Newark and loops north to Career & Technology Education Centers (C-TEC) and loops back to Main St. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-6PM • Route 3 (Jobs & Retail): This is a loop route that services just west of Downtown Newark, connecting Indian Mound Mall, Southgate Shopping Center, and Moundbuilders Country Club. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM- 6PM • Route 4 (Higher Education): This is a loop route that services both The Ohio State University – Newark and Denison University in Granville. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-6PM • Route 5 (Hebron Route): This is an out-and-back commuter type service, which connects downtown Newark to downtown Hebron and has the possibility of being extended to Buckeye Lake in the future. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8PM, Sat- Sun 6AM-6PM • Route 6 (Pataskala): This serves as a commuter route with a stop in downtown Pataskala and downtown Newark. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8:45AM, 4PM- 7:45PM, Sat-Sun 6AM-8:30AM, 4PM-6:30PM • Route 7 (Johnstown): This serves as a commuter route with a stop in downtown Alexandria, Johnstown, New Albany (connection to COTA), and downtown Newark. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8:45AM, 4PM-7:45PM, Sat-Sun 6AM- 8:30AM, 4PM-6:30PM

Service characteristics were calculated using the same methodology, and are shown for weekday service in Table F.6 and for weekend service in Table F.7.

Table F.6 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative B

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 100

Table F.7 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Deviated Route - Alternative B

Annual Metrics To estimate the cost of Deviated Route - Alternative B, additional routes to Pataskala and Johnstown were added to the total estimate. These routes will both maintain 75-minute frequencies as commuter routes. Annual weekday expenses are shown in Table F.8 and annual weekend expenses are shown in Table F.9. Total costs for this alternative are estimated to be $1,577,603 per year.

Table F.8 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative B

Table F.9 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Deviated Route - Alternative B

Vehicle Vehicle Service Cost Service Trips Hours Miles Estimate Route 1 659 6,517 676 $36,951 Route 2 642 10,257 1,300 $36,027 Route 3 637 6,890 1,300 $35,736 Route 4 652 12,385 884 $36,562 Route 5 667 13,374 520 $37,437 Route 6 406 12,019 364 $22,754 Route 7 390 13,439 364 $21,879 System 4,053 74,881 5,408 $227,347

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 101

Figure F.4 - Deviated Fixed Route - Alternative B

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 102

Advantages Deviated Route - Alternative B provides the same service that Deviated Route - Alternative A provides with the addition of the two commuter routes to Pataskala and Johnstown. This addition will create a more regional service that connects the majority of the region to a central hub in Newark.

Disadvantages Deviated Route - Alternative B shares the same disadvantages as Deviated Route - Alternative A with a higher total cost as two additional routes were added.

2. Unconstrained Plan

Two fixed route service alternatives have also been developed based on the input from the October 2019 open houses, a Steering Committee service planning workshop in January 2020, and meetings that occurred between stakeholders, community members and the project team.

Fixed Route - Alternative A Fixed Route - Alternative A provides fixed route services with complementary paratransit and has the same five route alignments as the Deviated Route - Alternative A (Figure F.5).

Service characteristics were calculated using the same methodology described in the Constrained Plan, and are shown for weekday service in Table F.10 and for weekend service in Table F.11.

Table F.10 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative A

Table F.11 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative A

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 103

Figure F.5 - Fixed Route - Alternative A

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 104

Annual Metrics To estimate the annual cost of Fixed Route - Alternative A, days of service were assumed to include 253 weekdays and 104 weekend days (excluding holidays). The cost per revenue hour for Fixed Route service was estimated by ODOT in 2012 as $80.00, adjusted for inflation this equates to $90.44 in 2020 dollars. After reviewing current service needs, a frequency of at least 60 minutes was maintained per route and 5 minutes for each fixed stop were designated. Annual weekday expenses are shown in Table F.12 and annual weekend expenses are shown in Table F.13. Annual costs for this scenario are estimated to be $2,248,773 per year plus the additional costs of the complementary paratransit.

Table F.12 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative A

Vehicle Vehicle Service Cost Service Trips Hours Miles Estimate Route 1 3,711 36,584 3,795 $335,593 Route 2 3,669 47,908 6,072 $331,779 Route 3 3,036 32,182 6,072 $274,576 Route 4 3,930 74,435 5,313 $355,423 Route 5 4,006 104,115 4,048 $362,288 System 18,351 295,223 25,300 $1,659,658

Table F.13 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative A

Vehicle Vehicle Service Cost Service Trips Hours Miles Estimate Route 1 1,317 13,033 1,352 $119,140 Route 2 1,284 20,514 2,600 $116,161 Route 3 1,274 13,780 2,600 $115,221 Route 4 1,303 24,770 1,768 $117,886 Route 5 1,335 26,749 1,040 $120,707 System 6,514 98,846 9,360 $589,114

Advantages Fixed Route - Alternative A provides a balanced solution by providing both fixed route and on demand service solutions. This maintains the current demand response service and coverage while adding fixed route services. This would allow riders more flexibility when scheduling trips as they can work with both the fixed route and demand response schedules.

Disadvantages Fixed Route - Alternative A requires increased coordination and some policy adjustments may need to be considered as to which passengers may be eligible for paratransit services (i.e. only those who would experience mobility issues traveling to the nearest fixed route stop). While fixed routes will improve the reliability and efficiency of service, the portion of the alternative that includes paratransit solutions would remain less reliable and less efficient.

Fixed Route - Alternative B Similar to the deviated route alternatives, Fixed Route - Alternative B will add two fixed route commuter options for Pataskala and Johnstown (Figure F.6). Service characteristics were calculated using the same methodology, and are shown for weekday service in Table F.14 and for weekend service in Table F.15. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 105

Figure F.6 - Fixed Route - Alternative B

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 106

Table F.14 - Daily Weekday Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative B

Table F.15 - Daily Weekend Service Characteristics: Fixed Route - Alternative B

Annual Metrics To estimate the cost of Fixed Route - Alternative B, the cost of the two additional routes were added to the cost estimate for Fixed Route - Alternative A. After reviewing current service needs, a frequency of 75 minutes was established for the commuter routes with 10 minutes of layover for each fixed stop. Annual weekday expenses are shown in Table F.16 and annual weekend expenses are shown in Table F.17. Annual costs for this scenario are estimated to be $2,543,287 per year plus the additional costs of the complementary paratransit.

Table F.16 - Annual Weekday Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative B

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 107

Table F.17 - Annual Weekend Expense Estimate: Fixed Route - Alternative B

Vehicle Vehicle Service Cost Service Trips Hours Miles Estimate Route 1 659 6,517 676 $59,570 Route 2 642 10,257 1,300 $58,081 Route 3 637 6,890 1,300 $57,610 Route 4 652 12,385 884 $58,943 Route 5 667 13,374 520 $60,354 Route 6 406 12,019 364 $36,682 Route 7 390 13,439 364 $35,272 System 4,053 74,881 5,408 $366,511

Advantages Fixed Route - Alternative B provides the same service that Fixed Route - Alternative A provides with the addition of the two commuter routes to Pataskala and Johnstown. This addition will create a more regional service that connects the majority of the region to a central hub in Newark.

Disadvantages Fixed Route - Alternative B shares the same disadvantages as Fixed Route - Alternative A with a higher total cost as two additional routes were added.

3. Proposed Implementation Plan

The first step in the implementation strategy will be piloting two deviated route programs, as described in the “Pilot Route Opportunities” section above. These pilot programs will likely have more limited hours of operation, only weekday service, and use two vehicles from LCT’s current fleet. The goal is to introduce these routes in the fall of 2020. The implementation of this pilot program will allow LCT to fine tune the operation of deviated route services, more accurately assess the cost of operation, more accurately predict the number of trips that will shift from demand response to deviated route services, and allow LCT to evaluate whether their current fleet can support these services.

Once the pilot programs have been operated for up to one year, LCT can begin implementing the deviated route services outlined in the Constrained Plan while still maintaining county-wide demand response service. Continuing LCT’s contracts with local human service providers will help subsidize implementation of the deviated route services while ensuring the ADA paratransit services are still available to these clients. The deviated route services will be phased in over the five-year planning period as follows:

• Upgrading the pilot routes to full-service deviated routes in 2021 and adding two additional routes in 2022 • One additional deviated route introduced each year from 2023 to 2025 until all seven deviated routes are operating

Once deviated route services have been implemented, LCT can re-evaluate transit need and decide whether to implement the fixed route transit services described in the Unconstrained Plan. This decision should be based on whether a large portion of trips shifted to the deviated route service from the demand response portion of the service. As more passengers shift to using deviated route services, LCT can scale down the demand response services being provided, to the point where they are only servicing ADA Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 108

passengers that cannot use fixed route services. This transition can be implemented immediately as the buses will only need to stop deviating from the fixed routes. Complementary paratransit services will cover areas that the fixed routes no longer deviate to, providing door-to-door services for those who would not be able to walk or navigate to the nearest bus stop or can only use paratransit. Deviated route services will be maintained in 2025, with possible conversion to fixed routes where appropriate after 2025.

Table F.18 outlines the proposed implementation timeline for 2020–2030.

Table F.18 - Proposed Implementation Timeline (2020–2030)

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Year Action Operating Capital Local Total Costs Costs Costs Match 2020 Create 2 pilot routes $5,045,973 - $5,045,973 $2,522,987

Transition pilot routes 2021 $5,840,653 $184,500 $6,025,153 $2,957,226 to deviated routes Add 2 additional 2022 $6,225,083 $882,525 $7,107,608 $3,289,046 deviated routes Add 1 additional 2023 $6,523,608 $323,067 $6,846,675 $3,326,417 deviated route Add 1 additional 2024 $6,836,258 $794,745 $7,631,003 $3,577,078 deviated route Add 1 additional 2025 $7,007,165 $271,538 $7,278,703 $3,557,890 deviated route Convert deviated 2026- routes to fixed routes $51,226,081 $3,996,841 55,222,922 $26,412,409 2030 where appropriate

The actual timeline for implementation of the proposed services will depend on a number of factors, including funding availability, performance of new services, and community feedback. Figure F.7 illustrates a proposed implementation plan for the introduction of the proposed routes and stops that can be modified as needed based on changing conditions.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 109

Figure F.7 - Proposed Implementation Plan

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 110

G. Capital Plan The purpose of this section is to lay out the capital needs for each year of the plan. Included in each year will be a list of the services provided and the description of related capital and operating costs.

The annual work plans will become a preview of the management plan in the annual ODOT financial application in future years. With a well-defined five-year plan, goals and ideas for improving transit service can be put into action with a blueprint for adding or expanding services, adjusting specific hours of service and pursuing funding to cover additional operating and capital expenses. Both constrained and unconstrained plans have been developed for the 2021–2025 timeframe. The constrained plan outlines service adjustments and capital expenses that are feasible based on existing funding sources. As part of the TDP process, unconstrained operating and capital items were identified that are desired or that could significantly improve agency operations but may not currently be financially feasible due to existing funding constraints.

1. Constrained Plan

Table G.1 provides a summary list of the fleet, facility, technology and other uncategorized items in LCT’s Constrained Plan, along with their costs.

Table G.1 - Constrained Capital Plan Overview

Category Item Cost Replace 38 transit vehicles (LTVs) to Fleet $2,456,375 keep fleet within useful life benchmark $150,000 to Facility Renovations to maintenance facility $250,000 Layover space for 2 Facility Layover space in downtown Newark buses: $35,000 (~200 sq. ft) $1,500 - $3,000 per vehicle ($57,000 - Purchase and installation of $114,000 est. total Technology surveillance cameras on each existing cost) depending on vehicle in fleet provider (parts & labor)

a. Fleet

LCT has programmed replacement of 38 buses from 2021 through 2025. The buses being replaced will meet the age and miles requirement set forth by ODOT’s Transit Asset Management (TAM) planning requirements to qualify for receiving state capital grant dollars. It is a prudent capital improvement program practice to operate a bus fleet that does not excessively exceed the replacement age and miles to avoid extraordinary repair costs typically associated with buses as they reach or exceed replacement age cycles. Table G.2 shows the current Bus Replacement Plan. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 111

Table G.2 - Current Bus Replacement Plan

Replacement Year Number of Vehicles Replacement Cost 2021 3 $184,500 (LTV) 2022 14 $882,525 (LTV) 2023 5 $323,067 (LTV) 2024 12 $794,745 (LTV) 2025 4 $271,538 (LTV)

b. Facility

LCT’s primary vehicle storage garage and administration property footprint has been filled with their current facility and exterior storage space for the current fleet of vehicles. Renovation of the primary fleet maintenance garage has been programmed in the Capital Plan, to include the addition two maintenance bays with one doubling as a wash bay. The current maintenance facility cannot accommodate full-service maintenance on the LTVs, as the ceiling height is too low. These renovations would allow LCT to lift their vehicles for periodic maintenance and accommodate larger LTLs should they be purchased in the future.

LCT does not presently intend to acquire additional storage facilities. In the event LCT proposes an expansion project, it would need to develop a justification document and conduct environmental, conceptual and predesign, and architectural plans to determine the space needs and provide an estimate of construction costs to ODOT prior to submitting a funding grant submission. It should be noted that additional storage facilities may be leased rather than owned, and would then become an operating expense. However, leasehold improvements, if undertaken by LCT can be included as a capital expense and would be included in the Capital Plan. LCT has also expressed interest in designating a layover area in downtown Newark. A cost estimate for layover space for up to two LCT vehicles has been included in the constrained plan, this does not include purchasing or leasing a building to be designated as a transit hub.

c. Technology

LCT currently has uninstalled farebox equipment on site and has a grant to purchase surveillance cameras. Both of these improvements should be implemented as soon as possible. LCT is also exploring options for upgrading its existing RouteMatch software or replacing it with a new dispatching software package.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 112

2. Unconstrained Plan

Table G.3 provides a summary list of the fleet, facility, and technology items in LCT’s Unconstrained Plan, along with associated capital costs.

Table G.3 - Unconstrained Capital Plan Overview

Category Item Cost Replace 38 transit vehicles (LTVs) to Fleet $2,779,163 keep fleet within useful life benchmark Seven additional ADA accessible Fleet buses (LTLs) to implement fixed route $1,426,423 scenarios Maintenance: $300/ft2 Purchase of facility or renovations to Open Bus Storage: Facility facility that can accommodate the $125-$250/ft2 storage of more vehicles and LTLs Estimated $10 million for new build Estimated $650,000 for transit hub (~3,500 sq. ft) Facility Transit hub in downtown Newark Layover space for 2 buses: $35,000 (~200 sq. ft) $300 per sign/information Bus stop infrastructure for posting Facility fixed/deviated route service $11,400 for shelter, bench, and concrete pad Intelligent transportation management Technology * system ~$1,000,000 (40 vehicles at Technology Electronic fare collection system $25,000/vehicle) *LCT will coordinate with a preferred intelligent transportation management system software provider to explore opportunities.

a. Fleet

In order to implement the recommended service scenarios identified in this TDP, LCT would need to either designate up to seven vehicles within the current fleet or purchase seven new vehicles to supplement the vehicle requirement for the new services.

If LCT were to purchase new vehicles for the implementation of fixed or deviated route services, they could either continue to purchase LTVs, which would not require a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) for operation, or they could purchase larger LTLs. LTLs require a CDL for operation due to the vehicle size and greater passenger seating configuration, which would require drivers to go through further training. LTL vehicles are more expensive to purchase but have a longer useful life benchmark and greater seating capacity for passengers. Cost estimates are included for the purchase of seven LTLs, along with the regular replacement of LCT’s current fleet to maintain demand response services. Table G.4 provides the unconstrained bus replacement plan for LCT from 2026 to 2030. This schedule will replace vehicles that are beyond their useful life benchmark, while increasing LCT’s capacity to implement the proposed service scenarios. Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 113

Table G.4 - Unconstrained Bus Replacement Plan

Number of Replacement Cost Replacement Cost Replacement Year Vehicles (LTV) (LTL) 2026 10 $208,745 $1,217,678 2027 14 $998,496 - 2028 5 $365,521 - 2029 11 $899,181 - 2030 1 $307,220 -

b. Facility

The cost of new facilities varies depending on local characteristics and should be further estimated using local costs for construction and material. The facilities recommended in the unconstrained plan include a new maintenance facility that can accommodate both LTVs and LTLs, as the current facility is not large enough to accommodate both vehicle sizes. Alternatively, LCT also has the option of renovating their current facility to accommodate an expansion of services. A renovation of their existing maintenance facility would require expansion of the physical dimensions of the building in order to accommodate at least LTLs. Renovations should also include the addition of two maintenance bays with one doubling as a wash bay, parts and equipment storage, as well as optional space for office, training and meetings, and indoor storage space for vehicles.

Additionally, as future services are implemented, increased coordination will need to be reinforced by constructing a transit hub in downtown Newark. This could be accomplished by either leasing or purchasing an existing property. The cost of this effort will also depend on whether a property that will accommodate LCT’s future needs is available or if a completely new facility will need to be constructed.

As fixed or deviated fixed route service is implemented, bus stops will need to be designated and fitted with at least Level 1 amenities, which includes ADA accessible pedestrian access through curb ramps and sidewalks, signage designating the stop, and customer information indicating which routes service that stop and the hours of service.

c. Technology

LCT has expressed a need for operations technology and equipment as part of their Unconstrained Plan. This need includes upgrading to an electronic fare collection system and acquiring other equipment for video surveillance and communications systems for the bus fleet, including an electronic fare collection system and a customer information system to relay real-time schedule data to passengers.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 114

H. Financial Plan Current transportation funding in Licking County includes federal, state and local sources. State law requires local participation in funding public transit services in Licking County. A statutory fixed-share funding formula sets a local share of operating costs at 50 percent and the local share for capital costs at 20 percent. State and federal funding for public transit covers the remaining 50 or 80 percent of costs awarded through the Public Transit Participation Program.

LCT receives Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program grant funds. As the direct federal recipient of all Section 5307 funds, ODOT solicits applications for funding, selects sub-recipients and enters into grant contracts with participating public transit operators. Section 5307 goals are to facilitate the most efficient and effective use of both Federal and State Funds in the provision of transportation services. The small urban transit systems receive state funds to leverage federal dollars allocated by ODOT.

Historically, LCT has funded its service through revenues generated from ODOT, FTA, Licking County Commissioners, fares and local contracts with Licking County Job and Family Services and Licking County Board of Developmental Disabilities, and the Senior Levy. As LCT moves into the future, it will need to ensure that it is meeting the local match required by ODOT and FTA to fund both capital and operations costs.

This Financial Plan describes the details of implementing both near (constrained) and long-term (unconstrained) transit solutions in Licking County. These details estimate the overall expenses and revenue sources involved in implementing the suggested services.

1. Constrained Plan

Two deviated route alternatives have been developed for LCT, including one alternative with five route alignments and another with seven route alignments.

a. Needs – Deviated Route Service

LCT’s costs under the Constrained Plan, while implementing the proposed deviated fixed route service, were projected for the years 2020–2025 to better understand near-term needs. Estimates maintain LCT’s current costs and revenues and were based on LCT’s 2019 budget with annual adjustments to account for inflation. Table H.1 shows the estimated operating, capital, and total costs, as well as estimated local match needed based on the total costs for 2020–2025 under the Constrained Plan for LCT. Operating costs were estimated by conducting a peer comparison and using the average operating costs of small transit systems in Ohio. Operating costs for the proposed deviated fixed route services are based on a phase in strategy, which is detailed below:

• Current LCT county-wide demand response services will be maintained throughout the timeframe • Two pilot routes will be introduced in 2020 with more limited hours and only weekday service • Pilot routes will be upgraded to full-service routes and two additional routes will be introduced in 2021 • One additional deviated route will be introduced each year from 2023 to 2025 until all seven deviated routes are operating

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 115

Table H.1 - Constrained Plan: 2020–2025 Needs

Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Local Year Operating Costs Capital Costs Total Costs Match Needed 2020 $5,045,973 - $5,045,973 $2,522,987 2021 $5,840,653 $184,500 $6,025,153 $2,957,226 2022 $6,225,083 $882,525 $7,107,608 $3,289,046 2023 $6,523,608 $323,067 $6,846,675 $3,326,417 2024 $6,836,258 $794,745 $7,631,003 $3,577,078 2025 $7,007,165 $271,538 $7,278,703 $3,557,890

b. Revenues – Deviated Route Service

LCT revenues were also projected under the Constrained Plan for the years 2020–2025. Table H.2 shows the estimated farebox, contract service, and total revenues that LCT would accrue each year from 2020–2025 under the Constrained Plan with the proposed deviated route service. Estimated revenue for future deviated route service was based on farebox revenue reported to the FTA’s NTD by peer systems in Ohio divided by that system’s respective annual revenue hours, which was then applied to the proposed system’s annual revenue hours.

Sources of revenue for 2019 included: • Federal Funds - $2,662,695.06 • State Funds - $85,595.00 • Local Funds o JFS - $446,592.92 o LCBDDDD - $827,130.64 o Sr Levy - $400,000.00 o Other Local Revenue - $842,694.31

Table H.2 - Constrained Plan: 2020–2025 Revenues Projected

Estimated Estimated Farebox Estimated Total Year Contract Service Revenues Revenues Revenues 2020 $146,964 $2,854,328 $3,001,292 2021 $169,228 $2,040,331 $2,209,559 2022 $180,089 $2,091,339 $2,271,428 2023 $188,565 $2,143,623 $2,332,188 2024 $197,438 $2,197,213 $2,394,651 2025 $202,374 $2,252,143 $2,454,517

c. Needs/Revenues Comparison – Deviated Route Service

Table H.3 below shows a comparison between LCT’s estimated local match needed and anticipated total revenue for each year from 2020–2025 under the Constrained Plan. The comparison reveals that LCT has estimated revenues to match 119 percent of their required local match for 2020. From 2021–2025, LCT has estimated revenues to cover between 119 percent and 67 percent of their local match. As the pilot programs and deviated route service is implemented, LCT should work with local entities to further support their local match funds. As service is expanded it is reasonable to assume that more local partners will be interested in investing and supporting the new transit system.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 116

Partners may include:

• New partners: o Cities throughout Licking County o Local businesses/large employers . Industrial parks, hospital systems, colleges/universities, K-12 schools o Philanthropic organizations • Increased support from: o ODOT o FTA o LCATS . CMAQ funds o Contracts . Licking County Board of Developmental Disabilities . Licking County Job and Family Services . Licking County Senior Levy

Table H.3 - Constrained Plan: 2020–2025 Needs vs. Revenues

Estimated Local Estimated Total % of Local Match Year Match Revenues Covered by Revenues 2020 $2,522,987 $3,001,292 119% 2021 $2,957,226 $2,209,559 75% 2022 $3,289,046 $2,271,428 69% 2023 $3,326,417 $2,332,188 70% 2024 $3,577,078 $2,394,651 67% 2025 $3,557,890 $2,454,517 69%

2. Unconstrained Plan

Once the deviated route alternatives are implemented, LCT is proposed to transition to fixed route service, which would be implemented past the initial 2021–2025 five-year planning window. These alternatives maintain the deviated routes’ span of service but move to fixed routes along with complementary paratransit.

a. Needs – Fixed Route Service

As with the Constrained Plan, LCT’s costs under the Unconstrained Plan while implementing the proposed fixed route service were projected for the years 2026–2030 to better understand needs. Table H.4 shows the estimated operating, capital, and total costs, as well as estimated local match needed based on the total costs for 2026–2030 under the Unconstrained Plan. Operating costs were conservatively estimated. Operating costs for the proposed fixed route services are based on maintaining deviated route service in 2025 with conversion to fixed routes after 2025.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 117

Table H.4 - Unconstrained Plan: 2026–2030 Needs

Estimated Operating Estimated Estimated Estimated Local Year Costs Capital Costs Total Costs Match Needed 2026 $8,907,161 $1,426,423 $10,333,584 $4,738,865 2027 $9,572,687 $998,496 $10,571,183 $4,986,043 2028 $10,241,671 $365,521 $10,607,192 $5,193,940 2029 $10,914,200 $899,181 $11,813,381 $5,636,936 2030 $11,590,362 $307,220 $11,897,582 $5,856,625

b. Revenues – Fixed Route Service

LCT revenues were also projected under the Unconstrained Plan for the years 2026– 2030.

Table H.5 shows the estimated farebox, contract service, and total revenues that LCT would accrue each year from 2026–2030 under the Unconstrained Plan with the proposed fixed route service. Estimated revenue for future fixed route service was based on farebox revenue reported to the FTA’s NTD by peer systems in Ohio divided by that systems respective annual revenue hours, which was then applied to the proposed system’s annual revenue hours.

Table H.5 - Unconstrained Plan: 2026–2030 Revenues Projected

Estimated Estimated Farebox Estimated Total Year Contract Service Revenues Revenues Revenues 2026 $256,350 $2,308,447 $2,564,797 2027 $261,081 $2,366,158 $2,622,508 2028 $265,930 $2,425,312 $2,686,393 2029 $270,901 $2,485,945 $2,751,875 2030 $275,995 $2,548,094 $2,818,995

c. Needs/Revenues Comparison – Fixed Route Service

Table H.6 shows a comparison between LCT’s estimated local match needed and anticipated total revenue for each year from 2026–2030 under the Unconstrained Plan. The comparison reveals that LCT has estimated revenues to match 151 percent of their required local match for 2026. From 2026–2030, LCT has estimated revenues to cover between 151 percent and 117 percent of their local match.

Table H.6 - Unconstrained Plan: 2026–2030 Needs vs. Revenues

Estimated Total % of Local Match Year Estimated Local Match Revenues Covered by Revenues 2026 $4,738,865 $2,564,797 54% 2027 $4,986,043 $2,622,508 53% 2028 $5,193,940 $2,686,393 52% 2029 $5,636,936 $2,751,875 49% 2030 $5,856,625 $2,818,995 48%

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 118

I. Additional Recommendations 1. Organization and Staffing Framework

a. Future Staff Roles

It is likely that future growth of LCT service types, including potential deviated route and fixed route service, will require expansion of current staff and would include staff associated with a more robust service provider. For LCT, this would include more significant management of services, with a focus on resources for managing staff with inclusion of street supervision, training, and human resources support. Additional support may also be required to enhance marketing and communications in addition to community outreach and mobility management.

Existing staff members could take on some of these roles depending on need and availability, but future needs may require hiring additional staff. These additional future staff roles are described below.

Street Supervisor: The Street Supervisor works on-street with vehicle Operators to ensure that safe, reliable, on-time and efficient transit service is being provided. The Street Supervisor reports to the Transportation Supervisor and Operations Manager.

Dispatch Coordinator: The Dispatch Coordinator provides support and backup to the schedulers and dispatchers while assuring that dispatching staff are performing at a high level of customer service and following policies and procedures.

Human Resources and Training: The human resources function within LCT is shared between Licking County Human Resources staff and the LCT General Manager. As the system evolves, there may be a need to reevaluate what HR tasks transit management staff take on directly. The employee training function can be incorporated within human resources or may be included in the Operations Manager or Transportation Supervisor role.

Marketing and Communications Coordinator: The Marketing and Communications Coordinator would develop all internal and external marketing, advertising or public relations information for the organization. This position would be responsible for maintaining all print and online and social media content, including schedule information and any route or bus stop signage.

Mobility Coordinator: The Mobility Coordinator is dedicated to promoting and improving the mobility of residents and/or agency clientele. They are responsible for coordinating transportation resources and providing public education regarding existing transportation resources. The Mobility Coordinator also works to build awareness among decision makers, service providers, and riders on key issues related to the coordination of transportation and human services.

Planner: The Planner conducts short- and long-range planning and service evaluations which are essential parts of the administration, management, and operation of a transit system. Input from a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and technical assistance from ODOT can play important roles in ongoing planning efforts. LCATS could continue to provide planning assistance directly to LCT in lieu of having a Planner on staff.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 119

Figure I.1 shows a proposed LCT org chart that incorporates future positions, which are marked with an asterisk and highlighted in yellow.

Figure I.1 - Proposed (Future) LCT Organizational Structure

*Potential new position

b. Staffing Needs for Proposed Service Scenarios

The TDP outlines four value added/enhancement opportunities for future LCT service. Current staffing levels and projected vehicle hours were used to calculate planning-level full-time equivalents (FTEs) for operators, dispatchers, and mechanics under each service scenario (Table I.1). Assumptions for this analysis include:

• 2,000 annual vehicle hours per FTE operator, assuming 80 hours vacation • 9,623 annual vehicle revenue hours per dispatcher, based on 2018 data • 12.7 vehicles per mechanic, based on existing fleet of 38 vehicles

Table I.1 - Planning-Level FTE Needs for Service Scenario Implementation

Additional Staff Deviated Deviated Fixed Fixed Current Route Route Route Route Alt A Alt B Alt A Alt B Operators 25(1) 12.4 14.1 12.4 14.1 Dispatchers 7 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.9 Mechanics 3(2) 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 (1) Assumes full staffing. (2) Includes lead mechanic.

These FTE figures should be interpreted as a high-level estimate of the number of additional staff required to implement each service scenario if existing staff continued to Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 120

provide demand response service with no changes. However, it is likely that with implementation of these scenarios, some portion of the existing demand response ridership would shift to deviated route or fixed route services, eventually reducing staff needs for that service type. At the same time, ridership and call volumes may increase after service changes are implemented due to latent demand from riders whose needs were not being met by the existing service. Staff needs will need to be reevaluated as these trends become clear following implementation.

If the scenarios were implemented using existing LTVs, operators would not be required to obtain commercial driver’s licenses (CDL). If the bus fleet were expanded to include larger LTLs, existing and newly hired operators would be required to obtain a CDL before operating those buses.

c. Joint Powers Agreement

If LCT wishes to increase available funding by developing a financial relationship with cities in the County, it should consider a joint powers organizational agreement. The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) guide, Collaborative Strategies for Redesigning Transit Systems: Guidance for Coordination, Cooperation, and Consolidation18 provides a useful summary of three different structural models for joint powers agreements:

Consolidated Service Under the consolidated service approach, two or more local governments agree under the joint powers law to create a joint board consisting of one or more representatives from each of the participating local governments. Each entity provides financial support to the joint board. In turn, the board employs the necessary staff, owns or leases the equipment, and manages the operations.

Service Contract Under the service contract approach, one entity maintains and manages the operation and the other entity simply purchases services from the first entity. Typically, the agreement will specify the level and type of service to be provided, performance standards, and other system expectations.

Mutual Aid Under the mutual aid approach, two or more governments agree to assist each other in specified circumstances; e.g., when an emergency in one local government requires additional personnel, or when one entity is short-staffed because of vacancies, vacations, injuries, sickness, etc. Generally, no money changes hands; the assumption is that, in the long run, things will even out and each entity will receive roughly as much assistance as it provides.

d. Transportation Advisory Committee

LCT should also work to establish a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to advocate for the community’s interest in transit. Discussions have been held with the current TDP steering committee about the possibility of that group transitioning into the role of a TAC or similar advisory committee following the completion of the TDP process.

18 Available at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/transit-for-our-future/docs/guidance-for-coordination- cooperation-consolidation.pdf Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 121

The Ohio Rural Transit Program Manual provides a useful description of the structure and duties of a TAC:

A TAC (sometimes referred to as a Transportation Advisory Board or TAB) serves as an advisor to the transit service governing board and its management team. It functions as a citizen’s advocacy group dedicated to improving and expanding the public transit system. It also provides a platform for public and special-needs transportation users and stakeholders as well as the overall community.

Structure A TAC is made up of people living in the transit system’s service area and should reflect the diversity of the area. Members can be residents, businesses, and stakeholders interested in transit service offerings and improvements. TAC members may be appointed by the governing board or other entities as approved by the board. Regularly scheduled meetings advertised and open to the public should be held on a regular basis to promote input from the traveling public to improve the overall transit services. It is advisable that bylaws be written and approved by the governing board to establish membership and prevent misunderstandings regarding the duties and authority of the TAC.

Duties The TAC should provide input to the governing board on matters that affect transportation for all citizens, regardless of their age, disability or income levels. While a TAC does not have authority, it has the obligation to bring matters of importance to the governing board for consideration.

TAC duties can include, but are not limited to: • Make recommendations to the governing board regarding public transit policies and procedures; • Make recommendations to the governing board regarding necessary changes to existing transit services; and • Communicate to the governing board issues brought to it by the public to promote service improvements and clarifications.

e. Recommendations

LCT’s organizational and governance structure is consistent with typical small transit agencies. However, there are a number of short-term actions that should be taken and three long-term actions that should be revisited as the agency continues to evolve.

Short-Term • Complete new and refresher training to meet needs identified by LCT staff • Update or rewrite driver manual to meet current needs. • Hold board retreat with LCTB members to define goals and responsibilities. Continue to hold this event annually. • Start employee mentorship program to improve performance, engagement, and staff retention.

• Establish a TAC to advocate for the needs of transit users in the County. • Consider establishing a joint powers agreement to engage communities in Licking County in funding transit.

2. Marketing and Communications

Branding and passenger information are the two most important elements of transit marketing and communication. Additional outreach and awareness strategies that go above and beyond these key strategies are important to the long-term success of LCT but should be secondary priorities. Additional details on the marketing and communications assessment and recommendations can be found in the Marketing and Communications Memo (Attachment L).

a. Branding

A transit system’s brand includes its name, logo, vehicle graphics, and bus stop signage and facilities. Consistent branding helps current and potential riders see the connections between these elements and navigate the existing system effectively. While LCT does not currently have bus stops or facilities, these elements should be revisited as options for future services are explored.

b. Passenger Information

Effective delivery of passenger information is one of the elements that makes a transit system accessible to the public. Passenger information should be targeted at current riders, who need accurate information to use the service for day-to-day trips, and potential riders, who will be dissuaded from trying transit if information is not easy to access and understand. Essential passenger information delivery mechanisms include:

• Service Guide • Website • Mobile Application • Rider Alerts • Telephone Support

c. Outreach and Awareness Strategies

Effectively using the strategies outlined below to build awareness of and engagement with LCT will require a marketing plan and calendar looking roughly 6-12 months into the future. Framing outreach around system milestones, community events, service changes, or other items of note can be a way to generate additional interest around the transit system. Outreach strategies should include:

• Social Media • Website and Email Updates • Newspaper • Community Events • Stakeholder Relationships • Broadcast Media

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 123

d. Recommendations

Following the TDP process, LCT should explore the following recommendations related to marketing and communications:

• Focus first on the quality of the existing service before investing heavily in marketing. • Complete an assessment of staff and financial capacity for conducting marketing activities and set priorities based on available resources. • Improve the accessibility and usefulness of the LCT website with a focus on current and potential users as described above. • Establish consistency in the use of the LCT logo and other brand elements, especially on transit vehicles. • Utilize free resources such as the National Rural Transit Assistance Program Marketing Toolkit to make the best use of staff time. This toolkit provides additional guidance on the specific marketing and communications strategies outlined in this memorandum, as well as templates, examples, and libraries of copyright-free images and graphics that can be used to enhance marketing materials. • As new service types are added, reevaluate marketing and communication efforts to ensure that they meet the needs of current and potential riders. J. Compliance 1. FTA

As a recipient of FTA funds, LCT must comply with FTA requirements across a range of topics. FTA uses Triennial Reviews to monitor compliance. LCT’s most recent Triennial Review took place in FY 2017, and reported deficiencies in six of 17 areas reviewed:

• Financial Management and Capacity • Technical Capacity • Procurement • DBE • Planning/POP • Drug-Free Workplace/Drug and Alcohol Program

Following the recent transition away from private operations, LCT should ensure that it is fully in compliance with FTA requirements prior to the next Triennial Review.

2. Title VI

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin throughout any programs receiving federal funding assistance. Passengers have the ability to file a complaint with LCT or directly with an FTA representative. There were no deficiencies found in LCT’s last FTA Triennial Review (2017) related to Title VI.

Transit Development Plan June 2020 Page 124

LCT’s Policy Statement:

“No person on the basis of race, color, or national origin will be subjected to discrimination in the level and quality of transportation services and transit- related benefits. Please call 740-670-5180 for information regarding the procedures on filing a Title VI complaint.”

The language of this policy should be expanded to include the criteria of sex and religion.

Title VI Disclaimer It should be noted that any system alteration that results in a change in service of 25 percent or greater will be considered a major service change and require a Title VI analysis. For example, if there are 20 existing trips and five trips are altered, it would constitute a 25 percent change in service and require further analysis in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity and access to persons with disabilities throughout any programs receiving federal funding assistance. Passengers have the ability to file a complaint with LCT or directly with an FTA representative.

All of LCT’s vehicles are ADA accessible and equipped with wheelchair ramps and lifts. There were no deficiencies found in LCT’s last FTA Triennial Review (2017) related to ADA.

LCT’s Policy Statement:

“No entity shall discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of transportation service. (Section 37.5 of the Americans with Disabilities Act.)

Services and benefits provided by public entities are required by Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) to be offered in a way that does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Regulations issued by the Title II implementing federal agencies further define what constitutes discrimination in the provision of services, including transportation, and describes actions required by public entities to ensure that service is non-discriminatory.

As a public transportation provider that is dedicated to providing service that complies with all federal, state and local requirements, the Licking County Transit Board (LCTB) has established the proper procedures when implementing service for those citizens who are disabled. Services provided by the LCTB do not discriminate against persons with disabilities.” K. Attachments Attachment A - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

AUSTIN OFFICE 1171 Stonehollow Dr. Ste 100 Austin, TX 78758 Phone: 512.821.2081 Fax: 512.821.2085 TBPE Firm Registration No. 812 MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 17, 2020 TO: Matt Hill (LCTB) CC: Tom Cruikshank (WSB) FROM: Jory Dille (ATG), Ryan Graves (ATG) RE: Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Introduction The Licking County Transit Development Plan (TDP) will lay out a plan to improve and expand transit in the region over the next 5 years and beyond. This memo will establish Service Standards and serve as a living tool for Licking County Transit (LCT). These Service Standards will serve as both an internal and external resource that will explain how and why transit is delivered in Licking County.

LCT is the sole service transit provider for Licking County, providing demand response to the entirety of the county. Most of the key destinations/trip generators occur in the cities of Newark, Granville, Heath, Pataskala, Johnstown, and Hebron. As LCT prepares for the future, understanding existing service levels and monitoring performance is essential to providing high quality transit.

These service standards will provide LCT with the tools necessary to monitor and apply changes as route productivity and efficiency evolve. Application of Service Standards These Service Standards were developed as part of the Licking County TDP and are rooted in nationwide best practices for transit service planning and adapted to meet the needs of the local context in Licking County. The service standards below offer a unique set of service provision types, technology standards, and system designs for the Licking County region. Existing transit service provided by LCT should be measured on an annual basis to track progress towards a system that complies with the service standards and best practices. The service standards include targets and key performance indicators (KPI’s) that provide a quantitative target or measure for LCT to assess if the system is meeting these standards. The data sources available to LCT were considered in the development of these targets and KPI’s. Utilizing the standards outlined in this document will lead to more productive and cost-efficient transit service. Updating Service Standards Service Standards should be continually monitored and refined based on changes to the operating environment in Licking County. Implementation and updating of service is particularly dependent upon financial constraints to involved cities (Newark, Granville, Heath, Pataskala, Johnstown, and Hebron) and LCT. Service standards should be reviewed on an annual basis and adjusted accordingly. If the data sources or technology available to LCT changes, the targets and KPI’s might require an adjustment to ensure they continue to meet the needs of the region.

February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Title VI Disclaimer It should be noted that any system alteration that results in a change in service of 25 percent or greater will be considered a major service change and require a Title VI analysis. For example, if there are 20 existing trips and 5 trips are altered, it would constitute as a 25 percent change in service and require further analysis in accordance with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What Makes Effective Transit? In order to achieve high quality regional public transportation service, it is imperative to understand what makes transit effective, and how the standards are used to implement successful transit. There are four straightforward principles to what makes effective transit, and they serve as a foundation for the service standards for LCT.

• It takes me where I want to go…

o LCT network coverage should reach areas that contain major trip attractors and generators, and high population and employment densities.

• When I want to go there…

o Service should take users to and from their destination during the hours and on the days that provide citizens better connectivity and accessibility to daily activities (i.e. jobs and medical appointments).

• It is reliable…

o LCT service should result in high On-Time Performance (OTP) ratios and provide users with accurate time points, providing a better understanding of where the buses are located and when they will arrive.

• It saves me time…

o Routes should be efficient and intuitive through direct route design by minimizing circuitous routes and deviations whenever possible, allowing for increased frequencies and travel times.

2 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

What are Service Standards? In general, a transit system provides services by performing a series of scheduled pick up’s and drop off’s either through deviated or fixed routes or demand response dial-a-ride systems that allow riders to travel between origins and destinations or at designated stop areas where riders board and alight transit vehicles. A predetermined schedule will allow riders to plan for their trip prior to entering the system. Each transit system has a series of policies and procedures that govern services to provide uniformity and consistency throughout the system. The sections following the overview of service standards, targets, and key performance indicators will provide specific metrics for each service type. Standards As the Licking County area continues to grow, it is important that transit providers understand how to allocate resources effectively, and which markets will utilize the provided services. The standards are policies which guide the implementation of transit service in Licking County (Table 1). The standards are unique to the needs of Licking County however they are influenced by best practices.

Table 1. Service Standard Descriptions Standards Individual Standard Description

Real Time Data Informs users and service productivity

Technology Transit Signal Priority Gets buses through intersections efficiently

Off Board Fare Collection Reduces dwell time at stations

Route Design A route’s alignment and intuitiveness

The distance between stops impacting accessibility and speed of Stop Spacing service

Route Spacing The distance between routes to prevent service overlap System Design: Fixed Route Time Points Specific points along a route to keep a bus on schedule

Route Directness The distance of a route to get from point A to point B

Schedule Design Frequency and span of service

Bus Stop Standards Amenity allocation and stop placement

Responsiveness How quickly a transit agency can respond to a trip request

This is a combination of on-time performance and trips turned Reliability System Design: down Demand Response Compares time taken to make a trip to an alternate travel mode Travel Time (i.e. ride-share, taxi cabs)

No-Shows When a passenger fails to show up for a scheduled trip

3 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Targets In order to implement these standards, targets are set based on the goals for the specific type of service.

Table 2. Target Descriptions Targets Description

Frequency How often a bus arrives at a given stop

Span & Days How long a bus provides service and the days per week a bus provides service of Service

Stop Amenity The quality of stop amenities based on service type and production Level

On-Time The target percentage of a bus completing its scheduled route on time Performance

Load Factor Reflects the ratio of passengers to total seating capacity

Productivity Passenger boarding per mile and hour

Route The maximum percentage a route distance is compared to the most direct route between Directness two points

Stop Pacing The ideal distance between stops based on service type

Total employment and population density covered by transit (represented by the number Propensity of people and jobs per acre on a 0 - 25 scale (Low = 0-8, Medium = 9-17, High = 18-25))

*Response Defines how far in advance passengers must make a trip reservation. Time

*Reliability On-Time Performance with the addition of the rate of trips turned down or denied

*Travel Time Total time taken for demand response trip versus an alternate mode of travel

Total number of passengers that fail to show up for an appointment in a given period of *No-Shows time

*Demand Response/Complementary Paratransit targets only.

4 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Key Performance Indicators Finally, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been selected to provide a metric for assessing the progress of LCT in meeting the targets set in these service standards. KPIs are measures that show how well a transit system or given transit route are performing. KPIs are used to compare performance in an existing system or future system.

Route Evaluation/Performance Ridership/Productivity There are three main ways to measure ridership. In general, ridership is the total number of boardings and alightings. Average daily ridership is the total number of passengers traveling on average each day. This can also be scaled to measure weekly, monthly, and annual average ridership. Ridership per revenue hour measures the efficiency of services provided based on the use of said services. This is generated by taking the number of people who board the bus and dividing by the number of hours the bus is in service.

Load Factor Load factor is concerned with the capacity of each vehicle servicing its designated route type. This is the ratio of passengers to total seating capacity. This ratio will vary depending on the route type, time of day, and may be affected by significant events or weather that generate a greater passenger demand. Maximum load factors for most route types:

• Peak hours: 140 percent

• Non-Peak hours: 120 percent

On-Time Performance LCT currently considers any trips that don’t deliver the passenger to their appointments on time as late, which translate to a 99.2 percent weekday and 98.4 percent weekend On-Time Performance Rate. As LCT evolves its services to deviated or fixed routes it should aim for all routes to perform on time; however, many variables exist which impact transit operations (e.g. traffic, weather, etc.). Accordingly, on-time performance (OTP) priority tiers have been developed based on service type.

• Tier 1: 95 percent OTP - Mobility Hubs/Transit Center

• Tier 2: 85 percent OTP - Time Points

• Tier 3: 75 percent - All Stops

Travel Time Travel time refers to the amount of time a trip takes, which can vary depending on which mode of travel that passenger decides to take. This performance indicator acts as a comparison between the amount of time the same trip will take using demand response services versus comparable services such as ride- share or a taxi.

• Up to 25 percent longer than exclusive-ride trip

• Up to 50 percent longer than exclusive-ride trip

• Up to 75 percent longer than exclusive-ride trip

5 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

• Up to 100 percent longer than exclusive-ride trip

• More than 100 percent longer than exclusive-ride trip

Denials Not only is service reliability evaluated on the on-time performance rate, but it is also evaluated on the number of trips that have to be turned down. This could be due to lack of seating capacity, staffing shortages, or the service span or coverage does not accommodate the passenger’s trip request. Frequent trip denial rates can be viewed as a red flag, indicating that the system is above capacity in some way. A goal of zero denials should be established to be incompliance with Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. If denials occur service adjustments are required (i.e. hiring more drivers, increasing fleet size, extending service span) to bring the system into ADA compliance.

Service Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness & Efficiency There are three performance indicators that help determine whether a system is delivering service at an effective rate and cost.

• Service Effectiveness

o The amount of service (or trips) delivered per revenue mile or hour (i.e. 1.7 trips per vehicle revenue hour or 0.5 trips per vehicle revenue mile)

• Cost Efficiency

o The cost it takes to operate service per revenue hour or mile (i.e. it costs LCT $51.72 per vehicle revenue hour to run demand response or $2.45 per passenger mile)

• Cost Effectiveness

o The revenue generated per rider or revenue hour, which can be translated into a farebox recovery rate (the ratio of expenses recovered by collecting fares). For example, in 2016 LCT reported a 40 percent farebox recovery, which translated to $10.32 per rider or a revenue of $17.76 per revenue hour.

Over time, these indicators give insight into how well a system is operating and delivering services to passengers. Periodic review of these indicators allows transit agencies to adjust according to increase effectiveness and efficiency.

Current Types of Service Types of transit service are largely dependent on existing markets and land uses. Dense areas containing trip generators (e.g. Newark-Granville-Heath) will require service types that can effectively serve high demand/ridership numbers (i.e. intuitive, linear routes with high frequencies), whereas areas more suburban in nature will require completely different service to effectively use resources (i.e. farther stop placements and necessary deviations to market clusters).

LCT is the sole public transportation provider for Licking County, Ohio. LCT provides Demand Responsive transit service across the County to the general public.

6 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Future Types of Service Licking County’s TDP aims to help the region become ‘Transit Ready’ and not only plan for short-term ways to improve existing transit, but also ways to implement effective transit once a baseline fixed route service has been set. While this may refer to minor improvements such as existing service types being extended to outlying areas, or increased frequencies for fixed routes, this also means the possibility of introducing new types of transit that can better absorb transit demand driven by future population and employment growth.

Generally, future transit service provided in Licking County can be grouped into five categories: regional connectors, frequent service, local service, flexible service (route deviation), and low-density service (demand response and complementary paratransit). These categories of service types are used to set unique targets for implementing the service standards. A description of each service type is provided below.

7 | P a g e

Figure 1. Regional Connector Routes

Table 3. Regional Connector Route Targets & Metrics Targets Metric

Frequency Service every 75 minutes

Span & Days 10 hours on weekdays, occurs during peak commute hours, no service on weekends of Service

Stop Amenity This route type should accommodate Level 3 amenities for passengers with longer wait Level times

On-Time 95 percent Mobility Hubs/Transit Center, 85 percent Timepoints, 75 percent Stops Performance

Productivity 5 boardings per mile, 20 boards per hour

Route <125 percent route directness Directness

Stop Pacing Varies

Propensity Low to Medium Density

February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Figure 2. Frequent Service Routes

10 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Table 4. Fixed Route Frequent Service Route Targets & Metrics Targets Metric

Frequency Service every 30 minutes

Span & Days 15 hours on weekdays, 12 hours on Saturdays, 9 hours on Sundays of Service

Stop Amenity This route type should accommodate Level 2 amenities Level

On-Time 95 percent Mobility Hubs/Transit Center, 85 percent Timepoints, 75 percent Stops Performance

Productivity 2 boardings per mile, 30 boards per hour

Route <125 percent route directness Directness

Stop Pacing At least every ¾ mile

Propensity Medium to High Density

11 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Fixed Route Local Service Fixed route local service refers to transit with a set route alignment, designated stops, and a fixed operating schedule (Figure 3 & Table 5).

Figure 3. Fixed Route Local Service Routes

12 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Table 5. Fixed Route Local Service Route Targets & Metrics Targets Metric

Frequency Service every 45-60 minutes

Span & Days 15 hours on weekdays, 12 hours on Saturdays, 9 hours on Sundays of Service

Stop Amenity This route type should accommodate Level 1 amenities Level

On-Time 95 percent Mobility Hubs/Transit Center, 85 percent Timepoints, 75 percent Stops Performance

Productivity 1 boarding per mile, 15 boards per hour

Route <175 percent route directness Directness

Stop Pacing At least every ¼ mile

Propensity Low to Medium Density

13 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Route Deviation (Flexible Service) Route deviation or flexible service allow operators to deviate from fixed routes to provide service coverage to origins and destinations within a close proximity to that route (typically ¾ of a mile), which requires a request for deviation ahead of time (Table 6). Route Deviation has the possibility of being applied to any or all of the proposed routes in the Service Scenario Technical Memo.

Table 6. Flexible Service Route Targets & Metrics Targets Metric

Maintains fixed route frequency, plus a capped additional timeframe to deviate from Frequency route

Span & Days 15 hours on weekdays, 12 hours on Saturdays, 9 hours on Sundays of Service

Stop Amenity This route type should accommodate Level 1 amenities Level

On-Time 95 percent Mobility Hubs/Transit Center, 85 percent Timepoints, 75 percent Stops Performance

Productivity 1 boarding per mile, 15 boards per hour

Route <100 percent route directness Directness

Stop Pacing At least every ¼ mile

Propensity Low to Medium Density

14 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Table 7. Demand Response Targets & Metrics Targets Metric

Span & Days 15 hours on weekdays, 12 hours on Saturdays, 9 hours on Sundays of Service

On-Time 95 percent or better for all stops with the assumption of a 30-minute window Performance

Propensity Low to Medium Density

Response Same-day service on space available basis Time

Trip Turn <10 percent of monthly trips Down Rate

Travel Time Up to 25 percent longer than exclusive-ride trip

No-Shows 2-5 percent of monthly trips

15 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Technology Standards Enhanced technology is critical for an agency’s performance. Ensuring updated technology whenever possible affects how passengers and operators understand the service and its productivity, as well as overall service efficiency. Real Time/Data Tracking Real time/data tracking technology allows for transit agencies to better understand existing ridership trends. It is recommended that all LCT buses are equipped with the technologies listed below.

Automatic Vehicle Location Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) is a technology which combines the use of computers and global positioning software (GPS) to maintain location of buses as they operate. This allows agencies to better understand how buses/operators are performing in real-time and allows for better user experience as they can track buses in real time. Future Technologies The following technologies are supplementary add-ons that increase service quality but should be discretional options dependent on financial constraints. These technologies should be taken into consideration should LCT have the funding for implementation in the future.

Off Board Fare Collection Off board fare collection refers to the practice of providing users the ability to pay for transit fare prior to boarding through at-station kiosks or via smartphone (in place of traditional “front-door” payment methods). With this method fare takes form in loadable smart cards/credit cards, e-tickets, paper tickets, or smartphone apps. This enhanced fare collection method makes all-door boarding possible, thus reducing dwell times at stations/stops. All-door boarding is typically facilitated by proof-of-payment fare control, where users must be able to show transit operators/staff a purchased ticket if prompted.

16 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Both TSP and off board fare collection should be implemented as fixed route service is phased into service.

System Design System alignment is critical to both transit efficiency and cost. A system should be designed to take citizens where they want to go, in a direct and intuitive manner. Well-designed systems take advantage of existing land uses/market concentrations that best support transit, therefore limiting unproductive routes. The following sections detail practices for efficient system design. Schedule Design Frequency Frequency is how often a bus arrives at a given stop or departs from a terminal. Higher frequency translates into a reduction in overall travel time by providing freedom to show up to a stop or station and know that the next trip will arrive soon. It also minimizes transfer time on trips where passengers use more than one route. In general, the higher the frequency, the better the route is performing under this measure.

From conducting a peer comparison of transit agencies in Ohio offering some form of fixed route service, it became apparent that the majority of these agencies offered fare prices that were between $1.00 to $2.00 for the general public (an average of $1.77) and all agencies offered half off discounted fares for older adults and those with disabilities. Additionally, only a handful of transit agencies offered deviated route services in Ohio. These agencies charged an average fare of $1.42 for the general public with a 50 percent discount for elderly or disabled passengers. Demand response providers services and fare prices vary throughout the state however, fare structures were similar. Many demand response providers charge an in-town base fee somewhere between $1.00 to $2.00 for the general public, increase fares for trips to nearby community to $3.00 or $4.00 and charge more than $4.00 for trips outside of the county.

17 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

No-Shows Not only do no-shows negatively affect the transit agency, but they can also extend the travel time of another passenger’s trip if the transit agency is not alerted ahead of time. LCT should establish a strict no-show policy that suspends rider’s privileges after a number of repeating occurrences. For example, the Ashtabula County Transportation System suspended any rider’s privileges after being a no-show three times in a thirty-day period.

• Simple route names with one route name when there is service on both sides of the street;

• Intuitive design to minimize detours and confusing alignments

• Operate along high-activity corridors to provide access to key destinations

• Ensure optimal travel times for users that maximize transfer opportunities. Stop Pacing The process of spacing stops must balance two considerations – accessibility to bus stops and speed of service. Stops placed closer together provide more coverage to users, however they also cause buses to spend more time at bus stops and therefore can cause routes to be less time efficient. Stop spacing recommendations based on service type are provided in Table 8.

Table 8. Stop Pacing Standards Service Type Distance

Local 0.25 miles

Frequent 0.75 miles

Regional Connector Varies

Bus stops should within a close proximity to the passengers being served, typically passengers are willing to walk ¼ mile to take the bus. It should be a priority for LCT to ensure the region’s transit market is adequately served by public transportation. Given that every transit trip is also a walking trip, Licking County providers and partners should aspire to connect all bus stops to the pedestrian network to further improve safety and comfort for users.

18 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Route Directness Direct routes minimize passenger travel time. Routes should use existing infrastructure to go from point A to point B in the shortest amount of distance. Using arterial streets as much as possible typically allows for more direct routes with posted speeds conducive to faster travel. It must be noted that routes may deviate if a market or key destination necessitates coverage (e.g. end of the line terminal loop, employment center/campus, etc.). Further, different types of service may dictate route directness. For example, express routes will be as linear as possible with limited stops, while local routes may provide more coverage and deviations.

Bus Stop Standards (Fixed & Deviated Routes Only) Amenities Bus stops should create a positive experience and provide access to LCT users. Minimum standards for LCT bus stops ensure that a basic set of passenger amenities are provided at each stop location. Different amenity levels are outlined in Table 9 and should be applied to stops when applicable. In general, available funding, service types, ridership, and transfer totals should all be used to gauge which amenity level should be implemented at a stop. Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 on the following pages provide graphic examples as to how bus stop amenity levels may appear based on amenity types added.

19 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Table 9. Bus Stop Amenities by Level Amenities Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

ADA Accessibility X X X

Bus Sign X X X

System Information X X X

Shelter & Bench X X

Sidewalk Connectivity X X

Safety Lighting X

Trash Bag/Can X

Landscaping/Planters X

Art/Placemaking X

20 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Figure 4. Level 1 Stop Amenities

Figure 5. Level 2 Stop Amenities

21 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Figure 6. Level 3 Stop Amenities

22 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Far-Side Stops A far-side bus stop (Figure 7) is one that follows a signalized intersection, allowing the bus to pass through traffic and for users to board/alight safely near crosswalks/pedestrian infrastructure. This is the ideal stop location as it provides a safe environment for pedestrians and causes the least traffic disruption.

Figure 7. Far-Side Stop Example

23 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Near-Side Stops Near-side stops (Figure 8) are those that are located immediately before a signalized intersection. This allows for boarding and alighting when the transit vehicle is stopped at a red light. This form of stop is less desirable than far-side locations as it can cause the transit vehicle to block through traffic at the light. This can decrease pedestrian sight distances and cause automobile drivers to make unsafe traffic maneuvers. Additionally, dependent on traffic light placement, this placement can cause long idling times for buses should they be held up by a red light.

Figure 8. Near-Side Stop Example

24 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Mid-Block Stops Mid-Block stops (Figure 9) are found along roadways in between signalized intersections. Mid-block stop locations are the least desirable, as they create an unsafe and inconvenient environment for pedestrians as they typically do not provide a crosswalk to reach the other side of the road. It is recommended that mid-block stops are created in tandem with mid-block crosswalk infrastructure to increase safety and efficiency.

Figure 9. Mid-Block Stop Example

25 | P a g e February 17, 2020 Transit Development Plan - Service Standards Technical Memorandum

Appearance and Comfort The exterior and interior appearance of transit vehicles can change the perception of transit for those who are exposed to them. Appearance and comfort can be applied to all aspects of a passenger’s journey from point A to B. As previously discussed, proper stop amenities are important for making a passenger’s daily trip comfortable and easy. This also applies to standards for the appearance and comfort of the vehicle itself.

Vehicle appearance should be held to a high standard, to maintain an ideal image in the community it is serving. Vehicles should be cleaned and maintained frequently, both on the interior and exterior (Table 10). This helps send the message of reliability to current and potential riders. Additionally, a passenger’s ride is expected to be comfortable no matter the length of the trip. LCT should strive to maintain comfortable seating and a clean interior environment, while also ensuring trips run smoothly with no unnecessary acceleration or deceleration.

Table 10. Cleaning Standards Procedure Frequency

Light interior cleaning (sweeping, trash removal, etc.) Daily

Exterior cleaning (power washing) At least once per week

Extensive interior cleaning Quarterly

Seat Replacement Varies

Customer Satisfaction Surveys General vehicle and facility inspections should be part of a transit agency’s typical procedures. These inspections should be paired with quarterly to biannual customer satisfaction surveys, especially as service is increased and extended. Reviewing the needs and concerns of passengers helps a transit agency maintain satisfied passengers while continuing to meet the current and future needs of its ridership. These surveys can identify and rank passenger concerns, which can then create a list of prioritized improvements for the transit agency and allow the agency to shift focus if necessary.

Conclusion LCT service standards (Table 11) have been created to serve as a living tool to work in tandem with the other pieces of the Transit Development Plan and to serve as a standalone set of transit standards moving forward. As LCT prepares for the future, it remains critical that they use these service standards to understand existing service levels and to continuously monitor performance to ensure high quality transit.

Developing these service standards will help LCT review their own operations and determine which standards to implement moving forward. They should be thought of as a guide to for establishing different levels of transit service that can easily be catered to fit the needs of LCT and the community it serves. This comprehensive guide details service standards for technology, system design, and route design. Many of these standards come from reviewing national trends and implementation strategies and should be considered points of reference on which to build further implementation strategies.

26 | P a g e

Table 11. Service Standards Comparison by Service Type Stop Span & Days of Route Stop Service Type Frequency Amenity On-Time Performance Productivity Propensity Service Directness Pacing Level

10 hours on weekdays, occurs 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit during peak 5 boardings per mile, Low to Medium Regional Connectors 75 minutes Level 3 Center, 85% Timepoints, 75% <125% Varies commute hours, no 20 boards per hour Density Stops service on weekends

15 hours on 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit At least weekdays, 12 hours 2 boardings per mile, Medium to High Frequent Service 30 minutes Level 2 Center, 85% Timepoints, 75% <125% every ¾ on Saturdays, 9 30 boards per hour Density Stops mile hours on Sundays

15 hours on 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit At least weekdays, 12 hours 1 boarding per mile, Low to Medium Local Service 45-60 minutes Level 1 Center, 85% Timepoints, 75% <175% every ¼ on Saturdays, 9 15 boards per hour Density Stops mile hours on Sundays

Maintains fixed route 15 hours on 95% Mobility Hubs/Transit At least Flexible Service (Route frequency, plus a capped weekdays, 12 hours 1 boarding per mile, Low to Medium Level 1 Center, 85% Timepoints, 75% <100% every ¼ additional timeframe to on Saturdays, 9 15 boards per hour Density Deviation) Stops mile deviate from route hours on Sundays

Span & Days of Response Low Density Standards Travel Time On-Time Performance Denial Rate No-Shows - Propensity Service Time

Same-day 95 percent or better for all stops 15 hours on Low Density Service service on with the assumption of a 30- Up to 25 percent longer weekdays, 12 hours <10 percent of 2-5 percent of Low to Medium (Demand space minute window - than exclusive-ride trip on Saturdays, 9 monthly trips monthly trips Density available Response/Paratransit) hours on Sundays basis

Attachment B - On-Board Survey Questions

Licking County Transit On-Board Survey Don’t have time to take the survey right now? Use the QR code or visit the address below to take it online at your convenience: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/7HT5XDL

Please help us understand how you use the bus. 1. What is your age? ☐ Younger than 18 ☐ 25-44 ☐ 65-74 ☐ 18-24 ☐ 45-64 ☐ 75 or older

2. What is your race or ethnicity? (check all that apply) ☐ White ☐ American Indian or Alaska Native ☐ Other, please specify: ☐ Black or African American ☐ Asian ______☐ Hispanic or Latino ______

3. What is your total annual household income (for all people in your household combined)? ☐ Less than $24,999 ☐ $50,000 to $74,999 ☐ $100,000+ ☐ $25,000 to $49,999 ☐ $75,000 to $99,999

4. Do you have a driver’s license? ☐ Yes ☐ No

5. How many vehicles are in your household? ☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 or more

6. Are you or anyone in your household a veteran? ☐Yes, I am a veteran ☐Yes, others in my household are veterans ☐Yes, I am a veteran as are others in my household ☐No

7. Do you consider yourself to have a disability? ☐ Yes ☐ No

8. Why are you riding the bus today? ☐Work ☐School or job training ☐Shopping or eating out ☐Errands or personal business ☐Health/medical/dental appointment ☐Social or recreation ☐Taking someone else somewhere ☐Other: ______

9. If bus service was not available, how would you have made this trip? ☐ I would not have made the trip ☐ Volunteer driver ☐ Bicycle ☐ Drive myself ☐ Used a taxi, Uber or Lyft ☐Other please specify: ☐ Family or friend ☐ Walked ______

10. How often do you ride Licking County Transit? ☐ 5-7 days per week ☐ About once a week ☐ Once a month or less ☐ 2-4 days per week ☐ A few days per month ☐ This is my first time

11. Why do you ride the bus? Check all that apply. ☐ I can’t drive or don’t like to drive ☐ To save money ☐ No access to a vehicle ☐ It is convenient ☐ Too difficult to get rides from others ☐ It is good for the environment ☐ It is important to be independent ☐ Other: ______

12. If bus service wasn’t available, would you need to move someplace else? ☐No, I could continue living in my current living in ☐Yes, I would move somewhere nearby my current place ☐Yes, I would move to a different town or city

13. How often do you take the bus to work? ☐ Never ☐ 2-4 days per week ☐ A few days per month ☐ 5-7 days per week ☐ About once a week ☐ Once a month or less

14. How important is the bus service for getting to your job? ☐ Not applicable ☐ Somewhat important, I might lose my job ☐ Not important, I would keep ☐ Very important, I would lose ☐ Slightly important, I would probably my job my job keep my job

15. How often do you ride the bus for school or job training? ☐ Never ☐ 2-4 days per week ☐ A few days per month ☐ 5-7 days per week ☐ About once a week ☐ Once a month or less

16. How often do you ride the bus for health care? (doctor visit, dentist, physical therapy, etc.) ☐ Never ☐ 2-4 days per week ☐ A few days per month ☐ 5-7 days per week ☐ About once a week ☐ Once a month or less

17. Would you skip doctor visits or prescriptions if bus service was not available? ☐ Yes, many ☐ Yes, few ☐ No

18. Does the bus help keep you connected to your town? ☐ Yes ☐ No

19. If the bus was not available, would you spend more money buying products online? ☐ Yes ☐ No

20. Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Disagree Using transit: Allows me to make more trips ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Increases my social interaction with ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ other people Reduces my stress level ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Allows me to live independently ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Improves my overall quality of life ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

21. Is there any other feedback or information that you would like to provide regarding how public transportation impacts your life? ______

Thank you for completing this survey! Please give the survey to the survey or driver. 2

Attachment C - On-Board Survey Results

Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q1 What is your age?

Answered: 100 Skipped: 2

Younger than 18 7.00%

7.00%

18-24 20.00%

20.00%

25-44 35.00%

35.00%

45-64 17.00%17.00%

17.00%

65-74 10.00%10.00%

10.00%

75 or older 11.00%11.00%

11.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Younger than 18 7.00% 7

18-24 20.00% 20

25-44 35.00% 35

45-64 17.00% 17

65-74 10.00% 10

75 or older 11.00% 11 TOTAL 100

1 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q2 What is your race/ethnicity. Please select all that apply.

Answered: 100 Skipped: 2

White or 91.00% Caucasian

91.00% Black or 9.00% African... 9.00% Hispanic or Latino

Asian or Asian American

American 2.00% Indian or...

2.00% Native Hawaiian or...

Another race 2.00%

2.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

White or Caucasian 91.00% 91

Black or African American 9.00% 9

Hispanic or Latino 0.00% 0

Asian or Asian American 0.00% 0

American Indian or Alaska Native 2.00% 2

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.00% 0

Another race 2.00% 2 Total Respondents: 100

2 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q3 What is your total household income (for all people in your household combined?)

Answered: 83 Skipped: 19

Less than 72.29% $24,999

72.29% $25,000 to 13.25%13.25% $49,999

13.25% $50,000 to 8.43% $74,999

8.43% $75,000 to 2.41% $99,999

2.41% Over than 3.61% $100,000

3.61% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Less than $24,999 72.29% 60

$25,000 to $49,999 13.25% 11

$50,000 to $74,999 8.43% 7

$75,000 to $99,999 2.41% 2

Over than $100,000 3.61% 3 TOTAL 83

3 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q4 Do you have a driver's license?

Answered: 99 Skipped: 3

Yes 14.14%14.14%

14.14%

No 85.86%

85.86%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Yes 14.14% 14

No 85.86% 85 TOTAL 99

4 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q5 How many vehicles are in your household?

Answered: 96 Skipped: 6

0 39.58%

39.58%

1 27.08%

27.08%

2 or more 33.33%

33.33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

0 39.58% 38

1 27.08% 26

2 or more 33.33% 32 TOTAL 96

5 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q6 Are you or anyone in your household a veteran?

Answered: 93 Skipped: 9

Yes, I am a 1.08%1.08% veteran 1.08%

Yes, I am a 1.08%1.08% veteran as a... 1.08%

Yes, other in 4.30% my household... 4.30%

No, no one in 93.55% my household... 93.55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Yes, I am a veteran 1.08% 1

Yes, I am a veteran as are others in my household 1.08% 1

Yes, other in my household are veterans 4.30% 4

No, no one in my household is a veteran 93.55% 87 TOTAL 93

6 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q7 Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

Answered: 97 Skipped: 5

Yes 88.66%

88.66%

No 11.34%11.34%

11.34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Yes 88.66% 86

No 11.34% 11 TOTAL 97

7 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q8 Why are you riding the bus today?

Answered: 100 Skipped: 2

Work 45.0%

45.0% Errands or 2.0% personal... 2.0% School or job 13.0%13.0% training

13.0% Health/medical/ 13.0%13.0% dental... 13.0% Shopping or 2.0% eating out

2.0% Social or 6.0% recreation 6.0% Taking someone else somewhere

Other (please 19.0%19.0% specify) 19.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Work 45.0% 45

Errands or personal business 2.0% 2

School or job training 13.0% 13

Health/medical/dental appointment 13.0% 13

Shopping or eating out 2.0% 2

Social or recreation 6.0% 6

Taking someone else somewhere 0.0% 0

Other (please specify) 19.0% 19 TOTAL 100

# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Dayhab 11/8/2019 1:55 PM 2 Dayhab 11/8/2019 1:46 PM 3 ADS 11/8/2019 1:41 PM 4 Volunteer at LICCO 11/8/2019 1:35 PM 5 ADS 11/8/2019 1:21 PM 6 Other 11/8/2019 1:18 PM 7 work, adult daycare 10/9/2019 3:08 PM 8 adult daycare 10/9/2019 3:07 PM 9 work, adult daycare 10/9/2019 3:06 PM 10 work, adult daycare 10/9/2019 3:05 PM 11 work, adult daycare 10/9/2019 3:04 PM 12 work, adult daycare 10/9/2019 3:03 PM 13 work, adult daycare 10/9/2019 3:01 PM 14 silver sneakers 10/9/2019 2:52 PM 8 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

15 Work, adult daycare 10/9/2019 2:37 PM 16 I have a disabilty 10/9/2019 2:15 PM 17 Work, School or job training, Health/medical/dental appointment 10/9/2019 1:41 PM 18 Camp 10/8/2019 4:15 PM 19 Day Rehab 10/6/2019 2:18 PM

9 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q9 If bus service was not available, how would you have made this trip?

Answered: 98 Skipped: 4

I would not 41.84% have made th...

41.84% Drive myself 1.02%1.02%

1.02% Family or 40.82% friend

40.82% Volunteer 1.02%1.02% driver 1.02% Taxi, Uber or 4.08% Lyft

4.08% Walked 5.10%

5.10% Biked

Other (please 6.12% specify) 6.12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

I would not have made the trip 41.84% 41

Drive myself 1.02% 1

Family or friend 40.82% 40

Volunteer driver 1.02% 1

Taxi, Uber or Lyft 4.08% 4

Walked 5.10% 5

Biked 0.00% 0

Other (please specify) 6.12% 6 TOTAL 98

# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Staff from CDS 11/8/2019 1:58 PM 2 unknown 10/21/2019 4:56 AM 3 drive myself, family or friend, used a taxi, Uber, or Lyft 10/9/2019 3:12 PM 4 Would not have made this trip, Family or friend 10/9/2019 1:37 PM 5 LICCO 10/4/2019 6:44 PM 6 MRDD transportation 10/4/2019 7:09 AM

10 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q10 How often do you ride Licking County Transit?

Answered: 96 Skipped: 6

5-7 days per 57.29% week

57.29% 2-4 days per 30.21% week

30.21% About once a 4.17% week

4.17% A few days per 5.21% month

5.21% Once a month 3.13% or less

3.13% This is my first time...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

5-7 days per week 57.29% 55

2-4 days per week 30.21% 29

About once a week 4.17% 4

A few days per month 5.21% 5

Once a month or less 3.13% 3

This is my first time riding the bus 0.00% 0 TOTAL 96

11 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q11 Why do you ride the bus? Check all that apply

Answered: 98 Skipped: 4

I can't drive 78.57% or don't lik...

78.57% No access to a 46.94% vehicle 46.94% Too difficult 30.61% to get rides...

30.61% To save money 10.20%10.20%

10.20% It is 23.47% convenient

23.47% It is 35.71% important to... 35.71% It is good for 10.20%10.20% the environment

10.20% Other (please 6.12% specify) 6.12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

I can't drive or don't like to drive 78.57% 77

No access to a vehicle 46.94% 46

Too difficult to get rides from others 30.61% 30

To save money 10.20% 10

It is convenient 23.47% 23

It is important to be independent 35.71% 35

It is good for the environment 10.20% 10

Other (please specify) 6.12% 6 Total Respondents: 98

# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 disability 10/21/2019 4:56 AM 2 I have epilepsy and not allowed to drive 10/16/2019 7:05 AM 3 I want to work 10/12/2019 3:26 PM 4 support the bus system 10/9/2019 2:41 PM 5 I can’t get a drivers license due to disability. 10/4/2019 5:13 PM 6 I cannot drive due to disability and my mother works 10/4/2019 7:44 AM

12 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q12 If bus service wasn't available, would you need to move someplace else?

Answered: 97 Skipped: 5

No, I could 78.35% continue liv... 78.35%

Yes, I would 9.28% move somewhe... 9.28%

Yes, I would 12.37%12.37% move to a... 12.37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

No, I could continue living in my current living in my current place 78.35% 76

Yes, I would move somewhere nearby 9.28% 9

Yes, I would move to a different town or city 12.37% 12 TOTAL 97

13 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q13 How often do you take the bus to work?

Answered: 96 Skipped: 6

5-7 days per 31.25% week

31.25% 2-4 days per 28.13% week

28.13% About once a 1.04%1.04% week

1.04% A few days per 1.04%1.04% month

1.04% Once a month 1.04%1.04% or less

1.04%

Never 37.50%

37.50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

5-7 days per week 31.25% 30

2-4 days per week 28.13% 27

About once a week 1.04% 1

A few days per month 1.04% 1

Once a month or less 1.04% 1

Never 37.50% 36 TOTAL 96

14 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q14 How important is the bus service for getting to your job?

Answered: 94 Skipped: 8

Not applicable 35.11%

35.11% Very 38.30% important, I...

38.30% Somewhat 9.57% important, I...

9.57% Slightly 13.83%13.83% important, I...

13.83% Not important, 3.19% I would keep...

3.19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Not applicable 35.11% 33

Very important, I would lose my job 38.30% 36

Somewhat important, I might lose my job 9.57% 9

Slightly important, I would probably keep my job 13.83% 13

Not important, I would keep my job 3.19% 3 TOTAL 94

15 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q15 How often do you ride the bus for school or job training?

Answered: 95 Skipped: 7

100%

80% 69.47%

69.47% 60%

40%

15.79%15.79% 20% 9.47% 15.79% 2.11% 2.11% 1.05%1.05% 9.47% 0% 2.11% 2.11% 1.05% Not 5-7 days 2-4 days About once A few days Once a applicable/ per week per week a week per month month or Never less ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Not applicable/Never 69.47% 66

5-7 days per week 15.79% 15

2-4 days per week 9.47% 9

About once a week 2.11% 2

A few days per month 2.11% 2

Once a month or less 1.05% 1 TOTAL 95

16 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q16 How often do you ride the bus for health care? (doctor visit, dentist, physical therapy, etc.)

Answered: 93 Skipped: 9

100%

80% 58.06% 60% 58.06%

40%

11.83%11.83% 11.83%11.83% 20% 8.60% 4.30% 5.38% 11.83% 11.83% 8.60% 0% 4.30% 5.38% Never 5-7 days 2-4 days About once A few days Once a per week per week a week per month month or less ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Never 58.06% 54

5-7 days per week 4.30% 4

2-4 days per week 8.60% 8

About once a week 5.38% 5

A few days per month 11.83% 11

Once a month or less 11.83% 11 TOTAL 93

17 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q17 Would you skip doctor visits or prescriptions if bus service was not available?

Answered: 95 Skipped: 7

Yes, many 13.68%13.68%

13.68%

Yes, few 13.68%13.68%

13.68%

No 72.63%

72.63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Yes, many 13.68% 13

Yes, few 13.68% 13

No 72.63% 69 TOTAL 95

18 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q18 Does the bus help keep you connected to your town?

Answered: 94 Skipped: 8

Yes 80.85%

80.85%

No 19.15%19.15%

19.15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Yes 80.85% 76

No 19.15% 18 TOTAL 94

19 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q19 If the bus was not available, would you spend more money buying products online?

Answered: 96 Skipped: 6

Yes 18.75%18.75%

18.75%

No 81.25%

81.25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Yes 18.75% 18

No 81.25% 78 TOTAL 96

20 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q20 Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Answered: 95 Skipped: 7

Using transit 38.3% 41.5% 12.8%12.8% 5.3%2.1% allows me to...

38.3% 41.5% 12.8% 5.3%2.1% Using transit increases 33.0% 34.0% 19.1%19.1% 9.6%4.3% my... 33.0% 34.0% 19.1% 9.6%4.3% Using transit 32.3% 23.7% 31.2% 6.5% 6.5% reduces my...

32.3% 23.7% 31.2% 6.5% 6.5% Using transit 38.3% 36.2% 18.1%18.1% 1.1%1.1%6.4% allows me to...

38.3% 36.2% 18.1% 1.1%6.4% Using transit 38.7% 37.6% 18.3%18.3% 1.1%1.1%4.3% improves my...

38.7% 37.6% 18.3% 1.1%4.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE STRONGLY TOTAL AGREE DISAGREE Using transit allows me to make more trips 38.3% 41.5% 12.8% 5.3% 2.1% 36 39 12 5 2 94

Using transit increases my social interaction with 33.0% 34.0% 19.1% 9.6% 4.3% other people 31 32 18 9 4 94 Using transit reduces my stress level 32.3% 23.7% 31.2% 6.5% 6.5% 30 22 29 6 6 93

Using transit allows me to live independently 38.3% 36.2% 18.1% 1.1% 6.4% 36 34 17 1 6 94

Using transit improves my overall quality of life 38.7% 37.6% 18.3% 1.1% 4.3% 36 35 17 1 4 93

21 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

Q21 Is there any other feedback or information that you would like to provide regarding how public transportation impacts your life?

Answered: 42 Skipped: 60

# RESPONSES DATE 1 I would like to have a regularly scheduled pick up to a specific location on a weekly basis. 11/11/2019 1:07 PM 2 (comment written next to "Social or recreation" on Question 8: "DayCenter") 11/8/2019 1:58 PM 3 (for Question 8, "Other" was also checked with the comment "Dayhab") 11/8/2019 1:52 PM 4 (for Question 8, "Other" was also checked with the comment "ADS") 11/8/2019 1:44 PM 5 Without Transit I would not get to go to ADS programs and meet people 11/8/2019 1:41 PM 6 not at this time 11/8/2019 1:35 PM 7 (for Question 8, "Other" was also checked with the comment "volunteer at LICCO") 11/8/2019 1:30 PM

8 I am the guardian of person with disability, my perception when he tells me what happens on 10/21/2019 4:56 AM transit is the drivers are not trained on disabilities. I think transit is a wonderful service but the rider, not so much. He literally gets physically upset and angry every time one passes.

9 i think transit should use an app that could tell me when they are 5 minutes away and when they 10/16/2019 12:24 PM have arrived. 10 They need to make it better for the drivers. They are unhappy and quitting which making it harder 10/16/2019 7:05 AM to get rides and I depend on them to get to my job. I don't have any other way 11 It is the only way I’m able to work and keep a job. Without it, I couldn’t work. I don’t live near any 10/12/2019 3:26 PM jobs. 12 The only I have to get my child to and from school right now. 10/10/2019 4:30 PM 13 The service here is terrible! I have lots of suggestions. 10/9/2019 3:12 PM 14 Really like being able to relax. 10/9/2019 3:01 PM 15 Transit has helped me quiet a bit with getting me to work. 10/9/2019 2:57 PM 16 I really appreciate the rides. 10/9/2019 2:52 PM 17 Really need the system. Hard to get a ride for the same day. 10/9/2019 2:41 PM 18 You guys are very helpful and good drivers. 10/9/2019 2:15 PM 19 Sometimes I can't get a ride for up to a month. And had to lose my doctor. 10/9/2019 2:13 PM 20 Drivers are great, they are like family/friends. 10/9/2019 2:03 PM 21 Very thankful to have the service. 10/9/2019 2:01 PM 22 Need more drivers. Can be difficult to schedule. 10/9/2019 2:00 PM

23 I am upset with a driver called Roger. The seat belt was loose, I had it on but the driver turned a 10/9/2019 1:58 PM corner fast, and I fell on the floor of the bus. Now I have to go to a chiropractor fro my hip that I fell on. 24 Almost always on time. Drivers are excellent. Going to vote for levy. Drivers will stay on late, no 10/9/2019 1:55 PM fear of being left. Flexible pickup location. 25 Rely solely as means of transportation to get to dialysis and other medical appointments without 10/9/2019 1:46 PM having to depend on family that works full-time. 26 If I didn't have transport I would have no way to work, and would not be able to support myself or 10/9/2019 1:33 PM my 2 kids. 27 Drivers and all are awesome. Love seeing everyone on the bus. 10/9/2019 1:25 PM 28 Bus scheduling is extremely difficult, we had to use the service for summer camp, and the pick and 10/8/2019 4:15 PM drop off time is the same every day are the same, but they couldn't just schedule for the whole summer, instead we had to call in every week to do so this year, we were able to schedule for the whole summer for the prior year, but not this year... 29 These responses are those of my brother, John Pfeffer, who uses the service. We really 10/7/2019 9:59 AM appreciate those who help with transportation to his work. Thank you - Linda E. Miller 30 There needs to be a better system for me to get to and from work without stress of not having a 10/7/2019 7:25 AM ride. Transit is all I have to get to work and back home. I have to work to have money. 31 It's a shame I can't always depend on transit! I'm told there no rides available for me, when I have 10/4/2019 6:44 PM very few choices! 32 If I couldn’t ride transit, I could not work. 10/4/2019 5:13 PM

22 / 23 Licking County Transit On-Board Survey

33 I go to Licco 3 times a week. If not for transit, I would have to give that up. 10/4/2019 2:51 PM 34 thank you 10/4/2019 2:09 PM 35 Need to have more open schedule went people call in not all way say they are full not a open 10/4/2019 1:33 PM 36 Wish would expand to connect to transit in Columbus 10/4/2019 1:26 PM 37 Cleaner buses, please. 10/4/2019 11:58 AM 38 Wish pick up time was more consistent. Transit comes anywhere from 7:50 to 8:35 on a daily 10/4/2019 9:52 AM basis. Days they are past 8:25 makes my sister late for her job. 39 We are most appreciative to LCBDD for connecting us to public transportation. 10/4/2019 8:00 AM 40 My son rode with transit for years...… Many of the drivers are unreliable and many times he was 10/4/2019 7:44 AM late for work. Stress the emphasis of how important it is to have the individuals at their appointment ON TIME. The only thing transit did was increase his stress level.

41 Door to door service is vital as I have no way to get to or from bus stops. I live in a rural area of the 10/4/2019 7:29 AM county and cannot drive to a pickup point. Without transit I would lose my ability to get to work, the gym and doctors appointments. I would like transit to run on Sundays for church. Later evening hours would give me more work choices. Transit allows me to be independent since I can't drive.

42 Transit office employees are extremely rude, this week I was told they couldn’t accommodate my 10/4/2019 6:24 AM work schedule for a 4 pm p/u. It would be at least 3 weeks. My father has called three times for me they never return phone calls. Because of not picking up I have already lost 2 jobs.

23 / 23

Attachment D - Community Survey Questions

Licking County Transit - Community Feedback Survey

The Licking County Transit Board is dedicated to providing safe transportation to improve the quality of life for the maximum number of Licking County citizens. Regardless of how you travel, we would like to hear from you. This survey is part of the Licking County Transit Development Plan and your feedback and comments will help us understand the transit needs of the community. Your input will help inform recommendations for improving future transit service in Licking County. Thank you for your time!

1. Which of the following is your place of residence? Alexandria Hartford Millersport St. Louisville Granville Hebron/Buckeye Lake Newark/Heath Utica Gratiot Johnstown Pataskala Unincorporated Hanover/Marne Kirkersville Reynoldsburg Other ______

2. What is the street intersection closest to where you live?

3. Where do you travel most frequently? Select up to 2. Daycare School Park Place of Worship Family/Friends Food Hospital/Doctor’s office Social Service Agency Restaurant Shopping Other______

4. What is closest street intersection of those places (or place)?

5. How do you normally travel on a daily basis? Select only 1. Licking County Transit Bus Taxi Ride Sharing Service (Uber/Lyft) Walk Drive myself Shuttle Bus (senior center, church, etc.) Bike Carpool Other______

6. Have you used Licking County Transit in the past year? If you answer “No”, skip questions 7 and 8. Yes No There is no transit service in my area

7. If you answered “Yes” above, what trip(s) do you take using Licking County Transit? Check all that apply. Work Leisure Shopping Grocery School (elementary, College Medical I don’t ride the bus Other______middle, high school)

8. Are there any places you want to go but can’t get to using Licking County Transit?

9. Would you be interested in fixed-route transit service where vehicles run on regular, scheduled routes with fixed stops? If “Yes” please list which areas or streets you would like to see this type of service. Yes No Continued on next page 10. What are some concerns you have about Licking County Transit service? Check all that apply. Transit does not get me where Buses are not on time or reliable Transit is not safe I need to go Transit is not available on the days Other______The bus takes too long to reach I travel my destination Transit is not available at the time The path the bus takes is not I travel direct

11. If your concerns are addressed, how likely would you be to ride Licking County Transit in the future? Very Likely Likely Not Likely

12. Which of the following is most important to you regarding transit? Select only 1. How often the bus runs - I want a bus to show up as often as possible When the bus operates - I want the bus to run as early or late as I need it Better bus coverage - I want the bus to reach more destinations Door-to-door service - I don’t want to walk very far to get to the bus or after I get off the bus

13. I would rather transit service ran...(select 1) 14. When using transit, I would rather get to my Earlier in the morning destination...(select 1) Later in the evening Faster and walk more Span of service is fine how it currently is Slower and walk less

15. Please provide answers to the following personal information questions. Note that this information is voluntary and will be kept anonymous. All questions are optional.

a. Do you have a drivers license? Yes No

b. Do you have a car or truck that you can drive? Yes No

c. What is your race/ethnicity? Black, African American Hispanic or Latino Native Hawaiian and American Indian or Alaskan Native White Other Pacific Islander Asian Other______

d. Age: < 15 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+

e. Do you have a disability? Yes No

f. What is your employment status? Student (K-12) Employed Retired College Student Homemaker Unemployed

g. What is your estimated annual household income? < $10k $10k-$20k $20k-$30k $30k-$40k $40k-$50k $50k-$60k $60k-$70k $70k-$80k $80k-$90k Over $90k

Attachment E - Community Survey Results

Licking County Transit Survey 463 responses Which of the following is your place of residence?

437 out of 463 answered

Newark/Heath 50% / 219 resp. 1

Johnstown 10% / 46 resp. 2

Pataskala 9% / 41 resp. 3

Granville 5% / 22 resp. 4

Hebron/Buckeye Lake 2% / 11 resp. 5

Unincorporated 2% / 9 resp. 6

Reynoldsburg 1% / 8 resp. 7

Alexandria 1% / 6 resp. 8

Hanover/Marne 1% / 6 resp. 9

St. Louisville 1% / 5 resp. 10

Hartford 0% / 3 resp. 11

Utica 0% / 3 resp. 12

Millersport 0% / 2 resp. 13

Gratiot 0% / 1 resp. 14

Kirkersville 0% / 0 resp. 15

Other 12% / 55 resp. 16 Where do you travel most frequently?

456 out of 463 answered

Work 59% / 269 resp. 1

School 32% / 148 resp. 2

Shopping 26% / 121 resp. 3

Hospital/Doctor's Oice 9% / 41 resp. 4

Family/Friends 8% / 40 resp. 5

Restaurant 6% / 31 resp. 6

Place of Worship 5% / 26 resp. 7

Daycare 2% / 13 resp. 8

Social Service Agency 2% / 12 resp. 9

Park 1% / 7 resp. 10

Other 4% / 19 resp. 11

How do you normally travel on a daily basis?

456 out of 463 answered

Drive myself 76% / 350 resp. 1

Walk 7% / 36 resp. 2

Licking County Transit Bus 5% / 25 resp. 3

Carpool 2% / 11 resp. 4

Bike 1% / 6 resp. 5

Shuttle Bus (senior center, church, etc.) 1% / 5 resp. 6

Taxi 0% / 4 resp. 7

Ride Sharing Service (Uber/Ly) 0% / 3 resp. 8

Other 3% / 16 resp. 9 Have you used Licking County Transit in the past year?

459 out of 463 answered

No 79% / 365 resp. 1

Yes 12% / 57 resp. 2

There is no transit service in my area 8% / 37 resp. 3 What trip(s) do you take using Licking County Transit?

56 out of 463 answered

Work 44% / 25 resp. 1

Medical 41% / 23 resp. 2

Grocery 17% / 10 resp. 3

Leisure 16% / 9 resp. 4

Shopping 16% / 9 resp. 5

College 10% / 6 resp. 6

I don't ride the bus. 1% / 1 resp. 7

School (elementary, middle, high school) 1% / 1 resp. 8

Other 7% / 4 resp. 9 Would you be interested in fixed-route transit service where vehicles run on regular, scheduled routes with fixed stops?

456 out of 463 answered

Yes 57% / 260 resp. 1

No 43% / 196 resp. 2 What are some concerns you have about Licking County Transit service?

422 out of 463 answered

Transit does not get me where I need to go 33% / 140 resp. 1

Buses are not on time or reliable 28% / 120 resp. 2

The bus takes too long to reach my destination 27% / 116 resp. 3

Transit is not available at the times I travel 25% / 107 resp. 4

The path the bus takes is not direct 18% / 78 resp. 5

Transit is not available on the days I travel 17% / 73 resp. 6

Transit is not safe 6% / 27 resp. 7

Other 28% / 121 resp. 8 If your concerns are addressed, how likely would you be to ride Licking County Transit in the future?

454 out of 463 answered

Not Likely 38% / 174 resp. 1

Likely 37% / 169 resp. 2

Very Likely 24% / 111 resp. 3

Which of the following is most important to you regarding transit? 444 out of 463 answered

Better bus coverage - I want the bus to reach more destinations 32% / 144 resp. 1

When the bus operates - I want the bus to run as early or as late as I 2 need it 24% / 109 resp.

How oen the bus runs - I want a bus to show up as oen as possible 22% / 100 resp. 3

Door-to-door service - I don't want to walk very far to get on the bus or 4 aer I get o the bus 20% / 91 resp. I would rather transit service ran:

439 out of 463 answered

Later in the evening 40% / 176 resp. 1

Span of service is fine how it currently is 36% / 159 resp. 2

Earlier in the morning 23% / 104 resp. 3

When using transit, I would rather get to my destination: 433 out of 463 answered

Faster and walk more 54% / 234 resp. 1

Slower and walk less 46% / 199 resp. 2 Do you have a valid driver's license?

458 out of 463 answered

Yes 82% / 376 resp. 1

No 17% / 82 resp. 2

Do you have a car or truck that you can drive? 456 out of 463 answered

Yes 78% / 356 resp. 1

No 21% / 100 resp. 2 What is your race/ethnicity?

447 out of 463 answered

White 89% / 399 resp. 1

Black, African American 5% / 26 resp. 2

American Indian or Alaska Native 2% / 10 resp. 3

Asian 1% / 7 resp. 4

Hispanic or Latino 1% / 7 resp. 5

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0% / 1 resp. 6

Other 3% / 14 resp. 7 What is your age?

458 out of 463 answered

45-64 30% / 140 resp. 1

25-44 29% / 137 resp. 2

15-24 25% / 118 resp. 3

65+ 13% / 60 resp. 4

Younger than 15 0% / 3 resp. 5

Do you have a disability?

451 out of 463 answered

Yes 20% / 94 resp. 1

No 79% / 357 resp. 2 What is your employment status?

457 out of 463 answered

Employed 61% / 279 resp. 1

College Student 28% / 132 resp. 2

Retired 12% / 56 resp. 3

Unemployed 8% / 39 resp. 4

Homemaker 4% / 19 resp. 5

Student (K-12) 1% / 7 resp. 6 What is your annual household income?

318 out of 463 answered

$0-$10k 21% / 68 resp. 1

Over $90k 21% / 67 resp. 2

$10-$20k 12% / 41 resp. 3

$20-$30k 8% / 26 resp. 4

$40-$50k 8% / 26 resp. 5

$30-$40k 6% / 21 resp. 6

$80-$90k 6% / 21 resp. 7

$50-$60k 6% / 19 resp. 8

$70-$80k 4% / 15 resp. 9

$60-$70k 3% / 12 resp. 10

Attachment F - October 2, 2019 Public Meeting Summary

Licking County Transit Development Plan & Coordinated Plan

To: Matt Hill (LCATS)

From: Austin Hauf (WSB) Lee Nichols (WSB)

Date: October 8, 2019

Re: 10.02.2019 Open House Summary WSB Project No. 014610-000

The purpose of this meeting summary is to document the attendance and comments from the Licking County Transit Development Plan and Coordinated Plan public meeting held on October 2, 2019. The meeting was held at Newark City Hall in Newark from 6 PM to 8:30 PM. Notices regarding the open house were shared with the community via agency websites, social media, and radio.

Attendance WSBENG.COM

| The sign-in sheets from the meeting indicate that approximately 48 people were in attendance. The sign-in sheets are included as Attachment A. Based on observations, it is likely that attendance was slightly higher than documented, however most attendees did appear to sign in for the meeting.

Comments Received 763.541.4800 |

The meeting was initially intended to be a traditional open house meeting. However, due to the number of people in attendance and the desire for information, MPO and WSB staff agreed to modify the meeting to include a brief presentation and questions and answer session. The 55416

| presentation provided an overview of the Transit Development Plan and the Coordinated Plan, as well as a rough schedule of the project. Below is a summary of the questions and comments received at the meeting (see Attachment B for all comments received).

Regional Transit & Peer Systems • What is the most common type of system for peer regions that are similar in size/geography to Licking County? •

MINNEAPOLIS, MN How can the project balance rural and urban transit needs?

| Response: Generally, demand response and deviated fixed route service is the most common. The team will be exploring route service options to evaluate what service will work best for the County.

SUITE 300

Scheduling and Dispatch • People who use the bus are currently required to call 2-3 weeks ahead to schedule. • Buses often do not come at the requested time, are often early or late. • Why is the bus service currently recording rides both electronically and through paper documentation? • There are many times when people call to schedule a ride and dispatch is not able to pick up the phone, but leaving messages is not a reliable way to schedule rides. Many 701 XENIA AVENUE S

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Public Meeting 1 (10.02.19)\10.02.19 Meeting Summary.docx October 8, 2019 Page 2

residents agreed that there needs to be a dispatch employee taking and returning calls for better coordination. • Many residents inquired about dispatch software. When there is only one or two people on a bus at a time, it can be perceived that the bus pick-ups are inefficient. • Can scheduling be implemented via phone and email? • Is it possible to incorporate a more robust scheduling tool? Something that provides schedule updates?

Response: WSB has met with the transit agency and will be exploring options to improve scheduling and dispatching inefficiencies.

Transit Staff • Many residents discussed that the transit agency overall is understaffed • The dispatch team seems to be understaffed. • There are not enough bus drivers. • One resident suggested exploring volunteer drivers. • If the transit agency is understaffed, who can reasonably write grants to secure additional funding?

Response: A key component of the plan will be reviewing the organizational structure and providing recommendations to improve staff coordination and efficiency.

Transit Users • It can be difficult for people with disabilities to call to schedule, how can this be remedied? • The newer buses have very steep steps, making it very difficult for people with disabilities and seniors to use. • University students do not have access to cars, transit needs to be a viable option to connect university students to the community. • Project materials should be shared at the library that way individuals who do not have access to the internet can still learn about the project and participate in the surveys.

Response: During the week of September 29th, WSB rode Licking County Transit buses and distributed surveys to transit riders. WSB encourages riders to take the on-board survey throughout the month of October and all residents to take the community survey to provide their experience and interest in using the transit system.

Partnerships • What partnerships is the team exploring with Columbus? o Smart Columbus o Airport transportation • What about partnerships with Uber/Lyft? • Are any partnerships with the high schools being explored? • Any partnerships with Licking County Aging? • What coordination is being done with Explore Licking County (tourism)? • How will the project work with employers to discuss transporting employees to and from work?

Response: During the kickoff week, the team met with a number of stakeholders and will continue to do so throughout the process. Identifying and coordinating with stakeholders is a key component of the Coordinated Plan.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Public Meeting 1 (10.02.19)\10.02.19 Meeting Summary.docx October 8, 2019 Page 3

Project Funding and Timeline • Residents were interested to hear how the transit funding would be explored in the future and how improvements would be funded. • Some residents were concerned about progress. The TDP and Coordinated Plan are long-term solutions, what are the short-term solutions?

Response: The project will include two different five-year budgets. The first will be a constrained plan to outline essential needs for the next five years. The other is an unconstrained plan which identifies additional funding needs in the event that additional funding is available. The team is currently exploring options to build on the existing momentum and produce a short-term win for the transit agency.

Next Steps • Continue to identify and meet with stakeholders. • Collect survey responses for both the on-board and community surveys and identify major issues and themes. • Continue to work with the steering committee to keep the project on track and set goals and objectives.

Attachments

Attachment A - Sign-in Sheets

Attachment B - Written Comments

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Public Meeting 1 (10.02.19)\10.02.19 Meeting Summary.docx Attachment A

Attachment B

Attachment G - October 3, 2019 Public Meeting Summary

Licking County Transit Development Plan & Coordinated Plan

To: Matt Hill (LCATS)

From: Austin Hauf (WSB) Lee Nichols (WSB)

Date: October 8, 2019

Re: 10.03.2019 Open House Summary WSB Project No. 014610-000

The purpose of this meeting summary is to document the attendance and comments from the Licking County Transit Development Plan and Coordinated Plan public meeting held on October 3, 2019. The meeting was held at Pataskala City Hall in Pataskala from 6 PM to 7:30 PM. Notices regarding the open house were shared with the community via agency websites, social media, and radio.

Attendance WSBENG.COM

| The sign-in sheets from the meeting indicate that approximately 7 people were in attendance. The sign-in sheets are included as Attachment A. Based on observations, most attendees signed in for the meeting, however it is possible that attendance was slightly higher than documented.

Comments Received 763.541.4800 |

The meeting was held in a traditional open house format, with attendees engaging in one on one conversations with MPO staff and consultants. Informational boards provided an overview of the Transit Development Plan and the Coordinated Plan, as well as a rough schedule of the project. 55416

| Below is a summary of the questions and comments received at the meeting (see Attachment B for all comments received).

Regional Connections • Connections to Columbus, Dublin, New Albany, etc. are important for employment. Is fixed route service a possibility? • Could a fixed route service connect to COTA?

MINNEAPOLIS, MN

| Response: Generally, demand response and deviated fixed route service is the most common for areas similar to Licking County. The team will be exploring route service options to evaluate what service will work best for the County, and the Coordinated Plan will focus on connections with other organizations and transit providers in the region.

SUITE 300

Older Adult and Youth Populations • Many residents, including some attendees, still drive but may not be able to do so in the near future and may not have other transportation options. How can the system serve these individuals and allow them to age in place? • Foster youth in the County often lack reliable transportation and support systems. This makes it difficult for them to obtain and keep jobs, provide for themselves, and avoid homelessness. This should be an important target population for transit.

701 XENIA AVENUE S

\\wsbgvfiles01\projects\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Public Meeting 2 (10.03.19)\10.03.19 Meeting Summary.docx October 8, 2019 Page 2

Response: Licking County Transit already serves many older adults, and the planning process will explore types of services, funding mechanisms, and service coordination to examine how this population could be better served in the future. Youth are also an important target population for transit, and the consultant team has and will continue to engage with organizations that serve these individuals to determine their transit needs.

Communications and Marketing • Availability, schedules, etc. of existing services is not well communicated to potential customers.

Response: As part of the Transit Development Plan process, the consultant team will explore ways for Licking County Transit to improve communications with existing and potential transit users to increase transparency and improve the scheduling process.

Management and Operational Issues • Management and organizational improvements are needed. • Could equipment be better utilized? • Are there sources of additional revenue that could be explored?

Response: A key component of the plan will be reviewing the organizational structure and providing recommendations to improve staff coordination and efficiency, including the ability to obtain additional funding. The project will include two different five-year budgets. The first will be a constrained plan to outline essential needs for the next five years. The other is an unconstrained plan which identifies additional funding needs in the event that additional funding is available. The team is currently exploring options to build on the existing momentum and produce a short-term win for the transit agency.

Transportation Technology • Is a below-ground subway an option? • Are there alternatives to bus transportation? • How will self-driving cars affect the need for improved transit options?

Response: Generally, demand response and deviated fixed route service is the most common for areas similar to Licking County. The team will be exploring route service options to evaluate what service will work best for the County. The impact of self-driving cars will be discussed as part of the planning process, however this will likely not be a major focus of the plan.

Partnerships • How can employers, schools, medical providers, and others help shoulder the burden of providing transit services?

\\wsbgvfiles01\projects\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Public Meeting 2 (10.03.19)\10.03.19 Meeting Summary.docx October 8, 2019 Page 3

Attachments

Attachment A - Sign-in Sheets

Attachment B - Written Comments

\\wsbgvfiles01\projects\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Public Meeting 2 (10.03.19)\10.03.19 Meeting Summary.docx Attachment A Attachment B

Attachment H - Comments on Draft Transit Development Plan and Draft Coordinated Plan

Memorandum

To: Matt Hill (LCATS)

From: Tom Cruikshank (WSB) Austin Hauf (WSB) Ryan Graves (ATG)

Date: May 20, 2020

Re: Licking County Transit Board Comments on Draft Transit Development Plan and Draft Coordinated Plan WSB Project No. 014610-000

A. Summary This memo summarizes comments received on the Draft Transit Development Plan (TDP) and Draft Coordinated Plan (CP) produced for the Licking County Transit Board. The draft plans were available for public review and comment from April 15, 2020 to May 15, 2020 through an online interactive mapping and survey tool. Section B includes comments received directly from steering WSBENG.COM

| committee members and agency representatives. Section C includes comments received through the online survey tool in response to open-ended prompts that allowed users to enter general comments on either the TDP or CP. Section D includes the results of a guided survey included in the online survey tool that asked a series of questions related to the service scenarios proposed in the Draft TDP. Section E includes comments provided via the mapping activity.

763.541.4800

| Several steering committee comments on the draft documents were minor in nature and have

already been addressed. Remaining questions and comments should undergo further discussion between LCATS, LCTB, and the steering committee. 55416 | Comments received via the online surveys revealed a number of takeaways and themes:

• There were 25 responses to the open-ended survey. • There were 33 responses to the guided survey. o 27 percent indicated that the proposed routes would save time for them or someone in their household. o 42 percent indicated that the proposed routes would improve connectivity to MINNEAPOLIS, MN

| destinations that they or someone in their household needs to travel to. o 30 percent indicated that the proposed hours of service would improve accessibility to destinations that they or someone in their household needs to travel to. o Open-ended follow up questions indicate that 18 percent of the 33 respondents SU ITE 3 0 0

| either do not, would not, or are not likely to use public transportation. This adds

additional context to the responses above. • There was some confusion about how the proposed scenarios would be implemented. Respondents expressed concern about the loss of demand response services, which is not being proposed as part of the TDP. • There was some confusion about the level of specificity in the TDP. The TDP is intended to be a guide for gradual implementation over time that evolves as needs and conditions change. 701 XENIA AVENUE S

LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 2

B. Steering Committee and Agency Comments and Responses

# Name Page Comment Response/Action 1 M. Hill Multiple The more I look at the routing plan it would make more sense to The proposed Route 7 has been (LCATS) me if the Johnstown route would also connect to New Albany. If we adjusted to include a connection are going to send a bus out that far, lets also connect to the COTA to COTA in New Albany. stop in New Albany for customers that need that. I thought about this during the memos, but now that I see it in the draft plan, I should have said something earlier.

2 M. Hill 9 Route 7 (Johnstown/New Albany): This serves as a commuter See response to Comment 1. (LCATS) route with a stop in downtown Johnstown and downtown Newark. Span of service: M-F 5AM-8:45AM, 4PM-7:45PM, Sat-Sun 6AM- 8:30AM, 4PM-6:30PM (this is supported further by the bullet on Page 63 under “Key Mapping Activity Results”)

If instead of US62 to SR661, if it would be better, it could be US62 to Beech Road (Beauty Campus) to SR661 would be slightly shorter. 3 M. Hill 11 See response to Comment 1. (LCATS)

LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 3

# Name Page Comment Response/Action 4 M. Hill 35-36 Tables B4 & B5 are much easier to understand this time, thank Comment noted. (LCATS) you. 5 M. Hill 68, 114 Please explain? Need to clarify current number of (LCATS) page 68 - “Currently, there are 38 demand response vehicles operators relative to number of within the fleet that are operated at maximum service, leaving no vehicles. spare vehicles during hours of peak operation” FTE numbers in Table I.1 Does not seem to align with indicate approximate number of staff required to operate Page 114 – Current operators 25? additional services assuming no changes to current demand Are you suggesting there would be fewer On-Demand drivers response services. Actual needed if there was also deviated routes? number of operators required will depend on whether current users shift from demand response to proposed routes, and whether proposed routes generate new ridership. 6 C. Dyer n/a ODOT is encouraged by the progress of the plan and also the Comment noted. (ODOT) ideas laid out within. ODOT has seen similar transit development plans, we have also witnessed where these plans were difficult to implement and unfortunately unable to be implemented in some occasions. 7 C. Dyer n/a ODOT would like for Licking county to consider a move towards For LCTB, LCATS, and Steering (ODOT) regional approach to administration and operations. As part of the Committee discussion. Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study, ODOT published a series of recommendations that we have been working on. One recommendation included was as follows: •Better match service with demand by creating more regional transit services. We know people want to travel across city and county lines and Ohio needs more of these types of transit services. As part of developing more regional services, some transit agencies will work together more closely, while others may consolidate operations.

LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 4

# Name Page Comment Response/Action ODOT recently worked with WRTA to regionalize service into the neighboring small urban county of Trumbull. In this scenario WRTA, whom operates in Mahoning (Youngstown) County, will become the designated recipient for the federal funds in Trumbull County. With this change the dollars for Trumbull County will be managed separately, but with the merger, Trumbull County will not only see improved services into Youngstown, but the Trumbull County will now have access to the WRTA staff. This would include transit planners, transit communication experts, transit financial officers, etc. Additionally, to support and move towards regionalism, ODOT has established Human Service Transportation Coordination (HSTC) regions. It’s ODOT’s vision that not only would Ohio move towards regionalized services within these regions, Ohio would also implement transportation coordination with the human service transportation networks. See attached map of ODOT’s HSTC Regions. 8 C. Dyer n/a ODOT would like the Licking County and the consultant team to For LCTB, LCATS, and Steering (ODOT) consider the opportunity to regionalize administration and services Committee discussion. within ODOT’s HSTC regional network. Please reference the link and attached documents and we encourage Licking county to reach out EASTGATE MPO and WRTA. Also attached is the Mobility Transformation Report which includes the development of the HSTC regions (see page 41) 9 R. Black 13 MV transportation ended the contract with Licking County, board Text updated to reflect MV’s (LCTB) did not vote to not renew contract. termination of the contract with Licking County. 10 R. Black 32 Clarify numbers associated with different trip generators in text and The text on page 32 and the (LCTB) figure? information in Figure B.12 show the number of each type of destination, not the number of trips to each destination type. 11 C. Harkness Multiple Can proposed Route 5 to Hebron be extended to Buckeye Lake? Future Route 5 extension to (LCATS) Lots of low-income people in the area as well as state park. Buckeye Lake was added to Possible connection to boat that travels around Buckeye Lake? service plan maps (represented LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 5

# Name Page Comment Response/Action by dotted line from Hebron to Buckeye Lake). 12 M. Schaper 15 I would like to offer the following revision to the description of The TDP has been updated to (MORPC) MORPC, as well as the addition of CORPO to the list in the reflect these edits to the Agency Partners section of the TDP: description of MORPC and incorporate the proposed Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) description of CORPO. MORPC is the regional planning organization for the 15-county central Ohio region Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Columbus Urbanized Area, which includes Pataskala and Etna Townships within Licking County. MORPC facilitates regular regional transit service provider coordination meetings among the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA), Delaware County Transit, and Licking County Transit. MORPC has also facilitated a formula funding split agreement approved by all parties for the Columbus UZA on file with FTA. For each federal apportionment, MORPC drafts a letter with attachments that is approved by all parties and submits it to FTA for each transit entity’s grant submission.

LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 6

C. Public Comments and Responses: Open-Ended Survey

1. Draft TDP Comments

• Prompt: “Do you have any feedback regarding the Draft TDP? Use the text box to tell us what you thought.” • 25 total survey responses received (including 19 comments on TDP)

# Comment 1 I am happy to see this being considered and I feel like it would be a great benefit to Licking County.

2 I think it is a good plan- as long as it comes multiple times a day. My peers on campus sometimes have to leave early in the morning and find rides back if they only have one class a day. There are also students who live on the OSU Newark campus without cars and do not have a way to get around if the transit does not show up. 3 Higher Ed route needs to go to downtown Newark. 4 It was photographs. I am not at all sure what I was to study 5 I fully support a fixed route system, either with deviations or not. 6 It was too confusing to work with 7 I think the TDP makes sense. I hope we will be able to give feedback as the usage of this service grows. 8 I waded through the written plan. I have to admit that I don't have a lot of knowledge about the specific needs for transportation. I do know that there is a great need in Licking County. We have a lot of poverty that won't improve if people can't get to work, the store, or their doctor's office. 9 Well rounded and all-encompassing document. Well researched and laid out. It provides a wide range of scenarios, costs, implementation guidelines, etc. I am confident that regardless of the final result, the implementation will be relatively easy based in large part to good and thoughtful planning and research. Very pleased so many regional peers were included in the comparative study. 10 "This TDP is obviously put forward with good intentions but lacks any relevancy with the real world. As an employee familiar with day to day operations of the LCTB Services, I would like to make the following points. First, our clients are rarely ready and looking for us to arrive at their pickup location, they would expect us to call upon arrival and we usually have hide and seek games looking for them and in a perfect world they would have us perform other rituals that are impossible for us to do in a timely manner. I allow the exception for door to door service for elderly and disabled clients who truly need said service, Given current service conditions clients complain about waiting in heat or cold, even in the rain. Having said this and allowing for lack of personal responsibility most clients would NEVER EVER WALK to a bus stop. Fixed routes proposed are not feasible, given LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 7

# Comment the lack of capital needed to do this, point to be illustrated below, lack of quality jobs in Licking County, and the fact that some folks do not want to work and find the opportunity to blame it on lack of transportation.

Second, this TDP was intended to be put forward to look for ways to find extra funding by the consultant, not to impose extra work on LCTB Staff, to help maintain and provide better service. If we follow the proposal and abandon current contracts with Community Partners with the miniscule funding we receive now we will be bankrupt in no time. We are no good to anyone if we are not here.

Third, It is not feasible to find the extra staff needed to implement this plan in any of it’s current proposals. Operators are hard enough to come by, interviewing some 50 to find 2 or 3 qualified candidates. There have been issues finding Management Staff and even Dispatch people, given stringent hiring qualifications needed to fulfill said positions.

Lastly, Longer operating hours and Sunday Service is a waste of time, money and resources. I feel we do not have enough business to warrant Saturday Service, let alone Sunday Service. I believe there will be a reduction in staff, should this happen. Having Saturday service is currently losing us money, also makes scheduling staff harder, when looking at Operator’s hours, as well as Office staff being here for fewer trips. It would be a lot easier to be closed on weekends, would cut down on hours worked, give staff more dedicated time off to have a life and make scheduling vacations easier. I look at our peers in the surrounding Counties with the exception of COTA in Franklin County (who has the business need, money and resources to do this) Knox, Fairfield and Muskingum are all shorter hours and closed weekends. I ask what makes us any different from them?" 11 As a transit employee, I strongly disagree with this plan. Going with the fixed routes leaves out several cities, that we transport people to/from every day. Cities such as Kirkersville, Croton, St. Louisville, Utica, Buckeye Lake, Fallsburg, Etna, and Reynoldsburg all contain individuals we transport to work and/or medical appointments. We offer door to door assistance and we will not be able to do that if we are running transit stops in only certain cities. It also appears that our main focus is the Newark/Heath area. We are Licking County Transit, not Newark/Heath Transit. We should be providing service to all of Licking County. Also, we do not have the funding or resources to hire as many drivers as this plan suggests. Aside from the new drivers, the five new in-office positions will be no help to the general manager, only five more responsibilities to manage over. We do not have or receive enough funding to include these positions. Speaking of funding, this plan indicates we will be getting rid of our contract riders, such as Job and Family Service and DODD. These contracts help keep LCTB running services. If we get rid of these contracts, LCTB might not last long. It would be nice if we could receive more funding but we are unable to find anyone to give it. This plan also mentions Sunday services. LCTB has tried Sunday services before and it has failed. We would not make enough to compensate staying open; Saturdays are already costing LCTB with the little amount of ridership we receive. I think this would have a major negative effect on the company. Yes LCTB is there for the community, but if there is no money or profit being made, LCTB cannot be any help if their doors are closed. The only part of this plan that I agree with is the zoning fares. I do not think it's fair for someone that's just going across town to pay the same fare as someone going across the county. I believe the zoning fares would definitely be of help to the LCTB. LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 8

# Comment 12 "I have been an employee of Licking County Transit for close to seven years. The majority of our passengers have been traveling with us for many years and I know them very well. I do not believe that a fixed route will be something that will be utilized much here in Licking County. I think it’s a good idea but I don’t think people will use it regardless of what the surveys say. We have an extremely hard time getting the majority of our passengers out the door to the bus that is parked in front of their home as it is now. A lot of the people we transport have some sort of a physical ailment and/or are elderly. They are usually going to a doctor appointment or for groceries. They are not going to be able to walk from home to the bus stop and bus stop to their destination and then back from the destination to the stop and home. Especially toting bags of groceries. Newark and the surrounding areas are not accustomed to a fixed route transit system. The only people that ride with us are people who cannot drive themselves due to health reasons or the absence of a driver’s license. People do not typically ride with us because it’s better for the environment or they want to keep the transit system in business, etc. As soon as they have access to another vehicle, theirs or someone else’s, the trips get cancelled. We do not have a need for third shift or Sunday hours. We tried to operate on Sundays in the past and it cost more to open the doors then we made in fares. Truth be told, its not much better on Saturdays. When we were open on Sundays, we had maybe one person that attended church that rode with us and not regularly. Then we cut the Sunday hours and multitudes of people start complaining that they couldn’t get to church! Where were they when we were open?? We rarely have requests from people to transport for a third shift job. Maybe 1 or 2 a year. We would be in the hole even farther if we had a third shift or Sunday hours. The number one problem we have at LCT is getting operators hired. We can’t do anything above and beyond what we are doing right now until we have a full staff. We are stretched as it is to cover our existing load. Management has interviewed 53 people this year and 2 are still with us. TWO. Either they don’t make it through the background checks or the job is not what they want it to be. It takes a special kind of person to work here. It truly does. They are hard to find and harder to keep. The drivers we do have are tired due to overtime and have health issues due to effects of their job. When trips are at full capacity, we are using every one of our drivers to get them covered. Sometimes we do not even have enough to have a standby driver. Then when drivers call off due to illness, routes have to be consolidated and that’s what leads to overworked drivers and routes not running on time. That being said we do not have extra drivers for fixed routes. If we can hire a decent number of drivers, we might be able to try something like that someday but definitely not in the Fall of 2020. We need drivers to cover what we have right now before we can do anything extra and I didn’t see a section in the plan on how to get new drivers through the doors. Last but certainly not least, where is the extra money for all of this going to come from? Since the beginning of the year when the County took over we have been diligently trying to cut driver hours. Obviously to cut down on costs of overtime but also to give our driver’s a break and to get some rest. It’s not easy to do when the trips are staying at the same number every day. We don’t want to cut down on the trips because that is not good for our passengers. So, how is it that we are going to pay for 3 different levels of bus stops, upgraded signage for our buses, kiosks, transit signals at traffic light, a transit hub, fare collection boxes, etc.? The outlying communities are not going to contribute if they don’t have a need to. They would have to have a large amount of people using LCT in order for something like that to happen. Businesses might. But if people leave employment at these businesses and we aren’t transporting to them, that will end. Overall, the idea looks beautiful on paper but it’s not reality. Getting operators in the door that are quality people and will stay for the long run is what needs to happen before anything else. We are not ready for this yet." LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 9

# Comment 13 I thought the recommendations were very thorough, should improve service, and improve the County's transportation services significantly. 14 This may work 10 years down the road, but not at this time 15 Where’s the funding coming from? 16 I would like to say that after looking at this plan I too would like to know where does this money come from. We are having a hard enough time trying to find staff that wants to work and can fulfill the requirements of the job. With this plan you are looking at having up to 7 routes one of which includes an out of county stop? I too see the struggles of day to day service and we have a hard time getting passengers to walk from their door to the bus let alone walking to a bus stop. I not sure how this plan is helping us, from what I’m seeing this wants to expand service and still running on little to no staff. I do agree with restructuring of the fares. Going from one end of the county to the other shouldn’t cost the same as going five minutes up the road. So back again to the money side, all the sources of money are what is currently being used or are we looking into levy’s? A levy isn’t going to go over well either. In these plans it shows the Aging Program being Free. Are they not getting Senior Levy? And why are we being compared to a school district. They too have levy’s. So, it to is not free. As for Sunday service I believe it should go in the category as Saturday. Not worth the time and effort. We are losing money every week we operate on Saturday along with pushing the drivers further in overtime. Adding Sundays would only increase the expenses putting us further in debt. The trips just are not there to run the weekends. It also talks in this plan about running longer hours did transit not use to run until 11 pm and close shop around 1 am. there must be a reason why we don’t run those hours anymore, and it’s for safety of the staff and lack of ridership. 17 I read where you have a Deviated route and I could not find it. Scenario 1 alt A, scenario 1 alt B could not select either of these to find their routes. Fixed route, scenario 2 alt A & scenario 2 alt B could not select either of these to find their routes. Get a draftsman that knows map reading and he can flag out proper routes and therefore make this a little easier to understand. Should be able to highlight deviated route and it should light up on the map. None of this happened. Back to the drawing board. Not understanding what you are wanting. 18 "This idea may sound as if it would work. Our clients, they are mostly seniors and disabled. I do not believe that having designated stops would work for them. It is too much for our senior riders to walk to the bus stops and it would also be a safety issue for them. A lot of them require door to door assistance. Riders also use transit for grocery trips. They are only to have groceries to what they can carry. An elderly person is not going to be able to carry groceries to the stop then on the bus and then walk home. The riders with wheelchairs, that would require more time at a designated stop. Our dialysis riders would not feel like waiting at a bus top for a bus after they have had hours of treatments. I agree that the further out you live in Licking County, the fare should be more. Transits other issues are not enough drivers. If we were to have extra routes assigned, the issue would be who’s going to take the routes? I have been with this company for many years and as long as I can remember Transit has always been short drivers. At times we have had more drivers, but not enough to where Transit could be comfortable. If a driver or drivers call off what then? Transit has always done the best with what we have. I also would like to know where the funding is going to be coming from. LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 10

# Comment

As for opening Sundays and 3rd shift goes. This would not work. As long as I have been her, I can tell you Sunday request maybe 10 times. Third shift request not one. This would leave our drivers overly extended on overtime hours. Which can be a safety issue due to them being tired. They already work enough overtime. We just do not have the man power to operate like that. Drivers or offices.

This plan would not work for Licking County right now." 19 I'm a Board Member for Licking County Transit and want to thank you for all of the information provided. However, with that being said, I feel that I have to weigh in with some concerns. As I have read the plan it seems like more of a wishlist than an action plan. I know that having met with Board members and staff you are aware that it has been difficult to maintain enough drivers to provide our current services, so I'm not sure how we maintain what we have and also add all of the things you have outlined. We would love to do all of those things, but I don't think it's reasonable to think that we can scrap what is already in place to go in an entirely different direction all at once. Even if we did just start over, we certainly would not have the resources to accomplish what is outlined in the plan. My hope was that you were going to have ideas of how we begin to expand our services over time trying a few new things at once. You also mention in the plan various groups that might be willing to provide some funding, but we would need more than a maybe to proceed in a different direction. We have a long standing relationship with the Board of DD and Job & Family Services, and those contracts have been the lifeblood of our funding, allowing us to also transport others in the community. I don't think anyone on the Board wants to end those contracts. To add to the difficulty of finding drivers, we are in the middle of a pandemic, and I don't think that's going to increase the number of individuals signing on for this job! What we really need is a plan with reasonable steps to start to implement changes over time, and gradually add the services in this plan. I had really hoped that would be part of this plan.

2. Draft CP Comments

• Prompt: “Do you have any feedback regarding the Draft CP? Use the text box to tell us what you thought.” • 25 total survey responses received (including 11 comments on CP)

# Comment 1 I believe it important to correct the information fund on page 7 and 13: The Licking County Transit Board (LCTB) since 2011 provided its own maintenance and no longer had a vendor who did so. In addition, the Dispatch Office, Reservationists, Scheduling and overall oversight and management was administered directly by the LCTB. There are some miss-conceptions in the document that imply that the LCTB does not have policies in place to accomplish many of the "suggestions" in the document. The LCTB has yearly audits from various "stakeholders" and a Triennial Review from the Federal Transit LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 11

# Comment Administration (FTA) that all conduct those audits to assure that the LCTB has such policies and procedures, is following its policies and procedures and that they align with the regulations as set forth by those very same "stakeholders". There also are some questions as to the current Organizational Chart that is within this document...maybe for another time. The Transit Development Plan (TDP) was a project sought by and awarded for the LCTB. The LCTB was seeking assistance on identifying partners that were ready, willing and able to work with the LCTB on providing other options in ADDITION to the demand responsive services that were being provided. Unfortunately, there is little explanation in this document of the demand responsive services being provided by the LCTB and why. The Licking County Transit Board is exactly that, it is a transit system that is, was and should continue to serve ALL of the Licking County (LC) residents. Many of those residents in LC rely on the demand responsive services to transport those with mobility limitations from their door to the door of their destination and back. Others would not be able to reach the traditional "Fixed Route" system to get from their residence to the Fixed Route line. The Board and staff are very proud of the services they provide BUT also understood there was also a whole other type of rider that it needed to reach. The LCTB through this TDP was seeking to find the right approach that would serve the greater good of both types of riders. After reading much (too much in this document for the average individual) the best solution must be one that is not TOO much TOO soon that the staff, riders and (let's be realistic) budget would be overwhelmed. Funding for transit capital is most often readily available if there is the local match for that grant. And the LCTB has taken advantage of most grants that are available when local match or toll credits are available. After all, it is a LCTB grant that was awarded that started this TDP project in motion. Now, operations funding is always the most challenging to find and comes at a much higher local match. I wish more information about the transit funding sources were included in the document as funding is necessary for not only the start up of any new option but must be available to cover the costs so long as the option is being provided. Now, let's get to what makes sense...the new Mission Statement is a winner. It is simpler for the riders to remember, states the LCTB purpose and was determined by the "stakeholders". Some of the Goals and Objectives make sense and some have already been accomplished! Some items such as cameras and software upgrades were grants already awarded and will be procurements made this year. While the LCTB did the best it could in trying to keep the fare costs to the public transit rider unchanged over the years, sadly the costs continue to rise. The Zonal Fare Structure on page 46 is fair, attainable and more relative to today's peer systems. The (Half Fare) Elderly and Disabled Fare Assistance program should remain in place but should also have more appropriate eligibility criteria to avoid all fares being discounted. New "Branding" can be a good and yet bad scenario. Those using, readily identify (LCTB receives calls from individuals out in LC that recognize the bus and get our phone number) and comfortable with our demand responsive service should remain the same. We are the LCTB, period. BUT the suggested "New" option (I will get to that soon) could have a new name and look. I have been with LCTB a long time and I can assure you there is a very LITTLE market and I cannot believe a ridership that would support bringing back Sunday services. Most our peers, with the exception of those with dedicated funding sources (Levies), do not provide Sunday services. It is a low revenue and high expense service option. To be honest, Saturday is not a high performer either even when "dollar days" and other reduced fare rate campaigns were advertised to increase Saturday performance measurers. While on this let's discuss also the staff that would be required for cover seven (7) day weekly schedules. The second and third shift options also LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 12

# Comment fall in this category. Minus the current COVID 19 situation, there is a very, very low unemployment rate in LC. This has made it incredibly difficult to find skilled, professional and caring individuals to join the transit team. LCTB does not see this changing for some time. LC has other larger peer systems advertising for Operators and Transit Management staff in LC. So, we are all looking for these applicants, enough said. LCTB needs to digest the actual meat and potatoes of this document, to determine what may be feasible and where it needs to start. In speaking to many of our peers one thing that resonated with them all was to start with a attainable and feasible option and monitor its performance and if it is successful THEN you add more. If it is not, try another option and repeat until you find what really works for our community/rider. It is much easier (and more cost effective) to "add" to a service than to "take away" a service because of lack of funds, ridership or resources. Some of those very peers were added within this document. However, they are being looked at where they are now, not where they started from. So all things considered in addition to the items listed above (non-trip options) the most feasible and effective place to start is Option #1 and/or #2. DEVIATED routes (I also wish the difference between Fixed and Deviated would have been explained) in those areas, same days/hours currently provided with NO Sunday services. A Deviated route requires less staff to complete additional reporting and is more easily altered if data collected supports alternatives. IF these routes are successful additional services and options can be added. This is not an overnight proposal and very much depends upon financial capability through grants and public-private stakeholder partnerships. Shuttle services and commuter services can also grow from these beginnings. It also requires staffing, there is a current shortage and will require great effort to appeal to those seeking a job that will become career. The LCTB has been seeking additional staffing to assist the current management staff when having many tasks to complete in a tight and often difficult timeline. Therefore, the suggested Organizational Chart on page 3 of the Memorandum to Matt Hill (LCATS) (?- and not the Board?) the recommendations of some of the new positions* are simply not feasible of a system of this size. Many of those positions relative pay scale far outweigh those of the current employees pay and would require more of a deep cut in the budget that could be used to hire assistants and put more of the budget towards services. This would also add additional positions to be monitored by already overwhelmed staff. The recommendations included Marketing/Communications Coordinator*, Planner* and Mobility Coordinator*. The LCTB retreat is a great idea and will allow the staff to plan and speak with the Board as necessary and has not been able to allow for to date. A Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) is also a great idea and may inspire and re-ignite the coordinated Sub-Committee that could be transitioned to the TAC. The TAC should not just be made up of the steering committee and should also actually include prior Coordinated Members, EMA and other members that LCTB is currently working jointly with. A smaller TAC group to start and grow if the service options continue to grow. As not asked of the LCTB, the Board does annually sign an Ethics Acknowledgement document. In addition, the information contained on page 2 the Board does act on those basic duties. However, the LCTB is considered a Small Urban system and is a direct recipient of FTA. In addition, the LCTB does have many of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TRCP) reports and National Transit Institute (NTI) guidance as both of these resources are supported and encouraged by FTA. Due to the COVID 19 restrictions the LCTB ridership as most others has been reduced, as such the LCTB managers took advantage of this "down time" of the Operators and have provided Re- Fresher training for all senior Operators. This also allowed the LCTB to keep all Operators on payroll. Prior to this time the LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 13

# Comment ridership demanded all Operators in service and the LCTB was waiting for the opportunity to provide this training without negatively impacting ridership. All LCTB Managers attend yearly training in various areas of transit which is provided by the Ohio Public Transit Association (OPTA), Ohio Transit Risk Pool (OTRP), Triennial Review Workshops (by FTA), NTI Webinars and Workshops and various other sources, therefore please know the existing staff is well trained in the field of transportation. The LCTB also has a seat in Urban Peers Meetings and Rural Peers Meetings, while the LCTB is considered a Small Urban system it is also connected to contiguous peers that are considered Rural systems. The LCTB General Manager and Transit Supervisor took on many of the Human Resource hiring rolls in August of 2019. The LCTB just finished the transition of all segments under the LCTB with no vendor by January 2, 2019. So, there has been little time (one (1) year) between that adjustment to the recommendations of this TDP. As the TDP recommends the LCTB "refine based on changes to the operating environment" it is important to note that there will be an adjustment time for LCTB along with the identified "stakeholders" to whom we are to seek as funding opportunities as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. There will be budget cuts at the State, Federal and Local level with many agencies and businesses due to the reduced revenues and new expenses. So, this may take an even longer timeline adjustment for this purpose. As the document also continues to remind the reader these options are "dependent upon financial constraints". I would think on behalf of the LCTB it hopes individuals in this community, as well as the Consultants and those who assisted with the results of this TDP, understand this timeline adjustment. Thank you for allowing comments. One last comment, some individuals called trying to find this information and also when they tried to get on the page it came up as an error. A print screen of this error is available.

2 Can’t highlight anything to understand what you are after. 3 We need a better idea of how this is going to happen with the clients that are ada 4 I do not think this plan is feasible unless LCTB receives actual funding. It's one thing to think of possibilities if there was actual money, but unless LCT receives any this will not be possible. This plan talks about changes, some changes that do need to be made, but does not talk about how LCT will be receiving the funding to execute these changes. LCT has tried reaching out to business for support but received no response. 5 This CP is obviously put forward with good intentions but lacks any relevancy with the real world. As an employee familiar with day to day operations of the LCTB Services, I would like to make the following points. First, our clients are rarely ready and looking for us to arrive at their pickup location, they would expect us to call upon arrival and we usually have hide and seek games looking for them and in a perfect world they would have us perform other rituals that are impossible for us to do in a timely manner. I allow the exception for door to door service for elderly and disabled clients who truly need said service, Given current service conditions clients complain about waiting in heat or cold, even in the rain. Having said this and allowing for lack of personal responsibility most clients would NEVER EVER WALK to a bus stop. Fixed routes proposed are not feasible, given the lack of capital needed to do this, point to be illustrated below, lack of quality jobs in Licking County, and the fact that some folks do not want to work and find the opportunity to blame it on lack of transportation.

LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 14

# Comment Second, this CP was intended to be put forward to look for ways to find extra funding by the consultant, not to impose extra work on LCTB Staff, to help maintain and provide better service. If we follow the proposal and abandon current contracts with Community Partners with the miniscule funding we receive now we will be bankrupt in no time. We are no good to anyone if we are not here.

Lastly, longer operating hours and Sunday Service is a waste of time, money and resources. I feel we do not have enough business to warrant Saturday Service, let alone Sunday Service. I believe there will be a reduction in staff, should this happen. Having Saturday service is currently losing us money, also makes scheduling staff harder, when looking at Operator’s hours, as well as Office staff being here for fewer trips. It would be a lot easier to be closed on weekends, would cut down on hours worked, give staff more dedicated time off to have a life and make scheduling vacations easier. I look at our peers in the surrounding Counties with the exception of COTA in Franklin County (who has the business need, money and resources to do this) Knox, Fairfield and Muskingum are all shorter hours and closed weekends. I ask what makes us any different from them? 6 What I mentioned previously about the transit coming multiple times a day. 7 The connector between Newark, Johnstown and New Albany is probably better served by an express from Newark to New Albany and another from Johnstown to New Albany. 8 Did you check for sidewalks at the stops? 9 The topic "Expand Public Outreach and Education" was not quite one page -- I think there's a very real opportunity here that's being missed. There are at the very least aspects and elements of previous transportation options the community has supported and maintained that actually worked and worked well. But in each "era" of Newark & Licking County transportation solutions, their reputational standing in the community has been . . . horrible. And again, I think worse than they deserved. How we communicate to opinion leaders, community organization officials, and the broader public is not just a matter of branding and a few press releases, but a sheaf of semi-intangibles that can help make our next solution OUR community transportation option. We need more ownership, appreciation, and awareness of Licking County Transit as a vital and functional tool in our community toolkit for helping people find their goals, reach their dreams, and get work done one trip at a time. Yes, appearance and maintenance and even branding is part of it, but there needs to be ongoing work to keep Transit Next something Licking County is proud to be part of. 10 Not now but I am sure I will have feedback once I start using public transportation.

11 This may not be the feedback you are looking for, but I must admit that I wasn't excited about review 100 plus pages of the plan plus watching a 1 hour video. I wish it could have been condensed to 15-20 minutes. LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 15

D. Public Comments and Responses: Guided Survey

The guided survey received a total of 33 responses.

1. Prompt 1: “The proposed routes will save time for me or someone in my household.”

• Responses - True: 9, False: 24

Responses for those who answered “True” # Comment 1 Very detailed/stretches a big distance

2 I currently live in Pataskala and when my car broke down I had to have people drive me to classes on the Newark campus. If the transit came to Pataskala through that route, it would be more manageable if I needed it. I also have a lot of friends who live in the Gahanna and Columbus area that would benefit from this transit- if it came more than once/twice a day. 3 They are not people in my household, but rather clients I serve through the non profit agency I represent. Our clients do not have cars as a rule. 4 I am interested in Public transportation as much as possible. I prefer it over driving 5 I know people directly who would benefit from having connectivity from Newark to southern/Buckeye Lake as well as out into western Licking County for work opportunities. 6 All my family members have to be either at school or work around the same time. It would make everyone more independent from each other's schedules.

Responses for those who answered “False” # Comment 1 I do own a car--I don't want the bus to be faster (never happens in any city I've lived in!), I want the bus to be more energy efficient.

2 Nearest stop is over a mile away. 3 The route I would need would be direct to New Albany. To go through Johnstown would take too much time for me. I want to go between Ohio State's Columbus campus and its Newark campus. LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 16

# Comment 4 Wouldn’t use 5 We all have dependable transportation 6 I am not in a position to need public transit at this time. 7 Answered false because I don't see saving time as an issue. 8 do not use public transportation 9 Currently most of our business happens close to home or outside of the County to which these routes do not run. 10 A fixed route will not be helpful. 11 I do not use public transit. 12 Too much time spent at work as is 13 Too many stops for people to get on/connect with other routes will cost too much, they complain about current cost now. 14 I am an employee and I don’t have family here.

2. Prompt 2: “The proposed routes will improve connectivity to destinations that I or someone in my household needs to travel to.”

• Responses - True: 14, False: 19

Responses for those who answered “True” # Comment 1 Very detailed

2 My daughter, who lives in a city with great transportation, is home in summer & doesn't drive--this would make her able to get around Newark area. 3 These routes would help me out personally. As I mentioned previously, I live in Pataskala and when I have had car troubles it is nice to know that I have a back up plan. LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 17

# Comment 4 We help disadvantaged residents of Licking County to have their eyes examined and get new glasses by paying for these services. They need public transportation to get to the professional Eye Care Centers because for a myriad of reasons they do not drive. 5 I travel a good bit between Newark and Heath 6 As noted before, I have people in my home and I know personally who would have a tremendous value of having public transportation to destinations/work opportunities. 7 We would use the route towards the West side and within town. 8 I see that the routes go where I want to go.

Responses for those who answered “False” # Comment 1 Main destination would be OSUN, line closest to me does not go past the campus although it is close (red)

2 The route between Newark and New Albany is too convoluted. 3 Wouldn’t use 4 We all have dependable transportation 5 No connector near my home 6 Same answer (“I am not in a position to need public transit at this time.”) 7 Currently, our business happens either close to home or outside of the County. 8 The stop may not be close to where I or somewhere else needs to be. 9 Too confusing, this might work for the younger generation 10 Again I am an employee and my family does not reside in Licking county.

LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 18

3. Prompt 3: “The proposed hours of service will improve accessibility to destinations that I or someone in my household needs to travel to.”

• Responses - True: 10, False: 23

Responses for those who answered “True” # Comment 1 I agree that the times would be beneficial however, I think later bus times on the weekends would be nothing but a benefit.

2 Assuming I can get an easy COTA connection to Ohio State in New Albany, this would allow me to go to meetings without the hassle of driving in. Also Columbus shopping. 3 Yes, I live in Pataskala and attend OSUN. If I need to use the transit, this will help me out greatly when getting to/from campus. 4 Mostly day trips, 2 nights a week need 10pm availability. 5 Absolutely. Business hours are best for our clients. 6 Those hours work for me 7 The available times cover when most people are in need of the service. It is especially helpful for individuals who may have procedures where they have to be at the hospital early in the morning or are in need of transportation later in the day. 8 The route and times are appropriate for any needs we may have arise. 9 This would be especially true on weekdays (not necessarily weekends for members of my household or friends) 10 These are reasonable hours to provide services and make my household schedule more viable.

Responses for those who answered “False” # Comment 1 Weekend hours should be extended

2 The routes just don't get me easily to where I want to go. 3 Wouldn’t use 4 Will not use transit LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 19

# Comment 5 Not likely to use transit at this time 6 Same answer. (“I am not in a position to need public transit at this time.”) 7 Answered false because the times will only work for daytime workers. Realize that everything can't happen at once but would be great to have 2nd and 3rd shift transportation. Maybe in future? 8 The time change will not help. Transit time is good as is. 9 Already travel during these hours 10 They had Sunday service before, not enough clients to make it worth running and the drivers are already working long hours 6 days a week, where you going to get all these new drivers it’s going to take? 11 If it provides us with a fixed schedule it might work, right now we have no schedule.

E. Mapping Tool Comments

A total of seven substantive comments were received on the proposed stops and routes via the mapping activity. The comment numbers correspond to the numbered locations in the map figure following the table.

Mapping Tool Comments # Comment 1 (blank) 2 Sorry, this is hard to make work. Run the bus from Granville to Sharon Vly Rd., right on Moull, and back out to 21st. You could pick up at Empire & Moull. 3 Health Department stop needed on fixed route. Why? 4 You see a great many walkers across Moull & Jefferson at all times of day carrying groceries and laundry back to the neighborhood south and southeast of Moull & Mt. Vernon Rd.; it seems like a sizeable rental neighborhood needing shopping access to trans 5 Stay on 161 from Newark to New Albany to get to work 6 Cherry Valley Rd park and ride lot connection needed for New Albany route and for trail head access. Make this connection at Speedway circle and cherry valley rd LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 20

# Comment 7 What about Utica? 8 Fixed Route to Johnstown we like to bypass school zones so we don’t have delays.

Mapping Tool Comment Locations

LCTB Draft TDP & CP Comments May 20, 2020 Page 21

F. Attachments Attachment A - Licking County Concepts – Representative Frazier JOHNSTOWN JOHNSTOWN Delaware Licking County Concept - Overview Attachment A

ú÷605 ¤£62 Potential connection with ú÷37 New Albany's SmartRide

ALEXANDRIA

ú÷161 NEW ALBANY GRANVILLE NEWARK

Connection with COTA's line 45 that operates during Rush Hour ú÷310 Licking

Franklin HEATH

Connection with COTA's line 10 that operates every 30 minutes PATASKALA ú÷16

ú÷16 PATASKALA County_Boundaries REYNOLDSBURG COTA_Plus_Zone HEBRON

40 Routes ¤£ ú÷158 KIRKERSVILLE Name 70 Potential connection with ¨¦§ other providers SR 161 Express BUCKEYE LAKE 10 Limited Connection with COTA's line 2 that operates every 30 minutes ú÷204 2 Limited Fairfield ú÷256 Main Street Local ¸ 0 1 2 4 6 8 Perry N Miles North-South Local Date: 5/7/2020 Licking County Concepts

These concepts were compiled based on county destinations including jobs, commercial centers and residential patterns. Connections were added to build off of COTA’s existing network to provide cross- county opportunities. These concepts represent a menu of different options including fixed route connections to COTA, two local routes surrounding Newark and Heath areas, a micro transit concept to cover the Newark and Heath areas and a countywide micro transit concept.

SR 161 Express

Roundtrip Miles: 45 (22.5 one-way)

Estimated Average Speed: 40 mph

Estimated Time: 30 minutes

New Albany Park & Ride (linked with COTA’s line 45) to Locust St & 2nd St (Newark)

Fully Allocated Cost for: 5am, 5pm, 10 total round trips, Monday-Friday, ~$457,200 Connection with COTA’s line 45 New Albany

North- South Local

Roundtrip Miles: 16

Estimated Average Speed: 20.4 mph

Estimated Time: 50 minutes – Could be a fixed route flex concept to increase coverage

C-TEC Career and Technology Education Centers of Licking County to Indian Mound Mall area

Notable points of interest: C-TEC Career and Technology Education Centers of Licking County, Walmart (N 21st), Indian Valley Shopping Center, Kroger, Downtown Newark, Giant Eagle, Southgate Center, Southgate Plaza, Walmart (Central Pkwy), Target, Indian Mound Mall

Fully Allocated Cost for: 6am-10pm, seven days a week, every 30 min, ~$1,401,600

Main Street Local

Roundtrip Miles: 14

Estimated Average Speed: 21 mph

Estimated Time: 40 minutes– Could be a fixed route flex concept to increase coverage

Select Specialty Hospital- Southeast Ohio to Longaberger Basket

Notable points of interest: Select Specialty Hospital Southeast Ohio, Licking Memorial Hospital, Downtown Newark

Fully Allocated Cost for: 6am-10pm, seven days a week, every 30 min, ~$1,401,600

2 Limited Roundtrip Miles: 43 (21.5 one-way)

Estimated Average Speed: 30 mph

Estimated Time: 45 minutes

County line (link with COTA line 2) - Indian Mound Mall area

Notable points of interest: Etna Warehouse area (Amazon), Etna, Hebron, SR 79 Industrial area, Indian Mound Mall

Fully Allocated Cost for: 6am-8pm, every 60 minutes, Monday-Friday, ~$853,440 Connection with COTA’s line 2 N High St/E Main

10 Limited

Roundtrip Miles: 31 (15.5 one-way)

Estimated Average Speed: 30 mph

Estimated Time: 31 minutes

County line (link with COTA line 10) The Limited – Granville/Dennison

Notable points of interest: The Limited, Pataskala, Granville, Dennison University

Fully Allocated Cost for: 6am-8pm, every 60 minutes, Monday-Friday, ~$853,400

Connection with COTA’s line 10 E/W Broad

COTA Plus Newark-Heath Zone

Covering the urbanized areas of Newark, Heath & Granville

19 square miles, 3 active vehicles, short (15 min) wait times

Could take place of the 2 local routes

Estimated Cost: ~$700,000 Operating, ~$650,000 Capital (vehicles)

COTA Plus – County Wide Zone

Covering the entire county, unknown amount of vehicles, longer (60 min) wait times

~694 square miles

Estimated Cost: TBD

Licking County Concept - Aerial

Routes Name SR 161 Express 10 Limited 2 Limited Main Street Local North-South Local ¸ 0 0.425 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.4 N Miles COTA_Plus_Zone Date: 5/7/2020 Licking County Concept - Roads

Routes Name SR 161 Express 10 Limited 2 Limited Main Street Local North-South Local ¸ 0 0.425 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.4 N Miles COTA_Plus_Zone Date: 5/7/2020 Licking County Concept - Jobs

Routes Name SR 161 Express 10 Limited 2 Limited Main Street Local North-South Local COTA_Plus_Zone Job Density JOB2025 0 - 40 40 - 147 147 - 395

¸ 0 0.425 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.4 395 - 803 N Miles 803 - 2782 Date: 5/7/2020 Licking County Concept - Population

Routes Name SR 161 Express 10 Limited 2 Limited Main Street Local North-South Local COTA_Plus_Zone Population Density POP2015 0 - 9 9 - 57 57 - 157 157 - 360 ¸ 0 0.425 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.4 N Miles 360 - 2427 Date: 5/7/2020 North - South Local

Price Rd

N 21st St

Granville St

Locust St 2nd St

W Main St

Union St Grant St

0 0

S William St

Hebron Rd

End of line: TBD

¸ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 N Miles Date: 3/5/2020

Main Street Local 0

E Main St

N Park Pl 0

S Park Pl

W Main St 0

S Terrace Ave

Tamarack Rd

¸ 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 N Miles Date: 3/5/2020

Attachment I - Employee Interview Memorandum

Memorandum

To: Matt Hill, LCATS

From: Tom Cruikshank (WSB) Austin Hauf, AICP Candidate (WSB)

Date: January 30, 2020

Re: Licking County Transit Development Plan (TDP) & Coordinated Plan (CP) Employee Interview Memorandum

A. Background

Licking County Transit Board employees were interviewed as part of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) process to gauge their job satisfaction and to solicit suggestions for improving working conditions. The interviews were conducted on October 1, 2019 by Tom Cruikshank of WSB. Included in the employee interviews were six full-time and one part-time WSBENG.COM

| dispatch/operations staff and three full-time administration staff. Maintenance staff and drivers were not specifically interviewed during this process. However, driver comments collected by Ashley Hartle and Austin Hauf of WSB while conducting the on-board survey from September 30 to October 3, 2019 are summarized here. Interviews with Licking County Transit Board members were conducted by the consulting team during a January 2020 trip to Licking County.

763.541.4800

| Comments are summarized by general comments, job satisfaction, job efficiency, schedule

adherence, employee relations and job challenges. All interviewees were willing to participate and enthusiastically answered all the questions. 55416 | B. Summary

A summary of the driver responses to the interview questions are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 - Driver Interview Summary

General Comments Training Maintenance MINNEAPOLIS, MN

| Dispatch staff could use more training in scheduling trips Maintenance does a great job Drivers all enjoy their job and familiarity with service taking care of the bus fleet areas Buses are brought out quickly SU ITE 3 0 0 Drivers usually can maintain Drivers would like more

| when a driver has a their schedules frequent training meetings maintenance issue Drivers would like dispatchers Don’t know all the drivers to ride along with them Refresher training for drivers Interest in team meetings not done in a while Drivers would like to have Annual ride-along from work schedules posted ahead supervisor

701 XENIA AVENUE S of time instead of day before

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx Employee Interview Memo January 30, 2020 Page 2

General Comments Training Maintenance Difficulty in attracting good Some drivers could use quality people due to low customer service training wages

A summary of operations staff responses to the interview questions are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 - Dispatch/Operations Staff Interview Summary

General Comments Computers and Software Enjoy working with all staff Dispatching software updates done annually Need for video surveillance cameras in buses Dispatch software refresher training needed Need more training for dispatch staff Maintenance software needed Enjoy helping the people we serve Have Routematch come to do training with dispatch staff Riders are appreciative of what we do Hard to get assistance from Routematch when calling into technical assistance Grateful riders rely on us for the service Denials are too high (150 a month) Making a difference by helping others Do not track on time performance Lowering the number of rides we can take Being short drivers create a lot of overtime (10 hours with no break) Do not have a street supervisor

A summary of administrative staff responses to the interview questions are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 - Administration Staff Interview Summary

General Comments Opportunities for Improvement Need for rewriting driver manual Use positive two-way radio messages Enjoy being a member of the team Send positive messages to drivers on tablets Monthly newsletter, email or mail to Administration is supported by the Board employees Concern to maintain good employee morale Employee mentorship program Some employees are not accepting of change Post positive calls from customers Local cities and villages not willing to fund Need for more service along corridors and operations activity centers Lost $1 million from DD funding change Tiered fare structure - distance based Additional funding from colleges/hospital would Maintenance and storage facility help improvements needed Additional support staff needed in Buses located/hub out of other communities administration versus all out of Newark County Commissioners and communities have New dispatching software option to replace been supportive Routematch On-time performance is hurt due to lack of

staff

Transit board members were interviewed in January 2020. Responses from those interviews are summarized below in Table 4.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx Employee Interview Memo January 30, 2020 Page 3

Table 4 - Board Member Interview Summary

Topic Comments Morale Low wages and long hours need to be addressed Money is biggest need Financial Bring on additional financial partners – Cities, Clubs, Foundation, etc. Leadership General Manager is a good leader Board Retreat/Training Consider board retreat with LCT staff Stability on Transit Board Board members are supportive Trips with low fares to edge of County are not Fares sustainable. Support for tiered fare structure. Board Member Mindset Board members have community interest in mind. Organization Structure Joint Powers an option for transit structure Need to Increase Contracts Colleges, K-12 schools, Employers Office and Maintenance Facilities Facilities are adequate Bus Fleet Bus fleet is well maintained Staff is doing best they can with the resources Adequacy of Resources for Transit they have. Sustainable funding is critical for long term growth

C. Interview Questions and Responses

1. Dispatch/Operations Staff

Staff interviewed: • Annette Duke • Audrey Baker • Debra Hartman • Melissa (first day on the job) • Jesse Broseus • Charles Henderson • Jessica Broceus

A summary of dispatch/operations staff responses to the interview questions are summarized below.

What do you enjoy most about working for Licking County Transit Board? • Enjoy helping the people we serve • Riders are appreciative of what we do • Grateful riders rely on us for the service • Making a difference by helping others

Is the dispatching software that is used efficient and reliable on a daily basis? • Dispatching software updates done annually • Last dispatching software update about a year ago • Report problems to Donna or Cathy

Do you notice any constraints with your existing dispatching software? • Hard to get assistance from Routematch when calling into technical assistance • Routematch does not always respond

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx Employee Interview Memo January 30, 2020 Page 4

• Problem recently with unscheduled trips • Have Routematch come to do training with dispatch staff

Are there any issues between dispatch and drivers regarding expectations, routing, scheduling, etc? • Some disagreements between dispatch and drivers • Get along most of the time • Sometimes when drivers get behind schedule • Being short drivers is difficult • Lowering the number of rides we can take • A lot of overtime for drivers (10 hours with no break)

What are some opportunities to improve the efficiency of dispatching? • Need for more staff • Denials are too high (150 a month)

What is the most challenging part of your job? • Communications • Why drivers take extra time to complete trips • Late drivers

Is there anything else you can add to make Licking County Transit Board a better place to work? • Do not track on time performance • Need a better way of monitoring drivers • Do not have a street supervisor

2. Administrative Staff

Staff interviewed: • Sam Sites • Donna Flack • Cathy Sheets

A summary of administrative staff responses to the interview questions are summarized below.

Challenges and Opportunities? • Local cities and villages not willing to fund operations • Lost 1 million dollars from DD funding change • Additional funding from colleges/hospital would help • Need for more service along corridors and activity centers • Tiered fare structure - distance based • If drivers need CDL for larger buses – contract calls for pay increase for CDL license • Early win options for the TDP o Fresh start to the system o Rebranding o Logo/bus graphics o Tiered fare structure o Fare collection system in place • Facilities

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx Employee Interview Memo January 30, 2020 Page 5

o Admin office space adequate to meet future needs? o Maintenance and storage facility improvements o Downtown Newark bus transfer/gathering hub • Buses located/hub out of other communities versus all out of Newark

What do you enjoy most about working for Licking County Transit Board? • Like the challenges • Like the hours and people work with • Don’t feel overwhelmed

Are state (ODOT) reporting requirements clear and easy to understand? • ODOT is accessible and requirements are clear • A good resource

Do you feel you have the necessary support to do your job? • Procurement training would help • Additional support staff in admin

Do you have the adequate software to track and monitor system performance? How could you improve? • Have adequate software to do job • New dispatching software option to replace Routematch

What are your major concerns regarding operations? • Staffing – getting enough drivers • Funding – less FTA 5307 available / more ODOT dollars • Challenges from transition of two private operators in last two years • New driver rules • No surveillance cameras in buses at this time – taken out by last private contractor • No fareboxes installed in buses – they have in stock – use bank envelopes instead

Do you have any major concerns about funding and “stakeholder” support? If so, what? • County Commissioners have been supportive • Community support • Loss of DD contract funding

How is staff morale? Do you notice any issues between different “departments” (i.e. dispatch and drivers, maintenance and operations)? • Morale seems okay • Do not have regularly scheduled staff meetings • Lots of overtime for drivers due to driver shortage – has not affected safety or accidents

What is the most challenging part of your job? • Funding challenges the last couple of years • Following the rules – NTD • Not having the experience to do the job • Not being able to help some ride requests • Too many trips for number of drivers • Phones are busy (not long hold times)

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx Employee Interview Memo January 30, 2020 Page 6

Is there anything else you can add to make Licking County Transit Board a better place to work? • Work from home option • Some employees are not accepting of change • On-time performance is hurt due to lack of staff • Use of email for internal communications helps

3. Drivers

A summary of feedback collected from conversations with drivers is provided below. Comments have been sorted according to various topic areas.

Hiring/Training • Hiring process takes approximately 3 months due to background check. Most people are not willing to wait this long given local/regional job market competition. • Some of the training is tailored to larger buses (as of a couple of years ago). At one time drivers were told to not drive in reverse, but this is not feasible for where buses need to go. • There is currently no training for drivers working with seniors or people with disabilities

Maintenance/Vehicle Conditions • Tablets do not include reliable GPS, many drivers have purchased their own GPS with their own money for their buses

Schedule Adherence • Bus routing - buses are often traveling back and forth between the same places. Sometimes pass other buses on similar route or go back and forth between two places twice in a row. • Paperwork duplication with tablet computer - information recorded on paper after each stop is also recorded electronically.

Dispatcher Assistance • Drivers check in frequently with dispatch o Need to check in after last drop-off to determine if there are any other pickups needed o Need to check in to determine whether a pick-up is a “no-show”

Working Conditions/Support from Supervisors • Current wage is not competitive • County retirement and other benefits are good, this should be a major selling point of the job. • A hiring bonus of 3-4 dollars more than wage of existing MV employees was provided around 2017. Result was more driver hiring, but only a few made it through training due to drug testing, finding out working schedule, etc. • Better driver scheduling is needed. o Possible to do 4 eleven-hour days with 1-hour lunch and Friday off? o Hire someone for just Friday and Saturday? o Some drivers want split shifts and get a lunch instead, others want just a lunch and get split shifts. Possible to switch?

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx Employee Interview Memo January 30, 2020 Page 7

o Need more predictable hours. Drivers don't find out the next day’s start time until the night before. Start times vary, and drivers don’t know their end time for the day until it happens. o Drivers find out Friday night if they are working Saturday, making it difficult to have weekend plans. o Schedules used to be posted in advance, now they are not. o Lack of stability and uncertainty in scheduling is one of the contributors to turnover. o Quote: "Drivers don't have a life."

Perspective on Passenger Experience • Passengers are only allowed to bring groceries/shopping bags that can be held on their lap. This is a limitation for seniors, people with disabilities, and anyone who wants to use the service for shopping trips. • Many passengers require door to door service • Feedback drivers have heard from passengers: o Fixed route along State Route 79? Corridor has lots of employment and shopping. o Fixed routes to Johnstown, Pataskala, etc. o Desire for service on Sunday. o Later weekday and Saturday service, especially to access industrial areas south of town for second and third shifts. Employees could get there via transit but wouldn’t be able to get home because service has shut down for the day.

4. Board Members

Board members interviewed: • Brandon Galik • Olivia Biggs • Jeff Hindel • Rick Black • Deb Cole • Bill Cost • Dick Morrow

A summary of feedback collected from conversations with Licking County Transit Board members conducted during January 2020 is provided below. Comments have been sorted according to various topic areas.

Board • Board needs more education and priority setting • Interest in a board retreat or training • Transit needs a cohesive board and leadership from General Manger • Glad LCATS is in charge of the TDP/CP planning process

Financial • Transit doesn’t have adequate resources • Money is biggest need • County commissioners are starting to get more hands-on with transit

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx Employee Interview Memo January 30, 2020 Page 8

• Like idea of tiered fare structure • Additional contracts – Colleges • Bring on additional financial partners – Cities: Newark, Johnstown, Heath, Granville; K-12 schools, Rotary Club, Licking County Foundation • Develop framework for setting up financial structure • Trips with low fares to edge of County aren’t sustainable

Operations • Service is too limited • Could have more robust system • Callers should speak to a live person when they call • People do not like to leave messages • Staff are doing best with what they have • Office facility and garage are adequate • Not enough resources to provide every trip • Flex route is talked about a lot • Don’t take away from existing services like dialysis • Find the right balance • Interest in a more fixed route system

Staffing • Wage rates are low. • Operators working too many hours • Too much overtime worked • Additional drivers are needed • Two more administrative employees are needed

Other Comments • Columbus is growing so western half of county is booming • Transit board does not currently have its own social media platform • Transit staff are not able to update web page – managed by County IT • Homeless discussion going on in County

K:\014610-000\Admin\Meeting\Stakeholder_Employee Meetings\employee_interview_memo_01.30.2020.docx

Attachment J - Peer Review Memorandum

Memorandum

To: Matt Hill, LCATS

From: Tom Cruikshank (WSB) Austin Hauf, AICP Candidate (WSB)

Date: December 18, 2019

Re: Licking County Transit Development Plan (TDP) & Coordinated Plan (CP) Peer Group Comparison Memo

A. Summary

This document provides an evaluation of Licking County Transit Service (LCT) in comparison to four peer systems: two in Ohio, one in Michigan, and one in Indiana. The goal of selecting the peer systems is to focus on Midwest transit systems that operate under similar seasonal conditions as well as similar operating structures. The four systems selected for the LCT peer group are: WSBENG.COM

| • Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit System, Lancaster, OH • South East Area Transit (SEAT), Zanesville, OH • Cass Area Transit, Logansport, IN • Harbor Transit, Grand Haven, MI

763.541.4800 |

| FY 2014 to FY 2018 agency profiles available through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) National Transit Database (NTD).

Key findings of the analysis include:

• Several challenges are common across most systems, including a growth in operating expenses and a decline in farebox recovery. • MINNEAPOLIS, MN LCT’s cost per rider is highest among the peer systems at $31.43. The increase in cost

| per rider from 2014 to 2018 was also second highest among the peer systems (22 percent). A contributing factor for the increased cost per rider may be the changeover from two different contract operators in 2017 and 2018. • In terms of cost efficiency, LCT’s cost per hour is the group median ($58.28), and cost

SU ITE 3 0 0 per mile is second lowest at $2.75. However, LCT saw the highest growth in cost per mile

and the second highest growth in cost per hour between 2014 and 2018. • While LCT has the lowest trips per vehicle revenue hour among the peer systems, it was one of only two systems to see this measure increase between 2014 and 2018. • Only LCT and SEAT saw a loss in ridership between 2014 and 2018. • Service types provided by peer systems such as deviated routes and fixed routes may help maintain or grow ridership and contribute to better performance on service effectiveness measures and smaller increases in the costs of providing service. 701 XENIA AVENUE S

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 2

B. Background

Traditionally, transit systems have based their performance measures on readily available data such as cost per hour, cost per mile and cost per trip. As passengers expect more and funding continues to tighten and diversify, performance measures are an important input in an agency’s decision-making process to improve productivity and quality of service.

In an organization as complex as a transit system, there is an enormous variety of statistics and performance measures from which to choose. It is crucial to pick the measurements based on what the agency is trying to evaluate. To provide a measure of effectiveness and efficiency a comparison to a group of similar peer systems is used.

It is important to note that LCT operates exclusive countywide demand response service despite being an urban FTA Section 5307 service provider. Because of this unique operating structure, it is difficult to find systems that offer an exact comparison. The peer systems selected operate a combination of demand response, deviated fixed-route and fixed route services to a wide range of population sizes. However, they were selected in part because they exhibit characteristics that could be reflected in the future of LCT operations. All peer systems operate in largely rural areas with demand response service as the centerpiece of their operations. They have similar levels of ridership, vehicle revenue hours, fleet sizes, and operating expenses, but provide a glimpse at what LCT could look like in the future.

This peer group analysis uses FY 2014 to FY 2018 data from the FTA NTD. At the time of writing, FY 2018 is the most recent available data.

Peer systems were selected based on a review of the following items:

• Service Area Population • Service Effectiveness • Service Area Size o Trips per Vehicle Revenue • Service Hours per Rider Hour • Annual Ridership o Trips per Vehicle Revenue • Vehicle Revenue Hours Mile • Vehicle Revenue Miles • Cost Efficiency • Operating expenses o Cost per Vehicle Revenue • Fare Structure Mile o • Service Types Provided Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour • Days and Hours of Service (Span of • Service) Cost Effectiveness o Cost per Rider • Fleet Size o Farebox Recovery • Organizational o Revenue per Rider Structure/Governance o Revenue per Revenue Hour

C. Peer System Profiles

Table 1 provides basic information about LCT and the four systems selected for the peer group analysis including population served, service area, governance structure, hours of operation, and more. The sections that follow provide an overview of each system as well as additional details on the fare structure of each system.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 3

Table 1 - Peer Systems Overview

Primary Service Annual One-Way Adult Transit Services Area Governance Ridership Weekday Fleet Cash Fares System Service Area Provided Population Structure Hours of Operation (2019) (2018) Routes Size (2019) Licking Licking Demand 166,492 7-Member Monday–Friday: 5:00am–8:00pm 124,899 0 34 Demand County County, OH Response Transit Saturday: 6:00am–6:00pm Response Transit Board $4.00 Lancaster Fairfield Demand 154,733 City of Demand Response 110,275 5 19 Within Fairfield Public County, OH Response, Lancaster Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm County Transit Fixed (as of Saturday: 7:00am–5:00pm $2.00 System Route January Express and Loop Service 2020) Monday–Friday: 8:00am–10:00pm South East Guernsey & Demand 125,242 11-Member Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm 132,506 5 22 Fixed Route Area Muskingum Response, Transit $1.00 Transit Counties, OH Fixed Board of Demand (SEAT) Route Trustees Response (City) $4.00 Demand Response (County) $8.00 Cass Area Cass County, Demand 37,994 Cass County Demand Response 151,482 1 26 In City of Transit IN Response, Council on Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm Logansport Fixed Aging Deviated Fixed-Route $2.00 Route Monday–Friday: 8:00am–5:00pm In County Saturday: 9:00am–5:00pm $3.00 Harbor Grand Haven Demand 45,357 10-Member Demand Response 251,015 1 27 Regular and Transit Charter and Response, Transit Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm Trolley Service Spring Lake Trolley Authority Saturday: 9:00am–4:00pm $1.50 Townships, Board Sunday: 8:00am–12:30pm MI Trolley Monday–Sunday: 11:00am–10:00pm

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 4

1. Ohio Systems

Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit System, Lancaster, OH The Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit System (LFPT) provides curb-to-curb demand response, shared ride (first come, first serve) transit service in Fairfield County as well as five deviated fixed routes that run on a continuous hourly loop. Demand response trip requests may be made up to 30 days in advance or the same day. Reservations are accepted Monday-Friday, 8:00am–4:00pm by phone or online. Four of the loops are located in Lancaster and the fifth operates in Pickerington. To ride the loops, riders must be at the bus stop at least two minutes prior to the scheduled stop time. Pickups can be requested within a 0.75-mile radius of a designated stop. Table 2 shows LFPT’s fare structure.

LFPT is bringing operations under the City of Lancaster as of January 1, 2020 after only receiving one bid to operate the public transit system which was higher than the City had budgeted. As a result, the City has decided to bring the operations in house, offering the ability to provide the same level of service and increase driver wages without increasing costs.

Table 2 - Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit Fares

Fare Type Advance Day Same Day Service Reservation Demand Response Within Fairfield County General Public $2.00 $5.00 Mobility Program $1.00 $5.00 Outside Fairfield County 10 Miles $7.50 $10.00 11-20 Miles $15.00 $18.00 21-30 Miles $30.00 Schedule Permitting 31-40 Miles $45.00 Schedule Permitting 41-50 Miles $60.00 Schedule Permitting Deviated Fixed Routes General Public - $0.50 Mobility Rate - $0.25 Transfers - $0.10

Service Operation Hours Demand Response • Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm • Saturday: 7:00am–5:00pm Express and Loop Service (Deviated Fixed-Routes) • Monday–Friday: 8:00am–10:00pm

South East Area Transit (SEAT), Zanesville, OH SEAT operates countywide demand response service in Guernsey and Muskingum Counties, three fixed routes in Zanesville and two fixed routes in Cambridge, as well as E&D ADA curb- to-curb paratransit service Monday through Friday. Rides must be requested at least 24 hours in advance, and can be scheduled between 8:00am and 3:00pm, Monday through Friday. Fixed route service in Zanesville and Cambridge operates every hour. SEAT is governed by the South East Area Transit Board of Trustees. The Board is comprised of eleven members appointed by Muskingum County, the City of Zanesville, the Village of South Zanesville, Guernsey County and the City of Cambridge. Table 3 shows SEAT’s fare structure.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 5

Table 3 - South East Area Transit Fares

Fare Type Price Cash Fares Regular $1.00 Student $0.75 Elderly/Disabled $0.50 Children 6 and under Free Transfers Free County Wide Service General Public - City Limits $4.00 Elderly/Disabled - City Limits $2.00 General Public - County Limits $8.00 Elderly/Disabled - County Limits $4.00 General Public - Muskingum to Guernsey or $12.00 Guernsey to Muskingum General Public - Guernsey to Noble or Noble to Guernsey $12.00 Elderly/Disabled - Muskingum to Guernsey or $6.00 Guernsey to Muskingum Elderly/Disabled - Guernsey to Noble or Noble to Guernsey $6.00 Demand Response Elderly/Disabled $2.00 Book (10 tickets) $20.00 ParaPass Any Passes and Tickets 10 Regular Tickets $9.00 10 Student Tickets $6.75 10 Elderly/Disabled Tickets $4.50 Full Month Student Bus Pass $24.00 Full Month Adult Bus Pass $45.00 Half Month Adult Bus Pass (after 15th) $22.50

Service Operation Hours Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm

2. Other States

Cass Area Transit, Cass County, IN Cass Area Transit is the largest rural transportation service in Indiana and provides countywide curb to curb demand response service Monday through Friday. Door to door service is available upon request. Deviated fixed-route service is provided within the City of Logansport, with 14 stops in service 8:00am–5:00pm Monday through Friday, and 10 stops in service from 9:00am–5:00pm on Saturday. Buses can deviate up to one mile upon request. Trip reservations must be made 24 hours in advance and can be requested by phone between the hours of 6:00am and 5:30pm Monday through Friday. Cass Area Transit is operated and governed by the Cass County Council on Aging. Table 4 shows the fare structure for Cass Area Transit.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 6

Table 4 - Cass Area Transit Fares

Fare Type Price General Under 60 Years of Age (In County) $3.00 Under 60 Years of Age (In City) $2.00 Age 60 and Older Free Punch Passes City 12 Punch $15.00 25 Punch $30.00 County 12 Punch $30.00 25 Punch $60.00 Tokens Each $2.00

Out of county service is provided on a mileage cost basis. Medical transportation costs are based on mileage and/or insurance coverage.

Service Operation Hours Demand Response • Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm Deviated Fixed-Route • Monday–Friday: 8:00am–5:00pm • Saturday: 9:00am–5:00pm

Harbor Transit, Grand Haven, MI Harbor Transit serves the communities of Grand Haven, Grand Haven Charter Township, Ferrysburg, the Village of Spring Lake, and Spring Lake Township in northwest Ottawa County. It has over 40 years of history, expanding from a small demand response service into a public transit authority with multiple types of service. The Harbor Transit Multi-Modal Transit System was established in January 2012. In addition to curb to curb demand response services, Harbor Transit also operates a historic trolley seven days a week and a “Beach Express” deviated fixed-route on weekends that both operate between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The Beach Express runs every 15 minutes and offers pickup within 0.75 miles of the designated route (weather permitting). Harbor Transit is governed by a 10-member Board of Directors made up of representatives from the municipalities, as well as passengers, social service agencies, and other transit stakeholders. Table 5 shows the fare structure for Harbor Transit.

Table 5 - Harbor Transit Fares

Fare Type Price Regular Bus Service 60 and Older $0.75 19–59 Years Old $1.50 18 and Under $0.75 4 and Under (with paying adult, limit 2) Free Person with a Disability $0.75 Person with Medicare Card $0.75 Multi Ride Fare Card 12 rides $7.50

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 7

Fare Type Price 36 rides $22.50 Trolley Service 60 and Older $0.75 19–59 Years Old $1.50 18 and Under $0.75 2 and Under Free Person with a Disability $0.75 Person with Medicare Card $0.75 Beach Express $1.00

Service Operation Hours Demand Response • Monday–Friday: 6:00am–6:00pm (Last call taken at 5:30pm) • Saturday: 9:00am–4:00pm (Last call taken at 3:30pm) • Sunday: 8:00am–12:30pm (advance reservation required) Trolley (Memorial Day through Labor Day) • Monday–Sunday: 11:00am–10:00pm Beach Express (Memorial Day through Labor Day) • Saturday–Sunday: 12:00pm–6:00pm

D. Peer Group Analysis

Assessments of transit system performance can be grouped into three categories of performance indicators: Service effectiveness, cost efficiency, and cost effectiveness. Each category measures a different aspect of how well a system is performing.

• Service effectiveness evaluates the volume of passengers served per mile or hour of service provided. • Cost efficiency measures a transit system’s ability to provide services at a low cost. • Cost effectiveness measures the ability of a system to generate revenue for the services it provides.

As noted earlier, this peer group analysis uses FY 2014 to FY 2018 FTA NTD data.

It should be noted that these performance measures are heavily affected by the type of service provided by a transit system. Service types are selected based on the needs of the specific geographic area and population served, and performance measures provide only one perspective on whether a system is functioning as intended. For example, while a countywide demand response service may not serve the greatest number of people per hour, it may meet the transit need in a given area.

Table 6 provides a basic overview of LCT and the peer systems. While LCT has only the second largest service area, it serves the largest population, largely due to the city of Newark as its hub city with a population of over 50,000. Despite delivering the second fewest number of annual trips, it ranks the highest in terms of vehicle revenue hours and vehicle revenue miles and leads the group in farebox revenue.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 8

Table 6 - Peer Group Overview (FY 2018)

Service Vehicle Vehicle Area Annual Revenue Revenue Farebox Operating System Population (sq. mi.) Trips Hours Miles Revenue Expenses Licking County Transit 166,492 683 124,899 67,361 1,428,602 $636,986 $3,926,057 Lancaster Public Transit System 154,733 509 110,275 32,844 555,403 $65,242 $1,676,178 South East Area Transit 125,242 1,201 132,506 24,590 468,443 $94,707 $3,370,107 Harbor Transit 45,357 54 251,015 50,773 719,978 $203,393 $3,147,537 Cass Area Transit 37,994 415 151,482 57,095 831,188 $123,263 $1,536,522 Average 105,964 572 154,035 46,533 800,723 $224,718 $2,731,280

1. Service Effectiveness

Table 7 displays the results of the service effectiveness analysis. Service effectiveness was evaluated using trips per vehicle hour and trips per vehicle revenue mile. LCT performs the lowest based on both of these measures. While the number of annual trips provided is similar to the peer systems, higher vehicle revenue hours and vehicle revenue miles significantly affect the performance measures. Systems with fixed routes can typically deliver more trips per unit of service output.

Table 7 - Peer Group Service Effectiveness Measures (FY 2018)

Trips Per Trips Per Vehicle Vehicle Revenue Revenue System Hour Mile South East Area Transit 5.39 0.28 Harbor Transit 4.94 0.35 Lancaster Public Transit System 3.36 0.20 Cass Area Transit 2.65 0.18 Licking County Transit 1.85 0.09 Average 3.64 0.22

2. Cost Efficiency

Table 8 displays the results of the cost efficiency analysis. Cost efficiency was evaluated using cost per hour and cost per mile. LCT’s costs are below the group average for both measures. Despite having the second largest service area, LCT is able to deliver services at a lower cost per mile than Harbor Transit and Lancaster Public Transit System. SEAT, which provides service across two counties, naturally has high costs due to the time and distance involved in delivering service. More complex systems with higher personnel costs such as urban fixed route systems typically see higher costs.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 9

Table 8 - Peer Group Cost Efficiency Measures (FY 2018)

Cost Per Cost Per System Hour Mile South East Area Transit $137.05 $7.19 Harbor Transit $61.99 $4.37 Licking County Transit $58.28 $2.75 Lancaster Public Transit System $51.03 $3.02 Cass Area Transit $26.91 $1.85 Average $67.05 $3.84

3. Cost Effectiveness

Table 9 displays the results of the cost effectiveness analysis. Cost effectiveness was evaluated using four measures: farebox recovery, cost per rider, revenue per rider, and revenue per revenue hour. Farebox recovery is the percentage of a transit system’s operating expenses that are offset by passenger fares. It should be noted for these measures that LCT may be reporting revenue earned through providing contract services as farebox revenue, resulting in significantly higher levels of performance in terms of farebox recovery, revenue per rider, and revenue per revenue hour. Regardless, LCT has the highest cost per rider among the peer systems resulting from comparable ridership but higher operating expenses. SEAT, which operates across two counties, also has a relatively high cost per rider.

Table 9 - Peer Group Cost Effectiveness Measures (FY 2018)

Cost Revenue Revenue Per Farebox Per Per Revenue System Recovery Rider Rider Hour Licking County Transit 16% $31.43 $5.10 $9.46 Cass Area Transit 8% $10.14 $0.81 $2.16 Harbor Transit 6% $12.54 $0.81 $4.01 Lancaster Public Transit System 4% $15.20 $0.59 $1.99 South East Area Transit 3% $25.43 $0.71 $3.85 Average 7% $18.95 $1.61 $4.29

E. Peer Group Trend Analysis

A peer group trend analysis allows transit systems to be compared relative to each other over time. This trend analysis uses the performance measures from the previous section and NTD data from FY 2014 to FY 2018 to evaluate changes in system performance over recent years. Table 10 provides an overview of the changes observed. LCT and SEAT saw a loss in ridership and vehicle revenue hours, while the other three systems saw significant gains. Changes in farebox revenue were mixed, with LCT seeing a drop of over 60 percent. As discussed previously, LCT appears to be reporting contract revenue in the farebox category, and the loss of roughly $1 million in contract revenue during this period may account for the drop in farebox revenue. Among the peers, LCT was the only system to see a reduction in operating expenses over the period studied. However, most systems that saw an increase in operating expenses also saw significant ridership growth. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the same metrics across the study period. SEAT saw a significant ridership reduction between 2016 and 2017, followed by a slight rebound. Operating expenses are trending upwards across the board, however LCT saw reductions each year from 2014 to 2017.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 10

Table 10 - Peer Group Trends Overview (Percent Change 2014–2018)

Vehicle Vehicle Annual Revenue Revenue Farebox Operating System Trips Hours Miles Revenue Expenses Harbor Transit 35% 52% 46% 17% 45% Lancaster Public Transit System 19% 27% 4% 42% 8% Cass Area Transit 7% 42% 10% -41% 11% South East Area Transit -1% -23% 12% -8% 23% Licking County Transit -25% -30% -22% -63% -8% Average 7% 14% 10% -11% 16%

Figure 1 - Peer Group Trends Overview (2014–2018)

Annual Trips Farebox Revenue 275,000 $1,800,000 $1,500,000 225,000 $1,200,000 175,000 $900,000 $600,000 125,000 $300,000 75,000 $0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Vehicle Revenue Hours Vehicle Revenue Miles 100,000 2,000,000

80,000 1,500,000 60,000 1,000,000 40,000 500,000 20,000

0 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Operating Expenses $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 11

1. Service Effectiveness

Table 11 shows changes in service effectiveness measures over the study period. SEAT saw the largest growth in trips per vehicle revenue hour at 28 percent, but saw a 12 percent decline in trips per vehicle revenue mile. Figure 2 displays the same trends over the entire study period. Most systems experienced gradual change, apart from SEAT which saw a significant drop in both metrics between 2016 and 2017 following two years of growth.

Table 11 - Service Effectiveness Trends (Percent Change 2014–2018)

Trips Per Trips Per Vehicle Vehicle Revenue Revenue System Hour Mile South East Area Transit 28% -12% Licking County Transit 8% -3% Lancaster Public Transit System -6% 15% Harbor Transit -11% -8% Cass Area Transit -24% -3% Average -1% -2%

Figure 2 - Service Effectiveness Trends (2014–2018)

Trips Per Vehicle Revenue Hour Trips Per Vehicle Revenue Mile 8 0.60 0.50 6 0.40 4 0.30 0.20 2 0.10 0 0.00 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2. Cost Efficiency

Table 12 shows changes in cost efficiency measures over the study period. Despite an overall reduction in operating expenses, LCT saw the largest growth in cost per mile and the second largest growth in cost per hour over the study period, at 18 percent and 31 percent respectively. Harbor Transit remained the most stable and saw only slight declines, with growth in vehicle revenue hours and vehicle revenue miles mostly keeping pace with significant growth in operating expenses. Figure 3 displays the same metrics over the study period. It is notable that SEAT’s large increase in cost per hour is mostly attributable to the period between 2017 and 2018.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 12

Table 12 - Cost Efficiency Trends (Percent Change 2014–2018)

Cost Per Cost Per System Hour Mile South East Area Transit 58% 9% Licking County Transit 31% 18% Harbor Transit -4% -1% Lancaster Public Transit System -15% 4% Cass Area Transit -22% 1% Average 10% 6%

Figure 3 - Cost Efficiency Trends (2014–2018)

Cost Per Hour Cost Per Mile $150 $8

$120 $6 $90 $4 $60 $2 $30

$0 $0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3. Cost Effectiveness

Table 13 shows changes in cost effectiveness measures over the study period. Four of the five systems saw a decrease in farebox recovery, with an average decrease of 24 percent across the group. Four of the five systems saw an increase in the cost per rider, with costs increasing by an above average 22 percent for LCT. Revenue per rider fell across all systems studied except for Lancaster Public Transit System, and revenue per revenue hour fell for three out of the five systems. Figure 4 displays the same metrics over the study period. While cost per rider has been steadily increasing for LCT, SEAT saw a spike between 2016 and 2017. With the exception of LCT, changes in farebox recovery have mostly occurred gradually.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 13

Table 13 - Cost Effectiveness Trends (Percent Change 2014–2018)

Cost Revenue Per Farebox Per Revenue Revenue System Recovery Rider Per Rider Hour Lancaster Public Transit System 32% -10% 19% 12% Harbor Transit -20% 8% -14% -23% South East Area Transit -25% 24% -7% 19% Cass Area Transit -47% 4% -45% -58% Licking County Transit -59% 22% -51% -47% Average -24% 10% -19% -19%

Figure 4 - Cost Effectiveness Trends (2014–2018)

Farebox Recovery Cost Per Rider 50% $35 $30 40% $25 30% $20

20% $15 $10 10% $5 0% $0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Revenue Per Rider Revenue Per Revenue Hour $12 $20 $10 $15 $8 $6 $10 $4 $5 $2 $0 $0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx December 18, 2019 Peer Group Comparison Memo Page 14

F. Conclusion

This analysis examined LCT’s performance in relation to four peer systems that exhibited similar performance characteristics and may provide a roadmap for future evolution of LCT in terms of services provided. Key findings of the analysis are outlined below:

• LCT is the only system of the peers that provides a demand response only service delivery method. Demand response service generally is more expensive on a per rider basis than deviated or fixed route service due to the nature of providing door to door service for each rider compared to curbside service where riders would walk from a bus stop allowing the bus to travel along a designated route. • Several challenges are common across most systems, including a growth in operating expenses and a decline in farebox recovery. • LCT’s cost per rider is highest among the peer systems at $31.43. The increase in cost per rider from 2014 to 2018 was also second highest among the peer systems (22 percent). A contributing factor for the increased cost per rider may be the changeover from two different contract operators in 2017 and 2018. • In terms of cost efficiency, LCT’s cost per hour is the group median ($58.28), and cost per mile is second lowest at $2.75. However, LCT saw the highest growth in cost per mile and the second highest growth in cost per hour between 2014 and 2018. • While LCT has the lowest trips per vehicle revenue hour among the peer systems, it was one of only two systems to see this measure increase between 2014 and 2018. • Only LCT and SEAT saw a loss in ridership between 2014 and 2018. • Service types provided by peer systems such as deviated routes and fixed routes may help maintain or grow ridership and contribute to better performance on service effectiveness measures and smaller increases in the costs of providing service.

K:\014610-000\Admin\Docs\Peer Group\draft peer group memo_121319.docx

Attachment K - Organizational and Staffing Management Plan

Memorandum

To: Matt Hill (LCATS)

From: Tom Cruikshank (WSB) Austin Hauf (WSB)

Date: February 20, 2020

Re: Licking County Transit Development Plan (TDP) & Coordinated Plan (CP) Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan

A. Summary As part of the TDP process, WSB staff assessed governance, staffing and training needs for Licking County Transit (LCT). LCT’s organizational and governance structure is consistent with typical small transit agencies. However, there are a number of short-term actions that should be taken and three long-term actions that should be revisited as the agency continues to evolve.

WSBENG.COM

| Short-Term • Complete new and refresher training in the areas identified in the Training Opportunities section below to meet needs identified by LCT staff. • Update or rewrite driver manual to meet current needs. • Hold board retreat with Licking County Transit Board (LCTB) members to define

763.541.4800 goals and responsibilities. Continue to hold this event annually. |

• Start employee mentorship program to improve performance, engagement, and staff retention.

55416

| Long-Term • As future service types are added, assign needed staff functions (street supervisor, marketing, planning, mobility manager, etc.) to existing positions and/or pursue hiring additional staff. • Establish a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to advocate for the needs of transit users in the County. • Consider establishing a joint powers agreement to engage communities in Licking

MINNEAPOLIS, MN County in funding transit.

B. Background Prior to January 1, 2019, LCT was operated under contract by private transportation providers. While Licking County owned the transit vehicles and operations facilities,

SU ITE 3 0 0 contractors provided maintenance and handled driver hiring and training, insurance, safety

| oversight, and management. A contract with National Express expired at the end of 2017, at which point the County began working with MV Transportation in 2018. After voting to not renew the contract with MV Transportation, Licking County absorbed direct operations of the transit system at the start of 2019. 701 XENIA AVENUE S

Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 2

C. Existing Governance and Organizational Structure

1. Governance LCT is currently governed by an appointed seven-member transit board (LCTB) consisting of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and representatives from Licking County, cities, villages, townships and local agencies within Licking County. Board meetings are held monthly at the LCT offices. LCTB’s primary function is to provide oversight of the transit system.

As outlined in the Ohio Rural Transit Program Manual,1 the basic duties of the Licking County Transit governing board should include:

• Establish bylaws and update as needed. • Keep the transit system’s mission statement current. Ensure that it is aligned with the needs of the community. • Recruit and employ the General Manager to lead the transit system effectively and efficiently. • Fiduciary duty to act reasonably, competently and in the best interest of the transit system. • Participate in strategic planning and monitor progress. Update as needed. • Preserve and protect the fiscal integrity, including all assets, of the transit system. • Conduct board business in compliance with Ohio Sunshine Laws. • Be familiar with the requirements of the Ohio Ethics Commission.

Various resources exist that provide in-depth information on transit board governance, such as the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 85, Public Transit Board Governance Guidebook.2

2. Organizational Structure and Management Figure C.1 shows the current structure of the LCT organization. Agencies that provide technical, financial, or policy assistance are connected via a dotted line. A description and overview of current LCT staff member roles are provided below.

1 Available by visiting http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/Transit/Pages/Publications.aspx 2 TCRP Report 85 is available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_85.pdf Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 3

Figure C.1 - Current LCT Organizational Structure

General Manager The General Manager oversees the overall day-to-day operations of the transit system and works with and reports directly to the board. They also act as the community representative for LCT, perform personnel relations, conduct training, develop and implement policies and procedures, manage grants and conduct planning and marketing for LCT services.

Operations Manager The Operations Manager is responsible for all street operations, operators, maintenance, dispatching and customer service functions and reports to the General Manager.

Fiscal Officer The Fiscal Officer is responsible for all financial aspects of transit operations, including budgeting, financial reporting and audits and reports to the General Manager.

Transit Reservationists/Dispatchers Dispatchers are responsible for interacting with users of the transit system, scheduling rides, and coordinating with Operators to ensure efficient operations.

Transportation Supervisor The Transportation Supervisor is responsible for overseeing the operators and ensuring that the operators are performing their jobs safely, with good customer service and in a timely manner.

Operators Operators drive the transit vehicles that make up the LCT fleet. Operators must meet minimum requirements for providing safe, reliable service with good customer service.

Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 4

Lead Mechanic The Lead Mechanic oversees the team of mechanics and all repair and maintenance services for the LCT fleet, keeps all maintenance records and proper tools, parts and materials inventories.

Mechanics Mechanics are responsible for keeping transit vehicles and equipment in safe, reliable operating condition.

Bus Detailer The Bus Detailer is responsible for maintaining the interior and exterior appearance of transit vehicles to ensure a clean and professional appearance.

3. Peer System Structure and Roles LCT’s governance structure provides that LCTB members are appointed from the County Commissioners, local communities and agencies throughout the County. Each transit agency has its own individual governance and organizational structure that best meet its particular needs in terms of policy oversight and daily operations. LCT has established a structure that they feel best fits the governance of the LCT operations and staff.

LCT peers identified in the Transit Development Plan each have their own organizational structure, however the basic structure and staff functions are relatively consistent. Common functions include a governing board, General Manager, Assistant or Operations Manager, Fiscal Officer or Accounting, Trainer, Planner or Mobility Manager, Operations or Transportation Supervisor, Lead Mechanic or Maintenance Manager, vehicle operators, dispatchers, call takers and other support personnel such as vehicle detailers or fuelers.

Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit (LFPT) System LFPT provides curb-to-curb demand response, shared ride transit service in Fairfield County as well as five deviated fixed routes that run on a continuous hourly loop. Figure C.2 shows the current structure of LFPT, which in contrast to LCT includes an Assistant Director role. The Assistant Director performs a variety of functions in support of the Transit Director, including but not limited to the following:3

• Provides leadership and direction in the development of short-and long-range plans. • Formulates and recommends policies, programs, procedures for transit services, including but not limited to schedules, fares, routes, and other base operations. • Completes and/or assists the Director with mandatory and regulatory City, State, and/or Federal reports regarding financial, ridership, and personnel matters. • Assists the Director with applications and reports and administers approved programs funded by the Ohio Department of Transportation and other agencies. • Perform monthly safety meetings. • Maintains harmony among workers and investigate and resolve grievances as per policy and standards set out by the Ohio Revised Code. • Ensures adequate training for all subordinates, maintains training records and develops additional situational training either independently or in conjunction with other County agencies or groups.

3 Position information provided courtesy of Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit System. Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 5

Figure C.2 - Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit Organizational Structure

Source: Lancaster-Fairfield Public Transit System

South East Area Transit (SEAT) SEAT operates countywide demand response service in Guernsey and Muskingum Counties, three fixed routes in Zanesville and two fixed routes in Cambridge, as well as Elderly & Disabled ADA curb-to-curb paratransit service Monday through Friday. Figure C.3 shows SEAT’s current organizational structure. In addition to a Business Director and Mobility Manager, SEAT’s structure also includes dedicated customer service representatives. Job duties performed by SEAT customer service representatives include, but are not limited to:4

• Responsible for intake of transportation related calls to the agency • Communicates with transportation providers, consumers and other agencies in regards to setup of transportation services for eligible individuals according to established program standards. • Inputs required reporting information into agency reporting software. • Assists consumers with verifying services that have been authorized/scheduled for them. • Assist with assigned duties in other positions as needed/requested. • Perform all duties in compliance with Agency policies, procedures, and a code of conduct that represents the Agency with pride. • Accurately look-up, retrieve, and enter data.

4 Position information provided courtesy of South East Area Transit. Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 6

Figure C.3 - South East Area Transit Organizational Structure

Source: South East Area Transit

Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 7

Peer System Comparison Table C.1 provides a side by side comparison of similar roles within the three peer systems based on the organizational structures described above.

Table C.1 - Ohio Peer System Existing Staff Roles Comparison

LCT LFPT SEAT General Manager Transit Director Transit Director Business Director Operations Director Operations Manager Transit Assistant Director Mobility Manager Fiscal Officer GC Office Manager Transit Center Supervisor Lead Mechanic Maintenance Director Transit Safety & Security Transportation Supervisor Lead Operator Supervisor Operators Operators Drivers Dispatcher Transit Dispatchers Scheduler Reservationists/Dispatchers Scheduler Customer Service Representatives Mechanics Mechanics Hostler Mechanic Bus Detailer Building & Grounds Maintenance Administrative Assistant Clerical Assistant Receptionist Greyhound Agent

D. Training

1. Staff Needs Interviews with transit agency staff were conducted as part of the TDP process to identify strengths as well as areas for improvement. Interview questions and additional items discussed are outlined in the Employee Interview Memorandum.5 Based on comments received during the staff interviews, there are several needs related to staff training, as shown in Table D.1. Addressing these needs should be a short-term priority for LCT leadership.

5 This memo is available as a standalone document and as an attachment to the System Overview and Identification of Issues Technical Memo. The contents will be incorporated into the final TDP. Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 8

Table D.1 - Training Needs Identified by LCT Staff

2. Training Opportunities All LCT staff and leadership must receive some level of training during their tenure to ensure the transit services provided comply with Federal and State regulations. The ODOT Office of Transit provides various training opportunities, including:

• New Transit Manager Training • Drug and Alcohol Training • Rural Roundtables (topics include financial and operational matters, vehicle management, facility management, and changes in State and Federal regulations)

All operations staff (managers, drivers, and dispatchers) should be familiar with ODOT and FTA training requirements and ensure that proper training is provided. Some training courses require re-certification, and training records including proof of course completion must be tracked and kept up to date.

Key training courses include: • First Aid • CPR • Defensive Driving Course • DRIVE Training or Passenger Assistance Techniques • Bloodborne Pathogens • Wheelchair securement training • Drug and Alcohol Training

Additional training may include: • Passenger Relations • Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Requirements (including Pre and Post Trip Inspections) • Radio Procedures • Document Requirements • Weather Condition Policies • Vehicle Familiarization • Basic Operations and Maneuvering • Vehicle Evacuation • Pre and Post Trip Inspections Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 9

E. Performance Measures The ODOT Office of Transit’s Status of Public Transit in Ohio report for 20186 provides detailed information on expenses, staffing, and performance measures for transit systems across the State. While the data used for this report is from 2016, it provides a snapshot of how different systems deliver transit service. It should be noted that the measures shown below provide only one perspective on system performance and must be viewed in the context of specific operating conditions and the types of service delivered.

Table E.1 shows the breakdown of operating and administrative expenses for LCT and two peer systems in Ohio as well as administrative expenses as a percentage of the total for each system and service type combination. Figure E.1 illustrates administrative and total expenses for each system. For demand response services, LCT’s administrative expenses were higher than LFPT as a percentage of the total, but comparable to SEAT. In terms of total system expenses, the gap between SEAT and LCT widens slightly due to the inclusion of costs related to SEAT’s fixed route services.

Table E.1 - Ohio Peer System Operating and Administrative Expense Breakdown (2016)

Admin/ System and Service Type Operating Admin Total Total (%) Fixed Route Licking County Transit n/a n/a n/a Lancaster Public Transit System n/a n/a n/a South East Area Transit $493,039 $166,527 $659,566 25% Demand Response Licking County Transit $2,536,192 $500,958 $3,037,150 16% Lancaster Public Transit System $1,293,018 $144,544 $1,437,562 10% South East Area Transit $1,590,970 $318,042 $1,909,012 17% Total Licking County Transit $2,536,192 $500,958 $3,037,150 16% Lancaster Public Transit System $1,293,018 $144,544 $1,437,562 10% South East Area Transit $2,084,009 $484,569 $2,568,578 19%

6 Available at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/Transit/Pages/Publications.aspx Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 10

Figure E.1 - Ohio Peer System Administrative and Total Expenses (2016)

$3,500,000

$3,000,000

$2,500,000

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$500,000

$0 Lancaster Licking County South East Public Transit Transit Area Transit System

Total Admin

Table E.2 shows administrative expenses per vehicle revenue hour for demand response services alone as well as all service types provided by the peer systems. LCT’s administrative cost per hour was slightly higher than LFPT, but significantly lower than SEAT.

Table E.2 - Ohio Peer System Administrative Expenses per Vehicle Revenue Hour (2016)

Demand Response Admin Expense Admin Expense per Vehicle per Vehicle System Revenue Hour Revenue Hour Licking County Transit $6.92 $6.92 Lancaster Public Transit System $4.23 $4.23 South East Area Transit $19.54 $28.09

Table E.3 shows total staffing per vehicle revenue hour. This portion of the analysis used updated staff numbers as of February 2020, 2018 vehicle revenue hour data from NTD, and assumes that all positions are filled including 25 LCT operators. Under these assumptions, LCT provides a vehicle revenue hour of service with fewer staff than LFPT or SEAT.

Table E.3 - Ohio Peer System Staffing per Vehicle Revenue Hour (2018)

Vehicle Revenue Number Staffing per Vehicle System Hours (2018) of Staff(1) Revenue Hour Licking County Transit 67,361 39 0.00058 Lancaster Public Transit System 32,844 39 0.00119 South East Area Transit 24,590 46 0.00187 (1) Current as of Feb. 2020. Assumes no vacancies and a full staff of 25 LCT operators. Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 11

F. Future Organizational Structure

1. Future Staff Roles It is likely that future growth of LCT service types, including potential deviated route and fixed route service, will require expansion of current staff and would include staff associated with a more robust service provider. For LCT, this would include more significant management of services, with a focus on resources for managing staff with inclusion of street supervision, training, and human resources support. Additional support may also be required to enhance marketing and communications in addition to community outreach and mobility management.

Further areas of staff function would include:

• Street Supervision • Dispatch Coordinator • Human Resources and Training • Marketing and Communications • Mobility Coordinator • Planner

Street Supervisor The Street Supervisor works on-street with vehicle Operators to ensure that safe, reliable, on- time and efficient transit service is being provided. The Street Supervisor reports to the Transportation Supervisor and Operations Manager.

Dispatch Coordinator The Dispatch Coordinator provides support and backup to the schedulers and dispatchers while assuring that dispatching staff are performing at a high level of customer service and following policies and procedures.

Human Resources and Training The human resources function within LCT is shared between Licking County Human Resources staff and the LCT General Manager. As the system evolves, there may be a need to reevaluate what HR tasks transit management staff take on directly. The employee training function can be incorporated within human resources or may be included in the Operations Manager or Transportation Supervisor role.

Marketing and Communications Coordinator The Marketing and Communications Coordinator would develop all internal and external marketing, advertising or public relations information for the organization. This position would be responsible for maintaining all print and online and social media content, including schedule information and any route or bus stop signage.

Mobility Coordinator The Mobility Coordinator is dedicated to promoting and improving the mobility of residents and/or agency clientele. They are responsible for coordinating transportation resources and providing public education regarding existing transportation resources. The Mobility Coordinator also works to build awareness among decision makers, service providers, and riders on key issues related to the coordination of transportation and human services. Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 12

Planner The Planner conducts short- and long-range planning and service evaluations which are essential parts of the administration, management, and operation of a transit system. Input from a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and technical assistance from ODOT can play important roles in ongoing planning efforts. Licking County Area Transportation Study (LCATS) could continue to provide planning assistance directly to LCT in lieu of having a Planner on staff.

Figure F.1 shows a proposed LCT org chart that incorporates future positions, which are marked with an asterisk and highlighted in yellow.

Figure F.1 - Proposed (Future) LCT Organizational Structure

*Potential new position

2. Staffing Needs for Proposed Service Scenarios The Service Scenario Technical Memo7 outlines four value added/enhancement opportunities for future LCT service, shown alongside the current service scenario in Table F.1.

7 This memo is available as a standalone document. The contents will be incorporated into the final TDP. Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 13

Table F.1 - Current and Proposed Service Scenario Overview

# of Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Trips Annual Service Scenario Routes Requirement Hours Miles Cost Estimate Existing Service(1) - 34 67,361 394,051 124,899 $3,926,057 (Demand Response) Deviated Fixed Route 5 5 24,865 394,069 34,660 $1,394,915 – Alternative A Deviated Fixed Route 7 7 28,122 574,052 35,768 $1,577,603 – Alternative B Fixed Route 5 5 24,865 394,069 34,660 $2,248,773 – Alternative A Fixed Route 7 7 28,122 574,052 35,768 $2,543,287 – Alternative B (1) Based on 2018 NTD data.

Current staffing levels and projected vehicle hours were used to calculate planning-level full- time equivalents (FTEs) for operators, dispatchers, and mechanics under each service scenario (Table F.2). Assumptions for this analysis include:

Table F.2 - Planning-Level FTE Needs for Service Scenario Implementation

Current Deviated Deviated Fixed Route Fixed Route Route – Alt A Route – Alt B – Alt A – Alt B Operators 25(1) 12.4 14.1 12.4 14.1 Dispatchers 7 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.9 Mechanics 3(2) 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 (1) Assumes full staffing. (2) Includes lead mechanic.

These FTE figures should be interpreted as a high-level estimate of the number of additional staff required to implement each service scenario if existing staff continued to provide demand response service with no changes. However, it is likely that with implementation of these scenarios, some portion of the existing demand response ridership would shift to deviated route or fixed route services, eventually reducing staff needs for that service type. At the same time, ridership and call volumes may increase after service changes are implemented due to latent demand from riders whose needs were not being met by the existing service. Staff needs will need to be reevaluated as these trends become clear following implementation.

Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 14

G. Alternative Governance Structures Like LCT, SEAT is governed by a transit board, in this case referred to as a Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is made up of 11 members appointed by Muskingum County, Guernsey County, the Cities of Zanesville and Cambridge, and the Village of South Zanesville. As of January 1, 2020, LFPT is operated directly by the City of Lancaster.

1. State of Ohio Recognized Governance Structures The Ohio Rural Transit Program Manual provides the following guidance on governance structures for providers of transit services:

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 306 describes three different governing boards under which transit services can be provided: 1) Board of County Commissioners; 2) County Transit Board; or 3) Regional Transit Authority. Please note that no county transit board can be appointed nor any county transit system established in any county which is included in whole or in part in a regional transit authority.

In addition, municipalities and villages as well as townships are also government structures under the ORC through which transit services can be provided (ORC 733 and 505, respectively).

Board of County Commissioners If a Board of County Commissioners wishes to operate and assume all duties and powers to provide transit services, it must follow the ORC 306 provisions 306.04, 306.06, 306.08, 306.09, 306.10, 306.12, and 306.13. This information is available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/306.

County Transit Board If a Board of County Commissioners wishes to establish a separate board that will operate and assume all duties and powers to provide transit services for its county residence, it can do so by establishing a County Transit Board (CTB) as described in ORC 306.01. A CTB must follow ORC 306.01 through 306.13 and 306.99 as available at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/306. Membership is limited to seven members, of which no more than four can be of the same political party (ORC 306.02).

Regional Transit Authority Any county, or any two or more counties, municipal corporations, or townships, or any combination of these, may create a regional transit authority (RTA) by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance by the board of county commissioners of each county, the legislative authority of each municipal corporation, and the board of township trustees of each township which is to create or to join in the creation of the RTA (ORC 306.32). The responsibilities, duties, and provisions of a RTA are found in ORC 306.30 through 306.53 at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/306. The number of Members appointed to the RTA Board of Trustees is described in ORC 306.32(E), 306.33, and 306.331.

2. Joint Powers Agreement The peer systems studied do not have joint powers agreements at this time. If LCT wishes to increase available funding by developing a financial relationship with cities in the County, it should consider a joint powers agreement. MnDOT’s guide, Collaborative Strategies for Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 15

Redesigning Transit Systems: Guidance for Coordination, Cooperation, and Consolidation8 provides a useful summary of three different structural models for joint powers agreements:

3. Transportation Advisory Committee LCT should also work to establish a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to advocate for the community’s interest in transit. The Ohio Rural Transit Program Manual provides a useful description of the structure and duties of a TAC:

A TAC (sometimes referred to as Transportation Advisory Boards or TABS) serves as an advisor to the transit service governing board and its management team. It functions as a citizen’s advocacy group dedicated to improving and expanding the public transit system. It also provides a platform for public and special-needs transportation users and stakeholders as well as the overall community.

8 Available at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/transit-for-our-future/docs/guidance-for- coordination-cooperation-consolidation.pdf Draft Organizational and Staffing Management Plan February 20, 2020 Page 16

H. Recommendations LCT’s organizational and governance structure is consistent with typical small transit agencies. However, there are a number of short-term actions that should be taken and three long-term actions that should be revisited as the agency continues to evolve.

Long-Term • As future service types are added, assign needed staff functions (street supervisor, marketing, planning, mobility manager, etc.) to existing positions and/or pursue hiring additional staff. • Establish a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to advocate for the needs of transit users in the County. • Consider establishing a joint powers agreement to engage communities in Licking County in funding transit.

Attachment L - Marketing and Communications Memorandum

Memorandum

To: Matt Hill (LCATS)

From: Tom Cruikshank (WSB) Austin Hauf (WSB)

Date: February 17, 2020

Re: Licking County Transit Development Plan (TDP) & Coordinated Plan (CP) Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum

A. Summary This memorandum was completed as part of the planning process for the Licking County Transit Development Plan (TDP) & Coordinated Plan (CP). Following the TDP process, Licking County Transit (LCT) should explore the following recommendations related to marketing and communications:

• Focus first on the quality of the existing service before investing heavily in marketing. WSBENG.COM

| • Complete an assessment of staff and financial capacity for conducting marketing

activities and set priorities based on available resources. • Improve the accessibility and usefulness of the LCT website with a focus on current and potential users. • Establish consistency in the use of the LCT logo and other brand elements, especially on

763.541.4800 transit vehicles. |

• Utilize free resources such as the National Rural Transit Assistance Program Marketing Toolkit to make the best use of staff time. This toolkit provides additional guidance on the specific marketing and communications strategies outlined in this memorandum, as well 55416

| as templates, examples, and libraries of copyright-free images and graphics that can be used to enhance marketing materials. M N • As new service types are added, reevaluate marketing and communication efforts to ensure that they meet the needs of current and potential riders.

B. Introduction Quality and consistent marketing are proactive strategies for effective communication between MINNEAPOLIS,

the public and the transit system. Transit marketing can advertise to new riders, communicate

with current riders and advocate for transit support from the public and elected officials. An ongoing marketing program can provide many benefits, including:

• Building awareness of public transit services

SU ITE 3 0 0 • Addressing misconceptions about transit services

| • Increasing ridership by reaching individuals whose needs can be met by transit • Providing complete and accurate information to existing transit users • Influencing decision makers to support public transit • Soliciting feedback from current or potential transit users • Satisfying funding requirements

701 XENIA AVENUE S

Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 2

This memorandum includes an analysis of barriers and target audiences for transit marketing and communications, outlines strategies and best practices, and provides a list of recommendations for marketing and communications going forward.

The identification of barriers and recommendations draws on a review of LCT’s existing marketing and communications materials as well as stakeholder interviews, public engagement, and existing conditions analyses completed as part of the planning process for the TDP & CP.

C. Local Transit Market Barriers There are challenges to marketing and communications in every public transit market. Transit market barriers in Licking County are outlined below. Where applicable, comments received during the public engagement process are included to illustrate the barrier being discussed. Identified barriers include:

1. Service Challenges 2. Public Perception 3. Lack of Knowledge of Transit Services 4. Scheduling System 5. Vehicle Appearance 6. Current Passenger Information Resources 7. Work Schedules

1. Service Challenges If transit service is not meeting public expectations, the impact of marketing will be limited. Poor customer service, unreliable vehicles, difficulty in hiring drivers, and schedule deviation affect the ability of a transit system to provide the types of benefits that marketing efforts often focus on. Marketing will also have little effect on services that do not meet the needs of potential riders.

“Having to call 2 weeks ahead of time is not feasible for folks.” “Two week advanced notice required”

2. Public Perception It is not uncommon for community members to perceive demand response public transportation as being designed to serve only older adults and people with disabilities. However, these services are used by all types of people and have the potential to meet the transportation needs of many others. In addition, public transportation suffers from a general social stigma in many parts of the United States, meaning that many see it as a last resort when they have no other transportation options. If a transit service experiences real or perceived issues that are known within the community, a narrative can grow around a system that impacts public perception.

“I don't know much about it; isn't it only on-call for elderly and disabled?”

3. Lack of Knowledge of Transit Services Since traveling via transit generally requires some amount of planning, either through making a ride reservation or reviewing a schedule, the amount and quality of information provided by the agency to the traveling public is key to its success. In order to utilize transit services, the public must know the area served, how much the service costs and how to pay, where to board, how to request a stop or make a transfer, etc. Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 3

“Information about public transit in my area is so difficult to find.” “There is not any form of public transit in Johnstown.”

4. Scheduling System LCT currently serves many individuals with disabilities but requires that rides be scheduled over the phone. This creates a barrier for people who otherwise use transit as a way to maintain their independence. Since transit is publicly funded, there is a need to ensure effective communication with people with disabilities, older adults, populations with limited English proficiency, and others who may be transportation disadvantaged.

5. Vehicle Appearance LCT’s existing transit vehicles feature simple graphics that make them hard to distinguish from the various other agencies that provide transportation services in Licking County. They also do not feature the LCT logo that is used in other marketing and informational materials, and therefore lack consistency with the other elements of the LCT brand. The LCT phone number is prominently displayed but the LCT website address is not included.

6. Current Passenger Information Resources LCT’s existing website contains very little information and does not focus on the most important information needed by current riders or potential riders. The service guide brochure is accessible at the bottom of the home page via a link to a PDF, which is more difficult to access for individuals with disabilities who may be navigating using a screen reader compared to providing the information using HTML. In addition, the brochure itself is text- heavy and gives the impression that the service is difficult to use.

7. Work Schedules Comments received during the public engagement process indicate a need for transit that serves workers who do not work a traditional day shift. As of 2017, the Amazon Fulfillment Center was the largest employer in Licking County, and employment growth is projected for the industrial employers in the western portion of the county. Stakeholder interviews indicated that transportation is a major barrier for employers looking to fill open positions, but LCT does not currently have the capacity to meet this need.

“Would help if service ran to Amazon for all shifts to help employ those with no transportation.”

D. Target Audiences Different audiences will respond to different marketing messages. Key audiences for transit marketing include current riders, potential riders, and non-riders. Each audience group is described below.

Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 4

1. Current Riders People who already use transit need information that will allow them to continue using transit to meet their needs. Providing this information is necessary to keep these individuals as current riders. The on-board survey completed as part of the TDP process provides some insight into who currently uses LCT’s services. For example, given the high percentage of riders who consider themselves to have a disability, delivering information in a way that is accessible to these individuals is key.

On-Board Survey Demographic Highlights • 91% White or Caucasian, 9% Black or African American • Household Income: 72% less than $25,000, 85% less than $50,000 • 86% do not have a driver’s license • 89% consider themselves to have a disability • Vehicles in household: 0 (40%), 1 (27%), 2+ (33%)

2. Potential Riders Potential riders are individuals with transportation needs that may be able to be met by transit. Potential riders who would most likely benefit from transit include youth, seniors, minority populations, people with disabilities, low income families, and persons without access to a car. Making these individuals aware of the benefits of transit and how the system works can encourage them to try it. An analysis completed as part of the TDP process shows the presence of large numbers of individuals in Licking County who would traditionally be described as transit-dependent (Table D.1). In a community survey conducted for the TDP, 62 percent of respondents indicated that they would be “likely” or “very likely” to use Licking County Transit if the service was improved.

Table D.1 - Transit Dependent Populations, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates

“Many students living on the OSU Newark campus do not have cars. This hinders their ability to travel around the city, and therefore limiting the economic impact they have on the city.”

3. Non-Riders The remaining community members who are not current or potential riders are non-riders. These individuals may not be a source of future ridership, but they still benefit from the economic and social benefits generated by transit and can therefore be advocates for the system. Some of these community members and organizations, sometimes referred to as Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 5

“gatekeepers,” can help potential riders learn about and access transit services. Examples of gatekeepers include educational institutions, social services, or employers. This audience needs to receive information about the benefits of transit to the community from transit staff and board members, passenger testimonials, and other means.

E. Fundamental Strategies Branding and passenger information are the two most important elements of transit marketing and communication.

1. Branding A transit system’s brand includes its name, logo, vehicle graphics, and bus stop signage and facilities. Consistent branding helps current and potential riders see the connections between these elements and navigate the existing system effectively. While LCT does not currently have bus stops or facilities, these elements should be revisited as options for future services are explored.

1. Name The name of a transit system can influence public perception of the service. Therefore, it is important for a name to convey the service area and who can use the service in addition to being simple, easy to say, and easy to remember. LCT’s existing name already does this effectively. Figure E.1 - Current LCT Logo 2. Logo At the most basic level, a transit system’s logo should visually represent the name of the transit system. An effective logo should be used across all elements of the system including the website, brochures, vehicles, uniforms, and any signage or facilities. This ensures an association between these elements and the overall system. A good logo:

• Should be simple, visually pleasing, and easy to identify • Is readable at various sizes • Works in black and white • Uses colors consistent with other transit Figure E.2 - Example Logo system materials • Can be converted to horizontal or vertical orientation

Figure E.1 shows the current LCT logo. While it is simple and attractive, it must be reproduced at a significant size to read the “Licking County” text. It is mostly a solid color, while the text is a small portion of the overall logo. Figure E.2 shows an example of Source: National Rural Transit Assistance a logo that emphasizes the name of the transit Program system, has horizontal and vertical options, and could work at nearly any size across a variety of materials. Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 6

3. Vehicle Graphics In addition to creating a public identity for the transit service, good vehicle graphics can themselves be a form of advertising. Transit vehicles are most distinctive when they have a base color other than white, which helps distinguish them from other community transportation providers. Graphics should be consistent Figure E.3 - Current LCT Vehicle Appearance: Class 400 across all vehicles in the fleet Medium-Size Light-Duty Transit Bus and should include key information such as the transit system logo, phone number, and website address. Figure E.3 shows an example of LCT’s existing vehicle graphics. Figure E.4 shows before and after images of a transit vehicle with improved graphics. It should be noted that vehicle graphics are different than advertising on transit vehicles, which is intended to generate revenue.

Figure E.4 - Vehicle Graphics Example

Before After

Source: National Rural Transit Assistance Program

4. Bus Stop Signage (Future Need) Bus stop signage serves the dual purposes of showing transit users where to board and improving the visibility of the transit system in the community. The presence of good bus stop signage can indicate to potential riders that a key destination or portion of a community is served by transit. Signage should include the universal bus symbol, the transit system logo, phone number, email address, and any relevant route or schedule information. Figure E.5 shows examples of bus stop signage. Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 7

Figure E.5 - Bus Stop Signage Examples

Source: National Rural Transit Assistance Program

5. Bus Stop Facilities (Future Need) Where bus stops with amenities (shelters, benches, waste disposal, etc.) are provided, they should be visually consistent with the other elements of the transit system’s brand. This includes colors, the transit system logo, and any other stylistic elements. Figure E.6 shows two examples of branding on bus stop facilities.

Figure E.6 - Bus Stop Facility Examples

Source: National Rural Transit Assistance Program

2. Passenger Information Effective delivery of passenger information is one of the elements that makes a transit system accessible to the public. Passenger information should be targeted at current riders, who need accurate information to use the service for day-to-day trips, and potential riders, who will be dissuaded from trying transit if information is not easy to access and understand.

1. Service Guide A service or rider’s guide is an essential tool for conveying information to transit users and marketing the service. Key information to include for a demand response service includes:

Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 8

• A service area map, including landmarks and key destinations • Hours of service • Eligibility requirements • How to make a reservation • Information on how to ride, including fares, cancellation policy, etc.

LCT’s existing service guide provides useful information, but has an overwhelming amount of text, distracting text colors, and gives the impression that the service is difficult to use (Attachment A). Information such as the no-show policy and list of funding sources could be removed and provided via other means. Guides can be designed to function as two different documents: folded and distributed as a brochure or opened and used as a poster. Attachment B shows an example of a simple demand response service guide provided by the National Rural Transit Assistance Program. Service guides should be widely distributed throughout the community, especially at locations regularly served by transit. A display that is consistent with the brand will help draw attention and establishing a good relationship with staff at each distribution location will ensure that the materials are always available.

As additional service types are added in the future, transit staff will need to evaluate whether information on all services is provided via a single service guide or one for each service type. This will depend on whether transfers between the two services are anticipated and how much overlap exists between the ridership of each service. If multiple guides are created, they should both be readily available and contain basic information about all service types offered. Service guides should be updated whenever critical information needed to navigate the system changes.

2. Website A transit system’s website is one of the first stops for potential riders looking for information. Key principles for an effective transit website include the following:

• Easy access, including a short and memorable URL. • A focus on current and potential transit system users as the primary audiences • Visually simple and easy to navigate to facilitate scanning rather than reading • Functional and accessible on both desktop and mobile devices (known as responsive design) • Regularly updated, current information

LCT’s home page is a critical communication opportunity and should contain information that people who currently use the system need. This includes the areas served, fares, how to make a reservation, contact information for customer service, and rider alerts for items such as holiday hours, weather, or other service changes. The existing LCT website (Figure E.7) only contains some of this information and must be read closely to gather it from the text. Figure E.8 shows the homepage for South East Area Transit (SEAT), which serves Muskingum, Guernsey, and Noble Counties and is based in Zanesville, OH. In addition to being easy to navigate quickly, it features a simple and easy to remember URL (seatbus.org) and is accessible on mobile devices. If additional service types are added in the future, items such as an interactive service area map, trip planner, routes/schedules, or other items may become important additions to the homepage.

Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 9

Figure E.7 - Current LCT Home Page (https://lickingcounty.gov/depts/public/default.htm)

Figure E.8 - SEAT (Zanesville, OH) Home Page (seatbus.org)

Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 10

Other information should be available on the website but does not need to be immediately accessible on the homepage. Examples include:

• Contact form for questions/comments • Year-round calendar • Vehicle information, including wheelchair accessibility and bike rack availability • Links to related transportation services • Administrative and governance information, including Title VI Statement and Complaint Form, agency policy statements, board meeting schedule, agenda and minutes, job postings, and agency mission and history.

3. Mobile Application Transit systems are increasingly using smartphone applications to communicate schedules, system updates, rider alerts, vehicle location, and other information to riders. Systems with designated routes may also create applications that include trip planning functionality to help riders more accurately estimate travel times. While creating a website that is fully accessible on mobile devices should be a higher priority, LCT should also explore options for creating a mobile application, especially as new service types are added.

4. Rider Alerts Rider alerts are another way to provide up-to-date information to current riders. The alerts are short messages sent via email, text message, or social media that include information on changes or disruptions to service related to weather or another emergency.

5. Telephone Support Providing information and customer service via telephone is especially important for certain groups of transit users including older adults and people with low literacy. The transit system phone number should be prominently displayed on all electronic and printed materials, vehicles, and the website.

F. Outreach and Awareness Strategies Effectively using the strategies outlined below to build awareness of and engagement with LCT will require a marketing plan and calendar looking roughly 6-12 months into the future. Framing outreach around system milestones, community events, service changes, or other items of note can be a way to generate additional interest around the transit system.

1. Social Media Social media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram can be used to communicate brief messages to current riders or create interest among potential riders. For these methods of communication to be effective, they must be updated regularly and contain brief, focused content.

2. Website and Email Updates LCT’s website can be a useful medium for conveying updates about the transit system. The existing website does not have an easily viewable space for news but could be modified to feature this information. Updates can also be provided to a list of email subscribers gathered using a form on the LCT website. Email can be a useful way to provide service information to decision makers and “gatekeepers” who may not use transit themselves but may generate ridership from the people around them.

Draft Marketing and Communications Memorandum February 17, 2020 Page 11

3. Newspaper Information about transit can be provided via newspapers through news releases or paid advertising. This strategy is particularly effective in smaller communities, and allows service information, testimonials, or other content to be communicated visually.

4. Community Events Transit is an important community asset and should be visible at community events whenever possible. This can be useful for providing important rider information as well as improving the perception of transit in the community. Focusing efforts on groups identified as potential riders, such as senior resource fairs, college orientation events, etc. will help target relevant information to current and potential riders.

5. Stakeholder Relationships Building and maintaining good relationships with transit stakeholders is an important marketing strategy. Social service agencies, educational institutions, and other sources of potential ridership generate positive or negative word of mouth about public transportation. Connecting with staff representing stakeholder organizations provides another channel for delivering messages about transit to current and potential riders.

6. Broadcast Media Both free and paid advertising opportunities exist using broadcast media. Some local radio stations will accept public service announcements and read them on the air over a set of specific dates. If budget allows, paid TV or radio advertisements can be used to promote transit. Messages must reach the correct target audience and geographic area to be worthwhile. While paid advertisements reduce the marketing burden on transit agency staff, they are only distributed for a short time and are not always the most cost-effective strategy.

G. Recommendations Following the TDP process, LCT should explore the following recommendations related to marketing and communications:

H. Attachments Attachment A - Licking County Transit Board Service Guide Attachment B - Example Service Guide Attachment A - Licking County Transit Board Service Guide

General Information Cancellations & No Shows

 Transit services provided will be curb to curb, assistance to the door is Individuals with No-Shows/Late Cancellations may available if requested be sanctioned or suspended from service according  Same price for all of Licking County to the following guidelines :  Vehicles are wheelchair accessible Cancellations – When you cancel more than 2 hours before your scheduled pick-up time. Ask Scheduler about Bike Racks No Show – When you cancel with less than a 2-hour notice or are not available when the driver arrives to pick you up. TICKET INFO First Occurrence: If an individual has one No- Licking County Transit Serves Show LCT shall contact the individual and document Tickets may be ordered from the occurrence, at which time a 30 day time frame ALL OF LICKING COUNTY Licking County Transit Service by begins. calling 740-670-5185, option #1 Second Occurrence: If an individual has a second Open to the General Public No-Show within 30 days of the first No-Show, LCT SERVICE FUNDED BY shall mail a letter to the individual notifying them that To Schedule a Ride a 3rd No-Show within 30 days of the 2nd incident will Call Licking County Transit:  U.S. DOT Federal Transit result in a review to determine if there is an abuse of Administration the transit service which if found could result in sus- 740-670-5185 (local) or  Ohio Department of Transportation pension of the rider’s eligibility to use the transit ser- 1-800-350-7071 (toll free)  Licking County Commissioners vice for 10 calendar days.  Licking County Board of Third Occurrence: If an individual has a 3rd No- Developmental Disabilities Show within 30 days of the 2nd No-Show the circum-  Licking County Job & Family Services stances regarding all of the occurrences will be re-  United Way viewed. In the event of a suspension LCT shall take  Licking County Senior Citizens Levy the following steps: Notify the individual in writing  Passenger Fares that LCT is suspending their service. The suspension will cite the basis of the proposed suspension and set forth the proposed sanction. And will provide EMERGENCY RIDE HOME written notification and guidance on the LCT Appeals Process. Free service that pays for 100% of cab fare for public transit riders in case of TITLE VI PASSENGER RIGHTS Large print and audio format of emergencies and unexpected overtime. NO PERSON ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, OR NATIONAL Commuters must register with MORPC by ORIGIN WILL BE SUBJECTED TO DISCRIMINATION IN THE LEVEL this document are available upon AND QUALITY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND TRANSIT calling 1-888-742-RIDE (7433) PRIOR to RELATED BENEFITS. PLEASE CALL 740-670-5180 FOR IN- request by calling 740-670-5180 needing the service. FORMATION REGARDING THE PROCEDURES ON FILING A TITLE VI COMPLAINT. Revised August 2017 Fares Service Hours Rules

ADVANCED RESERVATION  Wear your seatbelt SERVICE HOURS (BEST SERVICE)  Remain seated at all times Call at least 1 weekday in advance  While riding, your driver is Monday—Friday responsible for assuring the safety (Monday-Friday) by 1:00 pm and comfort of all passengers. General Public—$4.00 5:00 am—8:00 pm  Please respect the driver and other * Elderly & Disabled—$2.00 1st child with adult—Free Saturday * passengers. Any passenger who Additional Children with adult—$1.00 6:00 am—6:00 pm exhibits prohibited behavior could lose riding privileges. ** Age 7-12 traveling alone—$4.00  Remember to call early on  Drivers ARE NOT permitted to enter Friday for Saturday and Monday home or office SAME DAY SERVICE service.  No smoking, eating, gum, open containers or tobacco use Trips provided as schedule permits SERVICE NOTES  No playing of radios, MP3 players EXACT CHANGE OR TICKETS without headphones  No noisy, disruptive, or mean IS REQUIRED  Service provided on first come first behavior. Be nice to your fellow serve basis citizens. * Elderly (age 65+) may be asked to  Vehicle may arrive 15 minutes before  No weapons or dangerous materials show proof of age or Medicare card. or after your scheduled pick up time.  No pets, except service animals Disabled riders must be enrolled in Please be ready!  No drugs or alcohol Licking County Transit Services Elderly &  Trips will be taken up to 2 weeks in  Shopping bags and Carry-ons are Disabled Half Fare Program. advance. limited to what passenger can hold ** A parent must make reservations for  Driver will wait 3 minutes safely children ages 7-12 traveling alone.  Passengers must cancel trips 2 hours  Personal Care Attendant (PCA) is before scheduled pick up times someone identified to help those with ADA SERVICES  No Shows will be documented disabilities. The PCA rides free. SERVICE IS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISA-  No show return trip will be cancelled BILITIES. ALL SERVICES COMPLY WITH  Car seats to be provided by AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.  Closed New Year’s Day, Memorial passenger PLEASE CALL 740-670-5180 FOR INFORMATION Day, July 4th, Labor Day, REGARDING THE PROCEDURES ON FILING AN ADA Thanksgiving, Christmas. COMPLAINT.  Transit services may close for severe The LCTB has a one-step policy for weather. Information will be provided wheelchair assistance. to local media.

Attachment B - Example Service Guide Serving Greater Alpha County and the Beta Township Community

Dial-a-Ride Fares PER ONE-WAY RIDE

Within Beta Township General Public ...... $3.00 Alpha Transit Child (under 6 yrs.) ...... Free Serving Greater Alpha County and Beta Township Community. Senior (60+) ...... $2.00 Dial-a-Ride Service Persons with Disabilities ...... $2.00 Dial-a-Ride is a shared ride curb-to-curb To or From Locations transit service provided to the general Outside of Beta Township Dial-a-Ride public throughout Alpha County. It serves Beta Township, plus the communities of General Public ...... $6.00 Service Tinytown and Smallville. Child (under 6 yrs.) ...... Free throughout Dial-a-Ride operates Monday through Senior (60+) ...... $4.00 Alpha County Saturday, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. It does not Persons with Disabilities ...... $4.00 operate on holidays. A prior day reservation is required. You can reserve your trip up to two weeks in advance. Emergency same-day reservations are accepted on a space available basis. This guide provides complete information about Dial-a-Ride fares, popular destinations and making a reservation. For more information about Dial-a-Ride service or to make a reservation, please give us a call. Serving Greater Alpha County and the Beta Township Community

AlphaTransit.org AlphaTransit.org AlphaTransit.org 800-000-0000 800-000-0000 800-000-0000 Serving Greater Alpha County and the Beta Township Community

Making a Reservation on Dial-a-Ride 800-000-0000 It is recommended that you make advance reservations for Dial-a-Ride service — at least Where Can You Go one day in advance. You can call up to 2 weeks on Dial-a-Ride ahead of time to schedule your trip. Alpha Transit Dial-a-Ride can take you almost Same-day reservations will be accepted on a anywhere in Alpha County. Here are some space available basis. You must call at least two of our most popular destinations. (2) hours prior to your desired pickup time. Riding Dial-a-Ride To request a Dial-a-Ride trip, call Alpha Transit  Beta Town Mall and be ready to provide the following The dispatcher will give you an estimated  Alpha County Medical Center information: arrival time. However, you should always be  Alpha-Beta Market  Name and the number of riders ready at least thirty (30) minutes prior to the  Alpha -Beta Community College scheduled pick up time as the schedule may  Pick up location and destination  Tinytown Medical Clinic vary. The vehicle may arrive up to 30  Call back phone number minutes before or 15 minutes after the  AB Medical Offices Please advise the dispatcher if the pickup scheduled time. The driver will wait no  Beta Town Cinemas location is difficult to access, if you (or the longer than three minutes at the pickup  Alpha Senior Apartments passenger) require assistance, or if you must be location. at your destination at a specific time. Dial-a-Ride is a shared ride service, so other Accessible Vehicles Appointments for return trips should be made passengers may be picked up or dropped off Alpha Transit vehicles are all at the time of initial reservation when possible. during your trip. Please allow at least 30 minutes for reaching your destination. fully accessible. Our ramps Cancel Reservations at least make it easy to board in a Attendants wheelchair, scooter or with one hour in advance a walker or stroller. A passenger with a disability is allowed one If you will not be making a trip that you have attendant and that attendant will pay the reserved, you must cancel the reservation at appropriate disability fare. least one hour before the scheduled pickup time. If you cancel a reservation less than one When calling for a reservation, please notify hour in advance, it will be recorded as a “No the dispatcher that an attendant will Show.” accompany the passenger.

AlphaTransit.org • 800-000-0000

Attachment M - Schedules for Proposed Service Alternatives Proposed Route Schedules The following schedules for the routes proposed in the constrained and unconstrained plans were developed based on travel time estimates. They maintain LCT’s current span of service while adding Sunday services. Stops were designated based on commonly pinpointed areas of interest gathered from community engagement activities and are subject to change.

Route 1 – Medical & Government – Weekday

Weekday Select BMV - Senior Downtown Downtown Senior BMV - Family Newark Cherry Valley Specialty Cherry Valley Newark Family Liberty Housing - Newark - Newark - Housing - Liberty Dollar Library Elementary Hospital - Elementary Library Dollar Ave Curtis Ave. Transit Hub Transit Hub Curtis Ave. Ave Southeast Ohio 5:00 5:01 5:05 5:11 5:15 5:22 5:27 5:34 5:43 5:46 5:52 5:55 5:58 6:00 6:01 6:05 6:11 6:15 6:22 6:27 6:34 6:43 6:46 6:52 6:55 6:58 7:00 7:01 7:05 7:11 7:15 7:22 7:27 7:34 7:43 7:46 7:52 7:55 7:58 8:00 8:01 8:05 8:11 8:15 8:22 8:27 8:34 8:43 8:46 8:52 8:55 8:58 9:00 9:01 9:05 9:11 9:15 9:22 9:27 9:34 9:43 9:46 9:52 9:55 9:58 10:00 10:01 10:05 10:11 10:15 10:22 10:27 10:34 10:43 10:46 10:52 10:55 10:58 11:00 11:01 11:05 11:11 11:15 11:22 11:27 11:34 11:43 11:46 11:52 11:55 11:58 12:00 12:01 12:05 12:11 12:15 12:22 12:27 12:34 12:43 12:46 12:52 12:55 12:58 13:00 13:01 13:05 13:11 13:15 13:22 13:27 13:34 13:43 13:46 13:52 13:55 13:58 14:00 14:01 14:05 14:11 14:15 14:22 14:27 14:34 14:43 14:46 14:52 14:55 14:58 15:00 15:01 15:05 15:11 15:15 15:22 15:27 15:34 15:43 15:46 15:52 15:55 15:58 16:00 16:01 16:05 16:11 16:15 16:22 16:27 16:34 16:43 16:46 16:52 16:55 16:58 17:00 17:01 17:05 17:11 17:15 17:22 17:27 17:34 17:43 17:46 17:52 17:55 17:58 18:00 18:01 18:05 18:11 18:15 18:22 18:27 18:34 18:43 18:46 18:52 18:55 18:58 19:00 19:01 19:05 19:11 19:15 19:22 19:27 19:34 19:43 19:46 19:52 19:55 19:58 20:00 20:01 20:05 20:11 20:15 20:22 20:27 20:34 20:43 20:46 20:52 20:55 20:58

Route 1 – Medical & Government – Weekend

Weekend Select BMV - Senior Downtown Downtown Senior BMV - Family Newark Cherry Valley Specialty Cherry Valley Newark Family Liberty Housing - Newark - Newark - Housing - Liberty Dollar Library Elementary Hospital - Elementary Library Dollar Ave Curtis Ave. Transit Hub Transit Hub Curtis Ave. Ave Southeast Ohio 6:00 6:01 6:05 6:11 6:15 6:22 6:27 6:34 6:43 6:46 6:52 6:55 6:58 7:00 7:01 7:05 7:11 7:15 7:22 7:27 7:34 7:43 7:46 7:52 7:55 7:58 8:00 8:01 8:05 8:11 8:15 8:22 8:27 8:34 8:43 8:46 8:52 8:55 8:58 9:00 9:01 9:05 9:11 9:15 9:22 9:27 9:34 9:43 9:46 9:52 9:55 9:58 10:00 10:01 10:05 10:11 10:15 10:22 10:27 10:34 10:43 10:46 10:52 10:55 10:58 11:00 11:01 11:05 11:11 11:15 11:22 11:27 11:34 11:43 11:46 11:52 11:55 11:58 12:00 12:01 12:05 12:11 12:15 12:22 12:27 12:34 12:43 12:46 12:52 12:55 12:58 13:00 13:01 13:05 13:11 13:15 13:22 13:27 13:34 13:43 13:46 13:52 13:55 13:58 14:00 14:01 14:05 14:11 14:15 14:22 14:27 14:34 14:43 14:46 14:52 14:55 14:58 15:00 15:01 15:05 15:11 15:15 15:22 15:27 15:34 15:43 15:46 15:52 15:55 15:58 16:00 16:01 16:05 16:11 16:15 16:22 16:27 16:34 16:43 16:46 16:52 16:55 16:58 17:00 17:01 17:05 17:11 17:15 17:22 17:27 17:34 17:43 17:46 17:52 17:55 17:58 18:00 18:01 18:05 18:11 18:15 18:22 18:27 18:34 18:43 18:46 18:52 18:55 18:58

Route 2 – Jobs & Retail – Weekday

Weekday Social Urgent Care Kroger/Walmart 21st & Granville Wilson Middle School Newark Library Urgent Care Services 5:00 5:07 5:11 5:16 5:20 5:26 5:28 5:30 5:37 5:41 5:46 5:50 5:56 5:58 6:00 6:07 6:11 6:16 6:20 6:26 6:28 6:30 6:37 6:41 6:46 6:50 6:56 6:58 7:00 7:07 7:11 7:16 7:20 7:26 7:28 7:30 7:37 7:41 7:46 7:50 7:56 7:58 8:00 8:07 8:11 8:16 8:20 8:26 8:28 8:30 8:37 8:41 8:46 8:50 8:56 8:58 9:00 9:07 9:11 9:16 9:20 9:26 9:28 9:30 9:37 9:41 9:46 9:50 9:56 9:58 10:00 10:07 10:11 10:16 10:20 10:26 10:28 10:30 10:37 10:41 10:46 10:50 10:56 10:58 11:00 11:07 11:11 11:16 11:20 11:26 11:28 11:30 11:37 11:41 11:46 11:50 11:56 11:58 12:00 12:07 12:11 12:16 12:20 12:26 12:28 12:30 12:37 12:41 12:46 12:50 12:56 12:58 13:00 13:07 13:11 13:16 13:20 13:26 13:28 13:30 13:37 13:41 13:46 13:50 13:56 13:58 14:00 14:07 14:11 14:16 14:20 14:26 14:28 14:30 14:37 14:41 14:46 14:50 14:56 14:58 15:00 15:07 15:11 15:16 15:20 15:26 15:28 15:30 15:37 15:41 15:46 15:50 15:56 15:58 16:00 16:07 16:11 16:16 16:20 16:26 16:28 16:30 16:37 16:41 16:46 16:50 16:56 16:58 17:00 17:07 17:11 17:16 17:20 17:26 17:28 17:30 17:37 17:41 17:46 17:50 17:56 17:58 18:00 18:07 18:11 18:16 18:20 18:26 18:28 18:30 18:37 18:41 18:46 18:50 18:56 18:58 19:00 19:07 19:11 19:16 19:20 19:26 19:28 19:30 19:37 19:41 19:46 19:50 19:56 19:58 20:00 20:07 20:11 20:16 20:20 20:26 20:28

Route 2 – Jobs & Retail – Weekend

Weekend Urgent 21st & Wilson Middle Newark Urgent Social Services Kroger/Walmart Care Granville School Library Care 6:00 6:07 6:11 6:16 6:20 6:26 6:28 6:30 6:37 6:41 6:46 6:50 6:56 6:58 7:00 7:07 7:11 7:16 7:20 7:26 7:28 7:30 7:37 7:41 7:46 7:50 7:56 7:58 8:00 8:07 8:11 8:16 8:20 8:26 8:28 8:30 8:37 8:41 8:46 8:50 8:56 8:58 9:00 9:07 9:11 9:16 9:20 9:26 9:28 9:30 9:37 9:41 9:46 9:50 9:56 9:58 10:00 10:07 10:11 10:16 10:20 10:26 10:28 10:30 10:37 10:41 10:46 10:50 10:56 10:58 11:00 11:07 11:11 11:16 11:20 11:26 11:28 11:30 11:37 11:41 11:46 11:50 11:56 11:58 12:00 12:07 12:11 12:16 12:20 12:26 12:28 12:30 12:37 12:41 12:46 12:50 12:56 12:58 13:00 13:07 13:11 13:16 13:20 13:26 13:28 13:30 13:37 13:41 13:46 13:50 13:56 13:58 14:00 14:07 14:11 14:16 14:20 14:26 14:28 14:30 14:37 14:41 14:46 14:50 14:56 14:58 15:00 15:07 15:11 15:16 15:20 15:26 15:28 15:30 15:37 15:41 15:46 15:50 15:56 15:58 16:00 16:07 16:11 16:16 16:20 16:26 16:28 16:30 16:37 16:41 16:46 16:50 16:56 16:58 17:00 17:07 17:11 17:16 17:20 17:26 17:28 17:30 17:37 17:41 17:46 17:50 17:56 17:58 18:00 18:07 18:11 18:16 18:20 18:26 18:28

Route 3 – Jobs & Retail 2 – Weekday

Weekday Cherry Valley Wilson Middle School Elementary/Country Indian Mound Mall Newark Mounds Wilson Middle School Club 5:00 5:04 5:10 5:15 5:21 5:30 5:34 5:40 5:45 5:51 6:00 6:04 6:10 6:15 6:21 6:30 6:34 6:40 6:45 6:51 7:00 7:04 7:10 7:15 7:21 7:30 7:34 7:40 7:45 7:51 8:00 8:04 8:10 8:15 8:21 8:30 8:34 8:40 8:45 8:51 9:00 9:04 9:10 9:15 9:21 9:30 9:34 9:40 9:45 9:51 10:00 10:04 10:10 10:15 10:21 10:30 10:34 10:40 10:45 10:51 11:00 11:04 11:10 11:15 11:21 11:30 11:34 11:40 11:45 11:51 12:00 12:04 12:10 12:15 12:21 12:30 12:34 12:40 12:45 12:51 13:00 13:04 13:10 13:15 13:21 13:30 13:34 13:40 13:45 13:51 14:00 14:04 14:10 14:15 14:21 14:30 14:34 14:40 14:45 14:51 15:00 15:04 15:10 15:15 15:21 15:30 15:34 15:40 15:45 15:51 16:00 16:04 16:10 16:15 16:21 16:30 16:34 16:40 16:45 16:51 17:00 17:04 17:10 17:15 17:21 17:30 17:34 17:40 17:45 17:51 18:00 18:04 18:10 18:15 18:21 18:30 18:34 18:40 18:45 18:51 19:00 19:04 19:10 19:15 19:21 19:30 19:34 19:40 19:45 19:51 20:00 20:04 20:10 20:15 20:21

Route 3 – Jobs & Retail 2 – Weekend

Weekend Indian Cherry Valley Wilson Middle School Mound Newark Mounds Wilson Middle School Elementary/Country Club Mall 6:00 6:04 6:10 6:15 6:21 6:30 6:34 6:40 6:45 6:51 7:00 7:04 7:10 7:15 7:21 7:30 7:34 7:40 7:45 7:51 8:00 8:04 8:10 8:15 8:21 8:30 8:34 8:40 8:45 8:51 9:00 9:04 9:10 9:15 9:21 9:30 9:34 9:40 9:45 9:51 10:00 10:04 10:10 10:15 10:21 10:30 10:34 10:40 10:45 10:51 11:00 11:04 11:10 11:15 11:21 11:30 11:34 11:40 11:45 11:51 12:00 12:04 12:10 12:15 12:21 12:30 12:34 12:40 12:45 12:51 13:00 13:04 13:10 13:15 13:21 13:30 13:34 13:40 13:45 13:51 14:00 14:04 14:10 14:15 14:21 14:30 14:34 14:40 14:45 14:51 15:00 15:04 15:10 15:15 15:21 15:30 15:34 15:40 15:45 15:51 16:00 16:04 16:10 16:15 16:21 16:30 16:34 16:40 16:45 16:51 17:00 17:04 17:10 17:15 17:21 17:30 17:34 17:40 17:45 17:51 18:00 18:04 18:10 18:15 18:21

Route 4 – Higher Education – Weekday

Weekday OSU - Newark Denison University C-TEC Kroger/Walmart OSU - Newark 5:00 5:11 5:24 5:30 5:36 5:45 5:56 6:09 6:15 6:21 6:30 6:41 6:54 7:00 7:06 7:15 7:26 7:39 7:45 7:51 8:00 8:11 8:24 8:30 8:36 8:45 8:56 9:09 9:15 9:21 9:30 9:41 9:54 10:00 10:06 10:15 10:26 10:39 10:45 10:51 11:00 11:11 11:24 11:30 11:36 11:45 11:56 12:09 12:15 12:21 12:30 12:41 12:54 13:00 13:06 13:15 13:26 13:39 13:45 13:51 14:00 14:11 14:24 14:30 14:36 14:45 14:56 15:09 15:15 15:21 15:30 15:41 15:54 16:00 16:06 16:15 16:26 16:39 16:45 16:51 17:00 17:11 17:24 17:30 17:36 17:45 17:56 18:09 18:15 18:21 18:30 18:41 18:54 19:00 19:06 19:15 19:26 19:39 19:45 19:51 20:00 20:11 20:24 20:30 20:36

Route 4 – Higher Education – Weekend

Weekend OSU - Newark Denison University C-TEC Kroger/Walmart OSU - Newark 6:00 6:11 6:24 6:30 6:36 6:45 6:56 7:09 7:15 7:21 7:30 7:41 7:54 8:00 8:06 8:15 8:26 8:39 8:45 8:51 9:00 9:11 9:24 9:30 9:36 9:45 9:56 10:09 10:15 10:21 10:30 10:41 10:54 11:00 11:06 11:15 11:26 11:39 11:45 11:51 12:00 12:11 12:24 12:30 12:36 12:45 12:56 13:09 13:15 13:21 13:30 13:41 13:54 14:00 14:06 14:15 14:26 14:39 14:45 14:51 15:00 15:11 15:24 15:30 15:36 15:45 15:56 16:09 16:15 16:21 16:30 16:41 16:54 17:00 17:06 17:15 17:26 17:39 17:45 17:51 18:00 18:11 18:24 18:30 18:36

Route 5 – Hebron – Weekday

Weekday Southgate Southgate Downtown Mid-Ohio Hebron Hebron Mid-Ohio Downtown Commerce Corners Downtown Corners Commerce Newark - Industrial Industrial Kroger Industrial Industrial Newark - Center Shopping Hebron Shopping Center Transit Hub Park Park Park Park Transit Hub Center Center 5:00 5:04 5:08 5:19 5:28 5:33 5:36 5:42 5:46 5:51 5:55 5:58 6:00 6:04 6:08 6:19 6:28 6:33 6:36 6:42 6:46 6:51 6:55 6:58 7:00 7:04 7:08 7:19 7:28 7:33 7:36 7:42 7:46 7:51 7:55 7:58 8:00 8:04 8:08 8:19 8:28 8:33 8:36 8:42 8:46 8:51 8:55 8:58 9:00 9:04 9:08 9:19 9:28 9:33 9:36 9:42 9:46 9:51 9:55 9:58 10:00 10:04 10:08 10:19 10:28 10:33 10:36 10:42 10:46 10:51 10:55 10:58 11:00 11:04 11:08 11:19 11:28 11:33 11:36 11:42 11:46 11:51 11:55 11:58 12:00 12:04 12:08 12:19 12:28 12:33 12:36 12:42 12:46 12:51 12:55 12:58 13:00 13:04 13:08 13:19 13:28 13:33 13:36 13:42 13:46 13:51 13:55 13:58 14:00 14:04 14:08 14:19 14:28 14:33 14:36 14:42 14:46 14:51 14:55 14:58 15:00 15:04 15:08 15:19 15:28 15:33 15:36 15:42 15:46 15:51 15:55 15:58 16:00 16:04 16:08 16:19 16:28 16:33 16:36 16:42 16:46 16:51 16:55 16:58 17:00 17:04 17:08 17:19 17:28 17:33 17:36 17:42 17:46 17:51 17:55 17:58 18:00 18:04 18:08 18:19 18:28 18:33 18:36 18:42 18:46 18:51 18:55 18:58 19:00 19:04 19:08 19:19 19:28 19:33 19:36 19:42 19:46 19:51 19:55 19:58 20:00 20:04 20:08 20:19 20:28 20:33 20:36 20:42 20:46 20:51 20:55 20:58

Route 5 – Hebron – Weekend

Weekday Southgate Downtown Hebron Mid-Ohio Downtown Commerce Southgate Corners Mid-Ohio Hebron Downtown Corners Commerce Newark - Kroger Industrial Industrial Newark - Center Shopping Center Industrial Park Industrial Park Hebron Shopping Center Transit Hub Park Park Transit Hub Center 6:00 6:04 6:08 6:19 6:28 6:33 6:36 6:42 6:46 6:51 6:55 6:58 7:00 7:04 7:08 7:19 7:28 7:33 7:36 7:42 7:46 7:51 7:55 7:58 8:00 8:04 8:08 8:19 8:28 8:33 8:36 8:42 8:46 8:51 8:55 8:58 9:00 9:04 9:08 9:19 9:28 9:33 9:36 9:42 9:46 9:51 9:55 9:58 10:00 10:04 10:08 10:19 10:28 10:33 10:36 10:42 10:46 10:51 10:55 10:58 11:00 11:04 11:08 11:19 11:28 11:33 11:36 11:42 11:46 11:51 11:55 11:58 12:00 12:04 12:08 12:19 12:28 12:33 12:36 12:42 12:46 12:51 12:55 12:58 13:00 13:04 13:08 13:19 13:28 13:33 13:36 13:42 13:46 13:51 13:55 13:58 14:00 14:04 14:08 14:19 14:28 14:33 14:36 14:42 14:46 14:51 14:55 14:58 15:00 15:04 15:08 15:19 15:28 15:33 15:36 15:42 15:46 15:51 15:55 15:58 16:00 16:04 16:08 16:19 16:28 16:33 16:36 16:42 16:46 16:51 16:55 16:58 17:00 17:04 17:08 17:19 17:28 17:33 17:36 17:42 17:46 17:51 17:55 17:58 18:00 18:04 18:08 18:19 18:28 18:33 18:36 18:42 18:46 18:51 18:55 18:58

Route 6 – Pataskala – Weekday Service

Weekday Downtown Newark – Downtown Pataskala – Downtown Newark – Park and Ride Park and Ride Transit Hub True Value Transit Hub 5:00 5:11 5:33 5:55 6:06 6:15 6:26 6:48 7:10 7:21 7:30 7:41 8:03 8:25 8:36 8:45 8:56 9:18 9:40 9:51 No Service 16:00 16:11 16:33 16:55 17:06 17:15 17:26 17:48 18:10 18:21 18:30 18:41 19:03 19:25 19:36 19:45 19:56 20:18 20:40 20:51

Route 6 – Pataskala – Weekend Service

Weekend Downtown Newark – Downtown Pataskala – Downtown Newark – Park and Ride Park and Ride Transit Hub True Value Transit Hub 6:00 6:11 6:33 6:55 7:06 7:15 7:26 7:48 8:10 8:21 8:30 8:41 9:03 9:25 9:36 No Service 16:00 16:11 16:33 16:55 17:06 17:15 17:26 17:48 18:10 18:21 18:30 18:41 19:03 19:25 19:36

Route 7 – Johnstown – Weekday

Weekday Downtown Downtown Newark – Downtown Newark – Alexandria Johnstown – Downtown New Albany Transit Hub Transit Hub PNC Bank 5:00 5:14 5:22 5:35 5:59 6:15 6:29 6:37 6:50 7:04 7:30 7:44 7:52 8:05 8:09 8:45 8:59 9:07 9:20 9:14 No Service 16:00 16:14 16:22 16:35 16:59 17:15 17:29 17:37 17:50 18:04 18:30 18:44 18:52 19:05 19:09 19:45 19:59 20:07 20:20 20:14

Route 7 – Johnstown – Weekend

Weekend

Downtown Newark – Downtown Johnstown – Downtown Newark – Alexandria Downtown New Albany Transit Hub PNC Bank Transit Hub 6:00 6:14 6:22 6:35 6:59 7:15 7:29 7:37 7:50 8:04 8:30 8:44 8:52 9:05 9:09 No Service 16:00 16:14 16:22 16:35 16:59 17:15 17:29 17:37 17:50 18:04 18:30 18:44 18:52 19:05 19:09