Transportation Needs Assessment s1

Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

2September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

3 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Table of contents

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………….3

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………5

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………….5

Acknowledgments...... 6

Executive summary...... 7

1. Introduction...... 10

1.1 Community Background...... 11

1.2 Current Transportation Landscape...... 11

1.3 Transportation Challenges...... 12

1.4 EKIOC Transportation Pilot...... 13

1.5 Purpose and Scope...... 13

2. Research of Best Practices...... 16

2.1 United Counties Official Plan Review…………………………………………………17

2.2 Case Study Review……………………………………………………………………….17

3. Methodology...... 24

3.1 Surveys……………………………………………………………………………………..25

3.2 Community Consultations………………………………………………………………27

3.3 Survey of Community Partners………………………………………………………..27

4. Quantitative and Qualitative results...... 30

4.1 Transportation Needs Assessment Results Preamble…………………………….31

4.2 Profile of Respondents...... 32

4.3 Current Transportation Patterns and Transportation Needs...... 35

4September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

4.4 Future Transportation Preferences and Improvements...... 50

4.5 Anticipated Impacts of Improved Transportation...... 53

4.6 Community Partners Survey Results…………………………………………………54

5. Conclusions & Recommendations...... 59

5.1 Summary of Key Findings………………………………………………………………60

5.2 Logistical and Operations Structure………………………………………………….61

5.3 Choosing a Coordinated Transportation Model…………………………………….63

5.4 Critical Issues to Address Going Forward…………………………………………..64

5.5 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….65

Appendices...... 70

Appendix 1: Three Versions of Transportation Needs Survey…………………...…..71

Appendix 2: Transportation Needs Survey Additional Results……………………....84

Appendix 3: Community Transportation Profile Snapshots……………………….....90

Appendix 4: Focus Group and Interview Questions………………………………….117

Appendix 5: Community Partners Survey………………………………………..……..119

Appendix 6: Community Partners Survey Results……………………………………129

Appendix 7: Promotional Materials…………………………………………………...….139

Reference List...... 144

5 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

List of figures

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of survey respondents by township/municipality. Figure 2 indicates the age distribution of survey respondents. Figure 3 illustrates the gender distribution of survey respondents. Figure 4 indicates the average household income of survey respondents. Figure 5 displays the employment status results of survey respondents. Figure 6 illustrates employment sites of survey respondents. Figure 7 indicates survey respondent’s main method of transportation. Figure 8 shows results of reasons survey respondents do not drive a car. Figure 9 illustrates difficult destinations in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 10 illustrates frequency of travel for employment in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 11 illustrates frequency of travel for medical reasons in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 12 illustrates frequency of travel for community services in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 13 illustrates frequency of travel for food & supplies in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 14 illustrates frequency of travel for recreation in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 15 illustrates frequency of travel for visitation/family access in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 16 illustrates frequency of travel for education in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 17 shows results of locations considered difficult to access in Leeds & Grenville. Figure 18 illustrates Leeds & Grenville daily transportation satisfaction. Figure 19 illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across each Township Figure 20 illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across age brackets Figure 21 illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across income brackets Figure 22 shows days of the week survey respondents prefer to use a transport service. Figure 23 illustrates preferred times of day for a transport service. Figure 24 illustrates the importance of transportation service characteristics. Figure 25 illustrates the different Coordinated Transportation Models (Dillon Consulting, 2014)

List of tables

Tables 1-11 identify transportation related themes derived from open-ended responses. Table 12 identifies the travel frequency of destinations and services Table 13 lists completed and uncompleted steps in the development of a transportation service

6September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Acknowledgments

This project has been a true collaboration between Every Kid in Our Communities of Leeds & Grenville (EKIOC) and the community partners this organization is composed of. Many thanks go out to those community partners in Leeds & Grenville who assisted and supported this project -- and who continue their important work in improving the lives of those living in the community. Special thanks goes to Susan Watts and Jessica DesChamp-Baird, for without their guidance and support this project would not have been possible.

7 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Executive Summary

The information within this transportation needs assessment has been gathered using multiple methods in order to increase the number of respondents. More specifically, this transportation needs assessment gathered information through physical and online surveys, community consultations including focus groups and interviews, and a survey of community partners.

Based on the findings there are many residents of Leeds & Grenville that do not have any transportation needs. Not having any unmet transportation needs is almost wholly based on the ability to drive and being able to afford the ownership and operation of a car. That being said, based on the information gathered from this transportation needs assessment, there is a significant portion of the population who are not having their transportation needs met by the current transportation landscape.

The main finding from this transportation needs assessment is that there is a significant unmet need for transportation in Leeds & Grenville. This needs assessment has uncovered this as well and provided some insight into the details of what those transportation needs are. Perhaps the most significant statistic generated from the survey responses was the 23% of respondents who said their transportation needs were currently not being met. This number was determined to be proportionally higher among those with lower income brackets and those of increased age.

From the information gathered it was determined that 53% of respondents’ main mode was transportation was a mode other than driving a personal vehicle. This suggests that there is a significant proportion of the total population of Leeds & Grenville that don’t drive a personal vehicle. Additionally, it has been demonstrated by the transportation needs assessment, that without being able to drive a personal vehicle, it is significantly more challenging for residents to meet their daily transportation needs.

Of the destinations most difficult to get to, medical appointments and community services combined for 37%, and is identified as the highest unmet need. Food and personal supplies was next at 19%, followed by recreation at 12%, and employment and access to family and friends both at 11%. Of the communities in and surrounding Leeds & Grenville determined as most difficult to get to, Kingston, Brockville, and Ottawa are the top three communities in this regard.

By not being able to meet their transportation needs, respondents indicated that this negatively impacted their quality of life by having to rely on others, feeling isolated, and not being able to access the destinations and services they need. Conversely, respondents also indicated that having better transportation available would positively impact their lives in a number of ways.

8September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Based on interviews with other transportation service providers in rural Ontario is was revealed that all of their transportation services were developed in response to an identified need(s), and that the logistical and operational form of the transportation service was determined by that need. By applying this concept of having the transportation need determine the type of transportation service to the information gathered from this transportation needs assessment it is possible to gain insight into what kind of transportation service might be suitable to the Leeds and Grenville context

Recommendation: Based on the information presented in this report and gathered from the transportation needs assessment it is recommended that a rural transportation service be developed to serve the residents of Leeds & Grenville as it has been clearly demonstrated that there is a need for such a service. If the community, service providers, and municipalities choose to proceed with the development of a rural transportation service, we recommend the following:

1.) Consider Model 2 – Brokerage Central Coordination as the framework for a future transportation service. The benefits of this model include: a. Maximizing efficiency and coordination of available resources. b. Ability to provide transportation service for a range of transportation needs. c. A single coordinating agency allows for convenient ride booking and use of the transportation service by the end user. d. Allow agencies to retain ownership and operation of vehicles e. Provide an opportunity for the central coordinating agency to operate new fixed routes with dedicated vehicles.

2.) Operate a future transportation service using a hybrid model that combines: a. On-demand flexible transportation across the United Counties to meet the range of low to mid-frequency transportation needs such as medical and community service appointments, groceries and personal supplies, and recreation. b. A rotating fixed route inter-community transportation system along high demand corridors such as Gananoque to Kingston to meet the need for inter-community transportation.

3.) Ensure that the future transportation service will be affordable by subsidizing the cost of transportation for the end user through a range of funding channels including: a. Provincial gas tax funds b. Financial support from the municipalities whose residents are served by the transportation service c. Additional funding generated through advertising revenue and fundraising

By taking steps to implement these recommendations together, the community, municipalities, service providers and community agencies, will be working together together to improve the transportation landscape in Leeds & Grenville and provide opportunities for those whose transportation needs are currently not being met.

9 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

10September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Community Background...... 11

1.2 Current Transportation Landscape...... 11

1.3 Transportation Challenges...... 12

1.4 EKIOC Transportation Pilot...... 13

1.5 Purpose and Scope...... 13

11 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Community Background 1.2 The United Counties of Leeds and Grenville has over 4,000 kilometres of picturesque roadways. Despite an abundance of roadways, reliable transportation is not a given. For people in Leeds & Grenville communities with limited or no accessible transportation, it is plain to see that the vast geography creates significant challenges for participation in employment, recreation and other facets of daily life. What is less clear, however, is how each community within the United Counties differs in their specific transportation needs. In order to understand the transportation challenges of each community, a needs assessment is required to systematically uncover the transportation needs, barriers and habits of Leeds Grenville residents at the community level.

The United Counties of Leeds & Grenville is a two-tier municipality in eastern Ontario, situated along the northern bank of the St. Lawrence river. The United Counties are comprised of 10 lower tier municipalities: Township of Athens; Township of Augusta; Township of Edwardsburgh/Cardinal; Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley; Township of Front of Yonge; Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands; Municipality of North Grenville; Township of Rideau Lakes; Village of Merrickville-Wolford; and the Village of Westport.

In addition to these lower-tier municipalities, the City of Brockville and the towns of Gananoque and Prescott are within the borders of the United Counties but are separate from the United Counties’ administration. With a combined total population of over 99,000 Leeds & Grenville boasts stunning natural and cultural heritage that make the area a popular destination for visitors and tourists.

Major employment sectors in the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville include education, health, commercial manufacturing, food manufacturing and government administration. Combined, these major employers employ approximately 7,000 people in the United Counties.

The United Counties of Leeds & Grenville can be characterized by a relatively slower rate of population growth as compared to the rest of the province, as it grew by 0.1% between the 2006 and 2011 census as compared to 5.7% in the rest of Ontario. The United Counties can also be described as an aging region, as the median age in Leeds & Grenville is 46.7 years, notably older than the median age of 40.4 in the rest of the province. The proportion of working aged adults is lower in the United Counties (adults aged 18-65) with 61.5% of the population when compared to the rest of the province (64%). Furthermore, the United Counties is unique as it is home to more senior citizens (aged 65+) who live in a private household, with 19% -- higher than the provincial average of 13.8% (Census 2011).

1.2 Current Transportation Landscape

Leeds & Grenville has several major transportation corridors running through it as it sits parallel to Highway 401 which runs east-to-west and is the primary transportation corridor between

12September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville southwestern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) through to Montreal. Highway 416 begins just east of Prescott and is the primary transportation corridor running north from the 401 to Ottawa and the National Capital Region. Highway 15 also runs through the northwestern part of the United Counties connecting Kingston to Smiths Falls and then also proceeding on to Ottawa. A large network of municipal roads and highways provides a transportation network that interconnects the municipalities, towns, and villages of the United Counties to each other as well as to these major transportation corridors.

There is no public transportation system serving the United Counties, however the City of Brockville does; their Conventional Transit System serves the public within the city limits of Brockville from Monday to Saturday.

The City of Ottawa’s OC Transpo operates a rural partner route (Kemptville Transportation Service Route 542/543) which operates as a shuttle between North Grenville and downtown Ottawa in the morning and afternoon. Although the intent of this service is to transport commuters to and from work, the service is open to the public. Howard Bus Services (Route 509) operates between Merrickville, Burritts Rapids, Kemptville and Ottawa. Just as with Kemptville Transportation Service the intent of Route 509 is to transport commuters to and from work, but the service is available to the public.

Taxi services are available in various towns and townships within the region, including in Kemptville, Prescott, Gananoque and in Brockville.

1.3 Transportation Challenges

The United Counties of Leeds & Grenville is a geographically large county at 3,384 square kilometres. This massive size, coupled with a spaced out population distribution throughout the United Counties creates challenges in terms of efficient and effective service provision.

A geographically large county with multiple centres of employment results in requiring many to travel long distances for employment. With no public transportation throughout the United Counties, those without access to a personal vehicle are limited in their employment outlook.

Given the aging population, stagnant population growth and high proportion of seniors who live in private households - this creates significant challenges for service provision as an aging population will demand alternate forms of transportation once unable to operate their own vehicles. This demographic shift also places pressure on transportation solutions, as those operating transportation services are aging as well, while the United Counties’ population growth is nearly stagnant.

In addition to geographic and demographic challenges, the United Counties faces fragmented and uneven triage and referral transportation services for those with specific needs and medical conditions. Partially responsible for this fragmented service provision is a lack of understanding of the specific needs of each individual community. High fees also create a barrier, as many

13 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville cannot regularly afford the sometimes prohibitively high fees. Recognizing these challenges, Every Kid in Our Community implemented a transportation pilot project in 2010 to test the need for public transportation.

1.4 EKIOC Transportation Pilot

Every Kid in Our Community launched and operated a transportation pilot from between February 2010 and January 2011 to address the transportation service gaps of people in Rideau Lakes, Westport, Merrickville-Wolford, Seeley’s Bay and Lyndhurst with the added goal of fostering collaboration among organizations to create a coordinated service that builds on existing resources to service all citizens of Leeds and Grenville. The pilot program’s service area resulted from the idea that this geographical area was without any mode of transportation - and Lanark Transportation Association (LTA) was the closest neighbour to assist in providing the service.

The transportation pilot used a business and cost recovery model, which included having drivers on staff who were paid $13 per hour (and paid for wait time) and vans that were used to transport clients. When required, LTA would access volunteer drivers who were reimbursed 0.43 cents per kilometer for their mileage for the distance covered from when leaving their driveway until they returned. A client was either invoiced directly for the trip (known as independents) or the agency that had referred the client was invoiced to recover costs.

The transportation pilot shifted to a volunteer-driven service after a Memorandum of Understanding ended with LTA on January 31st, 2011. The Employment & Education Centre (EEC) and Family and Children Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (FCAS) partnered to continue service delivery. Due to cost pressures and the use of volunteer drivers, the pilot transformed into a triage and referral service in addition to being a service deliverer. The pilot continued with Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) funding until August 29th, 2011.

1.5 Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this needs assessment is to collect and offer quantitative and qualitative information on transportation needs, barriers and habits from residents of Leeds & Grenville. More specifically, the purpose is to collect data at the community level from each municipality and township to understand the specific transportation needs of each community. Although the scope of this transportation needs assessment is the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville; the transportation needs, barriers and habits of Leeds & Grenville residents to nearby communities outside the United Counties cannot be ignored and are included in this report.

14September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

15 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

16September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Section 2: Research of Best Practices

2.1 United Counties Official Plan Review...... 17

2.2 Case Study Review...... 17

2.2.1 Lanark Transportation Association...... 17

2.2.2 Community Care Northumberland...... 18

2.2.3 TROUT (The Rural Overland Utility Transit)...... 19

2.2.4 Ride Norfolk...... 20

17 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 2.0 Research of Best Practices

2.1 United Counties Official Plan Review

After a review of the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville Official Plan, Section 2.3.2 (Settlement Areas) and 6.2.4 (Rail) make reference to public transportation. Section 2.3.2 states that “It is the policy of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville that [...] urban settlement areas will provide for [...] opportunities for future public transit”. Section 6.2.4(b) states that “The Counties will encourage economic development opportunities associated with the rail transportation system and/or future public transit opportunities”.

2.2 Case Study Review

Rural transportation has been a concern voiced by those living in rural areas for years, and the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville is certainly not the first nor the only region in Ontario to experience service gaps in rural transportation. The Rural Ontario Institute (ROI) has identified a number of rural transportation services operating in rural Ontario communities; this section will review the approach various regions have taken in developing their transportation service. Community engagement and fund sourcing best practices will also be identified in order to offer examples which may be adopted in the United Counties of Leeds & Grenville.

2.2.1 Lanark Transportation Association

In the late 1990s, rural transportation was being addressed across the province through community-based regional work groups. It was determined, through a grant from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, that a lack of transportation was a quality-of-life issue. In 1996, the Valley Heartland Community Development Corporation sponsored the Lanark County/Smiths Falls Community Transportation Group to examine rural transportation issues in the area. In 1999, the Lanark County Transportation Planning Committee was formed. A six-month pilot project, called the Lanark County Transportation Project, was established and sponsored by the Volunteer Bureau of Lanark County, under the supervision of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). This pilot project was mainly funded by the United Way of Lanark County and the National Child Benefit Fund, with in-kind support from Lanark Community Programs (vehicles), Emergency Health Services (computers), and Access Taxi (office space).

Since 2001, ongoing funding and support has been received from Lanark County. Until 2010, annual contributions ranged from $40,000 to over $80,000, with a consistent contribution of $76,000 for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. Lanark County Council made their financial support for LTA a regular line item in 2005. This was the same time that the provincial gas tax fund became available, and local government contributions to a transportation service were a requirement for receiving the funds. The LTA has received gas tax funds ever since. Lanark Transportation Association does not operate a fixed route. Rather, they pick clients up at their homes, take them to where they need to go, wait for them to conduct their business and then return them home again. Transportation is available primarily for medical appointments,

18September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville agency-sponsored day programs and other specialized services. LTA also provides non- emergency, non-ambulance, inter-facility medical transfers. Lanark Transportation Association charges a fee for service operation, coupled with subsidies for people with low incomes and others in need.

2.2.2 Community Care Northumberland

In response to the community studies indicating that public transportation was a major issue throughout most of the county; in 2008 Community Care Northumberland (CCN) along with a small group of community agency partners that formed the Northumberland Transportation Initiative (NTI), with Community Care Northumberland taking on the lead agency role. The Coordinator of CCN met with key informants from organizations and service providers throughout Northumberland County as well as the Northumberland Poverty Reduction Action Committee (NPRAC). They observed many of their clients living in the rural areas had few or no affordable transportation options. To get a sense of where there was the greatest need for transportation services, organizations were asked which municipality had the highest requirements for this transportation. Cramahe and Trent Hills were identified, so these were among the first communities to receive service from NTI, with the pilot starting in Cramahe Township in November 2008 and operating two days per week. Public input was taken seriously, as the route was determined in large part by the demand expressed by those living in Northumberland County through a survey.

Recently, CCN staff recognized that, with the immense growth in demand for these services throughout Northumberland County, they must change the way they operated their transportation programs. Consequently, they consolidated operations into new categories to better service Northumberland County as a whole. With a regional approach in mind, CCN now has two programs within its portfolio of services:

Volunteer Driving Program - This program has remained unchanged in its operation. A volunteer driver provides transportation using their personal vehicle. They transport clients to destinations within Northumberland County as well as outside the County for medical, social, banking, and recreational purposes and to meet the requirements of daily living. This service is available to adults who are aging, have special needs or are recovering from illness or injury, with priority given based on assessed need. To access the service, clients contact their local CCN office to book a ride.

Specialized Transportation - This program has been consolidated into two components and includes transportation for both accessible and rural needs:

Accessible Service: This program transports clients to destinations within Northumberland County as well as outside the County for medical, social, banking, recreational purposes and activities of daily living requirements. Clients are driven by trained staff in agency vehicles which can accommodate wheelchairs, walkers and child car seats. This service is available to those

19 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville with significant physical and intellectual challenges as well as those with significant health issues.

Rural Service: Working with the County of Northumberland and several local municipalities, the goal of this service is to offer rural transportation within the County that is affordable, accessible, and sustainable for all residents of Northumberland County. Services are pre-booked and clients are driven by trained staff in agency vehicles. Wheelchairs, walkers, child car seats, etc. can be accommodated. The rural service is currently operating in Cramahe & Alnwick/Haldimand Townships as well as the Municipality of Trent Hills, with limited transportation to and from the Municipality of Brighton. Riders must be registered to use this service and those under 16 years of age must be accompanied by an adult. Bookings are handled through a centralized scheduling office that serves all residents across the County. The scheduling office has information on each registered client’s needs and appropriate resources are booked to ensure each individual client’s needs are met (e.g. whether they require an accessible vehicle.)

CCN is presently expanding their rural transportation service into other parts of the county. In order to determine the route, CCN will be holding town hall meetings in each of the small communities to determine interest and a potential route. According to Charlotte Clay-Ireland, CCN’s Transportation Coordinator, the users may very possibly determine the route that the service will take as a result of these consultations.

2.2.3 TROUT (The Rural Overland Utility Transit)

Access to transportation has been a long-standing issue in North Hastings and Highlands East. Prior to the establishment of the TROUT, there was no fully ‘public’ transit system within the area (i.e., open to everyone). The nearly 3,500 square kilometres of what is sometimes rugged rural terrain in the area create a particular challenge to operating a public transit service.

Community Care North Hastings (CCNH) first started a “handi-bus” service for their clients in 1989. It provided transportation services for seniors and those with physical challenges within North Hastings and Highlands East. It was organized as a ‘specialized’ transportation service where individuals would call into CCNH in advance to book a ride. Each day of the week, the bus visited a different area of the region to pick up riders so that they could attend medical appointments, buy groceries and conduct errands in the Town of Bancroft.

For some time, CCNH used only its charitable dollars to subsidize the handi-bus. However, providing this service was a substantial drain on the overall financial resources of the organization. As a result of discussions with their local Member of Provincial Parliament, CCNH decided to pursue the gas tax rebate for public transportation from the Province of Ontario. Given provincial policies related to transportation and access to the Gas Tax Rebate, this decision also provided an opportunity to more actively engage with local municipalities.

20September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville In terms of public engagement, community meetings were held during Fall 2009 in order to gather and understand public opinion, views and input about how a transit service should be organized. All public input was considered in the process of developing the routes, schedules and fares for the service. Through initial surveys, 95% of those surveyed said they wanted and needed public transit. Community Care North Hastings also initiated a community contest for naming the service where ‘TROUT’ was the result. Routes, schedules and fare information were distributed as part of an overall awareness and marketing strategy. In response to requests, service to Hastings Highlands was also established to accommodate both an anticipated need for extra coverage and for individuals wishing to use the service for employment purposes.

Community Care North Hastings presently owns and operates the TROUT. The TROUT public service consists of four community buses, employs five part-time/casual drivers, and makes 9,000 trips annually. While the TROUT is open to everyone in the community, about 70% of riders are older adults (i.e., 55 years of age and older).

In the summer of 2012, over 5,600 survey postcards were distributed via the postal service to constituents of North Hastings and Highlands East to evaluate the service, provide evidence of its need and help plan for the future. Across all of the municipalities served, 93-97% of respondents rated the service as ‘valuable’ or ‘very valuable’. Also, of the total respondents, 94% indicated a need and continued need for public transit.

2.2.4 Ride Norfolk

Rural transportation issues within the Counties of Haldimand and Norfolk are long-standing. The lack of public transportation affects everyone, but it is a particular challenge to high-risk populations including the elderly, children, people with disabilities and low-income families. While there are some specialized transportation services provided by various community organizations, prior to the establishment of Ride Norfolk, there was no public transit system to connect people internally or to communities outside the counties.

The Haldimand & Norfolk Rural Transportation Initiative (H&N RTI) was formed in 2006, with representation from a broad cross-section of community organizations. The H&N RTI was very active over the next few years; they conducted research, held community consultations, surveyed community organizations and the general public, and conducted a peer review of models of rural transportation in comparative communities. Of 29 community organizations surveyed, 86% identified the need for transportation for their consumers, and 89% indicated that the lack of transportation is a barrier to accessing their service. Furthermore, 63% of the agencies were already providing or paying transportation costs for their clients, and 100% of respondents indicated they would or might support a consumer transportation system if one was created for Haldimand & Norfolk.

Following up on the recommendations from the 2006 survey, in 2008 a more detailed survey was distributed to 345 organizations in Haldimand and Norfolk, of which 142 completed the survey. The purpose of the survey was to compile a current transportation inventory for

21 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Haldimand and Norfolk and gather information to inform a transportation feasibility study. The H&N RTI, realizing that the success of a public transportation system would rely heavily on use by the general public, also surveyed the community at large. 92% of respondents indicated that Haldimand and Norfolk counties need a public transportation system, for the following purposes:

• Respondents in general would use public transportation for recreational and social activities (69%), followed by attending medical appointments (59%). • Younger respondents are most likely to use it for recreational and social activities (81%), followed by employment needs (73%). • Older respondents are most likely to use it for medical appointments (75%), followed by recreational and social activities (63%). • Low-income respondents would use it for medical appointments (78%) and recreational and social activities (77%).

Initially, from 2011 to 2012, the Children’s Aid Society was the lead agency for Ride Norfolk, holding the contract with Sharpe Bus Lines. In 2012, the operation was moved to the County so it could be eligible to receive gas tax funds. The service is now provided by Donnelly Transit Inc., a company based in St. Thomas, ON.

22September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

23 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

24September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Section 3: Methodology

3.1 Surveys...... 25

3.1.1 Physical survey copies...... 25

3.1.2 Online Surveys...... 26

3.2 Community Consultations...... 27

3.2.1 Focus Groups & Interviews...... 27

3.2.2 Booths at Community Festivals & Fairs ...... 27

3.3 Survey of Community Partners ...... 27

25 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 3.0 Methodology

 Surveys  Online surveys, powered by Surveymonkey.com  Community consultations including focus groups and interviews  Survey of community partners, powered by Google Forms

3.1 Surveys

3.1.1 Physical survey copies

A physical transportation needs survey was employed to understand respondents’ demographics, current transportation situation, habits, and needs as well as identifying desired characteristics of a potential transportation service. Hard copies of the survey were placed in the following locations:

Alzheimer Society of Lanark Leeds Grenville Athens and District Family Health Team Athens Public Library Augusta Public Library Augusta Township Office Bayfield Manor Brockville Public library Cardinal Library Carveth Care Centre Connect Youth - South Grenville District High School Country Roads Community Health Centre CPCH Athens Office CPHC Gananoque CPHC Westport Community Family Health Team Crosby Public library CSE Consulting – Brockville CSE Consulting – Kemptville CSE Consulting - Prescott Delta Public library Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Municipal Office Elizabethtown-Kitley Public Library - Lyn Branch Elizabethtown-Kitley Public Library - Toledo Branch Family & Children's Services of Leeds & Grenville Family & Children's Services of Leeds & Grenville (Brockville) (Kemptville Family & Children's Services of Leeds & Grenville Foundations Brockville (Prescott) Front of Yonge Public Library Gananoque Food Bank Gananoque Public Library Interval House Brockville KEYS Job Centre - Elgin KEYS Job Centre - Gananoque Lansdowne Public Library Leeds & 1000 Islands Public library Leeds, Grenville, Lanark District Health Unit - Leeds, Grenville, Lanark District Health Unit - Brockville Kemptville Gerontology Social Worker Lombardy Public library Lyndhurst Public library Merrickville-Wolford Township Office Merrickville Public Library North Grenville Municipal Office North Grenville Public Library Ontario Early Years Centres Ontario Works, Gananoque Operation Harvest Sharing - Brockville Portland Public Library Prescott Public Library Public Library - Spring Valley Rideau Lakes Public library RNJ Youth Services Rose Garden Family Support Centre Seeley's Bay Medical Centre Spencerville Library St. Lawrence Medical Clinic, Lansdowne Stone's Mill Family Health Centre Toledo Branch Township Office Town of Gananoque Township of Athens Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley

26September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands Township of Rideau Lakes TR Leger - Gananoque TR Leger - Kemptville TR Leger - Prescott TR Leger Brockville Village of Westport Westport Medical Centre Westport Public Library UCLG Housing Offices, Ontario Works & Ontario Disability Support Program offices throughout Leeds & Grenville .

3.1.2 Online Surveys

An online survey, identical to the hard copy, was created to gather information on respondents’ current transportation situation, habits, and needs as well as identifying desired characteristics of a potential transportation service. The online survey was implemented to increase the reach of the survey to those who preferred to complete the survey using digital devices and for those who may not frequent community services or other locations where the physical copy can be found. Several partner agencies posted informational announcements and direct links to the online survey. (e.g. Employment & Education Centre Facebook page & website, Leeds- Grenville Member of Parliament Gord Brown’s Twitter page, etc.). The online survey was also forwarded by numerous partner agencies to clients and contacts throughout Leeds & Grenville.

3.2 Community Consultations

3.2.1 Focus Groups & Interviews

In order for the transportation needs assessment to reach those who do not frequent community services and those who do not have readily available access to the internet, focus group sessions and interviews were used to gather information. Focus group sessions were between 30 and 90 minute sessions where discussion questions surrounding participants’ current transportation habits and desired transportation solutions were discussed, in similar fashion to questions found on the transportation needs survey -- and the results of the ensuing discussion were recorded and transcribed. When focus group sessions yielded one participant, the result was an interview with the same questions being asked would have been in a focus group session. Focus group sessions and interviews were held at the following locations:

Brockville & Area Food Bank – July 2nd Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Municipal Office Council Chambers (Spencerville) – July 7th Gananoque Public Library – July 15th Guthrie House - July 9th Kemptville Youth Centre – June 25th Merrickville Public Library (Community Interview) – July 30th Prescott Library – July 13th Spring Valley Public Library – July 22nd Westport Town Hall - August 4th

3.2.2 Booths at Community Festivals & Fairs

In addition to having paper copies of the transportation needs survey available at various locations within the United Counties, booths were set up at numerous festivals and fairs in order

27 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville to increase awareness and provide the public an opportunity to complete the transportation needs assessment on the spot. Booths were set up at the following festivals & fairs:

Delta Senior’s Picnic - June 19th Elgin Days - July 11th Lansdowne Fair - July 17th - 19th Touch-a-Truck Brockville - July 31st

3.3 Survey of Community Partners

Alongside the transportation needs assessment for Leeds & Grenville residents, a survey was created through Google Forms to gather information on the perspectives and opinions of community partners in Leeds & Grenville with respect to the existence and significance of their client’s transportation needs & barriers. The community partners survey also explored how, if at all, the community partner’s organization assisted their client with transportation.

28September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

29 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

30September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Section 4: Quantitative & Qualitative Results

4.1 Transportation Needs Assessment Results Preamble………………....31

4.2 Profile of Respondents...... 32

4.3 Current Transportation Patterns and Transportation Needs…………..35

4.4 Future Transportation Preferences and Improvements………………..50

4.5 Anticipated Impacts of Improved Transportation...... 53

4.6 Community Partners Survey Results…………………………………….54

31 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 4.0 Quantitative and Qualitative Results

4.1 Transportation needs assessment results preamble

4.1.1 Quantitative results

The following section outlines the results of the transportation needs assessment. The figures in this section display the quantitative results of the survey in graphs and charts. Not every question on the survey was mandatory therefore for those questions that were not mandatory they often had less responses than 1004, which was the number of survey respondents. Additionally, for some survey questions, respondents were able to select more than one option thereby bring the total responses for that question above 1004.

4.1.2 Qualitative results

In addition to the quantitative information provided from the survey, there were also a number of open-ended questions whereby respondents could provide additional information on their transportation needs and barriers. This section also expands on these questions and describes the themes that emerged from these questions. The responses to these open-ended questions were coded according to a framework of qualitative themes. A single response could be coded with more than one theme depending on the information contained in the response and the themes identified within the response.

The tables displayed below in this section present the frequency of occurrence of qualitative themes. They should not be compared to the number of survey respondents or taken as more than a simple quantitative value relative to the frequency of occurrence of other qualitative themes. All responses across all open-ended questions were coded according to the same qualitative framework. The frequency of a theme occurrence is indicative of the importance of that theme, or the importance of the transportation need that them represents among survey respondents.

4.1.3 Community consultations

In addition, community consultation sessions were conducted through focus groups and interviews throughout Leeds & Grenville which also offered additional information for the transportation needs assessment. Due to the nature of community consultations, the results can only be anecdotal however, when considered alongside the survey results this information becomes valuable and validates information which aids in providing further context to the survey responses. The results of the community consultation sessions are incorporated throughout this section to provide support to the survey data.

32September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 4.2 Profile of respondents

The survey was completed by 1004 individuals with 99.8% of respondents indicating which township they lived in. The following graph visualizes the geographical breakdown of the survey respondents.

Figure 1 (above) illustrates the distribution of survey respondents by township/municipality.

As shown in Figure 1, Brockville is most represented in the survey responses with 21.9% of the completed surveys coming from individuals living in this area. The amount of respondents from each township in Leeds & Grenville is proportional to the population of each township relative to its population within Leeds & Grenville; i.e. those townships with a smaller total population are therefore less represented in the survey responses while those townships with a larger population are more represented in the survey responses. Given the population of Leeds & Grenville is at approximately 100,000 - having 1,004 responses represents 1% of the population. Furthermore, after an analysis of the number of surveys completed, the percentage of surveys completed from each township relative to the number of total surveys completed is proportional to within 5% of each townships population percentage relative to the total population of Leeds & Grenville.

Figure 2 (above) indicates the age distribution of survey respondents.

Individuals of all ages responded to the transportation needs survey as the survey was not targeted towards a specific age range. The age distribution of respondents is shown in Figure 2, above. 96.5% of respondents indicated their age. The age group 36 - 59 is most represented in the survey responses at 41%. Those aged 18-35 represented 28% of respondents, and those aged 60+ represented 22% of respondents.

Figure 3 (above) illustrates the gender distribution of survey respondents.

Of those that indicated their gender, 74.1% of survey respondents identified themselves as female while 21.6% identified themselves as male.

Figure 4 (above) indicates the average household income of survey respondents.

Individuals within a wide socio-economic range completed the survey. Regarding average household income, the two income categories earning less than $30,000 are the two most represented survey responses; together they comprise 33.1% of survey respondents. Interestingly the next income category most represented in the survey responses was those earning more than $90,000 per year at 15.4% of survey respondents.

33 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Regarding employment, 44% of respondents indicated that they were employed. This category did not distinguish between full-time and part-time employment. As can be seen in Figure 6, of those who are employed the vast majority of them work in Brockville.

Figure 5 (above) displays the employment status results of survey respondents.

Figure 6 (above) illustrates employment sites of survey respondents.

4.3 Current transportation patterns and transportation needs

Survey respondents were asked about the current modes of travel. With respect to respondent's’ main method of transportation, 47% report driving a personal vehicle, while 19% report requiring a ride from a spouse, friend, relative or neighbour as their main method (see results appendix). This finding is significant because it indicates that 53% of respondents had a main method of transportation other than driving a personal vehicle.

Figure 7 (above) indicates survey respondent’s main method of transportation.

When asked “If you don’t drive a car, why not?”, three responses emerge as the most common: 27% report not having a valid driver’s license; 26% cite the high cost of a vehicle, and 24% report the high cost of gas and insurance. Combined, 77% report costs associated with owning and operating a vehicle as a barrier to driving (see Fig 8). When asked “Do you require any of the following assistance when you travel locally?”, the vast majority (79%) reported not needing any type of assistance. Notably, 7% of respondents did report requiring assistance loading and unloading items when travelling locally (see Appendix 2).

Figure 8 (above) shows results of reasons survey respondents do not drive a car.

These results are supported by respondent’s feedback on open-ended questions provided throughout the survey, in addition to feedback gathered in community consultations. As can be seen on Table 1 corresponding themes regarding driving a vehicle, owning and operating a vehicle, and their associated costs along with the costs of other modes of transportation emerged from the open-ended responses that support Figures 7 & 8. The high cost of operating a vehicle, including things like gas, maintenance, and insurance were themes that came up frequently in the analysis. Respondents often commented on the cost of gas, maintenance, and repairs and how they often did not have enough income to meet these demands on vehicle ownership, if they owned a personal vehicle. Related to this was another theme in a number of instances in which people indicated that the cost of vehicle insurance and/or a driver's license were expenses that they had trouble meeting or could not meet and as a result could not drive their vehicle.

34September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Interestingly another theme in this cluster indicated that even though a respondent household had and used a vehicle, having only one vehicle sometimes was not enough as a number of respondents cited challenges of trying to coordinate multiple users of the vehicle going to multiple destinations at different times in a one vehicle household.

The cost and affordability of other transportation options available to people apart from personal vehicles was another one of the themes that emerged from the open ended responses, the most common one being the high cost of travelling by taxi. Taxi’s were often considered to be unaffordable in the survey responses yet for many respondents, in the absence of car ownership or other transportation options, taxi’s were often the only option available. As a result of the high cost of taxis respondents reserved the use of a taxis as a last resort when no other means of transportation was available to them. The high cost of taxi’s was also something that came up frequently in the community consultations.

Frequency of themes related to driving and vehicle ownership Do not have a vehicle 21 Do not have a driver’s license 16 Would like to give up vehicle and/or drive less 15 Do not drive at all or at certain periods 14 Experience difficulty meeting needs with single vehicle 10 Vehicle does not work reliably 7 Frequency of themes related to cost of driving and other modes of transportation Cost of taxi's 54 Cost of gas and/or vehicle maintenance and repairs 46 Cost of insurance and/or driver's license 15 Cost of bus pass or bus fare 12 Table 1 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

Another major group of themes related to current transportation patterns gathered from the responses was centered around improving existing transportation options. The frequency with which these themes occurred can be found in Table 2. Many individual responses centred around bus service times, the hours of operation of Brockville transit, and the timeliness of Brockville’s transit system. Respondents indicated a desire to extend the bus service’s hours of operation both in the morning and evening; providing service earlier in morning as well as later in the evening and later at night. Respondents also indicated a desire for expanded bus service on the weekend, particularly on Sundays when the transit system doesn’t run.

In the same theme of improving existing transportation options respondents comments also centred around improving the current bus routes, how current coverage could be expanded by adding more routes and how this would contribute to making the routes more direct thereby making it easier to travel to chosen destinations. Responses indicated that the routes could also be improved simply by ensuring that the buses run in both directions along the entirety of each route as this would effectively serve to double the availability of the service to residents and provide more direct trips to desired destinations.

35 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Along the same lines of these previous two themes in improving existing transportation options respondents also indicated a desire for increased frequency of bus service, meaning more buses, resulting in bus service that is provided more frequently than once per hour. The frequency of service indicated by respondents ranged from service every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes. Similarly to taxis, buses are most often used by those who don’t drive, don’t have a car, or have other means of transportation available to them.

Frequency of themes related to improvements of existing transportation services Improved bus routes: more routes, direct routes, buses running both directions, 50 increased bus coverage, inter-community bus service More buses and increased frequency of bus service 36 Extended bus service times: increased evening and late night bus service; increased 27 early morning bus service Improved bus times available and buses running on schedule 23 Improved bus stops and accessible infrastructure for boarding buses 23 Increased weekend service, especially on Sundays 17 Table 2 (above) further identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

Respondents were asked about the frequency of their travel patterns; respondents were asked a series of questions on how often per week they travel for the following reasons: employment, medical reasons, education, community services, recreation, visitation/access to family and friends, and food & supplies. Respondents were simultaneously asked about the inaccessibility of service providers and places; respondents were asked “What places or services providers are hardest to get to?”, the top three responses were medical services (27%); food/personal supplies (19%) and recreation (12%) (see Figure 9).

When asked “How often do you travel for employment?”, 42% responded every day, while 29% cited this question as not applicable (see Figure 10). Employment was the most polarizing destination as there was the starkest contrast between people who needed to get to employment everyday or not at all.

Figure 9 (above) illustrates difficult destinations in Leeds & Grenville.

Figure 10 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for employment in Leeds & Grenville.

Frequency of themes related to issues of employment and transportation Experience difficulty getting reliable transportation to work or volunteer opportunities 30 Cannot get a job or job interview without transportation 15 Cannot secure better transportation without a job 5 Table 3 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

36September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Some additional themes related to travelling to/for employment were drawn from the open- ended responses (see Table 3). Respondents indicated that a lack of reliable transportation was significantly affecting their ability to find and maintain employment or volunteer commitments. Many cited that transportation was a barrier to attending job interviews, and even if they were able to arrange transportation for the interview and secure employment, the lack of a daily transportation options resulted in respondent’s terminating their employment or not getting the job due to the fact that they couldn’t get to the job reliably. Respondents with children commonly indicated that a lack of transportation options was negatively impacting their teenager’s ability to find and maintain employment.

Figure 11 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for medical reasons in Leeds & Grenville.

Figure 12 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for community services in Leeds & Grenville.

In response to the question “How often do you travel for medical reasons?” 51% reported that they travel less than once a month (see Fig 11). When asked “How often do you travel to community services?”, the response was nearly evenly split between four responses: 21% report travelling once to twice a month; 19% report travelling once to twice a week; 19% report travelling less than once a month and 19% report this question as not applicable (see Fig 12).

Another significant theme gathered from respondents was the difficulty in accessing and reaching medical appointments and community services (see Table 4). Responses indicated a lack of transportation services within their community, as well as inter-community transportation was necessary to access medical services, as many respondents need to travel to larger centres for specialized medical care; however, respondent’s find it very difficult to access these services without access to a personal vehicle or a driver.

Frequency of themes related to accessing services and destinations Experience difficulty getting to medical and/or community service appointments 55 Experience difficulty getting groceries and personal supplies 33 Experience difficulty getting to shopping destinations (not groceries) 12 Table 4 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

In response to the question “How often do you travel for food & personal supplies?”, 53% report travelling between once and twice a week, while 22% report travelling 3 to 4 times a week for this purpose (see Figure 13).

Figure 13 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for food & supplies in Leeds & Grenville.

37 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Grocery stores and other retail shopping destinations were some of the inaccessible places and services drawn from open-ended responses, and respondents suggested solutions including partnering with grocery stores to coordinate grocery home delivery services, as well as ensuring grocery and retail shopping locations are included in any potential transportation service.

Figure 14 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for recreation in Leeds & Grenville.

Figure 15 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for visitation/family access in Leeds & Grenville.

In response to the question “How often do you travel for recreation?”, 57% report travelling between 1 and 4 times per week for this purpose (see Fig. 14). When asked “How often do you travel for visitation reasons or access to family and friends?”, 36% reported this question as not applicable, and 18% reported that they travel between once and twice a week for this purpose (see Fig. 15). With respect to frequency of travel for education, 35% reported that this question was not applicable, 20% reported that they never travel for education, while 15% stated that they travelled every day for education (see Fig 16).

Respondent’s also commented on difficulties accessing entertainment and recreation, and in some cases respondent’s point to this difficulty as the reason for other negative effects (e.g. poor health outcomes, stress, etc.). Difficulties were also identified in reaching education at various levels, as well as difficulties in visiting family and friends on their own schedule. Respondents connected the inability to access their family and friends on their own schedule to feelings of social isolation from their family, friends and the community at large (see Table 5).

Figure 16 (above) illustrates frequency of travel for education in Leeds & Grenville.

Frequency of themes related to accessing services and destinations Experience difficulty getting children to afterschool, extracurricular activities, and daycare 20 Experience difficulty getting to recreation and entertainment 5 Experience difficulty getting to school and education opportunities 5 Cannot always see family and/or friends when wanted 2 Table 5 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

Another significant theme that emerged from the open-ended that was not covered in the regular survey questions was the difficulty some survey respondents faced in getting their children to where they needed to be, whether it be an afterschool program, extracurricular activities, or even daycare. This theme was often connected with only having one vehicle in the house hold which was used by someone else to get to employment.

As a part of completing the survey, respondents were also asked what were the inaccessible locations in Leeds & Grenville and surrounding communities. In response to “Where is it difficult

38September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville to travel to because of your current transportation situation?”, 10% of respondents identified Kingston as difficult to travel to, while 9% identified both Brockville and Ottawa as difficult to travel to (Figure 17).

Figure 17 (above) shows results of locations considered difficult to access in Leeds & Grenville.

While respondents indicated that getting around Leeds and Grenville in general was often difficult, getting to larger regional centres was listed as being more difficult and that it was very important for respondents to be able to access these larger regional centres.

Frequency of themes related to transportation to larger centres Transportation to Brockville 59 Transportation to Kingston 57 Transportation to Ottawa and other centres 28 Transportation to Kemptville 17 Table 6 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

The responses to this survey questions are supported by many open-ended responses on this same topic (see Table 6). Getting to Brockville was a high priority for many respondents. Brockville is in many ways the service and employment centre for Leeds and Grenville and as such it is vital for residents to be able to access this important centre. Respondents indicated that they need better transportation to Brockville. This was a theme that was expressed by respondents throughout Leeds and Grenville, however it was noted even more so in the communities that were closer in proximity to Brockville; i.e. Front of Yonge, Athens, Elizabethtown-Kitley, Augusta, and Prescott.

Getting to Kingston was also a high priority for respondents. Kingston is a significantly larger urban centre than Brockville and serves as a regional hub with many services and employment options. Respondents indicated that they need better transportation to Kingston, particularly because many medical appointments and specialist appointments were located in Kingston, in addition to having more shopping options, and family and friends located in Kingston. Needing transportation to Kingston was also a theme that was expressed throughout Leeds and Grenville, however it was noted even more frequently in Gananoque and Leeds and the 1000 Islands. These communities are closer in proximity to Kingston then they are to Brockville, even though they are located within the boundaries of the United Counties, and in many ways Kingston functions as the larger regional centre for these communities.

Getting to Ottawa was also a high priority for respondents, although to a lesser degree than getting to Brockville or Kingston. Needing transportation to Ottawa was a theme that was expressed throughout Leeds and Grenville as similarly to Kingston, many medical and specialist appointments are located in Ottawa along with a more shopping and service options. However, in those communities located in closer proximity to Ottawa it was this theme was noted with greater frequency than the rest of Leeds and Grenville. Those communities along the Highway 416 corridor, especially Kemptville and North Grenville were those communities in which the

39 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville theme was noted more frequently. In addition to respondents indicating a desire for transportation to these three larger centres, a smaller number of respondents also indicated a desire for transportation to Smiths Falls and Perth for the same reasons. The respondents that indicated a desire for transportation to Smiths Falls and Perth were located mainly in Rideau Lakes and Westport, those communities in closer proximity to these centres.

A challenge that will be need to be taken into account in the future development of a transportation service is the fact that in addition to providing transportation throughout Leeds and Grenville and to Brockville, there are a number of larger centres just outside of Leeds and Grenville that respondents are clearly needing transportation service to as well such as Kingston, Ottawa, Smiths Falls, and Perth. Whether a future transportation service meets these needs with or without a partnership with municipalities bordering Leeds and Grenville thereby connecting a future transportation service in Leeds and Grenville to a larger transportation network is a consideration and challenge that needs to be taken into account.

The key question in the survey asked respondents a yes or no question regarding whether or not respondents thought their day to day transportation needs currently being met (see Fig 18) 63% reported their daily needs being met, while 23% reported that daily needs were not being met. It is important to note, however, that of those 63% who reported their daily needs as being met, they often did so as they were creative in finding multiple ways to meet their transportation needs if they did not drive, which was often the case.

Figure 18 (above) illustrates Leeds & Grenville daily transportation satisfaction.

Frequency of themes assessing transportation need There simply is no transportation available and/or it is difficult to find transportation 66 Respondents saying the need transportation and/or would support transportation 56 Foresee unmet transportation needs in future/will likely need transportation then 47 Did not have any transportation needs 40 Table 7 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

The results from this question were supported by some significant themes that were gathered from the open-ended responses (see Table 7). One theme that came through strongly was the fact that in many areas of Leeds & Grenville there simply is no transportation available apart from a personal vehicle. In the absence of a personal vehicle it can be very difficult to find transportation. There was also an opposite theme with many respondents indicating that they had no issues and that their transportation needs were currently being met, however in the open-ended responses, those responses were in the minority.

Additionally, in spite of the fact that many respondents currently stated that their transportation needs were being met, a portion of those respondents also indicated that they foresee a time ahead in their lives when based on their current situation their transportation needs would not be met. This is in large part due to the fact that Leeds & Grenville is an aging community and will see an increase in the number of seniors in the years ahead. This suggests that in addition

40September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville to there being a transportation need in Leeds & Grenville there is also a transportation vulnerability as people foresee that without a car and the ability to drive there is no transportation safety net on which they could rely on.

Figure 19 (above) illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across each Township

The fact that 23% of respondents indicated that their day to day transportation needs are currently not being met is significant. To further analyze this statistic, it is helpful to break it down across several other metrics to establish whether there are any identifiable trends regarding where these “No” responses are coming from and from what demographics.

Figure 19 above outlines the percentage of “No” responses relative to the total number of responses per township. This is significant as this explicitly indicates that 46% of the respondents from Gananoque indicated that their transportation needs are currently not being met. With the red line representing the overall survey response of 23% it is clear that Prescott is also significantly above the average at 35% while Westport, Leeds and the 1000 Islands, and Augusta are also slightly above the average.

Figure 20 – (above) illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across age brackets

Figure 20 above further examines the “No” responses by breaking them down across the various age brackets of the survey based on the percentage of “No” responses relative to the total number of responses per age bracket. While those older than 80 are certainly above the average in not having their transportation needs met, there is not necessarily an identifiable pattern regarding age brackets. However, this figure does support the notion that increased levels of aging are a factor in respondents not having their transportation needs met.

Figure 21 (above) illustrates the percentage of “No” responses across income brackets

Figure 21 above is the final demographic metric across which the “No” responses are examined. There is a clear and predictable pattern that emerges when the percentage of “No” responses is measured relative to the number of responses per income bracket. The lower income brackets, those under $30,000 are well above average in the percentage of “No” responses and there is a steep drop off in the percentage of “No” responses once household income exceeds $30,000. This suggests that level of income is a significant factor in determining whether or not respondents had their transportation needs met.

This is helpful to note where transportation needs may be higher and what demographics have a higher transportation need, however it does not discount the fact that the results also demonstrate that there are unmet transportation needs in every community in Leeds & Grenville and across every demographic.

41 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville A significant group of themes that emerged from open-ended responses was how a lack of transportation negatively impacted respondents’ quality of life, and conversely how having better transportation available to them would positively impact their quality of life.

One of the most common subthemes in this category that emerged from the responses was how people needed to depend on others to get around and that they weren’t independent in meeting their transportation needs. Respondents indicated that by having to rely on others such as a spouse, family members, friends, relatives, or neighbours they were dependent on the availability of others to take them to their destination; for many respondents by having to rely on others in this way as their main source of transportation they indicated that they often felt like a burden on others, that it was an inconvenience and a hassle to always try and arrange a ride with someone else, and that by not being independent in their transportation that they felt disempowered. Frequency of themes related to transportation and quality of life Comments on general affordability: transportation is too expensive, respondents 96 struggle with not not enough income to meet transportation needs Currently not independent in meeting transportation needs and need to rely on others 56 General negative effects: not having reliable transportation leads to negative effects in 28 other areas of respondent's lives. Currently experiencing isolation 21 Table 8 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

Being isolated was another major subtheme in this category that respondents indicated was a negative impact of not having transportation. Many respondents simply were not able to get to where they needed or wanted to go and were stuck in their homes, not being able to get out. By not being able to get out many respondents indicated they felt like they were missing out and not able to participate fully in their community and not able to access their desired destinations when they wanted.

In this cluster of themes the issue of affordability was raised again. Many responses centred around the issue of general affordability, how transportation needed to be affordable, how it often wasn’t and is in fact expensive, and how many respondents simply did not have enough income for transportation; they didn’t have enough income for transportation in general, or not enough income for the transportation options that were available.

While a lack of transportation is itself a negative thing, not having access to reliable transportation can put limits on people and create other negative effects in peoples lives. This was another theme that was prevalent in the open-ended responses. One example of this principle in action was how people cited that a lack of transportation kept them from finding employment and education, thereby making it difficult to work out of poverty.

Because of the negative effects created by a lack of transportation, based on the survey responses, the current transportation landscape creates barriers for many people preventing them from accessing the places, people, and services they need to access. Responses gathered from the community consultation sessions expressed the same barriers and difficulties

42September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville that arise with not having access to transportation. Based on the information gathered through the needs assessment the lack of transportation options results in many residents of Leeds & Grenville not having their transportation needs met.

4.4 Future transportation preferences and improvements

In addition to their current transportation patterns and needs survey respondents were also asked about their preferences for a future transportation service through questions on when they would be likely to use a transportation service, how much they would pay to use it, and what characteristics they would like to see in a future transportation service.

When asked what days of the week respondents would most likely travel locally using a transportation service, the traditional work week (Monday to Friday) represented 80% of responses (Fig 22).

Figure 22 (above) shows days of the week survey respondents prefer to use a transport service.

Figure 23 (above) illustrates preferred times of day for a transport service.

When asked about what time of day they would most want to use a transportation service, normal business hours represented 49% of responses from individuals (see Figure 23). From 9 am to 12 noon represented 25% and from 12 noon - 4 pm represented 24%, meaning essentially half of respondents said they would most use a transportation service during normal business hours. With respect to respondent’s willingness to pay for a transportation service each way, 33% are willing to pay between $3.01 and $5, and 27% are willing to pay no more than $3 (see Appendix 2), however many respondents indicated the cost of transportation would depend on the length of the trip.

Respondents were also asked what they would like to see offered in a transportation service and how they would like to see it operate. Respondents were asked to rank a number of characteristics of a potential future transportation service on a scale of ‘Very Important’, ‘Important’, ‘Somewhat Important’ and ‘Not Important’. Figure 24 provides the average score for each characteristic based on survey responses. A breakdown of responses for individual characteristics can be found in Appendix 2.

Figure 24 (above) illustrates the importance of transportation service characteristics.

Respondent’s rank the ease of arranging a ride, a guaranteed ride home and a clear fare structure among the most important characteristics that any potential transportation service should have. Although service from home to work was considered less important than most other characteristics, it is important to recognize that this characteristic was highly dependant on whether the respondent was employed or unemployed (see Appendix 2). Among the least

43 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville important were wheelchair accessibility and late night service, however it is worth noting that in a future transportation service wheelchair accessibility will likely be a mandatory requirement. These results suggest that respondents want a transportation that is easy to understand, easy to use, and can be used when they need it.

A series of themes was also gathered from the open ended responses that centred around the concept of future transportation services (see Table 9). These themes highlight the desire of survey respondents for additional transportation options than what was currently available.

Frequency of themes related to future transportation services General transportation/affordable transportation/better bus service generally 151 Taxi service/improved taxi service 33 Technology/referral/triage 15 Para transit 15 Carpool 10 Cycling 9 Table 9 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

Many respondents expressed the general sentiment that they wanted a transportation option that wasn’t currently available to them. This was the most commonly expressed theme across all the open-ended responses. The most common theme expressed was the desire for bus service whether this be a community bus, a shuttle bus, a bus route or general bus service. Many respondents simply indicated the desire to have general transportation but qualified their statement with the requirement that any new transportation also be affordable.

Regarding additional means of transportation, for those locations that didn’t have a taxi service respondents indicated the desire for an affordable taxi service. The extended service of paratransit was also another theme distilled from respondents. Respondents indicated their desire to have paratransit, or some form of accessible transportation, extended to their areas that currently were not served by paratransit. Carpooling and ridesharing as another new transportation option was a theme that was emphasized to a lesser extent than other more common themes yet still present in the responses.

Interestingly new technology and communications improvements was another subtheme in this grouping. Respondents indicated that they are looking for an easier way to arrange transportation for themselves; i.e. a central number that they can call to book rides and obtain referrals for transportation. Additionally, respondents indicated a desire to have an easier way to find out information about current available transportation; i.e. and app displaying in real time the location of buses and their arrival times on Brockville’s Conventional Transit System.

There are a variety of transportation options listed here, but the clear statement coming through based on survey responses is that many respondents want additional transportation options to what is currently available.

44September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 4.5 Anticipated impacts of improved transportation

In the section outlining current transportation patterns and transportation needs respondents clearly indicated how not having transportation negatively affected their lives in a number of ways. Interestingly, as much as respondents indicated that not having transportation negatively affected them, each of the resulting negative themes can be juxtaposed with an opposite positive theme that emerged from the open-ended responses as respondents indicated that having better transportation would positively impact their quality of life.

Frequency of themes related to quality of life Reliable transportation would have positive spin off effects/make things easier 80 Wouldn't be as isolated/miss out as much/get out more/more involved/better access to 70 destinations Wouldn't have to depend on others/would be more independent 62 Less stress 41 Improved flexibility/more freedom 12 Table 10 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

One of the most common subthemes in this category was the independence respondents said they would gain if they would have access to better transportation. Respondents indicated that they would not have to rely on others as much and be more independent in getting to their desired destinations, thereby gaining a degree of freedom and flexibility they would not have had before. Respondents also indicated that having better transportation they could count on would result in less stress in their personal lives. They indicated that it is currently stressful trying to get transportation and they often worried about how they would get to a particular destination without their own transportation; having better access to transportation would make it easier to arrange transportation and get to desired destinations, and they indicated that would result in less stress in their personal lives.

Respondents also indicated that they would not be as isolated by having better transportation. For respondents, having better transportation meant having better access to desired destinations and being able to participate more actively in their community by getting out more. Respondents indicated that they wouldn’t miss out on things as much with better transportation available to them and they would be less isolated as a result of this improved access.

Frequency of themes related to accessing services and destinations Transportation would make it easier to get more/better employment/search for a job 69 Better/easier access to medical/community services 60 Easier to see family/friends 40 Easier getting to recreation/entertainment 22 Easier to shop/better shopping available 20

45 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Easier to get groceries 18 Easier getting to school/education 12 Easier for children 8 Table 11 (above) identifies transportation related themes derived from responses.

Respondents also commented that were they to have better transportation, for every destination that was currently difficult to access, it would be made easier to access by having better transportation (see Table 11). Grocery shopping would be made easier if transportation options improved, and the opportunity to save money by shopping at a wider variety of stores would be a general positive effect. Similarly, improved transportation was also noted by respondents as allowing them to have an improved, stress-reduced access to medical appointments and access to community services. Another similar theme is the belief held by respondents that improved transportation service would make it easier to get increased number and quality of employment opportunities, which can then allow them to afford a vehicle or to continue to support another means of transport. In addition to improved employment opportunities, respondents indicated that operating a transportation service would allow residents to participate in recreation, entertainment, education and the opportunity to visit family and friends - and respondents indicated that these opportunities had other positive spinoff effects (e.g. improved mental health, improved physical health outcomes, feelings of social cohesion, etc). Participants in the community consultation sessions also indicated similar quality of life improvements in light of a future transportation service.

Based on the information gather from the survey results it is clear that an increase and improvement in transportation options and services would result in an improved quality of life for many people living in Leeds & Grenville.

4.6 Community Partner Survey Results

In addition to surveying residents of the United Counties, a transportation needs survey of community partners was conducted to understand needs, barriers, habits and preferences from the perspective of community service providers. There were 96 responses from community partners.

The most significant finding from this survey was the similarity in responses to the general survey. More specifically, when asked about their client’s main method of transportation the leading responses were the same as those of the general survey (drives through a personal vehicle and rides through a spouse, friend, relative or neighbour), albeit in different proportions (see Appendix 6). In addition, when community partners were asked about the reasons behind some clients reporting they didn’t drive, community partners responded with the same reasons as the general survey -- namely that costs of a vehicle, gas, insurance were too high and clients were not licensed. When partners were asked which communities were difficult for their clients to travel to, results were very similar to the general survey, as the three hardest to reach locations (Brockville, Kingston, Ottawa) were identical to those identified in the general survey.

46September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville The community partner survey also mimics the general survey in responses related to future potential service provision. Partners indicated that clients would want a service which runs primarily during the traditional work week, between 9am and 4pm, and a service that costs under $5 each way.

Not all responses from the community partner survey reflect the general survey, however, as 76% of partners are of the opinion that their client’s day-to-day transportation needs are not currently being met. This can be contrasted by 23% of reported their needs not currently being met on the general survey. When asked which places or service providers are hardest to get to, the top three (in order of severity) were community services, medical reasons, and employment (see Appendix 6). This can be contrasted with the three leading responses from the general survey which were medical reasons, food/personal supplies and recreation. The full results of the community partners survey can be found in Appendix 6.

47 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

48September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

49 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Section 5: Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of Key Findings………………………………………………....60

5.2 Logistical and Operational Structure……………………………………..61

5.3 Choosing a Coordinated Transportation Model………………………....63

5.4 Critical Issues to Address Going Forward……………………………….64

5.5 Recommendation…………………………………………………………..65

50September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The general survey, community partners survey, and community consultations have provided a great deal of information on the transportation needs and and barriers of those that live in Leeds & Grenville, as well as potential solutions to address these needs and barriers. Based on the analysis in the previous chapter there are a number of things that have come to light.

Clearly there are many residents of Leeds & Grenville that do not have any transportation needs. Not having any unmet transportation needs is almost wholly based on the ability to drive and be able to afford the ownership and operation of a car. That being said, based on the information gathered from this transportation needs assessment, these is a significant portion of the population who are not having their transportation needs met by the current transportation landscape.

To provide some context on how the community, services providers, and municipalities should proceed in the development of a transportation service, interviews were conducted with rural transportation service providers across Southern Ontario. These service providers were asked about the development of their transportation service, how and why it was developed, the rational that went into the logistics that determined how the transportation service would be run, and some of the challenges they faced in the development of their transportation service.

Nearly all of the rural transportation service providers developed their service in response to an identified need(s); that need was discovered based either on experience and local knowledge or through a needs assessment similar to this.

Consequently, in many communities the need that the transportation service is seeking to meet has significant influence on the type of transportation service those areas implemented and the logistical form that those transportation services took. For example, Lanark Transportation Association, whose case study is discussed above in the best practices section, established that there was a need for getting residents to medical appointments and therefore tailored their service mainly to meet that need. Due to the variability of medical appointments, meaning that people have them relatively infrequently, the transportation provided by Lanark Transportation Association is done through a booking service that is flexible to take the resident to their appointment. As a result of this, all services provided by Lanark Transportation Association are done through a single booking service, the service provides a great deal of flexibility to meet residents needs, and the service does not operate any fixed route transportation service. This is an example of how the need that the transportation service is seeking to meet in large part determines the form and logistical structure of the transportation service.

Another example of this is with Deseronto Transit. The need identified by Deseronto Transit was that residents were having difficulty getting to employment opportunities, particularly low-income employment opportunities. Therefore, based on this established transportation need the form that Deseronto Transit took is very different from Lanark Transportation Association. This is mainly owed to the fact that to provide transportation for employment requires a much greater

51 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville consistency and frequency of service than providing transportation for medical appointments; for full-time employment residents need to get to work every working day. Deseronto Transit therefore opted for a fixed route service with set times and routes operating daily that brings residents to employment destinations. The service can be and is used for other purposes, but their main objective is to provide transportation to employment areas and this was the main determining factor in establishing the logistical structure and how the transportation service would operate.

It is helpful to apply this concept of having the transportation need determine the type of transportation service to the information gathered from this transportation needs assessment; drawing from what respondents indicated were their transportation needs, what were the difficult areas and destinations to access, as this provides some insight into what kind of transportation service might be suitable to the Leeds and Grenville context

5.1 Summary of Key Findings

As stated above, from the information gathered it was determined that 53% of respondents’ main mode was transportation was not driving a personal vehicle. This suggests that there is a significant proportion of the total population of Leeds & Grenville that also don’t drive a personal vehicle. Additionally, as has been demonstrated by the transportation needs assessment, without being able to drive a personal vehicle, it is significantly more challenging for residents to meet their daily transportation needs.

Perhaps the most significant statistic generated from the survey responses was the 23% of respondents who said their transportation needs were currently not being met. This was determined to be proportionally higher among those with lower income brackets and as age increased.

Based on how often respondents indicated that they travelled to selected destinations and services, these destinations and services can be identified as being either a high-frequency transportation need, mid-frequency transportation need, or low-frequency transportation need. Employment and education are identified as high-frequency transportation need based on the fact that of respondents who accessed these services the highest frequency identified was

52September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville travelling every day for employment and education. This does not include those respondents for whom they said they never travelled for these reasons or it was not applicable.

Recreation, food and personal supplies, and visiting family and friends are identified as mid- frequency transportation needs based on the responses from individuals who accessed these services as the highest frequency identified was travelling 1 – 2 times per week. This does not include those respondents for whom they said they never travelled for these reasons or it was not applicable.

Medical appointments and community services are identified as low-frequency transportation needs. Based on the responses from individuals who accessed these services as the highest frequency identified was travelling 1 – 2 times per month for community services and less than once a month for medical appointments. This does not include those respondents for whom they said they never travelled for these reasons or it was not applicable.

Percentage of respondents who Highest access Destination or service listed the destination or service frequency as most difficult to access Medical 27% Low-frequency Food and personal supplies 19% Mid-frequency Recreation 12% Mid-frequency Visiting family and friends 11% Mid-frequency Employment 11% High- frequency Community services 10% Low-frequency Education 6% High-frequency Table 12 (above) identifies the travel frequency of destinations and services

Based on the destinations and services respondents indicated as being most difficult to access, combined with the frequency with which respondents indicated they access these services, Table 12 above illustrates the level of frequency that is most common by ranking each destination or service by how difficult it is to access these destinations and services. This shows that most destinations or services respondents are looking to access range from low-frequency to mid-frequency.

5.2 Logistical and Operational Structure

By understanding what unmet needs there are and how often respondents are wanting to access these destinations and services, this can provide insight into what kind of transportation service might be best suited to meet transportation needs in Leeds & Grenville. The results indicate that low-frequency and mid-frequency transportation needs are most in demand. Because the most in demand transportation needs are those that are accessed at low to mid- frequency levels, this suggests that there may not be the daily ridership necessary to support a fixed route transportation service across the United Counties and that an on-demand, flexible transportation service, similar to the service offered by Lanark Transportation Association, may be more appropriate.

53 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

By having a flexible demand-based transportation service this could meet the need of people needing to access these low to mid-frequency transportation destinations. This model is also similar to the transportation pilot conducted by Every Kid in Our Communities which was well used towards the end of the pilot and could likely have successfully continued with the commitment of additional funding and support. The main difference between this pilot and a future transportation service being that the service area would need to be extended to serve the whole of the United Counties, and not just confined to North Leeds.

However, while an on-demand flexible transportation service would likely meet many of the transportation needs respondents indicated, one of the findings that also came from the results was that inter-community transportation, particularly transportation to larger centres such as Kingston, Brockville, and Ottawa was also a significant unmet transportation need. Therefore, for routes for which there is a clear demand, such as a route from Gananoque to Kingston, it may be possible for a future transportation service to include select fixed route service in addition to on-demand flexible transportation.

One way to implement a fixed route system that has a wide coverage area yet delivered at a lower cost is to alternate routes by having a different fixed route operating on a different day of the week. A system like this has a precedent in RideNorfolk, a rural transportation service in Norfolk County. RideNorfolk, whose case study is discussed above in the best practices section, exists primarily to transport people from outlying communities into Simcoe, the largest community in Norfolk County and the service hub of the area. RideNorfolk operates a different fixed route to a different outlying community each day of the week. This is done as it would not be feasible to operate a route to every community each day, nor do they have the buses to do this. By alternating fixed routes on different days of the week, RideNorfolk is able to increase their service area while doing so at a lower cost. A fixed route system like this could potentially work in Leeds & Grenville where different routes between communities are operating on different days of the week. A future transportation service could hypothetically operate a fixed route from Gananoque or Brockville into Kingston one day a week, and operate another route from Kemptville to Brockville another day of the week, and other appropriately determined routes on other days of the week. These are only examples provided based on the results of the survey as final route determination and operational frequency is beyond the scope of this report.

Fixed route inter-community transit along key corridors that provides service to different areas on different days of the week would therefore serve to meet this unmet transportation need in addition to providing a double benefit of meeting other unmet transportation needs such as medical appointments, shopping, or visiting family and friends in larger centres and other communities.

As discussed above, a flexible on-demand transportation service provides for efficiency as it only runs for requested trips. This could be combined with a fixed route service between destinations where steady ridership would be fairly certain, i.e. Gananoque to Kingston. A hybrid model like this could provide the greatest area of service with best efficiency of service while

54September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville meeting many of the transportation needs identified by this needs assessment. These are some of the logistical considerations that could work for a transportation service in Leeds &Grenville.

5.3 Choosing a Coordinated Transportation Model

The Rural Ontario Institute has identified a number of coordination transportation models used by a number of municipalities and service providers in rural Ontario. The full details of the models can be found in the report ‘Towards Coordinated Rural Transportation’ (Dillon Consulting, 2014).

Figure 25 (above) illustrates the different Coordinated Transportation Models (Dillon Consulting, 2014)

The above image displays the different transportation models presented in the Rural Ontario Institute’s report. The current situation in Leeds & Grenville can be described as being somewhere between No Coordination and Model 4 - Voluntary Cooperation Model as there is some coordination among a few service providers in Leeds & Grenville, however in general there is no coordination present between those services that provide transportation support for their clients. There is however a desire among community agencies and service providers to improve the transportation that is available in Leeds & Grenville, and in order for this to become a reality more coordination among service providers will be required.

Steps Required to Establish a Coordination Transportation Model Completed Identify two more more organizations that share a common goal Completed Inventory of existing transportation services and key stakeholders Completed Identify service demand and gaps, implementation issues and opportunities Not completed Assess different coordination models Not completed Identify the building blocks of the preferred coordination models Not completed Select a preferred coordination model Table 13 (above) lists completed and uncompleted steps in the development of a transportation service

Table 13 lists the required steps necessary to establishing a coordinated transportation model, and outlines what has already been completed and what still needs to be done. Step one is complete as Every Kid in Our Communities is an already established community collaboration of organizations working, among other things, towards the shared goal of improving transportation

55 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville in Leeds & Grenville. Step two has also been completed as Every Kid in Our Communities conducted an inventory of available transportation services in Leeds & Grenville around the time of when they conducted the one-year transportation pilot in North Leeds in 2010. Step 3 has been completed by this transportation needs assessment as the transportation needs and barriers of Leeds & Grenville residents has been brought into clearer focus. Steps four through six still need to be completed. The following are some considerations for the completion of steps four through six going forward.

Based on the information gathered from the transportation needs assessment, Model 2: Brokerage – Central Coordination is recommended as the best model for the Leeds & Grenville context. There are a number of reasons for this selection. The first reason is that there was no single overwhelming unmet transportation need revealed by the results, but that there are a number of destinations and service providers that residents of Leeds & Grenville are needing to access. A Brokerage – Central Coordination model could provide coordination between already existing transportation assets resulting in efficiency of service. Also, by being able to access additional funding both municipally and provincially the central coordinating organization would also be able to expand the available transportation service through establishing and operating certain fixed routes as discussed above and by owning and operating new dedicated vehicles for the on-demand flexible transportation service to make up the shortfall the existing transportation assets would not able to meet through coordination.

Another reason for selecting the Brokerage – Central Coordination model is that it makes it easier for users to arrange a ride as all bookings and referrals are handled through the central coordinating agency. This would make the transportation service more responsive to users. One of the main findings from the transportation needs assessment was the respondents wanted a transportation service that was easy to understand, easy to arrange a ride, easy to use. A single coordinating agency that handles all bookings and referrals would simplify the ride booking process and by having only one point of contact for all transportation it would make it easier for the end user.

A third reason for selecting this model is that operating under a central coordination framework, resources are able to me pooled yet organizations are able to retain ownership and operation of their vehicles, for those that have them. By operating a Brokerage – Central Coordination model such as this a future transportation service would be best positioned to be able to meet the diverse transportation needs of Leeds & Grenville residents and provide transportation to the range of destinations and services that they require.

5.4 Critical Issues to Address Going Forward

Taking these items into consideration there are still a number of critical issues that will need to be addressed in the development of a transportation service. The two most important issues that need to be addressed in the development of a future transportation service are interrelated: accessing funding and gaining municipal support. Funding for a transportation service often comes from a host of sources including private fundraising, advertising on transportation service

56September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville vehicles, as well as user fees, however all of the rural transportation service providers we interviewed had a significant amount of their yearly budget come from the provincial gas tax fund that is dedicated for local transportation. The amount of gas tax funds a transportation service can receive is based on a formula that takes into account population, ridership, and financial support received from municipalities. Funding from municipalities is where these two critical issues are interrelated as without the financial support from municipalities a future transportation service will not be able to access gas tax funds either.

Acquiring political support from municipalities is also important for another reason. Based on the interviews with other transportation service providers, one thing that every transportation service experienced was a period at the start of their service with low ridership. All these transportation services required a period of time to build up ridership before steady ridership was established. Therefore, any future transportation endeavor should be allowed to run for 12 to 18 months in order to build up ridership before being evaluated. All transportation services take time to build up ridership and that is why it is necessary to have political support from municipalities to ensure that the transportation service can survive through the start up period and build up ridership. Therefore, it is crucial that the development of a future transportation service does so with the political and financial support of the municipalities that it serves.

Another critical issue to address going forward in the development of a transportation service is to ensure that there is public support. Based on the results of the transportation needs assessment it is clear that those that have an unmet transportation need are in favour of the development of a transportation service. Additionally, based on respondents feedback there were a large number of respondents who indicated that even though they currently did not have any unmet transportation needs, they would support the development of a transportation service either because they would like to use it as an alternative to driving a personal vehicle, or because they see a time in their future when they will need a transportation service, or because they saw how a transportation service could benefit others in their community. While the transportation needs assessment only heard from a small number of the total population of Leeds & Grenville, less than one percent of respondents were openly opposed to the idea of a rural transportation service.

A final critical issue to address going forward in the development of a future transportation service is to ensure that organizational coordination and cooperation between community agencies, service providers, and municipalities continues.

5.5 Recommendation: Based on the information presented here and gathered from the transportation needs assessment it is recommended that a rural transportation service be developed to serve the residents of Leeds & Grenville as it has been clearly demonstrated that there is a need for such a service. If the community, service providers, and municipalities choose to proceed with the development of a rural transportation service, we recommend the following:

57 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville 4.) Consider Model 2 – Brokerage Central Coordination as the framework for a future transportation service. The benefits of this model include: a. Maximizing efficiency and coordination of available resources. b. Ability to provide transportation service for a range of transportation needs. c. A single coordinating agency allows for convenient ride booking and use of the transportation service by the end user. d. Allow agencies to retain ownership and operation of vehicles e. Provide an opportunity for the central coordinating agency to operate new fixed routes with dedicated vehicles.

5.) Operate a future transportation service using a hybrid model that combines: a. On-demand flexible transportation across the United Counties to meet the range of low to mid-frequency transportation needs such as medical and community service appointments, groceries and personal supplies, and recreation. b. A rotating fixed route inter-community transportation system along high demand corridors such as Gananoque to Kingston to meet the need for inter-community transportation.

6.) Ensure that the future transportation service will be affordable by subsidizing the cost of transportation for the end user through a range of funding channels including: a. Provincial gas tax funds b. Financial support from the municipalities whose residents are served by the transportation service c. Additional funding generated through advertising revenue and fundraising

58September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

59 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

60September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

61 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Section 6: Appendix

Appendix 1: Three Versions of Transportation Needs Survey……………..71

Appendix 2: Transportation Needs Survey Additional Results…………….84

Appendix 3: Community Transportation Profile Snapshots………………...90

Appendix 4: Focus Group and Interview Questions……………………….117

Appendix 5: Community Partners Survey…………………………………..119

Appendix 6: Community Partners Survey Results…………………………129

Appendix 7: Promotional Materials………………………………………….139

62September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Appendix 1 Version 1 – General Survey (page 1)

63 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 1 – General Survey (page 2)

64September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 1 – General Survey (page 3)

65 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 1 – General Survey (page 4)

66September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes (page 1)

67 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes (page 2)

68September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes (page 3)

69 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 2 – Leeds and the 1000 Islands, Rideau Lakes (page 4)

70September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta (page 1)

71 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Appendix 1 Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta (page 2)

72September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta (page 3)

73 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 1 Version 3 – North Grenville, Merrickville-Wolford, Augusta (page 4)

74September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

75 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 2 Transportation Needs Survey – Additional Results

76September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Appendix 3 Community Transportation Profile Snapshots

77 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Athens – Community Snapshot

Similar to the general survey, the majority of respondents work in Brockville and consider Brockville, Kingston and Ottawa the most difficult to reach locations. Athens’ results differ slightly from the aggregate responses in that needs other than the options listed were reported as the most difficult to reach.

78September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Augusta – Community Snapshot

Similar to the overall data, residents of Augusta Township largely work in Brockville, however the data differs in that Edwardsburgh-Cardinal also presented as a common employment area. Similarly, Brockville, Ottawa and Gananoque were reported to be the most difficult locations to reach, similar to the average data with the exception of Gananoque. Recreation and medical needs top the list of most difficult to access places, while food and personal supplies are ranked lower than the counties-wide average.

79 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Brockville – Community Snapshot

The vast majority of City of Brockville respondents work within their city, closely matching the proportion of all Leeds & Grenville residents whom work in Brockville. Similar to the counties- wide average, Brockville residents consider Kingston and Ottawa difficult to reach. Medical, food/personal supplies and employment locations are considered the most difficult to reach, similar to counties-wide responses.

80September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Edwardsburgh-Cardinal – Community Snapshot

Edwardsburgh-Cardinal closely matches with the counties-wide average both on difficult to reach communities and service providers. Edwardsburgh-Cardinal differs from the average in that the largest number of respondents that work in communities outside Leeds & Grenville.

81 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Elizabethtown-Kitley – Community Snapshot

Elizabethtown-Kitley can be characterized by a similar employment pattern as the average, as Brockville is the most common place of employment. The difference, however, lies in the second most common place of employment, which is within their own township as opposed to North Grenville as is found in the counties-wide average. Again, identical to the counties-wide average, the most difficult to access locations are Ottawa, Brockville and Kingston. Although the most difficult to reach service provider is identical to the counties-wide average -- Elizabethtown-Kitley differs in that community services are difficult to reach as compared to food/personal supplies counties-wide.

82September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Front of Yonge – Community Snapshot

As with other communities, respondents from Front of Yonge can be characterized as dependent on Brockville as their main employment area. It is significant to note, however, that communities outside Leeds & Grenville were reported as the next most common. Just as with the counties-wide data, Brockville and Kingston were reported as the most difficult to reach locations. In contrast with the counties-wide average, however, recreation needs were reported as the most difficult, closely followed by medical and family access/visitations and food/supplies.

83 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Gananoque – Community Snapshot

Unlike most other communities, the majority of respondents worked within Gananoque as opposed to Brockville. Gananoque differs slightly on the question of difficult to reach locations for its residents, with Kingston being the majority response, differing from counties-wide average where Brockville, Ottawa and Kingston share the majority of responses.

Merrickville-Wolford – Community Snapshot

Respondents living in Merrickville-Wolford differ with respect to location of employment from the counties-wide average in terms of location of employment. Merrickville-Wolford residents report Brockville and North Grenville as the main employment destinations, whereas Brockville is the single largest employment destination in the United Counties. Merrickville-Wolford also differs in that Smiths Falls is identified as a difficult location to reach alongside Brockville. Similar to the

84September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville counties-wide average, medical and food/personal supplies are viewed as the most difficult services to travel to.

North Grenville – Community Snapshot

Responses from North Grenville differed from the counties-wide average when asked where they worked and which locations were most difficult to get to. For North Grenville respondents, the vast majority work within their municipality and in Ottawa. Furthermore, Ottawa and North Grenville were reported as the least accessible communities. This differs, with the exception of Ottawa, from the counties-wide response of Brockville, Kingston and Ottawa being the least accessible communities. When asked which places or service providers were hardest to access, responses were similar, albeit in different proportions, to that of the counties-wide average.

85 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Leeds & 1000 Islands – Community Snapshot

Responses from Leeds & the 1000 Islands vary from the average when asked their location of employment, with the largest number reporting employment within their own community. When asked which communities were the most difficult to access, Kingston was the most common response, just as with the counties-wide responses. Also in line with the counties-wide responses were those from the question of which places or service providers were the most difficult to access.

86September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Prescott – Community Snapshot

Respondents from Prescott indicated that the most frequent employment location was within their own community, which differs from the counties-wide response of Brockville being the most common employment area. When asked which communities were the most difficult to access, Prescott respondents were identical with the counties-wide response of Kingston, Brockville and Ottawa. When about difficult to access services, the top responses (i.e. medical and food/personal supplies) mirror those found in the counties-wide average.

87 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Rideau Lakes – Community Snapshot

Respondents from Rideau Lakes by and large work in their own community, which differs from the counties-wide average of Brockville as the major employment destination. Similar to the average, respondents identified Kingston and Ottawa as the least accessible locations. The difference, however is that Smiths Falls is identified as the third least accessible community, whereas Brockville is identified as the fifth least accessible in Rideau Lakes but in the top three least accessible communities’ counties-wide. Mirroring the counties-wide responses, the least accessible services are medical, food/personal supplies and recreation.

88September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Westport – Community Snapshot

Respondents from the Westport community are employed largely within their own community, not in Brockville as is the counties-wide consensus. In terms of difficult locations to access, Kingston, Ottawa and Smiths Falls were identified as the least accessible. With the exception of Smiths Falls, these responses match those of respondents’ counties-wide. Similar, albeit in different proportions to the counties-wide average, is the response pattern of which services are hardest to access (i.e. medical, recreation and food/personal supplies).

Appendix 4 Focus Group and Interview Questions

89 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville (page 1) Appendix 4

90September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Community Transportation Profile Snapshots

91 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville (page 2)

92September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Appendix 5 Community Partners Survey

93 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

94September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

95 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

96September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

97 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

98September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

99 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

100September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

101 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

102September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 6 Community Partner Survey Results

103 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

104September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

105 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Appendix 7 Promotional Materials for Transportation Needs Assessment

106September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

107 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

108September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

Use this QR code to access Use this QR code to access the the Every Kid Transportation Every Kid Transportation Survey Survey on your smart phone on your smart phone or tablet or tablet

Use this QR code to access the Use this QR code to access the Every Kid Transportation Survey Every Kid Transportation Survey on your smart phone or tablet on your smart phone or tablet

109 September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville

110September 4, 2015 Transportation Needs Assessment Leeds & Grenville Reference List

Dillon Consulting. 2014. Towards Coordinated Rural Transportation: A Resource Document. Prepared for the Rural Ontario Institute.

Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition Rural Transportation. 2014. Accelerating Rural Transportation Solutions: Ten Community Case Studies from Ontario.

Statistics Canada. 2012. Leeds and Grenville, Ontario (Code 3507) and Ontario (Code 35) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012.

United Counties of Leeds & Grenville. 2015. Discover Leeds Grenville.

United Counties of Leeds & Grenville. 2015. Major Employers.

111 September 4, 2015