Citibus COA: Working Paper #1
Prepared for: (This page intentionally left blank.)
Citibus Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Working Paper #1
Prepared for:
City of Lubbock Texas 1625 13th Street, Room 204 Lubbock, TX 8287940101
Prepared by:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 545 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Suite 210 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633-2868
LSC #194490
September 17, 2019
(This page intentionally left blank.)
-ii-
CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
I INTRODUCTION Project Context ...... I-1 Project Goals ...... I-1 Project Kickoff ...... I-2 Study Approach and Outcomes ...... I-3 Report Contents ...... I-4
II ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW AND CITIBUS FACILITIES Introduction ...... II-1 History and Background of Citibus ...... II-1 Organizational Structure ...... II-1 Mission and Goals ...... II-2 Facilities ...... II-4 Citibus Passenger Amenities ...... II-5 Citibus Fleet ...... II-5 Peer Analysis ...... II-9 Selected Citibus Peers ...... II-9 Community Overview ...... II-10 Transit Program Overview ...... II-10 Lessons Learned from Peers ...... II-11
III EXISTING COMMUNITY CONDITIONS Introduction ...... III-1 Demographic Characteristics ...... III-1 Demographics ...... III-1 Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics ...... III-2 Land Use Development ...... III-7 Current Housing Units ...... III-7 Projected Housing Units ...... III-7 Major Employment Industries ...... III-8 Major Activity Centers ...... III-8 Travel Patterns ...... III-9 Work Transportation Mode ...... III-9 Commuter Patterns ...... III-10
IV STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY INPUT Introduction ...... IV-1 Kick-Off Trip ...... IV-1 PMT Kick-Off Meeting ...... IV-2 Internal Citibus Meetings ...... IV-3 Stakeholder Interviews ...... IV-5 Advisory Committee Membership ...... IV-7 Public Outreach Plan ...... IV-9
-iii- V TRANSIT DEMAND ESTIMATION Greatest Transit Need Index ...... V-1 Methodology ...... V-1 Results ...... V-5 Fixed-Route Demand Model ...... V-6 ADA Paratransit Demand Model ...... V-13
VI ROUTE PROFILES AND ANALYSIS Introduction ...... VI-1 Citibus ...... VI-1 Citibus Fixed-Route Service ...... VI-1 Citibus Fixed Route Ridership, Hours and Miles ...... VI-5 Citibus Fixed Route Performance ...... VI-6 CitiAccess ...... VI-9 Other Citibus Services ...... VI-11 Texas Tech University Fixed Routes ...... VI-11 NiteRide ...... VI-14 Other Lubbock Area Transit Services ...... VI-14 Spartan Transportation ...... VI-14 Greyhound ...... VI-16
VII FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Budget Overview and Performance ...... VII-1 Operating Costs ...... VII-1 Revenue Sources ...... VII-2 Financial Performance ...... VII-3 Cost Allocation Model ...... VII-6 Revenue Analysis ...... VII-7 Funding Sources ...... VII-7 Funding Projection ...... VII-9 Additional Funding Sources Available ...... VII-9
VIII ORIGIN-DESTINATION ANALYSIS Introduction ...... VIII-1 General Travel Patterns ...... VIII-3 Overview ...... VIII-3 Zone 1 ...... VIII-4 Zone 2 ...... VIII-5 Zone 3 ...... VIII-6 Zone 4 ...... VIII-7 Zone 5 ...... VIII-8 Zone 6 ...... VIII-9 Zone 7 ...... VIII-10 Zone 8 ...... VIII-11 Zone 9 ...... VIII-12 Zone 10 ...... VIII-13
-iv- Zone 11 ...... VIII-14 Zone 12 ...... VIII-15 Commuter Travel Patterns ...... VIII-16 Overview ...... VIII-16 Zone 1 ...... VIII-17 Zone 2 ...... VIII-18 Zone 3 ...... VIII-19 Zone 4 ...... VIII-20 Zone 5 ...... VIII-21 Zone 6 ...... VIII-22 Zone 7 ...... VIII-23 Zone 8 ...... VIII-24 Zone 9 ...... VIII-25 Zone 10 ...... VIII-26 Zone 11 ...... VIII-27 Zone 12 ...... VIII-28 Key Takeaways ...... VIII-29
IX ON-STREET AND MULTIMODAL INFRASTRUCTURE On-Street Facilities ...... IX-1 Bus Stop Spacing and Location ...... IX-2 Walk and Bike Lubbock Master Plan ...... IX-3
X NEXT STEPS Next Steps ...... X-1 Evaluation Criteria ...... X-2 Strategic Questions ...... X-3 Elements for Future Reports ...... X-3
-v- LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
II-1 Citibus Fixed Route Fleet ...... II-6 II-2 Citibus Texas Technical University Fleet ...... II-7 II-3 CitiAccess Fleet ...... II-8 II-4 Employment Location of Lubbock Residents ...... II-10 II-5 Residence Location of Lubbock Workers ...... II-10
III-1 Estimated Population Characteristics for the City of Lubbock ...... III-3 III-2 Employment Industries of City of Lubbock ...... III-8 III-3 Means of Transportation to Work ...... III-10 III-4 Employment Location of Lubbock Residents ...... III-10 III-5 Residence Location of Lubbock Workers ...... III-10
V-1 Greatest Transit Need Model ...... V-3 V-2 Census Tracts with Greatest Transit Need ...... V-6 V-3 Existing Peak-Hour Fixed Route Demand Model - Citibus ...... V-9 V-4 Existing Non-Peak Fixed Route Demand Model - Citibus ...... V-11 V-5 Existing Paratransit Demand - Citibus ...... V-15
VI-1 Summary of Citibus Fixed Route Services ...... VI-4 VI-2 Citibus Ridership by Year ...... VI-5 VI-3 Citibus Ridership by Route and Month ...... VI-6 VI-4 Citibus Revenue Hours and Miles by Year ...... VI-6 VI-5 Citibus Performance FY 2017-18 ...... VI-7 VI-6 CitiAccess Service Factors by Year ...... VI-10 VI-7 CitiAccess Ridership by Month (FY 2017) ...... VI-12 VI-8 TTU Ridership by Year ...... VI-13 VI-9 TTU Ridership by Session ...... VI-14 VI-10 SPARTAN SPC Express Fall 2019 Schedule ...... VI-15 VI-11 Greyhound Schedule and Fares ...... VI-16
VII-1 Citibus Five-Year Costs and Revenues ...... VII-1 VII-2 Citibus Financial Analysis...... VII-4 VII-3 Operating Cost Projection ...... VII-6 VII-4 Cost Allocation Model...... VII-7 VII-5 Revenue Sources ...... VII-7 VII-6 Revenue Projection ...... VII-9
VIII-1 Origin-Destination Zones...... VIII-1 VIII-2 Zone-to-Zone General Travel Patterns ...... VIII-3 VIII-3 Zone-to-Zone Commuter Travel Patterns ...... VIII-16 VIII-4 Comparison of Greatest Volumes of Origin-Destination Trips ...... VIII-29 VIII-1 Zone Traffic Volumes Comparison ...... VIII-29
IX-1 Citibus Bus Stop Shelters...... IX-1 IX-2 Pedestrian Priority Areas and Strategies ...... IX-5
-vi-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
II-1 Citibus Organization Chart ...... II-3
III-1 Study Area with Census Tracts ...... III-1 III-2 Population Density ...... III-2 III-3 Density of Older Adults...... III-4 III-4 Density of Persons with an Ambulatory Disability ...... III-5 III-5 Density of Low-Income Persons...... III-5 III-6 Density of Zero-Vehicle Households ...... III-6 III-7 Density of Youth ...... III-7 III-8 Activity Centers ...... III-9
IV-1 Public Outreach Approach ...... IV-9
V-1 Greatest Transit Needs Index ...... V-5 V-2 Existing Peak Fixed-Route Demand ...... V-7 V-3 Existing Off-Peak Fixed-Route Demand ...... V-7 V-4 Average ADA Paratransit Demand ...... V-13
VI-1 Citibus Fixed Routes ...... VI-2 VI-2 Citibus Passenger-Trips per Revenue Hour ...... VI-7 VI-3 Citibus Subsidy per Passenger-Trip by Route ...... VI-8 VI-4 Citibus Fixed Route On-Time Performance ...... VI-9 VI-5 CitiAccess Service Area ...... VI-9 VI-6 CitiAccess On-Time Performance ...... VI-11 VI-7 Citibus TTU Service Area ...... VI-12
VII-1 Cost Breakdown ...... VII-2 VII-2 Revenue Breakdown ...... VII-3
VIII-1 Map of Origin-Destination Zones ...... VIII-2 VIII-2 Trips Originating in Zone 1 ...... VIII-4 VIII-3 Trips Originating in Zone 2 ...... VIII-5 VIII-4 Trips Originating in Zone 3 ...... VIII-6 VIII-5 Trips Originating in Zone 4 ...... VIII-7 VIII-6 Trips Originating in Zone 5 ...... VIII-8 VIII-7 Trips Originating in Zone 6 ...... VIII-9 VIII-8 Trips Originating in Zone 7 ...... VIII-10 VIII-9 Trips Originating in Zone 8 ...... VIII-11 VIII-10 Trips Originating in Zone 9 ...... VIII-12 VIII-11 Trips Originating in Zone 10 ...... VIII-13 VIII-12 Trips Originating in Zone 11 ...... VIII-14 VIII-13 Trips Originating in Zone 12 ...... VIII-15 VIII-14 Trips Originating in Zone 1 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-17 VIII-15 Trips Originating in Zone 2 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-18 VIII-16 Trips Originating in Zone 3 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-19 VIII-17 Trips Originating in Zone 4 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-20 VIII-18 Trips Originating in Zone 5 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-21 VIII-19 Trips Originating in Zone 6 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-22 VIII-20 Trips Originating in Zone 7 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-23 VIII-21 Trips Originating in Zone 8 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-24 VIII-22 Trips Originating in Zone 9 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-25 VIII-23 Trips Originating in Zone 10 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-26 VIII-24 Trips Originating in Zone 11 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-27
-vii-
VIII-25 Trips Originating in Zone 12 Weekday PM Peak ...... VIII-28 VIII-26 Zone Traffic Volumes – General Time Period ...... VIII-30 VIII-27 Zone Traffic Volumes – Commuter Time Period ...... VIII-30
IX-1 Stop Spacing by Zone ...... IX-2 IX-2 Lubbock Pedestrian Plan ...... IX-4
-viii-
Chapter I (This page intentionally left blank.)
Chapter I: Introduction
Through its issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) 19‐14457‐MA: Consulting Services for Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), the City of Lubbock for Citibus sought a qualified consultant to carry out a COA of its current local fixed‐route bus, complementary paratransit services, and demand responsive services. The analysis will lead to recommendations for program and service design and improvements in overall system efficiency and operational effectiveness.
This project was awarded to LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., a Colorado‐based transit consultancy with a depth of experience in smaller cities like Lubbock that include a major university. Included on the LSC project team is staff from the Dallas, Texas office of AECOM, a fully integrated professional and technical services firm with a worldwide presence and depth of experience with public transit planning. The consultant team started this study with a kick‐off meeting and community familiarization tour from July 9th through 12th, 2019. The entire project is scheduled to take approximately one year, with delivery of the final report in July of 2020.
PROJECT CONTEXT This project is necessitated primarily by: Flat and declining Citibus ridership in recent years on the city routes outside of the university operations Significant changes in land use development, especially as land has been annexed into the City and retail and medical services have been developed in the northwest and western side of Lubbock Increased business presence in areas outside of Loop 289 and west of I‐27 Societal changes impacting how, where, and why people move around the Lubbock community.
PROJECT GOALS This COA will define how Citibus transit operations change, adapt, and improve for the next five to ten years and beyond. The primary goals of the COA effort include: 1. Evaluating the current system, including efficiency and effectiveness of each route and service. 2. Incorporating quality opportunities for public and rider input into the study process to ensure needs and issues are understood.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ I ‐ 1 ‐
3. Reviewing available data on travel patterns and demographics to help analyze whether the current fixed‐route network is adequately addressing potential demand and changes in population and employment. 4. Exploring potential service changes that could better invest limited available service resources to improve ridership over the next five to ten years, and possibly utilizing non‐traditional transit options such as micro‐transit, express service, first mile/last mile connection, and/or hybrid models that would potentially increase ridership and serve more of the community. 5. Identifying gaps in coverage, service quality, or resources needed to address Lubbock’s changing population and commute patterns. 6. Reviewing federal Title VI civil rights compliance to ensure services are provided on an equitable basis throughout the service area. 7. Improved connectivity between Citibus and SPARTAN, the rural provider, in the areas of the city where there is no bus service. The consultant team understands the local context for this study and how important it is to develop a useful and implementable plan. We understand the challenges that the Lubbock area has to meet new demands while still serving existing riders. We understand that fostering collaboration and coordination of transportation services between the City, Texas Tech, and surrounding rural communities is crucial.
PROJECT KICKOFF As part of the project kickoff process, LSC and our team interviewed a variety of community stakeholders and met with the Study Advisory Committee (SAC). These discussions covered a variety of questions to be considered as part of the COA, including: What works well with the current Citibus route system and services? What doesn’t work well with the current Citibus route system and services? As route changes, service enhancements, and possible service expansions are considered, what do you think are the most important things to consider? What route deficiencies are making Citibus a less attractive travel mode for new riders? What local travel patterns should Citibus focus on for the future? What areas of Lubbock are unserved or underserved? Where are the greatest needs? Is there a need to expand bus service in the years to come, as Lubbock continues its rapid growth and land use changes? How should this expansion happen? What are the best ways to reach the Lubbock community and seek public input as the plan moves forward? Who should be included in this COA planning process? As we move through the planning process, LSC will remain mindful of the study issues and stakeholder interests.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ I ‐ 2 ‐
STUDY APPROACH AND OUTCOMES The focus of COA recommendations will be: Optimization of existing transit service o Improved service deployment and operating metrics through efficient allocation of service hours and miles, possibly reallocate resources to areas of highest transit demand and potential use Improved mobility o Enhanced transit service levels and connectivity, redesigned/direct service, improved schedule adherence Improved cost effectiveness o Lower cost per rider, improved farebox recovery ratio Easier to use, more passenger friendly Citibus system The study process will be accomplished through a series of project deliverables: 1. Comprehensive public participation plan with community input throughout 2. Analysis of existing routes and services 3. Development of route alternatives and innovative service delivery options 4. Technical analysis of the alternatives 5. Recommended alternative and final plan The outcome of this planning process will be an actionable strategic COA driven by community input that includes creative options and scenarios, technical route alternatives analysis, a robust resource analysis, recommendations for service sustainability and key service expansion opportunities, and a final report. As LSC moves through this study, each step in the process will be informed by the previous steps and associated deliverables in a way that builds towards the final report and its recommendations. LSC’s goal will be to deliver a work product that is relevant, actionable, and impactful for Citibus and the community of Lubbock. Throughout the project, LSC will be asking: What public transit deficiencies exist that are contributing to transit being a less competitive travel mode? What are the local travel patterns, and what drives these travel needs? Where are the greatest transportation needs, how are they distributed, and how are they being met? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current services and how do they connect Lubbock and beyond? What can be learned and applied from best practices? Is there a need and desire to expand service in the years to come, as Lubbock continues its rapid growth and land use changes? How should this expansion happen?
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ I ‐ 3 ‐
What are the opportunities for the future development of transit in Lubbock? What deficiencies contribute to transit being a less competitive travel mode? The intent is to create a process that is clear and incremental. The City of Lubbock City Council is ultimately responsible for approval of this plan, but the Citibus Transit Board and a specifically‐ established COA Stakeholder Advisory Committee will provide study oversight, feedback on study progress, review of progress reports and Working Papers, and direction for the development of the final report.
REPORT CONTENTS This Working Paper includes ten chapters in total, organized with demographics, background research, and organizational analysis preceding a review of progress made on the ITP goals to date, analysis of existing routes, initial stakeholder input, financial analysis, and infrastructure. Chapter II presents an organizational overview of Citibus, its history, its structure, and a peer comparison. Chapter III provides the community conditions including demographics of the study area, land use development, housing, and employment. Chapter IV public outreach strategy and initial public input. Chapter V analyzes transit needs and demand estimation . Chapter VI contains route profiles and analysis of existing performance, including Title VI analysis. Chapter VII presents Citibus financial analysis and cost allocation. Chapter VIII analyzes origin‐destination travel patterns using cellphone dataset. Chapter IX discusses current supporting transit infrastructure such as bus stops, park‐n‐rides, bus roadway improvements, and future opportunities. Chapter X concludes this report with a discussion of possible evaluation criteria and next steps.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ I ‐ 4 ‐ Chapter II (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter II: Organizational Overview and Citibus Facilities
INTRODUCTION Citibus is a unique transit system in that it serves several major markets, the two primary markets being Texas Tech University (TTU) and City residents at large. This study considers services provided on behalf of the population at large (including students traveling off campus), and does not focus on the TTU service, known as campus shuttles. History and Background of Citibus Citibus has been in continual service since 1971 when the city of Lubbock took over public transit operations from a private company. At this time, the City of Lubbock began subsidizing the bus system and created a Transit Department in the City for operations. In 1976, the City began using a contractor for management and operations of the bus system, which continues today. Citibus operates a fixed route system operated on behalf of Texas Tech University (TTU) and a fixed route system serving the city in general. Transit services provided by Citibus include Fixed Route, CitiAccess (paratransit), and Nite Ride (evening demand response service) in addition to other special services. There are nine fixed routes that traverse the City. CitiAccess is a curb‐to‐curb service for passengers in the community who are unable to utilize the regular fixed route service. The Citibus evening service is designed to meet the needs of the citizens of Lubbock who need transportation services outside of Citibus’ fixed route and CitiAccess regular hours. Nite Ride operates within the Lubbock city limits. A majority of Nite Ride evening service passengers work at night and utilize the service for afterhours transportation to and from their jobs. In addition to the above transportation services, Citibus provides route service to Texas Tech University and surrounding apartment complexes with 35 buses. Citibus is also the contracted agent for passenger sales and freight shipping/receiving for Greyhound Lines, Inc., which operates from the Citibus Downtown Transfer Plaza.
Organizational Structure City of Lubbock Citibus is operated through a contract overseen by the City of Lubbock. The City is a municipal corporation governed by a Council‐Manager form of government. Incorporated in 1909, the City provides a full range of services including public safety (police and fire protection), electric, water and wastewater, storm water, solid waste, public transportation, health and social services, cultural‐ recreation, highways and streets, airport, planning and zoning, and general administrative services. Citibus is administered under the Deputy City Manager (DCM). The DCM also oversees the Airport, Community Development, Municipal Court Administration, Animal Services, and the Health Department. The DCM operates under the City Manager, and the City government is overseen by a City Council. While oversight and administration of Citibus is under the DCM, operations and management of Citibus is through a contract, currently with RATP Dev North America.
Lubbock Metropolitan Planning Organization The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962 mandated that as a condition for the receipt of federal funds, each urban area with a population over 50,000 in the United States was required to carry on a
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 1 ‐ continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process. The law also designates additional responsibilities once cities reach a 200,000‐population threshold, as is the case with Lubbock. The Lubbock Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is governed by a nine‐member Board of Directors. The Board consists of the City Manager, the Mayor of Lubbock, two City of Lubbock Council members, two Lubbock County elected officials, the Mayor of Wolfforth, a Texas Department of Transportation district engineer, and the General Manager from Citibus. The City of Lubbock acts as the fiscal agent for the MPO, per an operating agreement between the City, the MPO and the Texas Department of Transportation. The agreement is to develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the State of Texas and to expend federal funds and to provide state matching funds for allowable costs necessary for the improvement of roads not in the state highway system. Enterprise Funds are used to account for services to outside users where the full cost of providing services, including capital, is to be recovered through fees and charges. The City programs receiving Enterprise Funds include the Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport (Airport Fund), Citibus (Transit Fund), Cemetery, Civic Centers, and Lake Alan Henry Recreational Funds.
Citibus Contract Staff Citibus provides public transportation for the City of Lubbock and is managed by RATP Dev North America. All Citibus employees are employees of RTAP working under the direction of the Citibus General Manager. The Citibus organization chart is shown in Figure II‐1. Top administrative staff directly under the General Manager include the Assistant General Manager/Chief Financial Officer, the Director of Human Resources, the Marketing Manager, and the Maintenance Director. The Assistant General Manager oversees the Finance Director, the Operations Supervisors and CitiAccess Supervisors. There are approximately 22 administrators, plus 9 full time and 4 part time dispatchers; 86 full time operators and 49 part‐time operators, 10 mechanics, and 4 service lane technicians.
Mission and Goals Citibus has a stated Mission and Purpose:
Mission Statement
• Deliver safe, quality, efficient, environmentally sustainable transportation choices that link people, jobs and community. Citibus provides services that are essential to economic vitality.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 2 ‐
Figure II‐1:
Source: Citibus, 2019
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 3 ‐ Additionally, Citibus has the following stated goals and objectives:
Goals Objectives FY 2018‐19
• Seek complementary • Apply for federal grant to
operating sources of funding procure buses through the to replace government 5339 (b) grant program subsidies • Continue to enhance safety • Maintain the financial program to reduce performance of Citibus by preventable accidents and striving for 50% cost recovery increase safety awareness ratio • Continue to reduce overtime • Apply for federal grants that in operations, maintenance, support the ongoing efforts to and administration replace buses and vans • Procure vehicles • Complete NIMS training • Hire a consultant to complete a comprehensive operational analysis • Complete installation of passenger waiting amenities. • Sustain Citibus media presence
Facilities An overview of transit facilities is provided below, with more detailed discussion on passenger amenities provided in Chapter IX.
Citibus Operations and Maintenance Facility Citibus operations are conducted from the operations and maintenance facility covering most of two square blocks between 7th and 9th Streets and Texas Avenue and Buddy Holly Avenues. The facility is city‐owned. Bus parking (uncovered) is available on the fenced, paved north block on the property, and the operations building is located on the southwest block. There are 83,592 square feet of bus parking, and employee parking is rented. There are two underground diesel tanks and one underground gasoline tank. There are two chargers for the newly acquired electric bus. The administration building, built in the mid‐1960s, was last remodeled in 1981 and is 28,000 square feet. Within the building are general office space, offices and cubicles, drivers' breakroom, two dispatch counters, storage room, and a men's and women's locker room. The Maintenance facility has three pits, a parts room, offices, cages for technicians’ toolboxes, storage areas, a secure money count room, and ten to twelve parking spaces. Adjacent to the Maintenance facility is a bus wash and the bus parking lot.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 4 ‐ Citibus Transfer Plaza The Citibus Transfer Plaza is located a few blocks from the operations and maintenance facility at 801 Broadway. All Citibus routes serve the hub. The facility is on one square block south of Broadway, north of 13th Street, and between Crickets and Buddy Holly Avenues. The plaza includes an 11,000 square foot building, shared between Citibus and Greyhound. The transit plaza was built in 1994 and remodeled in 2014 and is owned by the City of Lubbock. The plaza building has an open lobby with benches and trash receptacles, ticket counters, a meeting room, a driver break room, and a vending machine area. On the exterior, there are three bus pull‐ins on each side of the building (twelve total). Across from the pull‐ins are five parking spots for a total of twenty spots, including four reserved for handicap parking. Some of the parking is reserved for Citibus staff vehicles. Street parking is also available around the entire block, with some restrictions.
South Plains Mall Hub South Plains Mall provides a transfer point on 57th Street on the north side of the mall. The stop includes a bus‐cutout that accommodates up to four buses. There are two shelters with benches, a trash receptacle, and street lighting. Many of the fixed routes use this as a transfer point and have a ten‐minute layover.
Citibus Passenger Amenities Citibus has 36 shelters with benches throughout Lubbock. Passenger facilities are discussed in more detail in Chapter IX.
Citibus Fleet Citibus has a fleet of 125 vehicles in the active vehicles, including 18 staff vehicles. The 42 vehicles in operation for Citbus fixed route services are shown in Table II‐1. As indicated, the most common vehicle type is the Gillig low‐floor bus. The average age of the fleet is 2008—or eleven years old, and on average, will be expiring in 2020. The average mileage of vehicles in the fleet is 265,917. Table II‐1 also shows the expected end of the vehicles’ useful life, per the State of Good Repairs grant program recommendations. According to the data, 15 of the vehicles are being used beyond their expected life span, and 7 are due to expire in the next year.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 5 ‐ Table II-1: Citibus Fixed Route Fleet
Wheel- Ambu- End of chair latory Mileage as Useful Make Year Positions Seating of Sept 2019 Fuel Type Funding Source Life 1 40' RTS Nova 2000 2 41 42,383 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40' RTS Nova 2000 2 41 41,101 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40' RTS Nova 2000 2 41 31,222 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40' RTS Nova 2000 2 41 28,742 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40' RTS Nova 2000 2 41 29,675 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 RTS Novabus 2000 2 33 190,569 Diesel Federal Grant 2014 RTS Novabus 2000 2 33 264,753 Diesel Federal Grant 2014 RTS Novabus 2000 2 33 190,860 Diesel Federal Grant 2014 RTS Novabus 2000 2 33 229,709 Diesel Federal Grant 2014 Gillig Low Floor 2004 2 32 390,212 Diesel State VCR 2018 Gillig Low Floor 2004 2 32 409,175 Diesel State VCR 2018 Gillig Low Floor 2004 2 32 415,709 Diesel Federal Grant 2018 Gillig Low Floor 2004 2 32 437,590 Diesel Federal Grant 2018 Gillig Low Floor 2004 2 32 464,085 Diesel Federal Grant 2018 Gillig Low Floor 2004 2 32 399,894 Diesel Federal Grant 2018 Gillig Low Floor 2006 2 32 409,055 Diesel Federal Grant 2020 Gillig Low Floor 2006 2 32 313,387 Diesel Federal Grant 2020 Gillig Low Floor 2006 2 32 365,111 Diesel Federal Grant 2020 Gillig Low Floor 2006 2 32 506,471 Diesel Federal Grant 2020 Gillig Low Floor 2006 2 32 362,088 Diesel Federal Grant 2020 Gillig Low Floor 2006 2 32 472,256 Diesel Federal Grant 2020 Gillig Low Floor 2006 2 32 584,687 Diesel Federal Grant 2020 Gillig/BRT Hybrid 2009 2 23 359,440 Diesel State VCR 2023 Gillig/BRT Hybrid 2009 2 23 366,750 Diesel State VCR 2023 Gillig/BRT Hybrid 2009 2 23 410,242 Diesel Federal Grant 2023 Gillig/BRT Hybrid 2009 2 23 359,220 Diesel Federal Grant 2023 Gillig/BRT Hybrid 2009 2 23 418,760 Diesel Federal Grant 2023 Gillig/BRT Hybrid 2009 2 23 372,376 Diesel Federal Grant 2023 Gillig Hybrid 2011 2 32 294,503 Diesel Federal Grant 2025 Gillig Hybrid 2011 2 32 299,088 Diesel Federal Grant 2025 Gillig Hybrid 2013 2 32 250,954 Diesel Federal Grant 2027 Gillig Hybrid 2013 2 32 264,622 Diesel Federal Grant 2027 Gillig Hybrid 2013 2 32 302,636 Diesel Federal Grant 2027 Gillig Hybrid 2013 2 32 294,305 Diesel Federal Grant 2027 35-Gillig Low Floor 2017 2 32 117,394 Diesel City of Lubbock 2031 35-Gillig Low Floor 2017 2 32 119,098 Diesel City of Lubbock 2031 40-Gillig Low Floor 2017 2 38 69,992 Diesel City of Lubbock 2031 40-Gillig Low Floor 2017 2 38 70,584 Diesel City of Lubbock 2031 35-Gillig Low Floor 2018 2 32 65,187 Diesel City of Lubbock 2032 35-Gillig Low Floor 2018 2 32 75,014 Diesel City of Lubbock 2032 40-Gillig Low Floor 2018 2 38 39,593 Diesel City of Lubbock 2032 40-Gillig Low Floor 2018 2 38 40,042 Diesel City of Lubbock 2032 Averages 2008 31 265,917 2022 Note 1: End of Useful Life (SGR performance measure) Note 2: Transferred from DART Source: Citibus Active Fleet List, September 2019
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 6 ‐ The fleet for Texas Tech University services is shown in Table II‐2. The fleet of 38 vehicles is largely made up of Nova low floor buses from 2000 and 2001, with a fleet average age of 17 years, and an average of 415,000 miles per vehicle. All but the two new fully electric buses have reached the end of their useful life.
Table II-2: Citibus Texas Technical University Fleet Wheel- Ambu- End of chair latory Mileage as Useful Make Year Positions Seating of Sept 2019 Fuel Type Funding Source Life 1 RTS Novabus 2001 2 33 215,958 Diesel Federal Grant 2015 RTS Novabus 2001 2 33 211,741 Diesel Federal Grant 2015 RTS Novabus 2001 2 33 207,972 Diesel Federal Grant 2015 40-Electric Protera Bus 2019 687 Diesel Federal Grant 2033 40-Electric Protera Bus 2019 966 Diesel Federal Grant 2033 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 516,630 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 523,817 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 514,990 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 488,053 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 505,097 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 504,462 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 466,967 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 517,964 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 521,023 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 583,709 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 503,191 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40" Nova LF 2000 2 38 470,965 Diesel Transferred 2 2014 40' RTS Nova 2000 2 41 45,841 Diesel Transferred 3 2014 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 527,518 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 441,528 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 435,673 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 459,514 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 400,821 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 492,296 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 458,335 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 497,277 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 501,896 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 496,307 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 540,498 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 428,582 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 501,043 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 495,636 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 478,557 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 514,386 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 456,377 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 40" Nova LF 2001 2 38 507,980 Diesel Transferred 2 2015 Chance 2000 2 28 160,350 Diesel Federal Grant 2014 Chance 2000 2 28 175,576 Diesel Federal Grant 2014 Averages 2002 415,005 2016 Note 1: End of Useful Life (SGR performance measure) Note 2: Transferred from Cleveland Source: Citbus Active Fleet List, September 2019 Note 3: Transferred from DART
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 7 ‐ The CitiAccess vehicles are shown in Table II‐3. The fleet consists of 33 cuttaways, with an average age of seven years and an average of 201,111 miles per vehicle. Four of the vehicles are past their useful life and another 15 are due to reach the end of their useful life this year.
Table II-3: CitiAccess Fleet
Wheel- Ambu- End of chair latory Mileage as Useful Make Year Positions Seating of Sept 2019 Fuel Type Funding Source Life 1 International 2006 4 20 218,543 Diesel Federal Grant 2016 International 2006 4 20 270,049 Diesel Federal Grant 2016 International 2006 4 20 244,323 Diesel Federal Grant 2016 Arboc/Chevy 2008 5 11 238,948 Unleaded State VCR 2018 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 305,356 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 307,351 Unleaded State VCR 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 258,842 Unleaded State VCR 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 296,773 Unleaded State VCR 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 315,803 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 289,748 Unleaded State VCR 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 320,337 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 290,456 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 226,130 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 300,978 Unleaded State VCR 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 273,358 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 288,598 Unleaded State VCR 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 258,855 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 288,623 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2009 5 11 305,274 Unleaded Federal Grant 2019 Arboc/Chevy 2016 4 11 77,159 Unleaded Federal Grant 2026 Arboc/Chevy 2016 4 11 86,737 Unleaded Federal Grant 2026 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 91,900 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 112,228 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 106,181 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 106,274 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 101,829 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 96,804 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 95,747 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 109,673 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 93,015 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 93,956 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 84,513 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Arboc/Chevy 2017 4 11 82,286 Unleaded Federal Grant 2027 Averages 2012 201,111 2022 Note 1: End of Useful Life (SGR performance measure) Source: Citbus Active Fleet List, September 2019 Tables II‐1 to II‐3 also indicate the original funding sources for each vehicle. Many of the vehicles were funded through federal grants, and most of the TTU vehicles were transferred from other programs (Cleveland and DART).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 8 ‐ PEER ANALYSIS A peer analysis has been conducted to better understand the size, scope and operating statistics of Citibus. While no two transit systems are alike, a peer analysis can offer insights into funding mechanisms, overall operations, challenges and opportunities. The analysis below is a broad overview of systems serving colleges and universities and that are similar in size to Citibus. Ideas and lessons from these peers may be considered in greater detail as this COA progresses. Selected Citibus Peers Eight peers were selected based on the size of the communities they serve, the size of the transit program and the presence of a major college/university. These include: Iowa City Transit provides transportation to Iowa City, while Cambus provides transit to the University of Iowa in Iowa City. The two systems are operated separately, but each is an FTA grant recipient through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of Johnson County. Students ride the Cambus free of charge. Ozark Regional Transit serves Fayetteville and Springdale, while Razorback Transit is a free bus system centered on the campus of the University of Arkansas with routes to other Fayetteville destinations. Ozark Regional Transit runs throughout both Washington and Benton Counties and is a broader regional bus transit system. TheRide is Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti’s public transit system, with an extensive fixed route system serving both communities. Students of the University of Michigan ride this service for free by swiping their university ID cards. Ridership and costs for students are tracked separately from the community at large, but the system is operated as one, much like Citibus. StarTrans in Lincoln, Nebraska serves the University of Nebraska, Lincoln (UNL) and the City of Lincoln. UNL funds the two routes which cater to students, while StarTrans operates 20 non‐UNL routes. The UNL routes carry 40 percent of the systemwide ridership (just over 4,000 passengers on an average weekday, versus 5,800 on the 20 non‐university StarTrans routes). Columbia Transit, serving the University of Missouri in Columbia, provides public bus and para‐ transit service, and is owned and operated by the city. “Go COMO” operates 11 fixed‐routes within the city of Columbia, and 6 “Tiger Line” routes oriented toward transporting students around the MU campus. Additional routes are offered during MU home football games. Citybus of Lafayette, Indiana serves the Cities of Lafayette and West Lafayette and nearby areas in Tippecanoe County. A funding mechanism allows the use of tax revenues from both cities (as well as State and Federal grants). Additionally, Citybus has a partnership with Purdue University and Ivy Tech Community College that allows students, faculty, and staff of these universities to ride free of cost. Cleveland Area Rapid Transit (CART) serves Cleveland County, Oklahoma including Norman, Oklahoma, which is home to the University of Oklahoma. CART buses run six routes in Norman and five University of Oklahoma campus routes on weekdays. CART also operates a commuter route (the Sooner Express) to Oklahoma City each Monday through Friday, as well as a paratransit service, CARTaccess.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 9 ‐ Transfort is the public transportation operator for the metro area of Fort Collins, Colorado, including the Colorado State University campus. Transfort currently offers 22 regular routes, with 20 providing all‐day service Monday through Friday. Additionally, five routes for transporting Colorado State University students, faculty, and staff run throughout the school year.
Community Overview The community characteristics of the peers (and Lubbock) are shown in Table II‐4. As shown, the populations served by the transit systems range from 103,898 in Norman, Oklahoma (University of Oklahoma) to 306,022 in Ann Arbor, Michigan (University of Michigan). The average size of the peer communities is 209,251, compared to 276,000 in Lubbock. The enrollment at the universities served ranges from 21,400 (University of Arkansas) to 33,900 (Colorado State University) with the average at 28,600, compared to 32,000 at TTU.
Table II-4: Peer Transit Systems College or University Population University City Served Served Transit Name Served Enrollment Lubbock, TX Texas Technical TTU/Citibus Combined 276,000 32,000 University (TTU) Iowa City, IA University of Cambus/Iowa City 106,621 23,000 Iowa Transit Combined Springdale/ University of Razorback/Ozark 295,083 21,400 Fayettville, AR Arkansas Regional Combined Ann Arbor, MI University of U-M Campus Rts/ 306,022 28,800 Michigan TheRide Combined Lincoln, NE U of NE, Lincoln StarTran 258,719 25,800 Columbia, MO U of Missouri Go COMO 124,728 30,000 Lafayette, IN Purdue CityBus 147,725 30,800 Norman, OK U of Oklahoma CART 103,898 31,700 Fort Collins, CO Colorado State Transfort 264,465 33,900
Average 209,251 28,600 Lubbock Ranking Against Peers (1 = Largest) 3 2
Source: Citibus 2019; National Transit Database 2016/2017.
Transit Program Overview The operating characteristics of the peers are shown in Table II‐5. Annual ridership ranges from 1.2 million passengers on CART (serving Norman, Oklahoma and UO) to 13.6 million serving Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan, including the University of Michigan. The average ridership of the peer communities is 4.12 million, compared to 3.4 million on Citibus. Based on these numbers, the passengers per capita were calculated. The highest number of trips per capita is in Iowa City, which operates both a city‐wide system and “Cambus” serving the university: the combined ridership averages 52 passenger trips per capita (37.3 on Cambus and 14.7 on Iowa City Transit). In comparison, Citibus serves an average of 12.6 passengers per capita, with 2.5 on Citibus and 10.1 on TTU routes.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 10 ‐ Table II‐5 also shows the operating cost of the transit programs, ranging from $2.9 million for CART in Oklahoma to $37.8 million for TheRide serving the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The average operating cost of the peers is $10.7 million, and $8.8 million for Citibus. Applying the operating cost to the ridership carried determines the cost per passenger trip. The highest systemwide cost is on Go COMO, which serves the University of Missouri in Columbia, with an average cost of $4.08 per passenger trip. On the systems where the cost per passenger was available separately for the universities versus the communities, it is clear the cost per passenger trip is lower for the university populations, which tend to have higher concentrations of people going to fewer destinations. For example, the operating cost of Ozark Regional Transit in Fayetteville, Arkansas is $12.20 per passenger trip, while the cost to serve students on Razorback is $1.54. In Lubbock, the average cost for serving the general population is $6.22, while the average cost to serve TTU students is $1.62. Similarly, the passengers carried per hour of service is higher on the university services than the community‐wide services.
Table II-5: Peer Transit Systems Annual Fixed Route Performance Vehicle Operating Passenger Passengers Operating Cost per Hours of Cost Trips per per Vehicle Cost per Passenger City Served Transit Programs Ridership Service (millions) Capita Hour Vehicle Hour Trip Lubbock, TX TTU 2,785,873 71,557 $4.5 10.1 38.9 $62.89 $1.62 Citibus 692,072 69,144 $4.3 2.5 10.0 $62.19 $6.22 Combined 3,477,945 140,701 $8.8 12.6 24.7 $62.54 $2.53 Iowa City, IA Cambus 3,977,395 70,975 $3.1 37.3 56.0 $43.07 $0.77 Iowa City Transit 1,571,818 54,636 $5.0 14.7 28.8 $91.02 $3.16 Combined 5,549,213 125,611 $8.0 52.0 44.2 $63.93 $1.45 Springdale/ Razorback 1,697,040 49,456 $2.6 5.8 34.3 $52.72 $1.54 Fayettville, AR Ozark Regional 235,277 45,304 $2.9 0.8 5.2 $63.35 $12.20 Combined 1,932,317 94,760 $5.5 6.5 20.4 $57.80 $2.83 Ann Arbor, MI U-M Campus Rts 7,352,383 112,878 $8.0 24.0 65.1 $70.48 $1.08 TheRide 6,596,905 280,886 $29.9 21.6 23.5 $106.27 $4.52 Combined 13,949,288 393,764 $37.8 45.6 35.4 $96.01 $2.71 Lincoln, NE StarTran 2,125,214 68,107 $5.1 8.2 31.2 $75.60 $2.42 Columbia, MO Go COMO 1,516,367 81,298 $6.2 12.2 18.7 $76.09 $4.08 Lafayette, IN CityBus 4,554,827 138,874 $10.9 30.8 32.8 $78.41 $2.39 Norman, OK CART 1,228,265 39,627 $2.9 11.8 31.0 $72.35 $2.33 Fort Collins, CO Transfort 2,834,916 97,181 $11.3 10.7 29.2 $115.91 $3.97 Average 4,129,817 131,103 $10.7 19.7 31.5 $81.76 $3.01 Lubbock Combined Ranking Against 4244725 Peers (1 = Best) Citibus Ranking Against Peers 1 3233311 (1 = Best) 1 Excluding comparison with campus-only or combined systems. Source: Citibus 2019; National Transit Database 2016/2017. Lessons Learned from Peers Dual transit programs which serve both communities at large and major universities have challenges and opportunities. The university services can be more effective in that they serve populations in larger concentrations with fewer destinations, compared to city‐wide or regional services which serve less dense populations with more dispersed destinations. The result is that providing cost‐effective transit for community services can be more difficult to achieve, though transit needs among the transit
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 11 ‐ dependent populations may be more substantial overall. At the same time, transit for universities tends to improve overall mobility in a community and can make a transit program more sustainable. Considered on a total community basis (both campus and off‐campus systems combined), Table II‐3 indicates the following: Lubbock generates overall ridership near the middle of the peers: of the nine communities, Lubbock total ridership ranks 4th. As a whole, transit services in Lubbock are relatively robust, with the second greatest level of annual hours of transit service of the nine communities. At a total annual operating cost of $8.8 Million, Lubbock ranks third in total transit costs. The annual passenger‐trips served per capita in Lubbock is near the middle of the peers, ranking 4th out of 9. Productivity of the overall transit network in Lubbock is relatively low, at 7th out of 9. Transit services are overall relatively cost‐effective in Lubbock, ranking 2nd only to Springdale/Fayetteville Arkansas in providing low‐cost transit service per vehicle‐hour. The costs incurred to serve a passenger is near the middle of the peer systems, with four peers incurring a lower cost per passenger‐trip and four incurring a higher value. Because of the differing balances between “town” and “gown” transit systems in the various peer communities, it is difficult to directly compare Citibus against the other peers that focus service on their campus. Comparing against the other three citywide systems that do not include large components of campus service (Iowa City Transit, Ozark Regional and TheRide) indicates the following:
Citibus annual ridership per capita is relatively low, ranking 3 out of 4. Citibus productivity (passenger‐trips per vehicle‐hour) also ranks 3 out of 4. Citibus is the most cost‐efficient of these four transit systems, with an operating cost per vehicle‐hour that is 28 percent lower than the peer average. The cost per passenger‐trip on Citibus is relatively high, with two of the other three systems providing a trip at a lower cost. Citibus provides 0.25 annual vehicle‐hours per resident of the service area. In comparsion, Iowa City Transit provides 0.51 and TheRide in Ann Arbor provides 0.92, while Ozark Regional provides 0.15.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ II ‐ 12 ‐ Chapter III (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter III: Existing Community Conditions
INTRODUCTION Chapter III presents the community conditions, demographics, and select local travel patterns for the Lubbock area. The City of Lubbock is the Lubbock County seat located in northwest Texas and is home to Texas Tech University (TTU). The demographic analysis was done by census tract, which is a census‐defined boundary. These boundaries do not necessarily denote neighborhoods or communities, but rather act as a standardized means for analysis. All census tracts within Lubbock are included, as well as many in the western and southwestern portion of the county, which is experiencing the greatest growth. The census tracts included in the study area are shown in Figure III‐1.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Demographics Unless noted otherwise, all data listed in this chapter are from the 2013‐2017 U.S. Census American Community Survey (2017 ACS) five‐year estimates. According to the 2017 ACS, the total population of the study area is 276,353.
Population Trends According to the Texas State Demographer, the population of Lubbock and the outlying areas has grown from approximately 279,000 in 2010 to approximately 313,000 in 2019. This accounts for a 12 percent population growth between 2010 and 2019 with approximately 1.2 to 1.4 percent growth annually.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 1 ‐
Population Density Population density is used to determine where population is concentrated. Transit is generally more successful in areas with greater concentrations of population. Population densities for the study area are shown in Figure III‐2. As shown, population densities are highest in the southern portion of the Arnett Benson neighborhood and the North Overton neighborhood to the north and east of TTU, as well as the Wester neighborhood in the west central part of Lubbock.
Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics This section provides information on those individuals considered by the transportation profession to be dependent upon public transit. The four types of limitations that preclude people from driving, therefore making them more likely to be dependent upon public transit, are physical limitations, financial limitations, legal limitations, and self‐imposed limitations. Physical limitations may include temporary disabilities (i.e., acute illnesses and head injuries) to permanent disabilities (i.e., frailty, blindness, paralysis, or developmental disabilities). Financial limitations include people who are unable, due to lack of sufficient financial resources, to purchase or rent a vehicle. Legal limitations include being too young to drive or having no driver’s license. Self‐imposed limitations refer to people who choose not to own or drive a vehicle (some or all of the time) for reasons other than those listed in the first three categories. The U.S. Census is generally capable of providing information about the first three categories of limitation. The fourth category of limitation represents a relatively small portion of transit ridership in areas with low density. Table III‐1 presents the study area’s statistics on transportation dependent populations, as well as the statistics for the state of Texas as a point of comparison.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 2 ‐ Table III-1: Estimated Population Characteristics for the City of Lubbock
Older Adult Zero-Vehicle Population Youth Population Ambulatory Low-Income Total Land Area Total Households (65 and Over) (10-19) Disabled Population Population Census Tract Population (sq. miles) Households #%#%#%#%#% 1 2,639 3.56 892 27 3.0% 346 13.1% 456 17.3% 237 9.0% 434 16.4% 2.01 1,784 8.35 422 20 4.7% 166 9.3% 371 20.8% 176 9.9% 334 18.7% 2.02 1,753 0.55 678 105 15.5% 154 8.8% 245 14.0% 162 9.2% 675 38.5% 3.01 3,910 0.37 1,771 225 12.7% 114 2.9% 404 10.3% 179 4.6% 1,748 44.7% 3.02 6,934 1.71 2,505 279 11.1% 714 10.3% 943 13.6% 873 12.6% 2,222 32.0% 4.02 4,637 0.94 1,868 151 8.1% 526 11.3% 497 10.7% 219 4.7% 1,002 21.6% 4.03 3,931 0.98 1,470 9 0.6% 733 18.6% 523 13.3% 186 4.7% 677 17.2% 4.04 7,676 2.04 2,892 155 5.4% 395 5.1% 1044 13.6% 172 2.2% 1,427 18.6% 4.05 10,388 4.02 3,848 136 3.5% 695 6.7% 1420 13.7% 580 5.6% 2,578 24.8% 5 8,078 2.93 662 162 24.5% 609 7.5% 5464 67.6% 131 1.6% 224 2.8% 6.03 3,369 0.27 1,562 176 11.3% 0 0.0% 447 13.3% 97 2.9% 2,425 72.0% 6.05 901 0.21 266 53 19.9% 4 0.4% 162 18.0% 22 2.4% 698 77.5% 6.07 2,503 0.41 987 108 10.9% 38 1.5% 286 11.4% 191 7.6% 987 39.4% 7 1,108 1.79 360 25 6.9% 125 11.3% 98 8.8% 91 8.2% 192 17.3% 9 4,812 4.10 1,715 206 12.0% 714 14.8% 866 18.0% 688 14.3% 1,613 33.5% 10 3,478 3.57 1,059 163 15.4% 393 11.3% 596 17.1% 260 7.5% 972 27.9% 12 2,402 4.15 1,006 295 29.3% 432 18.0% 326 13.6% 382 15.9% 736 30.6% 13 2,838 1.11 1,011 187 18.5% 332 11.7% 414 14.6% 429 15.1% 601 21.2% 14 5,339 0.87 2,281 77 3.4% 379 7.1% 566 10.6% 260 4.9% 1,356 25.4% 15.01 2,538 0.50 1,024 20 2.0% 265 10.4% 221 8.7% 57 2.2% 728 28.7% 15.02 2,366 0.50 949 54 5.7% 154 6.5% 96 4.1% 97 4.1% 1,094 46.2% 16.01 2,430 1.00 1,142 38 3.3% 566 23.3% 272 11.2% 151 6.2% 393 16.2% 16.02 3,176 0.95 1,206 46 3.8% 379 11.9% 277 8.7% 196 6.2% 853 26.9% 17.02 5,484 1.64 2,495 157 6.3% 734 13.4% 805 14.7% 480 8.8% 1,058 19.3% 17.05 6,476 1.23 2,760 208 7.5% 1,215 18.8% 622 9.6% 639 9.9% 889 13.7% 17.06 6,545 3.57 2,899 31 1.1% 299 4.6% 967 14.8% 424 6.5% 686 10.5% 17.07 6,056 2.48 2,517 26 1.0% 528 8.7% 752 12.4% 177 2.9% 738 12.2% 17.08 2,706 0.56 1,550 239 15.4% 291 10.8% 85 3.1% 189 7.0% 842 31.1% 17.09 4,729 0.65 1,924 202 10.5% 484 10.2% 537 11.4% 368 7.8% 1,345 28.4% 18.01 5,844 1.00 2,139 154 7.2% 646 11.1% 757 13.0% 573 9.8% 1,116 19.1% 18.03 5,135 1.04 2,305 90 3.9% 791 15.4% 431 8.4% 432 8.4% 321 6.3% 18.04 3,731 0.88 1,700 133 7.8% 811 21.7% 281 7.5% 219 5.9% 341 9.1% 19.01 5,200 1.00 1,826 107 5.9% 556 10.7% 535 10.3% 267 5.1% 1,168 22.5% 19.03 5,485 1.34 2,173 55 2.5% 1,076 19.6% 420 7.7% 206 3.8% 417 7.6% 19.04 1,569 0.65 627 5 0.8% 373 23.8% 269 17.1% 149 9.5% 130 8.3% 20.01 2,494 0.50 897 58 6.5% 356 14.3% 344 13.8% 250 10.0% 808 32.4% 20.02 3,131 0.50 1,169 85 7.3% 251 8.0% 331 10.6% 218 7.0% 1,003 32.0% 21.01 5,801 1.31 2,328 203 8.7% 1,149 19.8% 1117 19.3% 788 13.6% 751 12.9% 21.02 3,021 0.65 1,262 40 3.2% 627 20.8% 270 8.9% 167 5.5% 151 5.0% 22.02 5,345 1.00 2,021 59 2.9% 204 3.8% 1029 19.3% 302 5.7% 658 12.3% 22.03 3,075 0.65 1,159 67 5.8% 592 19.3% 458 14.9% 382 12.4% 510 16.6% 22.04 4,903 1.07 1,571 154 9.8% 440 9.0% 812 16.6% 397 8.1% 1,870 38.1% 23 4,856 0.84 1,514 26 1.7% 455 9.4% 886 18.2% 423 8.7% 1,443 29.7% 24 7,411 1.65 2,176 204 9.4% 651 8.8% 1545 20.8% 470 6.3% 2,551 34.4% 25 2,704 7.70 821 46 5.6% 284 10.5% 485 17.9% 108 4.0% 876 32.4% 103.01 4,062 132.41 1,301 62 4.8% 446 11.0% 699 17.2% 397 9.8% 389 9.6% 103.02 2,652 3.12 919 15 1.6% 405 15.3% 429 16.2% 284 10.7% 250 9.4% 104.02 2,154 5.92 716 64 8.9% 250 11.6% 281 13.0% 231 10.7% 457 21.2% 104.03 5,559 1.00 2,304 36 1.6% 825 14.8% 720 13.0% 214 3.8% 179 3.2% 104.04 3,374 3.37 1,216 62 5.1% 318 9.4% 527 15.6% 319 9.5% 878 26.0% 104.05 5,536 26.71 2,201 118 5.4% 946 17.1% 826 14.9% 360 6.5% 819 14.8% 104.06 6,031 30.31 2,031 66 3.2% 654 10.8% 1330 22.1% 376 6.2% 551 9.1% 104.07 8,731 3.49 3,184 31 1.0% 837 9.6% 1332 15.3% 242 2.8% 124 1.4% 104.08 10,579 63.52 3,747 88 2.3% 996 9.4% 1596 15.1% 450 4.3% 514 4.9% 105.02 3,435 0.98 1,516 10 0.7% 773 22.5% 498 14.5% 227 6.6% 73 2.1% 105.04 4,034 0.98 1,612 10 0.6% 1,008 25.0% 377 9.3% 195 4.8% 240 5.9% 105.05 4,485 0.98 1,719 67 3.9% 512 11.4% 646 14.4% 398 8.9% 125 2.8% 105.06 4,220 1.50 1,695 64 3.8% 394 9.3% 377 8.9% 285 6.8% 257 6.1% 105.08 9,600 78.16 3,083 79 2.6% 1,020 10.6% 1416 14.8% 639 6.7% 1,112 11.6% 105.09 3,012 1.00 1,174 67 5.7% 613 20.4% 432 14.3% 271 9.0% 52 1.7% 105.1 2,627 0.98 1,007 8 0.8% 367 14.0% 450 17.1% 191 7.3% 117 4.5% 105.11 5,571 2.45 1,849 0 0.0% 294 5.3% 855 15.3% 212 3.8% 544 9.8% Study Totals 276,353 434 102,683 5,913 2.1% 31,704 11.5% 42,523 15.4% 18,755 6.8% 50,322 18.2%
Texas Totals 27,419,612 261,797 12,468,990 272,139 2.2% 3,215,906 11.7% 3,972,192 14.5% 1,456,923 5.3% 4,291,384 15.7% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey - 2017, LSC 2019.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 3 ‐ Older‐Adult Population The older‐adult population, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as people 65 years of age or older, represents a significant number of the national transit‐dependent population and represents 11.5 percent of the total population in the study area, nearly the same as statewide (11.7 percent in Texas). The southwestern census tracts of Lubbock, along the southern portion of the State Highway (SH) 289 corridor, have the highest density of older adults, as shown in Figure III‐3.
Population of Persons with an Ambulatory Disability An individual is classified as having an “ambulatory disability” if they have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Approximately 6.8 percent of the population in the study area has some type of ambulatory disability. This is greater than the percentage of persons with an ambulatory disability in the state of Texas (approximately 5.3 percent). As shown in Figure III‐4, the areas with the highest densities of disabled adults are in the Ballenger and Bayless Atkins neighborhoods in southeast Lubbock.
Low-Income Population Low‐income population, as defined by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), includes persons whose household income is at or below the Department of Health and Human Services’ poverty guidelines. The low‐income population listed in the Table III‐1 and Figure III‐5 includes people who are living below the poverty line using the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty threshold. In the study area, approximately 18.2 percent of the population is considered low income while the percentage of persons considered low income for the state of Texas is 15.7 percent. As shown in Figure III‐5 the areas with the highest densities of low‐income persons are the North Overton and Arnett Benson neighborhoods near TTU.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 4 ‐
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 5 ‐ Zero-Vehicle Households Individuals residing in zero‐vehicle households are generally transit‐dependent as they do not have access to a private vehicle. The ranges for the density of zero‐vehicle households are quite low due to the size of the block groups, combined with the small number of zero‐vehicle households in the study area. Approximately 2.2 percent of Texas’s households reported no vehicle available for use was similar to the percent of households in the Lubbock area reported having no vehicle available for use (2.1 percent). As shown in Figure III‐6, census tracts with high densities of zero‐vehicle households are located in the Wester neighborhood and areas around TTU.
Youth Population Approximately 15.4 percent of Lubbock’s population are youth between the ages of 10 and 19 years of age, this is slightly more than the state of Texas (13 percent). As shown in Figure III‐7, the densities of youth are located just west and north of Texas Tech University followed by high populations of youth in the Heart of Lubbock and Ballenger neighborhoods just south of Downtown.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 6 ‐ LAND USE DEVELOPMENT In 2018, the City of Lubbock recently completed a Comprehensive Plan for the Future (Comprehensive Plan). Within this Comprehensive Plan, land use policies were identified and adopted to accommodate future growth and economic development. The Comprehensive Plan also defined various types of land use designations that can be used to inform how the region will continue to develop in the future. To support future efforts in mixing appropriate land uses, a compatibility matrix was designed to identify when land uses are appropriate within proximity of one another.
Current Housing Units According to the US Census 2013‐2017 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, there are currently 103,102 housing units in Lubbock and surrounding area. Additionally, 10.3 percent of these units (10,585 units) are currently vacant and unoccupied. The most common housing unit type is single unit dwellings (70 percent), followed by 20‐ or more unit structures (10 percent), and 10‐ to 19‐unit structures (6.4 percent). As Citibus provides service to TTU students, faculty, and staff, housing is particularly of interest within the neighborhoods surrounding the University. According to TTU, there are currently 23,000 students living off‐campus.
Projected Housing Units The Comprehensive Plan used current levels of vacant land acreage to determine a build‐out goal of 58,040 additional housing units by 2040. This was further broken down by the following unit types:
36,479 Low Density Residential Housing Units (3 Dwelling Units/Acre) 14,030 High Density Residential Housing Units (21 Dwelling Units/Acre)
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 7 ‐ 5,525 Mixed‐Use Housing Units (10 Dwelling Units/Acre) 2,006 Medium Density Residential Housing Units (8 Dwelling Units/Acre) While it is projected that nearly 63 percent of the projected housing units will be low density, 24 percent of the build out to occur will be high density residential housing. This high‐density housing is likely to occur within the City of Lubbock’s downtown area; however, the land use maps provided within the Comprehensive Plan show many other areas throughout the City zoned for such development.
Major Employment Industries Education, health, and social services provide 30 percent of the total employment within Lubbock. The retail trade industry employs the second largest number of employees at 13 percent, closely followed by arts and entertainment at 12 percent. Industries such as construction, finance, manufacturing, and agriculture average between five and 2 percent of total employment within the study area as shown in Table III‐2.
Table III-2: Employment Industries of City of Lubbock Employment Industry # % Educational services / health care and social assistance 36,194 30% Retail trade 15,918 13% Arts, entertainment, and recreation / accommodation and food services 14,347 12% Professional, scientific, and management / administrative and waste management 9,752 8% Construction 7,235 6% Finance and insurance / real estate and rental and leasing 6,624 5% Other services, except public administration 6,442 5% Manufacturing 6,102 5% Transportation and warehousing / utilities 5,290 4% Public administration 4,234 3% Wholesale trade 4,217 3% Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting / mining 2,521 2% Information 2,310 2% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey - 2017, LSC 2019.
Major Activity Centers Major transit activity centers are important in terms of land use, trip generation, and the ability to be served by public transit. Activity centers are locations that are typically shown to generate transit trips because they are prime origins or prime destinations, and they generally include a wide variety of land uses including shopping/retail areas, and commercial, hospital, or education centers. There is no set formula that is used to derive a list of activity centers as the process is subjective. There are a number of activity centers in the City of Lubbock which potentially generate transit demand. Figure III‐8 shows locations of possible transit generators in Lubbock. Places that have been identified as possible transit generators include TTU, Walmart, United Supermarket, UMC, Workforce Solutions South Plains, Lubbock International Airport, VA Lubbock Clinic, Covenant Medical Group, Services to Aged & Disabled, Lubbock Regional Mental Health Center, the Food Stamp Office, StarCare, and various other community services, shopping centers, schools, and senior service locations.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 8 ‐
TRAVEL PATTERNS Work Transportation Mode The 2017 ACS yields information about the means of transportation to work for the study area’s employed residents. Table III‐3 shows the number of people in the City of Lubbock’s workforce, as well as the state of Texas’s, and their modes of travel. This data was tabulated for employees 16 years of age and older who were employed when the ACS was completed. A majority of employees (71 percent) drove alone to work in Lubbock, compared to 80 percent statewide. Excluding those who work at home and do not travel to work, the next highest mode of transportation in Lubbock is carpooling (23 percent), followed by walking or working from home (both 2 percent). This is similar to the state of Texas where 10 percent of commuters carpool, followed by 4 percent working from home, and 2 percent walking. Only 1.5 percent of employees use public transportation to get to work.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 9 ‐ Table III-3: Means of Transportation to Work City of Lubbock Texas Means of Transportation Workers Percent Workers Percent Drove alone 96,338 71.4% 10,097,917 80.5% Carpooled 30,708 22.7% 1,299,410 10.4% Public transportation 1,191 0.9% 187,311 1.5% (excluding taxicab) Walked 2,415 1.8% 195,192 1.6% Taxicab, motorcycle, 1,398 1.0% 208,437 1.7% bicycle or other means Worked at home 2,966 2.2% 562,209 4.5% Total 135,016 100% 12,550,476 100% Note: Workers 16 years and over Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Commuter Patterns Commuter patterns were analyzed for the City of Lubbock using Longitudinal Employer‐Household Dynamics (LEHD) data. In the absence of a better source of commuter pattern data, it is worthwhile to include these data as a general indicator of commuter patterns in the study area. However, it should be noted that LEHD data represent estimates of commuter patterns, synthesized from several sources of US Census residential locations, business locations, and commute data. This data excludes federal, railroad, retired, disabled, unemployed and self‐employed employees. Table III‐4 shows the top‐ten reported places where City of Lubbock residents are employed. Approximately 76 percent of residents work within the City of Lubbock. Table III‐5 shows where Lubbock workers live. Approximately 63 percent of Lubbock workers live in Lubbock.
Table III-4: Employment Location of Table III-5: Residence Location of Lubbock Residents Lubbock Workers Residents Workers
Area of Work # % Area of Residence # % Lubbock, TX 77,263 75.8% Lubbock, TX 77,263 62.7% Amarillo, TX 1,439 1.4% Amarillo, TX 2,647 2.1% Wolfforth, TX 1,416 1.4% El Paso, TX 1,951 1.6% Dallas, TX 1,098 1.1% Plainview, TX 1,321 1.1% Levelland, TX 943 0.9% Slaton, TX 1,229 1.0% Midland, TX 890 0.9% Wolfforth, TX 1,163 0.9% Houston, TX 603 0.6% Midland, TX 1,158 0.9% Plainview, TX 573 0.6% Odessa, TX 1,054 0.9% Odessa, TX 566 0.6% Levelland, TX 1,007 0.8% Austin, TX 469 0.5% Brownfield, TX 679 0.6% All Other Locations 16,674 16.4% All Other Locations 33,671 27.3% Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019 Source: LEHD; LSC, 2019
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ III ‐ 10 ‐ Chapter IV (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter IV: Stakeholder and Community Input
INTRODUCTION Chapter IV presents a summary of the input gathered from the kick‐off trip and stakeholder interviews, as well as the Public Outreach Plan.
KICK-OFF TRIP The kick‐off trip to officially start the Lubbock‐Citibus Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) took place from July 10, 2019 through July 12, 2019. For the kickoff trip, LSC had four team members onsite to support all of the kickoff activities in order to divide up activities and maximize onsite time in Lubbock. Goals for the kick‐off trip included: A one‐on‐one interview with Citibus General Manager Chris Mandrell to understand project goals, the ideal outcomes, key project components, and project challenges An in‐depth meeting with the Project Management Team (PMT). o The PMT will have the highest level of involvement on managing week‐to‐week deliverables and study development and consists of the LSC Project Manager (Jason Miller), LSC and AECOM Project Team, Citibus/Lubbock Project Manager (Chris Mandrell), and high‐level City staff. o In addition, the PMT will have ongoing project oversight and involvement in project development. An in‐depth meeting with the Study Advisory Committee (SAC) o The SAC will meet six times over the course of the project and will have mid‐level involvement reviewing deliverables and providing broad guidance and direction. o The SAC should consist of approximately eight to 10 people, including Citibus staff (driver representative), City planner, rider representative, paratransit user, human service organizations, Chamber of Commerce, Spartan manager, member of the Transit Advisory Board, and an elected official. A series of 15‐20 stakeholder interviews with community partners, social services organizations, Citibus operations staff, etc. Project goal and vision setting o Develop a series of goals and values to help guide the evaluation of transit system alternatives through kick‐off meetings with the PMT, the SAC, and the stakeholder interviews. Finalizing project communication and the public outreach plan Citibus route and system familiarization to analyze the existing system Community familiarization to understand the community and how Citibus can best support Lubbock’s future success
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 1 ‐ PMT Kick-Off Meeting The kick‐off meeting with the PMT occurred on July 10, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. at the Citibus Administrative Offices. Discussion from the PMT kick‐off meeting included:
Existing Conditions o Existing system has largely remained the same since 1976, which is the biggest overall challenge. o City is seeing 1.8 percent growth per year and has very low unemployment. o Growth just outside city boundary is higher, meanwhile smaller towns are shrinking. o Largest industries include: Texas Tech University (TTU), medical services, schools, and agriculture (cotton). Study Goals o More adaptive, flexible service delivery that provides more options for more people. o Innovative service delivery should be considered but caution should be taken. o Service should be responsive to community changes, but maintain (and possibly expand) accessibility for critical mobility, whether through small tweaks or major overhaul. o Service changes to consider: service in the western and southwestern portions of the city, express service, more infrastructure (hubs), Sunday service, and earlier and later weekday service. o Improve Citibus image. Study Issues/Opportunities o Lubbock is very car‐centric with not much traffic, meaning it’s easy to get from one side of the City to the other quickly by car (about 20 minutes), but making the same trip with Citibus could take between one‐and‐a‐half to two hours, making it significantly less convenient. o Biking and walking is difficult due to lack of infrastructure in many parts of the city. o Current ridership consists of students and transit dependent – there is need to work on broadening ridership. o Need to operate within existing budget/resources and HAVE TO protect federal funding. o COA Plan should have three scenarios: no growth, 10% growth, and 20% growth in funding. o South Plains College will be moving into the current city hall building in downtown Lubbock by summer 2022 with 1,500 to 2,000 students. o Lime (electric scooter) have an exclusive contract with TTU, which could be expanded city‐wide. o A downtown circulator. o A new maintenance and administrative facility will be needed as the current garage is right in the middle of downtown and there is redevelopment pressure.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 2 ‐ o Need to study the interface between Spartan and Citibus in order to determine opportunities for coordination and rural‐ urban connectivity. o Current local funding is from the City’s general fund, but the study should explore other types of funding. Citibus is currently a Medicaid transportation recipient and receives money from Texas Tech for university services. o TTU routes are generally working well, so this study will focus on routes operating in the rest of Lubbock. o Southwest Lubbock, particularly the area around 82nd and Milwaukee, is a transit gap. o There is more detailed ridership data available from automatic passenger counters (APCs) on a limited number of buses, but need to follow up on where the data lives. o Coordination with City’s marketing team for outreach efforts. Internal Citibus Meetings As part of the kick‐off trip, the project team met with Citibus operators and supervisors to gather input on the existing system, transit needs, and opportunities.
Operators Discussion from the meeting with Citibus operators included:
Staffing Concerns o There are staffing challenges with overtime, split shifts, driver shortage, compensation, reduced summer work when TTU routes aren’t running, and seniority Route/Service Changes o Feeder routes (smaller buses or microtransit) are needed to connect distant areas, or low‐density areas, to the fixed routes. o Service to the airport and shopping/jobs in Southwest Lubbock is needed. o There is little north/south service, most service is oriented east‐west. Passengers have asked for grid service. o One particular gap in north‐south service is along Quaker north of 58th Street (between 50th and 66th). o Need to have better fit of buses to routes – some areas better served by van than 40’ bus. o Need to fix the closed stop at United Grocery on the eastside, bus has to turn further away. o Route 14 is confusing because there are four variations and passengers wait at bus stops that are across the street due to uncertainty as to where the bus will stop. o Route 9 is very busy and stop spacing is an issue especially with unofficial flag stop policy, which makes it hard to stay on schedule.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 3 ‐ o Routes 5 and 9 have a lot of turns around the Walmart at the south end of the route that create operational issues and inefficiency. o Routes 6/19 do not need to serve Convergys since it is no longer in operation. o Some schedule issues, may be running late on Route 19 but can catch up on Route 6. VA Clinic adds a lot of time to the Route 9. o A second transfer center could be a good idea. o Need a bus stop in front on Covenant Hospital (34th and Memphis), serve the eastside of TTU at Tech Terrace, serve further south on Slide, and go down to new Walmart at 114th Street. o Very low ridership at Lubbock Christian College. Bus Stops o Bus stop signs get taken down for construction and often not replaced. o More bus stop amenities (shelters, benches, etc.) are needed overall. o Stop policy is uncertain, many places flag stopping is still allowed. o Park and ride with express service is a good idea. The south Walmart could be a good location. Supervisors Discussion from the meeting with Citibus supervisors included: Staffing Concerns o Part‐time seasonal changes resulted in moving from 35 bids to 70 bids. o Bus operator positions are hard to fill – part‐time positions (30 hours). Bus Stops, Facilities, and Fleet o The bus fleet is aging and road calls seem to be increasing, particularly on the paratransit side. o System has moved away from flag stops and more towards fixed stops. However, still have an unofficial flag stop policy. o The downtown transfer point does have space for more service. o A park and ride express route using the Marsha Sharpe could make sense. Paratransit o Uber/Lyft could be utilized for some of the paratransit trips, as 80 percent of people who use paratransit are mobile. o Medicaid does provide cell phones to clients so they would be able to use app‐ based services such as microtransit. o Travel training would help a lot of people who use Access today to use fixed route,
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 4 ‐ right now only nine percent of paratransit riders know how to use fixed route. o Dialysis centers could use better service. o Expansion of the service area will stretch ADA resources. o Overcapacity for DR subscriptions results in a need more operators. o Medicaid ridership has been increasing. Route/Service Changes o Current service structure lacks north‐south routes. o Currently, South Plains College and Lubbock Christian University are not major generators. o Service gaps: . 82nd and Milwaukee stretching to 98th and as far as 114th St. . MLK and Avenue A corridors on the east going further south . DPS (all days not just Wednesday) . New hospitals in the northwest . 98 Street and Slide o Route 5 does not need to serve 58 Street. o Route 6 has a lot of stops, including unofficial stops, and 50th St. can be very busy. o Route 6 is tight timewise – stops every block with unofficial pick up policy. o Route 12 deviates to accommodate train schedule which takes a lot of time. There’s no predictability to trains (approximately four to five per day). o Route 34 has areas where there is little ridership. o Hourly service during the day is inconvenient for people. o Requests for later service (9‐11 p.m. is most desired), hourly Saturday service because transfers are off. Stakeholder Interviews As part of the kick‐off trip, the project team conducted interviews with 16 stakeholders from a variety of organizations in Lubbock, including:
Communities in Schools Community Health Covenant Health Grace Campus Hope Community Legal Aid of Northwest Texas Lubbock City Council (Sheila Patterson‐Harris, District 2) Lubbock‐Crosby County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (Probation) Lubbock Metropolitan Planning Organization Open Door South Plains Community College SPARTAN Rural Bus TTU Graduate Program for International Students
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 5 ‐ TTU International Student and Scholar Services TTU Parking and Transportation Workforce Solutions Key Takeaways Key takeaways from the stakeholder interviews included: Existing Service o The free transit service to the food bank is great. o DPS route is important and should have more service. o Some coverage issues in the core service area. o Need more service to STARcare. o ADA fares can be too expensive for riders.
o Need to improve bus stop amenities. Existing Community Conditions o I‐27 is tough to get across, very few crossing points. o Services have moved to the outskirts of the city, but they are located further away from the clientele who need them. o Smartphone access – most people have access but not everyone. Transit Needs o Later hours – does not need to be all routes but core routes in order to accommodate workers, special events at TTU, medical/ER, etc. o Sunday service o Increased frequency o Need to improve accessibility to schools for students, teachers/staff, and parents o Marsha Sharp is the quickest way to get around and would be good for express service from downtown to TTU and to the Milwaukee corridor o In terms of headways vs. coverage – most would prefer coverage o Coordinated fare/technology platform between Citibus and Spartan o Important to keep in mind the time a trip takes and the number of transfers required o Provide travel training and ADA friendly maps/materials o New/Expanded Service Areas: . Airport . County Jail / State Parole Office . Upland and 19th – Upland Mission for clothing and food . S and SW – jobs, housing . N and E – location of affordable rentals . E – jobs, services, shopping, low income . Slide and 98th – medical services and grocery shopping area . Spartan receives requests for 130th St. and 1585 (Farm to Market Rd.) and more affordable CitiAccess services for the S/SW area . Connect all Walmarts in the City, especially the locations on 98th and 114th . New medical facility in Wolforth . Reese business and research park
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 6 ‐ . People who live in far east and far west areas will take ambulance for more
minor issues TTU o Existing TTU service: . 2.8 million trips, with on campus bus operating at $0.86 per ride. . Operated with 44 buses and two spares, aging fleet and driver retention are issues. . Averton, Flint, and 15th are all transfer points. . TTU was contracting with Citibus for night service, but now TTU is operating its own service that uses TapRide technology from DoubleMap for Red Raider night service, which is free for trips originating or ending on campus. . TTU operates a new employee shuttle during the day. . TTU very happy with responsiveness and on‐time percentage of Citibus, but would like to see improvement in technology and data (reporting). . Students appreciate the DoubleMap app. o Approximately 54 percent of students are not buying parking passes, with the percentage increasing annually over the past five years. o Lime electric scooters started in November 2019 with over 500,000 trips since program began. On a busy day, approximately 5,000 trips. o Need for extended service hours and weekend service. o Need to improve connections for students wanting to go to other parts of the City for shopping (predominately in the southwest and downtown) and who live in housing north of campus (College Pt and Heritage housing complexes). o New VA hospital at 4th and Indiana, just off campus, will need better service. o Employees could benefit from park‐n‐ride lots and express service – most work 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and parking on campus is paid parking. o Perception of bus service, first/last mile access, and poor bicycle/pedestrian connections and infrastructure all pose challenges. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Members of the Lubbock COA Study Advisory Committee include:
David Jones, Executive Director, Lubbock Metropolitan Planning Organization Michael Boyd, LCSW BCD, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Department of Veterans Affairs Karen Murfee, Community Development Director, City of Lubbock Jessica McEachern, Assistant City Manager, City of Lubbock Norma Ritz Johnson, Executive Vice President, Lubbock Chamber of Commerce Brian Baker, Director of Transportation, Spartan Public Transportation
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 7 ‐ Kelly Davila, Director of Regional Services/Economic Development, South Plains Association of Governments Robyn Johnston, Chief of Authority Services, STARcare Speciality Health Systems Neil Kilcrease, Assistant Director of Transportation and Parking, Texas Tech University As part of the kick‐off trip, a kick‐off meeting was held with the advisory committee meeting on Wednesday, July 10th at 2:00 p.m. at the Citibus Administrative Offices. Discussion from the SAC kick‐ off meeting included:
Need to review and reference the City’s Comprehensive Plan that was updated last winter. o The Plan studied transportation but did not do much with transit in anticipation of this study. The Plan did identify that areas in northern and eastern Lubbock are underserved and there are workforce needs in the western and southern portions of the City. o Public outreach was challenging as not as many people as hoped for participated throughout the study. A better way to do outreach may be to work with Legal Aid of North and West Texas, East Lubbock Community Alliance, neighborhood groups, and reach out to churches and church leadership throughout the community. Selecting a key location for community meetings is crucial for
participation. Current System o Existing system lacks accessibility and connectivity between outlying areas. o TTU routes are working well but run somewhat separate from the rest of the system. How can they be better integrated? o TTU has ZipCar and Lime electric scooters. o Feedback on DoubleMap real‐time app has been really good from riders. Transit Service Needs and Opportunities o Areas without bus service limit where people can live. Low‐income/affordable housing is being pushed to the edges and those people rely on public transit. o Better service frequency o Sunday service o Increased service to DPS (currently one day per week) o New service to: airport, jail/probation/parole in north Lubbock, industrial park in north Lubbock, Reese Technology school, and south and west portions of the City. o New development in the south and west – Milwaukee corridor near 82nd especially retail, residential (new public housing), and dining. o Need for smart card fare payment and streamline fare payment between Citibus and Spartan o Concerns about areas east of I‐27, access to bus issues. o Transportation to schools, particularly middle and high schools. o Transit needs to access jobs, healthcare, and connections to the bigger school districts. o Service to other colleges – South Plains College, Lubbock Christian College, etc.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 8 ‐ o Issue of coverage vs. frequency will need to be considered when developing service options. o Starcare has a facility in east Lubbock and it is difficult to get to by transit and/or
Uber/Lyft. Employment o Current unemployment rate is very low. o Potential for partnerships with larger employers – shift schedules, surveys, etc. o Lubbock has a high number of restaurants per capita and the high volume of workers poses a unique challenge. Vision for Citibus o Focus on business/employment, particularly the Milwaukee corridor, as well as healthcare. o More coverage in southern and western portions of Lubbock, while serving the transit dependent population in the north and east. o Improve connection between Spartan and Citibus. o TTU population is well served and used currently. o Potential for mobility hubs – TTU has Zipcar (2 cars – launched in January 2019), electric scooters. O Payment coordination and more integration so passengers pay once for Spartan and Citibus. PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN The goal for public outreach with the COA is to connect with as many people as possible through a public involvement effort that engages key partners, stakeholders, and constituents throughout the entire planning process, as shown ion Figure IV‐1. The public outreach process will include engagement through a variety of means, including:
Figure IV‐1: Public Outreach Approach Stakeholder Interviews o Completed Community Public Workshops and Open Houses Partners o Will occur in November 2019 and January/February 2020 Stakeholders/Riders Interactivity Online Community Surveys
City and County o October 2019 and February 2020 Onboard Rider Survey (Citibus and CitiAccess) o September 16 – 20, 2019 Advisory Committee Project Website
o September 2019
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IV ‐ 9 ‐ (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter V (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter V: Transit Demand Estimation
This chapter presents an analysis of the demand for transit services in the study area based upon standard estimation techniques that make use of demographic and community conditions data. These methodologies are standard approaches for estimating transit needs and demand. The large student population and higher propensity of students to use transit, if convenient, create challenges for accurate demand estimation using existing models. LSC uses its experience to apply given demand estimation tools appropriately to given service options, in combination with qualitative data from stakeholders, riders, and the community. The models and formulas used to help quantify transit need and demand presented in this chapter include: Greatest Transit Need Index Peak and Off‐Peak Calibrated Fixed‐Route Demand Model ADA Paratransit Demand Model Each of these approaches helps to illustrate the patterns that are likely to arise regarding transit needs within the study area. Estimating demand for services is not an exact science and therefore must be carefully evaluated. Demand estimation can help develop a transportation plan, but it should not dictate the plan.
GREATEST TRANSIT NEED INDEX The “greatest transit need” is defined as those areas in the study area with the highest density of zero‐ vehicle households, older adults (persons 65 years old and older), people with ambulatory disabilities, and low‐income populations. This information will also be used in the development of service alternatives and the identification of appropriate service constraints later in the planning process.
Methodology The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to calculate the greatest transit need. The categories used for calculation were zero‐vehicle households, older adult population, ambulatory disability population, and low‐income population. Using these categories, LSC developed a “transit need index” to determine the greatest transit need. The density of the population for each US Census tract within each category was calculated, placed in numerical order, and divided into five segments. Five segments were chosen to reflect a reasonable range. Each segment contained an approximately equal number of US Census tracts to provide equal representation. Census tracts in the segment with the lowest densities were given a score of 1. The tracts in the segment with the next lowest densities were given a score of 2. This process continued for the remainder of the tracts. The census tracts in the segment with the highest densities were given a score of 5. This scoring was completed for each of the categories (zero‐vehicle households, older adult population, ambulatory disability population, and low‐income population). After each of the census tracts were scored for the four categories, the four scores were added to achieve an overall score. Table V‐1 presents the rank for each census tract in the Lubbock area. The scores range from 4 (lowest need) to 19 (highest need).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 1 ‐ (This page intentionally left blank.)
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 2 ‐ Table V-1: Greatest Transit Need Model Total Number of Older Adults 65 & Overall Total Number Zero-Vehicle Households Over Ambulatory Disability Population Low-Income Population Score Final Census Land Area Total of Density (Hhlds. Density (Persons Density (Persons Density (Persons Per Tract (sq. miles) Population Households # Per Sq. Miles) Rank # Per Sq. Miles) Rank # Per Sq. Miles) Rank # Sq. Miles) Rank (4-19) (1-5) 1 3.56 2,639 892 27 7.6 1 346 97.1 1 237 66.5 1 434 121.8 1 4 1 2.01 8.35 1,784 422 20 2.4 1 166 19.9 1 176 21.1 1 334 40.0 1 4 1 2.02 0.55 1,753 678 105 192.1 4 154 281.8 2 162 296.4 3 675 1235.0 4 13 4 3.01 0.37 3,910 1771 225 611.9 5 114 310.0 3 179 486.8 4 1,748 4753.5 5 17 5 3.02 1.71 6,934 2505 279 163.6 4 714 418.6 3 873 511.9 5 2,222 1302.8 4 16 5 4.02 0.94 4,637 1868 151 160.0 4 526 557.4 4 219 232.1 3 1,002 1061.8 4 15 4 4.03 0.98 3,931 1470 9 9.2 1 733 747.7 4 186 189.7 2 677 690.6 3 10 3 4.04 2.04 7,676 2892 155 76.0 3 395 193.6 2 172 84.3 1 1,427 699.3 3 9 2 4.05 4.02 10,388 3848 136 33.8 2 695 172.7 2 580 144.1 2 2,578 640.6 3 9 2 5 2.93 8,078 662 162 55.2 2 609 207.5 2 131 44.6 1 224 76.3 1 6 2 6.03 0.27 3,369 1562 176 645.9 5 0 0.0 1 97 356.0 4 2,425 8899.9 5 15 4 6.05 0.21 901 266 53 249.1 5 4 18.8 1 22 103.4 2 698 3280.7 5 13 4 6.07 0.41 2,503 987 108 263.8 5 38 92.8 1 191 466.5 4 987 2410.7 5 15 4 7 1.79 1,108 360 25 14.0 2 125 70.0 1 91 51.0 1 192 107.5 1 5 1 9 4.10 4,812 1715 206 50.3 2 714 174.2 2 688 167.9 2 1,613 393.5 2 8 2 10 3.57 3,478 1059 163 45.6 2 393 110.1 2 260 72.8 1 972 272.2 2 7 2 12 4.15 2,402 1006 295 71.0 3 432 104.0 2 382 92.0 1 736 177.2 2 8 2 13 1.11 2,838 1011 187 168.9 4 332 299.9 3 429 387.5 4 601 542.9 3 14 4 14 0.87 5,339 2281 77 88.5 3 379 435.7 3 260 298.9 3 1,356 1558.8 4 13 4 15.01 0.50 2,538 1024 20 39.8 2 265 526.8 4 57 113.3 2 728 1447.3 4 12 3 15.02 0.50 2,366 949 54 107.9 3 154 307.7 3 97 193.8 2 1,094 2186.0 5 13 4 16.01 1.00 2,430 1142 38 38.0 2 566 566.4 4 151 151.1 2 393 393.3 2 10 3 16.02 0.95 3,176 1206 46 48.6 2 379 400.7 3 196 207.2 3 853 901.9 3 11 3 17.02 1.64 5,484 2495 157 96.0 3 734 448.7 3 480 293.4 3 1,058 646.8 3 12 3 17.05 1.23 6,476 2760 208 169.3 4 1,215 989.1 5 639 520.2 5 889 723.7 3 17 5 17.06 3.57 6,545 2899 31 8.7 1 299 83.8 1 424 118.9 2 686 192.4 2 6 2 17.07 2.48 6,056 2517 26 10.5 1 528 212.7 2 177 71.3 1 738 297.3 2 6 2 17.08 0.56 2,706 1550 239 426.0 5 291 518.7 4 189 336.9 4 842 1501.0 4 17 5 17.09 0.65 4,729 1924 202 309.0 5 484 740.4 4 368 563.0 5 1,345 2057.5 5 19 5 18.01 1.00 5,844 2139 154 153.9 4 646 645.6 4 573 572.6 5 1,116 1115.3 4 17 5 18.03 1.04 5,135 2305 90 86.8 3 791 762.7 4 432 416.5 4 321 309.5 2 13 4 18.04 0.88 3,731 1700 133 151.3 4 811 922.5 5 219 249.1 3 341 387.9 2 14 4 19.01 1.00 5,200 1826 107 107.3 3 556 557.4 4 267 267.7 3 1,168 1170.9 4 14 4 19.03 1.34 5,485 2173 55 41.1 2 1,076 804.0 5 206 153.9 2 417 311.6 2 11 3 19.04 0.65 1,569 627 5 7.7 1 373 574.3 4 149 229.4 3 130 200.2 2 10 3 20.01 0.50 2,494 897 58 115.0 3 356 705.7 4 250 495.6 4 808 1601.7 4 15 4 20.02 0.50 3,131 1169 85 169.5 4 251 500.4 3 218 434.6 4 1,003 1999.7 5 16 5 21.01 1.31 5,801 2328 203 154.4 4 1,149 873.9 5 788 599.3 5 751 571.2 3 17 5 21.02 0.65 3,021 1262 40 61.5 3 627 964.3 5 167 256.8 3 151 232.2 2 13 4 22.02 1.00 5,345 2021 59 58.8 2 204 203.3 2 302 301.0 3 658 655.8 3 10 3 22.03 0.65 3,075 1159 67 103.8 3 592 916.8 5 382 591.6 5 510 789.8 3 16 5 22.04 1.07 4,903 1571 154 144.1 4 440 411.7 3 397 371.5 4 1,870 1749.9 4 15 4 23 0.84 4,856 1514 26 31.0 2 455 542.4 4 423 504.3 5 1,443 1720.2 4 15 4 24 1.65 7,411 2176 204 123.3 3 651 393.5 3 470 284.1 3 2,551 1542.0 4 13 4 25 7.70 2,704 821 46 6.0 1 284 36.9 1 108 14.0 1 876 113.7 1 4 1 103.01 132.41 4,062 1301 62 0.5 1 446 3.4 1 397 3.0 1 389 2.9 1 4 1 103.02 3.12 2,652 919 15 4.8 1 405 129.9 2 284 91.1 1 250 80.2 1 5 1 104.02 5.92 2,154 716 64 10.8 1 250 42.2 1 231 39.0 1 457 77.1 1 4 1 104.03 1.00 5,559 2304 36 36.1 2 825 827.6 5 214 214.7 3 179 179.6 2 12 3 104.04 3.37 3,374 1216 62 18.4 2 318 94.2 1 319 94.5 1 878 260.2 2 6 2 104.05 26.71 5,536 2201 118 4.4 1 946 35.4 1 360 13.5 1 819 30.7 1 4 1 104.06 30.31 6,031 2031 66 2.2 1 654 21.6 1 376 12.4 1 551 18.2 1 4 1 104.07 3.49 8,731 3184 31 8.9 1 837 240.1 2 242 69.4 1 124 35.6 1 5 1 104.08 63.52 10,579 3747 88 1.4 1 996 15.7 1 450 7.1 1 514 8.1 1 4 1 105.02 0.98 3,435 1516 10 10.2 1 773 791.1 5 227 232.3 3 73 74.7 1 10 3 105.04 0.98 4,034 1612 10 10.2 1 1,008 1,030.6 5 195 199.4 2 240 245.4 2 10 3 105.05 0.98 4,485 1719 67 68.4 3 512 522.8 4 398 406.4 4 125 127.6 1 12 3 105.06 1.50 4,220 1695 64 42.6 2 394 262.2 2 285 189.7 2 257 171.0 2 8 2 105.08 78.16 9,600 3083 79 1.0 1 1,020 13.1 1 639 8.2 1 1,112 14.2 1 4 1 105.09 1.00 3,012 1174 67 67.0 3 613 613.0 4 271 271.0 3 52 52.0 1 11 3 105.10 0.98 2,627 1007 8 8.2 1 367 374.4 3 191 194.9 2 117 119.4 1 7 2 105.11 2.45 5,571 1849 0 0.0 1 294 119.9 2 212 86.4 1 544 221.8 2 6 2 TOTAL: 433.68 276,353 102,683 5,913 13.6 31,704 73.1 18,755 43.2 50,322 116.0 Results Figure V‐1 presents the transit needs index for Lubbock and the surrounding area. As shown in the figure, the areas with the greatest transit needs are in the northwest, southwest, and south‐central portions of Lubbock. As LSC examines service alternatives later in the planning process, Figure V‐1 will be used as part of the analysis to ensure that areas with a high transit need are adequately served. Tracts not scoring in the highest category, but still having a high score, could still be considered a high priority for transit service. As shown in Table V‐2, there are 15 census tract areas with the highest needs (those with a score of 15 or higher).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 5 ‐ Table V-2: Census Tracts with Greatest Transit Need Census Tract Overall Score 17.09 19 3.01 17 17.05 17 17.08 17 18.01 17 21.01 17 3.02 16 20.02 16 22.03 16 4.02 15 6.03 15 6.07 15 20.01 15 22.04 15 23 15
FIXED-ROUTE DEMAND MODEL In order to evaluate potential changes to the fixed‐route service, LSC created a fixed‐route demand model. The model format is based on household vehicle ownership, average walking distance to bus stops, and frequency of operation. This model incorporates factors for walking distance, the distance traveled on the bus, and the frequency of service or headway. Because the level of service and levels of demand are different during peak and off‐peak hours, the demand model was developed in two segments. The first segment was for the combined morning and afternoon/evening peak hours (when Citibus operates on 30‐minute headways) and the second segment was for the mid‐day hours (when Citibus operates on 60‐minute headways). The percentage of households with transit access was determined by the number of households within a quarter‐mile of the transit service. Census tracts located entirely within a quarter‐mile show 100 percent transit access. The model used for Citibus’ peak hours is shown in Table V‐3 and uses the 30‐minute peak headway that Citibus operates during commute timeframes. Figure V‐2 presents the existing peak fixed‐route demand by tract. LSC also created a non‐peak fixed‐route demand model based on Citibus’ off‐peak headway of 60 minutes. As shown in Table V‐4, this model incorporates the 2017 ACS data for the Lubbock area and was calibrated to the existing FY 2017‐2018 Citibus ridership. Figure V‐3 presents the existing off‐peak fixed‐route demand by tract. In developing service options, the size and demand density of each tract must be considered. The combined models generate 2,100 daily trips and approximately 640,000 annual trips, which is slightly lower than the approximately 652,000 in ridership in FY 2017‐2018. This model does not include those trips on the paratransit service or Texas Tech University routes. This fixed‐route model will be used to estimate ridership for the alternate service concepts. The alternate concepts may be incorporated into the model by changing the percentage of households served by transit, the walking distance, and frequency of service. This model will be applied to each of the service alternatives presented in later working papers.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 6 ‐
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 7 ‐ (This page intentionally left blank.)
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 8 ‐ Table V-3: Existing Peak-Hour Fixed-Route Demand Model - Citibus Total # of % of Hhlds Hhlds Served Basic Transit Walk Walk Headway Daily Transit Daily Census # of Hhlds Hhlds with with by Transit Trip Rates Distance Factor Headway Factor Trips Trip Tract 2017 ACS 0 Auto 1 Auto Transit Access 0 Auto 1 Auto 0 Auto 1 Auto (ft) 0 Auto 1 Auto (min) 0 Auto 1 Auto 0 Auto 1 Auto # of 1 892 27 279 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 2.01 422 20 98 5% 1 5 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 2.02 678 105 367 90% 95 330 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 23 17 40 3.01 1,771 225 836 95% 214 794 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 52 40 92 3.02 2,505 279 1209 50% 140 605 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 34 30 65 4.02 1,868 151 785 35% 53 275 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 13 14 27 4.03 1,470 9 416 40% 4 166 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 1 8 9 4.04 2,892 155 782 35% 54 274 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 13 14 27 4.05 3,848 136 1038 10% 14 104 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 3 5 9 5 662 162 358 35% 57 125 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 14 6 20 6.03 1,562 176 677 50% 88 339 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 22 17 39 6.05 266 53 21 95% 50 20 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 12 1 13 6.07 987 108 453 100% 108 453 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 26 23 49 7 360 25 119 85% 21 101 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 5 5 10 9 1,715 206 838 45% 93 377 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 23 19 42 10 1,059 163 457 75% 122 343 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 30 17 47 12 1,006 295 402 50% 148 201 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 36 10 46 13 1,011 187 299 90% 168 269 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 41 14 55 14 2,281 77 911 55% 42 501 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 10 25 36 15.01 1,024 20 250 70% 14 175 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 3 9 12 15.02 949 54 198 75% 41 149 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 10 7 17 16.01 1,142 38 532 50% 19 266 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 5 13 18 16.02 1,206 46 361 60% 28 217 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 7 11 18 17.02 2,495 157 1259 75% 118 944 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 29 48 76 17.05 2,760 208 1197 10% 21 120 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 5 6 11 17.06 2,899 31 1435 10% 3 144 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 1 7 8 17.07 2,517 26 1016 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 17.08 1,550 239 868 100% 239 868 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 59 44 102 17.09 1,924 202 843 95% 192 801 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 47 40 87 18.01 2,139 154 812 50% 77 406 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 19 20 39 18.03 2,305 90 1031 50% 45 516 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 11 26 37 18.04 1,700 133 583 80% 106 466 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 26 24 50 19.01 1,826 107 489 50% 54 245 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 13 12 25 19.03 2,173 55 802 45% 25 361 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 6 18 24 19.04 627 5 189 50% 3 95 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 1 5 5 20.01 897 58 347 45% 26 156 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 6 8 14 20.02 1,169 85 535 100% 85 535 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 21 27 48 21.01 2,328 203 770 70% 142 539 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 35 27 62 21.02 1,262 40 383 60% 24 230 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 6 12 17 22.02 2,021 59 883 15% 9 132 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 2 7 9 22.03 1,159 67 343 55% 37 189 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 9 10 19 22.04 1,571 154 813 80% 123 650 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 30 33 63 23 1,514 26 615 60% 16 369 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 4 19 22 24 2,176 204 704 90% 184 634 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 45 32 77 25 821 46 299 5% 2 15 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 1 1 1 103.01 1,301 62 345 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 103.02 919 15 231 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 104.02 716 64 286 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 104.03 2,304 36 775 5% 2 39 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 2 2 104.04 1,216 62 251 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 104.05 2,201 118 719 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 104.06 2,031 66 525 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 104.07 3,184 31 633 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 104.08 3,747 88 908 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 105.02 1,516 10 596 10% 1 60 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 3 3 105.04 1,612 10 409 10% 1 41 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 2 2 105.05 1,719 67 624 10% 7 62 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 2 3 5 105.06 1,695 64 662 5% 3 33 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 1 2 2 105.08 3,083 79 839 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 105.09 1,174 67 288 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 105.10 1,007 8 278 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 105.11 1,849 0 475 0% 0 0 0.14 0.03 660 1.25 1.20 30 1.40 1.50 0 0 0 Subtotal: 102,683 5,913 36,746 3,115 14,735 Estimated Daily Ridership 1,506 Estimated Annual Ridership 460,753 Source: 2017 ACS Five-Year Estimates; LSC, 2019. Table V-4: Existing Non-Peak Fixed-Route Demand Model - Citibus Total # of % of Hhlds Hhlds Served Basic Transit Walk Walk Headway Daily Transit Daily Census # of Hhlds Hhlds with with by Transit Trip Rates Distance Factor Headway Factor Trips Trips Tract 2017 ACS 0 Auto 1 Auto Transit Access 0 Auto 1 Auto 0 Auto 1 Auto (ft) 0 Auto 1 Auto (min) 0 Auto 1 Auto 0 Auto 1 Auto # of 1 892 27 279 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 2.01 422 20 98 5% 1 5 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 2.02 678 105 367 90% 95 330 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 8 7 15 3.01 1,771 225 836 95% 214 794 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 18 18 35 3.02 2,505 279 1209 50% 140 605 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 12 14 25 4.02 1,868 151 785 35% 53 275 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 4 6 11 4.03 1,470 9 416 40% 4 166 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 4 4 4.04 2,892 155 782 35% 54 274 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 4 6 11 4.05 3,848 136 1038 10% 14 104 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 1 2 3 5 662 162 358 35% 57 125 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 5 3 7 6.03 1,562 176 677 50% 88 339 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 7 8 15 6.05 266 53 21 95% 50 20 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 4 0 5 6.07 987 108 453 100% 108 453 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 9 10 19 7 360 25 119 85% 21 101 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 2 2 4 9 1,715 206 838 45% 93 377 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 8 8 16 10 1,059 163 457 75% 122 343 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 10 8 18 12 1,006 295 402 50% 148 201 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 12 5 17 13 1,011 187 299 90% 168 269 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 14 6 20 14 2,281 77 911 55% 42 501 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 3 11 15 15.01 1,024 20 250 70% 14 175 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 1 4 5 15.02 949 54 198 75% 41 149 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 3 3 7 16.01 1,142 38 532 50% 19 266 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 2 6 8 16.02 1,206 46 361 60% 28 217 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 2 5 7 17.02 2,495 157 1259 75% 118 944 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 10 21 31 17.05 2,760 208 1197 10% 21 120 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 2 3 4 17.06 2,899 31 1435 10% 3 144 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 3 3 17.07 2,517 26 1016 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 17.08 1,550 239 868 100% 239 868 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 20 19 39 17.09 1,924 202 843 95% 192 801 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 16 18 34 18.01 2,139 154 812 50% 77 406 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 6 9 15 18.03 2,305 90 1031 50% 45 516 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 4 12 15 18.04 1,700 133 583 80% 106 466 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 9 10 19 19.01 1,826 107 489 50% 54 245 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 4 5 10 19.03 2,173 55 802 45% 25 361 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 2 8 10 19.04 627 5 189 50% 3 95 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 2 2 20.01 897 58 347 45% 26 156 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 2 4 6 20.02 1,169 85 535 100% 85 535 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 7 12 19 21.01 2,328 203 770 70% 142 539 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 12 12 24 21.02 1,262 40 383 60% 24 230 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 2 5 7 22.02 2,021 59 883 15% 9 132 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 1 3 4 22.03 1,159 67 343 55% 37 189 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 3 4 7 22.04 1,571 154 813 80% 123 650 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 10 15 25 23 1,514 26 615 60% 16 369 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 1 8 10 24 2,176 204 704 90% 184 634 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 15 14 29 25 821 46 299 5% 2 15 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 1 103.01 1,301 62 345 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 103.02 919 15 231 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 104.02 716 64 286 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 104.03 2,304 36 775 5% 2 39 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 1 1 104.04 1,216 62 251 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 104.05 2,201 118 719 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 104.06 2,031 66 525 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 104.07 3,184 31 633 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 104.08 3,747 88 908 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 105.02 1,516 10 596 10% 1 60 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 1 1 105.04 1,612 10 409 10% 1 41 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 1 1 105.05 1,719 67 624 10% 7 62 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 1 1 2 105.06 1,695 64 662 5% 3 33 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 1 1 105.08 3,083 79 839 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 105.09 1,174 67 288 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 105.10 1,007 8 278 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 105.11 1,849 0 475 0% 0 0 0.11 0.02 660 1.25 1.20 60 0.60 0.85 0 0 0 Subtotal: 102,683 5,913 36,746 3,115 14,735 Estimated Daily Ridership 588 Estimated Annual Ridership 179,810 Source: 2017 ACS Five-Year Estimates; LSC, 2019. ADA PARATRANSIT DEMAND MODEL Low and high demand estimates were produced and are shown in Table V‐5. The certified paratransit population estimates were then averaged and are shown in Figure V‐4. The demand estimates have been calculated by census tract and show the current demand for paratransit services in the CitiAccess service area. Annual estimated non‐Medicaid demand for the CitiAccess certified paratransit population ranges from 103,000 to 169,000 annual trips. This certified paratransit population range is consistent with CitiAccess’ FY2017‐2018 paratransit ridership of approximately 103,000. This model will be used to estimate the changes in demand for any options which will change the amount of paratransit service to be provided.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 13 ‐ (This page intentionally left blank.)
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ V ‐ 14 ‐ Table V-5: Existing Paratransit Demand - CitiAccess Trip Rates (1) Estimate of Per Eligible Eligible Certified % of Ambulatory Ambulatory ADA ADA- Estimate of Person Per Population Population Census Total Disabled Disabled Eligibility Eligible Certification Certified Month Annual Trips Annual Trips Tract Population Population Population Factor Population Factor Population Low High Low High Low High 1 2,639 9.0% 237 25.0% 59 15% 36 3.05 5.0 2169 3,555 1,301 2,133 2.01 1,784 9.9% 176 25.0% 44 15% 26 3.05 5.0 1610 2,640 966 1,584 2.02 1,753 9.2% 162 25.0% 41 15% 24 3.05 5.0 1482 2,430 889 1,458 3.01 3,910 4.6% 179 25.0% 45 15% 27 3.05 5.0 1638 2,685 983 1,611 3.02 6,934 12.6% 873 25.0% 218 15% 131 3.05 5.0 7988 13,095 4,793 7,857 4.02 4,637 4.7% 219 25.0% 55 15% 33 3.05 5.0 2004 3,285 1,202 1,971 4.03 3,931 4.7% 186 25.0% 47 15% 28 3.05 5.0 1702 2,790 1,021 1,674 4.04 7,676 2.2% 172 25.0% 43 15% 26 3.05 5.0 1574 2,580 944 1,548 4.05 10,388 5.6% 580 25.0% 145 15% 87 3.05 5.0 5307 8,700 3,184 5,220 5 8,078 1.6% 131 25.0% 33 15% 20 3.05 5.0 1199 1,965 719 1,179 6.03 3,369 2.9% 97 25.0% 24 15% 15 3.05 5.0 888 1,455 533 873 6.05 901 2.4% 22 25.0% 6 15% 3 3.05 5.0 201 330 121 198 6.07 2,503 7.6% 191 25.0% 48 15% 29 3.05 5.0 1748 2,865 1,049 1,719 7 1,108 8.2% 91 25.0% 23 15% 14 3.05 5.0 833 1,365 500 819 9 4,812 14.3% 688 25.0% 172 15% 103 3.05 5.0 6295 10,320 3,777 6,192 10 3,478 7.5% 260 25.0% 65 15% 39 3.05 5.0 2379 3,900 1,427 2,340 12 2,402 15.9% 382 25.0% 96 15% 57 3.05 5.0 3495 5,730 2,097 3,438 13 2,838 15.1% 429 25.0% 107 15% 64 3.05 5.0 3925 6,435 2,355 3,861 14 5,339 4.9% 260 25.0% 65 15% 39 3.05 5.0 2379 3,900 1,427 2,340 15.01 2,538 2.2% 57 25.0% 14 15% 9 3.05 5.0 522 855 313 513 15.02 2,366 4.1% 97 25.0% 24 15% 15 3.05 5.0 888 1,455 533 873 16.01 2,430 6.2% 151 25.0% 38 15% 23 3.05 5.0 1382 2,265 829 1,359 16.02 3,176 6.2% 196 25.0% 49 15% 29 3.05 5.0 1793 2,940 1,076 1,764 17.02 5,484 8.8% 480 25.0% 120 15% 72 3.05 5.0 4392 7,200 2,635 4,320 17.05 6,476 9.9% 639 25.0% 160 15% 96 3.05 5.0 5847 9,585 3,508 5,751 17.06 6,545 6.5% 424 25.0% 106 15% 64 3.05 5.0 3880 6,360 2,328 3,816 17.07 6,056 2.9% 177 25.0% 44 15% 27 3.05 5.0 1620 2,655 972 1,593 17.08 2,706 7.0% 189 25.0% 47 15% 28 3.05 5.0 1729 2,835 1,038 1,701 17.09 4,729 7.8% 368 25.0% 92 15% 55 3.05 5.0 3367 5,520 2,020 3,312 18.01 5,844 9.8% 573 25.0% 143 15% 86 3.05 5.0 5243 8,595 3,146 5,157 18.03 5,135 8.4% 432 25.0% 108 15% 65 3.05 5.0 3953 6,480 2,372 3,888 18.04 3,731 5.9% 219 25.0% 55 15% 33 3.05 5.0 2004 3,285 1,202 1,971 19.01 5,200 5.1% 267 25.0% 67 15% 40 3.05 5.0 2443 4,005 1,466 2,403 19.03 5,485 3.8% 206 25.0% 52 15% 31 3.05 5.0 1885 3,090 1,131 1,854 19.04 1,569 9.5% 149 25.0% 37 15% 22 3.05 5.0 1363 2,235 818 1,341 20.01 2,494 10.0% 250 25.0% 63 15% 38 3.05 5.0 2288 3,750 1,373 2,250 20.02 3,131 7.0% 218 25.0% 55 15% 33 3.05 5.0 1995 3,270 1,197 1,962 21.01 5,801 13.6% 788 25.0% 197 15% 118 3.05 5.0 7210 11,820 4,326 7,092 21.02 3,021 5.5% 167 25.0% 42 15% 25 3.05 5.0 1528 2,505 917 1,503 22.02 5,345 5.7% 302 25.0% 76 15% 45 3.05 5.0 2763 4,530 1,658 2,718 22.03 3,075 12.4% 382 25.0% 96 15% 57 3.05 5.0 3495 5,730 2,097 3,438 22.04 4,903 8.1% 397 25.0% 99 15% 60 3.05 5.0 3633 5,955 2,180 3,573 23 4,856 8.7% 423 25.0% 106 15% 63 3.05 5.0 3870 6,345 2,322 3,807 24 7,411 6.3% 470 25.0% 118 15% 71 3.05 5.0 4301 7,050 2,580 4,230 25 2,704 4.0% 108 25.0% 27 15% 16 3.05 5.0 988 1,620 593 972 103.01 4,062 9.8% 397 25.0% 99 15% 60 3.05 5.0 3633 5,955 2,180 3,573 103.02 2,652 10.7% 284 25.0% 71 15% 43 3.05 5.0 2599 4,260 1,559 2,556 104.02 2,154 10.7% 231 25.0% 58 15% 35 3.05 5.0 2114 3,465 1,268 2,079 104.03 5559 3.8% 214 25.0% 54 15% 32 3.05 5.0 1958 3,210 1,175 1,926 104.04 3,374 9.5% 319 25.0% 80 15% 48 3.05 5.0 2919 4,785 1,751 2,871 104.05 5536 6.5% 360 25.0% 90 15% 54 3.05 5.0 3294 5,400 1,976 3,240 104.06 6,031 6.2% 376 25.0% 94 15% 56 3.05 5.0 3440 5,640 2,064 3,384 104.07 8,731 2.8% 242 25.0% 61 15% 36 3.05 5.0 2214 3,630 1,329 2,178 104.08 10,579 4.3% 450 25.0% 113 15% 68 3.05 5.0 4118 6,750 2,471 4,050 105.02 3,435 6.6% 227 25.0% 57 15% 34 3.05 5.0 2077 3,405 1,246 2,043 105.04 4034 4.8% 195 25.0% 49 15% 29 3.05 5.0 1784 2,925 1,071 1,755 105.05 4,485 8.9% 398 25.0% 100 15% 60 3.05 5.0 3642 5,970 2,185 3,582 105.06 4,220 6.8% 285 25.0% 71 15% 43 3.05 5.0 2608 4,275 1,565 2,565 105.08 9,600 6.7% 639 25.0% 160 15% 96 3.05 5.0 5847 9,585 3,508 5,751 105.09 3,012 9.0% 271 25.0% 68 15% 41 3.05 5.0 2480 4,065 1,488 2,439 105.10 2,627 7.3% 191 25.0% 48 15% 29 3.05 5.0 1748 2,865 1,049 1,719 105.11 5,571 3.8% 212 25.0% 53 15% 32 3.05 5.0 1940 3,180 1,164 1,908 Total: 276,353 6.8% 18,755 4,689 2,813 171,608 281,325 102,965 168,795 (1) Source: Survey of 7 "exemplary" paratransit operators. Crain, et al. "Working Paper 6: Service Needs Analysis, San Francisco Bay Area Regional Paratransit Plan," Source: 2017 ACS Five-Year Estimates; LSC, 2019. Chapter VI (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter VI: Route Profiles and Analysis
INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overview and analysis of Citibus, the public transit service for Lubbock, Texas. While all transit services will be discussed for context, the analysis will focus on the Citibus fixed route services, per the purview of this study. An overall description of available services is provided, followed by a detailed analysis of ridership trends and performance of Citibus Fixed Route service. The analysis is derived from monthly operations reports and onsite observations, as well as through onboard surveys and other data gathering efforts. The information presented in this chapter will form the basis for identifying possible improvements to transit in the coming years.
CITIBUS Citibus is the public transportation provider in Lubbock. This includes a fixed route system operated on behalf of Texas Tech University (TTU) and a fixed route system serving the city in general. Additionally, CitiAccess is the paratransit service operated for eligible passengers with disabilities, and several special services are operated as needed, such as special event and charter transportation. Services are described below.
Citibus Fixed-Route Service Citibus fixed route services are operated starting as early as 5:25 a.m. until 7:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 6:45 a.m. to 7:55 p.m. on Saturdays. There is no service on Sundays. As depicted in Figure VI‐1, there are nine routes in operation: Route 1 – Dunbar Area: A mostly out and back route from the Downtown Plaza to Dunbar Jr. High School, also serving Project Intercept. Half‐hour headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. weekdays and all‐day Saturday. Route 2 – East Broadway: a clockwise loop from the Downtown Plaza along Broadway, to Zenith, north to Patterson Library on Walnut, along Parkway to United Supermarket, south on Beech to E. 2nd, south again on Guava Avenue to E. Broadway, returning on E. 19th Street to Vanda to Broadway. Half‐hour headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. weekdays and all‐day Saturday. Route 5 – Boston / S. Quaker / South Plains Mall: An out (westbound) and back (eastbound) route to the South Plains Mall, primarily along Broadway, Boston, 66ths Street, 58th Street, Quaker (serving Walmart), 82nd, and Slide. Operates 5:45 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. (plus a partial run just to Walmart at 5:35 a.m. and at 6:15 p.m.). Half‐hour headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. weekdays and all‐day Saturday. Route 6 – Buddy Holly / 50th St. Crosstown: An out and back route from the Downtown Plaza to the South Plains Mall, primarily along Texas Avenue (outbound), 42nd Street, Avenue D, and 50th Street, returning on 50th Street and then via Avenue L, 38th Street, 34th Street, and Buddy Holly. 5:45 a.m. to 7:45 p.m., on half‐hourly headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. weekdays and all‐day Saturday.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 1 ‐
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 2 ‐ Route 9 – Avenue Q / S. University / S. Quaker: A jogging out‐and‐back route from the Downtown Plaza to Walmart. Starts on westbound on Broadway, south on Avenue L (outbound), 19th Street, Avenue Q and Avenue P (stopping at the V.A. Clinic), along 66th Street to University, south to 82nd, and north on Quaker to Walmart. Same return, but north on Avenue M instead of L. 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. (plus two partial evening runs just to Kmart at 6:15 p.m. and 6:45 p.m.), on half‐hourly headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. weekdays and all‐day Saturday. Route 12 – Arnett Benson / 4th Street: An out and back route to the Wayland Plaza Social Security Office via a number of jogging segments north of the Downtown Plaza to 4th Street, stopping at Walmart, south on Frankford, east on 19th to Juneau, to the SS office. 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. on half‐hourly headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:45 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. weekdays and all‐day Saturday. Several morning and evening runs which omit some stops and have a shorter running time. Route 14 – Cherry Point: A combination out‐and‐back and clockwise loop route from the Downtown Plaza to United Supermarket. Also serves Estacado Street High School. Schedule and direction of travel varies depending on school needs. Route 19 – Wayland Plaza / South Plains Mall: A mostly out‐and‐back route from Downtown Plaza to South Plains Mall, serving University Center, Covenant Medical Center, Lubbock Christian University, the Social Security Office, and Convergys. 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. on half‐hourly headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. weekdays and all‐day Saturday. Two partial runs starting at South Plains Mall in the morning and two partial runs ending at South Plains Mall in the evening on weekdays. Route 34 – 34th Street / South Plains Mall: An out‐and –back route from the Downtown Plaza to South Plains Mall, mostly on 34th Street. 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. on half‐hour headways during peak weekday hours, hourly headways from 8:15 a.m. to 12:15 PM weekdays and all‐ day Saturday. Partial runs are operated at 5:35 a.m. and 6:15 p.m.
Fixed Route Span of Service Except for some first and last runs (“trippers”) which differ from the regular schedules, Routes 1, 2, 5, 9, 12, 19 and 34 each depart from and arrive at the Downtown Plaza at 15 minutes and/or 45 minutes after the hour during the peak morning and from mid‐afternoon until evening. In the off‐ peak, routes operate on hourly instead of 30‐minute headways. Route 14 has a schedule uniquely suited to school needs. The service coverage is summarized in Table VI‐1, including the total number of hours operated daily and the peak number of vehicles in service.
Citibus Fixed Route Fares Regular fixed route fares are $1.75 for adults and $1.25 for children ages 6‐12. Discounted fares of $0.85 are available to Medicare recipients, seniors ages 65 and older, and persons with disabilities. Children under‐five ride free, as do TTU students with a valid TTU student identification. One‐day passes are $3.50, weekly passes are $14.50, and a monthly pass is $50.00. Passes are half price for Medicare recipients, seniors and persons with disabilities.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 3 ‐ 8 15 17 6.5 8.5 107 223 13.5 Total 4 93 42 2.0 1.0 3.7 1.8 7:10 PM 7:15 PM 7:15 PM 7:45 PM AM 6:15 AM 5:35 AM AM 8:20 AM 7:35 AM 41 ------21 2 30 60 60 Route 2225 22 15 17 6 7 22 6 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.3 1.2 1.8 4.2 6 ------125691 96 9 40242942123623 ------0.5 0.5 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 7:15 PM 7:15 PM 7:25 PM 7:45 PM 7:35 PM 7:35 PM 7:15 PM 7:15 PM 7:15 PM 7:10 PM 7:15 PM 7:05 PM 7:55 PM 7:15 PM 8:45 AM 8:45 AM 9:15 AM 8:45 AM 8:15 AM 8:15 AM 9:45 AM 8:15 AM 8:15 AM 5:45 AM 5:45 AM 5:35 AM 5:45 AM 6:15 AM 5:25 AM 6:15 7:45 AM 7:45 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:15 AM 7:15 AM 6:45 12:45 PM 12:45 PM 1:15 PM 1:45 PM 1:45 PM 1:15 PM 1:45 PM 1:15 PM 1:15 PM 1, 2, 5, & 34 & 5, 2, 1, 34 & 5, 2, 1, 34 & 5, 2, 1, 19 & 6 14 & 9 N/A 14 & 9 19 & 6 34 & 5, 2, 1, Table VI-1: Summary of Citibus Fixed Route Services Route Fixed Citibus of Summary VI-1: Table 1 Start of Service Start of Off-Peak End of Off-Peak End of Service Peak Service Frequency (Minutes) Frequency Service Peak (Minutes) Frequency Service Off-Peak Start of Service End of Service Operation in # Buses Off-Peak Saturday Weekday Saturday Service Frequency (Minutes) Daily Vehicle-Hours Weekday Peak Daily Tripper Runs Scheduled Service Scheduled 3 No Sundy Citibusfixed route connected/interlined. service. are color same the with Routes Revenue Hours. 1 2 3 Weekday Saturday Source: Citibus web schedules (and correctedRoute 9 schedule). Number of Buses in in Buses of Number Operation Daily Vehicle-Hours Service of Tripper Typical Service Notes: Bus Routes Interlined Routes Bus
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 4 ‐ Citibus Fixed Route Ridership, Hours and Miles Annual Ridership Citibus fixed route ridership has been decreasing for the past five years, as shown in Table VI‐2. The largest decrease was from 2014‐15 to 2015‐16, with an 11 percent decrease, followed by a 10 percent decrease in the past year. Over the past six years, the ridership has decreased by nearly a third. The largest decrease in ridership (total number) occurred on Routes 5 and 12, while the sharpest ridership decrease (percent of total) was on Routes 1 and 2. The most stable ridership was on Route 9, but this still experienced a 24 percent decrease over five years. Year‐to‐date data shows ridership is holding steady over the previous year (down just over one percent through May 2019).
Table VI-2: Citibus Ridership by Year Fiscal Year Route 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 1 49,074 38,034 35,649 32,560 33,228 29,172 2 54,317 45,124 36,230 34,523 36,605 31,463 5 135,158 122,755 110,548 99,566 91,666 83,393 6 111,250 106,675 96,624 92,761 89,572 79,603 9 126,613 123,436 109,843 108,018 105,221 96,489 12 155,166 146,444 134,121 130,389 118,961 105,662 14 59,146 57,416 47,872 46,875 44,219 39,827 19 103,790 101,834 90,104 85,093 76,710 72,335 34 66,303 68,516 60,116 61,105 54,747 47,488 Food Bank 985 846 656 552 866 867 DPS 11 - 0 530 630 737 - Total 861,802 811,080 722,293 692,072 652,532 586,299 Percent Change -6% -11% -4% -6% -10% Note: Fiscal Year is October through September. Source: Citibus 2019.
Monthly Ridership Ridership by route and month for the most recently available data (July 2018 to June 2019) is shown in Table VI‐3. Ridership was highest in August and October, and lowest in December. The ridership is continuing to decrease and is 13 percent lower than for the previous year, the most significant decreases were in September and December (24 percent decrease). There was an increase in August 2018 over August 2017, but declines in all other months.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 5 ‐ Table VI-3: Citibus Ridership by Route and Month 2018 2019 Routes July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June Total Route 1 2,517 2,864 2,835 3,417 2,647 2,081 2,494 2,076 2,140 1,977 2,110 2,014 29,172 Route 2 3,182 3,705 2,544 2,726 2,589 2,083 2,768 2,421 2,483 2,391 2,303 2,268 31,463 Route 5 6,592 7,311 7,248 7,851 6,683 5,422 7,292 7,103 7,389 7,529 6,970 6,003 83,393 Route 6 7,337 7,859 6,411 7,381 6,617 5,602 6,960 5,965 6,388 6,516 6,508 6,059 79,603 Route 9 8,800 9,568 7,897 8,739 8,176 6,925 8,321 7,583 7,487 7,902 7,555 7,536 96,489 Route 12 9,039 10,311 8,598 9,472 8,490 7,728 9,242 8,192 8,543 8,492 8,833 8,722 105,662 Route 14 3,052 3,784 3,346 3,585 3,015 2,884 4,208 3,393 3,222 2,975 3,299 3,064 39,827 Route 19 5,534 6,568 6,085 7,069 6,347 4,890 6,135 5,857 5,981 6,012 5,791 6,066 72,335 Route 34 4,052 4,420 3,877 4,117 3,880 3,177 4,194 4,227 4,073 3,871 3,691 3,909 47,488 Food Bank 82 90 79 81 55 55 65 65 63 62 90 90 877 DPS 11 43 49 99 92 52 27 98 45 74 65 72 65 781 # 50,230 56,529 49,01 9 54,530 48,551 40,874 51 ,777 46,927 47,843 47,792 47,222 45,796 587,090 Total % 9% 1 0% 8% 9% 8% 7% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% - 2017/18 54,904 53,731 60,916 61,560 56,444 50,813 57,088 55,160 57,334 51,284 51,043 56,028 666,305 Change -9% 5% -24% -13% -16% -24% -10% -18% -20% -7% -8% -22% -13% Note: Most recently available data is through June, 2019. Source: Citibus 2019. Revenue Hours and Miles Citibus hours and miles of fixed route service is depicted in Table VI‐4. As indicated, operating parameters have changed very little—less than one percent. Given that the ridership has decreased significantly, this indicates service is becoming less effective.
Table VI-4: Citibus Revenue Hours and Miles by Year Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Route 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 1 3,433 3,402 3,402 50,700 48,392 48,392 2 3,433 3,402 3,402 62,400 59,978 59,978 5 11,121 11,024 11,024 157,086 159,956 159,956 6 7,589 7,525 7,525 111,422 115,607 115,607 9 8,607 8,534 8,534 132,922 122,319 122,319 12 13,212 13,096 13,096 195,145 187,528 187,528 14 3,554 3,523 3,523 58,304 54,041 54,041 19 10,590 10,498 10,498 161,909 155,889 155,889 34 7,411 7,348 7,348 98,264 96,763 96,763 Food Bank 985 846 656 2,816 2,766 2,766 DPS 11 0 0 530 0 7,958 7,958 Total 69,935 69,199 69,539 1,030,967 1,011,198 1,011,198 Source: Citibus 2019 Citibus Fixed Route Performance Operating data was analyzed to determine performance measures for FY 2017‐18 (the latest year for which full data is available). Using a cost per hour of $50.01 for the fixed routes (based on the financial analysis in Chapter VII) and applying that cost to the hours of each route, the operating cost of each route was determined as shown in Table VI‐5. The operating cost, miles of service and hours of service were applied to ridership statistics to determine the effectiveness of each route.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 6 ‐ Table VI-5: Citibus Performance FY 2017-18 Cost Factors Performance Passengers per Cost per Subsidy per Operating Fare Passenger Passenger Route Cost Revenue Subsidy Mile Hour Trip Trip 1 $170,821 $15,742 $155,079 0.7 9.6 $5.25 $4.76 2 $170,821 $15,911 $154,910 0.6 10.1 $4.95 $4.49 5 $553,458 $30,079 $523,379 0.6 9.0 $5.56 $5.26 6 $377,798 $42,629 $335,169 0.8 12.3 $4.07 $3.61 9 $428,468 $51,886 $376,582 0.9 12.7 $3.97 $3.49 12 $657,500 $49,205 $608,295 0.7 10.0 $5.04 $4.67 14 $176,888 $22,856 $154,032 0.9 13.3 $3.77 $3.29 19 $527,084 $31,289 $495,795 0.5 8.1 $6.19 $5.83 34 $368,891 $26,330 $342,561 0.6 8.3 $6.04 $5.61 Food Bank $32,935 $0 $32,935 0.2 0.8 $59.67 $59.67 DPS 11 $26,609 $292 $26,317 0.1 1.2 $42.24 $41.77 Total $3,491,273 $286,219 $3,205,054 0.7 10.0 $5.04 $4.63 Source: Citibus 2019.
Passenger-Trips Per Revenue Hour Passenger‐trips per revenue hour is a key measure of the effectiveness of a transit service, and is often referred to as the “productivity” of a route. This measure ranges from a low of 1.3 and 1.4 on the Food Bank and Department of Public Safety Routes, to a high of 12.6 on Route 14, as shown in Figure VI‐2. On the combined fixed routes, the system carried an average of 9.4 passengers per hour in FY 2017‐18.
Figure VI-2: Citibus Passenger-Trips per Revenue Hour 14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0 Rt 1 Rt 2 Rt 5 Rt 6 Rt 9 Rt 12 Rt 14 Rt 19 Rt 34 Food DPS 11 Total Bank Passenger-Trips Per Revenue Mile Passenger‐trips per revenue mile ranges from a low of 0.1 and 0.3 on the Food Bank and Department of Public Safety Routes, to 0.5 on Route 19, to a high of 0.9 on Route 9. In all cases, the ridership carried per mile of service is low.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 7 ‐ Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip by Route The average operating cost per passenger‐trip during FY 2017‐2018 was $5.35. The highest cost per passenger‐trip was again the Food Bank and DPS routes ($38.03 and $36.10, respectively). Among the regular fixed routes, Route 19 had the highest cost per passenger‐trip ($6.87) followed by Route 34 ($36.10). The most cost‐effective routes were Route 14 ($4.00), Route 9 ($4.07) and Route 6 ($4.22).
Subsidy per Passenger-Trip by Route The subsidy per passenger‐trip is a key performance measure for a transit service, as it relates the most important public “input” (operating subsidy funding) to the fundamental desired “output” (passenger‐trips). Subtracting the fares collected from the operating cost and dividing this number by the trips carried, Route 14 performed the best at $3.48 per passenger‐trip, followed by Route 9 at $3.58. The poorest performing routes were the DPS and Food Bank routes ($35.71 and $38.03 respectively) and among the regular fixed routes the poorest performing were Route 19 and Route 34, at $6.46 and $6.26, respectively. The subsidy per passenger‐trip per route is shown in Figure VI‐3.
Figure VI-3: Citibus Subsidy per Passenger-Trip by Route $70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00 Rt 1 Rt 2 Rt 5 Rt 6 Rt 9 Rt 12 Rt 14 Rt 19 Rt 34 Food DPS 11 Total Bank Citibus Fixed Route On-Time Performance Citibus tracks its on‐time performance through its APC data. As shown in Figure VI‐4, on‐time performance was between 92.2 percent (November 2017) and 100 percent (September 2018). Citibus has a goal of 98 percent of routes operating on‐time, and met that goal in four of the 12 months, and was over 97 percent on‐time in another three months. Data from time checks conducted as part of a survey effort for this study will be forthcoming.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 8 ‐ Figure VI-4: Citibus Fixed Route On-Time Performance 100.0%
98.0%
96.0%
94.0%
92.0%
90.0%
88.0%
CitiAccess CitiAccess is the complementary paratransit service operated in Lubbock to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities (based upon criteria established by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA) who are unable to use the regular Citibus fixed route service. CitiAccess operates from 4:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The service operates in zones, as shown in Figure VI‐5.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 9 ‐ CitiAcess Fares Fares for CitiAccess are as follows: $3.50 per trip that is ADA‐eligible inside the service area from 5:25 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. $11.50 per trip that is ADA‐eligible outside the service area until 5:25 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. $15.00 per trip for transportation to Reese Center. An additional “prevailing fare” for service area plus $3.50 per trip for “will‐call” services scheduled on the same day service is provided.
CitiAccess Annual Ridership Total CitiAccess ridership decreased from FY 2013 to FY 2016, and then increased in FY 2017, as shown in Table VI‐6. Over this period, the number of non‐Medicaid trips remained relatively consistent (three percent growth) while the number of Medicaid trips decreased significantly (52 percent).
Table VI-6: CitiAccess Service Factors by Year Ridership Operating Statistics Non- Revenue Revenue Passengers Fiscal Year Medicaid Medicaid Total Miles Hours per Hour 2013-14 99,781 27,570 127,351 651,820 39,874 3.2 2014-15 98,359 25,200 123,559 590,886 39,560 3.1 2015-16 98,622 12,458 111,080 594,235 39,357 2.8 2016-17 93,481 10,926 104,407 587,973 42,477 2.5 2017-18 102,729 13,307 116,036 633,457 42,631 2.7 Note: Fiscal Year is October through September. Source: Citibus 2019
CitiAccess Revenue Hours and Miles CitiAccess hours and miles of service is also shown in Table VI‐6. Revenue hours operated remained steady from 2013 to 2015, but then increased by 7.3 percent in 2016. The number of passengers per hour declined from 3.2 passengers per hour in 2013‐14 to 2.5 in 2016‐17, but then increased to 2.7 in 2017‐18. These are typical numbers for a demand responsive service.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 10 ‐ Monthly Ridership Ridership by month for FY 2017 is shown in Table VI‐7. Ridership is fairly steady throughout the year, but highest in April. Table VI-7: CitiAccess Ridership by Month (FY 2017) Service Non- Month Medicaid Medicaid Total October 7,660 990 8,650 November 7,090 943 8,033 December 6,792 1,077 7,869 January 6,726 1,062 7,788 February 6,869 851 7,720 March 7,585 1,098 8,683 April 10,303 1,123 11,426 May 7,310 1,263 8,573 June 7,377 1,261 8,638 July 7,149 1,227 8,376 August 7,816 1,404 9,220 September 6,745 1,008 7,753 Source: Citibus 2019
On-Time Performance The on‐time performance for CitiAccess is shown in Figure VI‐6. While Citibus has a goal of 98 percent on‐time performance, demand‐response vehicles were on‐time in the mid‐seventy percentile range.
Figure VI-6: CitiAccess On-Time Performance 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
OTHER CITIBUS SERVICES In addition to the Citibus Fixed Route and CitiAccess services evaluated, Citibus operates services as detailed below.
Texas Tech University Fixed Routes Citibus has been providing service to the students of Texas Tech since 1968. Service includes on‐ and off‐campus shuttles. TTU is also the largest local funding partner of the Citibus system’s operations,
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 11 ‐ which it derives from annual student fees. The off‐campus shuttles provide service from nearby apartment complexes to the interior of the campus, operating within approximately two miles of the campus. Ten routes serve TTU. The TTU Routes 41, 42 and 43 are campus circulators, and 44 through 49 operate between campus and apartment complexes, as depicted in Figure VI‐7, and outlined below: Route 41 – Double T Route: circles campus perimeter in a counterclockwise direction every 6 minutes from 7:25 a.m. to 6:59 p.m. Route 42 – Red Raider Route: circles campus perimeter in a clockwise direction every 6 minutes from 7:25 a.m. to 7:17 p.m. Route 43 – Masked Rider Route: circles campus in a clockwise direction every 6 minutes from 7:25 a.m. to 7:21 p.m., including to the Commuter Satellite. Route 44 – Overton Park North: Service from 7:18 a.m. to 7:22 p.m. every 5 minutes serving 21 Hundred, The Scarlett/U Club, The Villages at Overton and Holden Hall. Route 45 – Overton Park South: Service from 7:18 a.m. to 7:22 p.m. every 5 minutes to Cottages, Park East, The Bloc, University Trails, University Point and Holden Hall. Route 46 – Northwest: Service from 7:18 a.m. to 7:22 p.m. every 11 minutes to Wildwood, Ave 1 and 2, Gateway 1 and 2, and Business Administration (BA) building. Route 47 – North 4th: Service from 7:08 a.m. to 7:19 p.m. every 11 minutes to College Pointe, Raiders Pass, 25 Twenty, West Hall, BA and International Cultural Center (ICC). Route 48 – North Indiana: Service from 7:05 a.m. to 7:12 p.m. every 15 minutes to The Republic at Lubbock, The Holly, Indiana Village, BA and ICC.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 12 ‐ Route 49 – Tech Terrace: Service from 7:25 a.m. to 6:38 p.m. every 6 minutes to Tech Terrace Park, Wagner Park, 32nd & Flint, 32nd &Boston, 26th & Boston, 20th & Boston and the Library. Route 50 – West 4th Express: Service from 7:17 a.m. to 7:21 p.m. every 17 minutes to Capstone Cottages, The Ranch, The Grove and BA. TTU Safe Bus: This is a late‐night service that circulates among downtown Lubbock, off‐ campus entertainment areas, and student housing complexes. All campus routes are free of charge, and TTU students can ride off‐campus routes free of charge by showing a valid campus identification card.
TTU Ridership TTU shuttle route ridership is approximately four times as much as on the Citibus fixed routes, as shown in Table VI‐8. Ridership is highest on the Double‐T and Red Raider routes, both of which are campus circulators.
Table VI-8: TTU Ridership by Year Fiscal Year Route 2015-16 2016-17 Double T 655,972 616,128 Masked Rider 377,324 372,903 Nite Owl 18,993 18,108 Red Raider 627,491 599,345 West Fourth 84,484 79,634 North Indiana 150,297 142,947 North Fourth 205,016 195,213 Northwest 117,408 109,728 Overton Park North 327,804 311,867 Overton Park South 220,787 208,304 Tech Terrace 138,489 131,696 Total 2,924,065 2,785,873 Note: Fiscal Year is October through September. Source: Citibus 2019. Ridership by Session Ridership by session is shown in Table VI‐9. As shown, the ridership each semester is approximately 1.3 million passenger trips, while ridership in the summer decreased to 87,106.
Revenue Hours and Miles TTU operated 2,785,873 miles and 71,557 hours of service in 2016‐17.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 13 ‐ Table VI-9: TTU Ridership by Session FY 2016-17 Spring Summer Route Fall Total Total Total Double T 286,471 310,220 19,437 Masked Rider 201,634 171,269 0 Nite Owl 9,296 7,638 1,174 Red Raider 285,187 291,530 22,628 West Fourth 41,997 33,932 3,705 North Indiana 74,042 63,660 5,245 North Fourth 96,829 91,157 7,227 Northwest 57,588 48,147 3,993 Overton Park North 148,355 151,679 11,833 Overton Park South 107,587 93,252 7,465 Tech Terrace 65,805 61,492 4,399 Total 1,374,791 1,323,976 87,106 Note: Fiscal Year is October through September. Source: Citibus 2019. NiteRide NiteRide is a curb‐to‐curb evening service provided by Citibus to facilitate the needs of passengers who require service within the Lubbock city limits at the conclusion of the day’s fixed route and paratransit services. It is a shared‐ride public transportation service which runs from 6:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Individuals who wish to use the NiteRide service must register for the service prior to scheduling trips. There are no eligibility requirements for the service and fares are $4.50 per trip.
OTHER LUBBOCK AREA TRANSIT SERVICES In addition to the Citibus and TTU services, several other providers operate within Lubbock, as detailed below.
Spartan Transportation SPARTAN Transportation is a rural public transportation provider serving residents within the South Plains Rural Transit District (SPRTD). The SPRTD is comprised of 17 Texas Counties, including rural Lubbock. Counties served include Bailey, Lamb, Hale, Floyd, Motley, Cochran, Hockley, rural Lubbock, Crosby, Dickens, King, Yoakum, Terry, Lynn, Garza, Scurry, and Mitchell. Spartan services in Lubbock include the following: South Plains College – SPC Express: Four days a week, transportation is provided for South Plains College students from Lubbock to the Reese and Levelland campuses. There are two morning runs with four pick‐up locations, and two afternoon runs with three drop‐off locations. The schedule is shown in Table VI‐10. Service is provided Monday‐Thursday when SPC is in session. SPC Express fares from Lubbock to Reese are $2.00 each way, with options for a $45.00 per month pass, $165.00 per semester, or $300.00 pass for the school year. Fares from Lubbock to Levelland (or Levelland to Reese and Lubbock) are $4.00 each way, with options for a $100.00 per month pass, $375.00 per semester pass, or $700.00 per school year pass.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 14 ‐ Table VI-10: SPARTAN SPC Express Fall 2019 Schedule Depart Lubbock Arrive Levelland 6:15 AM Lubbock Center (3907 Ave Q) 7:35 AM SPC Levelland (Fine Arts Building) 6:30 AM Texas Tech (South Side of United Spirit Arena) 6:45 AM Academy (5802 19th Street) 7:00 AM Reese Campus (Building 2) 9:00 AM Lubbock Center (3907 Ave Q) 10:20 AM SPC Levelland (Fine Arts Building) 9:15 AM Texas Tech (South Side of United Spirit Arena) 9:30 AM Academy (5802 19th Street) 9:45 AM Reese Campus (Building 2) Depart Levelland Arrive Lubbock 1:00 PM SPC Levelland (Fine Arts Building) 1:45 PM Academy (5802 19th Street) 1:35 PM Reese Campus 1:50 PM Texas Tech (South Side of United Spirit Arena) 2:15 PM Lubbock Center (3907 Ave Q) 1:00 PM SPC Levelland (Fine Arts Building) 6:05 PM Academy (5802 19th Street) 1:35 PM Reese Campus 6:20 PM Texas Tech (South Side of United Spirit Arena) 6:35 PM Academy (5802 19th Street) Note: Due to bus availability and maintenance, buses may not always be equipped with Wi-Fi and bike racks. The schedule is subject to change, if there are any changes, a 48 hour notice will be given. Source: Spartan Public Transit 2019.
Demand Services Routes: Service is generally curb‐to‐curb, though door‐to‐door service is available upon request for the elderly and individuals with disabilities. Traditional demand response service is available to passengers who request pick‐ups or drop‐offs to sites that cannot be incorporated into the scheduled route or commuter service. Passengers are asked to make reservations at least 24 hours in advance. Reservations are honored on a first‐call, first‐served basis, based on availability of a driver and vehicle. SPARTAN is a shared ride public transportation service, which means several passengers are generally served at the same time but to multiple destinations. SPARTAN advertises that it strives to arrive at pick‐up locations within a 30‐minute window (15 minutes before or 15 minutes after) of the scheduled time. Business Transportation: SPARTAN offers employer‐based commuter services. These services are arranged by request of the employers. There are no eligibility requirements to ride any of SPARTAN’s public transportation services. Central SPARTAN administrative offices are located in Levelland, 30 miles west of Lubbock. SPARTAN central office staff handles general management functions and operational services including vehicle maintenance, dispatch, and scheduling. Satellite transportation Centers in the rural areas are located in the county seats and/or the largest city of each county. SPARTAN employs around 50 full or part‐ time staff and currently operates a fleet of 60 vehicles, all of which are ADA accessible Type III and Type II Cutaways, and Minivans.
Operating Statistics According to the National Transit Database, SPARTAN provided 19,528 passenger‐trips on their commuter service in 2017 over 2,155 hours, for an average of nine passengers per hour. The operating cost for the commuter service was $251,965. The demand response service had 113,985
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 15 ‐ passenger‐trips over 38,847 hours of service, averaging 2.9 passengers per hour, with an operating cost of $2,710,871. Greyhound Greyhound has a package and ticket counter at the Downtown Transit Center next to the Citibus ticket counter. The counter is open seven days a week. Greyhound offers three routes from Lubbock: to Amarillo, El Paso and San Angelo. Table VI‐11 shows the scheduled departures and arrivals from these locations, and the range of fares. As indicated, day trips can be accommodated to Amarillo and San Angelo, but trips to El Paso require an overnight stay.
Table VI-11: Greyhound Schedule and Fares Depart Arrive at Adult Depart for Arrive at Adult Lubbock DTC Destination Fares Lubbock DTC Lubbock DTC Fares 1 To Amarillo, Texas From Amarillo, Texas 6:25 AM 8:35 AM $38-$56 6:10 AM 8:10 AM $36-$53 4:00 PM 6:15 PM $41-$60 11:00 AM 1:15 PM $36-$53 11:15 PM 1:35 AM $36-$53 9:55 PM 12:10 AM $37-$55 To El Paso, Texas From El Paso, Texas 1:20 PM 10:20 PM $91-$133 9:15 AM 3:55 PM $81-$119 6:15 PM 2 3:40 PM $92-$135 11:15 PM 3:00 AM $83-$114 To San Angelo, Texas From San Angelo, Texas 8:40 AM 12:15 PM $36-$86 6:30 PM 10:45 PM $41-$67 1Fares vary depending on type (saver, economy, flexible), day and time, and advance purchase. 2Requires a transfer. Source: Greyhound 2019.
Lubbock COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VI ‐ 16 ‐ Chapter VII (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter VII: Financial Analysis
The financial analysis provides an overview of the current budget and budget trends for Citibus. This includes an analysis of the current and recent budgets to determine how costs and revenues have been changing in recent years. A cost allocation model is presented in this chapter, which will be used to estimate the costs for future services. A revenue analysis is also presented to project revenues available to Citibus in years going forward based on current funding sources.
BUDEGET OVERVIEW AND PERFORMANCE The budget overview and performance is an analysis of the current Citibus budget, as well as trends over the last five years. This includes looking at both costs and trends. This important information provides a foundation for projecting revenues available for future years based on current funding sources. Costs and revenues are provided below in Table VII‐1.
Table VII-1: Citibus Five-Year Costs and Revenues FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 Costs Compensation and Benefits $7,521,590 $7,980,710 $8,041,001 $8,582,342 $8,711,810 $8,929,650 Administration $1,197,936 $1,168,832 $1,201,126 $1,321,172 $1,319,473 $1,465,990 Fuel, Materials and Supplies $3,058,129 $2,875,673 $2,920,377 $2,894,563 $2,914,399 $2,942,571 State Vehicle Inspection $3,000 $4,000 $4,500 $4,500 $3,375 $3,375 Capital $250,000 $468,918 $359,459 $612,078 $695,941 $730,730 Total $12,030,655 $12,498,133 $12,526,463 $13,414,655 $13,644,999 $14,072,316 Revenue Federal $3,320,650 $3,555,701 $3,456,686 $3,721,941 $3,448,109 $3,685,967 State Sources $610,910 $630,416 $630,416 $614,690 $734,576 $734,576 MPO $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 Local Sources $2,394,448 $2,638,263 $2,647,383 $3,141,046 $3,413,864 $3,599,573 Directly Generated $5,650,947 $5,620,052 $5,738,278 $5,883,278 $5,995,950 $5,998,500 Total $12,030,655 $12,498,132 $12,526,463 $13,414,655 $13,646,199 $14,072,316 Deficit $0.00 -$0.91 $0.23 $0.00 $1,200.08 $0.00 Source: Citibus FY 2019-2020 Budget Breakdown 6/25/2019.
Operating Costs The current factors that affect operating costs are presented in this section. Figure VII‐1 presents the breakdown of current operating costs based on the Fiscal Year 2019‐20 budget. This figure shows that about 64 percent of the Citibus operating costs are employee compensation and benefits. Fuel, materials, and supplies represents 21 percent of all costs. Administration is approximately 10 percent of Citibus costs, which is an amount that is common for transit agencies. A description of each cost item is presented below.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 1 ‐ Figure VII-1: Cost Breakdown
Compensation Capital and Benefits 5% 64%
State Vehicle Inspection 0%
Administration Fuel, Materials 10% and Supplies 21%
Compensation and Benefits Compensation and benefits is the largest cost item for Citibus. This category represents the personnel costs for staff. Staff includes bus operators and maintainers, as well as supervisors. This is the manpower for operating the Citibus system. This category also includes wages and benefits for administrative staff.
Administration Administration costs are many of the overhead costs for CItibus. This includes several items such as the management fee, technical services, and contract maintenance. This also includes the cost of utilities for Citibus facilities such as the transit center and the garage facility. Required liability and casualty insurance is also included in this category. Finally, miscellaneous expenses such as travel, and board meeting expenses are included in administration costs. Administration represents 10 percent of Citibus costs.
Fuel, Materials, and Supplies Fuel, material, and supply costs represent the costs for vehicle fuel used by transit vehicles and bus fluids for the proper maintenance of the vehicles. This is the second highest cost category.
State Vehicle Inspection This category is the cost for annual inspection of transit vehicles and transit support vehicles. This is a small cost category representing less than one percent of Citibus costs.
Capital The capital cost items are major purchases required to support transit service and are tangible assets. The items, and percent of the budget can change from year to year. Items that would be included in the capital budget are the acquisition of new and replacement vehicles, major improvements to facilities, bus stop improvements, and other major purchases. Capital projects are usually planned years in advance.
Revenue Sources The revenue sources are the sources of money that cover the Citibus expenses. The sources include Federal, State, Local, MPO, and directly generated sources. The breakdown of revenue generated for each source from the fiscal year 2019‐2020 budget is presented on Figure VII‐2. This figure shows that
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 2 ‐ directly generated funding sources provide the most revenue. A description of funding sources is presented below. Details on the specific programs are presented in the revenue analysis section.
Figure VII-2: Revenue Breakdown
Federal State Sources 26% 5%
MPO 0%
Directly Generated 43% Local Sources 26%
Federal Sources Federal sources are the funding that Citibus receives from the Federal Transit Administration. These include Section 5307 Urbanized Formula Funding and Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities funding. These sources support both operating and capital programs. Federal funding is approximately a quarter of Citibus’ funding.
State Sources The State of Texas provides operating assistance to transit districts in the state. This is based on a formula that allocates a set amount to transit districts throughout the state. State sources represent approximately five percent of Citibus funding. TXDOT controls the state funding for Citibus.
Local Sources Local sources represent about one quarter of Citibus funding. These local sources represent funding that is provided by the City of Lubbock through the general fund and through economic development funding that is allocated to Citibus. This funding source is under the control of local government.
Directly Generated Funds Directly generated funds represents a number of sources that Citibus receives directly. These sources include fares paid by customers, advertising, contracts for service, charters, and technology. Directly generated funds are the largest source of funding for transit in the Lubbock area, representing 43 percent of all transit funding.
Financial Performance The financial analysis is presented below on Table VII‐2. The financial performance is based on looking at the operating costs, directly generated revenue, budgeted revenue hours and miles which are assumed to be constant over the last five years as service levels have not changed, and unlinked ridership. From this information eight financial indicators where developed and presented that analyze financial performance. These indicators are described and analyzed below. It is important to note that the information presented on Table VII‐2 is not allocated amongst categories and represent an analysis based on service provided and not a cost allocation mode, which is presented in next section of this memorandum.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 3 ‐ Table VII-2: Citibus Financial Analysis FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 Base Data Operating Cost $11,780,655 $12,029,215 $12,167,004 $12,802,578 $12,949,058 Directly Generated Revenue $5,650,947 $5,620,052 $5,738,278 $5,883,278 $5,995,950 Budgeted Revenue Hours 255,000 255,000 255,000 255,000 255,000 Budgeted Revenue Miles 2,623,738 2,623,738 2,623,738 2,623,738 2,623,738 Unlinked Ridership 811,080 722,293 692,072 652,532 586,299 Analysis Cost per Hour $46.20 $47.17 $47.71 $50.21 $50.78 Cost per Mile $4.49 $4.58 $4.64 $4.88 $4.94 Cost per Passenger $14.52 $16.65 $17.58 $19.62 $22.09 Fare Revenue per Hour $22.16 $22.04 $22.50 $23.07 $23.51 Fare Revenue per Mile $2.15 $2.14 $2.19 $2.24 $2.29 Fare Revenue per Passenger $6.97 $7.78 $8.29 $9.02 $10.23 Subsidy per Passenger $7.56 $8.87 $9.29 $10.60 $11.86 Farebox Recovery 47.97% 46.72% 47.16% 45.95% 46.30% Source: Citibus FY 1019-2020 Budget Breakdown 6/25/2019, Citibus FY Route Summaries, 2013-14 to 2018-19.
Cost per Revenue-Hour Cost per hour shows the operating cost per revenue hour of service operated. The indicator is used to determine financial efficiency. Cost per hour remains under $50.00 per hour over the last five years, with cost increases ranging between one and five percent, averaging approximately two percent per 1 year. Cost increases are less than the increase in the consumer price index (CPI)
Operating Cost Revenue Hours Cost per Revenue-Mile Cost per mile shows the operating cost per revenue mile of service operated. The indicator shows financial efficiency of routes. The cost per mile trend is exactly the same as the cost per hour trend,
growing at a rate that is less than the CPI rate on average.
Operating Cost Revenue Miles
Cost per Passenger Cost per passenger represents the operating expense per passenger as measured in unlinked trips. Cost per passenger is a lot more variable than the cost per hour and cost per mile as it is based on ridership which has been declining. Therefore, the cost per passenger has been increasing at a greater rate than other cost figures, ranging between six percent and fifteen percent per year. The average cost per
passenger increase per year is approximately eleven percent.
Operating Cost Unlinked Passenger Trips
1 Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI (https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news‐release/consumerpriceindex_south.htm) for the Southern Region shows year of year increases ranging between two and three percent
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 4 ‐ Revenue per Hour Revenue per hour shows the directly generated revenue per revenue hour of service operated. The indicator is used to determine financial efficiency. Directly generated revenue incudes fare revenue, contracts, and service revenue. Revenue indicators are tied to the directly generated revenue, a measure that is somewhat tied to ridership. The revenue per hour of service trend over the last five years has an average grown by one
percent per year, ranging from a decline of one percent to an increase of three percent.
Directly Generated Revenue Revenue Hours Revenue per Mile Revenue per mile shows the directly generated revenue per revenue mile of service operated. The indicator shows financial efficiency of routes. The revenue per mile trend duplicates the revenue per
hour trend as these indicators are both tied to overall cost.
Directly Generated Revenue Revenue Miles
Revenue per Passenger Revenue per passenger shows the average amount of directly generated revenue by each passenger. The indicator is also known as the average fare. Fare revenue per passenger has seen a greater growth than the CPI, with the average growth being approximately ten percent per year. The range of growth is between seven percent and thirteen percent per year. This indicator shows that guaranteed revenue
from contracts such as the TTU shuttles does have a tremendous impact on revenue.
Directly Generated Revenue Unlinked Passenger Trips Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per passenger represents the amount of subsidy required for each passenger. This indicator is calculated by subtracting directly generated revenue from total operating cost then dividing that difference by total unlinked passenger trips. As directly generated revenue has been declining and costs have been increasing has resulted in growth in subsidy per passenger of an average of twelve percent per year, and range of between five percent and seventeen percent each year. It is important to note that while this indicator represents the amount of public funding for each unlinked passenger trip, it does not represent additional cost to the public for gaining ridership. As ridership increases, the cost
per passenger declines since costs are fixed.
Total Operating Cost - Directly Generated Revenue Unlinked Passenger Trips
Farebox Recovery The farebox recovery rate represents the percentage of costs expended on service provision that are recovered by fare revenue. On average farebox recovery has been declining by one percent per year. Over the last five years farebox recovery would decline by three percent one year then increase by one
percent the following year.
Fare Revenue Operating Expenses
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 5 ‐ COST ALLOCATION MODEL The Cost Allocation Model is used to determine unit costs for providing service in order to project future costs for the current service and determine the cost of potential new and enhanced services. The cost allocation model presented here for Citibus is a three variable cost model that is based on hourly cost factors, mileage‐based cost factors, and peak vehicle‐based cost factors. The hourly cost factors are primarily wages and benefits which are divided by the revenue hours to determine unit costs per revenue hour. Mileage based costs include fuel and maintenance costs and are divided by the number of revenue miles to determine the unit cost per revenue mile. Fixed and facility costs, along with administration, are based on the size of the peak fleet, therefore these costs are divided by the number of peak buses. Capital costs are not included as part of the cost allocation model. Besides allocating costs by functional area, Citibus costs also are allocated by cost center. Different cost centers have different costs per hours, mile, and vehicles. These cost centers are relevant because different cost centers have different stakeholders that may be responsible for funding the cost center. The cost centers are the general fixed route service, CitiAccess, the Texas Tech University shuttles, special services and charters, Greyhound ticket sales, and planning. Capital itself is not included in cost allocation as capital programs are for specific programs and charged in whole to those programs. Certain programs that function primarily as overhead and don’t have vehicles, hours, or miles are allocated as a fixed cost. The Fiscal Year 2019‐20 budget does provide an allocation of all line items amongst the various cost centers. This allocation is used for the future year projections of operating costs. The cost projection is presented on Table VII‐3 and growth in costs is based on historical trends. The cost allocation model for each service is presented on Table VII‐4. The use of the cost allocation model is that hours, miles, and peak vehicles need to be multiplied by the unit costs presented in Table VII‐4 and added together.
Table VII-3: Operating Cost Projection Average Annual FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Change Compensation and Benefits $9,286,836 $9,658,310 $10,044,642 $10,446,428 $10,864,285 $11,298,856 4% Administration $1,507,443 $1,550,485 $1,595,186 $1,641,619 $1,689,858 $1,739,982 3% Fuel, Materials and Supplies $2,971,997 $3,001,717 $3,031,734 $3,062,051 $3,092,672 $3,123,598 1% State Vehicle Inspection $3,510 $3,650 $3,796 $3,948 $4,106 $4,270 4% Total $13,769,785 $14,214,162 $14,675,359 $15,154,046 $15,650,920 $16,166,707 3%
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 6 ‐ Table VII-4: Cost Allocation Model FY FY FY FY FY FY 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Texas Tech Cost per Hour $32 $34 $35 $37 $38 $39 Cost per Mile $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Cost per Vehicle $12,605 $12,971 $13,352 $13,748 $14,159 $14,587 Specil, Cecil, & Express Flat Cost $309,594 $319,983 $330,769 $341,968 $353,597 $365,672 Fixed Route Cost per Hour $37 $38 $40 $41 $43 $45 Cost per Mile $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Cost per Vehicle $28,897 $29,709 $30,551 $31,426 $32,335 $33,279 Greyhound Flat Cost $130,761 $135,992 $141,431 $147,089 $152,972 $159,091 CitiAccess Cost per Hour $35 $37 $38 $40 $41 $43 Cost per Mile $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Cost per Vehicle $12,768 $13,139 $13,524 $13,924 $14,340 $14,772 Planning Flat Cost $191,125 $191,125 $191,125 $191,125 $191,125 $191,125
REVENUE ANALYSIS The revenue analysis provides a detailed analysis and description of the revenue sources and a projection of funding available for future years. This includes a description of each revenue sources and a projection of revenue that will be provided from each source. The revenue projections are based on the five‐year patterns of budgeted revenue from each source projected forward on an annual basis.
Funding Sources Specific funding sources are described below. The descriptions include the source of funding and the rules regarding how each funding source can be applied. This information comes from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s (TTI) Sources of Funding Transit in Texas (PRC‐15‐11.3) updated in 2018. The funding levels for each source is presented below in Table VII‐5.
Table VII-5: Revenue Sources Average FY FY FY FY FY FY Annual 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Change Section 5307 $3,133,441 $3,157,669 $3,207,670 $3,482,925 $3,201,790 $3,452,102 2% Section 5310 $187,209 $398,032 $249,016 $239,016 $246,319 $233,865 5% State Operating Assistance $610,910 $630,416 $630,416 $614,690 $734,576 $734,576 4% Technical Studies MPO $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 0% City Assistance $2,394,448 $2,638,263 $2,647,383 $3,141,046 $3,413,864 $3,599,573 10% Directly Generated $5,650,947 $5,620,052 $5,738,278 $5,883,278 $5,995,950 $5,998,500 1% Total $12,030,655 $12,498,132 $12,526,463 $13,414,655 $13,646,199 $14,072,316 3% Source: Citibus FY 2019-2020 Budget Breakdown, 6/25/2019.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 7 ‐ Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Section 5307 is the urbanized area formula program that supports transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and is used for transportation related planning. Citibus uses Section 5307 to support the capital program, operating assistance, and technical studies, and capitalized maintenance. This is a formula‐based program based on a combination of bus revenue vehicle miles, bus passenger miles, fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and fixed guideway route miles as well as population and population density as the urbanized area. This program requires a local match of 20 percent for capital purposes but can be as low as 10 percent for ADA related capital purchases. For using these funds for operations, this program requires a 50 percent match. Over the last five years Section 5307 revenues have been growing on average by two percent per year.
Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 Section 5310 supports enhanced mobility seniors and people with disabilities. The primary use of this funding program is for the CitiAccess service. This service, described in other sections of this tech memo, provides curb to curb transportation within the Citibus service area. Section 5310 funding is available for both capital and operations of CitiAccess services. A 20 percent local match is needed for Section 5310 funding for capital projects and a 50 percent local match is needed for operations. Section 5310 funding has been increasing by five percent per year.
State Operating Assistance The State of Texas provides operating assistance to transit districts based on a set formula of allocation. The formula is based on splitting a set appropriation amongst the transit properties in the state. Part of the allocation of funding is based on need and part of the allocation is based on system performance. Funding is used for operations. State operating assistance has been increasing by four percent per year.
Technical Studies MPO MPO funding is available for a local match for technical studies. Technical studies include planning studies and other studies that affect Citibus. The amount for technical studies has been the same each year. This funding source has been providing the same amount of revenue from year to year.
City Assistance City assistance comes from a few sources. The primary source is the City of Lubbock’s general fund. The second source is a transfer of funding from the City Economic Development Fund, as transit can be seen as a generator of economic activity. Community Development block grants are also used to fund transit. The final category that has been applied in recent years is local matches from grants that have not been fully utilized. This final source will not be assumed to be available in future years as the assumption will be that grant funding will be fully utilized each year. City assistance has been increasing on average by 10 percent per year but this funding source can change based on the priorities of the city.
Directly Generated Funding Directly generated funding represents a number of funding sources generated by Citibus. It includes fares for fixed route and CitiAccess services. It also includes contract revenue for the TTU shuttle bus and apartment shuttles. Besides these fare sources directly generated sources include route guarantee revenue, ticket sales for Geryhound, advertising revenue, charter revenue, and leasing of buses.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 8 ‐ Directly generated funding has been growing by one percent per year, but future growth will be guided primarily by ridership changes.
Funding Projection The funding projection presents a projection of the amount of revenue that will be available for transit service and capital over the next five years. This projection is based on increasing each revenue source based upon a lower inflationary rate of 2% or less. For Directly Generated Revenue and Technical Studies, these are based on the rate of increase for that revenue source of the last five years. Without a major change in funding sources and limited potential to raise new revenue, this represents a conservative assumption of funding growth. The funding projection is presented on Table VII‐6.
Table VII-6: Revenue Projection Average FY FY FY FY FY FY Annual 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Change Section 5307 $3,521,144 $3,591,567 $3,663,398 $3,736,666 $3,811,400 $3,887,628 2% Section 5310 $245,558 $250,469 $255,479 $260,588 $265,800 $271,116 2% State Operating Assistance $763,959 $779,238 $794,823 $810,719 $826,934 $843,473 2% Technical Studies MPO $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 $53,700 0% City Assistance $3,959,530 $4,038,721 $4,119,495 $4,201,885 $4,285,923 $4,371,641 2% Directly Generated $6,058,485 $6,119,070 $6,180,261 $6,242,063 $6,304,484 $6,367,529 1% Total $14,602,376 $14,832,765 $15,067,156 $15,305,622 $15,548,240 $15,795,086 2%
Additional Funding Sources Available A review of TTI’s Sources of Funding Transit in Texas document highlights a number of funding sources that are available for Citibus to use but have not been observed being used in the budget documents supplied. These include capital and operating funding programs. A description of each program is presented below. Utilization of an of the funding sources below would represent revenues above and beyond the revenues projected on Table VII‐5.
Federal Transit Administration Section 5309 This program is a competitive grant program for major capital programs. In the Lubbock area the most likely type of program that could use this funding source would be the development and implementation of Bus Rapid Transit. This is a very competitive program and would require at least an 20 percent local match.
Federal Transit Administration Section 5339 This program is a grant program for the purchase of buses and upgrades to facilities. There are several subprograms within Section 5339 some of which are formula programs and some of which are grant programs. The sub programs include formula and competitive grant programs funding for the purchase of buses and bus facility upgrades, as well as a competitive grant program for low or no emission buses. Section 5339 requires a 20 percent local match.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 9 ‐ Non-US-DOT Federal Revenues There are several Federal sources that can provide funding for transit activities allowing clientele to access social services. While these are Federal funding sources, the funding provided can be used as a local match for FTA funding sources. Some of these programs are: Food Stamp Employment and Training Program from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Vocational Rehabilitation Grants from the Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration Non‐Emergency Medical Transportation Grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging provides grants for supportive services and senior centers Community Development Block Grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development Workforce Investment Act programs from the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Veterans medical care benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VII ‐ 10 ‐ Chapter VIII (This page intentionally left blank.)
Chapter VIII: Origin-Destination Analysis
INTRODUCTION StreetLight Insight data were used to conduct an in‐ depth origin‐destination analysis for the City of Lubbock. Streetlight’s dataset is comprised of trillions of geospatial data points (“big data”) that are used to analyze transportation patterns. For its analysis, StreetLight either uses Location Based Services (LBS) data or Navigation GPS data.
LBS data is created by smart phone apps that use location‐based services and offers the same benefits of cellular data but with greater spatial precision and fewer coverage gaps. LBS data is espeially beneficial for analyzing personal travel, using a large sample size of data, and understanding the home and work locations of visitors to a particular zone. Navigation GPS data originates from connected cars, smart phones using GPS navigation, and connected commercial trucks. Navigation GPS data is espeially beneficial for analyzing commercial vehicle traffic. For our analysis, we used StreetLight’s LBS data for the entire year of 2017, the most up‐to‐date data available. To analyze the City of Lubbock, we created a series of 12 zones (based on combined U.S. Census Tracts) to divide the most populated portions of the study area. As shown in Figure VIII‐1, the 12 zones include:
Table VIII-1: Origin-Destination Zones Zone Number Description 1 Western portion of Lubbock, outside the TX‐289 Loop 2 Northwestern portion of Lubbock 3 Texas Tech University 4 Northern portion of Lubbock 5 North central portion of Lubbock 6 Northeastern portion of Lubbock 7 Central portion of Lubbock 8 Southeastern portion of Lubbock 9 Southwestern portion of Lubbock, within the TX‐289 Loop 10 Southeastern portion of Lubbock, within the TX‐289 Loop 11 Southwestern portion of Lubbock, outside the TX‐289 Loop 12 Southern portion of Lubbock, outside the TX‐289 Loop Source: LSC, 2019.
The analysis presented in this Chapter is divided between general travel patterns and commuter travel patterns. The general travel patterns are derived from all available collected data (Monday through Sunday from 12:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.) while the commuter travel patterns are derived from weekday data collected during the peak PM period from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 1 ‐ Figure VIII-1 Origin-Destination Zones
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Zone 4
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 Zone 6 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 5 ‐
VIII ‐ 2 Zone 1
Zone 7 ‐
Zone 8 Zone 9 Zone 10
Zone 11
Zone 12
GENERAL TRAVEL PATTERNS This section presents the general travel patterns for the 12 zones derived from all available StreetLight data (Monday through Sunday from 12:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.).
Overview As presented in Table VIIII‐2, the greatest volumes of average daily trips occurred:
From Zone 12 to Zone 9 (20,697 trips) From Zone 9 to Zone 12 (20,568 trips) From Zone 12 to Zone 11 (14,771 trips) From Zone 11 to Zone 12 (14,560 trips) From Zone 9 to Zone 2 (13,584 trips)
Table VIII-2: Zone-to-Zone General Travel Patterns Destination Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Zone 1 - 12,159 1,070 1,798 1,497 552 2,085 1,141 7,678 1,418 8,146 6,831 Zone 2 11,558 - 5,357 6,653 4,264 1,162 5,648 1,725 13,135 3,058 6,075 8,465 Zone 3 1,247 5,568 - 3,206 4,698 324 2,718 467 3,145 974 1,455 2,484 Zone 4 2,193 7,483 3,355 - 6,281 1,709 3,267 1,679 4,367 3,221 1,469 3,146 Zone 5 1,703 4,649 4,422 6,467 - 2,494 5,319 2,193 4,544 3,749 2,101 4,115 Zone 6 617 1,478 348 2,732 2,660 - 1,394 2,973 1,721 2,036 584 1,337 Zone 7 2,475 5,888 2,715 3,233 5,451 1,391 - 2,360 8,429 4,986 2,322 5,548 Origin Zone Zone 8 1,082 2,223 486 1,702 1,265 1,680 2,205 - 3,673 5,558 1,132 3,614 Zone 9 8,302 13,584 3,088 4,101 4,569 1,703 8,040 4,037 - 8,496 9,538 20,568 Zone 10 1,810 3,280 1,085 3,182 3,853 2,127 5,011 5,886 8,968 - 2,356 8,418 Zone 11 7,192 6,680 1,377 1,318 2,211 524 2,233 1,215 9,275 2,104 - 14,560 Zone 12 6,909 8,798 2,500 2,976 4,119 1,281 5,414 5,416 20,697 7,954 14,771 - Source: Streetlight Insight, 2019.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 3 ‐
Zone 1 Zone 1 covers the western portion of Lubbock located outside the TX‐289 Loop. As shown in Figure VIII‐2, the majority of trips originating in Zone 1 have a destination in one of the surrounding zones. The greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 1 have a destination in: Zone 2 (27 percent) Zone 11 (18 percent) Zone 9 (17 percent) Zone 12 (15 percent) The zones with the fewest average daily trips originating in Zone 1 included Zone 6 (one percent of average daily trips) and Zone 3 (two percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 4 ‐
Zone 2 Zone 2 covers the northwestern portion of Lubbock, covering areas both inside and outside of the TX‐289 Loop. As shown in Figure VIII‐3, the greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 2 have a destination in: Zone 9 (20 percent) Zone 1 (17 percent) Zone 12 (13 percent) Zone 4 (10 percent) Few trips originating in Zone 2 had a destination in the eastern portions of Lubbock, particularly in Zone 6 (two percent of average daily trips) and Zone 8 (two percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 5 ‐
Zone 3 Zone 3 covers the area owned by Texas Tech University, including the campus, the Texas Tech Medical Center, and the Rawls Golf Course. As shown in Figure VIII‐4, the greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 3 have a destination in: Zone 2 (21 percent) Zone 5 (18 percent) Zone 4 (12 percent) Zone 9 (12 percent) Few trips originating in Zone 3 had a destination in the eastern portions of Lubbock, particularly in Zone 6 (one percent of average daily trips) and Zone 8 (two percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 6 ‐
Zone 4 Zone 4 covers the northern portion of Lubbock, covering areas both inside and outside of the TX‐289 Loop. As shown in Figure VIII‐5, the greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 4 have a destination in: Zone 2 (20 percent) Zone 5 (16 percent) Zone 9 (11 percent) Few trips originating in Zone 4 had a destination in the eastern or western portions of Lubbock, particularly Zones 11, 8, and 6 (each accounted for approximately four percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 7 ‐
Zone 5 Zone 5 covers the north central portion of Lubbock and is bordered by Texas Tech University on the west, 19th Street on the south, Avenue A on the east, Interstate 27 (I27) on the northeast, and Avenue Q on the northwest. As shown in Figure VIII‐6, the greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 5 have a destination in: Zone 4 (15 percent) Zone 7 (13 percent) Zone 2 (11 percent) Zone 9 (11 percent) Zone 3 (11 percent) Few trips originating in Zone 5 had a destination in the eastern or western portions of Lubbock, particularly in Zones 1 and 11 in western Lubbock (four and five percent of average daily trips respectively) and Zones 6 and 8 in eastern Lubbock (five and six percent of average daily trips respectively).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 8 ‐
Zone 6 Zone 6 covers the northeastern portion of Lubbock predominately inside the TX‐289 Loop. As shown in Figure VIII‐7, the greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 6 have a destination in:
Zone 8 (17 percent) Zone 4 (15 percent) Zone 5 (15 percent) Zone 10 (11 percent) The zones with the fewest average daily trips originating in Zone 6 included Zone 3 (two percent of average daily trips), Zone 11 (three percent of average daily trips), and Zone 1 (three percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 9 ‐
Zone 7 Zone 7 covers the central portion of Lubbock and is bordered by 19th Street on the north, Avenue A on the east, 34th Street on the south, and Quaker Avenue on the west. As shown in Figure VIII‐8, the greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 7 have a destination in: Zone 9 (19 percent) Zone 2 (13 percent) Zone 12 (12 percent) Zone 5 (12 percent) The zones with the fewest average daily trips originating in Zone 7 included Zone 6 (three percent of average daily trips), Zone 11 (five percent of average daily trips), and Zone 8 (five percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 10 ‐
Zone 8 Zone 8 covers the eastern portion of Lubbock. As shown in Figure VIII‐9, the majority of trips originating in Zone 8 have a destination in one of the zones in the southern portion of Lubbock, including:
Zone 10 (23 percent) Zone 9 (15 percent) Zone 12 (15 percent) Few trips originating in Zone 8 had a destination in the north central or western portions of Lubbock, particularly Zones 3 and 5 in north central Lubbock (two and five percent of average daily trips respectively) and Zones 1 and 11 in western Lubbock (four and five percent of average daily trips respectively).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 11 ‐
Zone 9 Zone 9 covers the southwestern portion of Lubbock located within the TX‐289 Loop and bordered by 34th Street on the north and University Avenue on the east. As shown in Figure VIII‐10, the majority of trips originating in Zone 9 have a destination in one of the surrounding zones. The greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 9 have a destination in: Zone 12 (24 percent) Zone 2 (16 percent) Zone 11 (11 percent) Zone 10 (10 percent) Zone 1 (10 percent) The zones with the fewest average daily trips originating in Zone 9 included Zone 6 (two percent of average daily trips) and Zone 3 (four percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 12 ‐
Zone 10 Zone 10 covers the southeastern portion of Lubbock located within the TX‐289 Loop and bordered by 34th Street on the north, University Avenue on the west, and Avenue A on the east. As shown in Figure VIII‐11, the majority of trips originating in Zone 10 have a destination in one of the surrounding zones. The greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 10 have a destination in: Zone 9 (20 percent) Zone 12 (18 percent) Zone 8 (13 percent) Zone 7 (11 percent) The zones with the fewest average daily trips originating in Zone 10 included Zone 3 (two percent of average daily trips) and Zone 1 (four percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 13 ‐
Zone 11 Zone 11 covers the southwestern portion of Lubbock located outside the TX‐289 Loop and bordered by the TX 327 Spur on the north, Slide Road on the east, 98th Street on the south, and US Highway (US) 62 on the west. As shown in Figure VIII‐12, the majority of trips originating in Zone 11 have a destination in one of the surrounding zones. The greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 11 have a destination in:
Zone 12 (30 percent) Zone 9 (19 percent) Zone 1 (15 percent) Zone 2 (14 percent) Few trips originating in Zone 11 had a destination in the northern or eastern portions of Lubbock, particularly Zones 6 and 8 in eastern Lubbock (one and two percent of average daily trips respectively) and Zones 3 and 4 in northern Lubbock (each accounted for approximately three percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 14 ‐
Zone 12 Zone 12 covers the southern portion of Lubbock located outside the TX‐289 Loop and bordered by US‐87 on the east, 114th Street on the south, and Slide Road on the west. As shown in Figure VIII‐13, the greatest volume of average daily trips originating in Zone 12 have a destination in: Zone 9 (26 percent) Zone 11 (18 percent) Zone 2 (11 percent) Zone 10 (10 percent) The zones with the fewest average daily trips originating in Zone 12 included Zone 6 (two percent of average daily trips), Zone 3 (three percent of average daily trips), and Zone 4 (four percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 15 ‐
COMMUTER TRAVEL PATTERNS This section presents the commuter travel patterns for the 12 zones derived from weekday data collected during the peak PM period from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Overview Overall, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. occurred: From Zone 9 to Zone 12 (6,389 trips) From Zone 12 to Zone 9 (6,287 trips) From Zone 12 to Zone 11 (4,732 trips) From Zone 1 to Zone 12 (4,558 trips) From Zone 11 to Zone 12 (4,505 trips)
Table VIII-3: Zone-to-Zone Commuter Travel Patterns Destination Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Zone 1 - 3,687 195 577 329 133 531 291 2,303 449 2,500 4,558 Zone 2 2,761 - 966 1,712 818 278 1,244 272 3,237 734 1,470 1,993 Zone 3 550 2,358 - 1,267 1,584 129 692 120 1,381 432 738 1,264 Zone 4 626 2,413 657 - 1,602 683 834 545 1,509 1,023 492 1,067 Zone 5 617 1,526 861 1,920 - 799 1,451 641 1,671 1,278 895 1,578 Zone 6 237 552 69 740 715 - 369 806 663 674 219 436 Zone 7 928 2,170 611 1,041 1,472 437 - 525 2,996 1,702 950 2,007 Origin Zone Zone 8 409 966 119 1,198 1,690 1,837 714 - 1,425 1,742 1,267 2,615 Zone 9 2,380 4,176 571 1,138 1,018 418 2,091 882 - 2,614 3,000 6,389 Zone 10 579 1,071 225 807 950 641 1,420 1,452 2,902 - 733 2,755 Zone 11 2,239 2,062 263 447 433 148 519 285 2,964 701 - 4,505 Zone 12 1,934 2,866 462 817 886 319 1,389 1,264 6,287 2,307 4,732 - Source: Streetlight Insight, 2019.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 16 ‐
Zone 1 As shown in Figure VIII‐14, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 1 have a destination in:
Zone 12 (29 percent) Zone 2 (24 percent) Zone 11 (16 percent) Zone 9 (15 percent) These commuter travel patterns are similar to the general travel patterns, with a slightly variation in the order and percentage of the top four zones. Similar to the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 1 had a destination in Zone 6 (one percent of average daily commuter trips) and Zone 3 (one percent of average daily commuter trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 17 ‐
Zone 2 As shown in Figure VIII‐15, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 2 have a destination in:
Zone 9 (21 percent) Zone 1 (18 percent) Zone 12 (13 percent) Zone 4 (11 percent) These commuter travel patterns are almost identical to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top four zones, just with a slight variation in percentages. In addition, as with the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 2 had a destination in the eastern portions of Lubbock, particularly Zone 6 (two percent of average daily commuter trips) and Zone 8 (two percent of average daily commuter trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 18 ‐
Zone 3 As shown in Figure VIII‐16, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 3 have a destination in:
Zone 2 (22 percent) Zone 5 (15 percent) Zone 9 (13 percent) Zone 4 (12 percent) These commuter travel patterns are very similar to the general travel patterns, with a slight variation in the order and percentage of the four zones. In addition, as with the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 3 had a destination in the eastern portions of Lubbock, particularly Zone 8 (two percent of average daily commuter trips) and Zone 6 (two percent of average daily commuter trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 19 ‐
Zone 4 As shown in Figure VIII‐17, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 4 have a destination in:
Zone 2 (21 percent) Zone 5 (14 percent) Zone 9 (13 percent) These commuter travel patterns are almost identical to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top four zones, just with a slight variation in percentages. Few commuter trips originating in Zone 4 had a destination in the eastern or western portions of Lubbock, particularly Zone 11 in western Lubbock (four percent of average daily commuter trips) and Zones 6 and 8 in eastern Lubbock (each accounted for approximately five percent of average daily commuter trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 20 ‐
Zone 5 As shown in Figure VIII‐18, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 5 have a destination in:
Zone 4 (15 percent) Zone 9 (13 percent) Zone 12 (12 percent) Zone 2 (12 percent) These commuter travel patterns have some similarity to the general travel patterns, with Zone 4 having the greatest volume of average daily trips in both instances, but also some differences with an increased volume of commuter trips to Zones 9 and 12 and fewer commuter trips to Zone 7 when compared with the general travel patterns. Similar to the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 5 had a destination in the eastern or western portions of Lubbock, particularly Zone 1 in western Lubbock (five percent of average daily commuter trips) and Zones 8 and 6 in eastern Lubbock (five and six percent of average daily commuter trips respectively).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 21 ‐
Zone 6 As shown in Figure VIII‐19, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 6 have a destination in:
Zone 8 (15 percent) Zone 4 (14 percent) Zone 5 (13 percent) Zone 10 (12 percent) These commuter travel patterns are almost identical to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top four zones, just with a slight variation in percentages. Similar to the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 6 had a destination in Zone 3 (one percent of average daily commuter trips), Zone 11 (four percent of average daily commuter trips), and Zone 1 (four percent of average daily commuter trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 22 ‐
Zone 7 As shown in Figure VIII‐20, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 7 have a destination in:
Zone 9 (20 percent) Zone 2 (15 percent) Zone 12 (14 percent) Zone 10 (11 percent) These commuter travel patterns are very similar to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top three zones, just with a slight variation in percentages, but differ in the zone with the fourth greatest volume of average daily trips (Zone 5 in the general travel patterns and Zone 10 in the commuter travel patterns). Similar to the general travel patterns, the zone with the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 7 was Zone 6 (three percent of average daily commuter trips). However, the zones with the second and third fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 7 differed from the general travel patterns, and consisted of Zones 8 and 3 (each accounted for approximately four percent of average daily commuter trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 23 ‐
Zone 8 As shown in Figure VIII‐21, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 8 have a destination in one of the zones in the southern portion of Lubbock, including: Zone 12 (19 percent) Zone 6 (13 percent) Zone 10 (12 percent) Zone 5 (12 percent) These commuter travel patterns differ from the general travel patterns, indicating different commuter and general travel patterns. While general travel patterns show vehicles moving from Zone 8 to Zones 9, 10, and 12 most frequently, commuters are moving from Zone 8 to Zones 5 and 6 in north central and northeastern Lubbock, as well as Zones 10 and 12 in southern Lubbock most frequently. Similar to the general travel patterns, the two zones with the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 8 were Zones 3 and 1 (one and three percent of average daily commuter trips respectively).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 24 ‐
Zone 9 As shown in Figure VIII‐22, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 9 have a destination in:
Zone 12 (26 percent) Zone 2 (17 percent) Zone 11 (12 percent) Zone 10 (11 percent) Zone 1 (10 percent) These commuter travel patterns are almost identical to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top five zones, just with a slight variation in percentages. In addition, as with the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 9 included Zone 6 (two percent of average daily trips) and Zone 3 (two percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 25 ‐
Zone 10 As shown in Figure VIII‐23, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 10 have a destination in:
Zone 9 (21 percent) Zone 12 (20 percent) Zone 8 (11 percent) Zone 7 (10 percent) These commuter travel patterns are almost identical to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top four zones, just with a slight variation in percentages. In addition, as with the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 10 included Zone 3 (two percent of average daily trips) and Zone 1 (four percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 26 ‐
Zone 11 As shown in Figure VIII‐24, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 11 have a destination in:
Zone 12 (31 percent) Zone 9 (20 percent) Zone 1 (15 percent) Zone 2 (14 percent) These commuter travel patterns are almost identical to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top four zones, just with a slight variation in percentages. Similar to the general travel patterns, the zone with the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 11 was Zone 6 (one percent of average daily commuter trips). However, the zones with the second and third fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 11 were reversed from the general travel patterns, and consisted of Zones 3 and 8 (each accounted for approximately two percent of average daily commuter trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 27 ‐
Zone 12 As shown in Figure VIII‐25, the greatest volume of average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 12 have a destination in:
Zone 9 (27 percent) Zone 11 (20 percent) Zone 2 (12 percent) Zone 10 (10 percent) These commuter travel patterns are almost identical to the general travel patterns, with the same order of the top four zones, just with a slight variation in percentages. In addition, as with the general travel patterns, the fewest average daily trips on weekdays during the Peak PM time period originating in Zone 12 included Zone 6 (one percent of average daily trips), Zone 3 (two percent of average daily trips), and Zone 4 (four percent of average daily trips).
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 28 ‐
KEY TAKEAWAYS The origin‐destination (O‐D) analysis illustrates that the greatest volumes of average daily general and commuter trips are very similar, with the top two O‐D pairs for each having origins and destinations in Zones 9 and 12, as presented in Table VIII‐4.
Table VIII-4: Comparison of Greatest Volumes of Origin-Destination Trips General Travel Patterns Commuter Travel Patterns Origin Destination Origin Destination Zone Zone Trips Zone Zone Trips 12 9 20,697 9 12 6,389 9 12 20,568 12 9 6,287 12 11 14,771 12 11 4,732 11 12 14,560 1 12 4,558 9 2 13,584 11 12 4,505 Source: Streetlight Insight, 2019.
The origin‐destination analysis reveals that trips in and around Lubbock are concentrated in the southern and western portions of the City, rather than in the downtown area. As Lubbock has grown and travel patterns have evolved, the Citibus system has continued to remain centered in the downtown area and hasn’t been able to fully serve these areas. In addition to origin‐destination data, StreetLight also analyzes zone traffic volumes. When compared with the origin‐destination data, overall zone traffic volumes have similar results. As presented in Table VIII‐5, the zones with the greatest traffic volumes are Zones 12, 9, 2, and 11, which, like the origin‐ destination data, are concentrated in the southern and western portions of Lubbock. The zones with the greatest traffic volumes are the same during the general time period (all days and all hours) and the commuter time period (Monday through Friday during the Peak PM from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.). The zones with the least traffic volumes do vary between the general time period and the commuter time period. Figure VIII‐26 illustrates zone traffic volumes during the general time period and Figure VIII‐27 illustrates zone traffic volumes during the commuter time period.
Table VIII-5: Zone Traffic Volumes Comparison General Time Period Commuter Time Period (All Days, All Hours) (Mon. – Fri., Peak PM: 3:00-7:00 p.m.) Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Zone Volume # Volume % Zone Volume # Volume % Zones with the Greatest Traffic Volumes 12 323,583 16% 12 107,525 17% 9 277,480 14% 9 92,783 15% 2 272,064 14% 2 90,312 14% 11 201,943 10% 11 68,834 11% Zones with the Least Traffic Volumes 7 119,495 6% 5 36,357 6% 8 95,381 5% 3 29,128 5% 3 92,123 5% 8 28,865 5% 6 58,474 3% 6 18,399 3% Source: Streetlight Insight, 2019.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 29 ‐
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ VIII ‐ 30 ‐ Chapter IX (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter IX: On-Street and Multimodal Infrastructure
ON-STREET FACILITIES The quality of the pedestrian environment and bicycle facilities are key components of accessing transit service. Most passengers are pedestrians or cyclists at one or both ends of their trip. Their ability to access stops safely and comfortably is important to the transit service. Sidewalks should be uninterrupted to allow for passengers to walk safely to and from their origins and destinations. It is also important to provide consistent passenger information and a consistent approach to placement and location of bus stops for a more predictable and user‐friendly system. As shown in Table IX‐1, Citibus currently has 36 shelters, as well as bus stop signs at all stops.
Table IX‐1: Citibus Bus Stop Shelters Type of Shelter Routes Location Size Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 1 2606 East 26th Street N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 1 2635 Teak Avenue 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 1 1648 East 24th Street N/A Brown Shelter (old) 2 2417 Walnut Avenue 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 2 2630 Parkway Avenue 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 2 105 Beech Avenue 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (1 large panel) 5 5376 57th Street N/A Brown Shelter (1 large panel) 5, 9 Peoria and I‐27 Access Road N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 5 1372 Broadway 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 6 I‐27 Frontage Road 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 6 1101 38th Street N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 6 1765 50th Street 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 6 2414 50th Street N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 6 3243 50th Street N/A Brown Shelters (old 1 panel) 6 50th Street and Avenue T N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 9 5201 Avenue Q N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 9 1046 65th Drive N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 9 89th Street and University 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 9 1600 32nd Avenue N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 12 110 Avenue K 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 12 583 North Gary Avenue N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 12 460 Frankford Avenue N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 12 200 Lola Avenue N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 14 221 Redbud Avenue N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 14 546 MLK Jr Blvd 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 19 19th and Avenue T 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelters (old 1 panel) 19 3788 21st Street 3 sides whole Brown Shelters (old 1 panel) 19 4103 21st Street 3 sides whole Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 19 2704 Genoa Avenue N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 19 3834 Frankford Avenue N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 5, 6, 19 Southplains Mall N/A Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 34 34th and Louisville 49.25" wide x 71" tall Brown Shelter (old 2 panels) 34 34th and Louisville (Sunset Church) 49.25" wide x 71" tall
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IX ‐ 1 ‐
BUS STOP SPACING AND LOCATION
The distance between stops reflects a compromise between transit accessibility and operating efficiency. Therefore, placing stops close together will reduce passenger walking distance (increase in accessibility), but can cause the route to operate more slowly reducing the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the route. Stop spacing can be categorized by zones which progress from rural areas to the urban core. As shown in Figure IX‐1, stop spacing distance is reduced from rural zones to urban zones. Although exceptions can be made, the general concept of stop spacing is related to densities. In Lubbock, the greatest densities are located in the Texas Tech, downtown, and north Lubbock areas.
Figure IX‐1: Stop Spacing by Zone
Source: AECOM In addition to stop spacing it is important to consider the type of stops. Stop type refers to where the bus stop is located in relation to the nearest intersection. There are three types of stops: far‐side, near‐ side, and midblock. There are advantages and disadvantages of each stop type.
Far-side stop A far‐side stop results when the bus proceeds through the intersection before making a stop. The advantages to this stop type are minimized traffic conflicts for vehicles making right‐hand turns and minimized sight line issues for bus drivers to make stops and for pedestrians to observe traffic after exiting the bus.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IX ‐ 2 ‐ Near-side stop A near‐side stop results when the bus stops before the intersection. The advantages to this stop type are allowing passengers to board and alight while stopped at a red light and providing an intersection for the driver to use as acceleration space.
Midblock stop A midblock stop results when a bus stops between intersections. This type of stop usually occurs in specialized areas prepared for midblock stops. The main advantages are minimized sight line issues for drivers and passengers and larger passenger waiting areas. Bus stop placement and the amenities for stops will be considered as part of the service plan for the COA.
WALK AND BIKE LUBBOCK MASTER PLAN The City of Lubbock recently completed the Lubbock Pedestrian and Bicycle Masterplan. The plan outlines a vision to improve safety, encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel for all ages and groups, and better connect people and locations throughout the city. The plan was developed through a collaborative process with city staff, the public, and other governmental and non‐governmental agencies, including Citibus. For both bicycle and pedestrian strategies, “toolboxes” were developed that provided information and examples of various roadway, bikeway, and/or pedestrian enhancements that could be applied to locations and corridors through Lubbock. The results of the analysis showed a comprehensive, connected bicycle network is needed both in and outside of Loop 289. Key areas of the strategies included building upon the existing bicycle network near downtown and TTU and creating safe and comfortable cross‐town routes that could encourage bicycle use throughout the city. For high traffic corridors, multi‐use paths were recommended. Major challenges included creating a continuous network that provides crossing opportunities of highway infrastructure at Marsha Sharp and Loop 289. As the COA may consider route changes possibly dependent on riders walking greater distances to access more frequent service, it is important to understand the pedestrian concerns, improvements considered, and priority areas. As stated on page 78 of the plan, the common pedestrian concerns were: Discontinuous Sidewalk Concern: The sidewalk ends. Infrequent or No Safe Crossings Concern: I cannot cross the street safely. High Vehicular Speeds Concern: Motorists are traveling too fast. Dangerous Intersections Concern: I feel uncomfortable crossing at the intersection. Auto‐Oriented Parking Lots Concern: I don’t have a safe place to walk in a parking lot. Inadequate Rail Crossings Concern: There is no sidewalk or way to know if a train is coming.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IX ‐ 3 ‐ For Pedestrian improvements, approximately twelve locations were identified to serve as scenarios for safety improvements. As shown in Figure IX‐2, hot spots for pedestrian improvements were located in the following areas: Downtown, Cherry Point in northeast Lubbock and Dunbar‐Manhattan Heights in the southeast. Potential pedestrian network improvements include, but are not limited to: Marked Crosswalks Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Road Diet/Re‐Allocation Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Improvement The approach to each of these given priority areas for the toolbox strategy is shown in Table IX‐2.
Figure IX-2 Lubbock Pedestrian Plan
Source: Walk & Bike Lubbock – Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018)
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ IX ‐ 4 ‐ Source: Walk&BikeLubbock -PedestrianandBicycleMasterPlan(2018). Spot Improvements Priority Areas Map Number 13 12 11 10 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 5 9 8 7 6 1 4 2 3 Dunbar-Manhattan Heights E 24thStandOakAve Jr.BlvdandParkwayDr MLK MLK Jr.BlvdandE29thSt MLK LakeDr Jr.BlvdandCanyon MLK Teak Ave andE27thSt Indiana Ave southof2ndPlace 4th StwestofJolietAve Avenue QandAvenue P 50th StandIndianaAve 45th StandNashvilleAve 45th StandOrlandoAve Quaker Ave andLoop289 Dr Lake KingJr.BlvdandCanyon ML Sharp Freeway toMarsha Quaker Ave andRamps Quaker Ave and24thSt Avenue QandMacDavisLane University Ave andBaylorStreet 50th StandAvenue Q Improvement Location Zenith Ave andEAuburnSt Beech Ave andE4thSt Zenith Ave andE4thSt Redbud Ave andparkwayDr Avenue Wand15thSt University Ave and10thSt sections Broadway StatStudyAreaInter- University Ave and16th Cherry Point Cherry Downtown Table IX-2:PedestrianPriorityAreasandStrategies St Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 Bus Stop Shelter and Landing Pads Curb bulb outs, curb radii ‐
IX Curb Ramps and detectable warning surface ‐ 5
‐ Marked Crosswalks
Medians
Multiuse Trails
Other turn restrictions Pedestrian capacity at corners Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrian Signal
Pedestrian Signal Timing and Countdown Indicator Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Road Diet, Roadway re-allocation Sidewalks Slip lane modifi cation Stop signs (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter X (This page intentionally left blank.) Chapter X: Next Steps
This Working Paper #1 has provided: Context, background, and goals of the COA Overview of Citibus, its assets, structure, and peers Analysis of community conditions, demographics, travel demand, and Lubbock area characteristics Discussion of public participation process Review of current routes and associated performance characteristics In‐depth review of Lubbock area travel patterns through cell‐phone data analysis Inventory and analysis of existing financial assets and infrastructure to help support the COA
NEXT STEPS The next steps in the COA development process are:
Onboard Survey and Initial Online Community Survey • September ‐ October 2019
Develop and Evaluate Route Options • Review of System Concepts •Working Paper #2 • November 2019 through January 2020
Community Review of Route Options • Board and Stakeholder Meetings • Public Workshops • November 2019 through February 2020
Develop Recommended Service Plan •Working Paper #3 •March 2020 through April 2020
Draft and Final COA • Board and Council presentations • May ‐ July 2020 (Final by mid‐July)
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ X ‐ 1 ‐ EVALUATION CRITERIA During the upcoming Working Paper #1 presentations, we will lead a discussion about the evaluation criteria against which the potential route options are measured. LSC will lead the Citibus Board and Study Advisory Committee through a discussion to establish these criteria – as each service option is considered during the workshop and in the subsequent preferred route plan development, the performance against the evaluation criteria will be estimated. As we look ahead to the research and evaluation of potential ways that Citibus could grow, modify, replace, or adjust its routes and services, LSC has identified possible criteria below for evaluation of these service and route alternatives. This list serves as a starting point for the evaluation criteria discussion. Total Ridership: Estimation of annual ridership for each route option, compared to the current ridership Productivity: Estimation of ridership per hour for each route option, compared to the current productivity Efficiency and Effectiveness: Assessment of how each route option impacts route efficiency and effectiveness, possibly saving revenue hours or miles Segment Cost: Estimation of operational and capital cost per alternative for a given route and/or route segment Passenger Cost: Estimation of cost per passenger for each route option, compared to the current cost per passenger Compatibility with Citibus Service Objectives and Board Goals: Assessment of how well each route option fits within the Citibus’ board objectives and goals Financial Sustainability: Long‐term financial sustainability for each route option Environmental Benefits: Estimation of how each option helps reduce greenhouse gases or energy use Traffic and Congestion: Analysis of how each route option could help reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Ease of Use for Passengers: Assessment of how easily riders can access and use each route option, as well as how difficult any potential change from the current service to a new service is expected to be for existing riders (e.g., if route service area or schedule were proposed to be changed under a particular service option) Ease of Implementation: Assessment of how easily Citibus can begin and operate each route option including estimation of contractor impacts, staff and administrative requirements, infrastructure and capital equipment needs, and partnerships required Impact on Applicable ADA Regulations: Assessment of how each route option affects complementary ADA paratransit requirements
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ X ‐ 2 ‐ These criteria focus on cost, passenger benefits, ridership performance, and overall feasibility, and they should give Citibus a balanced look at how a potential route option may positively or negatively affect the agency, the current riders, and the overall transit system. As we move forward to the research and evaluation of potential service alternatives, LSC welcomes input from Citibus, the Study Advisory Committee, Lubbock City Council, and other key stakeholders on this list of proposed criteria so that it can be narrowed to a list of the top three or four evaluation criteria.
STRATEGIC QUESTIONS As Citibus system and route options are developed in future stages of this project, there will be key strategic questions that Citibus, the City of Lubbock, partners, stakeholders, riders, and the community at‐large must answer: Is it appropriate to ask riders to walk longer distances to access more frequent service? Is building in more potential transfers acceptable to help make routes more direct between key destinations? Do all routes need to connect to downtown or could new routes be developed along corridors outside of the downtown core? Could a high‐frequency express route be developed to connect east and west Lubbock? Is fixed route service going into lower density residential areas the best way to deliver service, or is there a different model, such as microtransit that would be more efficient? How are currently unserved or underserved areas prioritized as this project moves forward? How do the Lubbock city, Texas Tech, and rural routes operated by providers such as SPARTAN interact under a new route model? And how does Citibus balance the competing needs? What is the community appetite for reducing service in areas that currently receive regular service but yield relatively low ridership? If Citibus wishes to implement route changes or improvements, these questions must be answered – given relatively fixed resources, it is not possible to meet all needs. There are trade‐offs that must be considered and competing priorities that must be resolved.
ELEMENTS FOR FUTURE REPORTS With an analysis of existing services and resources, this Working Paper serves as the foundation for future reports and the development of route options. As we move forward in the COA development process and develop a preferred system option, LSC understands the importance to Citibus of detailing and including: Driver impacts and potential for better driver utilization Efficiency opportunities for integrated routes and services
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ X ‐ 3 ‐ Exact routing, time tables, and stop locations that balances safety and route efficiency Impact on ridership goals and performance metrics Funding requirements, including potential new funding sources and partnerships Fares and fare policy Administrative and staffing needs Infrastructure needs and roadway operations Fleet implications, including the new battery‐electric buses Stop locations and passenger amenities Supporting technology Multimodal impacts We look forward to a more in‐depth analysis as we build the route options and understand the implications for Citibus.
Citibus COA: Working Paper #1 ‐ X ‐ 4 ‐