DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Public Transportation Plan Volume 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Oregon Public Transportation Plan Interim Products Informing OPTP Development Volume 2 AN ELEMENT OF THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 The Oregon Public Transportation Plan and supporting materials can be found on the project website: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/Plans.aspx To obtain a hard copy of this document contact: Oregon Department of Transportation Transportation Development Division, Planning Section 555 13th Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4178 (503) 986-4121 A copy of the final draft plan, as adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission, is on file at the Oregon Department of Transportation. Editorial changes for consistency and formatting have been made in this document. Copyright © 2018 by the Oregon Department of Transportation Permission is given to quote and reproduce parts of this document if credit is given to the source. This plan was funded, in part, by the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations, U.S. Department of Transportation. Interim Products Informing Oregon Public Transportation Plan Development Volume 2 of the 2018 Oregon Transportation Plan (OPTP) contains contributing research, documents, and studies that informed development of the OPTP. These background papers and technical documents were developed using the best information and sources available at the time of their creation. Information from these papers and documents may be used in whole or in part in the OPTP text, and the information used in the plan text may have been augmented or updated before inclusion. This volume is published online separately from the OPTP. See ODOT’s Statewide Policy Plans webpage at https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/Plans.aspx for the OPTP document, this Volume 2, and related information. Volume 2 Contents: Existing Conditions Report ........................................................................................................................ 5 Public Transportation Funding Overview ................................................................................................ 103 Benefits of Public Transportation ............................................................................................................ 133 Opportunities, Challenges, and Trends .................................................................................................. 161 Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 181 Investment Considerations .................................................................................................................... 209 Performance Measures .......................................................................................................................... 229 White papers: ....................................................................................................................................... 255 Transit Typology ................................................................................................................................. 257 Private Sector Role in Public Transportation ........................................................................................ 263 Public Transportation Technology ........................................................................................................ 285 Regional Connections......................................................................................................................... 307 Land Use and Transportation Coordination ......................................................................................... 341 C This page left blank intentionally. Appendix 1 Oregon Public Transportation Plan Existing Conditions Report This page left blank intentionally. October 2016 Existing Conditions Report Oregon Public Transportation Plan This page left blank intentionally. Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of Existing Conditions Report ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 What is Public Transportation? ................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 2 2 Public Transportation in Oregon .................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Public Transportation Services .................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Light Rail Transit ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Commuter Rail .............................................................................................................. 7 2.1.3 Streetcar ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.4 Bus Rapid Transit .......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.5 Fixed Route Bus ............................................................................................................ 8 2.1.6 Demand Response ........................................................................................................ 9 2.1.7 Intercity Public Transportation ................................................................................... 11 2.2 Ridership and Service Trends ................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Riders .......................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Demographic Trends Affecting Public Transportation Service and Ridership ............ 17 3 Public Transportation Providers and Ridership .............................................................................23 3.1 Provider Categories .................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.1 Large Urban Transit Providers .................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Medium-Sized Urban Providers .................................................................................. 24 3.1.3 Small Urban Providers ................................................................................................ 24 3.1.4 Large County and Regional Systems ........................................................................... 26 3.1.5 Small County and Rural Community Systems ............................................................. 26 3.1.6 Statewide and Interstate Public Transportation ........................................................ 26 3.2 Summary of Public Transportation Provider Characteristics ................................................... 26 3.2.1 Fleet ............................................................................................................................ 27 3.2.2 Technology .................................................................................................................. 27 3.2.3 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 28 3.2.4 Near- and Long-Term Planning ................................................................................... 30 3.2.5 Local and Statewide Goals .......................................................................................... 31 3.2.6 Service Coordination ................................................................................................... 31 3.2.7 Operational Issues and Gaps ...................................................................................... 32 4 Delivering Public Transportation Service .......................................................................................35 4.1 Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................ 35 4.2 Local Provider Organization ..................................................................................................... 36 4.3 Funding Types and Availability ................................................................................................ 38 4.4 Funding Challenges .................................................................................................................. 39 iii | Oregon Public Transportation Plan Attachments A Additional Provider Profile Information B Policy Context and Federal/State Involvement in Public Transportation C Detailed Public Transportation Funding Information D Key Terms E Acronyms and Abbreviations F Oregon Public Transportation Plan Provider Survey and Workshop Summary Tables Table 2-1. Unlinked Passenger Trips by Mode in Urban Areas ......................................................................... 15 Table 3-1. General Characteristics of Public Transportation Providers in Oregon ............................................ 25 Table 3-2. Example Sources of Operations Funding for Select Public Transportation Providers ...................... 29 Table 4-1. Provider Organization ......................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study

    Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study

    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
  • Existing Framework Memo Draft 11

    Existing Framework Memo Draft 11

    To: Gorge Transit Strategy Working Group Date: November 15, 2020 From: Kathy Fitzpatrick, Mobility Manager Subject: Gorge Regional Transit Strategy: Existing Framework Memo Gorge Regional Transit Strategy: Background The purpose of the Gorge Regional Transit Strategy phase 1 is to combine the goals, policies, and prioritizations of local transportation planning efforts in the Columbia Gorge to establish a foundation for a regional strategy and vision for public transportation. Phase 1 objectives include strengthening partnerships, completing local plan assessments, and synthesizing goals and policies into a high-level regional vision. Phase II of the Strategy will focus on an implementation strategy with additional data analysis, ridership forecasts, financial planning, and operational assessments. The USFS (Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area) offered assistance from the US DOT Volpe Center for the Gorge Transit Strategy. The Gorge Regional Transit Strategy Project Management Team worked with the Volpe Center Team to build on their recent transportation plan research work. Existing Framework Memo The Existing Framework Memo summarizes and synthesizes existing local, regional, statewide public transportation plans, studies, and programs to identify common or conflicting goals, policies and strategies. This will create an awareness of inconsistencies and endorsement of commonalities but does not seek to amend or revise current or adopted plans. The Existing Framework Memo includes an overview of the planning area, a summary of existing services, and summaries of the existing local, regional, and statewide public transportation plans reviewed. Strategy Area The strategy area is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the five transportation providers whose partnership forms the Gorge TransLink Alliance. Providers include Mt Adams Transportation Service (Klickitat County), Skamania County Transit, Columbia Area Transit (Hood River County), the Link (Wasco County), and Sherman County Community Transit.
  • Joint Policy Advisory Committee On

    Joint Policy Advisory Committee On

    Date: December 1, 2020 To: Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) and interested parties From: Carrie MacLaren, Metro Attorney Michelle Bellia, Senior Attorney Margi Bradway, Planning & Development Deputy Director CC: Councilor Shirley Craddick, JPACT Chair Subject: JPACT Member and Alternate Appointment Process Purpose To provide guidance to cities and counties in the Portland Metro area about appointments to the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) based on the JPACT bylaws, written and adopted by JPACT and the Metro Council in 1990 and amended in 2008. Background Metro is the federally mandated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) designated by the governor to develop an overall transportation plan and to program federal funds. Comprised of transportation representatives from across the region, JPACT recommends priorities and develops plans for the region. Before adopting transportation policies, the Metro Council must consider JPACT’s recommendations. Federal law, MAP-21, requires that MPOs representing areas with populations over 200,000 (known as Transportation Management Areas, or TMAs) have a decision-making structure that incorporates input from local elected officials, transit agencies, and appropriate state officials. Across the country, MPO boards vary in size. Federal regulations further define the role of the “policy advisory committee” in terms provide oversight and guidance to the MPO on transportation planning and funding. Metro’s Code and the JPACT Bylaws describe the makeup
  • City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan

    City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan

    City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan CONVENIENCE SAFETY RELIABILITY EFFICIENCY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FRIENDLY SERVICE EQUITY & ACCESS ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY JUNE 2017 Acknowledgements The City of Wilsonville would like to acknowledge the following for their dedication to the development of this Transit Master Plan. Their insight and outlook toward the future of this City helped create a comprehensive plan that represents the needs of employers, residents and visitors of Wilsonville. Transit Master Plan Task Force Planning Commission Julie Fitzgerald, Chair* Jerry Greenfield, Chair Kristin Akervall Eric Postma, Vice Chair Caroline Berry Al Levit Paul Diller Phyllis Millan Lynnda Hale Peter Hurley Barb Leisy Simon Springall Peter Rapley Kamran Mesbah Pat Rehberg Jean Tsokos City Staff Stephanie Yager Dwight Brashear, Transit Director Eric Loomis, Operations Manager City Council Scott Simonton, Fleet Manager Tim Knapp, Mayor Gregg Johansen, Transit Field Supervisor Scott Star, President Patrick Edwards, Transit Field Supervisor Kristin Akervall Nicole Hendrix, Transit Management Analyst Charlotte Lehan Michelle Marston, Transit Program Coordinator Susie Stevens Brad Dillingham, Transit Planning Intern Julie Fitzgerald* Chris Neamtzu, Planning Director Charlie Tso, Assistant Planner Consultants Susan Cole, Finance Director Jarrett Walker Keith Katko, Finance Operations Manager Michelle Poyourow Tami Bergeron, Planning Administration Assistant Christian L Watchie Amanda Guile-Hinman, Assistant City Attorney Ellen Teninty Stephan Lashbrook,
  • Public Transit a History of Public Transit in Portland

    Public Transit a History of Public Transit in Portland

    Hilary Pfeifer Meredith Dittmar PUBLIC TRANSIT A history of public transit in Portland Melody Owen Mark Richardson Smith Kristin Mitsu Shiga Chandra Bocci trimet.org/history Traveling through time Dear Reader, Transit plays a critical role in providing options for traveling throughout the region. It connects people to work, school, recreational destinations and essential services. It’s not just a commuter service. It’s a community asset. And the benefits extend far beyond those who ride. TriMet’s transit system is recognized as a national leader for its connection to land use. By linking land-use planning and transit, we have helped create livable communities, vibrant neighborhoods and provide alternatives to driving. Transit is also a catalyst for economic development. More than $10 billion in transit-oriented development has occurred within walking distance of MAX light rail stations since the decision to build in 1980. Developers like the permanence of rail when investing in projects. Transit is also valued by the community. Most of our riders— 81 percent—are choice riders. They have a car available or choose not to own one so they can ride TriMet. With more than 325,000 trips taken each weekday on our buses, MAX Light Rail and WES Commuter Rail, we eliminate 66 million annual car trips. That eases traffic congestion and helps keep our air clean. TriMet carries more people than any other U.S. transit system our size. Our many innovations have drawn the attention of government leaders, planners, transit providers and transit users from around the world. We didn’t start out that way.
  • State of the System 2016 Report on Oregon's Transportation System

    State of the System 2016 Report on Oregon's Transportation System

    STATE OF THE SYSTEM 2016 REPORT ON OREGON’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PHOTO CREDITS All photos: ODOT Photo and Video Services or ODOT staff. TABLE OF CONTENTS A INTRODUCTION 2 Transportation System Infrastructure Map 3 An Overview of Oregon’s Transportation System and Why it’s Important for Oregon 3 Purpose of the State of the System Report 3 The Oregon Department of Transportation and its Role in the System 4 Trends Affecting Oregon and its Transportation System 5 The Oregon Transportation Plan and its Implementation 7 The Seven Oregon Transportation Plan Goals B THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM 8 Mobility and Accessibility 14 Management of the System 20 Economic Vitality 28 Sustainability 32 Safety and Security 38 Funding the Transportation System 42 Coordination, Communication and Cooperation C MOVING FORWARD 48 Where to Find Additional Information PAGE 2 STATE OF OREGON State of Oregon TRANSPORTATIONTransportation System SYSTEM Infrastructure INFRASTRUCTURE ? September 2016 Port of Astoria p Port of St. Helens Port of Morrow Port of Umatilla ? Port of Hood River ? Port of Cascade Locks Port of Arlington ? Port of Nehalem ? Port of The Dalles Eastern Oregon THE NUMBERS Port of Portland Regional at Pendleton Portland International ? ? ¨¦§84 ? o ? o ? 73,933 total miles of Port of Garibaldi ? ? highways, streets and Port of Tillamooik Bay roads 8,032 miles of state highways 32,907 miles of county roads ? 11,029 miles of city streets Port of Newport ? Port of Toledo ? 21,965 miles of “other roads” miles of "other
  • Please Be Kind to One Another

    Please Be Kind to One Another

    SERVING ORGANIZED LABOR IN OREGON AND SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON SINCE 1900 INSIDE OUTSIDE PAGES NORTHWEST HE TOFFICIAL PUBLICBATION UOF LLETIN LABOR Amalgamated Transit Union PRESS Local 757 VOLUME 121, NUMBER 23 PORTLAND, OREGON DECEMBER 4, 2020 President’s Vice President’s Report Roundup Please be kind to one another By Shirley Block By Jonathan Hunt out and getting into trouble when they normally Season’s greetings Sisters and Brothers, wouldn’t. I would like to encourage you to check in with Hello, Brothers and Sisters, I hope you are all able to have your fellow sisters and brothers! First, I want to say I hope everyone had a happy and safe Thanks - a safe holiday with your family. At this point in time it doesn’t appear we’re go - giving. I know this year has been hard on everyone and very dif - With so many things chang - ing to have regular Union Meetings for a while. ferent. I know that none of us thought we would still be dealing ing all around us, we need to However, we are having monthly check-ins and with this virus. And I know that it hits harder when it starts affecting give each other space. We need small Zoom discussions. Please reach out to me the holidays. Most folks that I know stayed home with the family to practice social distancing, but if your work group would like to have a Zoom they live with and relied on Zoom and phone calls to reach out to we also need to be kind to one meeting.
  • Canby Transit Choices Report DECEMBER 14, 2016

    Canby Transit Choices Report DECEMBER 14, 2016

    Canby Transit Choices Report DECEMBER 14, 2016 For Canby Area Transit Table of Contents Summary . 4 Productivity . 28 Introduction Current Costs and Revenues . 29 The Variety of Transit Services in Canby . 6 Near Future . 30 Fixed-Route Transit . 6 Highway 99 corridor study . 30 Demand Responsive Transit . 8 Federal transit funding . 30 What causes transit ridership? . 10 Increasing hourly costs . 30 Transit’s conflicting goals . 12 Existing Ridership and Performance Choices for Canby . 13 Route 99 . 32 Market and Needs Assessment Dial-a-ride and ADA paratransit . 33 Density of Residents and Jobs . .15 . Operations Contract . 38 Low-Income Residents . .15 . Service Standards . 38 Younger and Older Residents . 15. Language . 39 Residents by Race/Ethnicity . 15 . Weekends . 39 Commuting Patterns . 23 Complexity . .41 History and Trends Future Alternatives Recent History . 25 Focus on Key Choices . 43 Amount of service provided . 26 Dial-a-ride and ADA Paratransit Efficiency . 43 Ridership . 27 Alternative 1: Local Fixed Route . 45 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Table of Contents Local circulator . 45 Dial-a-ride and ADA paratransit . 46 Route 99 . 46 Alternative 2: More Route 99 Service . 47 Route 99 . 47 Dial-a-ride and ADA paratransit . 47 Weekend Service . 52 Measuring Impacts to Key Populations . 52 JARRETT WALKER + ASSOCIATES Canby’s answer to the first question were Following the release of this report, CAT Summary “Yes, we should slightly shift our invest- staff and consultants will be attending This report is the first step in the develop- ment toward fixed routes.” These two meetings, making presentations, distribut- ment of a new Transit Master Plan for the Alternatives show how much service of ing surveys, and taking input in other ways, City of Canby .
  • INFRASTRUCTURE CASE STUDY: Portland Airport MAX Red Line

    INFRASTRUCTURE CASE STUDY: Portland Airport MAX Red Line

    INFRASTRUCTURE CASE STUDY: Portland Airport MAX Red Line SUMMARY PROJECT TYPE YEAR DEAL STRUCTURE Light rail transit 2001 Design-build (plus transfer of development rights to public land) TOTAL COST $125.8 million construction cost FINANCING Private equity and TIF (Tax Increment Financing) FUNDING Airport passenger facility charge and TriMet general funds PUBLIC BENEFIT Connects downtown to the airport and encourages economic development of the Cascade Station area Background The Portland Airport MAX Red Line, located in Portland, Oregon, is a light rail line that connects downtown Portland to the Portland International Airport.1 It was financed and constructed through a private-public partnership (P3) agreement, and is operated by TriMet, Portland’s regional transit agency.2 It opened to the public in September 2001, and now provides more than 8 million trips per year, with 3,200 people getting on or off at the Portland Airport stop each weekday.3 Project Description The private-public partnership agreement for the Airport MAX Red Line came about through an unsolicited proposal from the private construction and engineering company Bechtel.4 Their proposal was $28.2 million in funding in return for sole rights to the $125 million design-build contract, and development rights for 85 years to 120 acres of land near the airport.5 This land would come to be known as Cascade Station. The original owner of the land was the Port of Portland, and the 120 acres were part of 458 acres earmarked for development as a mixed-use business park called the Portland International Center.6 TriMet’s unsolicited proposal policy allowed Bechtel to initiate the project.
  • Planning for Active Transportation in the Western United States: an Alternative Future for Cache Valley, Utah

    Planning for Active Transportation in the Western United States: an Alternative Future for Cache Valley, Utah

    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 8-2018 Planning for Active Transportation in the Western United States: An Alternative Future for Cache Valley, Utah Stephanie A. Tomlin Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Design Commons, and the Landscape Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Tomlin, Stephanie A., "Planning for Active Transportation in the Western United States: An Alternative Future for Cache Valley, Utah" (2018). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 7195. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7195 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PLANNING FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES: AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE FOR CACHE VALLEY, UTAH by Stephanie A. Tomlin A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Bioregional Planning Approved: Bartlett Warren-Kretzschmar, Ph.D. Richard Toth, M.L.A. Major Professor Committee Member Jordy Guth, M.S. Mark R. McLellan, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2018 ii Copyright © Stephanie A. Tomlin, 2018 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Planning for Active Transportation in the Western United States: An Alternative Future for Cache Valley, Utah by Stephanie A. Tomlin, Master of Bioregional Planning Utah State University, 2018 Major Professor: Bartlett (Barty) Warren-Kretzschmar, Ph.D.
  • Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan

    Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan

    Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the-Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the- Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
  • APTA 2017 Adwheel Awards

    APTA 2017 Adwheel Awards

    APTA 2017 AdWheel Awards Category 1: Best Marketing and Communications to Increase Ridership and Sales Hop Fastpass Contents Effectiveness Statement ………. 3 Print Media ………………………….. 5 Outreach Brochure ………………………………… 5 Print Ad …………………………………………………. 6 Transit Ads .………………………….. 5 Ads on Transit Vehicles/System ….………….. 7 Channel Card Series ……………………………... 8 Collateral ……………………………. 10 Retail Network Display Kit ……..…………….. 10 Retail Display Rack ………………………………. 11 Electronic Media …………………. 12 Website ………………………….……..…………….. 12 Outreach Email …………………………………..... 13 Online Videos ……………………………………….. 14 Special Event ……………………... 15 “Hop-Up” Event ……………………………………. 15 The HopMobile …………………………………….. 16 Opening Ceremony Video ……………………… 17 Promotional Items ………………………………... 17 Mascot …………………………………………………. 17 Social Media ……………….……… 18 Facebook Posts …………………………………….. 18 Partnership ………………………... 19 Press Event Sponsor Photo ……………………. 19 2 Effectiveness Statement APTA 2017 AdWheel Awards Category 1: Best Marketing and Communications to Increase Ridership and Sales Hop Fastpass 1. Target The primary audience is all TriMet, Portland Streetcar, and C-TRAN riders. The secondary audience includes the general public of the Portland-Vancouver metro area, transit employees, occasional transit riders, visitors, stakeholders and services that provide fare for their clients. 2. Situation/Challenge Hop Fastpass is the new regional e-fare system that works on TriMet, Portland Streetcar and C-TRAN. The biggest challenge was introducing a new fare technology across three different