Transit Development Plan Update for FAST

Final Report May 14, 2014 Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... ES-1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1

Chapter 2 ROUTE PROFILES ...... 2-1 2.0 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.1 Overall Findings ...... 2-1 2.2 Route Profiles ...... 2.4 Route 3 Southeast ...... 2-5 Route 4 Downtown – DSS – VA Medical Center ...... 2-15 Route 5 Ramsey Street ...... 2-25 Route 6 University Estates – Cross Creek ...... 2-35 Route 7 Downtown – Cape Fear Valley Health System via Robeson/ Raeford ...... 2-45 Route 8 Downtown – Cape Fear Valley Health System via Southern ...... 2-55 Route 9 University Estates – Cape Fear Valley North – Wal-Mart ...... 2-65 Route 12 Murchison Road ...... 2-75 Route 14 Downtown – FTCC – Cross Creek ...... 2-85 Route 15 Cape Fear Valley Health System – Cross Creek ...... 2-96 Route 17 West Fayetteville ...... 2-106 Route 18 Cross Creek – 71st School Road ...... 2-117 Route 30 Downtown – PWC Shuttle ...... 2-127

Chapter 3 PEER AND TREND ANALYSIS ...... 3-1 3.0 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.1 System Size, Cost, and Ridership ...... 3-1 3.2 Performance Measures ...... 3-4 3.3 Service Spans and Headways ...... 3-8 3.4 FAST Trends, 2008-2012 ...... 3-11

Chapter 4 INTERCEPT SURVEY ...... 4-1 4.0 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.1 Survey Approach ...... 4-1 4.2 Survey Results ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Questions Applicable to Riders Only ...... 4-2 4.2.2 Questions Applicable to Non-riders Only ...... 4-5 4.2.3 Questions Applicable to Riders and Non-riders ...... 4-5 4.3 Summary of Intercept Survey Results ...... 4-10

Chapter 5 UNMET NEEDS ...... 5-1 5.0 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.1 Travel Needs: Residential Transit Orientation Index ...... 5-1 5.2 Findings from Intercept Survey ...... 5-3 5.3 New Service and Proposed New Developments ...... 5-3 5.4 Public Outreach ...... 5-3 5.5 Operator Meetings ...... 5-5

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page i

Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

5.6 Summary of Unmet Needs ...... 5-5

Chapter 6 FUTURE GROWTH...... 6-1 6.0 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.1 Population Growth ...... 6-1 6.2 Employment Growth ...... 6-3

Chapter 7 ANALYSIS OF FASTTRAC! ...... 7-1 7.0 Introduction ...... 7-1 7.1 FASTTRAC! Background and Existing Conditions ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Required ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Characteristics and Key Features ...... 7-1 7.1.2 ADA Application and Certification Functions ...... 7-4 7.1.3 Call Center ...... 7-4 7.1.4 Drivers’ Observations ...... 7-5 7.1.5 Trip Scheduling and Dispatch Functions ...... 7-6 7.1.6 Website Information and Telephone Number ...... 7-7 7.2 FASTTRAC! Operating History and Performance ...... 7-8 7.2.1 Trips by Time of Day ...... 7-10 7.2.2 Trips Scheduled, No Show and Trip Cancellation Rates ...... 7-11 7.2.3 Trip Types – Subscription, Advance and Same-Day ...... 7-12 7.2.4 Vehicle Scheduling in Relation to Trip Demand ...... 7-15 7.2.5 Trip Costs ...... 7-16 7.3 Comparing FASTTRAC! Performance with Peer Systems – Demand Response Programs ...... 7-16 7.4 Service Area Characteristics and FASTTRAC! Demand Estimation ...... 7-18 7.4.1 Population Characteristics ...... 7-18 7.4.2 Operating Environment Comments ...... 7-20 7.4.3 Demand Estimation Methodology from TCRP Report 119 (Project B-28) -- Introduction to the Model ...... 7-21 7.4.4 ADA Ridership Estimations for Fayetteville and FASTTRAC! ...... 7-22 7.4.5 Demand Estimations Summarized in Terms of Vehicle Requirements 7-25 7.4.6 Estimating Costs ...... 7-28 7.5 Discussion of Review Findings ...... 7-28 7.5.1 ADA Compliance ...... 7-28 7.5.2 Trip Reservations and Scheduling ...... 7-29 7.5.3 Rider Policies, Communication, and Education ...... 7-29 7.5.4 Passenger Fares ...... 7-30 7.5.5 Operating Costs ...... 7-30 7.5.6 Demand Estimation and Vehicle Requirements ...... 7-30 7.5.7 Demand Management Strategies ...... 7-31 7.5.8 Cost Efficiency Strategies ...... 7-32

Chapter 8 SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 8-1 8.0 Introduction ...... 8-1 8.1 Transit Goals and Objectives ...... 8-1 8.2 Short-Range Recommendations ...... 8-3 8.3 Mid-Range Recommendations ...... 8-15 8.4 Long-Range Recommendations ...... 8-21 8.5 Input at the Public Meetings ...... 8-23 8.6 Cost Estimates ...... 8-23

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ii Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

Chapter 9 FINANCIAL PLAN ...... 9-1 9.0 Introduction ...... 9-1 9.1 Financial Plan ...... 9-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES.1 FAST Average Daily Ridership by Route and Day of Week ...... ES-1 Table ES.2 FAST Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route and Day of Week ...... ES-2 Table ES.3 Five-Year Net Operating Costs ...... ES-7 Table ES.4 Five-Year Revenue Vehicle Costs...... ES-8 Table 2.1 FAST Average Daily Ridership by Route and Day of Week ...... 2-2 Table 2.2 FAST Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route and Day of Week ...... 2-3 Table 2.3 FAST Schedule Adherence ...... 2-4 Table 2.4 Route 3 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-5 Table 2.5 Route 3 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-8 Table 2.6 Route 3 Financial Data ...... 2-8 Table 2.7 Route 3 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment 2-11 Table 2.8 Route 3 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-12 Table 2.9 Route 3 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-12 Table 2.10 Route 3 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-13 Table 2.11 Route 3 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-14 Table 2.12 Route 4 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-15 Table 2.13 Route 4 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-18 Table 2.14 Route 4 Financial Data ...... 2-18 Table 2.15 Route 4 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment 2-21 Table 2.16 Route 4 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-22 Table 2.17 Route 4 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-22 Table 2.18 Route 4 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-23 Table 2.19 Route 4 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-24 Table 2.20 Route 5 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-25 Table 2.21 Route 5 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-28 Table 2.22 Route 5 Financial Data ...... 2-28 Table 2.23 Route 5 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment 2-31 Table 2.24 Route 5 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-32 Table 2.25 Route 5 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-32 Table 2.26 Route 5 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-33 Table 2.27 Route 5 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-34 Table 2.28 Route 6 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-35 Table 2.29 Route 6 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-38 Table 2.30 Route 6 Financial Data ...... 2-38 Table 2.31 Route 6 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment 2-41 Table 2.32 Route 6 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-42 Table 2.33 Route 6 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-42 Table 2.34 Route 6 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-43 Table 2.35 Route 6 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-44 Table 2.36 Route 7 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-45

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page iii Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

Table 2.37 Route 7 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-48 Table 2.38 Route 7 Financial Data ...... 2-48 Table 2.39 Route 7 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment 2-51 Table 2.40 Route 7 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-52 Table 2.41 Route 7 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-52 Table 2.42 Route 7 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-53 Table 2.43 Route 7 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-54 Table 2.44 Route 8 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-55 Table 2.45 Route 8 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-58 Table 2.46 Route 8 Financial Data ...... 2-58 Table 2.47 Route 8 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment 2-61 Table 2.48 Route 8 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-62 Table 2.49 Route 8 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-62 Table 2.50 Route 8 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-63 Table 2.51 Route 8 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-64 Table 2.52 Route 9 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-65 Table 2.53 Route 9 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-68 Table 2.54 Route 9 Financial Data ...... 2-68 Table 2.55 Route 9 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment 2-71 Table 2.56 Route 9 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-72 Table 2.57 Route 9 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-72 Table 2.58 Route 9 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-73 Table 2.59 Route 9 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-74 Table 2.60 Route 12 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-75 Table 2.61 Route 12 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-78 Table 2.62 Route 12 Financial Data ...... 2-78 Table 2.63 Route 12 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day and Route Segment 2-81 Table 2.64 Route 12 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-82 Table 2.65 Route 12 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-82 Table 2.66 Route 12 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-83 Table 2.67 Route 12 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-84 Table 2.68 Route 14 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-85 Table 2.69 Route 14 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-88 Table 2.70 Route 14 Financial Data ...... 2-88 Table 2.71 Weekday Trips on Route 14 with Standees ...... 2-89 Table 2.72 Route 14 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day and Route Segment 2-92 Table 2.73 Route 14 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-93 Table 2.74 Route 14 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-94 Table 2.75 Route 14 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-94 Table 2.76 Route 14 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-95 Table 2.77 Route 15 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-96 Table 2.78 Route 15 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-99 Table 2.79 Route 15 Financial Data ...... 2-99 Table 2.80 Route 15 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day and Route Segment ...... 2-102 Table 2.81 Route 15 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-103

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page iv Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

Table 2.82 Route 15 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-104 Table 2.83 Route 15 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-104 Table 2.84 Route 15 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-105 Table 2.85 Route 17 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-106 Table 2.86 Route 17 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-109 Table 2.87 Route 17 Financial Data ...... 2-109 Table 2.88 Route 17 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day and Route Segment ...... 2-113 Table 2.89 Route 17 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-114 Table 2.90 Route 17 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-114 Table 2.91 Route 17 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-115 Table 2.92 Route 17 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-116 Table 2.93 Route 18 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-117 Table 2.94 Route 18 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-120 Table 2.95 Route 18 Financial Data ...... 2-120 Table 2.96 Route 18 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day and Route Segment ...... 2-123 Table 2.97 Route 18 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-124 Table 2.98 Route 18 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-124 Table 2.99 Route 18 Saturday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-125 Table 2.100 Route 18 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-126 Table 2.101 Route 30 Headway and Span of Service...... 2-127 Table 2.102 Route 30 Operating and Productivity Data ...... 2-130 Table 2.103 Route 30 Financial Data ...... 2-130 Table 2.104 Route 30 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day and Route Segment ...... 2-132 Table 2.105 Route 30 Peak and Maximum Load Points ...... 2-132 Table 2.106 Route 30 Weekday Schedule Adherence ...... 2-133 Table 2.107 Route 30 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays ...... 2-133 Table 4.1 Summary of Survey Distribution ...... 4-1 Table 4.2 Summary of Respondents’ Status ...... 4-2 Table 4.3 Summary of Additional Comments ...... 4-8 Table 7.1 ADA Complementary Paratransit Operating Characteristics ...... 7-2 Table 7.2 Additional Relevant Operating Characteristics ...... 7-3 Table 7.3 Historical Performance of FASTTRAC! ...... 7-9 Table 7.4 Trip Requested Types from a Sample Period ...... 7-11 Table 7.5 Trip Types ...... 7-13 Table 7.6 FASTTRAC! Costs ...... 7-16 Table 7.7 Paratransit Program Performance from Peer Systems ...... 7-17 Table 7.8 Demographic Characteristics of Three Service Areas ...... 7-18 Table 7.9 FASTTRAC! Baseline Service Area Demand Estimation ...... 7-23 Table 7.10 FASTTRAC! Baseline Service Area Demand Estimation ...... 7-23 Table 7.11 FASTTRAC! Citywide Service Area Demand Estimation ...... 7-24 Table 7.12 Calculating FASTTRAC! Vehicle Requirements...... 7-26 Table 8.1 Short-range Costs ...... 8-24 Table 8.2 Mid-range Costs ...... 8-24 Table 8.3 Long-range Costs ...... 8-25

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page v Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

Table 9.1 Financial Plan Assumptions ...... 9-1 Table 9.2 Five-Year Net Operating Costs ...... 9-3 Table 9.3 Five-Year Revenue Vehicle Costs...... 9-4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Route 3 ...... 2-6 Figure 2.2 Route 3 Summary ...... 2-7 Figure 2.3 Route 3 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-9 Figure 2.4 Route 3 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop...... 2-10 Figure 2.5 Route 4 ...... 2-16 Figure 2.6 Route 4 Summary ...... 2-17 Figure 2.7 Route 4 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-19 Figure 2.8 Route 4 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop...... 2-20 Figure 2.9 Route 5 ...... 2-26 Figure 2.10 Route 5 Summary ...... 2-27 Figure 2.11 Route 5 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-29 Figure 2.12 Route 5 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop...... 2-30 Figure 2.13 Route 6 ...... 2-36 Figure 2.14 Route 6 Summary ...... 2-37 Figure 2.15 Route 6 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-39 Figure 2.16 Route 6 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop...... 2-40 Figure 2.17 Route 7 ...... 2-46 Figure 2.18 Route 7 Summary ...... 2-47 Figure 2.19 Route 7 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-49 Figure 2.20 Route 7 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop...... 2-50 Figure 2.21 Route 8 ...... 2-56 Figure 2.22 Route 8 Summary ...... 2-57 Figure 2.23 Route 8 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-59 Figure 2.24 Route 8 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop...... 2-60 Figure 2.25 Route 9 ...... 2-66 Figure 2.26 Route 9 Summary ...... 2-67 Figure 2.27 Route 9 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-69 Figure 2.28 Route 9 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop...... 2-70 Figure 2.29 Route 12 ...... 2-76 Figure 2.30 Route 12 Summary ...... 2-77 Figure 2.31 Route 12 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-79 Figure 2.32 Route 12 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-80 Figure 2.33 Route 14 ...... 2-86 Figure 2.34 Route 14 Summary ...... 2-87 Figure 2.35 Route 14 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-90 Figure 2.36 Route 14 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-91 Figure 2.37 Route 15 ...... 2-97 Figure 2.38 Route 15 Summary ...... 2-98 Figure 2.39 Route 15 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-100 Figure 2.40 Route 15 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-101 Figure 2.41 Route 17 ...... 2-107 Figure 2.42 Route 17 Summary ...... 2-108 Figure 2.43 Route 17 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-110 Figure 2.44 Route 17 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-111 Figure 2.45 Route 18 ...... 2-118

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page vi Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

Figure 2.46 Route 18 Summary ...... 2-119 Figure 2.47 Route 18 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-121 Figure 2.48 Route 18 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-122 Figure 2.49 Route 30 ...... 2-128 Figure 2.50 Route 30 Summary ...... 2-129 Figure 2.51 Route 30 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop ...... 2-131 Figure 3.1 Service Area Population ...... 3-2 Figure 3.2 Annual Revenue Hours of Service ...... 3-2 Figure 3.3 Annual Operating Expenses ...... 3-3 Figure 3.4 Annual Ridership ...... 3-3 Figure 3.5 Peak Vehicle Requirements ...... 3-4 Figure 3.6 Revenue Hours per Service Area Population ...... 3-5 Figure 3.7 Productivity (Boardings per Revenue Hour) ...... 3-5 Figure 3.8 Operating Expenses per Revenue Hour...... 3-6 Figure 3.9 Operating Expenses per Passenger...... 3-6 Figure 3.10 Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... 3-7 Figure 3.11 Operator Wages per Revenue Hour ...... 3-7 Figure 3.12 Operator Wages as a Percentage of Overall Operating Costs ...... 3-8 Figure 3.13 Number of Routes at Each Peer System...... 3-8 Figure 3.14 Weekday Service Spans ...... 3-9 Figure 3-15 Percentage of Routes Operating After 8 PM ...... 3-9 Figure 3.16 Percentage of Routes with Weekday Peak Period Headways of 30 Minutes or Less ...... 3-10 Figure 3.17 Percentage of Routes with Weekday Midday Headways of 30 Minutes or Less ...... 3-10 Figure 3.18 Sunday Service at Peer Systems ...... 3-11 Figure 3.19 FAST Trends: Boardings per Revenue Hour ...... 3-12 Figure 3.20 FAST Trends: Revenue Hours per Service Area Population ...... 3-12 Figure 3.21 FAST Trends: Operating Expense per Passenger Boarding ...... 3-13 Figure 4.1 Frequency of Bus Use ...... 4-2 Figure 4.2 Most Frequent Trip Purpose ...... 4-3 Figure 4.3 Do you generally need more than one bus to complete bus trips on FAST? ..... 4-3 Figure 4.4 Main Reason to Ride FAST ...... 4-4 Figure 4.5 Top Three Preferred Service Improvements ...... 4-4 Figure 4.6 Top Three Reasons for Not Using FAST...... 4-5 Figure 4.7 Importance of FAST to the Local Community ...... 4-6 Figure 4.8 Public Transportation Use Outside of Fayetteville ...... 4-6 Figure 4.9 Summary of Impressions upon Seeing a FAST Bus ...... 4-7 Figure 4.10 Respondents’ Residence Location ...... 4-7 Figure 4.11 Demographic Information Summary for Riders and Non-Riders ...... 4-9 Figure 5.1 City of Fayetteville Residential Transit Orientation Index ...... 5-2 Figure 6.1 2010 Household Distribution ...... 6-2 Figure 6.2 2040 Household Distribution ...... 6-2 Figure 6.3 2010 Employment Distribution...... 6-4 Figure 6.4 2040 Employment Distribution...... 6-4 Figure 7.1 FASTTRAC! Paratransit Key Operating Statistics by Quarters, FY 2009- FY 2013 ...... 7-9 Figure 7.2 FASTTRAC! Paratransit Trips per Mile or per Hour by Quarters, FY 2009- FY 2013 ...... 7-9 Figure 7.3 FASTTRAC! Total Scheduled Passenger Trips by Time of Day for Five High-use Weekdays, November 2013 ...... 7-10

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page vii Transit Development Plan Update Table of Contents

Figure 7.4 FASTTRAC! Trips No-show or Late/Same Day Cancel as Percent of All Requested Trips ...... 7-12 Figure 7.5 FASTTRAC! Total Subscription Trips Scheduled by Time of Day for Five High-use Weekdays, November 2013 ...... 7-14 Figure 7.6 FASTTRAC! Total Casual Trips Scheduled by Time of Day for Five High-use Weekdays, November 2013 ...... 7-14 Figure 7.7 FASTTRAC! Passenger Trips Scheduled and Service Vehicles by Time of Day, Wednesday November 20, 2013 ...... 7-15 Figure 7.8 Base Service Area Population Density ...... 7-19 Figure 7.9 Expanded Service Area ...... 7-20 Figure 7.10 FASTTRAC! Trip Demand Prediction Ranges, Developed from TCRP Report 119 ADA Demand Estimation Modeling ...... 7-25 Figure 8.1 Proposed Routes 3A and 3B ...... 8-4 Figure 8.2 Proposed Route 4 ...... 8-5 Figure 8.3 Proposed Route 5 ...... 8-6 Figure 8.4 Proposed Route 7 ...... 8-7 Figure 8.5 Proposed Route 8 ...... 8-8 Figure 8.6 Proposed Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown Route with FSU Options and Revised Route 9 ...... 8-9 Figure 8.7 Proposed Route 12 ...... 8-11 Figure 8.8 Proposed Routes 14 and 14X ...... 8-12 Figure 8.9 Proposed Routes 17 and 19 ...... 8-13 Figure 8.10 Proposed Route 30 ...... 8-14 Figure 8.11 Short-range FAST Network ...... 8-15 Figure 8.12 FAST Sunday Route Network ...... 8-16 Figure 8.13 Proposed Mid-range Route 7 ...... 8-17 Figure 8.14 Proposed Routes 8A and 8B ...... 8-18 Figure 8.15 Proposed Route 10 ...... 8-19 Figure 8.16 30-minute Route Network, Mid-range...... 8-20 Figure 8.17 Mid-range FAST Network ...... 8-21 Figure 8.18 Long-range FAST Network ...... 8-22

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page viii Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

This report is an update to the 2008 Transit Development Plan for the Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST). This study assesses the effects of recent improvements and changes in both development patterns and demographics that have occurred since 2008. Key aspects of the study include a thorough analysis of current transit services, development of strategies to address current and projected needs, and identification of capital and operational costs.

A major reason for conducting this study at this time is to address planned developments in West Fayetteville. Newly available data from the 2010 census allows for a timely reassessment of demographic patterns within the City. The potential expansion of paratransit service City- wide requires careful analysis before a decision is made. Finally, the opportunity to build on recent increases in ridership and revenue will allow the City to move closer to achieving its mobility goals. This study provides an implementable plan, crafted with citizen and stakeholder input, that considers and quantifies all relevant information.

Route Profiles

Table ES.1 presents ridership by route for weekdays and Saturday. Route 14 has the highest ridership on weekdays, with over 1,000 boardings. Route 12, Route 6, and Route 4 all have more than 500 riders on weekdays. Route 12 leads in ridership on Saturday, followed by Route 14, Route 6, and Route 5. Saturday ridership is at least 80 percent of weekday ridership on Routes 5, 6, and 9. At the other extreme, Saturday ridership on Route 4 is only 22 percent of weekday ridership, due to the fact that the DSS office is not open on Saturday.

Table ES.1 FAST Average Daily Ridership by Route and Day of Week Weekday Saturday Route Riders Rank Riders Rank 3 240 12 146 11 4 561 4 122 12 5 419 7 367 4 6 621 3 512 3 7 371 9 201 10 8 488 5 296 5 9 276 11 248 8 12 959 2 676 1 14 1,004 1 600 2 15 376 8 257 7 17 475 6 292 6 18 301 10 221 9 30 62 13 -- -- Total 6,153 -- 3,937 -- Source: APC Data, April 2013 Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

Table ES.2 shows service effectiveness in terms of passenger boardings per revenue hour, a common measure of productivity in the transit industry. Route 6 is the most productive weekday route, with 37.6 boardings per revenue hour. Route 8, Route 14, and Route 5 all have at least 30 boardings per revenue hour on weekdays. Route 6 also leads in productivity on Saturday, and is the only Saturday route with more than 30 boardings per revenue hour. System productivity is 24.5 on weekdays and 21.0 on Saturday.

As a general rule of thumb in assessing service effectiveness by means of passenger boardings per revenue hour, anything below 10 is a red flag to examine the route more closely. Route 30, a short shuttle route between Downtown and the Public Works Commission (PWC), is the only route that falls below this threshold.

Table ES.2 FAST Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route and Day of Week Weekday Saturday Route B/RH Rank B/RH Rank 3 18.5 10 18.3 8 4 21.9 8 15.3 11 5 30.0 4 28.3 2 6 37.6 1 37.9 1 7 28.7 6 18.4 6 8 30.6 2 21.2 4 9 17.0 12 17.9 9 12 29.1 5 23.3 3 14 30.6 3 20.8 5 15 22.7 7 18.3 7 17 17.0 11 14.0 12 18 18.9 9 15.8 10 30 6.5 13 -- -- Total 24.6 -- 21.0 -- Source: APC Data, April 2013

Peer and Trend Analysis

The peer analysis compares FAST to similar transit systems in North Carolina and neighboring states. The trend analysis examines trends in key variables over the last several years. FAST is a smaller system in a smaller area, and thus the peer results suggest that FAST has not achieved the economies of scale that larger systems benefit from by virtue of their size. FAST ranks at or near the middle in most system and performance measures. The FAST system’s strengths include below-average operating cost per revenue hour and per trip, below-average operator wages per revenue hour and as a percentage of total cost, above-average farebox recovery ratio, and an above-average percentage of routes with late evening service. Areas of potential improvement include productivity, revenue hours per service area population, and percentage of routes with 30-minute headways or less.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ES-2 Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

The trends in key performance variables all moved in the right direction over the most recent five-year period for which NTD data is available. Productivity has been increasing steadily, with a notable increase in 2012. Per-capita service levels have increased and operating expenses per passenger boarding have decreased. As the FAST system grows, it can expect to achieve economies of scale that can make its performance more comparable to larger peer systems.

Intercept Survey

The intercept survey was designed to collect input from both riders and non-riders of the FAST system. For non-riders, the survey included questions to solicit their general perceptions and opinions about public transportation. In addition, the survey also included questions regarding demographic characteristics of survey respondents.

Results from the intercept survey provide insight into various aspects of FAST service from rider and non-rider perspectives, as shown below:

• The general impression of FAST is positive. The three most common impressions given in an open-ended question were “great transportation,” “clean,” and “beneficial.” 76 percent of non-riders and 91 percent of riders rate FAST as very important to their community.

• FAST riders travel primarily for work and education. These two categories accounted for 77 percent of all trip purposes.

• FAST riders indicated more frequent bus service, later evening service, and Sunday service as the three most desirable system-wide service improvements.

• Not having access to a car is the primary reason that riders use FAST. Riders are more likely to have lower incomes and belong to a minority group than non-riders.

• The vast majority of non-riders do not use FAST because they have a car and prefer to drive. Respondents could give up to three reasons, but no other reason for non-use was cited by more than 20 percent of respondents.

Unmet Needs

Several approaches are used to identify residential travel needs and current system needs. These include demographic analysis of neighborhoods within the City, analysis of survey results, identification of proposed new developments that could affect transit demand, public outreach efforts to elicit information from key stakeholders, and meetings with FAST’s bus and van operators.

The demographic analysis indicates that there are no major unmet needs in the study area in terms of service area coverage for residents. FAST transit service is available directly or within a short walking distance in nearly all transit-oriented neighborhoods within the City limits, although street patterns and widths can preclude buses from circulating within neighborhoods. Themes raised consistently throughout the public outreach process include:

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ES-3 Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

• Greater frequency – more routes with 30-minute headways • Later evening service • Sunday service • Flexibility to respond to emerging mobility needs

Future Growth

Significant residential development is anticipated in the west and southwest part of the metropolitan area, along the US 401 corridor and into Hoke and Robeson counties. The low-to- medium density nature of this growth may prove challenging for the operation of efficient public transportation service. The core of the Fayetteville area is anticipated to experience infill, redevelopment, and growth over the next 30 years.

Changes in employment are not as pronounced in terms of their distribution as changes in household growth. This is significant if the expectation is that Downtown Fayetteville is going to grow into a larger, denser central business district which serves as the employment center for the outlying and more suburban areas of the metropolitan area. The impact on the public transportation system will be one that forces the transit agency to establish priorities for different types of service and levels of service in order to maintain efficiency and also demonstrate good stewardship of public funding.

FASTTRAC! Analysis

The analysis of the complementary ADA paratransit service includes an assessment of ridership and cost associated with an expansion of FASTTRAC! to a citywide service area as well as a description of findings in various areas related to policies, demand management strategies, and cost efficiency strategies.

A critical area of interest was to evaluate the potential expansion to a citywide service area. Results suggest a 23% increase in demand and a fleet increase by a minimum of two vehicles. Operating costs under this scenario are projected to increase by $361,000 annually.

Recommendations

Recommendations are grouped into three categories:

• Short-term recommendations can be implemented in the next one to two years. A major focus of route recommendations in this time frame is the completion of the new Transit Center at the northeast corner of Robeson & Russell Streets.

• Mid-term recommendations are scheduled for implementation in the next three to five years.

• Long-term recommendations are scheduled for implementation in the next six to ten years. The chapter presents a re-imagined transit network for Fayetteville in this time frame.

Major short-term recommendations include:

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ES-4 Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

• One new route, as Route 3 between downtown and southeast Fayetteville will be too long to continue operating every 60 minutes. The splitting of Route 3 into two routes will allow for better coverage throughout downtown and provide an opportunity for direct service between downtown and the Senior Center on Blue Street.

• 30-minute service on Route 6 between Cross Creek Mall and University Estates. This is the most productive route in the FAST network.

• Introduction of a new 14X route providing limited-stop service connecting Downtown, FTCC, and Cross Creek Mall. The new transit center shortens Route 14, allowing this new route to be introduced without added cost.

• The new Route 19 operating into Fort Bragg from Cross Creek Mall. This route is proposed for implementation in February 2013. The new Route 10 service along Strickland Bridge Road will be implemented at the same time.

• A new crosstown route on Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo. One alternative would connect this route to FSU. FSU has expressed interest in pursuing a university pass program with FAST that would allow its students to ride on any FAST route under a financial partnership between FAST and FSU. Details would obviously need to be finalized, but the concept is promising. This proposal has been moved to the short-term at the request of City Council.

Major mid-term recommendations include:

• Sunday service on eight routes, generally routes with late evening service. Sunday service would operate between 8 am and 8 pm. There was a great deal of interest from stakeholders and riders in Sunday service, but the cost kept us from including it in the short-term recommendations.

• Extension of Route 7 via Raeford Road to serve the new Veterans Administration Medical Center and a satellite campus of FTCC.

• Splitting Route 8 into two routes. One would serve the existing route with a few changes. The second would connect the Cross Creek Mall area with the Fayetteville Airport, also serving Topeka Heights Apartments and Purolator. It may be possible to extend service on select trips to the Enterprise Avenue apartments once the routes are split, although a neighborhood shuttle route may be a preferable solution.

• Extension of the new Route 10 Strickland Bridge Road route, assuming that it is successful in attracting ridership, to strengthen destinations at both ends of the route.

• Later evening service on three routes (Routes 3, 7, and 17).

• 30-minute service on four routes (Routes 5, 7 as far as Ireland Drive, 8A or the current Route 8, and 15).

Long-range recommendations assume that ridership will grow sufficiently by this time to justify a reimagining of FAST that is not constrained by how the system has been planned and developed. The FAST goals and objectives guide the network’s development, which

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ES-5 Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

emphasizes direct service on major corridors. Several observations can be made about the proposed network:

• The network keeps strong single-corridor routes that work well today intact, such as Routes 4, 5, 6, 12, and 14.

• There is more service in west Fayetteville. This assumes that growth will continue to occur in this area, and that at least some of the growth will be multi-family residential and transit-friendly retail.

• Some circulator routes in neighborhoods are continued, but could be converted to shuttles with connections to timed radial routes at specified locations. Additional neighborhood routes could be established in areas such as Fisher Lake Road, Bingham Drive, Fisher Road, and Lakewood Drive if development warrants service.

• All established routes are assumed to operate every 30 minutes on weekdays until 7 pm. Weekend service will be every 60 minutes. Some routes may be added to the Sunday network.

Financial Plan

A five-year financial plan was prepared to present net costs associated with the service improvements in the TDP short- and mid-range plans. To organize the service improvement projects into the plan, an implementation schedule was developed where short-term projects are programmed in the first year, FY 2016, and mid-range projects are programmed in the latter four years, FY 2017 through FY 2020. An effort was made to distribute projects as evenly as possible over the five year planning horizon of the TDP in order to limit the amount of new net costs in any one year. Long-range projects are not included in the financial plan as it only addresses the next six to ten years. Total new operating costs are partially offset by farebox revenues and the transfer of FTA 5307 funding for preventative maintenance to produce net operating costs.

New annual net operating costs associated with implementation of short-range service improvements are approximately $750,000. Four new vehicles would be needed to implement those services. We expect that a portion of this cost would be borne by Fayetteville State University, with the actual amount subject to negotiation. Total new net operating costs in the fifth year of the plan, which reflect total new annual operating costs if all short- and mid-term improvements are implemented, is approximately $2.5 million. Over the five-year period, the vehicle requirement is 11 new peak vehicles with two additional vehicles needed to meet the FTA spare ratio requirement of 20 percent.

Table ES.3 presents 5-year operating costs. Table ES.4 identifies 5-year revenue vehicle costs.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ES-6 Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

Table ES.3 Five-Year Net Operating Costs Revenue Description FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total Service Improvement/Expansion* Hours Short-Range 3A/3B Service 3A/3B routes splited from Route 3 3,705 $230,006 $230,006 $230,006 $230,006 $230,006 $1,150,032 Route 6 Frequency Improvement Improve frequency to 30 minutes 3,443 $213,741 $213,741 $213,741 $213,741 $213,741 $1,068,707 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown New fixed route 4,726 $293,390 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $1,636,928 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $58,678 $67,177 $67,177 $67,177 $67,177 $327,386 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown (FSU) New fixed route 4,726 $293,390 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $1,636,928 Mid-Range 8A/8B Service 8A/8B routes split from Route 8 4,782 $0 $0 $296,867 $296,867 $325,654 $919,387 8A/8B ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $0 $59,373 $59,373 $65,131 $183,877 Sunday Improvements** Sunday service imrpovements for 9 routes 4,992 $0 $339,955 $339,955 $339,955 $339,955 $1,359,821 Sunday Improvements ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $67,991 $67,991 $67,991 $67,991 $271,964 Route 7 Extension Route realignment 3,552 $0 $220,508 $220,508 $220,508 $241,891 $903,416 Route 7 Extension ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $44,102 $44,102 $44,102 $48,378 $180,683 Route 10 Extension Route realignment 3,552 $0 $0 $0 $220,508 $220,508 $441,016 Route 10 Extension ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $0 $0 $44,102 $44,102 $88,203 Late Evening Improvements Late evening improvements on 3A,3B,7, and 17 3,825 $0 $0 $0 $237,456 $237,456 $474,912 Late Evening Improvements ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $0 $0 $47,491 $47,491 $94,982 Frequency Improvements Improve frequency to 30 minutes on 5,7, and 15 12,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $759,859 $759,859 Total Operating Cost for Fixed-Route Service Improvement/Expansion 49,543 $1,030,528 $1,675,980 $1,972,847 $2,430,811 $3,240,841 $10,351,007 Total Operating Cost for ADA Service Expansion $58,678 $179,270 $238,643 $330,236 $340,270 $1,147,096 Total Operating Cost for Service Improvement/Expansion (Fixed-Route and ADA) $1,089,206 $1,855,250 $2,211,490 $2,761,047 $3,581,111 $ 11,498,103

Farebox Recovery Value $170,151 $273,426 $319,577 $390,254 $516,339 $1,669,747 Preventative Maintenance $164,884 $268,157 $315,655 $388,930 $518,535 $1,656,161 Net Operating Cost - Fixed-Route $754,170 $1,313,667 $1,576,258 $1,981,863 $2,546,237 $8,172,194 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Full Cost (Fixed-Route) $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Direct Cost (Fixed-Route) $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 ADA Service Cost Ratio 20% 20%20%20%20%20% Farebox Recovery Ratio 16.5% 16.3% 16.2% 16.1% 15.9% Preventative Maintenance Ratio 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% *Complementary ADA service costs are included for improvements to hours of service, days of service, and for services to new ar eas. **The full allocated fixed-route cost per hour was used to calculate Sunday service costs; FSU Sunday route calculated separate ly abov e

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ES-7 Transit Development Plan Update Executive Summary

Table ES.4 Five-Year Revenue Vehicle Costs Service Improvement/Expansion Description # of Vehicles FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total Add New Transit Service/Service Area Short-Range 3A/3B Service 3A/3B routes splited from Route 3 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Route 6 Frequency Improvement Improve frequency to 30 minutes 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown New express service 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown (FSU) New express service 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Mid-Range 8A/8B Service 8A/8B routes splited from Route 8 1 $0 $0 $450,000 $0 0 $450,000 Sunday Improvements Sunday service imrpovements for 8 routes 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Route 7 Extension Route realignment 1 $0 $450,000 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Route 10 Extension Route realignment 1 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 0 $450,000 Late Evening Improvements Late evening improvements on 3A,3B,7, and 17 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Frequency Improvements Improve frequency to 30 minutes on 5,7, and 15 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,800,000 $0 ADA Paratransit Service Short-Term ADA service expansion 00000 Mid-Term ADA service expansion 00000 Total New Vehicles 11 $1,800,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $1,800,000 $3,150,000 Total New Vehicles - Spare Ratio 2 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $900,000 Total New Vehicle Costs - Fixed Route 13 $2,250,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,250,000 $4,050,000

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ES-8

Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 1: Introduction

This report is an update to the 2008 Transit Development Plan for the Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST). This study assesses the effects of recent improvements, changes in development patterns, and changes in demographics that have occurred since 2008. Key aspects of the study include a thorough analysis of current transit services, development of strategies to address current and projected needs, and identification of capital and operational costs.

A major reason for conducting this study at this time is to address planned developments in West Fayetteville. Newly available data from the 2010 census allows for a timely reassessment of demographic patterns within the City. The potential expansion of paratransit service City- wide requires careful analysis before a decision is made. Finally, the opportunity to build on recent increases in ridership and revenue will allow the City to move closer to achieving its mobility goals. This study provides an implementable plan, crafted with citizen and stakeholder input, that considers and quantifies all relevant information.

Organization of this report is described in the following paragraphs.

Chapter 2 provides profiles of each FAST route, using measures of ridership, productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, and schedule adherence. The result is a detailed “snapshot” of fixed- route system performance.

Chapter 3 is a peer and trend analysis of fixed-route service. The peer analysis compares FAST to similar transit systems in North Carolina and neighboring states. The trend analysis examines trends in key variables over the last several years.

Chapter 4 presents the results of an intercept survey conducted on June 18 and 19, 2013 to collect public opinions on FAST services. The intercept survey was designed to collect input from both riders and non-riders of the FAST system. For non-riders, the survey included questions to solicit their general perceptions and opinions about public transportation. In addition, the survey also included questions regarding demographic characteristics of survey respondents.

Chapter 5 examines unmet travel needs in the City of Fayetteville. Several approaches are used to identify residential travel needs and current system needs. These include demographic analysis of neighborhoods within the City, analysis of survey results, identification of proposed new developments that could affect transit demand, public outreach efforts to elicit information from key stakeholders, and meetings with FAST’s bus and van operators.

Chapter 6 summarizes population and employment forecasts for the City of Fayetteville and their implications for public transportation.

Chapter 7 analyzes FASTTRAC!, FAST’s complementary paratransit service. The analysis includes an assessment of ridership and cost associated with an expansion of FASTTRAC! to a citywide service area as well as a description of findings in various areas related to policies, demand management strategies, and cost efficiency strategies.

Transit Development Plan Update 1. Introduction

Chapter 8 brings together the findings of the ridecheck analysis, fieldwork by project team members, public outreach findings, and discussions with FAST to identify and analyze alternatives and make recommendations for improvements to the FAST network. Recommendations are grouped into three categories:

• Short-term recommendations can be implemented in the next one to two years. A major focus of route recommendations in this timeframe is the completion of the new Transit Center at the northeast corner of Robeson & Russell Streets.

• Mid-term recommendations are scheduled for implementation in the next three to five years.

• Long-term recommendations are scheduled for implementation in the next six to ten years. The chapter presents a re-imagined transit network for Fayetteville in this time frame.

Chapter 9 summarizes operational and capital costs associated with the short-term and mid- term recommendations.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 1-2 Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 2: Route Profiles

2.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the ridership and productivity analysis of the Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) data. This evaluation includes an analysis of ridership by route, direction, time of day, and route segment. Route effectiveness or productivity, measured by boardings per revenue hour, is also analyzed by direction, route segment, and time of day. Seat utilization, a measure of the level of transit use, is reported by route and day. Route efficiency is evaluated in terms of subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (the ratio of operating revenue to operating cost) at the route level. Schedule adherence is also analyzed, along with actual versus scheduled running times by route, direction, time of day, and segment.

Section 2.1 summarizes findings related to ridership, productivity, levels of service, and cost efficiency at the route level. Section 2.2 contains route profiles. These profiles report frequency, span of service, operating and performance data, financial data, and detailed route segment ridership and productivity for each FAST route, including:

• Route description, including major corridors and destinations and trip patterns; • Schedule, including days of operation, service spans, and frequency; • Operating and productivity data, including ridership, revenue hours, passengers per revenue hour, seat utilization, and average trip length; • Financial data, including revenue, operating cost, cost per passenger, subsidy per passenger, and farebox recovery ratio; • Identification of major stops along the route; • Capacity issues, measured by trip segments with loads exceeding 110 percent of seated capacity; • Passenger boardings and productivity (passengers per revenue hour) by route segment; • Peak and maximum load points along the route; • Schedule adherence; • Average versus scheduled running time overall and by route segment; • Assessment of route performance and trends.

2.1 Overall Findings

Table 2.1 presents ridership by route for weekdays and Saturday. Route 14 Downtown – FTCC – Cross Creek has the highest ridership on weekdays, with over 1,000 boardings. Route 12 Murchison (858), Route 6 University Estates – Cross Creek (621), and Route 4 Downtown – DSS – VA (561) all have more than 500 riders on weekdays. Route 12 leads in ridership on Saturday, followed by Route 14, Route 6, and Route 5 Ramsey. Saturday ridership is at least 80 percent of weekday ridership on Routes 5, 6, and 9 University Estates – Cape Fear Valley North. At the other extreme, Saturday ridership on Route 4 is only 22 percent of weekday ridership, due to the fact that the DSS office is not open on Saturday.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-1 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.1 FAST Average Daily Ridership by Route and Day of Week Weekday Saturday Route Riders Rank Riders Rank 3 240 12 146 11 4 561 4 122 12 5 419 7 367 4 6 621 3 512 3 7 371 9 201 10 8 488 5 296 5 9 276 11 248 8 12 959 2 676 1 14 1,004 1 600 2 15 376 8 257 7 17 475 6 292 6 18 301 10 221 9 30 62 13 -- -- Total 6,153 -- 3,937 -- Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.2 shows service effectiveness in terms of passenger boardings per revenue hour, a common measure of productivity in the transit industry. Route 6 University Estates – Cross Creek is the most productive weekday route, with 37.6 boardings per revenue hour. Route 8 Downtown – Cape Fear Valley Health System via Southern, Route 14 Downtown – FTCC – Cross Creek, and Route 5 Ramsey all have at least 30 boardings per revenue hour on weekdays. Route 6 also leads in productivity on Saturday, and is the only Saturday route with more than 30 boardings per revenue hour. System productivity is 24.5 on weekdays and 21.0 on Saturday.

As a general rule of thumb in assessing service effectiveness by means of passenger boardings per revenue hour, anything below 10 is a red flag to examine the route more closely. Route 30, a short shuttle route between Downtown and the Public Works Commission (PWC), is the only route that falls below this threshold.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-2 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.2 FAST Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route and Day of Week Weekday Saturday Route B/RH Rank B/RH Rank 3 18.5 10 18.3 8 4 21.9 8 15.3 11 5 30.0 4 28.3 2 6 37.6 1 37.9 1 7 28.7 6 18.4 6 8 30.6 2 21.2 4 9 17.0 12 17.9 9 12 29.1 5 23.3 3 14 30.6 3 20.8 5 15 22.7 7 18.3 7 17 17.0 11 14.0 12 18 18.9 9 15.8 10 30 6.5 13 -- -- Total 24.6 -- 21.0 -- Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.3 shows overall schedule adherence for each route, as measured at each timepoint on each trip. Schedule adherence is defined as no more than one minute early (to allow for minor variations among watches) and no more than five minutes late at a given timepoint along the route, and early arrivals at the last stop are not penalized. This detailed measure at each timepoint, a more accurate reflection of how riders view on-time performance, usually produces results in the 60 to 70 percent range for most transit agencies.

Weekday schedule adherence is 75.8 percent systemwide. Most routes are between 70 and 87 percent. Route 6 University Estates – Cross Creek has the best schedule adherence. Route 30 Downtown – PWC Shuttle has the worst schedule adherence, due primarily to early depatrues. More crowded and longer routes usually have more difficulty keeping to schedule, so it is no surprise that Route 14 Downtown – FTCC – Cross Creek is second-lowest at 60 percent.

Schedule adherence is better on Saturday at 77.6 percent. Route 4 Downtown – DSS – VA Medical Center has the best schedule adherence on Saturday at 85.3 percent and Route 14 has the worst at 559.8 percent. Several routes serving Cross Creek Mall have lower schedule adherence on Saturday, presumably due to traffic in the mall vicinity.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-3 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.3 FAST Schedule Adherence Route Weekday Saturday 3 86.9% 84.5% 4 75.9% 85.3% 5 76.9% 77.8% 6 87.0% 80.3% 7 77.0% 83.4% 8 71.3% 77.6% 9 84.7% 84.6% 12 76.8% 77.6% 14 60.1% 59.8% 15 78.8% 79.0% 17 80.1% 79.6% 18 76.0% 77.4% 30 45.4% -- Total 75.8% 77.5% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

2.2 Route Profiles

The following pages contain much greater detail for the individual routes. Each route profile includes a description of the route, headway and span of service, passenger boardings, revenue hours of service, overcrowded segments, stops with major passenger activity, financial data, segment and time of day analysis, schedule adherence, and running time analysis. Overcrowded segments are defined as segments on a given trip with passenger loads over 110 percent of seated capacity. FAST operates different vehicles on different routes, so the definition of overcrowded varies by route.

All operating data are taken from the APC data. Cost calculations are based on a cost per revenue hour of $62.08, the direct cost for FAST in FY 2014. Revenue calculations are based on current revenue per passenger boarding figures for each route, ranging from $0.37 to $0.72.1

The route profiles provide information regarding passengers per revenue hour, a key performance variable used in evaluating transit routes. Ridership and productivity are examined by time of day: each trip was assigned to a time period based on the scheduled start time. Time periods are defined as:

AM Peak 6:00 to 8:59 a.m. Midday 9:00 a.m. to 2:59 p.m. PM Peak 3:00 to 5:59 p.m. Evening 6:00 p.m. to end of service

1 Revenue per passenger boarding is below the base fare because the fare for senior and disabled riders is lower. Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-4 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Passenger miles per seat mile is a measure of the percentage of seats occupied throughout the course of the day on each route. Financial performance indicators include subsidy per passenger boarding and farebox recovery ratio (operating revenue divided by operating cost).

The final section of each route profile summarizes findings and issues for the route, but does not include route recommendations. Recommendations are developed and presented later in this report.

Route 3 Southeast

Overview Route 3 (Figure 2.1) serves the neighborhoods in southeast Fayetteville and the cluster of hotels along Cedar Creek Road near I-95. The dark blue areas in Figure 2.1 represent neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation, including east of downtown on Route 3. The route travels between Downtown and the Deluxe Inn on Cedar Creek Road. Primary streets of operation include Old Wilmington Road, Grove Street, Person Street-Clinton Road, and Cedar Creek Road. The route deviates to serve residential neighborhoods in both directions. Major destinations include Downtown, Cape Fear Plaza, Cedar Creek Plaza, the hotel cluster near I- 95, and a supermarket/mobile home park at Plymouth & Sapona.

Route 3 is the only route serving southeast Fayetteville. To maximize service coverage, it has two loops, one between the Transfer Center and Person Street (outbound via Old Wilmington- Grove-Racepath to Person Street; inbound via Eastern-Old Wilmington) and the other mid-route between Person & Deep Creek and Cedar Creek Road (outbound via Deep Creek-Cape Hill- Little-Troy; inbound via Sloan-Sapona-Plymouth-Clinton). The mid-route deviation is for both coverage and safety reasons; this segment of Cedar Creek Road has fast traffic and few cross streets or crosswalks.

Route 3 is next to last among FAST routes in ridership on weekdays and is in the lower half of FAST routes in terms of ridership and productivity on both weekdays and Saturday.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.4 shows headways for Route 3 by day of the week. Table 2.4 also indicates the span of service on the route. Span of service is calculated from the start time of the first trip in the morning to the end time of the last trip in the evening. Route 3 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Table 2.4 Route 3 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 6:00 a.m. – 6:55 p.m. Saturday 60 10:00 a.m. – 5:55 p.m.

Figure 2.2 summarizes Route 3 weekday data.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-5 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.1 Route 3

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-6 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.2 Route 3 Weekday Summary

120 Route 3 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

100

80

60

40

Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … PLAZA F/S CREEK CEDAR CEDAR F/S F/S OLD OLD CHRIST CHRIST GROVE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP GOSPEL DELUXE CHURCH CEDAR CEDAR CEDAR PLAZA B ST.N/S CEDAR CEDAR CEDAR CEDAR NEAR B ST. F/S F/S B ST. INN -INN EOL F/S B ST F/S ADAM ST. CENTER ABRAHA… CREEK RD CREEK RD CADE HILL GROVE ST CREEK AT ACROSS CREEK RD ADJACENT RAIL ROAD RAIL BLOCK 800 TRANSFER CADE HILL CREEK RD. RD. CREEK CREEK RD. CREEK RD. CREEK RD. CREEK N/S FIELDS CREEK RD. CREEK RD. ADJACEN… F/S MELVIN ADJACEN… N/S FORD L CAPE FEAR LITTLE AVE N RD. N/S N/S RD. N CREEK/ RD WILMINGTO OXFORD ST OXFORD 120 Route 3 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

100

80

60

40

Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … … … … … … … INN AVE / AVE / INN SLOAN SLOAN OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD EOL H ST. H ST. H ST/ RD N/S N/S RD WORKS TRAIL CEDAR BLVD / BLVD RD. F/S DELUXE WEINER WEINER DEEP DEEP SAPONA CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CEDAR CEDAR RD. N/S N/S RD. WILMIN SAPONA CLINTON EASTERN ON ST/ ON ST/ PLYMOU… PLYMOUT PLYMOUT ON RD / LOCUST LOCUST SAPONA WILMINGT WILMINGT RD / LOCK / RD LOCK WILMINGT COMFORT CENTER - CENTER TERRACE CLINTON CLINTON EASTERN SLEEP INN CEDAR RD CREEK RD F/S FIELDS CAMPBELL TRANSFER TRANSFER BLVD / OLD OLD / BLVD

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 On Time 4 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding Performance 5 5 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-7 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.5 presents operating data for Route 3. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 3 ranks 12th in boardings and 10th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 3 ranks 11th in boardings and 7th in boardings per revenue hour. Note that revenue hours in Table 2.5 are the scheduled revenue hours.

Route 3 ranks 3rd on weekdays and 5th on Saturday in average trip length. It appears that more passengers traveled out to the hotel area on weekdays. Route 3 ranks 9th on weekdays and 8th on Saturday in seat utilization.

Table 2.5 Route 3 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 240 12.9 18.6 20.9% 5.16 Saturday 146 7.9 18.4 19.4% 4.84 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.6 presents financial data for Route 3. Route 3 ranks 10th in subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 routes on weekdays. Route 3 ranks 6th in subsidy per boarding and 5th in farebox recovery ratio among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.6 Route 3 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 240 $157 $802 $3.35 $2.69 19.6% Saturday 146 $96 $491 $3.37 $2.71 19.4% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 100 boardings, 106 alightings

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-8 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.3 Route 3 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-9 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.4 Route 3 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-10 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

The highest passenger load on Route 3 is 13, occurring inbound at Campbell Terrace on the 6:30 am trip. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 3.

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.7 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Cape Fear Plaza are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.7 indicate a pronounced outbound ridership flow all day except for the morning period, when outbound and inbound ridership is similar. The outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Cape Fear Plaza has the greatest passenger activity in each time period, due to the number of boardings at the Transfer Center.

Table 2.7 Route 3 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Transfer Center – 107 75.7 16 48.6 51 78.1 32 96.3 9 88.2 Cape Fear Plaza OB: Cape Fear Plaza - Deep 16 6.6 2 3.5 9 8.5 4 7.5 0 2.5 Creek Rd/ Cade Hill OB: Deep Creek Rd/ Cade Hill 7 6.2 3 9.4 3 5.8 1 5.4 0 2.1 - Cedar Creek Plaza OB: Cedar Creek Plaza – 30 13.9 6 12.4 13 13.5 9 18.2 1 8.6 Deluxe Inn Outbound Total 160 22.7 26 16.2 77 23.5 46 28.1 11 21.4 IB: Deluxe Inn – 14 20.0 3 17.6 7 22.6 4 22.3 0 4.7 Sloan & Cedar Creek IB: Sloan & Cedar Creek - 21 14.7 9 28.9 10 14.5 2 5.4 0 0.6 Plymouth & Sapona IB: Plymouth & Sapona - 29 13.8 10 20.5 12 12.4 6 12.7 1 5.5 Eastern & Old Wilmington IB: Eastern & Old Wilmington - 15 9.3 7 19.1 7 9.1 1 2.6 0 1.0 Transfer Center Inbound Total 80 13.6 30 21.8 36 13.2 14 9.3 1 3.0 Weekday Total 240 18.6 56 18.7 113 18.8 59 19.6 12 13.0 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is highest outbound throughout the day except in the morning and is highest throughout the day in the segment between the Transfer Center and Cape Fear Plaza. Overall productivity is remarkably consistent throughout the day, except for the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between the Transfer Center and Cape Fear Plaza in the afternoon (96.3 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Sloan & Cedar Creek and Plymouth & Sapona in the evening (0.6). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the afternoon (28.1) and lowest inbound in the evening (3.0).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the afternoon and inbound in the midday. The most productive segment on

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-11 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday is outbound between the Transfer Center and Cape Fear Plaza in the afternoon (72.6 boardings per revenue hour).

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.8 shows the peak load points on Route 3 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.8 indicates that the peak load point for weekday travel is at Campbell Terrace, with 107 passengers traveling inbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is inbound on the weekday 6:30 a.m. trip at Campbell Terrace, with 13 passengers on board.

Table 2.8 Route 3 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Old Campbell Weekday Wilmington All Day 101 All Day 107 Terrace Peak Load & Person Point Old Eastern & Saturday Wilmington All Day 50 Old All Day 57 & Person Wilmington Campbell Weekday B & Adam 4:00 p.m. 11 6:30 a.m. 13 Maximum Terrace Load Point Deep Creek Campbell Saturday 4:00 p.m. 10 2:30 p.m. 10 & Ford Terrace Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.9 and 2.10 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 3 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 87 percent at all time points, which is 2nd among the 13 weekday routes. There are minor fluctuations throughout the day, with a high in the afternoon and a low in the morning. Early departures occur more often than late departures.

Table 2.9 Route 3 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 11,756 2,554 5,594 2,751 857 Early 1,029 282 529 129 89 Late 736 192 355 159 30 On Time % 87% 84% 86% 91% 88% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-12 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.10) is 85 percent at all time points on Route 3, slightly below weekday on-time performance and 3rd among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is highest in the midday and lowest in the afternoon. As with weekday service on this route, early departures occur slightly more often than late departures.

Table 2.10 Route 3 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Midday Afternoon Schedule On Time 1,544 981 563 Early 154 76 78 Late 129 65 64 On Time % 85% 87% 80% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.11 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 3. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual runtime is used for the inbound segment between Eastern & Old Wilmington and the Transfer Center.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 2.8 minutes less in the midday to 3.9 minutes less in the morning. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 3.2 minutes less in the morning to 4.1 minutes less in the evening.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-13 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.11 Route 3 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Transfer Center – 4.6 6 6.2 6 6.9 6 6.0 6 Cape Fear Plaza OB: Cape Fear Plaza - Deep 6.5 10 6.4 10 6.8 10 7.0 10 Creek Rd/ Cade Hill OB: Deep Creek Rd/ Cade 4.2 5 4.2 5 3.9 5 4.2 5 Hill - Cedar Creek Plaza OB: Cedar Creek Plaza – 10.7 9 10.3 9 9.5 9 9.5 9 Deluxe Inn Outbound Total 26.1 30 27.2 30 27.1 30 26.7 30 IB: Deluxe Inn – 5.7 3 5.9 3 5.8 3 5.7 3 Sloan & Cedar Creek IB: Sloan & Cedar Creek - 3.6 6 3.0 6 2.9 6 2.7 6 Plymouth & Sapona IB: Plymouth & Sapona - 8.8 9 8.6 9 9.2 9 9.1 9 Eastern & Old Wilmington IB: Eastern & Old Wilmington 3.6 7 3.7 7 3.7 7 3.5 7 - Transfer Center Inbound Total 21.8 25 21.3 25 21.5 25 20.9 25 Round Trip Total 47.9 55 48.5 55 48.6 55 47.6 55 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 3 ranks 12th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the outbound direction than in the inbound direction except in the morning. Route 3 ranks 11th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 3 ranks 10th in productivity and financial measures on weekdays. Route 3 ranks 7th in productivity, 6th in subsidy per passenger, and 5th in farebox recovery on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 3. The peak load is 13 on weekdays and 10 on Saturday.

Route 3 is well above the system average in schedule adherence on weekdays (87 percent) and on Saturday (85 percent).

Route 3 is 3rd in average trip length on weekdays and 5th on Saturday. Route 3 ranks 9th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and 7th on Saturday.

The mid-route branching discourages ridership by requiring a much longer trip via the hotel complex in at least one direction along much of the route. This is the only route serving southeastern Fayetteville, so coverage is important. Routing alternatives to provide more direct travel for riders will be explored.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-14 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 4 Downtown – DSS – VA Medical Center

Overview Route 4 (Figure 2.5) serves Downtown, the Department of Social Services office, and the Veterans Administration Medical Center. The dark blue areas in Figure 2.5 represent neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation, including downtown and neighborhoods near Rosehill Road on Route 4. The route travels between Downtown and Country Club Drive. Primary streets of operation include B Street, Grove Street, N. Cool Springs Street, Person Street, Franklin Street, Bow Street, Moore Street, Hillsboro Street, Ramsey Street, Rosehill Road, and Country Club Drive. The route loops past the FAST offices on Grove Street in the outbound direction and has different outbound and inbound paths in Downtown. The route operates in a long one-way loop on its outer portion via Rosehill-Country Club-Ramsey. There are off-street stops at DSS, Hickory Hill Apartments, and the VA Medical Center. Major destinations include the Transfer Center, DSS, the VA Medical Center (also served by Route 5), the Cumberland County Library at Ray & Mason in Downtown, FAST offices, and connection points at the outer end of the line with Routes 5 and 9.

Route 4 does well in terms of ridership on weekdays and but has fewer Saturday riders than any other route. Route 4 has the biggest difference between weekday and Saturday ridership in the system, primarily because DSS, its major destination is not open on Saturday.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.12 shows headways for Route 4 by day of the week. Route 4 is one of only three routes that operate every 30 minutes on weekdays. Route 4 operates with two buses on weekdays. Table 2.12 also indicates the span of service on the route.

Table 2.12 Route 4 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 30 6:00 a.m. – 7:05 p.m. Saturday 60 9:30 a.m. – 5:25 p.m.

Figure 2.6 summarizes Route 4 weekday data.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-15 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.5 Route 4

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-16 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.6 Route 4 Summary Data

250 Route 4 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

200

150

100

Ons Offs On Board 50

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … 2800 2800 2300 2300 … FAST … OLD OLD CCHD … / BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK F/S VIEW VIEW GROVE HILLS S COOL S COOL ADAMS GROVE RD / RD / B STF/S B ST N/S F/S ST / SPRING RAY AVE SOCIAL BOW ST WILMING… BANK OF OF BANK HICKORY AMERICA RD N/S CENTER PERSON / HICKORY HICKORY LIBRARY ST. ANN ANN S ST. ST F/S COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY ROSEHILL ROSEHILL ROSEHILL ROSEHILL ROSEHILL ST N/S ST N/S SERVICES HILLS TOP HILLS END CLUB DR DR CLUB CLUB DR DR CLUB MOORE ST MOORE TRANSFER MAIDEN LN MOORE ST ST F/S MLK HILLSBORO HILLSBORO HILLSBORO HILLSBORO HILLSBORO HILLSBORO HILLSBORO RAMSEY ST N/S FINK ST 250 Route 4 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

200

150

100

Ons Offs On Board 50

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … OLD OLD CCHD S ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY ST N/S RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY SOCIAL WILMING… O ST / O ST / O ST / HOUSE VETERAN LIBRARY RAY AVE / COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY COUNTRY HILLSBOR HILLSBOR HILLSBOR HILLSBOR HILLSBOR SERVICES O ST F/S O ST F/S PENNMA… / RAY AVE RAY AVE / CLUB DR DR CLUB CLUB DR DR CLUB / FRINK ST / FRINK CENTER PERSON PERSON HILLSBO… FRANKLI… COURT CC PERSON PERSON 400 BLOCK BLOCK 400 500 BLOCK BLOCK 500 ST MOORE ST MOORE BLOCK 200 300 BLOCK BLOCK 300 TRANSFER ROWAN ST ROWAN MAIDEN LN

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30 0246810 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-17 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.13 presents operating data for Route 4. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 4 ranks 4th in boardings and 8th in boardings per revenue hour. This difference in weekday rankings is accounted for by the more frequent service on Route 4. On Saturday, Route 4 ranks last in boardings and 11th in boardings per revenue hour. DSS, as noted earlier, is not open on Saturday. Note that revenue hours in Table 2.5 are scheduled revenue hours.

Route 4 ranks 12th on weekdays and 10th on Saturday in average trip length. This route is among the shortest routes in the FAST network. Route 4 ranks 11th on weekdays and 12th on Saturday in seat utilization.

Table 2.13 Route 4 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 561 25.6 21.9 18.9% 3.52 Saturday 122 7.9 15.4 16.2% 4.17 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.14 presents financial data for Route 4. Route 4 ranks 10th in subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 routes on weekdays. Route 4 ranks 6th in subsidy per boarding and 5th in farebox recovery ratio among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.14 Route 4 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 561 $267 $1,588 $2.83 $2.36 16.8% Saturday 122 $58 $491 $4.03 $3.56 11.8% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.7 and 2.8 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 228 boardings, 177 alightings • Social Services IB 39 boardings, 5 alightings • VA Medical Center 25 boardings, 23 alightings • Social Services OB 14 boardings, 40 alightings

The highest passenger load on Route 4 is 13, outbound at Old Wilmington & Person on the 12:30 pm trip. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 4.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-18 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.7 Route 4 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-19 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.8 Route 4 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-20 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.15 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Maiden Lane Library are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.15 indicate a pronounced outbound ridership flow all day. The outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Maiden Lane Library has the greatest passenger activity in each time period, due to the number of boardings at the Transfer Center.

Table 2.15 Route 4 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Transfer Center – 265 56.0 47 43.4 142 65.0 65 59.4 11 29.9 Maiden Lane Library OB: Maiden Lane Library - 41 21.7 6 14.2 25 28.1 9 20.7 1 9.0 Social Services OB: Social Services – 40 9.5 10 9.8 23 11.8 7 7.2 1 1.9 Hickory Hill OB: Hickory Hill - Country 10 7.0 3 9.9 5 7.3 2 4.8 0 2.6 Club & Gables Outbound Total 356 29.1 66 23.4 194 34.3 83 29.1 13 14.4 IB: Country Club & Gables – 33 17.6 10 21.9 14 16.2 8 18.8 1 9.3 VA Medical Center IB: VA Medical Center – 56 23.8 16 29.6 29 26.3 11 20.3 1 2.8 Ramsey & Hillsboro IB: Ramsey & Hillsboro – 7 7.9 3 13.9 3 7.3 1 5.7 0 0.0 Social Services IB: Social Services – 84 22.2 19 21.8 52 29.8 13 14.6 0 0.3 Maiden Lane Library IB: Maiden Lane Library – 24 5.0 1 1.0 15 7.0 7 6.2 0 1.3 Transfer Center Inbound Total 204 15.3 49 15.4 36 17.9 40 12.6 2 3.5 Weekday Total 561 21.9 115 19.2 308 25.6 122 20.4 15 9.8 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is highest outbound throughout the day and is highest in all time periods in the segment between the Transfer Center and Maiden Lane Library. Overall productivity is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between the Transfer Center and Maiden Lane Library in the midday (65.0 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Ramsey & Hillsboro and Social Services in the evening (0.0). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the midday (34.3) and lowest inbound in the evening (3.5).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is outbound between the Transfer Center and Maiden Lane Library in the afternoon (54.2 boardings per revenue hour).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-21 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.16 shows the peak load points on Route 4 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.16 indicates that the peak load point for weekday travel is at B & Adams, with 233 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the weekday 12:30 p.m. trip at Old Wilmington & Person and inbound on the weekday 8:26 a.m. trip at Moore & Ray, with 17 passengers on board.

Table 2.16 Route 4 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Moore & Weekday B & Adams All Day 233 All Day 205 Peak Load Frink Point Transfer 200 block Saturday All Day 59 All Day 42 Center Franklin Old Moore & Weekday Wilmington 12:30 pm 17 8:26 am 17 Maximum Ray & Person Load Point Transfer 500 block Saturday 3:30 pm 11 11:56 am 9 Center Hillsboro Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.17 and 2.18 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 4 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 76 percent at all time points, which is 10th among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence declines throughout the day, with a high in the morning and a low in the afternoong. Late departures are an issue in the midday and afternoon time periods.

Table 2.17 Route 4 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 21,091 4,387 10,624 4,589 1,491 Early 1,174 404 398 160 212 Late 5,531 477 3,073 1,876 105 On Time % 76% 83% 75% 69% 82% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-22 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.18) at all time points on Route 4 is 85 percent, slightly well above weekday on-time performance and 1st among the 12 Saturday routes. Low ridership on Saturday is a contributing factor to high on-time performance. Saturday schedule adherence is higher in the afternoon. Late departures occur slightly more often than early departures.

Table 2.18 Route 4 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Midday Afternoon Schedule On Time 1,153 796 357 Early 83 63 20 Late 116 91 25 On Time % 85% 84% 89% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.19 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 4. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual runtime is used on the inbound segment between Maiden Lane Library and the Transfer Center.

Actual running time is close to scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 0.2 minutes greater in the evening to 0.9 minutes greater in the morning. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 2.7 minutes less in the morning to 7.7 minutes less in the evening.

When DSS is closed (primarily in the morning and evening hours), running time is measured for the combined segment in italics in Table 2.19.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-23 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.19 Route 4 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Transfer Center – 10.1 10 9.2 10 9.3 10 10.5 10 Maiden Lane Library OB: Maiden Lane Library - 6.8 4 6.7 4 6.2 4 -- -- Social Services OB: Social Services – 7.5 9 7.5 9 7.7 9 -- -- Hickory Hill OB: Maiden Lane Library – 13.2 13 -- -- 12.8 13 12.6 13 Hickory Hill OB: Hickory Hill - Country 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.4 3 3.1 3 Club & Gables Outbound Total 26.9 26 26.7 26 26.4 26 26.2 26 IB: Country Club & Gables – 5.5 4 5.1 4 5.3 4 4.7 4 VA Medical Center IB: VA Medical Center – 4.1 5 3.7 5 3.9 5 3.5 5 Ramsey & Hillsboro IB: Ramsey & Hillsboro – 2.7 2 3.0 2 2.8 2 -- -- Social Services IB: Social Services – 8.7 8 7.8 8 7.5 8 -- -- Maiden Lane Library IB: Ramsey & Hillsboro – 8 10 -- -- 7.8 10 7.8 10 Maiden Land Library IB: Maiden Lane Library – 5.4 10 5.5 10 5.2 10 5.2 10 Transfer Center Inbound Total 26.3 29 25.1 29 24.8 29 21.3 19 Round Trip Total 53.2 55 51.7 55 51.2 55 47.5 55 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Overall Assessment Route 4 ranks 4th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the outbound direction than in the inbound direction except in the morning. Route 4 ranks last in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes. DSS, a major trip generator on this route, is not open on Saturday.

Route 4 ranks 8th in productivity and subsidy per passenger and 10th in farebox recovery ratio on weekdays. Route 4 ranks 11th in productivity and subsidy per passenger and last in farebox recovery on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 4. The peak load is 17 on weekdays and 11 on Saturday.

Route 4 matches the system average in schedule adherence on weekdays (76 percent) and leads all routes in schedule adherence on Saturday (85 percent).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-24 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 4 is among the shortest routes in the FAST network and thus is 12th in average trip length on weekdays and 10th on Saturday. Route 4 ranks 11th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and Saturday.

DSS is an important driver of ridership on this route. The 30-minute weekday headway ensures frequent service to DSS and the VA Medical Center. There is no strong northern anchor for Route 4.

Route 5 Ramsey Street

Overview Route 5 (Figure 2.9) operates in the northeastern section of Fayetteville and serves Downtown, the Veterans Administration Medical Center, Wal-Mart on Ramsey Street, and Methodist University. The dark blue areas in Figure 2.9 represent neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation, including downtown and northwest of Ramsey & Langdon on Route 5. Route 5 also serves the Division of Social Services offices, but the stop is at the rear of the complex and does not generate much ridership. The route travels between Downtown and Methodist University. The primary street of operation is Ramsey Street, except to access the Transfer Center in Downtown and to serve a residential neighborhood east of Ramsey Street via North Street in the outbound direction. The route enters the VA Medical Center in both directions. Major destinations include the Transfer Center, Wal-Mart, and the VA Medical Center (also served by Route 4).

Route 5 is in the middle of the pack in terms of ridership on weekdays but is in the upper third of routes on Saturday. Wal-Mart is the major Saturday destination. Productivity is good on all days.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.20 shows headways for Route 5 by day of the week. Route 5 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.10 summarizes Route 5 weekday data.

Table 2.20 Route 5 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 7:00 a.m. – 8:55 p.m. Saturday 60 8:00 a.m. – 8:55 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-25 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.9 Route 5

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-26 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.10 Route 5 Summary Data

160 Route 5 Outbound - Avg. Wkday 140

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 4200 4200 3600 3600 1100 1100 OLD OLD … BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK T ST / ST ST / ST ST / ST ST / ST NORTH F/S DR / DR ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S ST F/S RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY ST N/S RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY STREET STREET WILMING… BOW ST/ CENTER Y PLACE WALL ST / ST WALL PERSON WALL ST / ST WALL RAMSEY COLONIAL NORTH ST NORTH ST HOSPITAL METHODIS PERSON 400 BLOCK BLOCK 400 BLUEBERR VETERANS VETERANS TRANSFER GORHAM… GREEN ST / 160 Route 5 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

140

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 4000 4000 3600 OLD OLD … DS BLOCK BLOCK T ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST / ANN ST ANN ST F/S ST F/S ST / DSS ST N/S ST N/S ST N/S ST N/S ST N/S RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY RAMSEY WILMING… BOW ST / BOW WALMART MCDONAL HOSPITAL CENTER CENTER PERSON PERSON METHODIS 300 BLOCK 400 BLOCK TRANSFER VETERANS VETERANS

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-27 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.21 presents operating data for Route 5. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 5 ranks 7th in boardings and 4th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 5 ranks 4th in boardings and 2nd in boardings per revenue hour. Route 5 does not operate as late as many other routes, and with fewer revenue hours its productivity ranks higher than ridership.

Route 5 ranks 8th on weekdays and 11th on Saturday in average trip length. Route 5 ranks 4th on weekdays and 3rd on Saturday in seat utilization.

Table 2.21 Route 5 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 419 13.9 30.1 28.5% 4.20 Saturday 367 12.9 28.4 25.6% 4.00 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.22 presents financial data for Route 5. Route 5 ranks 3rd in subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 routes on weekdays. Route 5 ranks 2nd in both measures among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.22 Route 5 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 419 $248 $864 $2.06 $1.47 28.8% Saturday 367 $217 $802 $2.19 $1.59 27.1% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.11 and 2.12 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 120 boardings, 94 alightings • Wal-Mart IB 85 boardings, 74 alightings

The VA Medical Center has 22 boardings and 15 alightings in both directions combined on Route 5. The highest passenger load on Route 5 is 18 on Saturday and 16 on weekdays. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 5.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-28 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.11 Route 5 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-29 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.12 Route 5 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-30 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.23 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Ramsey & Wall are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.23 indicate a moderate outbound ridership flow all day except in the evening. The outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Ramsey & Wall has the greatest passenger activity in each time period, due to the number of boardings at the Transfer Center, and the inbound segment between Wal-Mart and McDonalds has the second-most passenger activity. Ridership and productivity are greatest in the midday.

Table 2.23 Route 5 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Transfer Center – 149 64.9 19 58.2 72 73.1 36 72.7 22 45.4 Ramsey & Wall OB: Ramsey & Wall - 5 9.1 1 16.8 1 6.6 1 10.7 1 7.5 Blueberry Place OB: Blueberry Place - 29 16.3 3 13.6 14 18.6 8 21.2 3 8.7 Veterans Hospital OB: Veterans Hospital - 57 18.6 7 15.0 32 24.4 14 21.3 4 6.7 Methodist Univ. Outbound Total 239 31.5 30 27.8 119 36.4 59 36.0 31 19.4 IB: Methodist University – 9 17.0 1 17.6 3 13.9 2 17.1 2 22.6 Wal-Mart IB: Wal-Mart – McDonalds 89 58.3 12 54.2 38 58.4 21 64.8 18 54.4 IB: McDonalds – 37 29.4 4 22.9 20 36.0 9 31.4 5 18.6 Veterans Hospital IB: Veterans Hospital – 24 23.4 5 30.9 13 29.7 4 17.2 3 12.0 Ramsey Street/DSS IB: Ramsey Street/DSS – 21 10.3 3 9.7 12 13.4 4 9.9 2 4.5 Transfer Center Inbound Total 180 28.4 25 27.1 86 31.4 40 29.1 30 22.6 Weekday Total 419 30.1 55 27.5 205 34.1 99 32.9 61 20.8 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is highest outbound throughout the day except in the evening and is highest in most time periods in the segment between the Transfer Center and Ramsey & Wall. In the evening, productivity is highest in the segment between Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Overall productivity is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between the Transfer Center and Ramsey & Wall in the midday (73.1 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Ramsey Street/DSS & the Transfer Center in the evening (4.5). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the midday (36.4) and lowest outbound in the evening (19.4).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest inbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is inbound between Wal-Mart and McDonalds in the afternoon (80.5 boardings per revenue hour).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-31 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.24 shows the peak load points on Route 5 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.24 indicates that the peak load point for weekday travel is at the VA Medical Center, with 143 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the Saturday 3:00 p.m. trip at Ramsey & Courtney (the stop before the VA Medical Center), with 18 passengers on board. Route 5 is one of three routes with a higher peak load on Saturday.

Table 2.24 Route 5 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board VA Medical VA Medical Weekday All Day 143 All Day 140 Peak Load Center Center Point Ramsey & VA Medical Saturday All Day 124 All Day 109 Sherman Center VA Medical VA Medical Weekday 3:00 pm 16 2:30 pm 15 Maximum Center Center Load Point Ramsey & Ramsey & Saturday 2:00 pm 18 2:30 pm 14 Courtney Treetop Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.25 and 2.26 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 5 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 77 percent at all time points, which is 7th among the 13 weekday routes and slightly higher than the system average of 76 percent. Schedule adherence declines throughout the day until the evening, with a high in the morning and a low in the afternoon. Early departures are an issue in the evening; late departures are important in the midday and afternoon.

Table 2.25 Route 5 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 11,372 1,834 5,020 2,199 2,319 Early 1,447 153 440 208 646 Late 1,967 141 910 776 140 On Time % 77% 86% 79% 69% 75% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-32 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.18) at all time points on Route 5 is 78 percent, slightly above weekday on-time performance and 8th among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. Early departures occur twice as often than late departures.

Table 2.26 Route 5 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 2,612 182 1,276 604 550 Early 513 52 189 94 178 Late 233 14 102 73 44 On Time % 78% 73% 81% 78% 71% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.27 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 5. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the inbound segments between Methodist University and Wal-Mart and between Ramsey Street/DSS and the Transfer Center

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 2.8 minutes less in the morning to 4.4 minutes less in the evening. Actual running time is greater than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times except evening. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 0.4 minutes less in the evening to 2.4 minutes greater in the afternoon.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-33 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.27 Route 5 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Transfer Center – 8.3 9 7.8 9 7.5 9 7.7 9 Ramsey & Wall OB: Ramsey & Wall - 2.0 2 1.7 2 1.6 2 1.8 2 Blueberry Place OB: Blueberry Place - 5.7 7 5.9 7 6.1 7 5.4 7 Veterans Hospital OB: Veterans Hospital - 11.3 12 10.8 12 10.8 12 10.7 12 Methodist Univ. Outbound Total 27.2 30 26.2 30 26.1 30 25.6 30 IB: Methodist University – 3.3 2 2.5 2 3.5 2 2.9 2 Wal-Mart IB: Wal-Mart – McDonalds 4.2 6 4.7 6 5.2 6 4.6 6 IB: McDonalds – 6.1 5 6.6 5 6.3 5 5.0 5 Veterans Hospital IB: Veterans Hospital – 4.5 4 4.4 4 4.4 4 4.1 4 Ramsey Street/DSS IB: Ramsey Street/DSS – 8.8 8 8.6 8 8.0 8 7.5 8 Transfer Center Inbound Total 27.0 25 26.9 25 27.4 25 24.2 25 Round Trip Total 54.2 55 53.1 55 53.5 55 49.8 55 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 5 ranks 7th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the outbound direction than in the inbound direction. Route 5 ranks 4th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 5 ranks 4th in productivity and 3rd in both subsidy per passenger and farebox recovery ratio on weekdays. Route 5 ranks 2nd in all three measures on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 5. The peak load is 18 on Saturday and 16 on weekdays.

Route 5 is at or slightly above the system average in schedule adherence on weekdays (77 percent) and Saturday (78 percent).

Route 5 is 8th in average trip length on weekdays and 11th on Saturday. Route 5 ranks 5th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and 3rd on Saturday.

Wal-Mart is a major destination on Route 5, and accounts for its strong performance on Saturday. Weekday ridership is in the middle of all FAST routes on weekdays, but is high on Saturday. Productivity and financial performance are very strong on all days. The route operates fewer revenue hours than most other FAST routes, accounting for its higher rank in terms of productivity as opposed to ridership. On-time performance is a concern.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-34 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 6 University Estates – Cross Creek

Overview Route 6 (Figure 2.13) connects University Estates with Cross Creek Mall. Route 6 also serves Wal-Mart on Skibo Road. The dark and light blue areas in Figure 2.13 represent neighborhoods with a very high and high transit orientation, including north and west of Skibo Road and Bragg Boulevard on Route 6. Primary streets of operation include Shaw Road, Bragg Boulevard, and Skibo Road. Major destinations include University Estates, Wal-Mart, Cross Creek Mall, Lewis Heights Apartments near Bragg & Johnson, and Shaw Mill & Murchison.

Route 6 is third in ridership on weekdays and Saturday. Route 6 is the most productive route in the FAST network.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.28 shows headways for Route 6 by day of the week. Route 6 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.14 summarizes Route 6 weekday data.

Table 2.28 Route 6 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 5:30 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. Saturday 60 8:30 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-35 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.13 Route 6

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-36 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.14 Route 6 Summary Data

250 Route 6 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

200

150

100

Ons Offs On Board 50

0 ST DR MALL N DR F/S DR RD CREEK CROSS RD / / RD EOL BRAGG BLVD BLVD F/S GULF GULF F/S BLVD F/S BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG SHAW RD SHAW RD BRAGG FOXTROT N RD F/S N RD JOHNSON HIBISCUS WALMART SHAW RD BLVD F/S SWAIN ST BLVD N/S SHAW RD / SHAW RD RD / SHAW SKIBO RD / OLD SHAW MURCHISO MURCHISO SHAW MILL ESTATES - OLD SHAW ZOLLIE JON FLEISHMAN BLVD RAMP BLVD 1400 BLOCK 4400 BLOCK RD / BRAGG UNIVERSITY 200 Route 6 Inbound - Avg. Wkday 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 Ons Offs On Board 40 20 0 … … F/S N/S N/S N/S RD DR / DR / DR BLVD / / BLVD BRAGG N RD BRAGG MIKE ST BLVD / ND DR ND RD N/S CREEK CROSS BLVD N/S FISKE D BRAGG SHAW RD SHAW RD SHAW RD SHAW RD SHAW RD N DR F/S N DR F/S SPELLMA MEHARRY MEHARRY WALMART MEHARR… SWAIN ST GREGOR… HOLLAND FOXTROT LIVINGST… SHAW RD / SPELLMA… OLD SHAW 200 BLOCK LIVINGSTO LIVINGSTO UNIVERSIT SHAW RD / SHAW RD / MURCHISO MALL - EOL SHAW MILL Y ESTATESY CLOVER ST EDMESTON MURCHISO SUMMERWI 5400 BLOCK

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-37 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.29 presents operating data for Route 6. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 6 ranks 3rd in boardings and 1st in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 6 also ranks 3rd in boardings and 1st in boardings per revenue hour. Factors contributing to the high productivity of Route 6 include its short length (the shortest route except for Route 30), strong anchors at both ends of the route, and hourly operation. Routes 12 and 14 have higher ridership than Route 6 but operate every 30 minutes and so have lower productivity.

Route 6 ranks 11th on weekdays and last on Saturday in average trip length due to its relatively short length. Route 6 ranks 2nd on all days (after Route 14) in seat utilization.

Table 2.29 Route 6 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 621 16.5 37.6 34.7% 3.62 Saturday 512 13.5 37.9 36.1% 3.74 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.30 presents financial data for Route 6. Route 6 ranks 1st in subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes and 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.30 Route 6 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 621 $314 $1,024 $1.65 $1.15 30.6% Saturday 512 $259 $838 $1.64 $1.13 30.8% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.15 and 2.16 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Cross Creek Mall 195 boardings, 189 alightings • University Estates 135 boardings, 151 alightings • Wal-Mart IB 48 boardings, 49 alightings • Wal-Mart OB 41 boardings, 49 alightings • Bragg & Mike IB 30 boardings, 23 alightings • Shaw Mill & Murchison IB 25 boardings, 1 alighting • Bragg & Johnson OB 23 boardings, 29 alightings

The highest passenger load on Route 6 is 24 on Saturday and 21 on weekdays. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 6. Route 6 is one of three routes with a higher peak load on Saturday.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-38 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.15 Route 6 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-39 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.16 Route 6 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-40 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.31 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Wal-Mart are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.31 indicate a slight outbound ridership flow all day. The outbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Wal-Mart has the greatest passenger activity in each time period, due to the number of boardings at Cross Creek Mall. The inbound segment between University Estates and Bragg & Shaw has the second- most passenger activity due to the number of boardings at University Estates.

Table 2.31 Route 6 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Cross Creek Mall – 195 74.7 25 41.3 75 81.2 57 122.8 38 62.4 Wal-Mart OB: Wal-Mart – 91 27.9 21 27.1 34 29.0 19 32.1 18 23.9 Old Shaw & Shaw OB: Old Shaw & Shaw – 15 11.2 5 17.1 5 11.8 2 9.8 2 5.5 Shaw & Hibiscus OB: Shaw & Hibiscus – 29 17.7 9 24.0 13 22.7 4 15.3 2 5.9 University Estates Outbound Total 330 37.5 61 29.2 127 40.8 82 52.6 61 29.5 IB: University Estates – 190 77.3 29 62.8 78 84.5 45 97.9 38 61.9 Bragg & Shaw IB: Bragg & Shaw – Wal-Mart 52 17.0 13 22.0 23 20.2 9 15.9 7 9.3 IB: Wal-Mart – 48 22.1 1 2.7 21 25.4 16 39.2 10 18.9 Cross Creek Mall Inbound Total 290 37.7 43 29.7 122 42.2 70 48.7 55 28.8 Weekday Total 621 37.6 104 29.4 249 41.5 152 50.7 116 29.2 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is highest inbound in the morning and midday periods and outbound in the afternoon and evening periods. Segment productivity is highest earlier in the day on the inbound segment between University Estates and Bragg & Shaw and later in the day on the outbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Wal-Mart. Overall productivity is highest in the afternoon and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between Cross Creek Mall and Wal-Mart in the afternoon (122.8 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Wal-Mart and Cross Creek Mall in the morning (2.7). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the afternoon (52.6) and lowest outbound in the evening (28.8).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest inbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is outbound between Cross Creek Mall and Wal-Mart in the afternoon (106.2 boardings per revenue hour).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-41 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.32 shows the peak load points on Route 6 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.32 indicates that the peak load point for weekday travel is at Cross Creek Mall, with 195 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the Saturday 4:30 p.m. trip at Cross Creek Mall, with 24 passengers on board. Route 6 is unusual in that its peak load point occurs on Saturday. The inbound peak and maximum load points are at the 200 block of Swain Street, the stop prior to Wal-Mart.

Table 2.32 Route 6 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Cross 200 block Weekday All Day 195 All Day 190 Peak Load Creek Mall Swain St Point Cross 200 block Saturday All Day 175 All Day 159 Creek Mall Swain St Cross 200 block Weekday 3:30 pm 21 7:00 am 17 Maximum Creek Mall Swain St Load Point Cross 200 block Saturday 4:30 pm 24 10:00 am 19 Creek Mall Swain St Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.33 and 2.34 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 6 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 87 percent at all time points, which is 1st among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence is highest in the morning then declines throughout the day until evening. Early departures are notable in the morning and evening, while late departures are important in the midday and afternoon.

Table 2.33 Route 6 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 16,674 3,825 6,272 2,697 3,880 Early 1,041 226 265 200 350 Late 1,443 153 483 603 204 On Time % 87% 91% 89% 77% 88% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-42 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.35) at all time points on Route 6 is 8068 percent, below weekday on-time performance and 5th among the 12 Saturday routes. Increased congestion at Cross Creek Mall is the most likely explanation for lower on-time performance on Saturday on this route. Saturday schedule adherence is relatively constant throughout the day. Late departures outnumber early departures in the midday and afternoon.

Table 2.34 Route 6 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 2,520 118 1,153 551 698 Early 226 14 91 36 85 Late 392 9 195 108 80 On Time % 80% 84% 80% 79% 81% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.35 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 6. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segment between Shaw & Hibiscus and University Estates and for the inbound segments between Wal-Mart and Cross Creek Mall.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 2.4 minutes less in the midday to 3.5 minutes less in the morning and evening. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times except afternoon. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 1.4 minutes less in the evening to 1.0 minutes greater in the afternoon.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-43 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.35 Route 6 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Cross Creek Mall – 6.5 8 8.4 8 8.4 8 8.3 8 Wal-Mart OB: Wal-Mart – 10.1 10 8.9 10 8.2 10 8.8 10 Old Shaw & Shaw OB: Old Shaw & Shaw – 3.2 4 3.2 4 3.1 4 2.9 4 Shaw & Hibiscus OB: Shaw & Hibiscus – 3.7 5 4.0 5 4.2 5 3.5 5 University Estates Outbound Total 23.5 27 24.6 27 23.8 27 23.5 27 IB: University Estates – 11.3 8 10.7 8 11.0 8 10.4 8 Bragg & Shaw IB: Bragg & Shaw – Wal-Mart 7.3 10 8.3 10 8.4 10 7.6 10 IB: Wal-Mart – 5.0 7 5.8 7 6.6 7 5.9 7 Cross Creek Mall Inbound Total 23.6 25 24.8 25 26.0 25 23.9 25 Round Trip Total 47.0 52 49.4 52 49.8 52 47.4 52 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 6 ranks 3rd in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is slightly higher in the outbound direction than in the inbound direction. Route 6 also ranks 3rd in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 6 ranks 1st in productivity, subsidy per passenger, and farebox recovery ratio on weekdays and Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 6. The peak load is 24 on Saturday and 21 on weekdays.

Route 6 leads all routes in schedule adherence on weekdays (87 percent) and ranks 5th on Saturday (80 percent).

Route 6 is 11th in average trip length on weekdays and 12th on Saturday. Route 6 ranks 2nd in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and Saturday.

Route 6 is among the strongest routes in the FAST network. Major trip generators anchor either end of this relatively short route, and Wal-Mart is a major mid-route destination on Route 6. Cross Creek Mall and Wal-Mart explain the route’s strong performance on Saturday. Route 6 ranks first in productivity and financial performance on all days.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-44 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 7 Downtown – Cape Fear Valley Health System via Robeson/Raeford

Overview Route 7 (Figure 2.17) is one of two routes operating between Downtown and the Cape Fear Valley Health System. The dark blue areas in Figure 2.17 represent neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation, including immediately west and south of downtown on Route 7. Primary streets of operation include Russell Street, McGilvery Street, Turnpike Avenue, Commerce Street, Weiss Avenue, Robeson Street, and Raeford Road. Route 7 has a one-way loop at its outer end via Ireland Drive-David Street-Roxie Avenue-Cape Center Drive-Walter Reed Road- Melrose Road-Owen Drive. Major destinations include the Cape Fear Valley Health System, the Transfer Center, and the Raeford at Ireland Shopping Center.

Route 7 is in the lower half of ridership among FAST routes. Productivity is higher than the system average on weekdays.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.36 shows headways for Route 7 by day of the week. Route 7 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.18 summarizes Route 7 weekday data.

Table 2.36 Route 7 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 6:00 a.m. – 6:57 p.m. Saturday 60 8:00 a.m. – 8:57 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-45 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.17 Route 7

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-46 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.18 Route 7 Summary Data

160 Route 7 Outbound - Avg. Wkday 140

120

100

80

60 Ons Offs On Board 40

20

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … D FAMILY FAMILY RD / RD / RD / DOLLAR F/S WALTER REED / ST / ST F/S RD F/S ST N/S ST N/S ST N/S ST AT CENTER ST AT RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD ST F/S BRANSON ROBESON ROBESON DAVID ST DAVID ST DAVID 900 BLOCK 800 BLOCK 700 BLOCK TRANSFER 800 BLOCK COMMER… COMMER… E RUSSELL WEISS AVE WEISS AVE TALLYWOO TURNPIKE W RUSSELLW RUSSELLW 1000 BLOCK 1100 BLOCK 2300 BLOCK 4200 BLOCK 4000 BLOCK 3300 BLOCK RAEFORD ROBESON COMMERCE COMMERCE TURNPIKE TURNPIKE N/S DAVID IRELAND DR IRELAND DR 140 Route 7 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … / D F/S N/S RD / RD / RD / RD / WALTER REED / EXT. / ST / ST / ST / ST / ST F/S ST N/S N/S ST ST N/S RD N/S RD N/S RD N/S OWEN DR OWEN DR OWEN DR MELROSE RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD REAFORD BRANSON ST N/S ROBESON ROBESON ST N/S TURNPIKE TURNPIKE TURNPIKE TURNPIKE ST N/S N/S ST HUNTER 700 BLOCK OWEN DR / OWEN DR / TRANSFER 800 BLOCK COMMER… WEISS AVE WEISS AVE TALLYWOO CENTER -… ROBESO… TURNPIK… RAEFORD W RUSSELL W RUSSELL W RUSSELL W RUSSELL 2300 BLOCK 1100 BLOCK MCGILVARY COMMERCE COMMERCE COMMERCE COMMERCE

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-47 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.37 presents operating data for Route 7. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 7 ranks 9th in boardings and 6th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 7 ranks 10th in boardings and 6th in boardings per revenue hour.

Route 7 ranks 10th on weekdays and 9th on Saturday in average trip length. This route is among the shortest routes in the FAST network. Route 7 ranks 5th on weekdays and 10th on Saturday in seat utilization.

Table 2.37 Route 7 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 371 12.9 28.8 27.9% 3.98 Saturday 201 11.0 18.4 18.9% 4.21 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.38 presents financial data for Route 7. Route 7 ranks 5th in subsidy per boarding and 4th in farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 7 ranks 7th in both measures among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.38 Route 7 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 371 $230 $801 $2.16 $1.54 28.7% Saturday 201 $125 $680 $3.38 $2.76 18.3% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger Figures 2.19 and 2.20 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 132 boardings, 115 alightings • Melrose & Beaumont IB 38 boardings, 42 alightings

The highest passenger load on Route 7 is 14 on weekdays and 12 on Saturday. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 7.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-48 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.19 Route 7 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-49 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.20 Route 7 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-50 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.39 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Commerce & Weiss are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.39 indicate an outbound ridership flow all day. The outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Commerce & Weiss has the greatest passenger activity in each time period, due to the number of boardings at the Transfer Center.

Table 2.39 Route 7 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Transfer Center - 165 68.5 25 44.6 92 83.2 39 69.6 9 54.6 Commerce & Weiss OB: Commerce & Weiss - 11 6.6 2 6.3 6 7.4 3 7.2 0 1.4 Executive & Raeford OB: Executive & Raeford - 16 34.2 3 24.3 8 35.3 4 39.1 2 47.4 Tallywood Shopping Center OB: Tallywood Shopping 25 20.8 5 18.2 13 24.2 6 22.0 0 5.7 Center - Ireland Dr OB: Ireland Dr - Walter Reed 16 21.8 5 30.0 7 20.5 3 19.5 1 12.6 & Cape Center Outbound Total 233 36.2 40 26.7 126 42.1 55 36.8 12 26.5 IB: Walter Reed & Cape 50 41.7 8 27.2 28 51.1 13 47.1 1 13.9 Center – Owen Ext. & Owen IB: Owen Ext. & Owen – 4 6.2 1 8.1 1 3.4 1 8.6 1 11.6 Tallywood Shopping Center IB: Tallywood Shopping 12 17.0 3 15.6 6 18.7 3 18.7 0 6.3 Center – Raeford & Forsythe IB: Raeford & Forsythe – 22 15.0 3 10.0 12 17.8 5 16.3 1 10.0 Weiss & Commerce IB: Weiss & Commerce – 49 20.5 13 22.7 26 23.5 10 18.0 1 4.4 Transfer Center Inbound Total 138 21.4 27 18.3 74 24.6 33 22.0 4 8.4 Weekday Total 371 28.8 67 22.5 200 33.3 88 29.4 16 17.5 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is highest outbound in all time periods. Segment productivity is highest all day on the outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Commerce & Weiss. Overall productivity is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between the Transfer Center and Commerce & Weiss in the midday (83.2 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is outbound between Commerce & Weiss and Executive & Raeford in the evening (1.4). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the midday (42.1) and lowest inbound in the evening (17.5).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is outbound between the Transfer Center and Commerce & Weiss in the afternoon (45.9 boardings per revenue hour).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-51 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.40 shows the peak load points on Route 7 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.40 indicates that the peak load point for weekday travel is at Russell & Old Court House, with 139 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the weekday 3:00 p.m. trip at Branson & Bradford, with 14 passengers on board.

Table 2.40 Route 7 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Russell & Russell & Weekday Old Court All Day 139 All Day 126 Peak Load Robeson House Point 4200 block Russell & Saturday All Day 72 All Day 73 David St Robeson Branson & Russell & Weekday 3:00 pm 14 2:30 pm 13 Bradford Robeson Russell & Maximum Tallywood Robeson 12:30 pm Load Point Saturday Shopping 2:00 pm 11 Walter 12 Center Reed & 3:30 pm Cape Ctr Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.41 and 2.42 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 7 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 77 percent at all time points, 6th among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence is highest in the evening and lowest in the afternoon. Early departures occur more often than late departures except in the afternoon.

Table 2.41 Route 7 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 16,230 3,707 7,702 3,531 1,290 Early 2,607 832 1,126 382 267 Late 2,247 250 968 964 65 On Time % 77% 77% 79% 72% 80% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-52 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.42) at all time points on Route 7 is 83 percent, higher than weekday on-time performance and 4th among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is highest in the morning and midday. Early departures occur over twice as often as late departures.

Table 2.42 Route 7 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 2,992 281 1,682 761 268 Early 429 33 195 153 48 Late 167 5 82 75 5 On Time % 83% 88% 86% 77% 83% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.43 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 7. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the inbound segment between Weiss & Commerce and the Transfer Center.

Actual running time is greater than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times except morning; the difference ranges from 0.4 minutes less in the morning to 2.6 minutes greater in the afternoon. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 1.7 minutes less in the midday to 3.4 minutes less in the evening.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-53 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.43 Route 7 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Transfer Center - 8.9 10 10.0 10 10.0 10 10.0 10 Commerce & Weiss OB: Commerce & Weiss - 5.2 7 5.7 7 6.1 7 5.6 7 Executive & Raeford OB: Executive & Raeford - 1.4 2 1.9 2 1.9 2 1.8 2 Tallywood Shopping Center OB: Tallywood Shopping 5.6 5 6.3 5 6.8 5 6.0 5 Center - Ireland Dr OB: Ireland Dr - Walter Reed 5.3 3 5.0 3 4.8 3 4.7 3 & Cape Center Outbound Total 26.6 27 28.8 27 29.6 27 28.1 27 IB: Walter Reed & Cape 5.8 5 5.3 5 4.9 5 4.6 5 Center – Owen Ext. & Owen IB: Owen Ext. & Owen – 1.7 3 1.7 3 1.8 3 2.4 3 Tallywood Shopping Center IB: Tallywood Shopping 2.1 3 2.6 3 2.6 3 2.2 3 Center – Raeford & Forsythe IB: Raeford & Forsythe – 5.3 6 5.0 6 5.0 6 4.7 6 Weiss & Commerce IB: Weiss & Commerce – 10.2 10 10.5 10 10.2 10 9.7 10 Transfer Center Inbound Total 25.2 27 25.3 27 24.4 27 23.6 27 Round Trip Total 51.8 54 54.1 54 54.0 54 51.7 54 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 7 ranks 9th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the outbound direction than in the inbound direction. Route 7 ranks 10th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 7 ranks 6th in productivity on weekdays and Saturday. Route 7 ranks 5th in subsidy per passenger, 4th in farebox recovery ratio on weekdays and 7th in both measures on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 7. The peak load is 14 on weekdays and 12 on Saturday.

Route 7 is above the system average in schedule adherence on weekdays (77 percent) and Saturday (83 percent).

Route 7 is 10th in average trip length on weekdays and 9th on Saturday. Route 7 ranks 6th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and 9th on Saturday.

Route 7 is in the lower half of FAST routes in ridership. Productivity is in the middle of the pack, but financial performance is above average on weekdays. Schedule adherence is good on weekdays and the best of all routes on Saturday. There is more activity at the hospital on

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-54 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles weekdays than on Saturday; thus, overall performance is better on most measures on weekdays.

Route 8 Downtown – Cape Fear Valley Health System via Southern

Overview Route 8 (Figure 2.21) is one of two routes operating between Downtown and the Cape Fear Valley Health System. The light blue and dark blue areas in Figure 2.21 represent neighborhoods with a high or very high transit orientation, including south and west of downtown, east of Southern Avenue, and north of Owen Drive on Route 8. Primary streets of operation include Old Wilmington Road, Campbell Avenue, Gillespie Street, Southern Avenue, Owen Drive, Boone Trail Extension, and Village Drive. Route 8 has a one-way loop at its outer end via Roxie Avenue-Cape Center Drive-Walter Reed Road-Melrose Road-Owen Drive. Major destinations include the Cape Fear Valley Health System, the Transfer Center, and the Bordeaux and Bordeaux East shopping centers on Owen Drive.

Route 8 is in the upper half of ridership among FAST routes and ranks among the top four routes in productivity.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.44 shows headways for Route 8 by day of the week. Route 8 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.22 summarizes Route 8 weekday data.

Table 2.44 Route 8 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 6:30 a.m. – 10:25 p.m. Saturday 60 8:30 a.m. – 10:25 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-55 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.21 Route 8

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-56 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.22 Route 8 Summary Data

250 Route 8 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

200

150

100

Ons Offs On Board 50

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … CAPE HILL F/S … F/S … F/S ST / ST / CENTER MASSEY WALTER F/S REED / AVE / AVE / AVE / AVE / AVE / AVE / CENTER COPE ST COPE AVE F/S GILLESPIE GILLESPIE PKWY / / PKWY AVE N/S BRIAR CIR AVE F/S EXT F/S AVE N/S AVE N/S EXT N/S CAMPBELL CAMPBELL OWEN DR / OWEN DR / OWEN DR / ROXIE AVE ROXIE AVE ROXIE AVE TRANSFER N/S CAPE CAPE N/S / WAKE ST WAKE / POINCIAN… SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN / OWEN DR BOONE TRL BOONE TRL CORONADA CORONADA AVE / MAY VILLAGE DR VILLAGE DR 2300 BLOCK SOUTHER… VILLAGE DR / ROXIE AVE / ROXIE CAMDEN RD 200 Route 8 Inbound - Avg. Wkday 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 Ons Offs On Board 20 0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … OLD HILL RD / N/S ST / / ST / ST MASSEY WALTER REED / CAMDEN WILMING… AVE / AVE / AVE / AVE / AVE / AVE / AVE / RD N/S OWEN DR OWEN DR COPE ST MELROSE GILLESPIE GILLESPIE AVE F/S AVE F/S AVE F/S AVE N/S N/S NATO NATO N/S CAMPBELL CAMPBELL OWEN DR / OWEN DR / OWEN DR / TRANSFER PHILLIES CENTER -… SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN POINCIAN… SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN SOUTHERN AVE / FAY

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-57 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.45 presents operating data for Route 8. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 8 ranks 5th in boardings and 2nd in boardings per revenue hour, after Route 6. On Saturday, Route 8 ranks 5th in boardings and 4th in boardings per revenue hour.

Route 8 ranks 5th on weekdays and 6th on and Saturday in average trip length. Route 8 ranks 3rd on weekdays and 5th on Saturday in seat utilization.

Table 2.45 Route 8 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 488 15.9 30.6 29.7% 4.44 Saturday 296 13.9 21.2 21.4% 4.62 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.46 presents financial data for Route 8. Route 8 ranks 2nd in subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 8 ranks 4th in both measures among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.46 Route 8 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 488 $294 $988 $2.03 $1.42 29.8% Saturday 296 $178 $864 $2.92 $2.32 20.6% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.23 and 2.24 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 194 boardings, 169 alightings • Walter Reed & Cape Center 52 boardings, 25 alightings • Owen & Boone Trail IB 27 boardings, 5 alightings • Village & Owen OB 24 boardings, 55 alightings

The highest passenger load on Route 8 is 19 on weekdays and 14 on Saturday. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 8.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-58 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.23 Route 8 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-59 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.24 Route 8 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-60 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.47 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Massey Hill Hardware are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.47 indicate an outbound ridership flow all day. The outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Massey Hill Hardware has the greatest passenger activity in each time period, due to the number of boardings at the Transfer Center.

Table 2.47 Route 8 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Transfer Center – 212 94.8 39 92.6 91 108.7 47 112.5 35 62.5 Massey Hill Hardware OB: Massey Hill Hardware - 24 24.9 4 23.5 13 36.0 5 26.0 2 8.6 Southern & West Mountain OB: Southern & West 9 5.7 4 12.2 3 5.6 1 4.9 1 1.7 Mountain - Owen & Poinciana OB: Owen & Poinciana - 47 14.7 12 20.3 21 17.6 8 14.0 5 6.5 Walter Reed & Cape Center Outbound Total 292 36.6 59 39.3 129 42.9 62 41.2 43 21.5 IB: Walter Reed & Cape 104 54.2 8 31.9 49 68.6 25 69.0 22 36.9 Center – Owen & Poinciana IB: Owen & Poinciana – 15 23.2 5 63.9 7 29.3 1 11.4 1 6.6 Southern & West Mountain IB: Southern & West Mountain 44 19.7 8 29.0 24 28.3 8 19.5 4 5.9 – Massey Hill Hardware IB: Massey Hill Hardware – 32 10.0 4 10.7 17 14.5 6 10.0 4 4.3 Transfer Center Inbound Total 195 24.7 25 25.2 98 32.5 40 26.9 32 13.2 Weekday Total 488 30.6 84 33.6 226 37.7 102 34.1 75 17.0 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is highest outbound in all time periods. Segment productivity is highest all day on the outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Massey Hill Hardware. Overall productivity is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between the Transfer Center and Massey Hill Hardware in the afternoon (112.5 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is outbound between Southern & West Mountain and Owen & Poinciana in the evening (1.7). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the midday (42.9) and lowest inbound in the evening (13.2).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the morning. The most productive segment on Saturday is outbound between the Transfer Center and Massey Hill Hardware in the midday (79.8 boardings per revenue hour).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-61 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.48 shows the peak load points on Route 8 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.48 indicates that the peak load point for weekday travel is at the Transfer Center, with 194 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the weekday 3:30 p.m. trip at Gillespie & Blount, with 19 passengers on board.

Table 2.48 Route 8 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Transfer Southern & Weekday All Day 194 All Day 180 Peak Load Center Hedgepeth Point Southern & Massey Hill Saturday All Day 120 All Day 102 Winslow Hardware Gillespie & Southern & Weekday 3:30 pm 19 11:00 am 18 Maximum Blount Winslow Load Point Transfer Southern & Saturday 3:30 pm 14 3:00 pm 14 Center Delcross Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.49 and 2.50 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 8 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 71 percent at all time points, 11th among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence is highest in the morning and lowest in the afternoon. Late departures occur more than ten times as often as early departures. Most early departures occur in the evening.

Table 2.49 Route 8 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 14,825 2,638 5,255 2,401 4,531 Early 450 35 79 29 307 Late 5,527 580 2,493 1,536 918 On Time % 71% 81% 67% 61% 79% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-62 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.50) at all time points on Route 8 is 78 percent, higher than weekday on-time performance and 10th among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is lowest in the morning. Late departures occur more than early departures.

Table 2.50 Route 8 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 2,804 85 1,208 618 893 Early 133 1 34 21 77 Late 677 54 307 144 172 On Time % 78% 61% 78% 79% 78% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.51 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 8. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segment between Owen & Poinciana and Walter Reed & Cape Center and for the inbound segment between Massey Hill Hardware and the Transfer Center.

Actual running time is greater than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 0.9 minutes greater in the evening to 3.4 minutes greater in the afternoon. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 1.9 minutes less in the afternoon to 3.7 minutes less in the evening.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-63 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.51 Route 8 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Transfer Center – 7.1 7 7.2 7 7.1 7 7.8 7 Massey Hill Hardware OB: Massey Hill Hardware - 4.8 3 5.1 3 5.2 3 4.0 3 Southern & West Mountain OB: Southern & West 5.7 5 5.1 5 5.2 5 4.1 5 Mountain - Owen & Poinciana OB: Owen & Poinciana - 10.7 10 10.8 10 10.9 10 10.0 10 Walter Reed & Cape Center Outbound Total 28.2 25 28.2 25 28.4 25 25.9 25 IB: Walter Reed & Cape 6.2 6 6.6 6 7.3 6 6.4 6 Center – Owen & Poinciana IB: Owen & Poinciana – 4.6 2 4.2 2 4.3 2 3.6 2 Southern & West Mountain IB: Southern & West Mountain 5.0 7 5.2 7 4.8 7 4.3 7 – Massey Hill Hardware IB: Massey Hill Hardware – 7.0 10 7.1 10 6.7 10 7.1 10 Transfer Center Inbound Total 22.8 25 23.0 25 23.1 25 21.3 25 Round Trip Total 51.1 50 51.3 50 51.6 50 47.2 50 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 8 ranks 5th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the outbound direction than in the inbound direction. Route 8 also ranks 5th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 8 ranks 2nd in productivity, subsidy per passenger, and farebox recovery on weekdays and 4th in all three measures on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 8. The peak load is 19 on weekdays and 14 on Saturday.

Route 8 is below the system average in schedule adherence on weekdays (71 percent) and close to the system average on Saturday (78 percent).

Route 8 is 5th in average trip length on weekdays and Saturday. Route 8 ranks 3rd in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and 8th on Saturday.

Route 8 is in the upper half of FAST routes in ridership. Productivity and financial performance is very good on weekdays and above average on Saturday. Schedule adherence is close to the system average on all days. As with Route 7, there is more activity at the hospital on weekdays than on Saturday; thus, overall performance is better on most measures on weekdays. The performance of Route 8 on Saturday is improved by serving the Bordeaux and Bordeaux East shopping center.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-64 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 9 University Estates – Cape Fear Valley North – Wal-Mart

Overview Route 9 (Figure 2.25) serves northeastern Fayetteville, connecting University Estates with Wal- Mart on Ramsey Street. The dark blue areas in Figure 2.25 represent neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation, none of which are immediately adjacent to Route 9. The route was recently extended north to Cape Fear Valley North at Ramsey & Andrews. As a result of the extension, there is a large mid-route loop. Primary streets of operation outbound (toward University Estates) include Ramsey Street, Country Club Drive, Rosehill Road northbound, and Shaw Mill Road. Primary streets of operation inbound (toward Wal-Mart) include Shaw Mill Road, Rosehill Road westbound, Stacy Weaver Drive, and Ramsey Street. Major destinations include University Estates, Wal-Mart, College Lakes Library, and Cape Fear Valley North.

Route 9 is in the lower half of ridership and productivity among FAST routes.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.52 shows headways for Route 9 by day of the week. Route 9 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.26 summarizes Route 9 weekday data.

Table 2.52 Route 9 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 5:32 a.m. – 9:52 p.m. Saturday 60 8:00 a.m. – 9:52 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-65 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.25 Route 9

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-66 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.26 Route 9 Summary Data

120 Route 9 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

100

80

60

40

Ons Offs On Board 20

0 RD RD / RD / RD CLU ST RD DR DR OD F/S F/S EOL N/S RD / RD / RD / / RD EOL GABLES TRINITY CLUB DR / COUNTRY ROSEHILL COUNTRY WALMART CENTER - CENTER ROSEHILL ROSEHILL TRANSFER Y SERVICE 800 BLOCK RD / RIDGE ROSEHILL SHAW MILL COMMUNIT / GLENOLA LONGVIEW LONGVIEW ESTATES - / OATES DR OATES/ TANGLEWO MCARTHUR RAMSEY ST RAMSEY ST RAMSEY ST RAMSEY ST RAMSEY ST AUTUMN DR UNIVERSITY

120 Route 9 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

100

80

60

Ons Offs On Board 40

20

0 … … … F/S Y RD / RD RD / DR / DR / DR LN DR RD DR DR / DR / DR / EOL STACY STACY STACY RD / RD / LAKES WEAVER WEAVER WEAVER LIBRARY FISKE D SHAW RD COLLEGE N DR F/S N DR F/S ROSEHILL ROSEHILL SPELLMA MEHARRY MEHARRY MEHARR… / FLORAS LIVINGST… SPELLMA… LIVINGSTO LIVINGSTO BRECKEN… UNIVERSIT 800 BLOCK MULRANN… ROSEHILL SHAW RD / SHAW MILL F/S ALOHA Y ESTATES / TREETOP/ WALMART - UNIVERSIT EDMESTON RAMSEY ST RAMSEY ST RAMSEY ST N/S KINLAW CFV NORTH METHODIST METHODIST ROSEILL RD GOLDEN RD

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-67 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.53 presents operating data for Route 9. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 9 ranks 11th in boardings and 12th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 9 ranks 8th in boardings and 9th in boardings per revenue hour.

Route 9 ranks 5th on weekdays and 4th on Saturday in average trip length. Route 9 ranks 12th on weekdays and 6th on Saturday in seat utilization.

Table 2.53 Route 9 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 276 16.3 17.0 17.3% 4.44 Saturday 248 13.9 17.9 20.8% 5.10 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.54 presents financial data for Route 9. Route 9 ranks 12th in subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 9 ranks 9th in subsidy per boarding and 11th in farebox recovery ratio among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.54 Route 9 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 276 $153 $1,011 $3.66 $3.11 15.1% Saturday 248 $137 $861 $3.47 $2.92 15.9% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.27 and 2.28 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• University Estates 96 boardings, 102 alightings • Wal-Mart 50 boardings, 41 alightings

College Lakes Library has 19 boardings and 20 alightings on weekdays. Cape Fear Valley North has 15 boardings and 14 alightings on weekdays. The highest passenger load on Route 9 is 14 on Saturday and 11 on weekdays. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 9.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-68 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.27 Route 9 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-69 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.28 Route 9 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-70 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.55 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Country Club & Gables are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.55 indicate an inbound ridership flow (toward Wal-Mart) all day. The inbound segment between University Estates and Rosehill & Breckinridge has the greatest passenger activity in each time period, due to the number of boardings at University Estates.

Table 2.55 Route 9 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Wal-Mart – 68 36.6 8 19.4 32 49.2 18 55.0 9 27.8 Country Club & Gables OB: Country Club & Gables - 11 3.6 2 3.4 6 5.7 1 2.6 1 2.1 Trinity Community Services OB: Trinity Community 27 12.5 14 27.2 9 12.3 2 4.5 2 5.2 Services - University Estates OB: Wal-Mart - Transfer 1 3.6 ------1 3.6 Center (last trip only) Outbound Total 107 15.3 25 14.8 48 19.1 21 16.8 13 8.5 IB: University Estates – 112 64.2 17 50.5 39 59.8 28 84.2 29 65.9 Rosehill & Breckinridge IB: Rosehill & Breckinridge – 3 3.1 0 2.6 1 4.5 0 2.8 0 1.7 College Lakes Library !B: College Lakes Library – 23 26.4 3 19.6 9 27.5 5 27.5 6 28.9 Stacy Weaver & Arbor IB: Stacy Weaver & Arbor – 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.2 0 2.4 0 0.2 Methodist University IB: Methodist University – 9 3.1 1 1.6 3 2.6 3 5.8 2 3.1 CFV North/Andrews Rd IB: CFV North/Andrews Rd – 22 10.8 7 17.0 8 10.9 4 11.2 3 5.4 Wal-Mart Inbound Total 169 18.3 28 15.8 61 17.4 40 23.1 41 17.8 Weekday Total 276 17.0 52 15.3 109 18.1 61 20.5 54 14.0 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is highest inbound in all time periods except midday. Segment productivity is highest all day on the inbound segment between University Estates and Rosehill & Breckinridge. Overall productivity is highest in the afternoon and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is inbound between University Estates and Rosehill & Breckinridge in the afternoon (84.2 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Stacy Weaver & Arbor and Methodist University in the morning (0.0). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest inbound in the afternoon (23.1) and lowest outbound in the evening (8.5).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest inbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is inbound between University Estates and Rosehill & Breckinridge in the afternoon (79.4 boardings per revenue hour). Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-71 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.56 shows the peak load points on Route 9 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.56 indicates that the peak load point is at Wal- Mart on Saturday, with 106 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the Saturday 5:32 p.m. trip at Wal-Mart, with 14 passengers on board. Route 9 is one of three routes with a higher peak load on Saturday.

Table 2.56 Route 9 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board 800 Block Livingston & Weekday Shaw Mill All Day 105 All Day 103 Peak Load Spellman Rd Point Livingston & Saturday Wal-Mart All Day 106 All Day 90 Spellman 800 Block Livingston & Weekday Shaw Mill 6:32 am 11 4:00 pm 10 Maximum Spellman Rd Load Point University Saturday Wal-Mart 5:32 pm 14 5:00 pm 13 Estates Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.57 and 2.58 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 9 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 85 percent at all time points, 3rd among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence is highest in the morning and declines throughout the day until evening. Late departures occur over three times more often than early departures, although early departures are an issue in the evening.

Table 2.57 Route 9 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 16,600 3,513 6,399 2,851 3,837 Early 688 130 278 53 227 Late 2,300 307 823 856 314 On Time % 85% 89% 85% 76% 88% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-72 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.58) at all time points on Route 9 is 85 percent, identical to weekday on-time performance and 2nd among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is consistent throughout the day. Late departures occur twice as often as early departures.

Table 2.58 Route 9 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 2,821 196 1,241 628 756 Early 156 14 85 27 30 Late 358 12 126 95 125 On Time % 85% 88% 85% 84% 83% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.59 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 9. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segment between Trinity Community Services and University Estates and for the inbound segment between CFV North/Andrews Road and Wal-Mart.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 3.6 minutes less in the morning to 5.1 minutes greater in the afternoon and evening. Actual running time is close to scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 1.1 minutes less in the afternoon to 1.5 minutes greater in the morning.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-73 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.59 Route 9 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Wal-Mart – 8.6 6 10.1 6 10.7 6 8.9 6 Country Club & Gables OB: Country Club & Gables - 6.7 10 5.2 10 3.8 10 5.8 10 Trinity Community Services OB: Trinity Community 4.1 7 3.6 7 3.4 7 3.3 7 Services - University Estates OB: Wal-Mart - Transfer ------16.2 20 Center (last trip only) Outbound Total 19.4 23 18.9 23 17.9 23 17.9 23 IB: University Estates – 10.4 6 9.8 6 9.4 6 10.1 6 Rosehill & Breckinridge IB: Rosehill & Breckinridge – 1.7 3 1.9 3 2.0 3 1.9 3 College Lakes Library !B: College Lakes Library – 3.3 3 3.2 3 3.4 3 3.1 3 Stacy Weaver & Arbor IB: Stacy Weaver & Arbor – 2.2 3 2.1 3 2.3 3 2.0 3 Methodist University IB: Methodist University – CFV 7.7 10 7.4 10 7.0 10 7.2 10 North/Andrews Rd IB: CFV North/Andrews Rd – 8.1 7 7.8 7 7.0 7 7.7 7 Wal-Mart Inbound Total 33.5 32 32.1 32 30.9 32 32.1 32 Round Trip Total 52.9 55 51.0 55 48.8 55 50.0 55 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 9 ranks 11th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the inbound direction than in the outbound direction. Route 9 ranks 8th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 9 ranks 12th in productivity, subsidy per passenger, and farebox recovery on weekdays. The route ranks 9th in productivity and subsidy per passenger and 11th in farebox recovery on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 9. The peak load is 14 on Saturday and 11 on weekdays.

Route 9 is well above the system average in schedule adherence on weekdays and Saturday at 85 percent for all days.

Route 9 is 5th in average trip length on weekdays and 4th on Saturday. Route 9 ranks 12th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and 6th on Saturday.

Route 9 is in the lower half of FAST routes in ridership. Productivity and financial performance are below average on weekdays and Saturday. Schedule adherence is close to the system

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-74 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles average on weekdays but below average on Saturday. Passenger activity at Wal-Mart drives Saturday performance; thus, overall performance is better on most measures on Saturday. All three routes serving the Wal-Mart on Ramsey Street show a similar pattern in terms of performance.

Route 12 Murchison Road

Overview Route 12 (Figure 2.29) serves north Fayetteville, connecting Downtown with University Estates. The light blue and dark blue areas in Figure 2.29 represent neighborhoods with a high or very high transit orientation, including downtown and along Murchison Road on Route 12. Murchison Road is the primary street of operation, although there is a small mid-route loop in which the outbound route uses Bragg Boulevard and Filter Plant Drive. Major destinations include University Estates, the Transfer Center, Fayetteville State University (FSU), Ray Avenue in Downtown, various stops along Murchison between FSU and Country Club Drive, and Murchison & Shaw Mill.

Route 12 is among the busiest routes in ridership and is in the top half in productivity among FAST routes.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.60 shows headways for Route 12 by day of the week. Route is one of only three weekday routes and is the only Saturday route with 30-minute headways. Route 12 operates with two buses on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.30 summarizes Route 12 weekday data.

Table 2.60 Route 12 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 30 5:30 a.m. – 10:30 p.m. Saturday 30 7:30 a.m. – 10:30 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-75 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.29 Route 12

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-76 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.30 Route 12 Summary Data

400 Route 12 Outbound - Avg. Wkday 350

300

250

200

150 Ons Offs On Board 100

50

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … PWC … F/S F/S Y BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG FILTER FILTER BLVE / BLVD / BLVD / LLE RD / RD RAY AVE RAY AVE RAY ST ST AT N RD N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / CENTER ST AT AT ST PLANT DR PLANT DR BRAGG BRAGG UNIVERSIT 100 BLOCK N RD N RD / W TRANSFER MURCHISO FAYETTEVI MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO E RUSSELL SHAW MILL W RUSSELL 1100 BLOCK

350 Route 12 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

300

250

200

150

Ons Offs On Board 100

50

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 2300 … OLD OLD VICKS BLOCK F/S DR / DR DR / DR ANN ST ANN LLE WILMING… BOW ST / SHAW RD N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / N RD / ST AT MEHARRY MEHARRY MEHARRY MEHARRY RD AT RR AT RD / RAY AVE EDMEST… SHAW RD / N DR N DR F/S N DR F/S LIVINGSTO LIVINGSTO N RD N RD F/S TRANSFER ROWAN ST UNIVERSIT MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO MURCHISO FAYETTEVI MURCHISO Y ESTATES SHAW MILL ROWAN ST CENTER -… CENTER 300 BLOCK 400 BLOCK GORHAM… / GREEN ST / ST GREEN HILLSBORO PERSON ST PERSON ST

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-77 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.61 presents operating data for Route 12. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 12 ranks 2nd in boardings (behind Route 14) and 5th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 12 ranks first in boardings and 3rd in boardings per revenue hour.

Route 12 ranks 9th on weekdays and 8th on Saturday in average trip length. Route 12 ranks 6th on weekdays and 4th on Saturday in seat utilization.

Table 2.61 Route 12 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 959 33.0 29.1 26.2% 4.12 Saturday 676 29.0 23.3 21.5% 4.23 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.62 presents financial data for Route 12. Route 12 ranks 6th in subsidy per boarding and 5th in farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 12 ranks 3rd in both measures among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.62 Route 12 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 959 $561 $2,049 $2.14 $1.55 27.4% Saturday 676 $395 $1,800 $2.67 $2.08 21.9% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.31 and 2.32 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 286 boardings, 245 alightings • University Estates 149 boardings, 135 alightings • Murchison & Pennsylvania IB 44 boardings, 19 alightings • Murchison & Rosemary IB 39 boardings, 8 alightings • Ray & Maiden OB 37 boardings, 11 alightings • Murchison & Normal IB 34 boardings, 17 alightings • Shaw Mill & Murchison OB 8 boardings, 52 alightings • Murchison & Jasper OB 21 boardings, 47 alightings • Murchison & Bullock OB 17 boardings, 34 alightings • Murchison & Rosemary OB 9 boardings, 30 alightings • Rowan & Ray IB 3 boardings, 27 alightings

The highest passenger load on Route 12 is 23 on weekdays and 18 on Saturday. There are no overcrowded trips on Route 12, due to the 30-minute headway.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-78 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.31 Route 12 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-79 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.32 Route 12 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-80 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.63 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at FSU are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.63 indicate an inbound ridership flow in the morning, a relatively even flow in the midday, and an outbound flow in the afternoon and evening. The outbound segment between the Transfer Center and FSU has the greatest passenger activity in each time period except the morning, due to the number of boardings at University Estates.

Table 2.63 Route 12 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Transfer Center - FSU 386 56.7 39 27.9 169 70.3 106 88.3 72 39.9 OB: FSU – 40 11.8 8 11.8 14 12.0 11 18.8 6 7.0 Murchison & Jasper OB: Murchison & Jasper - 42 12.5 10 14.8 19 15.8 8 13.2 5 5.7 Murchison & Country Club OB: Murchison & Country 40 11.7 9 12.6 18 15.0 9 15.3 4 4.1 Club - University Estates Outbound Total 508 29.9 67 19.0 220 36.7 134 44.8 87 19.3 IB: University Estates – 217 67.7 51 84.9 87 72.4 40 66.3 39 48.8 Murchison & Pamalee IB: Murchison & Pamalee – 66 20.5 17 28.6 31 25.8 9 15.7 8 9.9 Murchison & Pennsylvania IB: Murchison & Pennsylvania 93 29.1 22 36.0 48 39.7 17 27.5 7 9.2 – FSU IB: FSU – Transfer Center 76 11.8 9 7.4 40 16.7 17 14.1 10 6.1 Inbound Total 451 28.2 99 32.9 205 34.2 83 27.6 64 16.0 Weekday Total 959 29.1 165 25.4 426 35.5 217 36.2 151 17.8 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is balanced overall but is highest outbound in all time periods except morning. Segment productivity is highest in every time period except afternoon on the inbound segment between University Estates and Murchison & Pamalee. Overall productivity is highest in the afternoon and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between the Transfer Center and FSU in the afternoon (88.3 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is outbound between Murchison & Country Club and University Estates in the evening (4.1). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the afternoon (44.8) and lowest outbound in the evening (16.0).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest inbound in the midday. The most productive segment on Saturday is inbound between University Estates and Murchison & Pamalee in the midday (71.0 boardings per revenue hour).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-81 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.64 shows the peak load points on Route 12 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.64 indicates that the peak load point is weekdays at Ray & Mason, with 338 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is inbound on the weekday 8:00 a.m. trip at Murchison & Normal, with 23 passengers on board.

Table 2.64 Route 12 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Ray & Murchison Weekday All Day 338 All Day 323 Peak Load Mason & Blue Point Ray & Murchison Saturday All Day 232 All Day 239 Mason & Blue Murchison Murchison Weekday 3:30 pm 19 8:00 am 23 & Carver & Normal Maximum FSU 12:00 pm Load Point Murchison Murchison Saturday 14 8:00 am 18 & Sleepy & Council 12:30 pm Hollow Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.65 and 2.66 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 12 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 77 percent at all time points, 8th among the 13 weekday routes and slightly above the system average. Schedule adherence is highest in the morning and declines throughout the day until evening. Early departures are an issue in the morning and evening, while late departures are an issue in the midday and afternoon.

Table 2.65 Route 12 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 31,637 6,996 11,757 4,930 7,954 Early 3,283 691 930 267 1,395 Late 6,268 541 2,563 2,355 809 On Time % 77% 85% 77% 65% 78% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-82 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.66) at all time points on Route 12 is 78 percent, slightly higher than weekday on-time performance and 9th among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is consistent throughout the day. Early departures occur more often than late departures except in the afternoon.

Table 2.66 Route 12 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 5,085 415 2,115 1,092 1,463 Early 755 82 308 103 262 Late 709 45 287 178 199 On Time % 78% 77% 78% 80% 76% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.67 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 12. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segment between Murchison & Country Club and University Estates and for the inbound segment between FSU and the Transfer Center.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction in the morning and evening and greater in the midday and afternoon; the difference ranges from 1.9 minutes less in the morning to 1.5 minutes greater in the afternoon and evening. Actual running time is greater than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times except evening. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 1.1 minutes less in the evening to 0.9 minutes greater in the midday.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-83 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.67 Route 12 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Transfer Center - FSU 12.0 10 14.0 10 14.2 10 12.7 10 OB: FSU – 2.9 5 3.2 5 3.5 5 2.8 5 Murchison & Jasper OB: Murchison & Jasper - 2.1 5 2.2 5 2.2 5 2.0 5 Murchison & Country Club OB: Murchison & Country Club 6.2 5 5.9 5 6.6 5 5.9 5 - University Estates Outbound Total 23.1 25 25.2 25 26.5 25 23.5 25 IB: University Estates – 8.0 5 7.0 5 7.0 5 7.1 5 Murchison & Pamalee IB: Murchison & Pamalee – 4.5 5 4.6 5 4.5 5 3.9 5 Murchison & Pennsylvania IB: Murchison & Pennsylvania 3.4 5 3.1 5 3.8 5 2.6 5 – FSU IB: FSU – Transfer Center 9.9 10 11.2 10 10.9 10 10.3 10 Inbound Total 25.8 25 25.9 25 25.2 25 23.9 25 Round Trip Total 48.9 50 51.1 50 51.7 50 47.4 50 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 12 ranks 2nd in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the outbound direction than in the inbound direction. Route 12 ranks 1st in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 12 ranks 5th in productivity and farebox recovery and 6th in subsidy per passenger on weekdays. Route 12 ranks 3rd in all three measures on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 12. The peak load is 23 on weekdays and 18 on Saturday.

Route 12 is at or near the system average in terms of schedule adherence at 77 percent on weekdays and 78 percent on Saturday.

Route 12 is 9th in average trip length on weekdays and 8th on Saturday. Route 12 ranks 7th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and 5th on Saturday.

Route 12 is one of the highest performing FAST routes. Ridership is high, productivity and financial performance are acceptable to good, and schedule adherence is good. Its high ranking in productivity on Saturday is especially noteworthy, since it operates twice as many revenue hours as any other Saturday route. Route 12 serves a transit-oriented corridor (Murchison Road) with few deviations and has strong anchors at both ends of the route.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-84 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 14 Downtown – FTCC – Cross Creek

Overview Route 14 (Figure 2.33) is the only route that connects Downtown with Cross Creek Mall and the only route to serve Fayetteville Technical Community College (FTCC). The dark blue areas in Figure 2.33 represent neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation, including west of downtown on Route 14. Primary streets of operation include Russell Street, Hay Street, Fort Bragg Road, Devers Street, Hull Road, Bragg Boulevard, Sycamore Dairy Road, McPherson Church Road, and Morgantown Road. There is a mid-route out-of-direction detour to serve Eutaw Shopping Center. Major destinations include Cross Creek Mall, the Transfer Center, FTCC, the Eutaw Shopping Center, and Hay Street in Downtown.

Route 14 is among the busiest routes in ridership and is in the top half in productivity among FAST routes.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.68 shows headways for Route 14 by day of the week. Route 14 operates with two buses on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.34 summarizes Route 14 weekday data.

Table 2.68 Route 14 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 5:30 a.m. – 10:20 p.m. Saturday 60 7:30 a.m. – 10:20 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-85 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.33 Route 14

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-86 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.34 Route 14 Summary Data

350 Route 14 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

300

250

200

150 Ons Offs On Board 100

50

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … FORT FORT FORT FORT FORT FORT FORT … … … … N N N D CROSS CROSS BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG EUTAW BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG RAY ST RAY BLVD / BLVD / CREEK HAY ST ST / HAY ST / HAY HALE ST ST / HAY ST / HAY ST / HAY BLVD F/S RD F/S F/S RD SHOPPIN… MENTAL ST AT AT ST CENTER MYROVE… ST AT HIGHLAN… FORT STAMPER 400 BLOCK 200 BLOCK 100 BLOCK TRANSFER WESTWOO RAY ST / W HAY ST ST F/S HAY FAYETTEVI HILLSIDE RUSSELL E RUSSELL LLE TECH SYCAMORE SYCAMORE SYCAMORE DAIRY RD DAIRY RD N CROSS W RUSSELL 2900 BLOCK BARRINGTO

350 Route 14 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

300

250

200

150

Ons Offs On Board 100

50

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … N N 2900 2100 FORT FORT FORT FORT FORT FORT OLD OLD … … … BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK N N CROSS D BRAGG BRAGG EUTAW BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BRAGG BLVD / CREEK HAY ST ST / HAY MCPHER… MCPHER… HAY ST / HOUSE WILMING… BLVD F/S SHOPPIN… DAVIS ST RD F/S F/S RD ST N/S ST N/S MENTAL MENTAL STAMPER STAMPER DENVERS FRANKLIN FRANKLIN ON RD ON RD / MORGANT ST / HULL FRANKLI… COURT CC 200 BLOCK 300 BLOCK 500 BLOCK BROADF… TRANSFER WESTWOO FAYETTEVI 300 BLOCK 400 BLOCK CENTER -… CENTER HAY ST ST N/S HAY LLE TECH SYCAMORE SYCAMORE SYCAMORE SYCAMORE DAIRY RD DAIRY RD PERSON ST PERSON ST PERSON

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-87 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.69 presents operating data for Route 14. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 14 ranks 1st in boardings and 3rd in boardings per revenue hour. Route 14 is the only route with daily ridership of 1,000 on an average weekday. On Saturday, Route 14 ranks 2nd in boardings and 5th in boardings per revenue hour.

Route 14 ranks 4th on weekdays and 3rd on Saturday in average trip length. Route 14 ranks first in seat utilization on weekdays and Saturday. Route 14 is one of the longest routes in the FAST network.

Table 2.69 Route 14 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 1,004 32.8 30.6 52.3% 4.82 Saturday 600 28.8 20.8 38.5% 5.20 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.70 presents financial data for Route 14. Route 14 ranks 4th in subsidy per boarding and 6th in farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 14 ranks 5th in subsidy per boarding and 9th in farebox recovery ratio among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.70 Route 14 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 1,004 $530 $2,038 $2.03 $1.50 26.0% Saturday 600 $317 $1,790 $2.98 $2.45 17.7% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-88 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figures 2.31 and 2.32 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 273 boardings, 193 alightings • Cross Creek Mall 250 boardings, 261 alightings • FTCC IB 68 boardings, 51 alightings • FTCC OB 58 boardings, 62 alightings • Eutaw Shopping Center IB 49 boardings, 33 alightings • Eutaw Shopping Center OB 45 boardings, 45 alightings • Hay & Ray OB 33 boardings, 5 alightings

There are no overcrowded trips on Route 14, as defined by a load greater than 110 percent of seated capacity, but this is the only route with standees on weekdays. Table 2.71 shows trips with standees. Note that these represent average loads. On busier days, there are more segments with standees. Average loads in the high 20s and low 30s are not uncommon.

Table 2.71 Weekday Trips on Route 14 with Standees # Stops with Direction Trip Time Peak Load Segment with Standees Standees FTCC – Sycamore Dairy & Outbound 12:30 pm 34 8 Bargain Sycamore Dairy & Bragg – Outbound 2:30 pm 32 1 Sycamore Dairy & Bargain

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-89 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.35 Route 14 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-90 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.36 Route 14 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-91 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.72 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Hay Street/Mental Health are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.72 indicate an outbound ridership flow throughout the day except in the evening. The outbound segment between the Transfer Center and Hay Street/Mental Health has the greatest passenger activity in each time period due to the number of boardings at the Transfer Center.

Table 2.72 Route 14 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Transfer Center – 325 95.6 61 76.1 160 133.1 69 115.3 35 44.0 Hay St/Mental Health OB: Hay St/Mental Health – 38 11.2 9 11.0 18 14.9 7 11.6 4 5.5 FTCC OB: FTCC – 62 18.4 4 4.4 45 37.4 10 16.0 5 5.7 Eutaw Shopping Center OB: Eutaw Shopping Center – 63 18.6 7 9.0 33 27.7 14 24.1 8 10.6 Sycamore Dairy & Bragg OB: Sycamore Dairy & Bragg – 25 14.8 6 16.2 11 17.6 5 18.1 3 6.8 Westwood Shopping Center OB: Westwood Shopping 10 5.7 1 1.7 5 7.6 3 11.3 1 2.7 Center – Cross Creek Mall Outbound Total 524 31.1 88 21.9 271 45.1 109 36.3 56 14.7 IB: Cross Creek Mall – 250 260.8 57 318.9 110 305.5 50 277.2 33 137.9 Westwood Shopping Center IB: Westwood Shopping Center 28 12.5 7 17.2 10 12.1 6 14.8 4 7.7 – Sycamore Dairy & Bragg IB: Sycamore Dairy & Bragg – 20 12.7 3 8.9 8 13.4 5 16.3 5 11.7 Eutaw Shopping Center IB: Eutaw Shopping Center - 54 21.2 4 8.3 28 28.7 13 28.1 9 14.7 FTCC IB: FTCC – 107 19.6 10 10.2 69 34.0 17 17.1 9 6.9 Hay St/Mental Health IB: Hay St/Mental Health – 21 6.5 2 3.2 9 7.4 4 6.5 6 7.6 Transfer Center Inbound Total 480 30.0 84 27.9 234 39.0 96 32.0 67 16.7 Weekday Total 1,004 30.6 171 24.5 505 42.1 205 34.1 123 15.8 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is balanced overall but is highest inbound in the morning and evening and outbound in the midday and afternoon. Segment productivity is highest in every time period on the inbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Westwood Shopping Center; productivity is very high due to the very short length of this segment and the passenger activity at Cross Creek Mall. Overall productivity is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is inbound between Cross Creek Mall and Westwood Shopping Center in the morning (318.9 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is outbound between the Westwood Shopping Center and Cross Creek Mall in the

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-92 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles morning (1.7). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the midday (45.1) and lowest outbound in the evening (14.7).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is inbound between Cross Creek Mall and Westwood Shopping Center in the midday (218.8 boardings per revenue hour).

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.73 shows the peak load points on Route 14 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.73 indicates that the peak load point is weekdays at Fort Bragg & Greenland, with 316 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the weekday 12:30 p.m. trip at FTCC, with 34 passengers on board.

Table 2.73 Route 14 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Fort Bragg Fort Bragg Weekday & All Day 316 All Day 295 & Woodrow Peak Load Greenland Point Westwood Fort Bragg Saturday All Day 202 Shopping All Day 187 & McNeill Center Hay St/ Weekday FTCC 12:30 pm 34 Mental 2:30 pm 31 Maximum Health Load Point Eutaw Saturday Hay & Ray 4:30 pm 21 Shopping 2:30 pm 22 Center Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.74 and 2.75 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 14 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 60 percent at all time points, 12th among the 13 weekday routes and well below the system average. Schedule adherence is highest in the evening and lowest in the afternoon. Late departures are much more common than early departures throughout the day.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-93 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.74 Route 14 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 18,409 3,949 6,313 2,871 5,276 Early 968 347 255 65 301 Late 11,279 1,765 4,688 2,647 2,179 On Time % 60% 65% 56% 51% 68% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.75) at all time points on Route 14 is also 60 percent, last among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is highest in the morning and declines throughout the day until evening. Late departures are much more prevalent than early departures throughout the day on Saturday.

Table 2.75 Route 14 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 3,276 286 1,429 588 973 Early 323 14 99 67 143 Late 1,880 112 788 499 481 On Time % 60% 69% 62% 51% 61% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.76 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 14. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segment between Westwood Shopping Center and Cross Creek Mall and for the inbound segments between the Eutaw Shopping Center and FTCC and between Hay Street/Mental Health and the Transfer Center.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 3.0 minutes less in the evening to 8.0 minutes less in the morning. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 7.7 minutes less in the evening to 21.8 minutes less in the morning.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-94 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.76 Route 14 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Transfer Center – 7.6 10 10.1 10 10.7 10 11.0 10 Hay St/Mental Health OB: Hay St/Mental Health – 10.4 10 11.9 10 10.3 10 10.5 10 FTCC OB: FTCC – 8.9 10 8.7 10 8.7 10 9.3 10 Eutaw Shopping Center OB: Eutaw Shopping Center – 7.1 10 6.6 10 7.8 10 7.7 10 Sycamore Dairy & Bragg OB: Sycamore Dairy & Bragg 5.4 5 5.5 5 5.8 5 5.2 5 – Westwood Shopping Center OB: Westwood Shopping 2.6 5 3.1 5 3.3 5 3.4 5 Center – Cross Creek Mall Outbound Total 42.0 50 45.9 50 46.7 50 47.0 50 IB: Cross Creek Mall – 4.4 3 5.7 3 6.3 3 6.4 3 Westwood Shopping Center IB: Westwood Shopping Center – Sycamore Dairy & 5.0 7 5.6 7 6.5 7 5.6 7 Bragg IB: Sycamore Dairy & Bragg – 3.8 5 5.1 5 5.6 5 7.0 5 Eutaw Shopping Center IB: Eutaw Shopping Center - 5.3 8 6.1 8 5.9 8 7.2 8 FTCC IB: FTCC – 10.7 17 10.9 17 10.3 17 10.7 17 Hay St/Mental Health IB: Hay St/Mental Health – 8.0 10 8.9 10 8.6 10 8.4 10 Transfer Center Inbound Total 37.2 50 42.4 50 43.3 50 45.3 50 Round Trip Total 79.2 100 88.3 100 90.0 100 92.3 100 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 14 ranks first in ridership among the 13 weekday routes, and is the only route with 1,000 riders per day. Ridership is balanced, with slightly higher ridership in the outbound direction. Route 14 ranks 2nd in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes. FTCC is not in session on Saturday.

Route 14 ranks 3rd in productivity, 4th in subsidy per passenger, and 6th in farebox recovery on weekdays. Route 14 ranks 5th in productivity and subsidy per passenger and 9th in farebox recovery on Saturday.

There are two instances of overcrowding on Route 14, using average weekday numbers. On busier days, additional overcrowded trips can be assumed, since loads average in the high 20s and low 30s on several trips. The peak load is 34 on weekdays and 22 on Saturday.

Route 14 is among the worst routes in terms of schedule adherence at 60 percent on weekdays and Saturday, far below the system average.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-95 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 14 is 4th in average trip length on weekdays and 3rd on Saturday. Route 14 ranks first in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and Saturday.

Route 14 is one of the highest performing FAST routes. Ridership is high while productivity and financial performance are acceptable to good. Schedule adherence is poor. Route 14 has strong anchors at both ends of the route plus FTCC along the route, and is the only route connecting Downtown with Cross Creek Mall.

Route 15 Cape Fear Valley Health System – Cross Creek

Overview Route 15 (Figure 2.37) operates in the southern part of Fayetteville and connects the Cape Fear Valley Health System with Cross Creek Mall. The dark blue and dark green areas in Figure 2.37 represent neighborhoods with a high or very high transit orientation, none of which are immediately adjacent to Route 15. Primary streets of operation include Village Drive, Ireland Drive, Coventry Road, Redwood Drive, Hope Mills Road, Raeford Road, and Skibo Road. There is a one-way loop at the inner (hospital) end of the route via Roxie Avenue-Cape Center Drive-Walter Reed Road-Melrose Road-Owen Drive. Major destinations include Cross Creek Mall, the Cape Fear Valley Health System, and the Bordeaux Shopping Center.

Route 15 is in the middle of the pack among FAST routes in ridership and productivity.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.77 shows headways for Route 15 by day of the week. Route 15 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.38 summarizes Route 15 weekday data.

Table 2.77 Route 15 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 6:00 a.m. – 10:30 p.m. Saturday 60 8:30 a.m. – 10:30 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-96 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.37 Route 15

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-97 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.38 Route 15 Summary Data

140 Route 15 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … HOPE HOPE HOPE HOPE HOPE CROSS CROSS F/S N/S N/S RD / RD CREEK DR / DR / DR WALTER WALTER REED / REED N/S N/S IRELAND IRELAND DR N/S MILLS RD MILLS RD MILLS RD MILLS RD MILLS RD RD N/S N/S RD RD N/S N/S RD D DR D DR / SKIBO RD SKIBO RD SKIBO RD DR F/S F/S DR MELROSE RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD RD N/S ND RD / RD ND SKIBO RD SKIBO RD / REDWOOD REDWOOD REDWOOD ODOM DR / SKIBO RD / GLENSFOR CLIFFDAL… COVENTRY COVENTRY SKIBO / RD COVENTR… RED TIP RD LEISURE LN 3800 BLOCK 5200 BLOCK 1900 BLOCK VILLAGE DR VILLAGE DR RAEFORD CAMPGROU VILLAGE DR / ROXIE AVE

140 Route 15 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20 … … … … … … … 0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 1900 3800 HOPE HOPE HOPE HOPE HOPE HOPE BLOCK BLOCK CROSS CROSS DR / DR N/S N/S N/S RD / RD / RD / RD / CREEK DR / DR / WALTER WALTER REED / REED RD / RD / IRELAND IRELAND IRELAND IRELAND DR N/S N/S DR MILLS RD RD MILLS RD MILLS RD MILLS RD MILLS RD MILLS RD MILLS D DR D DR / SKIBO RD RD SKIBO RD SKIBO / HOPE / HOPE RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD CAMPGRO COVENT… UND RD / LEISURE SKIBO RD / SKIBO RD / SKIBO RD / CAMPGR… REDWOOD REDWOOD REDWOOD ODOM DR / DR ODOM GLENSFOR SKIBO RD / RD SKIBO CLIFFDAL… COVENTRY COVENTRY RED TIP RD

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-98 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.78 presents operating data for Route 15. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 15 ranks 8th in boardings and 7th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 15 ranks 7th in boardings and 8th in boardings per revenue hour.

Route 15 ranks 7th on weekdays and Saturday in average trip length. Route 15 ranks 10th in seat utilization on weekdays and 11th on Saturday.

Table 2.78 Route 15 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 376 16.5 22.8 20.0% 4.23 Saturday 257 14.0 18.4 16.5% 4.31 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.79 presents financial data for Route 15. Route 15 ranks 7th in subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 15 ranks 8th in subsidy per boarding and 6th in farebox recovery ratio among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.79 Route 15 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 376 $238 $1,024 $2.73 $2.09 23.2% Saturday 257 $163 $869 $3.38 $2.75 18.7% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.35 and 2.36 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Cross Creek Mall 127 boardings, 108 alightings • Village & Conover OB 52 boardings, 22 alightings • Walter Reed & Cape Center 39 boardings, 72 alightings • Melrose & Beaumont OB 28 boardings, 24 alightings

There are no overcrowded trips on Route 15. The peak load is 13 on weekdays and 12 on Saturday.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-99 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.35 Route 15 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-100 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.36 Route 15 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-101 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.80 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Redwood & Hope Mills are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.80 indicate a balanced ridership flow, slightly higher inbound toward the hospital in the morning and midday and slightly higher outbound toward Cross Creek Mall in the afternoon and the evening. The outbound segment between Walter Reed & Cape Center and Redwood & Hope Mills has the greatest passenger activity in each time period except morning due to the number of boardings at the hospital. The inbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Campground & Lowes has the highest number of boardings in the morning and is a close second all day.

Table 2.80 Route 15 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Walter Reed & Cape 131 39.4 13 22.1 59 50.3 32 54.1 27 27.7 Center - Redwood & Hope Mills OB: Redwood & Hope Mills - 35 20.8 11 38.1 14 23.6 5 18.5 4 8.4 Lewis Chapel Church & Raeford OB: Lewis Chapel Church & 6 4.5 2 9.7 2 3.6 1 3.2 1 3.1 Raeford - Skibo & Home Depot OB: Skibo & Home Depot - 6 4.5 1 4.9 2 5.1 1 5.1 1 3.2 Campground & Lowes OB: Campground & Lowes - 5 5.3 0 0.3 2 6.0 1 7.1 2 6.6 Cross Creek Mall Outbound Total 183 21.2 28 18.1 79 25.9 41 26.5 36 14.1 IB: Cross Creek Mall – 129 137.4 23 131.5 58 164.8 27 154.4 21 88.0 Campground & Lowes IB: Campground & Lowes – 9 9.8 1 7.7 3 8.2 2 11.6 3 12.5 Home Depot IB: Home Depot - Lewis Chapel 3 2.2 0 0.0 1 2.8 1 3.2 1 2.4 Church & Raeford IB: Lewis Chapel Church & Raeford – Redwood & Hope 31 19.9 8 26.3 18 30.4 3 10.4 3 6.4 Mills IB: Redwood & Hope Mills – 20 6.4 4 7.3 10 8.4 4 6.1 2 2.7 Walter Reed & Cape Center Inbound Total 192 24.5 37 24.9 90 30.7 37 25.0 29 14.8 Weekday Total 376 22.8 64 21.4 169 28.2 77 25.7 65 14.4 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is balanced overall and is slightly higher outbound in all time periods except the afternoon. Segment productivity is highest in every time period on the inbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Campground & Lowes; productivity is very high due to the very short length of this segment and the passenger activity at Cross Creek Mall. Overall productivity is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is inbound between Cross Creek Mall and Campground & Lowes in the midday (164.8 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Home Depot and Lewis Chapel Church & Raeford in the morning (0.0). Productivity by direction

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-102 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles and time of day is highest outbound in the midday (30.7) and lowest inbound in the evening (14.4).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is inbound between Cross Creek Mall and Campground & Lowes in the afternoon (127.5 boardings per revenue hour).

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.81 shows the peak load points on Route 15 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.81 indicates that the peak load point is weekdays at Cross Creek Mall, with 127 passengers traveling inbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the weekday 4:00 p.m. trip at the 3800 block of Village Drive and inbound on the weekday 8:30 a.m. trip at Redwood & Devonshire, with 13 passengers on board.

Table 2.81 Route 15 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Raeford & Cross Weekday All Day 124 All Day 127 Peak Load Pompton Creek Mall Point Hope Mills Skibo & Saturday All Day 91 All Day 90 & Catalpa Leisure 3800 block Redwood & Weekday 4:00 pm 13 8:30 am 13 Village Dr Devonshire Maximum Cross 2:30 pm Load Point 3800 block Creek Mall Saturday 4:00 pm 12 9 Village Dr 1900 block 6:30 pm Skibo Rd Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.82 and 2.83 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 15 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 79 percent at all time points, 5th among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence is consistent throughout most of the day except afternoon, when it drops sharply. Late departures occur much more often than early departures throughout the day except in the evening, when early departures are an issue.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-103 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.82 Route 15 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 20,377 4,094 7,897 2,928 5,458 Early 1,393 121 374 112 786 Late 4,085 526 1,308 1,679 572 On Time % 79% 86% 82% 62% 80% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.83) at all time points on Route 15 is also 79 percent, 7th among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is consistent throughout the day except in the morning, when it falls to 61 percent. Late departures occur more often than early departures throughout the day except in the evening.

Table 2.83 Route 15 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 3,423 99 1,480 746 1,098 Early 629 0 63 69 150 Late 282 63 318 139 109 On Time % 79% 61% 80% 78% 81% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.84 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 15. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segment between Campground & Lowes and Cross Creek Mall and for the inbound segment between Redwood & Hope Mills and Walter Reed & Cape Center.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction in the morning and evening and is greater in the midday and afternoon; the difference ranges from 1.0 minutes less in the evening to 1.3 minutes greater in the afternoon. Actual running time is greater than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times except evening. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 0.5 minutes less in the evening to 1.7 minutes greater in the afternoon.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-104 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.84 Route 15 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Walter Reed & Cape 9.9 10 10.5 10 11.0 10 9.6 10 Center - Redwood & Hope Mills OB: Redwood & Hope Mills - 6.3 5 5.8 5 6.0 5 5.5 5 Lewis Chapel Church & Raeford OB: Lewis Chapel Church & 4.2 4 4.8 4 4.8 4 4.6 4 Raeford - Skibo & Home Depot OB: Skibo & Home Depot - 1.1 4 1.2 4 1.1 4 1.1 4 Campground & Lowes OB: Campground & Lowes - 3.8 3 4.4 3 4.4 3 4.4 3 Cross Creek Mall Outbound Total 25.2 26 26.6 26 27.3 26 25.0 26 IB: Cross Creek Mall – 4.4 3 4.6 3 4.6 3 4.6 3 Campground & Lowes IB: Campground & Lowes – 2.6 3 2.8 3 3.6 3 3.0 3 Home Depot IB: Home Depot - Lewis Chapel 4.4 4 4.4 4 5.6 4 4.4 4 Church & Raeford IB: Lewis Chapel Church & Raeford – Redwood & Hope 5.3 5 5.3 5 5.2 5 4.8 5 Mills IB: Redwood & Hope Mills – 8.4 10 8.1 10 7.7 10 7.8 10 Walter Reed & Cape Center Inbound Total 25.2 25 25.2 25 26.7 25 24.5 25 Round Trip Total 50.4 51 51.8 51 54.1 51 49.6 51 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 15 ranks 8th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is balanced, with slightly higher ridership in the inbound direction. Route 15 ranks 7th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 15 ranks 7th in productivity, subsidy per passenger, and farebox recovery on weekdays. Route 15 ranks 8th in productivity and subsidy per passenger and 6th in farebox recovery on Saturday.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 15. The peak load is 13 on weekdays and 12 on Saturday.

Route 15 is above the system average in schedule adherence at 79 percent on weekdays and Saturday.

Route 15 is 7th in average trip length on weekdays and Saturday. Route 15 ranks 10th in passenger miles per seat mile on all days.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-105 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 15 is in the middle among FAST routes in terms of ridership, productivity, and financial performance. Schedule adherence is very good.

Route 17 West Fayetteville

Overview Route 17 (Figure 2.41) operates in the western part of Fayetteville and connects Cross Creek Mall, Fort Bragg, and the Wal-Mart on South Raeford Road. The dark green areas in Figure 2.41 represent neighborhoods with a high transit orientation, including north of Cliffdale Road on either side of Reilly Road on Route 17. Primary streets of operation include Lake Valley Road, Yadkin Road, Fillyaw Road, Reilly Road, Cliffdale Road, Rim Road, Raeford Road, South Raeford Road, Good Middling Drive, Morgantown Road, and Bonanza Drive. There is a one- way loop at the outer end of the route via Rim Road-Raeford Road-South Raeford Road-Good Middling Drive-Cliffdale Road. There is a mid-route loop, outbound via Yadkin Road-Fillyaw Road-North Reilly Road and inbound via Morgantown Road-Bonanza Drive. The Fort Bragg Army Base is served on the outbound loop only with a stop outside the gate. The route deviates in both directions at Cliffdale & Reilly, outbound via Cliffdale-71st School-Media-Radnor- Bronwyn-Reilly, then continuing west on Cliffdale and inbound via Cliffdale Road to the Cliffdale Recreation Center, then returning via Cliffdale-71st School-Media-Radnor-Bronwyn, continuing north on Reilly. Major destinations include Cross Creek Mall, Cliffdale & 71st School Road, Wal- Mart, and the Ponderosa Shopping Center.

Route 17 is in the middle of the pack among FAST routes in ridership and among the lower half of routes in productivity.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.85 shows headways for Route 17 by day of the week. Route 17 operates with two buses on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.42 summarizes Route 17 weekday data.

Table 2.85 Route 17 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 5:30 a.m. – 7:30 p.m. Saturday 60 7:30 a.m. – 6:26 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-106 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.41 Route 17

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-107 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.42 Route 17 Summary Data

160 Route 17 Outbound - Avg. Wkday 140

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … / CROSS CROSS RD / RD RD / RD A RD / O RD / RD / RD SUITES RD / RD RD / RD CREEK N/S N/S / FT / FT RIM RD / RIM RD / RIM RD / EMBASY EMBASY RD / RD / RD / RD FILLYAW FILLYAW S REILLY S REILLY N REILLY N REILLY N REILLY REMBRA… LAKE ENGLISH RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD RAEFORD RD / LEXI LEXI / RD PARCSTO… 500 BLOCK 100 BLOCK S REILLY CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE YADKIN RD RD YADKIN YADKIN RD RD YADKIN RD YADKIN RD YADKIN RD / 71ST / 71ST RD RIM RD RD RIM F/S F/S YORK BONANZA BONANZA YADKIN RD YADKIN MONTIBELL PONDEROS SANDRA ST 5000 BLOCK 4600 BLOCK

160 Route 17 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

140

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … KFC … … … … … … … … … … 4800 … … … … … / BLOCK BLOCK CROSS A RD / RD O DR / DR / RD / RD F/S CREEK F/S RD / RD / RD / RD / RD / RD / RD / RD / RD / RD / S REILLY S REILLY E RD E RD / BONANZA BONANZA RD F/S RAEFORD RD N/S RD / LEXI ON RD ON RD / ON RD / ON RD / MORGANT MORGANT MORGANT 100 BLOCK S REILLY … S REILLY CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE YADKIN RD YADKIN RD YADKIN RD RD / 71ST RD / 71ST RECREAT… PRITCHETT MONTIBELL PONDEROS

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-108 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.86 presents operating data for Route 17. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 17 ranks 6th in boardings and 11th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 17 ranks 6th in boardings and last in boardings per revenue hour among 12 routes.

Route 17 ranks 1st on weekdays and Saturday in average trip length. This route is the longest route by far in the FAST network. Route 17 ranks 8th in seat utilization on weekdays and 9th on Saturday.

Table 2.86 Route 17 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 475 27.9 17.0 22.3% 5.80 Saturday 292 20.9 14.0 19.3% 6.11 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.87 presents financial data for Route 17. Route 17 ranks 11th in subsidy per boarding and 9th in farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 17 ranks last in subsidy per boarding and 10th in farebox recovery ratio among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.87 Route 17 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 475 $341 $1,734 $3.65 $2.93 19.6% Saturday 292 $210 $1,295 $4.43 $3.71 16.2% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.39 and 2.40 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Cross Creek Mall 141 boardings, 144 alightings • Cliffdale & 71st School IB 82 boardings, 42 alightings • Raeford Road/Wal-Mart 44 boardings, 43 alightings • Cliffdale & 71st School OB 34 boardings, 62 alightings • Ponderosa Shopping Center IB 28 boardings, 8 alightings • Ponderosa Shopping Center OB 7 boardings, 28 alightings

There are no overcrowded trips on Route 17. The peak load is 19 on weekdays and 15 on Saturday.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-109 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.43 Route 17 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-110 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.44 Route 17 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-111 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.88 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Yadkin & Cimarron are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.88 indicate a balanced ridership flow, slightly higher inbound toward Cross Creek Mall in the morning and slightly higher outbound toward Wal-Mart at other times. The outbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Yadkin & Cimarron has the greatest passenger activity in each time period except morning due to the number of boardings at Cross Creek Mall. The inbound segment between Cliffdale & 71st School and Morgantown/Murry Fork Shopping Center has the highest number of boardings in the morning and is second all day.

Productivity is balanced overall and is higher outbound in all time periods except the morning. Segment productivity is highest in every time period on the outbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Yadkin & Cimarron due to the short length of this segment and passenger activity at Cross Creek Mall. Overall productivity is highest in the afternoon and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between Cross Creek Mall and Yadkin & Cimarron in the afternoon (122.6 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Yadkin & Brookfield and Cross Creek Mall in the evening (0.0). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the afternoon (20.5) and lowest inbound in the evening (11.8).

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is outbound between Cross Creek Mall and Yadkin & Cimarron in the afternoon (136.4 boardings per revenue hour).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-112 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.88 Route 17 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Cross Creek Mall – 145 96.0 27 62.2 67 103.4 40 122.6 12 107.4 Yadkin & Cimarron OB: Yadkin & Cimarron - 1 0.5 0 0.4 0 0.7 0 0.4 0 0.6 Ponderosa Shopping Center OB: Ponderosa Shopping Ctr - 12 8.0 3 7.0 6 9.2 3 8.2 0 4.2 Yadkin & Fort Bragg gate OB: Yadkin & Fort Bragg gate - 18 11.7 6 14.5 7 11.1 3 10.7 1 6.9 N. Reilly & Overbrook OB: N. Reilly & Overbrook - 3 1.7 1 1.9 1 1.6 1 1.8 0 0.0 Cliffdale & 71st School Rd OB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd - 45 22.5 13 22.7 17 19.4 12 27.7 3 24.0 Montebello Shopping Center OB: Montebello Shopping 13 2.9 4 3.5 6 3.2 2 2.5 0 0.5 Center - Raeford Rd Wal-Mart Outbound Total 237 17.0 55 13.8 104 17.6 61 20.5 16 16.5 IB: Raeford Rd Wal-Mart – 55 31.3 14 27.0 23 30.8 14 36.0 5 40.5 Cliffdale & Seaford IB: Cliffdale & Seaford – 10 13.0 4 16.7 4 12.7 2 11.5 0 4.4 Montebello Shopping Center IB: Montebello Shopping Center st 15 12.0 7 19.9 5 9.9 2 9.1 0 2.7 – Cliffdale & 71 School Rd IB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd – 6 8.0 2 7.4 3 9.8 1 6.9 0 3.3 Pritchett/Cliffdale Rec Center IB: Pritchett/Cliffdale Rec Center 6 2.1 2 2.0 3 2.1 2 2.7 0 1.4 – Cliffdale & 71st School Rd IB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd – 97 32.0 34 39.0 38 29.4 21 32.7 4 18.3 Morgantown/Murry Fork SC IB: Morgantown/Murry Fork SC 8 6.1 4 11.5 3 4.8 1 3.3 0 1.3 – Ponderosa Shopping Center IB: Ponderosa Shopping Center 29 38.9 7 34.1 13 41.3 7 43.5 2 32.2 – Yadkin & Brookfield IB: Yadkin & Brookfield – 12 7.8 3 6.1 6 8.5 4 11.1 0 0.0 Cross Creek Mall Inbound Total 239 17.0 76 18.8 98 16.2 54 17.7 11 11.8 Weekday Total 475 17.0 130 16.3 203 16.9 115 19.1 27 14.2 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-113 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.89 shows the peak load points on Route 17 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.89 indicates that the peak load point is weekdays at Yadkin & Silver Pine, with 149 passengers traveling inbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is inbound on the weekday 8:30 a.m. trip at Yadkin & Silver Pine, with 19 passengers on board.

Table 2.89 Route 17 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Cross Yadkin & Weekday All Day 144 All Day 149 Peak Load Creek Mall Silver Pine Point Cross Yadkin & Saturday All Day 85 All Day 86 Creek Mall Silver Pine Cross Yadkin & Weekday 2:30 pm 15 8:30 am 19 Creek Mall Silver Pine Maximum 4800 block Load Point Cross Saturday 4:30 pm 15 Lake Valley 11:30 am 10 Creek Mall Dr Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.90 and 2.91 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 17 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 80 percent at all time points, 4th among the 13 weekday routes. This is noteworthy; long routes typically have difficulty staying on schedule because so many things can go wrong. Schedule adherence is consistent throughout the day. Late departures occur more often than early departures except in the midday.

Table 2.90 Route 17 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 27,195 6,980 11,901 5,832 2,482 Early 3,000 657 1,522 487 334 Late 3,764 1,135 1,348 887 394 On Time % 80% 80% 81% 81% 77% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-114 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.91) at all time points on Route 17 is also 80 percent, 6th among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is highest in the midday and lowest in the evening. Late departures occur slightly more often than early departures, but early departures are more common in the afternoon and evening.

Table 2.91 Route 17 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 3,972 590 2,364 944 74 Early 488 63 216 171 38 Late 532 108 273 151 0 On Time % 80% 78% 83% 75% 66% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.92 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 17. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segments between North Reilly & Overbrook and Cliffdale & 71st School Road and between Montebello Shopping Center and Raeford Road Wal-Mart and for the inbound segments between Pritchett & Cliffdale Rec Center and Cliffdale & 71st School Road and between Yadkin & Brookfield and Cross Creek Mall.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 8.1 minutes less in the afternoon to 12.6 minutes less in the morning. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 7.7 minutes less in the midday to 11.5 minutes less in the evening.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-115 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.92 Route 17 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Cross Creek Mall – 6.5 6 7.0 6 7.1 6 6.7 6 Yadkin & Cimarron OB: Yadkin & Cimarron - 2.2 5 2.6 5 2.8 5 2.5 5 Ponderosa Shopping Center OB: Ponderosa Shopping Ctr - 5.5 6 6.4 6 5.6 6 5.4 6 Yadkin & Fort Bragg gate OB: Yadkin & Fort Bragg gate - 5.7 6 5.4 6 5.7 6 5.5 6 N. Reilly & Overbrook OB: N. Reilly & Overbrook - 5.5 7 5.5 7 7.1 7 5.7 7 Cliffdale & 71st School Rd OB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd - 9.1 8 9.6 8 10.0 8 9.7 8 Montebello Shopping Center OB: Montebello Shopping 7.9 17 8.9 17 8.6 17 8.8 17 Center - Raeford Rd Wal-Mart Outbound Total 42.4 55 45.5 55 46.9 55 44.2 55 IB: Raeford Rd Wal-Mart – 7.0 7 8.6 7 7.6 7 7.3 7 Cliffdale & Seaford IB: Cliffdale & Seaford – 3.5 3 3.6 3 3.6 3 3.4 3 Montebello Shopping Center IB: Montebello Shopping Center 4.8 5 4.9 5 5.3 5 5.1 5 – Cliffdale & 71st School Rd IB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd – 3.5 3 3.8 3 4.0 3 3.5 3 Pritchett/Cliffdale Rec Center IB: Pritchett/Cliffdale Rec Center st 4.1 12 4.8 12 5.8 12 5.1 12 – Cliffdale & 71 School Rd IB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd – 10.2 12 9.7 12 9.4 12 8.8 12 Morgantown/Murry Fork SC IB: Morgantown/Murry Fork SC 4.2 5 4.4 5 3.9 5 3.5 5 – Ponderosa Shopping Center IB: Ponderosa Shopping Center 2.9 3 3.6 3 3.5 3 2.8 3 – Yadkin & Brookfield IB: Yadkin & Brookfield – 4.5 6 5.1 6 5.2 6 4.9 6 Cross Creek Mall Inbound Total 44.8 56 48.3 56 48.2 56 44.5 56 Round Trip Total 87.2 111 93.8 111 95.1 111 88.7 111 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 17 ranks 6th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is balanced, with higher ridership inbound in the morning and outbound at other times of day. Route 17 also ranks 6th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 17 ranks 11th in productivity and subsidy per passenger, and 9th in farebox recovery on weekdays. On Saturday, Route 17 ranks last in productivity and subsidy per passenger and 10th in farebox recovery. The lower ranking on these measures is due to the length of the route and the need for two buses to provide hourly service. Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-116 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 17. The peak load is 19 on weekdays and 15 on Saturday.

Route 17 ranks 4th in weekday schedule adherence at 80 percent and 6th on Saturday at 80 percent. Long routes usually have poor schedule adherence, so this is a positive aspect of Route 17 performance.

As the longest route in the FAST network, Route 17 is 1st in average trip length on weekdays and Saturday. Route 17 ranks 8th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and 9th on Saturday.

Route 17 is in the middle among FAST routes in terms of ridership, but lags in productivity and financial performance due to the resources needed to operate hourly service. Schedule adherence is good, especially for such a long route.

Route 18 Cross Creek – 71st School Road

Overview Route 18 (Figure 2.45) operates in the western part of Fayetteville and connects Cross Creek Mall and the 71st School Road/Cliffdale/Reilly area. The dark green areas in Figure 2.45 represent neighborhoods with a high transit orientation, including north of Cliffdale Road on Route 18. Primary streets of operation include Skibo Road and Cliffdale Road. There is a one- way loop at the outer end of the route via Cliffdale-71st School-Media-Radnor-Bronwyn-Reilly. There is also a mid-route loop between Skibo & Raeford and Cliffdale & Bunce, outbound via Skibo Road-Raeford Road-Bunce Road and inbound via Cliffdale Road-Pritchett Road- Timberland Drive-Louise Circle-Louise Street. Major destinations include Cross Creek Mall and Cliffdale & 71st School Road.

Route 18 is in the bottom half of FAST routes in ridership and productivity.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.93 shows headways for Route 18 by day of the week. Route 18 operates with one bus on weekdays and Saturday.

Figure 2.46 summarizes Route 18 weekday data.

Table 2.93 Route 18 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 60 6:30 a.m. – 10:25 p.m. Saturday 60 8:30 a.m. – 10:25 p.m.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-117 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.45 Route 18

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-118 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.46 Route 18 Summary Data

160 Route 18 Outbound - Avg. Wkday 140

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 MALL D RD ST CREEK DR N/S CROSS CROSS RD RD HOME HOME ARBYS DEPOT / TH DR TH RD N/S BEEBE WARNER SKIBO RD RD / TIME ND CHU RAEFORD RAEFORD SKIBO RD SKIBO RD RAEFORD RD / 71ST RAEFORD SKIBO RD SKIBO RD / ESTATE C SKIBO RD / RD SKIBO REDTIP RD CLIFFDALE FREDRICK FREDRICK RD / LITTLE SKIBO / RD CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE SKIBO RD / RD SKIBO N/S LOUISE LOUISE N/S WILDWOOD WILDWOOD BUNCE RD/ BUNCE RD/ BUNCE RD/ PORTSMOU BUNCE RD/ SCHO - EOL LEISURE LN 1900 BLOCK CAMPGROU

140 Route 18 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

120

100

80

60

40 Ons Offs On Board 20

0 … N/S N/S LN ST RD RD 1900 RD / RD / RD RD / RD / RD HOME HOME BLOCK BLOCK ARBYS D DR D DR / D DR / D DR / RD N/S DEPOT / CREEK CROSS SCHOO LOOP R SKIBO RD SKIBO SKIBO RD RD SKIBO RD SKIBO LEISURE / DANDY / DANDY RICHWO… D DR D DR F/S RD / 71ST PRITCHE CROSS SKIBO RD BUNCE RD SKIBO RD / SKIBO RD / REGENC… SKIBO / RD SKIBO / RD F/S BUNCE CLIFFDALE REDTIP RD REDTIP CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE CLIFFDALE MALL -MALL EOL F/S LOUISE CLIFFDALE PRITCHETT PRITCHETT GLENLEA C R WAYSIDE LOUISE CIR LOUISE CIR TIMBERLAN TIMBERLAN TIMBERLAN TIMBERLAN LOUISE ST / WYNNWO…

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-119 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.94 presents operating data for Route 18. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 18 ranks 10th in boardings and 9th in boardings per revenue hour. On Saturday, Route 18 ranks 9th in boardings and 10th in boardings per revenue hour among 12 routes.

Route 18 ranks 2nd to Route 17 on weekdays and Saturday in average trip length. Route 18 ranks 7th in seat utilization on weekdays and Saturday.

Table 2.94 Route 18 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 301 15.9 18.9 24.7% 5.38 Saturday 221 13.9 15.9 20.2% 5.24 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.95 presents financial data for Route 18. Route 18 ranks 9th in subsidy per boarding and 8th in farebox recovery ratio (passenger revenue divided by operating cost) among 13 weekday routes. Route 18 ranks 10th in subsidy per boarding and 8th in farebox recovery ratio among 12 Saturday routes.

Table 2.95 Route 18 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 301 $210 $988 $3.28 $2.58 21.2% Saturday 221 $154 $864 $3.91 $3.21 17.8% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figures 2.43 and 2.44 show boardings by stop and direction for weekdays and Saturday, with the outbound direction first. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Cross Creek Mall 136 boardings, 129 alightings • Cliffdale & 71st School 32 boardings, 36 alightings

There are no overcrowded trips on Route 18. The peak load is 15 on weekdays and 13 on Saturday.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-120 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.47 Route 18 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-121 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.48 Route 18 Saturday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-122 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.96 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction, time of day, and route segment. Each route segment includes boardings at the first stop but not at the last stop of the segment; for example, boardings at Skibo & Arby’s are counted in the second segment outbound. The ridership patterns in Table 2.96 indicate an outbound ridership flow toward Cliffdale & 71st School Road all day except morning, when outbound and inbound ridership is balanced. The outbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Skibo & Arby’s has the greatest passenger activity in each time period except morning due to the number of boardings at Cross Creek Mall. The inbound segment between Pritchett & Cliffdale and Home Depot has the highest number of morning boardings. .

Table 2.96 Route 18 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH OB: Cross Creek Mall – 136 155.6 9 53.9 53 162.5 41 248.1 33 152.2 Skibo & Arby’s OB: Skibo & Arby's – 8 5.6 1 3.7 3 5.7 2 9.1 2 4.1 Home Depot OB: Home Depot - Raeford & 14 7.9 3 7.8 5 7.3 4 10.8 3 6.7 Time Warner Cable OB: Raeford & Time Warner 32 27.1 11 52.0 14 31.0 4 17.2 3 10.1 Cable - Bunce & Cliffdale OB: Bunce & Cliffdale – 1 0.3 0 0.6 0 0.2 0 0.4 0 0.1 Cliffdale & 71st School Rd Outbound Total 190 21.9 24 14.7 75 22.9 51 30.9 41 19.1 IB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd – 37 63.2 6 81.6 16 72.9 7 64.0 8 43.7 Cliffdale & Bunce IB: Cliffdale & Bunce – 12 21.2 3 43.3 4 20.5 3 26.2 2 10.2 Pritchett & Cliffdale IB: Pritchett & Cliffdale – 34 11.5 12 32.7 12 10.7 6 10.9 4 4.4 Home Depot IB: Home Depot – 28 13.9 2 8.4 10 12.9 8 21.5 8 12.9 Skibo & Arby’s IB: Skibo & Arby’s – 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Cross Creek Mall Inbound Total 111 15.3 23 25.4 42 15.4 24 17.6 22 9.8 Weekday Total 301 18.9 47 18.6 117 19.5 75 24.9 63 14.3 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Productivity is higher outbound in all time periods except morning. Segment productivity is highest in every time period except morning on the outbound segment between Cross Creek Mall and Skibo & Arby’s due to the short length of this segment and passenger activity at Cross Creek Mall. Overall productivity is highest in the afternoon and lowest in the evening. The most productive time of day segment is outbound between Cross Creek Mall and Skibo & Arby’s in the afternoon (248.1 boardings per revenue hour). The least productive time of day segment is inbound between Skibo & Arby’s and Cross Creek Mall in all time periods (0.0). Productivity by direction and time of day is highest outbound in the afternoon (30.9) and lowest inbound in the evening (9.8).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-123 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Appendix A contains detailed information on Saturday productivity. Saturday productivity is highest outbound in the afternoon. The most productive segment on Saturday is outbound between Cross Creek Mall and Skibo & Arby’s in the afternoon (168.1 boardings per revenue hour).

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.97 shows the peak load points on Route 18 for weekday and Saturday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.97 indicates that the peak load point is weekdays at Cross Creek Mall, with 136 passengers traveling inbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the weekday 4:30 p.m. trip at Cross Creek Mall and inbound on the weekday 7:00 a.m. trip at Skibo & Leisure, with 15 passengers on board.

Table 2.97 Route 18 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board Cross Skibo & Weekday All Day 136 All Day 131 Peak Load Creek Mall Redtip Point Cross Skibo & Saturday All Day 97 All Day 94 Creek Mall Redtip Cross Skibo & Weekday 4:30 pm 15 7:00 am 15 Maximum Creek Mall Leisure Load Point Cross Skibo & Saturday 6:30 pm 11 12:00 pm 13 Creek Mall Cliffdale Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Tables 2.98 and 2.99 present schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 18 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 76 percent at all time points, 9th among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence is highest in the morning and midday, and then declines throughout the afternoon and evening. Early departures occur more often than late departures in the midday and evening, while late departures are more common in the morning and afternoon.

Table 2.98 Route 18 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 16,862 2,837 7,032 3,073 3,920 Early 2,707 158 805 303 1,441 Late 2,608 442 652 853 661 On Time % 76% 83% 83% 73% 65% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-124 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Saturday on-time performance (Table 2.99) at all time points on Route 18 is 77 percent, slightly higher than weekday on-time performance and 11th among the 12 Saturday routes. Saturday schedule adherence is highest in the midday and declines throughout the day. Early departures occur more often than late departures in the morning and evening, while late departures are more common in the midday and afternoon.

Table 2.99 Route 18 Saturday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Schedule On Time 3,125 118 1,370 652 985 Early 370 10 143 32 185 Late 540 7 211 186 136 On Time % 77% 87% 79% 75% 75% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.100 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 18. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For this analysis, we use arrival-to-arrival run times to capture dwell time at timepoints, except in cases where dwell time is unusually high. High dwell times indicate that operators are waiting for time, and in these cases we use actual runtime between timepoints. Actual running times are used for the outbound segment between Bunce & Cliffdale and Cliffdale & 71st School Road and for the inbound segment between Skibo & Arby’s and Cross Creek Mall.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction at all times; the difference ranges from 6.0 minutes less in the afternoon to 10.5 minutes less in the morning. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 0.5 minutes less in the morning to 2.8 minutes less in the evening.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-125 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.100 Route 18 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Evening Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd OB: Cross Creek Mall – 3.9 3 4.7 3 5.4 3 4.4 3 Skibo & Arby’s OB: Skibo & Arby's – 4.1 5 4.4 5 5.5 5 3.9 5 Home Depot OB: Home Depot - Raeford & 3.2 6 3.7 6 3.6 6 3.0 6 Time Warner Cable OB: Raeford & Time Warner 4.7 4 4.5 4 4.3 4 4.9 4 Cable - Bunce & Cliffdale OB: Bunce & Cliffdale – 3.6 12 4.1 12 5.2 12 3.9 12 Cliffdale & 71st School Rd Outbound Total 19.5 30 21.4 30 24.0 30 20.1 30 IB: Cliffdale & 71st School Rd – 6.3 2 5.6 2 5.1 2 5.5 2 Cliffdale & Bunce IB: Cliffdale & Bunce – 1.8 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1.4 2 Pritchett & Cliffdale IB: Pritchett & Cliffdale – 8.4 10 8.1 10 8.5 10 8.3 10 Home Depot IB: Home Depot – 5.5 7 5.8 7 5.7 7 4.7 7 Skibo & Arby’s IB: Skibo & Arby’s – 2.5 4 2.5 4 2.3 4 2.3 4 Cross Creek Mall Inbound Total 24.5 25 23.5 25 23.2 25 22.2 25 Round Trip Total 44.0 55 44.8 55 47.1 55 42.3 55 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 18 ranks 10th in ridership among the 13 weekday routes. Ridership is higher in the outbound direction than inbound. Route 18 ranks 9th in ridership among the 12 Saturday routes.

Route 18 ranks 9th in productivity and subsidy per passenger and 8th in farebox recovery on weekdays. On Saturday, Route 18 ranks 10th in productivity and subsidy per passenger and 8th in farebox recovery.

There are no instances of overcrowding on Route 18. The peak load is 15 on weekdays and 13 on Saturday.

Route 18 ranks 9th in weekday schedule adherence at 76 percent and 11th on Saturday at 77 percent.

Route 18 is 2nd in average trip length on weekdays and Saturday. Route 18 ranks 7th in passenger miles per seat mile on weekdays and Saturday.

Route 18 is in the lower half of FAST routes in terms of ridership, productivity, and financial performance. This is due to the residential nature of much of its service area. Schedule adherence is acceptable on weekdays and good on Saturday.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-126 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Route 30 Downtown – PWC Shuttle

Overview Route 30 (Figure 2.49) is a short shuttle route that operates every 30 minutes between the Transfer Center and the PWC facility on Old Wilmington Road. The dark blue areas in Figure 2.49 represent neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation, including downtown on Route 30. The primary street of operation is Old Wilmington Road, although the route deviates to serve Alfred Street between Campbell Avenue and Vanstory Street. The only major destinations are the Transfer Center and PWC.

Route 30 is last among FAST routes in ridership and productivity.

Headway and Span of Service Table 2.101 shows headways for Route 30 by day of the week. Route 30 operates with one small bus on weekdays and does not operate on Saturday.

Figure 2.50 summarizes Route 30 weekday data.

Table 2.101 Route 30 Headway and Span of Service

Day of Week Headway (minutes) Span of Service Weekday 20-30 8:25 a.m. – 5:45 p.m. Saturday -- --

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-127 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.49 Route 30

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-128 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.50 Route 30 Summary Data

35 Route 30 Outbound - Avg. Wkday

30

25

20

15

10 Ons Offs On Board 5

0 OLD OLD N RD / CURTI CENTER PWC - EOL TRANSFER ALFRED ST WILMINGTO

30 Route 30 Inbound - Avg. Wkday

25

20

15

10

Ons Offs On Board 5

0 PWC N EOL OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD CAM OLD N RD / N N RD / N CURTI WRIGH CENTER - N RD N/S N RD TRANSFER TRANSFER 300 BLOCK BLOCK 300 WILMINGTO WILMINGTO WILMINGTO WILMINGTO WILMINGTO N RD / N LAUVI

3 System 3 4 Average 4 5 5 Weekday Ridership 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 Weekday Productivity 18 18 30 30 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 3 4 Weekday Subsidy per Boarding 4 On Time 5 5 Performance 6 System 6 7 Average 7 System 8 8 Average 9 9 12 12 14 14 15 15 17 17 18 18 30 30

0246810 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-129 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Operating Data Table 2.102 presents operating data for Route 30. Among the 13 weekday routes, Route 30 ranks last in boardings and boardings per revenue hour. Route 30 also ranks last on weekdays in average trip length and seat utilization.

Table 2.102 Route 30 Operating and Productivity Data

Day of Revenue Boardings Seat Average Boardings Week Hours per Rev Hr Utilization Trip Length Weekday 62 9.6 6.5 7.7% 1.20 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Table 2.103 presents financial data for Route 30. Route 30 ranks last in all measures.

Table 2.103 Route 30 Financial Data

Subsidy Farebox Day of Passenger Operating Cost per Boardings per Recovery Week Revenue Cost Boarding Boarding Ratio Weekday 62 $23 $595 $9.57 $9.21 3.8% Source: APC Data, April 2013; 2013 FAST cost per revenue hour and revenue per passenger

Figure 2.47 shows boardings by stop and direction for weekdays. The busiest stops (at least 25 boardings or alightings per weekday in one direction), in decreasing order of usage, include:

• Transfer Center 31 boardings, 27 alightings • PWC 24 boardings, 26 alightings

There are no overcrowded trips on Route 30. The peak load is 2 on weekdays.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-130 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Figure 2.51 Route 30 Weekday Boardings and Alightings by Stop

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-131 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Weekday Segment and Time of Day Analysis Table 2.104 shows weekday boardings and productivity (boardings per revenue hour) by direction and time of day. There is only one route segment, given the short length of the route. The ridership patterns in Table 2.104 indicate an even ridership flow by direction. Productivity is highest in the midday and lowest in the morning.

Table 2.104 Route 30 Weekday Boardings by Direction, Time of Day, and Route Segment

All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Segment B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH B B/RH Outbound Total 33 6.7 2 6.4 21 7.0 10 6.4 Inbound Total 30 6.2 0 1.7 21 7.1 8 5.3 Weekday Total 62 6.5 3 4.4 42 7.0 18 5.9 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Peak Load and Maximum Load Table 2.105 shows the peak load points on Route 30 for weekday. For peak load point, we use total daily ridership to identify the stop at which the total number of passengers on board is greatest. For maximum load point, we use ridership by trip to identify the trip and stop with the most people on a single bus. Table 2.105 indicates that the peak load point is weekdays at the Transfer Center, with 31 passengers traveling outbound at this location throughout the day. The maximum load point is outbound on the weekday 3:25 and 3:55 p.m. trips at the Transfer Center and inbound on the weekday 9:10 a.m. trip at Old Wilmington & Campbell Terrace, with 2 passengers on board.

Table 2.105 Route 30 Peak and Maximum Load Points

Outbound Inbound Measure Day Riders on Riders on Stop Time Stop Time Board Board 300 block Peak Load Transfer Weekday All Day 31 Old All Day 28 Point Center Wilmington Old Maximum Transfer 3:25 pm Weekday 2 Wilmington 9:10 am 2 Load Point Center 3:55 pm & Campbell Source: APC Data, April 2013

Schedule Adherence Table 2.106 presents schedule adherence data, in terms of the percent of all timepoints at which the bus was within one minute before to five minutes after the scheduled time, for Route 30 on weekdays and Saturday.

Weekday on-time performance is 45 percent at all time points, last among the 13 weekday routes. Schedule adherence is highest in the morning. Early departures are very common on this route.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-132 Transit Development Plan Update 2. Route Profiles

Table 2.106 Route 30 Weekday Schedule Adherence

Actual vs. All Day Morning Midday Afternoon Schedule On Time 3,994 333 2,444 1,217 Early 4,603 223 2,998 1,382 Late 210 93 78 39 On Time % 45% 51% 44% 46% Source: APC Data, October 2012 through June 2013

Another way of considering schedule adherence is to examine actual versus scheduled running times. Table 2.100 shows average running times and scheduled running times by segment and time of day on weekdays for Route 18. Caution is needed in interpreting results, since delays on one or two trips can affect the average for the entire segment or time period, but this level of detail highlights where running time adjustments might be needed. For Route 30 we use actual runtime between timepoints.

Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the outbound direction except on the first trip of the morning (5 minutes scheduled and 7.2 minutes actual); the difference ranges from 3.6 minutes less in the midday to 5.5 minutes less for the second trip in the morning. Actual running time is less than scheduled running time in the inbound direction at all times. The difference between actual average and scheduled running times inbound ranges from 6.5 minutes less in the midday to 8.1 minutes less in the morning.

Appendix A contains additional information on schedule adherence, including graphs of actual versus scheduled running time for every trip.

Table 2.107 Route 30 Average versus Scheduled Running Times (in Minutes) by Segment and Time of Day on Weekdays

Morning Midday Afternoon Segment Act Schd Act Schd Act Schd Outbound Total 7.2/9.5 5/15 11.4 15 11.3 15 Inbound Total 6.9 15 8.5 15 8.4 15 Source: APC Data, April 2013

Overall Assessment Route 30 ranks last in all measures. Route 30 has a single purpose: to shuttle riders between downtown and PSC. With the relocation of the Transfer Center, this route might be converted into a downtown shuttle and/or combined with other routes to improve its performance.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 2-133 Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 3: Peer and Trend Analysis

3.0 Introduction

How does FAST compare to peer systems? For the peer group, we selected transit systems within North Carolina that are similar or slightly larger in size than FAST along with nearby systems that serve army bases (METRA in Columbus, GA, home of Fort Benning, and CTS in Clarksville, TN, home of Fort Campbell). The primary data source is the National Transit Database for FY 2011, the most recent year available on-line. Peer systems include:

• Asheville Redefines Transit (ART) • Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) • Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA) • Hi-tran (High Point) • WAVE (Wilmington) • Winston-Salem Transit Authority (WSTA) • METRA (Columbus, GA) • Clarksville Transit System (Clarksville, TN)

Two averages are used in the analysis. The peer group average consists of the seven peer systems plus FAST, while the North Carolina peer average consists of the five peer systems within the state plus FAST.

In addition to the peer analysis, this report also examines FAST trends in key variables since 2008. Key variables include: boardings per revenue hour; revenue hours per service area population; operating cost per boarding.

The analysis is organized in four sections. The first section includes data on the size, cost, and usage of the peer transit systems. The second section compares peer systems in terms of various performance metrics. The third section examines service spans and frequencies at the peer systems. Individual system websites provide the data used in the third section. The final section presents FAST trends.

3.1 System Size, Cost and Ridership

Figure 3.1 presents service area population for the peer agencies. The population of the area served by FAST is slightly lower than the peer average and is equal to the NC peer average.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-1

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.1 Service Area Population 300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

- WAVE ART Hi-tran FAST CTS DATA WSTA METRA GTA Average NC Average

Figure 3.2 shows annual revenue hours of service. FAST ranks in the middle of the peer groups, but below both averages. The larger systems in Durham and Greensboro provide more service and thus drive up the averages.

Figure 3.2 Annual Revenue Hours of Service 225,000

200,000

175,000

150,000

125,000

100,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

0 Hi-tran ART METRA CTS FAST WAVE WSTA GTA DATA Average NC Average

Figure 3.3 presents annual operating expenses. FAST is in the middle of the peers, well below both averages.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-2

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.3 Annual Operating Expenses $16,000,000

$12,000,000

$8,000,000

$4,000,000

$0 Hi-tran METRA CTS ART FAST WAVE WSTA GTA DATA Average NC Average

Figure 3.4 shows annual ridership. FAST is close to the middle of the peers, toward the upper end but well below both averages.

Figure 3.4 Annual Ridership 7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0 CTS Hi-tran METRA ART WAVE FAST WSTA GTA DATA Average NC Average

Figure 3.5 presents peak vehicles requirements. This represents the maximum number of vehicles in service during a typical weekday. FAST is in the middle of the peer group with 17 peak buses, below both averages.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-3

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.5 Peak Vehicle Requirements 50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

- Hi-tran ART METRA CTS FAST WAVE WSTA DATA GTA Average NC Average

3.2 Performance Measures

This section examines performance data for the peer systems. Factors used include:

• Revenue hours per service area population, a measure of the level of service provided given the number of people in the service area; • Ridership per revenue hour, a standard measure of productivity in the transit industry; • Operating expense per revenue hour, a useful unit cost measure; • Operating expense per passenger, measuring service efficiency; • Farebox recovery ratio, or the percentage of operating cost covered by farebox revenue; • Operator wages per revenue hour, similar to operating expense per revenue hour but looking particularly at labor costs; • Operator wages as a percentage of total operating costs.

Figure 3.6 presents revenue hours per service area population. FAST is toward the lower end of the peers, below both averages at 0.48 revenue hours per person. WAVE in Wilmington has a very small service area population, and thus is the only system with a ratio greater than 1.1. The average in Figure 2.32 is the weighted average, calculated by dividing ridership on all systems by revenue hours on all systems. Thus, the larger systems have a greater effect on the average. This method is used in all remaining figures.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-4

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.6 Revenue Hours per Service Area Population 1.75

1.50

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00 METRA Hi-tran CTS FAST GTA WSTA ART DATA WAVE Figure 6 Weighted Average Figure 6 Weighted NC Average

Figure 3.7 presents productivity, measured by boardings per revenue hour. FAST ranks sixth among the nine peer systems, with 23.08 boardings per revenue hour.

Figure 3.7 Productivity (Boardings per Revenue Hour) 35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00 CTS WAVE METRA FAST WSTA ART Hi-tran GTA DATA Weighted Average Weighted NC Average

Figure 3.8 shows operating expense per revenue hour. FAST ranks sixth among the nine peer systems at $70.05, below the weighted peer average of $78.38, and has the second lowest operating expense per revenue hour of any North Carolina peer system.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-5

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.8 Operating Expense per Revenue Hour $90.00

$60.00

$30.00

$0.00 METRA CTS WAVE FAST Hi-tran WSTA ART DATA GTA Weighted Average Weighted NC Average

Figure 3.9 shows operating expense per passenger. FAST ranks sixth among the nine peers at $3.03, below the weighted peer average of $3.15 and the North Carolina weighted peer average of $3.05.

Figure 3.9 Operating Expense per Passenger $6.00

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

$0.00 Hi-tran DATA WSTA FAST ART GTA METRA WAVE CTS Weighted Average Weighted NC Average

Figure 3.10 shows farebox recovery ratio, measured by farebox revenues divided by operating expenses. FAST is third among the eight peer systems (one peer did not break out revenue by mode) at 18.9 percent, above the peer average of 18.1 percent.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-6

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.10 Farebox Recovery Ratio 25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% METRA CTS DATA ART WSTA FAST GTA Hi-tran Weighted Average Weighted NC Average

Figure 3.11 presents operator wages per revenue hour. FAST is the lowest among the five peer systems (several did not break out operator wages) at $16.93.

Figure 3.11 Operator Wages per Revenue Hour 35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% FASTCTSWSTAARTWAVE Weighted Average Weighted NC Average

Figure 3.12 presents operator wages as a percentage of overall operating costs. FAST is lowest among the five peer systems that provided details on operator wages and at 18.3 percent is well below the overall and North Carolina weighted averages.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-7

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.12 Operator Wages as a Percentage of Overall Operating Costs 35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% FASTCTSWSTAARTWAVE Weighted Average Weighted NC Average

3.3 Service Spans and Headways

This section uses information from agency websites to summarize service spans and headways. Service span is measured from the time the first trip begins to the time the last trip begins. Headway describes how often service operates on a particular route: 30-minute headway means that a bus operates every 30 minutes along a route.

Figure 3.13 shows the number of routes operated by each peer system. It could be expected that this number is simple to calculate, but two peer systems had complex route structures with extensive branching off main routes. DATA groups the branched routes together on its timetables, so the number of DATA routes does not include branches. ART does not group the branched routes, so the number of ART routes includes branches as separate routes. FAST has 13 routes, slightly below the average of 14.7 for all peers.

Figure 3.13 Number of Routes at Each Peer System 25

20

15

10

5

0 METRA CTS Hi-tran FAST DATA WAVE ART GTA WSTA Average NC Average

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-8

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.14 presents weekday service spans. Hi-tran has the shortest span of service, with its first trip leaving at 5:45 am and its last trip leaving at 6:05 pm. FAST has later service than four peers, while three peer systems operate past 10 pm. METRA in Columbus, GA and CTS in Clarksdale, TN have the earliest service, with first trips at 4:30 am, but this is only on routes serving military bases.

Figure 3.14 Weekday Service Spans 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Hi-tran METRA WAVE CTS FAST ART GTA WSTA DATA

Late evening service is not necessarily provided on all routes. Figure 3.15 shows the percentage of routes operating after 8:00 pm. FAST ranks fourth among the peer systems, with over half of its routes (7 of 13) operating after 8:00 pm. WSTA operates combined routes for its evening service, typically serving one daytime route outbound and another daytime route inbound.

Figure 3.15 Percentage of Routes Operating after 8 PM 100%

75%

50%

25%

0% Hi-tran METRA CTS WSTA ART FAST WAVE GTA DATA Average

Figure 3.16 indicates the percentage of all routes with peak weekday headways of 30 minutes or less. FAST has three routes with frequent peak-period service, or 23 percent of all its routes, and ranks seventh among the nine peer systems.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-9

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.16 Percentage of Routes with Weekday Peak Period Headways of 30 Minutes or Less 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% ART WAVE FAST WSTA METRA CTS GTA Hi-tran DATA Average NC Average

Figure 3.17 indicates the percentage of all routes with weekday midday headways of 30 minutes or less. FAST has three routes with frequent peak-period service, or 23 percent of all its routes, and ranks seventh among the nine peer systems . Figure 3.17 Percentage of Routes with Weekday Midday Headways of 30 Minutes or Less 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% ART WAVE FAST Hi-tran METRA WSTA CTS GTA DATA Average NC Average

Finally, Figure 3.18 indicates that only four of the nine peer systems have Sunday service. WSTA is the most recent system to add Sunday service in November 2013.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-10

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.18 Sunday Service at Peer Systems System Sunday Service ART No CTS No DATA Yes FAST No GTA Yes Hi-Tran No METRA No WAVE Yes WSTA Yes

To summarize, FAST is a smaller system in a smaller area, and thus the peer results suggest that FAST has not achieved the economies of scale that larger systems benefit from by virtue of their size. FAST ranks at or near the middle in most system and performance measures. The FAST system’s strengths include below-average operating cost per revenue hour and per trip, below-average operator wages per revenue hour and as a percentage of total cost, above- average farebox recovery ratio, and an above-average percentage of routes with late evening service. Areas of potential improvement include productivity, revenue hours per service area population, and percentage of routes with 30-minute headways or less.

3.4 FAST Trends, 2008 to 2012

Peer information is very useful in placing FAST system performance in context. Another way this can be done is to examine recent trends in key performance variables. This section uses NTD data to examine trends in productivity, service provision, and cost.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-11

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.19 indicates that productivity, measured by boardings per revenue hour, increased markedly in 2012 after a steady increase in the period 2008 through 2011. The increase in ridership in 2012 was the primary factor in this change in the trend.

Figure 3.19 FAST Trends: Boardings per Revenue Hour 24.00

21.00

18.00

15.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Boardings per Revenue Hour

Figure 3.20 shows that service levels per person within the FAST service area increased slightly in 2012 after a huge increase in 2011. A more precise measure of service area population, combined with the availability of 2010 census data, played a significant role in the 2011 change.

Figure 3.20 FAST Trends: Revenue Hours per Service Area Population 0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Revenue Hours per Service Area Population

Figure 3.21 presents trends in operating expense per passenger boarding over the four-year period. After remaining constant in 2009, this performance measure decreased sharply in 2010, decreased slightly in 2011, and decreased sharply again in 2012. The big ridership increase combined with modest increases in operating expenses resulted in the 2012 decrease.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-12

Transit Development Plan Update 3. Peer and Trend Analysis

Figure 3.21 FAST Trends: Operating Expense per Passenger Boarding $4.50

$4.00

$3.50

$3.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Operating Expense per Passenger Boarding

The trends in key performance variables all moved in the right direction over the most recent four-year period for which NTD data is available. Productivity has been increasing steadily, while per-capita service levels have increased and operating expenses per passenger boarding have decreased. As the FAST system grows, it can expect to achieve economies of scale that can make its performance more comparable to larger peer systems.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 3-13

Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 4: Intercept Survey

4.0 Introduction

An intercept survey was conducted on June 18 and 19, 2013 to collect public opinions on FAST services. The intercept survey was designed to collect input from both riders and non-riders of the FAST system. For FAST regular bus riders, the survey consists of a series of questions regarding current transit service use and their preference on future service improvements. For non-riders, the survey included questions to solicit their general perceptions and opinions about public transportation. In addition, the survey also included questions to assist FAST in identifying the demographic characteristics of survey respondents. Appendix A includes a copy of the survey.

4.1 Survey Approach

The method used for surveying was the distribution of a self-administered questionnaire at designated locations within the City of Fayetteville. The intercept survey was distributed by TOA staff. In the event that any person had difficulty in filling out the survey, a face-to-face interview was conducted by the surveyor. Three designated locations were initially identified by FAST staff. These locations include:

• Cross Creek Mall • Fayetteville VA Medical Center • Fayetteville Technical Community College

Final survey distribution occurred at only two of the designated sites, Cross Creek Mall and Fayetteville Technical Community College. Cross Creek Mall did not allow us to survey at the food court, as we had hoped, but restricted us to the bus stop island. A total of 182 surveys were collected at the two noted locations. All the information on the completed surveys was entered into a database, which was then cleaned and edited to ensure collected data was valid and accurate for further analysis. Table 4.1 shows the number of surveys collected at each surveyed location. The majority of surveys were collected at Fayetteville Technical Community College.

Table 4.1 Summary of Survey Distribution Location of Survey Distribution # of Completed Surveys Percent Fayetteville Technical Community College 129 70.9% Cross Creek Mall 53 29.1% Total 182 100.0%

4.2 Survey Results

This section, organized into three major categories, documents the results of the FAST intercept survey analysis. The categories are:

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-1

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

• Questions applicable to riders only • Questions applicable to non-riders only • Questions applicable to riders and non-riders.

Question 1 of the survey asked respondents if they ride FAST on a regular basis. As shown in Table 4.2, approximately 42 percent, or 77 respondents, indicated they are regular FAST riders.

Table 4.2 Summary of Respondents’ Status Category # of Respondents Percent Not a regular rider 105 57.7% Regular rider 77 42.3% Total 182 100.0%

4.2.1 Questions Applicable to Riders Only

Question 2 asked riders to indicate how many times a week they ride the bus. As shown in Figure 4.1, 46 percent of riders use the bus more than 5 times per week and 47 percent use the bus between two and five times per week. Only 6.6 percent of riders use the bus once a week or less.

Figure 4.1 Frequency of Bus Use 50.0% 47.4% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 25.0% 21.1% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 6.6% 5.0% 0.0% 1 time a week or 2-5 times per 6-9 times per 10 or more times less week week per week

Question 3 asked riders to specify for what purpose they ride the bus most often. As illustrated in Figure 4.2, “Work” is the trip purpose referenced most often by riders, followed by “Education” and “Personal Business.” Work accounts for almost half of all trip purposes, an interesting result given that the survey was conducted at a shopping center and a community college.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-2

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

Figure 4.2 Most Frequent Trip Purpose

Work 47.3%

Education 29.7%

Personal Business 13.5%

Visiting/Recreation 6.8%

Other 1.4%

Shopping 1.4%

Dining 0.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Figure 4.3 illustrates the need to use more than one bus by riders to complete their trips on FAST. Approximately 84 percent of riders indicated that they generally need to use more than one bus to complete bus trips on FAST.

Figure 4.3 Do you generally need more than one bus to complete bus trips on FAST?

No 15.8%

Yes 84.2%

Question 5 asked riders about their main reason for using FAST bus service. As shown in Figure 4.4, the predominant reason is “I do not have a car.” Two riders who indicated “other” further specified that their reason is “vehicle is being repaired.” Combining these two response categories together, 85 percent of riders indicated their main reason to ride FAST is “I do not have a car available.” FAST is an important mobility option for those without their own transportation.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-3

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

Figure 4.4 Main Reason to Ride FAST

I do not have a car 82.4%

Riding saves me money 5.4%

Other 2.7%

I do not have a license 2.7%

Riding is convenient 2.7%

To avoid traffic 2.7%

I am disabled 1.4%

To avoid parking problems 0.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Question 6 asked riders to select their top three improvements from a list of possible service improvements to the FAST bus system. Figure 4.5 illustrates the results to this question. “More frequent bus service,” “Later evening service,” and “More Sunday service” were the top three service improvements indicated by FAST riders. Only three riders indicated where they would like to see more routes/service: two noted “South Reilly Rd” and the other suggested “Spring Lake.” “Other” responses included “cheaper transfer,” “better customer service,” and “better operator’s attitude.”

Figure 4.5 Top Three Preferred Service Improvements

More frequent bus service 55.7%

Later evening service 48.6%

More Sunday service 41.4%

More benches and shelters at bus stops 24.3%

More routes/service 14.3%

Other 4.3%

More or expanded FASTTRAC! van service 1.4%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-4

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

4.2.2 Question Applicable to Non-riders Only

Question 9 of the survey asked non-riders to select the top three reasons why they do not ride FAST. As shown in Figure 4.6, more than four out of five non-riders indicated that “I have a car/prefer to use my car” as the top reason. Non-riders also mentioned “No bus route close to where I live (18.1%)” and “No direct bus route to my destination (15.2%).” Only one non-rider indicated “Cost is high” under the “Other” category of the listed reasons.

Figure 4.6 Top Three Reasons not Using FAST

I have a car/prefer to use my car 81.9% No bus route close to where I live 18.1% No direct bus route to my destination 15.2% Bus schedule doesn't fit my schedule 12.4% Bus doesn't run often enough 10.5% Feel uneasy/unsafe on the bus 9.5% Bus doesn't run late enough 7.6% Feel uneasy/unsafe at the bus stop 6.7% Other 3.8% Bus doesn't run early enough 2.9%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4.2.3 Questions applicable to riders and non-riders

Questions 7, 8, 10, 12, and the demographic questions on the survey were applicable to riders and non-riders. Results to these questions are grouped by rider and non-rider, where applicable, to note differences between riders and non-riders.

Question 7 asked respondents to indicate how important they think FAST is to their own community. Figure 4.7 shows that riders are more likely to view FAST as very important, as expected. The interesting result here is that over three-quarters of non-riders also consider FAST to be a very important element in the community.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-5

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

Figure 4.7 Importance of FAST to Local Community

100.0% 90.8% 90.0% 80.0% 76.2% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 18.1% 20.0% 6.6% 10.0% 2.9% 2.6% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% Very Important Somewhat Not very Not important at important important all

Non-Rider Rider

Figure 4.8 shows if respondents use public transportation when visiting other areas outside of Fayetteville. Riders are more likely to use public transportation than non-riders when visiting other areas outside of Fayetteville.

Figure 4.8 Public Transportation Use Outside of Fayetteville 80.0% 71.2% 70.0%

60.0% 49.3% 50.7% 50.0%

40.0% Non-Rider 28.8% Rider 30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% Yes No

Question 10 of the survey was an open-ended question asking respondents to use a word or two to describe their general impression when they see a FAST bus. Answers to this question vary widely. In order to better reflect the answers to this question, words/phrases with similar meanings were combined together based on professional judgment. Figure 4.9 illustrates the responses. Of all 131 valid responses to this question, the top three positive impressions indicated by respondents include: “Great transportation,” “Clean,” and “Beneficial.” The two negative impressions cited by at least five percent of respondents include “Slow” and “Crowded.”

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-6

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

Figure 4.9 Summary of Impressions upon Seeing a FAST Bus

Great transportation 16.8% Clean 15.3% Beneficial 12.2% Nice 11.5% Helpful 11.5% Slow 7.6% Eco-friendly 7.6% Crowded 6.9% Fast 5.3% Convenient 5.3%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

Question 12 asked respondents to indicate where they live. Figure 4.10 illustrates the results to this question. Almost three-quarters of respondents live in the City of Fayetteville. Twenty respondents indicated a specific residence location under “Other” category, 20 percent live in Harnett County, 35 percent live in Robeson County, and 45 percent live elsewhere.

Figure 4.10 Respondents’ Residence Location 80.0% 73.5% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0%

20.0% 13.3% 9.6% 10.0% 3.6% 0.0% City of Cumberland Hoke County Other Fayetteville County but not Fayetteville

Respondents had an opportunity to provide open-ended comments at the end of the survey. Only 17 percent of survey respondents took the opportunity to provide comments. Answers to this question were grouped into 17 categories so that they could be clearly presented. These

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-7

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

comments represent opinions on and recommendations to FAST operations and policies. As shown in Table 4.3, the top comments include the following:

• Implement Sunday service and run more buses at Fayetteville Technical Community College; • Reduce fares to $1.00 and bring back transfers.

Table 4.3 Summary of Additional Comments Comment Counts Percent Sunday Service and more buses on Route 14 at FTCC 5 16.1% One-way fare back to $1.00 and bring back transfers 4 13.3% 30-min frequency and operate until 9:00 PM 3 10.0% More routes 3 10.0% Better driver courtesy 3 10.0% Need service to Hope Mills 2 6.7% Run Route 17 later and more frequently 2 6.7% More bike racks on bus 1 3.3% Route 17 on Cliffdale Rd running ahead of schedule 1 3.3% Feel unsafe at bus stop 1 3.3% On-time performance and overcrowding issue 1 3.3% More shelters 1 3.3% Poor customer service 1 3.3% Service to Hoke County 1 3.3% Service to Spring Lake 1 3.3% Student pass as part of tuition 1 3.3% Total 31 100.0%

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-8

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

Figure 4.11 displays the demographic information for riders and non-riders. Riders were more likely than non-riders to be male and a member of a minority group and to have low incomes.

Figure 4.11 Demographic Information Summary for Riders and Non-Riders

38.4% Male 67.2% 61.6% Gender Female 32.8% 3.2% 17 or under 1.5% 38.9% 18 to 25 34.3% 26 to 55 48.4%

Age 55.2% 7.4% 56 to 64 7.5% 2.1% 65 years and older 1.5% 23.3% Under $10,000 37.3% 18.9% $10,000 to $19,999 37.3% 15.6% $20,000 to $29,999 16.9% 15.6% $30,000 to $39,999 6.8% 6.7% $40,000 to $49,999 0.0% 20.0% $50,000 or More 1.7% 4.3% American Indian/Alaska Native 3.2% 62.8% Black/African American 69.8% 22.3% White (non Hispanic/Latino/Spanish) 12.7% 2.1% White (Hispanic/Latino/Spanish) 0.0%

Race Income 0.0% Asian 0.0% 1.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.0% 2.1% Two or more races 6.3% 5.3% Other 7.9% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

Non-Rider Rider

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-9

Transit Development Plan Update 4. Intercept Survey

4.3 Summary of Intercept Survey Results

The results from the intercept survey provide insight into various aspects of FAST service from rider and non-rider perspectives. Salient conclusions drawn from the survey analysis are summarized below.

• The general impression of FAST is positive. The three most common impressions given in an open-ended question were “great transportation,” “clean,” and “beneficial.” 76 percent of non-riders and 91 percent of riders rate FAST as very important to their community.

• FAST riders travel primarily for work and education. These two categories accounted for 77 percent of all trip purposes.

• FAST riders indicated more frequent bus service, later evening service, and Sunday service as the three most desirable system-wide service improvements.

• Not having access to a car is the primary reason that riders use FAST. Riders are more likely to have lower incomes and belong to a minority group than non-riders.

• The vast majority of non-riders do not use FAST because they have a car and prefer to drive. Respondents could give up to three reasons, but no other reason for non-use was cited by more than 20 percent of respondents.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 4-10

Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 5: Unmet Needs

5.0 Introduction

This chapter examines the City of Fayetteville to identify locations where there are unmet travel needs. Several approaches are used to identify residential travel needs and current system needs. The first involves the Residential Transit Orientation Index (RTOI), a GIS-based analytical tool that utilizes census data to identify neighborhoods with a high orientation toward transit, based on the demographic characteristics of its residents. This information is used as an overlay on GIS maps of FAST transit routes and compared to the existing transit network to identify areas with unmet transit needs.

A second approach identifies transit service needs and markets based on survey results and field observations by the study team. A third approach considers proposed developments expected to be completed within the next three to five years.

The fourth section of this chapter describes public outreach efforts and findings. At the outset of the project, team members spoke with representatives from several organizations regarding transit service in Fayetteville. The public meetings held in December 2013 to present preliminary recommendations and solicit feedback are also summarized here, because public response indicated areas of importance.

A final approach was to meet with FAST bus and paratransit operators to solicit their opinions. Together, these approaches provide insight into unmet travel needs in Fayetteville.

5.1 Travel Needs: Residential Transit Orientation Index

The Residential Transit Orientation Index (RTOI) compares census block groups within a given geographic area to one another with respect to five key variables related to propensity to use transit:

• Population in poverty • Zero vehicle households • Elderly population • Youthful population • Residential density

For each variable, a score is assigned to each census block group within the City of Fayetteville (which constitutes the service area for FAST) based upon how that variable compares to the area-wide average. The score is derived using a comparative probability estimation method. Population in poverty and zero vehicle households scores are weighted by a factor of two, reflecting their importance in terms of transit ridership. A composite score is then obtained for each census block group by summing the scores for each of the five individual variables. These composite scores are then ranked and assigned to one of five transit orientation groups (very high, high, moderate, low, and other) based upon how each compares to the average score for the county as a whole.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 5-1 Transit Development Plan Update 5. Unmet Needs

The RTOI provides an effective tool to identify residential areas with a high propensity to use transit. When used in conjunction with operating and service-related data, it can assist in evaluating unmet needs within the study area.

Figure 5.1 presents residential transit orientation in the City of Fayetteville. Dark blue areas represent a very high orientation toward transit, while dark green areas are those with a high transit orientation.

Figure 5.1 City of Fayetteville Residential Transit Orientation Index

Most areas with a very high transit orientation are close to downtown. Other neighborhoods with a very high transit orientation include an area west of Ramsey Street between the VA Hospital and Langdon Street (there are apartments along Tiffany Court and Melvin Place west of Rosehill Road), an area between Cross Creek and Murchison Road north of Fayetteville State University, and an area west of Murchison Road between Pamalee Drive and Shaw Mill Road (there are several mobile homes in this area). Routes 4 and 12 serve these areas via Rosehill Road and Murchison Road, respectively. The street network precludes route penetration into these neighborhoods.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 5-2 Transit Development Plan Update 5. Unmet Needs

Neighborhoods with high transit orientation (in dark green on Figure 5.1) are mostly well served by FAST. Two exceptions are the northernmost dark green area within Fort Bragg and an area north/east of Bailey Lake Road between Strickland Bridge Road and Bingham Drive.

5.2 Findings from Intercept Survey

The intercept survey results (see Chapter 4) indicate that improved frequency is the major improvement sought by existing riders, followed by later evening service and Sunday service. More routes/service ranked fifth among desired improvements, cited as one of the top three preferred service improvements by only 14 percent of respondents.

The vast majority (82 percent) of non-riders responding to the intercept survey do not use FAST because they have a car and prefer to drive. Respondents could give up to three reasons, but no other reason for non-use was cited by more than 20 percent of respondents. Eighteen percent of non-riders gave “no bus route near their home” as one of their three reasons for not riding and 15 percent answered “no direct bus route to my destination.”

5.3 New Service and Proposed New Developments

FAST is implementing a new local route along Strickland Bridge Road later this year in response to numerous requests from the southwest portion of the City for added bus service. This route would serve the transit-oriented neighborhood east of Strickland Bridge Road and north of Bailey Lake Road. Fort Bragg is a promising market for transit, and FAST has been successful in negotiating bus access onto the post. The new route will serve a single location on the base, where riders can connect to the base’s internal shuttle system.

Proposed new developments that would have a transit impact include:

• A new Veterans Administration hospital on Raeford Road • A new satellite campus for FTCC, also on Raeford Road • Hoke Community Medical Center in Hoke County, 1.9 miles west of the county line

These would require new or extended transit service along Raeford Road. The VA facility and the satellite campus are at or slightly east of Reilly Road, while service to Hoke Community Medical Center would require a longer route extending outside the City.

5.4 Public Outreach

Team members attended the Homeless Connect event on May 16, 2013 and distributed a brief questionnaire to attendees. The annual event is sponsored by the Cumberland County Continuum of Care on Homelessness and is designed to give the homeless in Fayetteville and Cumberland County access to agencies and services that can help make a difference in their lives. FAST provided free transportation to the event. The survey’s purpose was to identify barriers to transportation, needs for bus transportation, and other suggestions for improvements.

Most of the agencies present are served by transit, but agency personnel offered several comments. Cost was a major issue for their clients. Some clients did not have service at their residences. There was also a desire for later evening service. Some agencies did not seem to be aware of FAST service.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 5-3 Transit Development Plan Update 5. Unmet Needs

The project team also met with several stakeholder groups during June 2013, including:

• WIDU Pastors’ Coalition • Fayetteville Senior Citizens Center • Cape Fear Valley Health Systems • VA Medical Center • Fayetteville State University (FSU) • City County Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities

The Pastors’ Coalition urged FAST to institute Sunday service, preferably from 8 am to 10 pm. The Coalition also expressed the need for additional bus shelters and suggested a partnership to help fund the purchase and installation of shelters.

The Fayetteville Senior Citizens Center requested direct service to its location at 739 Blue Street, especially for early-departure field trips that it sponsors. To staff’s knowledge, ten percent of clients use FASTTRAC!, and two ride the bus and walk from the nearest stop.

The conversation with Cape Fear Valley Health Systems centered on the new Hoke County facility, currently called Hoke Community Medical Center, but to be renamed Cape Fear Valley Hoke County Hospital upon completion. Most patients are expected to be Hoke County residents. Some may come from west Fayetteville for express care, but primary care will continue to occur at Cape Fear Valley Medical Center North (served by Route 9). In practical terms, this means that FASTTRAC! clients will continue to require service to the existing facility even if the new facility is closer to their homes. Bus service could be promoted to employees, particularly service employees. The first shift typically has the heaviest workload for service employees.

Similarly, the conversation with the VA Medical Center focused on the new VA Hospital on Raeford Road. Expected to be open at the end of 2015, this will be a 100 percent outpatient facility that will see about 1,400 patients daily.

FSU has about 6,000 students, with 75 percent coming from Cumberland and adjacent counties. Most freshmen (92 percent) live on campus. FSU contracts with a local company to provide service to Wal-Mart on two different routes, with a weekly ridership of 300 students. Churches and local clubs also provide van service at specific times. FSU is interested in pursuing a partnership with FAST, noting a very student-active military population that would like service to Fort Bragg and a high number of adult students who commute to/from work locations. Late night and Sunday service would be very effective from a safety standpoint.

The City County Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities asked about small buses that could circulate through neighborhoods. Other topics of conversation included a special pass for disabled veterans and provision of more benches at bus stops. This group also expressed interest in service to Hope Mills.

Comments from the public meeting held in December 2013 to present recommendations focused on two primary requests:

• Service to apartments on Enterprise Avenue and to Topeka Heights Apartments • Sunday service

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 5-4 Transit Development Plan Update 5. Unmet Needs

5.5 Operator Meetings

Bus and van operators are an invaluable source of information, since they serve as the daily point of contact with FAST’s customers. The team held two meetings in the operator break room at FAST on June 19, 2013.

Operators have heard three primary service requests from passengers:

• More frequent service • Sunday service • Later evening service

Regarding more frequent service, operators suggested 30-minute service on Routes 5 and 6. Operators were split on the need for Sunday service, noting that it should be limited to a few routes if it is implemented. Later evening service could be provided on routes that currently end early, such as Routes 3 and 17. The operators noted that service needs to be predicated on Cross Creek Mall’s operating hours since “everything shuts down when the mall closes,” although others noted that at least two Wal-Mart stores are open 24 hours. Opinion was split on Route 4, with one operator noting that ridership drops sharply after the Department of Social Services and the VA Medical Center close at 6 pm.

Operators suggested that the following areas need service:

• Fort Bragg • The airport • Bunce Road and 71st School Road • Hope Mills along Camden Road (“too far to walk to Route 8”)

Passengers also request more stops, particularly along Reilly Road, Ramsey Street, and Campbell Avenue. The operators acknowledge passenger interest in more shelters, but note that shelters could be a problem at locations with potential easement issues and are not needed at all stops.

Van operators noted issues with trip scheduling and routing.

5.6 Summary of Unmet Needs

The results of the RTOI indicate that there are no major unmet needs in the study area in terms of service area coverage for residents. FAST transit service is available directly or within a short walking distance in nearly all transit-oriented neighborhoods within the City limits, although street patterns and widths can preclude buses from circulating within neighborhoods.

Themes raised consistently throughout the public outreach process include:

• Greater frequency – more routes with 30-minute headways • Later evening service • Sunday service • Flexibility to respond to emerging mobility needs

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 5-5 Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 6: Future Growth

6.0 Introduction

An assessment of population and employment growth projections using the recently completed 2010 Population and Economics Study (P&E) for the Fayetteville Metropolitan Area was conducted to inform the development of TDP service recommendations. That study, completed in October 2013, documents population and employment growth projections through year 2040 for the Fayetteville Metropolitan Area including Cumberland County, Harnett County, Hoke County, and Robeson County. The methodology for developing those projections is documented in the study report and results will be used to update the Fayetteville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) and Cumberland County Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).

Understanding those projections are important for development of a long-term vision for public transportation in the area. Although the projections fall well beyond the planning horizon of the TDP, they are important for several reasons:

• Long-term network planning – Tracking growth trends over a long period of time gives the transit agency an understanding of changes in the travel behavior of the community. Understanding possible future travel patterns will allow transit planning staff to make incremental changes to transit services so as to better address future transportation needs that may emerge from shifts in residential and commercial development.

• Long-term facilities planning – In concert with any changes to the transit network, it is necessary to continue to conduct long-term facilities planning. Transit system growth will require consideration of space needs such as storage, maintenance, and possibly additional hubs and station/stop locations.

• Coordination with land-use planning efforts – Involvement by the transit agency in future land use planning efforts are significant as decisions to encourage transit-oriented development and other transit-supportive land uses should include, and ideally be influenced, by transit agency priorities.

The following sections summarize major population and employment growth changes in the Fayetteville Metropolitan Area based on the P&E study.

6.1 Population Growth

A review of changes in the distribution of households between 2010 and 2040 reveals several important considerations for long-term public transportation planning. Household dot density maps from the P&E study are shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 and major trends drawn from those maps include the following:

• Significant residential development is anticipated in the west and southwest part of the metropolitan area, along the US 401 corridor and into Hoke and Robeson counties.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 6-1 Transit Development Plan Update 6. Future Growth

Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 6-2 Transit Development Plan Update 6. Future Growth

• Much of the household growth to the west and southwest appears to be low- to medium- density in terms of its concentration. Such a development pattern may prove challenging for the operation of efficient public transportation service. • Harnett County to the north is also anticipated to receive a considerable amount of household growth over the P&E study horizon. Similar to the west and southwest part of the metropolitan area, the north also experiences a low- to medium-density pattern of household growth. • Increases in household concentrations are apparent in the core of the metropolitan area and it does appear that the core is anticipated to experience infill, redevelopment, and growth over the next 30 years.

6.2 Employment Growth

A review of changes in the distribution of employment between 2010 and 2040 reveals several important considerations for long-term public transportation planning. Employment dot density maps from the P&E study are shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. Major trends drawn from those maps include the following:

• Growth in employment is largely anticipated in the core of the metropolitan area, within the City of Fayetteville. • Pockets of increased employment densities in the core include Downtown Fayetteville, the Cape Fear medical area, the US 401 corridor (within the City of Fayetteville), and along Skibo Road. • Some employment growth is anticipated in the City Raeford and along the western portion of the US 401 corridor. A closer look at employment growth in the west and southwest areas reveals the accommodation of a small amount of suburban employment growth assumed to support the residential growth projections for that area.

It is important to note that changes in employment are not as pronounced in terms of their distribution as changes in household growth. This is significant if the expectation is that Downtown Fayetteville is going to grow into a larger, denser central business district which serves as the employment center for the outlying and more suburban areas of the metropolitan area. The impact on the public transportation system will be one that forces the transit agency to establish priorities for different types of service and levels of service in order to maintain efficiency and also demonstrate good stewardship of public funding.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 6-3 Transit Development Plan Update 6. Future Growth

Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 6-4 Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 7: Analysis of FASTTRAC! FAST’s ADA Complementary Paratransit Program

7.0 Introduction

As part of this TDP update, there was opportunity to review the FASTTRAC! complementary paratransit service along two dimensions:

First, the FAST administration has been asked by City Council to examine the impact of citywide expansion of its service, specifically its Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit FASTTRAC!. Implications of proposed fixed-route service expansion as a result of possible TDP recommendations needed to be identified. Service area expansion involves certifying additional eligible residents of these areas and providing trips to riders traveling from or to those areas.

Secondly, the FAST administration seeks additional opportunities to improve efficiencies in its paratransit program, always an expensive service that should be provided in compliance with law but also as cost-effectively as possible.

This review is presented in the following sections:

• Section 1 presents some overall background on this paratransit program. • Section 2 examines operating and performance history and identifies areas of consideration for increased operating efficiency. • Section 3 contrasts FASTTRAC! with peer paratransit programs. • Section 4 considers the geographic service area both current and new, describes the trip modeling approach and then presents demand predictions and vehicle need estimations for two scenarios. • Section 5 offers some observations and direction suggested by the review findings.

This review involved a site visit with observation of dispatch, call taking and vehicle operations, as well as interviews with management staff. Provided data sets were analyzed, along with some geographic information mapping, to develop this review.

7.1 FASTTRAC! Background and Existing Conditions

7.1.1 Required ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Characteristics and Key Features

Key features of the FASTTRAC! program are presented in Table 7.1, in relation to the required service elements for complementary paratransit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Eligibility for services is defined as those persons who are substantially disabled and unable to use fixed-route service, determined functionally in terms of difficulty traveling to bus stops or navigating the fixed-route system. The days and hours of service must match fixed- route service, operating between 5 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays with no service on Sundays.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-1

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

The FASTTRAC! fare of $2.00 for a one-way trip, is less than two times the fixed-route base fare of $1.25, which is the maximum allowed by ADA. Origin-to-destination service is provided and service standards include a policy of zero trip denials. On-time performance is defined as a vehicle arrival within 15 minutes before the scheduled pick-up time and 15 minutes after for over 90% on-time trips. The on-board ride time policy is that no trip shall exceed ninety minutes, recently increased from sixty minutes.

Table 7.1 ADA Complementary Paratransit Operating Characteristics ADA Complementary Paratransit Service As FASTTRAC! Required by CFR 37.131 ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Eligibility For persons who are substantially disabled and unable to use fixed- route services: ‐ Cannot travel to bus stop because of specific mobility impairments. ‐ Cannot navigate independently because he/she cannot recognize landmarks, follow directions, or otherwise learn to use fixed-route bus services. ‐ Applications processed within 21 days. ‐ Must be reviewed every 36 months. ‐ Eligibility Types: Permanent only ‐ Application (Part A) completed by individual and second component (Part B) completed by licensed health care professional. In-person interview required; conducted as part of monthly Travel Training class held at FAST offices Comparable days and 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., Monday through Friday hours of operation 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays, with some variation from area to area Service area Trips provided to riders whose origins and destinations are within ¾ mile of existing fixed-route service Fare not more than twice $2.00 one-way fare, less than twice fixed route base fare the fixed-route base fare $17.50 10-ride-pass $35.00 20-ride pass Service type Origin to destination; driver will provide assistance from the door to the vehicle upon request Capacity constraints – - Limited although 5 trip denials in the past month ‐ Trip denials - On-time performance over 90% ‐ On-time performance - No more than 90-minute ride-time, recently increased from 60 - Travel times minutes.

Additional features of FASTTRAC! are of relevance. Table 7.2 summarizes key policies or procedures associated with reservations, trip negotiation, dwell time and cancellations. Dispatch and call center staffing, as well as languages available are also summarized. Notes follow, regarding the three asterisked items.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-2

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Table 7.2 Additional Relevant Operating Characteristics Additional FASTTRAC! Operating Features and Relevant Service Standards Reservation timeframes ‐ 1 to 14 days in advance for Weekday and Saturday service ‐ Same-day trips on a space available basis, largely for medical trip returns or when requested by a physician/ doctor’s office Call-back before 6 p.m. on Sundays to confirm Monday trip reservations made over the weekend ‐ Request in by 4:30 p.m. on Sundays for a Monday pick-up Trip negotiations Trips offered within two hours of the requested pickup time\* Dwell time Driver wait time is 5 minutes from the time the vehicle arrives at the curb Trip cancellations and no show - Cancelled within two hours of scheduled pick-up time is a practices “late cancel” and may be counted as a no-show; \1* - No-shows can result in suspension of riding privileges; number not specified under current policy \2* Languages Dispatch support in English and Spanish, with access to an interpreter line for other languages. Call center and reservations ‐ Three phone lines; 2 FTE reservation staff ‐ Weekdays, generally between 8:30 to 4:30 ‐ Sundays to phone answering machine - Calls answered within 45 seconds - Calls abandoned at no more than 15% of calls - Average talk time – 90 seconds; although average call length is 3 minutes 30 seconds.- Weekdays generally staffed by 2 reservationists and 1 dispatcher - Saturday dispatch handles trip dispatching and reservations as follows:\3* • Saturday dispatch hours are 7a.m. to 10:30 p.m.; • Handling bookings for Monday trips 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; • Handling bookings for 14 day reservations 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Dispatch ‐ 2 FTE staff split to cover operating day: 5:45 a.m. – 2 p.m. 2 p.m. – 10:30 p.m. - Relief drivers assist cover Saturdays/ lunch breaks

Comments – With regard to the operating characteristics and procedures represented in the preceding Table 7.2, three areas will require some attention.

1. The trip negotiation window, as currently practiced by dispatch is two hours from the requested time. This is in conflict with ADA regulation §37.131 (b) (2) which states: “Response Time: The entity may negotiate pickup times with the individual, but the entity shall not require an ADA paratransit eligible individual to schedule a trip to begin more than one hour before or after the individual’s desired departure time” [emphasis added]. 2. FASTTRAC! administrators indicate that no-show policies are not being enforced at this time, due to previous audit findings that agency policies were not compatible with current ADA best practices. 3. Regarding reservation timeframes, the existing dispatch procedure establishing one set of hours for advance bookings (two to fourteen days ahead) versus next day

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-3

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

bookings is not allowable by the ADA. The ADA requires in §37.131 (b) (1) that trip requests be handled during normal business hours and that the requests be scheduled during the call. The current practice violates both the timing requirement for the scheduling process and requirement of booking the trip during the call. The rider cannot be required to call back at another time to place one type of request.

A review of selected functional areas follows, highlighting policy and procedures that can influence demand, productivity or costs of the FASTTRAC! service.

7.1.2 ADA Application and Certification Functions

There are a reported 900 persons with active ADA certifications on the FASTTRAC! rolls. In a typical month, the FASTTRAC! Administrator receives and processes about five ADA applications, although there have been some unusual months with up to 25 applications.

Individuals requesting certification must complete Part A and then have a licensed medical professional complete and sign Part B. Agency policy also involves a personal interview. To facilitate the interviews, FASTTRAC! administrators hold monthly travel training sessions as a means of meeting with individuals and introducing rider guidelines for this ADA complementary paratransit program. Participants are given a twenty-one day pass, a presumptive eligibility pass, upon attending the class that allows them to ride until their eligibility determination completed. Staff members note that it typically takes multiple calls to prospective applicants to complete certification applications, to ensure that all necessary information is provided. Incomplete applications extend the timeframe. The twenty-one days proscribed in ADA regulation as the timeframe for review begins once the application is complete.

Comment – These monthly travel training/ transit familiarization classes are an innovative means of meeting the requirement for an in-person assessment of individuals and for complying with the twenty-one day timeframe. Its utility as an in-person assessment is limited if the classes get too big, but at the scale of three to five persons per session, it is an efficient approach.

7.1.3 Call Center

For Trip Reservations and “Where’s My Ride?” the FASTTRAC! Call Center is generally handling about 4,000 rider calls and prospective rider calls each month. There are three phone lines and generally at least two staff persons from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays. The reservationist takes calls from riders who are requesting a trip reservation and schedules that trip according to Novus software guidance. The trip scheduler/dispatcher is working with the reservationist’s preliminary trip schedules to improve efficiencies and to address any driver concerns that arise during the shift. Dispatch is also handling “Where’s My Ride” queries, same day cancels and will call trips.

Dispatch fields all calls from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., taking 14 day advance bookings. These calls tend to be longer and can take seven to fourteen minutes to complete.

Peak call periods are reported as between 7 to 9:00 a.m. and 2 to 4:30 p.m. on weekdays, particularly for subscription trips. Wednesdays are generally the highest use day during the course of the week, and the first week of the month is typically the busiest week. The

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-4

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

telephone talk time standard is 90 seconds, although a review of call center reports shows average call times in the range of 3 minutes 30 seconds, significantly longer than the standard.

Call center staff have developed a general script for explaining the pick-up window which can be a difficult concept to understand. For example, when a rider wishes to be somewhere by 8 a.m., the call taker may say “please be ready between 7:15 and 7:45 a.m. in order to be there by 8 a.m.” To determine and advise riders of the general timeframe for pickup, center representatives generally ask “by what time do you need to be at your destination”.

Reservationists, when taking the trip request, inquire about the purpose for which the individual is making this trip. On Sundays when dispatch is not open, individuals leave their trip request on the answering machine. A FASTTRAC! reservationist collects the trips late on Sunday and places a return call by 6 p.m. to confirm the trip request and the pick-up window.

Comments – • Mapping addresses takes time and can slow the call-taking process, presumably contributing to the call length. Developing more efficient ways in which to assess whether an address is within or outside the ADA ¾ mile envelope is desirable. Dispatch is currently using Version 1.15 of the software and is anticipating an upgrade to the next Trapeze Novus version which will reflect more current mapping. It can also involve geocoding specific addresses in the system by call taking and reservationists, as riders commence their trip-making patterns. • Staff appears to have developed a clear way of communicating the pick-up window to passengers, a concept that can be difficult to understand. • The question to riders about trip purpose is not consistent with ADA requirements that prohibit prioritization of trips by purpose. Given that fixed-route passengers do not have to declare a trip purpose when riding, it is not allowable to ask this of demand response passengers traveling on an ADA paratransit service that is intended to be complementary to the public fixed-route transit. It is recommended this practice be terminated.

7.1.4 Drivers’ Observations

Drivers are adjusting to the paperless processes brought by installation of mobile data terminals and dispatching of trips electronically, rather than via a paper manifest. Drivers do, at times, find the dispatching of trips by MDTs difficult. They report there is little to no opportunity to make adjustments to the routing and scheduling that might make sense from a driver’s viewpoint. The computer sequencing of trip pick-ups does not always have internal logic, again particularly from the driver’s perspective.

Drivers also report that the paperless approach can make it difficult for a driver to get regular breaks while driving – or to know when a break might be coming – important in terms of both driver comfort and safety.

Drivers indicate that cell receiving or reception “dead zones” exist and if the MDT connection is broken with dispatch, then any data in that MDT is lost if the driver logs in or out. This happens if a driver stops the vehicle and turns off the engine to assist a rider into the vehicle.

Another concern is that the FASTTRAC! riders, as reported by drivers, do not always understand dwell time policy of five (5) minutes accurately. Passengers sometimes believe that they have five minutes before they must acknowledge the driver and then potentially an additional five

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-5

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

minutes. This stretching of the dwell time makes it difficult for the drivers, “setting them up for failure” in terms of on-time performance.

Drivers also report that some “swapping of trips” in real-time among drivers and vehicles can make sense, to improve on-time performance and address the unexpected. Drivers interviewed indicated a desire to work with dispatch around continued swapping of trips.

Comments - • Continued attention to sharpening the Novus software parameters is indicated. For example, increasing the dwell time parameter for wheelchair boardings will help to “teach” the system and result in a better driving environment for drivers. • Strategies for reminding riders of their riding responsibilities need to be employed, so that expectations are clear and drivers are not in solitary enforcement roles.

7.1.5 Trip Scheduling and Dispatch Functions

FASTTRAC! service has established a paperless environment with trips going out to the vehicle mobile data terminals (MDTs) introduced in 2011, generally several trips at a time, but not the whole day’s schedule. This does give greater flexibility to dispatch to make trip insertions and move trips from one vehicle route to another, as the day progresses. Drivers report that it is more difficult for them because they cannot anticipate or adjust their trip sequence and that sometimes it does not make sense on the road, in the way in which it does from the computer or dispatcher perspectives.

Reconciliation of trip data, that is identifying the pick-up times and trip status (no show, cancel at the door, etc.), is generally done through the MDTs by the driver keying in. Such information is called into dispatch as the day goes along so that dispatch can reconcile at their end.

Among the issues reported around use of the Novus software (version 1.15, installed in 2009 and not updated since) are the following topics: • Citywide mapping has reported inconsistencies with current addresses and results in errors in the schedules that contribute to drivers’ backtracking and inefficient, lost time. • Citywide mapping is only available in the trip scheduling function and so call taker staff are manually calculating whether or not a caller’s trip origin/ destination falls within the ¾ mile service envelope, adding to the telephone call time; • Novus dwell times at passenger pick-ups or drop-offs are not making accommodation for the longer dwell times required for boarding or disembarking a rider in a wheel chair. This negatively impacts on-time performance. • The intervals between scheduled pick-ups is reported as sometimes too short to pick-up, drop-off and then pick-up the respective riders, resulting in missed trips or late pick-ups when the passenger to be picked up may not yet have been delivered. • FASTTRAC! reservationist and call taking staff must make significant manual adjustments to the scheduling late each day, to improve efficiencies and increase productivity. Specifically, staff report making daily modifications to the vehicle tours to overwrite or address errors or inefficient tour planning that the computer has constructed and to increase the incidence of shared-rides.

Comments – • Keeping mapping current with the Trapeze NOVUS upgrades and with the City’s GIS team is critical to resolving the mapping issues. Specifically, mapping should be

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-6

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

updated at least every two years to stay current with the evolving city landscape. Maps can be purchased from Trapeze NOVUS. Additionally, maps can be manually geocoded, involving the drivers in identifying problematic addresses. Using a task force of drivers, or simple driver reporting forms, to identify problematic addresses can be a placeholder effort until more current mapping is secured.

• Regarding problems of overlap in vehicle trip scheduling, this reflects the challenge presented in scheduling short trips in sequence when a passenger has several errands to run and wants a return pick-up soon after drop-off. The overlap problem lies in scheduling by the thirty-minute window, namely that a trip is on time if it is within 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after the proscribed pick-up time. Establishing a sixty minute setting in the Trapeze NOVUS settings regarding gaps will ensure that there is at least a 30 minute gap between the outer window of when a passenger is due to arrive and the earliest part of the window when he or she is to be picked up again. However, riders taking these short trips often don’t like the inconvenience of a long wait after their business has been completed. A will-call pick-up request can be a method of handling selected trips when they come in a quick sequence like this.

• Regarding seeking additional productivity in routing and scheduling, end-of-shift review of the next-days’ schedule is always necessary to slot in the unscheduled trips that reservationist staff have been unable to schedule onto vehicle runs. However, if there is substantial re-working of route templates, this suggests that the templates themselves are no longer efficient or working smoothly. This seems likely given no-shows, late cancels and same-day cancels that erode the schedule. Where these are subscription trips that are coded into run templates, any recurring cancellation will compromise the scheduling efficiency. This could result in significant staff time to re-work a routing structure that has lost the integrity of its connective tissue. New cancellation policies and regular optimization of subscription templates will result in less staff time to “fix” the otherwise resulting inefficiencies.

• Regarding technical assistance from Trapeze, ongoing support to FASTTRAC! staff is critical to full utilization of the NOVUS software. The Trapeze organization has made it complicated to get technical assistance around particular issues and so staff should be supported in partaking in the regular webinars, the annual Trapeze conferences and possibly in increasing the technical assistance component of the current Trapeze contract. The overall goal is to maximize the NOVUS software’s capability to “learn” efficient and effective routing, thereby minimizing staff time in correcting and overwriting routing inefficiencies and reducing instances of drivers backtracking to make pick-ups that epitomize inefficiency.

7.1.6 Website Information and Telephone Number

The FASTTRAC! program has a comprehensive website that provides information about eligibility, the FASTTRAC! application forms and the certification decision-making process. The website is geared towards prospective riders and persons seeking certification.

The website has the primary FASTTRAC! telephone number that takes the rider to either English or Spanish-language information. The subsequent telephone tree has four options: 1) for “Where’s My Ride”, will call pick-ups or to make a late cancel; 2) to schedule or cancel a future trip; 3) for customer complaints or compliments; or

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-7

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

4) for ADA certification applications or questions about certification.

Comment – While there is solid direction for prospective users seeking ADA certification, no rider guidelines or rider procedures manual are available on the website. Such a document does exist and is provided to persons who become ADA certified during the regular Travel Training sessions. Website access to such information could be of value to riders or to their family members, if paper guidelines are lost or other information is sought. It can also help remind riders of policies such their responsibility to be ready when the vehicle arrives.

7.2 FASTTRAC! Operating History and Performance

Table 7.3 presents the historical performance of the FASTTRAC! service for the past five years, annualizing FY13 information from the ten-month data provided at the time of analysis. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 depict this information graphically by quarter for key operating statistics and productivity indicators.

Ridership has been growing steadily, albeit at varying rates. The FY13 estimate of 53,000 riders, currently around 300 trips per day, is 25% above the FY09 ridership of just under 42,500 one-way trips. There was a significant increase in riders in FY12, jumping 19% from the FY11 level of 44,545 to 53,097.

Revenue hours, which are a primary cost driver, have increased by 22% over four years, growing from 18,415 (FY09) to 22,546 (FY13). Revenue miles increased by just 17% over the same period, from 294,000 to 344,500 revenue miles. (Table 7.3 and Figure 7.1)

Productivity, as measured in terms of passengers per hour, is presently at 2.37 trips per hour and has varied between a low of 2.05 to a high of 2.54 over this five-year period (Figure 7.2). Productivity currently measured at 2.37 is at a very respectable level, given that some ADA programs strive to achieve only 1.5 to 2.0 passengers per hour. Passenger trips per mile have been somewhat more tightly defined, ranging from a low of 0.14 to a high of 0.17 (Figure 7.2).

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-8

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Table 7.3 Historical Performance of FASTTRAC!

Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-9

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Comments -

• There has been significant growth in ridership levels with a five-year increase of 25%. Although modest single digit levels of increase were experienced in most years, the 2012 increase was 19%. Revenue hours have increased only slightly less, at 22% over the same period with the 14th revenue vehicle for peak period service only added during 2012. Revenue miles have increased at a lower rate of 17% over this five-year period.

• The FASTTRAC! program has done a reasonably good job of managing this increasing trip demand by keeping productivity levels higher than many comparable paratransit programs–-as measured by passenger trips per hour.

• The relative constancy of the passenger trips per mile indicator suggests that the number of shared rides, more than one passenger on these demand response vehicles at one time, is a priority of dispatch and regularly realized. This emphasis contributes both to productive services and the minimal change in the trips per mile indicator.

7.2.1 Trips by Time of Day

A dimension of importance to fleet size and staffing requirements relates to the distribution of trips over the course of the day. Figure 7.3 depicts trips by time of day for a sample of five high use days in November 2013. There is a classic bi-modal peak pattern, growing steadily in the morning to peak between 7 and 8 a.m., and an afternoon peak between 2 to 3 p.m. The number of trips scheduled and period of peaking is more variable in the morning than the afternoon.

Figure 7.3

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-10

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

7.2.2 Trips Scheduled, No Show and Trip Cancellation Rates

An analysis of two weeks of scheduled trip data revealed that trips scheduled onto vehicle runs daily and completed is between 75% to 85% of a weekday trip range that is fairly broad – between 125 to 250 daily trips. The balance of the trip requests reflect various experiences, as presented in Table 7.4 which shows the March 2013 trip disposition for trips scheduled or unscheduled, no-shows or cancelled.

Table 7.4 Trip Requested Types from a Sample Period March 2013 FASTTRAC! Trips

Total Trips Requested 5,396 100%

Unscheduled 1 Scheduled 4,091 75.8% No Shows 128 2.4% No Show‐ Missed Trip 2 0.0% Canceled at Door 4 0.1% Cancelled Advance 451 8.4% Cancelled Late 123 2.3% Cancelled Same Day 581 10.8% Cancelled Site Closure 11 0.2% Cancelled User Error 4 0.1%

Dispatch is managing small numbers of unscheduled trips daily, usually no more than two dozen each day, to move them onto scheduled runs. But there are significant proportions of cancels, including same days and late cancels that result in unproductive time in the schedule. The overall cancel rate ran as high as 32% for one day reviewed. For March, the more than 1,100 cancelled trips represented a total cancel rate of 22%. A total of 10%, almost 600 trips in March, were cancelled the same day. Coupled with the 123 trips that cancelled late, these cancellations likely represent vehicle time that dispatch is unable to use productively.

Considering these numbers over time reveals some historical changes, as presented in Figure 7.4 on the following page. Clearly the rate of late cancels (within two hours) and same-day cancels has increased, more than doubling since its range of 5% to 10% levels through mid 2011. Cancels have increased steadily, reaching a monthly peak of about 23% in January 2013 but coming down since that time. No-shows have also increased over this period, rising from between 1% and 2% of all requested trips to between 3% and 4% of all trips, essentially also doubling in rate.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-11

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Figure 7.4

Comments –

• These rates of increase are of concern and point to making some immediate changes, notably revising the no-show policy so that it can be enforced and reviewing the same day and late cancellations to determine where there is passenger abuse or casualness about their reservations that results in multiple driver manifests with unnecessary cancelled trip holes.

• Such patterns of no-show trips, cancellations and late cancels are also a consequence of the 14-day reservation timeframe. Making reservations so many days out increases the likelihood that riders will change their plans or, as commonly happens, forget that they made the reservation in the first place.

• Subscription trip reservations – overall between a quarter and a third of trips – may also be the source of reservations made but not cancelled or cancelled late when riders’ subscription-based requirements change.

7.2.3 Trip Types – Subscription, Advance and Same-Day

Trip requests are categorized in terms of advance, same day or subscription type trips and the distribution of these can influence the efficiency and productivity of a demand response service. The sample March 2013 data shows the distribution of trips in the following Table 7.5.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-12

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Table 7.5 Trip Types March 2013 FASTTRAC! Trips

Total Trips Requested 5,396 100%

Total Trips Provided 4,067 75.4% Advance trip requests 1,844 34.2% Subscription trips 1,437 26.6% Next day trip requests 750 13.9% Same day trip requests 36 0.7% Trips denied 5 0.1% Trips refused 4 0.1%

The five trips denied during this period suggest there may be capacity issues at certain times of the day. Three in four trips requested in this period were provided, leaving one in four scheduled but not provided and potentially resulting wasted vehicle resources.

Subscription trips, in this March 2013 sample represented almost 27% of all trips scheduled. Of importance is the Federal Guidance in CFR 37.133 regarding subscription trips guidance, establishing the 50% rule and stating that “subscripting service may not absorb more than fifty percent of the number of trips available at a given time of day” and indicating that the entity may establish waiting lists or other capacity constraints for participation in subscription service only. This March data suggests that on a typical weekday, there are between 55 to 75 one-way subscription trips and 7 to 10 Saturday subscription trips. Subscription trips are recurring trips that are scheduled for travel consistently at the same time and day each week. These might be cancer or dialysis trips; they might to adult daytime health care or daytime activity centers, work trips or school and training trips. The subscription designation is made by dispatch and call takers.

Considering subscription and non-subscription trips by time-of-day reveals patterns important both to ADA guidance and to vehicle scheduling. Figures 7.5 and 7.6 following present the November high use days for subscription trips and casual trips. The bi-modal pattern referenced early shows quite sharply for the subscription trips, again between 7 to 8 a.m. and during the 2 o’clock hour and very few mid-day trips.

By contrast, the casual, non-subscription trips are well-distributed during the middle of the day, with a more dispersed a.m. peak, generally steady through the mid-day and early afternoon and then beginning to decline only about 4 p.m.

The implications of these two patterns for vehicle deployment are important. The subscription trips are recurring and tend to represent highly productive many-to-one and one-to-many patterns. Subscription trips can require fewer vehicles to serve than casual trips. The casual trips are more difficult to serve efficiently, with pick-ups and drop-offs less predictable within their many-to-many origin-destination patterns of geographic dispersion. Both trip types are impacted negatively by high rates of late cancel and no-show where it takes more vehicle resources to schedule trips of which perhaps one in four will not be transported.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-13

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Figure 7.5

Figure 7.6

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-14

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Comments – • The five trip denials during this March 2013 period under review are of concern and FAST administrators want to ensure that this is not continuing. Monitoring time-of-day for denied trips, to identify patterns of insufficient capacity by time-of-day, will suggest where scheduling of additional revenue vehicle hours may be warranted.

• Subscription trips are substantial during the peak periods, suggesting that despite a low overall subscription rate of 26%, during the early morning and 2 p.m. peak periods, new subscription requests should be very carefully viewed, in terms of existing subscription requests.

• Casual trips are fairly well-distributed throughout the day and, as noted, are harder to serve efficiently and will require more vehicle capacity than a comparable number of subscription trips.

• As has been noted, the high rates of late cancel and no-shows impact productivity and require more vehicle resources. Enforcing policy to shift rider behavior around their trip reservation practices is indicated.

7.2.4 Vehicle Scheduling in Relation to Trip Demand

Resource allocation of vehicles in relation to trip demand is presented in Figure 7.7 below, considering the relationship between trip requests and vehicle availability for the highest use day of the five sampled November 2013 days. These trips and vehicle schedules are presented in hour increments, and not in fifteen-minute blocks that are closer to a real-time picture of events. Nonetheless, the vehicle deployment and trip distribution appear reasonably well aligned. Again, the lower productivity casual trips are less productive and require more vehicle resources than subscription trips.

Figure 7.7

FASTTRAC! Passenger Trips Scheduled & Service Vehicles by Time of Day Wednesday 11/20/2013, November 2013

35 11 All Trips Subscription Trips 30 Casual Trips 9 Max Vehicles 25 7

20 5 by PIck-Up Hour by PIck-Up Maximum Vehicles in Maximum Vehicles Service 15

Number of Non-Subscription Trips Trips of Number Non-Subscription 3 10

1 5

0 -1 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-15

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

7.2.5 Trip Costs

Information on the costs of paratransit trips is presented in Table 7.6. The fully-loaded operating cost per trip was $30.36 for FY 12, with an average fare of $1.30 representing 4% of the trip cost and a subsidy per passenger trip of $29.06.

Table 7.6 FASTTRAC! Costs

For cost experience reported to the National Transit Database (NTD), the rates of cost increase have been lower than the levels of ridership increase, as well as the revenue hour increases and revenue mile increases that were discussed previously in relation to FASTTRAC!’s operating history. This points to effective management of resources. Nonetheless, growing demand and increasing costs per trip all indicate continuing increases in total operating costs, irrespective of the size of the service area.

7.3 Comparing FASTTRAC! Performance with Peer Systems – Demand Response Programs

To provide some context for FASTTRAC! operational and cost experience, Table 7.7 following presents relevant paratransit information from the peer systems reported on elsewhere in this TDP Update process, using data provided to the National Transit Database (NTD).

The data in Table 7.7 shows that FASTTRAC!’s NTD-reported productivity level of 2.5 is the third highest among the nine systems, exceeded only by Winston-Salem’s 2.9 trips per hour and High Point Transit’s 2.7 trips per hour. Similarly, achieving 0.17 passenger trips per revenue mile is the third-highest value, with 0.22 and 0.24 trips per mile reported by two other systems, Highpoint and Winston-Salem paratransit programs.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-16

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Table 7.7 Paratransit Program Performance from Peer Systems

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-17

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

FASTTRAC!’s cost per passenger of $30.36 for this FY11 reporting year is the third highest value, among this group of peers. Notably, FASTTRAC!’s ADA operations costs do reflect an allocation of City indirect costs, thereby pushing these higher, while there is no comparable indirect allocation for the fixed route operation. The Clarksville Transit Systems’ paratransit per trip cost of $40.56 and Greensboro Transit Authority’s paratransit per trip cost of $30.40 is higher. FASTTRAC!’s farebox recovery at 4.3% is just above Greensboro Transit Authority that has the lowest reported farebox recovery ratio.

This comparison to peer values points to the FASTTRAC! program’s efficiencies, in that productivity level and riders per mile are its strengths. Efforts to maintain and increase productivity remain important aims, but the program is operating at solidly efficient levels as reflected here. At the same time, improving cost effectiveness will be an area for focus and attention, either to maintain costs at current unit cost levels or, ideally, to decrease these.

7.4. Service Area Characteristics and FASTTRAC! Demand Estimation

7.4.1 Population Characteristics

An estimate of trip demand for an expanded service area for ADA complementary paratransit purposes is developed through a two-step process. The first step is to consider the geography of the expanded area. Subsequent steps project ridership demand and then convert that to vehicle requirements.

Table 7.8 below presents the population estimates for three service areas: • the overall population within the Fayetteville city limits; • the population of those within a ¾ mile buffer of the existing route structure; • the anticipated new service areas presented as two new “bubbles” that reflect the ¾ mile buffer around fixed-route service required by ADA regulation for pick-up of ADA certified passengers.

Table 7.8 Demographic Characteristics of Three Service Areas 3/4‐mile Buffer of Existing Anticipated New Service Population Variables Total City Population Routes Area (Two Bubbles) Total Population* 200,105 149,692 13,253 Individuals with age 54 or over* 36,426 18.2% 32,246 21.5% 1,424 10.7% Individuals below Poverty Level* 31,369 15.7% 26,783 17.9% 1,468 11.1%

Population agens 18 to 64 ** 107,733 12.7% With a hearing difficulty ** 2,251 2.1% With a vision difficulty ** 2,678 2.5% With a cognitive difficulty ** 5,739 5.3% With an ambulatory difficulty ** 7,570 7.0% With a self‐care difficulty ** 2,709 2.5% With an independent living difficulty ** 5,965 5.5% Individuals age 65 and over ** 19,641 9.8%

Total Households *** 75,149 n/a n/a Households with Members with a Disability** 9,396 12.5% 5,274 606 Area (Square Miles) 148.55 83.32 9.38

*Source: 2007‐2011 ACS 5‐year estimate ** Source: 2011 ACS 1‐year estimate ***Source: 2005‐2007 ACS PUMA data

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-18

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Within the existing service area footprint, approximately 75% of Fayetteville’s 200,000 residents live inside the ¾ mile envelope, a total of 149,692 persons. The two added “bubbles” reflect the new service areas and increase this by 13,253 persons. This represents a total of 81% of the City’s population as reported by the American Community Survey five-year estimate.

Also presented in Table 7.8 above is information about the population reporting functional limitations, a data set available at the City level, but not at the block and tract levels used in calculating service area segments. Of the disability subgroups reported in the American Community Survey 1-year estimates, 2% to 2.5% of the adult population under age 65 reports hearing or vision difficulties, 5.3% report a cognitive difficulty and 5.5% indicate difficulties with independent living. The largest subgroup, at 7% of the adult population 18 to 64, report ambulation difficulties. Another 9.8% of the population are older adults, age 65 and older whose functional limitations are not included in the numbers reported here.

Figure 7.8 below depicts the base routing, as of Summer 2013, and shows the population of the census blocks within the footprint of the overall FAST route structure, the population total reported previously at the ¾ mile buffer population. This mapping, reflecting an 83 square mile service area, establishes the baseline from which change and newly projected trip levels are to be measured.

Figure 7.8 Base Service Area Population Density

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-19

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Figure 7.9 following shows the two areas of expansion and the ¾ mile green bubbles of expanded ADA service area that would be associated with these, to the southwest in the Strickland Bridge area and to the northwest, along Reilly Road.

Figure 7.9 Expanded Service Area

7.4.2 Operating Environment Comments

Selected comments collected during this project’s early outreach efforts included attention to subscription trips and their destinations. Subscription trips now serve one dialysis center on Raeford Road that is currently outside of the ¾ mile service envelope but which has been and continues to be served. A second dialysis center on Hope Mills Road is within the existing ¾ mile service envelope. Subscription trips to a new medical facility, Cape Fear Valley North Cancer treatment, are within the existing service area. A new facility on Raeford Road, including the Hoke Community Medical Center and Hospital and the Raeford VA Medical Center (opening in 2015) will be within an expanded service area.

The Aran Lakes area and Stoney Point in Lakewood are among the neighborhoods to be included in an expanded service area. The shopping center on Hope Mills will also be newly included. Currently the Cumberland County Transportation Program provides some trips in and around these areas, both by taxi and with dial-a-ride vehicles.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-20

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

7.4.3 Demand Estimation Methodology from TCRP Report 119 (Project B-28) -- Introduction to the Model

To develop the demand estimate for new service areas, this analysis utilizes modeling from TCRP Report 119, “Improving ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Estimation” 1 The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) recognized the need for statistically reliable methods of estimating trip demand for Americans with Disabilities complementary paratransit programs, commissioning this effort.

Predictions for ADA complementary paratransit service by the Report 119 process, assumes that demand….

“is not capacity constrained by significant numbers of denials, unreliable service, or excessive telephone wait times to reach a reservations agent. To the extent possible, demand is predicted only for trips that ADA-eligible individuals are unable to make by fixed-route services (p. H-1).”

The Report 119 analysis, and the regression modeling research that lies behind it, identifies six factors that affect demand. These are:

• Population: Demand increases directly in proportion to the total population of the area served. • Base Fare: Demand is highly sensitive to fares; possibly more sensitive than general public transit demand. • Conditional Eligibility: Systems that have higher percentages of applicants found conditionally eligible (rather than ‘fully eligible’ or eligible without conditions) have lower demand. • Conditional Trip Determination: Systems that conduct trip-by-trip determination based on conditions of eligibility have much lower demand. • Poverty Level: High levels of poverty in a service area significantly depress demand. • Effective Window: Demand is highly sensitive to standards for on-time pick-ups. Systems that define “on-time” for pick-ups using a wider window have lower demand.

The resultant model used here is built up from relevant FASTTRAC! information to develop estimates of the ridership demand for ADA paratransit services at three levels: baseline and two expansion levels. The model’s strength lies in the fact that it is using reliable information from six variables that have been shown to meaningfully influence demand for ADA paratransit trips. It is based on regression analyses of data from 28 representative transit properties whose ADA programs and data sets were carefully vetted through the research process to ensure they were both representative and able to provide reliable data.

The Report 119, Project B-28 model’s output still has a high degree of inherent uncertainly. It presents a wide band of potential demand. The six factors identified here explain only 74% of the variation in ADA paratransit trips per capita among the 28 representative systems. Other factors that influence demand are not captured in this model. These may include: population in older age groups, incidence of disability, availability of human service transportation, availability and quality of fixed-route transit, telephone access and ethnicity and language groups.

1 TCRP Report 119 “Improving ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Estimation.” D. Koffman, D. Lewis, D. Chia, J. Burkhardt, M. Bradley. Washington DC, 2007.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-21

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

However, most of these were determined by the research team not to have measureable statistical impact. So the model, while not capturing all variables that impact demand, is still a useful planning tool to support policy discussions.

7.4.4 ADA Ridership Estimations for Fayetteville and FASTTRAC!

Three tables follow that use the Report 119, Project B-28 demand estimation process to present ADA trip demand for three service areas: 1) considering the existing service area (Table 7.9); 2) the expanded service area (Table 7.10); and 3) for citywide service (Table 7.11). A figure at the end of this discussion presents these results in a manner to aid comparison.

1. Existing Service Area Baseline Table 7.9 presents the baseline projection, using the base population of the existing service area. This uses the FASTTRAC! service area population developed through the GIS analysis. The other variables include the program’s base fare of $2.00 per one-way trip, the poverty-level percentage of the base population, the absence of conditional eligibility and the thirty-minute on-time window.

These input values generate an Estimation Tool result that is presented in the first two blue lines in Table 7.9, below the input values. According to these inputs, trip demand is predicted at a level of 73,222 one-way trips with a trips per capita increase from the existing 0.36 to a value of 0.49. Actual FASTTRAC! ridership is 37% below this, at the FY13 ridership of 53,328.

This suggests that FASTTRAC! is carrying fewer riders than might be expected – it is providing trips above the lower 90th percentile confidence level – the second blue highlighted row which predicts trips at 0.30 trips per capita and annual trips of 44,246, or 21% below current FASTTRAC! ridership. Given that FASTTRAC! actual experience is at the low end of the model currently, it is reasonable to expect actual experience with new conditions will remain closer to the low-end of the confidence level, hence the highlighted lower 90% confidence limit.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-22

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Table 7.9 FASTTRAC! Baseline Service Area Demand Estimation

TCRP Project B-28 Estimation Tool for ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Existing Service Area Baseline Input Values ADA service area population (2000 Census) 149,692 persons Base fare for ADA paratransit (Dollars) $2.00 per one-way trip Percent of applicants for ADA paratransit eligibility found conditionally eligible 0 % Conditional trip determination 0 where 0 = none Percent of the population in the ADA serviceareain households with 1999-2000 income below the poverty line 17.9 % Effective on-time window for ADA paratransit (minutes) 30 minutes

Estimation Tool Actual FASTTRAC! Percent Results Ridership Difference Predicted Annual Ridership per Capita 0.49 0.36 Predicted Annual Ridership [Predicted Mean] 73,222 53,328 37% Confidence Intervals for Mean Value for Systems with the Characteristics Entered Predicted Trips per Capita Annual Ridership Upper 95% confidence limit 0.90 134,543 Upper 90% confidence limit 0.81 121,175 Lower 90% confidence limit 0.30 44,246 -21% Lower 95% confidence limit 0.27 39,850

Table 7.10 FASTTRAC! Expanded Service Area Demand Estimation

TCRP Project B-28 Estimation Tool for ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Anticipated New Service Area (Two Bubbles) Input Values ADA service area population (2000 Census) 162,945 persons Base fare for ADA paratransit (Dollars) $2.00 per one-way trip Percent of applicants for ADA paratransit eligibility found conditionally eligible 0 % Conditional trip determination 0 where 0 = none Percent of the population in the ADA service area in households with 1999-2000 income below the poverty line 17.9 % Effective on-time window for ADA paratransit (minutes) 30 minutes

Estimation Tool Actual FASTTRAC! Percent Results Ridership Difference Predicted Annual Ridership per Capita 0.49 0.33 Predicted Annual Ridership [Predicted Mean] 79,705 53,328 49% Confidence Intervals for Mean Value for Systems with the Characteristics Entered Predicted Trips per Capita Annual Ridership Upper 95% confidence limit 0.90 146,454 Upper 90% confidence limit 0.81 131,903 Lower 90% confidence limit 0.30 48,163 -11% Lower 95% confidence limit 0.27 43,378

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-23

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

2. New Service Area (Two Bubbles) Expanding the service area in two areas, to the southwest around Strickland Bridge, and to the northwest along Reilly Road, adds another 13,253 persons to the base population of 149,692 for a total service area population of 162,945. Table 7.10 on the previous page presents the model inputs and Estimation Tool Results for this suggesting that ridership demand could grow to 79,705 persons and reflect a 0.49 trips per capita level. However, the lower 90th percentile suggests a better floor on this demand estimation with a trip level closer to existing service at 48,163 one-way trips and 0.30 trips per capita.

3. Citywide Demand Estimation The final estimate considers the City as a whole, exploring what it would mean to pick up any eligible, ADA certified resident and carry them anywhere within the City limits that they may wish to go. Table 7.11 below presents the Demand Estimation using the Citywide population and also the rate of 17.9% for the two previous service areas which is slightly higher than the Citywide rate of 15.5%. Although the model does report that higher poverty levels correlate with lower trip demand, and conversely lower rates result in increased demand, we are keeping current poverty levels constant for purposes of this estimation.

Table 7.11 FASTTRAC! Citywide Service Area Demand Estimation

TCRP Project B-28 Estimation Tool for ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Citywi de Input Values ADA service area population (2000 Census) 200,105 persons Base fare for ADA paratransit (Dollars) $2.00 per one-way trip Percent of applicants for ADA paratransit eligibility found conditionally eligible 0 % Conditional trip determination 0 where 0 = none Percent of the population in the ADA serviceareain households with 1999-2000 income below the poverty line 17.9 % Effective on-time window for ADA paratransit (minutes) 30 minutes

Estimation Tool Actual FASTTRAC! Percent Results Ridership Difference Predicted Annual Ridership per Capita0.490.27 Predicted Annual Ridership [Predicted Mean] 97,882 53,328 84%

Confidence Intervals for Mean Value for Systems with the Characteristics Entered Predicted Trips per Capita Annual Ridership Upper 95% confidence limit 0.90 179,853 Upper 90% confidence limit 0.81 161,983 Lower 90% confidence limit 0.30 59,147 10% Lower 95% confidence limit 0.27 53,270

Expansion of the ADA service area to Citywide is predicted to increase demand by just 10% at the lower 90% confidence level, to 59,147 trips annually and again a 0.30 trip per capita rate. However, given that the population is increased by 50,000 persons, for the predicted mean annual ridership level this expansion represents an 84% increase to 97,882 one-way passenger trips and a trips per capita rate of 0.49, well above w hat would be FASTTRAC!’s comparable rate of 0.27 trips per capita. This estimation level represents substantial increases over existing ridership levels.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-24

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

7.4.5 Demand Estimations Summarized in Terms of Vehicle Requirements

Figure 7.10 below presents the three demand estimations as a range, showing the red point as the FY13 FASTTRAC! actual ridership level, with the black line representing the predicted mean values for the three service areas and the blue line as the lower 90th percentile of the predicted values. Actual experience is expected to be somewhere between these values, suggested by the black dotted line associated with the FASTTRAC! actual ridership, increasing by the same percentage increases reflected in Demand Estimation tool predictions.

Figure 7.10 FASTTRAC! Trip Demand Prediction Ranges, Developed from TCRP Report 119 ADA Demand Estimation Modeling

Predicted mean

100,000 FASTTRAC! actual

FASTTRAC! predic on Lower 90th percen le Trips

80,000

Passenger 71,288

‐ way 60,000

One 58,128 53,328

40,000 Exis ng Service Area NEW Service Area Citywide Serivce Area

Translating these demand estimations into vehicle requirements is the final step, and key to enabling the FASTTRAC! management team and policy makers to determine appropriate action steps. T his is crtically important because the ADA prohibits denial of trip requests by ADA certified passengers, requiring that the operator serve 100% of all trips requested within an hour before or an hour after the times requested.

Ensuring sufficient vehicle capacity to meet projected demand is critical, given the ADA’s requirement that there be zero trip denials. Table 7.12 works with the TCRP 119 demand estimations to develop vehicle requirements, making a number of assumptions in order to do so. Among these, is development of a range using the predicted mean and the lower 90% confidence level trip rates given that FASTTRAC! actual experience is at the low end of the model currently, so it is reasonable to expect actual experience with new conditions will remain closer to the low-end of the confidence level.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-25

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Table 7.12 Calculating FASTTRAC! Vehicle Requirements

Working with daily ridership and an estimate of the proportion of those trips that fall within a core-operating day of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., this estimation arrives at a peak period trip level to be managed by the current fleet, again presented for three service areas: current experience, the expanded service area bubbles and Citywide.

The vehicle estimation model then uses a productivity level factor to determine how many trips could be carried during that ten-hour day. This model is using 2.4 for the baseline service, below the 2.5 reported in NTD figures, but slightly above the 2.37 that was documented through this analysis. For the expanded service area, this is reduced to 2.3 given the potential for longer trips from the southwest corner of the City to other areas, including medical facilities in the City’s northeast area. Productivity is further reduced for the Citywide estimation, to 2.2, on the presumption of additional, longer trips.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-26

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

Vehicle estimations presented in Table 7.12 are derived for the three service areas and then adjusted to ensure sufficient vehicles for the peak hour of the service day. This adjustment is based upon the analysis of November experience which identifies 30 passenger trips were provided during the peak hour.

Vehicle requirements suggested by this analysis are:

For actual and predicted actual Between 10 to 17 vehicles For expanded service area bubbles Between 12 to 19 vehicles For Citywide Between 15 to 25 vehicles

Notably, this analysis that uses TCRP 119 model does not take any geography or travel time variables into account. That is among the factors that can explain the difference between the model’s estimate of 10 vehicles for current actual experience and existing use of 13 vehicles during peak periods.

Productivity is a critical variable in this overall vehicle estimation, one that can be increased as well as decreased. Some recommendations made through this review may ensure that additional service efficiencies are instituted, thereby minimizing necessary vehicle and revenue vehicle hours required.

Comments –

• Currently, FASTTRAC! is operating between 12 and 13 peak period vehicles on most weekdays, sometimes even a fourteenth. This is greater than this model’s prediction for actual existing demand or the expanded bubbles service area. This model therefore is underestimating vehicle need, perhaps due to trip-making patterns and trip distances that are not directly incorporated into the models demand. It may also be due to the high rate of same day cancels, late cancels and no-show trips that consume vehicle resources without providing trips.

• Another important factor is that the ridership estimates developed from TCRP Report 119 suggest that the FASTTRAC! demand is at the lower range of demand that could present. Expanding FASTTRAC! to citywide service could contribute to increased per capita trip rates. Conversely, however, as the areas of the City not now included in the ADA ¾ mile service area may be of somewhat higher income and/or have lower levels of transit dependency, such ridership might not present. Such demographic factors tend to suppress demand.

• While these various factors contribute to uncertainty regarding vehicle requirements, nonetheless, the estimates provide a basis for considering service area expansion – at least one more vehicle for the new service area bubbles and potentially at least two to three more vehicles to support citywide expansion.2 For a citywide program, actual

2 In an effort to incorporate geography and service quality assumptions into the vehicle estimation modeling, FASTTRAC! data was applied to Liping Fu’s “Analytical Model for Paratransit Capacity and Quality of Service Analysis” Transportation Research Board (2003). This model uses variables that include dwell time, ride time, and average travel speed, among others. While the baseline service area estimate showed a vehicle requirement of 12 vehicles, the model did not reliably predict vehicle requirements for the expanded service areas, given several unknown variables including related to

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-27

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

demand would need to be carefully monitored to see whether, FASTTRAC! was realizing more latent demand and whether vehicle capacity at peak periods was sufficient.

7.4.6 Estimating Costs

This vehicle estimation model suggests that an additional 50 hours per week per vehicle will be required, or a total of 2,600 hours per year per vehicle. Projecting the operating costs for these increases points to establishing a marginal cost per vehicle hour. FAST administration proposes $69.41 as a reasonable marginal cost per vehicle hour, well below the $83 per revenue hour cost reported to NTD. Vehicle operating cost estimations then are suggested as follows:

One-half added vehicle: 25 revenue hours per week for 1,300 hours annually $ 90,233 One added vehicle: 50 revenue hours per week for 2,600 hours annually $180,466 Two added vehicles: 100 revenue hours per week for 5,200 hours annually $360,932

Vehicle capital costs would also need to be factored into a multi-year budget. It is also very possible that increasing service capacity in a stair-step fashion that matches trip demand is desirable. For example, adding another 20 to 25 hours per week in vehicle capacity, targeted specifically during the morning and afternoon peak hours, may prove adequate initially, with regard to the expanded service area of the Strickland Bridge and Reilly Road areas.

7.5 Discussion of Review Findings

7.5.1 ADA Compliance

By and large, the FASTTRAC! program complies with ADA complementary paratransit regulations. The monthly Travel Training/ FASTTRAC! orientation class to bring in individuals within the ADA certification process is innovative, although care must be taken to ensure that the 21 day review process for application certification is applied appropriately, given the several timeframes at work: date of first application receipt, date of application completion, date of class and date of certification decision.

Three areas of concern are noted. First, the request of trip purpose is contrary to ADA regulation, prohibited and must be stopped. Demand response trip purpose information can be gathered during periodic rider surveys but cannot be gathered on a trip-by-trip basis at the time of the reservation request.

Secondly, there is some indication in the data that the rate of trip denials may be increasing, noted as five in a recent month. This needs to be carefully examined to determine whether there is a pattern and practice of capacity constraints that are leading these trip denials.

Finally, riders cannot be asked to call back for advance trip reservations (days 2 through 14) at vehicle ride time. This model’s outputs are derived from the following formula but not otherwise reported:

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-28

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

one time, while next day trip reservations are taken at a different time. Developing staffing to receive trip requests as they come in is indicated.

7.5.2 Trip Reservations and Scheduling

Increasing the effectiveness of NOVUS in the trip scheduling function needs is critical to increasing on-street productivity, reducing drivers’ backtracking and minimizing the manual schedule review that currently takes place. This will all be aided both by acquiring the most current version of the local city mapping, presumably through NOVUS but potentially in other ways. Also important is to acquire the most current version of NOVUS and to ensure that training time is given priority. Some on-site Trapeze training is recommended, as well as supporting regular FASTTRAC! staff participation in the webinars and Trapeze annual conferences.

It is also likely that the Trapeze NOVUS “tours” on which the skeletal routing is based need to be optimized. The high rates of trip cancellation suggest that existing tours are based upon standing trip orders (subscription trips), which are eroded by routine cancellations and do not reflect efficiencies in daily vehicle pick-ups and drop-offs. This is one of the reasons why staff must manually edit vehicle tours daily. Ensuring regular tour optimization will help to improve productivity, “teach” the software and reduce staff time to manually make such corrections.

Provision of access to the mapping software to reservationists/call takers – perhaps through a Certification Module and with assistance of the City GIS team – is desirable to help reduce the average call time. While the standard is 90 seconds, the call average of 3 minutes 30 seconds is contributed to by the time required to manually check origin and destination addresses as being within the ¾ mile buffer. Achieving short call time standards is difficult in the ADA environment where the ridership group tends to want to “chat” with the call takers and it can be difficult to end telephone calls graciously. That said, some reduction in the call time might also reduce the dropped calls/abandoned calls that, at 15% of all calls, seems higher than desirable.

7.5.3 Rider Policies, Communication and Education

Enabling the current system to handle more trips will be greatly aided by reducing the actual number and percent of cancellations and no-shows. This will require, at a minimum, the introduction, communication and enforcement of cancellation and no-show policies.

Similarly, it is strongly recommended that the 14-day reservation window be reduced, for example, to seven (7) days or even to three (3) days. Shorter advance reservation windows have been shown to reduce the rate of cancellations and no-shows because the trip reservation is made closer to the actual event.

Changing no-show, cancellation and trip reservation policies will benefit from working with the ridership to change current behavior. Good public involvement processes with the targeted ridership can both introduce new policies and discuss their implications, doing so in a positive and upbeat manner. This emphasizes the fact that new policies can benefit all riders where ride times become shorter. Vehicles are no longer visiting addresses where no pick-up is made and routing is more efficient, without the holes of numerous late and same-day cancels.

Defining new policy may be done by the FASTTRAC! administration, based upon best practices, but should involve the ridership in some manner, to help aide in its adoption. Public meetings

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-29

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

or focus group discussions at key ADA destinations are useful in introducing new policies that are directed at riders’ use of the service.

Additionally, there need to be tools for on-going rider education and communication. Simplest will be expansion of the FASTTRAC! website to include a “Rules of the Road” or “Rider Guidelines” information. Including such text on the website, as well as in a straightforward printable copy for riders and their family members, will contribute to responsible use of the service.

7.5.4 Passenger Fares

The average passenger fare derived from NTD data is $1.31 for 2011 when the fare was $1.50. Since the fare increase to $2.00, average April to July FY 13 fares are reported at $1.86.

Some attention to the 10-trip and 20-trip passes with discounts resulting in a cost of $1.75 per trip is warranted. While fixed-route public transit tries to accommodate frequent users of its service with discounted fares, offering such discounts to high users in the demand response environment where the cost of service is so much higher than that of fixed route. Importantly, the subsidy per passenger is much higher as well. The NTD-reported FASTTRAC! trip cost of $32.95 reflected a 4% in rider contribution and 96% in subsidy.

That farebox contribution of 4% to the overall operating costs for the FASTTRAC! program is almost the lowest among peer programs reviewed, although this is influenced by the total reported cost. Given that ridership demand appears to outpace overall revenue sources, it is desirable to review fare policy overall. While an additional fare increase is not feasible, if ridership increases continue, attention to the FASTTRAC! pass policy is indicated with consideration for removing a discounted fare to frequent complementary paratransit users.

Another fare consideration is to establish a premium fare for trips that originate or end outside the ¾ mile ADA required service area. If the City chooses to expand the FASTTRAC! to a citywide service, this is an important strategy to constraining demand while still providing a lifeline level of service to those for whom a trip is sorely needed.

7.5.5 Operating Costs

This review has not examined the cost basis for the program’s operating experience, except to note that the FASTTRAC! was among the highest in the peer programs reviewed. Some attention to what overhead costs are loaded onto FASTTRAC! might decrease program costs but that is an administrative policy call. Increasing ridership will contribute somewhat to decreasing costs per trip, but only if productivity increases are simultaneously sought. This may prove challenging with the service area expansions under consideration, although using marginal costs to estimate this will better reflect the impact of expansion.

7.5.6 Demand Estimation and Vehicle Requirements

Section 7.4 of this review walked through a respected TCRP ADA demand estimation model to provide a range of trip demand experience from within which to suggest FASTTRAC! trip growth. The increased ridership likely to be generated by the two new service area bubbles associated with the Strickland Bridge and the Reilly Road areas seems manageable – a 9% increase in ridership, requiring perhaps an additional vehicle and 50 more revenue hours each week to

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-30

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

cover peak period demand or somewhat less than a full vehicle. Expanding to a citywide service area suggests a 23% increase in demand and a fleet increase by a minimum of two vehicles.

Both of these predictions are based upon existing FASTTRAC! ridership levels, which are around the 90-percentile confidence limit. Demand could increase at higher rates with the service area expansions under consideration, as improvements are made to the telephone reservation system, among other recommendations offered. At the same time, this analysis could not address the potential for increased on-board times, as a result of a larger service area and longer distances between some southwest and northeast origin-destination patterns. While there some potential for more shared-rides may increase productivity, these too may also increase the on-board ride times. This points to carefully monitoring dispatch trip-scheduling experience to limit exposure to denied trips, as the service expands.

This review’s analysis of subscription trips and casual trips showed different utilization patterns that have important vehicle scheduling implications. The sharp bi-modal peaks of the a.m. and p.m. for subscription trips are likely more efficiently served and more trips can be provided with available vehicles. By contrast, the casual trips are harder to serve efficiently and spread throughout the day, without the sharp peaks. In expanding the service area, it cannot yet be known how these patterns will present and therefore what will be the vehicle implications. Of concern are the five March trip denials that suggest insufficient capacity for the existing service area demand.

7.5.7 Demand Management Strategies

This review cannot address in detail the array of ADA demand management strategies that the FAST administration could employ. However, several are worthy of some mention here.

Demand management strategies of relevance to ADA eligible riders and trips include:

• Changing Pass-based Fare Policy – consider removing the discounted pass fares for ADA riders, given the high levels of subsidy these trips require.+

• Expanding travel training capabilities – work actively to travel train individuals who could possibly use fixed-route, including working with transitional-aged youth to help them learn fixed-route service before they ever become FASTTRAC! users.3

• Establishing and enforcing no-show and cancellation policies -- these will help to reduce the difference between trips scheduled and trips provided, increasing the efficiency of schedules and reducing poorly utilized vehicle time.

• Reducing the reservation window from fourteen days – reducing the reservation window to seven days in advance or even three days in advance will help to reduce

3 AMMA Transit Planning and Riverside Transit Agency presented a paper at the 2014 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board that documents agency savings of $342,000 through an intensive travel-training program that is highly individualized and involves continuing follow-up. Trainees ongoing fixed-route transit use is documented numbered passes provided free by the transit agency are tracked through GFI farebox reporting. ADA Cost Savings and Increased Fixed-Route Ridership Through Transit Agency-Provided Travel Training. Menninger, H. and Werly, V. Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, January 2014.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-31

Transit Development Plan Update 7. FASTTRAC! Analysis

cancellations and no shows, increasing the efficiency of schedules and reducing poorly utilized vehicle time.

Demand management strategies of relevance to an expanded service area include:

• Establishing a fare policy for trips fully within the ADA ¾ mile ADA envelope and a second fare structure for those trips with one leg or the other outside of the ¾ mile envelope. A number of communities, including Charlotte, NC, Lubbock TX. and Reno NV. have established such a two-tiered fare structure – one for within the ADA service area and one for trips beyond. Careful ridership education is important to help develop riders’ understanding of the fare structures.

• Limiting trips by trip purpose or time-of-day for trips beyond the ¾ mile ADA service envelope. Along the lines of providing lifeline service levels, non-emergency medical trips are commonly the trip type that may be provided by demand response programs for a service area beyond the ¾ mile ADA service envelope. Similarly, it is feasible to limit service hours of such an above-and-beyond ADA service. Very careful implementation of this is necessary to ensure that the call taking/reservationist personnel have clear guidelines and procedures.

7.5.8 Cost Efficiency Strategies

Some of the strategies and actions discussed in this review have potential to develop some cost savings, detailed in relation to operating policies and practices and vehicle deployment. Among those not examined is the potential for coordination with other service providers. At least two opportunities may exist:

• Judicious use of taxi providers for low-demand or highest peak periods – a number of systems around the country are relying upon taxis to help smooth out demand on dedicated vehicles and meet trip demand more cost-effectively. Raleigh NC uses non-dedicated taxis for some trips within its ¾ mile mandated service area. Orange County, CA uses non-dedicated taxis to meet trip demand beyond the ¾ mile ADA service area, for a premium fare. In both cases, the decision to use a taxi to serve the trip is made by the transit providers’ dispatcher, not by the rider or the taxi company.

• Coordination with the County – it was beyond the scope of this review to examine the cost and service implications for coordinated service delivery between FASTTRAC! and the Cumberland County Transportation Program. However, there are locations around the country where, through a shared dispatch function, a given trip request is assigned to the most appropriate provider based on trip origin and destination. The State of Oregon has many agencies doing this with its Medicaid and public transit providers and Lane Transit in Eugene, OR is among the leaders in this. This is complex to develop and requires a strong partnership among participating agencies – including strong leadership – but can result in more trips for the same or even fewer resources.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 7-32

Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 8: Service Recommendations

8.0 Introduction

This chapter brings together the findings of the ridecheck analysis, fieldwork by project team members, public outreach findings, and discussions with FAST to identify and analyze alternatives and make recommendations for improvements to the FAST network.

As noted in previous chapters, FAST performs well in terms of customer satisfaction and compares favorably to its peers in ridership and productivity. This chapter identifies options that are intended to enhance productivity, provide more service where it is needed, and improve service reliability.

Recommendations are grouped into three categories:

• Short-term recommendations can be implemented in the next one to two years. As noted below, a major focus of route recommendations in this time frame is the completion of the new Transit Center at the northeast corner of Robeson & Russell Streets.

• Mid-term recommendations are scheduled for implementation in the next three to five years.

• Long-term recommendations are scheduled for implementation in the next six to ten years. The report presents a re-imagined transit network for Fayetteville in this time frame.

Section 8.1 summarizes goals and strategies guiding the development of alternatives and recommendations. Section 8.2 presents short-term recommendations by route. Section 8.3 describes mid-term recommendations. Section 8.4 contains a blueprint for a future transit network in Fayetteville. Section 8.5 details estimated cost and ridership impacts for each time frame.

8.1 Transit Goals and Objectives

This section discusses transit goals and strategies that have guided the identification of alternatives and development of recommendations for this transit development plan update. The overall goal of the analysis is to provide transit service that will attract additional ridership in a cost-efficient and cost-effective manner. Under this overall goal, objectives include:

1. Establish a clear identity and focus for each route.

2. Provide direct connections to major trip generators and activity centers.

3. Address poorly performing route segments with low ridership and productivity.

4. Define consistent, realistic schedules for each route. Minimize route deviations by operating via a single route path as much as possible. Use clockface headways (which

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-1 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

result in the bus arriving at a given stop at the same time each hour), as is done now, to make schedules more understandable for riders and potential riders.

5. Restructure routes serving downtown to begin and end at the new Transit Center at Robeson & Russell Streets.

Strategies to achieve these objectives are discussed in the remainder of this section.

Clear Identity and Focus for Each Route

Another element that helps riders, especially new or infrequent riders, to understand transit service is a rational route network that emphasizes direct connections along major corridors to important trip generators. In such a network, each route has a clear purpose and identity. For example, Route 5 travels on Ramsey Street for almost the entire length of the route and serves major destinations in downtown, at the VA Medical Center, and at Wal-Mart. At the other end of the spectrum, Route 17 in West Fayetteville was designed to provide as much service coverage as possible, but has several loops and operates on multiple streets.

Direct routes along major arterials connecting to important destinations and activity centers are a natural outgrowth of providing a clear identity and focus for each route. The three stops with the most passenger activity in the FAST network are the current Transfer Center downtown, Cross Creek Mall, and University Estates, a transit-oriented residential neighborhood that also serves as a transfer point among three routes. It is no accident that the three routes with the highest ridership connect two of these three locations with direct service along major arterial streets.

Direct routes imply two-way service along the major arterial streets. Two-way service makes it clear to passengers where to wait for their return trip.

Poor Performance

What actions can be taken to improve the productivity of poorly performing routes? Are there restructuring opportunities? Can headways be adjusted to reflect demand? Are there opportunities to trim routes by discontinuing unproductive early or late trips? At what point is route discontinuation a reasonable option?

FAST routes average 24.6 boardings per revenue hour on weekdays and 21.0 on Saturday. These are good productivity numbers for a service area the size of Fayetteville. Only three weekday routes (Route 9, 17, and 30) and two Saturday routes (Routes 4 and 17) show productivity less than 75 percent of the system average. Route 30 is an exception in its structure as a shuttle between downtown and the Public Works Commission offices on Old Wilmington Road. Changes are proposed in the short-range plan to streamline and strengthen the other routes.

Schedules

Schedule adherence is within the expected range of 65 to 75 percent when measured at all time points. More crowded and longer routes usually have more difficulty keeping to schedule, and routes in the vicinity of Cross Creek Mall are slowed due to traffic on Saturday. All routes operate on a clockface schedule. The shift to the new Transit Center in downtown requires

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-2 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations adjusted running times (less running time for routes to the west, more for routes to the east) to reflect the new location.

New Transit Center

The new Transit Center at Robeson & Russell Streets in downtown is scheduled to open in mid- 2015. This new facility will provide customers with an attractive facility with indoor waiting areas out of the weather. The new location also presents an opportunity to restructure bus schedules and service. All proposed recommendations for routes serving downtown assume that the new Transit Center will be the final destination for these routes.

More Frequent Service versus New Routes

Given limited resources, a decision to establish a new route must be weighed against opportunities to provide more frequent service in areas where there is proven demand. This dilemma is common to all transit systems: do we provide greater coverage (operate service in all parts of the service area) or do we provide greater frequency (operate more service along high-demand routes)?

There is no single “right” answer to the coverage versus frequency question. The recommendations included in this report lean toward frequency rather than coverage, because coverage is generally adequate while frequency could use improvements. New routes are included in the proposals, but approximately 75 percent of the resources go toward improvements to existing routes.

8.2 Short-range Recommendations

Short-range recommendations address the next one to two years. A major focus of these recommendations is the reorientation of downtown service to the new Transit Center. This creates opportunities for increased frequency and new routes. Recommendations are discussed by route.

Route 3

Route 3, the only route serving Southeast Fayetteville, is next to last among FAST routes in ridership on weekdays and is in the lower half of FAST routes in terms of ridership and productivity on both weekdays and Saturday. A major problem with this route is a large mid- route loop between Person & Deep Creek and Cedar Creek & Troy. This requires passengers in neighborhoods on both sides of Cedar Creek Road to ride all the way out to the hotel cluster east of I-95 and back in one direction of every trip to downtown.

As the only route leaving downtown to the east, Route 3 will be longer to/from the new Transit Center. This route would need an additional bus due to the increased length.

The recommendation for this route is to split it into two routes. One route (Route 3A) would circulate through the neighborhoods on either side of Cedar Creek Road as Route 3 does now, but this would be an end-of-line instead of a mid-route loop, thus sharply reducing travel times in one direction for all passengers boarding along the current loop. The other route (Route 3B) would travel directly on Cedar Creek Road to the hotel cluster at the end of the route. Figure 8.1 shows the proposed changes to Route 3. Each route would operate hourly, with one leaving on the hour and the other on the half-hour

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-3 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.1 Proposed Routes 3A and 3B

Route 3A would travel through downtown via Rowan-Grove. The current network has no through service in this corridor in downtown. Route 3B would travel through downtown via Franklin-Person, replacing the current routing of Route 14 in this corridor.

The inbound segment of Route 3 along Eastern Boulevard would be discontinued under this proposal. Only one stop on Eastern at Locust would be affected, and this location has only 2 boardings and 1 alighting all day on weekdays.

Because Route 3A is being shortened and thus will have additional time in its schedule, a segment has been added after it returns inbound to the Transit Center. This segment replaces an outbound segment on Route 12 along Bragg Boulevard and Filter Plant Drive, then provides a direct connection to the Senior Center at 739 Blue Street on its way back to downtown.

This recommendation requires an additional bus on weekday and Saturday, but the relocation of the Transit Center would have required an additional bus on Route 3 regardless of any other changes. The proposal uses the additional bus to rationalize service to southeast Fayetteville and to add a direct connection between the Transit Center and the Senior Center.

Route 4

The Department of Social Services office is the major trip generator on Route 4, which operates primarily via Hillsboro Street and Rosehill Road. There is a long loop on the outer portion of this

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-4 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations route. Although it serves the VA Medical Center inbound, there are only five boardings per day at that location.

Route 4 operates every 30 minutes because of the importance of the connection to DSS. Its productivity is much higher on weekdays than on Saturday, when DSS is closed.

The recommendation is to straighten Route 4 by continuing the route north on Rosehill Road to University Estates. Rosehill Road will have two-way service, and University Estates will have a direct connection to DSS. This change is in accord with the guiding objectives presented earlier in the chapter. Figure 8.2 shows the proposed Route 4.

Figure 8.2 Proposed Route 4

The extended Route 4 will replace Route 9 along Rosehill, allowing that route to be streamlined. The discontinued segment along Ramsey is served in both directions by Route 5. The discontinued segment along Country Club Road will be served by a new crosstown route. Neighborhoods with very high transit orientation west of Rosehill will now have direct service to downtown instead of going out of direction to complete the loop.

This extension will result in a route that is 14.3 miles long, among the longest in the system. The route can be operated with the two buses that currently serve Route 4, so there is no added cost.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-5 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Route 5

Route 5 operates along Ramsey Street, with Downtown, Wal-Mart, and the VA Medical Center as important destinations. The only change proposed for Route 5 is in downtown to connect to the new Transit Center. The proposed route is shown in Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.3 Proposed Route 5

In downtown, Route 5 will travel outbound via Franklin eastbound and Gillespie/Green northbound to its current routing. Inbound, it will travel via Green/Gillespie southbound and Russell westbound to the new Transit Center.

Route 6

Route 6 is the most productive route in the FAST network on weekdays and Saturday. It connects Cross Creek Mall with University Estates via Skibo Road, Bragg Boulevard, and Shaw Road. No routing changes are proposed for this route. The recommendation in the short term is to operate Route 6 every 30 minutes instead of every 60 minutes on weekdays. The route’s productivity justifies this improvement, which will require an additional bus.

Route 7

Route 7 connects downtown with Cape Fear Valley Health System, primarily via Robeson Street and Raeford Road. The only change proposed for Route 7 is in downtown to connect to the new Transit Center. Route 7 will be shortened by this change, since it operates west of downtown. The proposed route is shown in Figure 8.4.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-6 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.4 Proposed Route 7

Route 30 will serve the discontinued segment of Route 7 along Russell Street in downtown.

Route 8

Route 8 connects downtown with Cape Fear Valley Health System, primarily via Southern Boulevard and Owen Drive. The recommendations change the path into and out of downtown, add a segment, and delete a segment. Each of these changes is described below. The proposed route is shown in Figure 8.5.

With the shift of the Transit Center to the west, Route 8 will enter and leave downtown via Robeson Street and use Blount Street to connect with the current route at Gillespie & Blount/ Campbell. The existing segment on Old Wilmington Road is served by Route 30, and there are no stops along Campbell.

Instead of turning west on Mountain and north on Camden to reach Owen Drive, the proposal calls for Route 8 to continue south on Southern Avenue (becomes Legion Road), west/north on Mid-Pine Road into Natal Street, and then east on Cumberland Road to rejoin the current route on Owen Drive. This adds some distance to the route but has the same number of turning movements in this segment. This deviation serves Topeka Heights Apartments at Natal & Camden and also serves the Purolator site farther north on Natal and Food Lion at Legion & Mid-Pine. Data from 2006 and 2008 on this segment, part of Route 8 at the time, indicate an average of 72 boardings per day.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-7 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.5 Proposed Route 8

At Owen & Boone Trail East, the proposed route will continue on Owen then west on Village Drive. The major stops along the current deviation via Boone Trail East and Village Drive are near Owen Drive.

FAST has received requests to serve the apartment complexes at the end of Enterprise Avenue. The purpose of the outbound deviation to Poinciana Lane is to bring the route slightly closer to the apartments. A more extensive deviation is not recommended due to its impacts on existing service. Data from 2006 and 2008 indicate an average of 24 boardings per day along the proposed segment. Given that there is not enough time to restore both deviations to Route 8, even with discontinuing the Boone Trail East segment, the decision is based on the number of riders that can be served. The Topeka Heights deviation includes both destinations and origins and would serve three times the number of potential riders.

Route 9 plus New Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown Route

Route 9 connects University Estates with Wal-Mart in northeastern Fayetteville. It has been extended north on Ramsey to serve Cape Fear Valley North at Ramsey & Andrews. The route now has a large mid-route loop via Rosehill and Stacy Weaver toward Cape Fear Valley North and via Ramsey, Country Club, and Rosehill toward University Estates. As a result, Route 9 ranks low in ridership and productivity on weekdays, although its productivity is higher on Saturday with ridership focused on Wal-Mart.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-8 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

The proposal for Route 9 streamlines the route, eliminating the mid-route loop, and extends it south to the VA Medical Center instead of north to Cape Fear Valley north. Figure 8.6 shows the proposed route. These changes can be made because of the proposed Route 4 extension via Rosehill and a new Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo crosstown route (described in the next paragraph). The Route 9 segment along Stacy Weaver and Rosehill north of Shaw Mill would have two-way service, while the segments along Ramsey north of Stacy Weaver, Country Club, and Rosehill south of Shaw Mill would be discontinued, replaced by the new crosstown route and by the Route 4 extension. As part of this recommendation, Route 9 would serve Wal-Mart mid-route in both directions. The extension south on Ramsey to a new terminus at the VA Medical Center would provide a direct connection between the VA Medical Center and University Estates and replace Route 4 (which no longer serves the VA) with Route 9.

Figure 8.6 also shows the proposed Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo crosstown route, an east- west connection north of downtown that is a missing link in the current FAST network. The new crosstown route would begin at Cross Creek Mall and end at Cape Fear Valley North at Ramsey & Andrews. It would provide direct connections along this corridor to Cross Creek Mall and to Wal-Mart, and would also replace service discontinued along Ramsey north of Stacy Weaver and along Country Club between Rosehill and Ramsey with a more rational route.

Figure 8.6 Proposed Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown Route with FSU Options and Revised Route 9

Figure 8.6 also shows an FSU alternative. FSU has expressed interest in pursuing a university pass program with FAST that would allow its students to ride on any FAST route under a financial partnership between FAST and FSU. Wal-Mart and Cross Creek Mall are major destinations for FSU students, and FSU currently operates a shuttle to both locations. This alternative would connect the crosstown route with FSU via Murchison Road. In practice, these

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-9 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations might become two separate routes. The idea (which has not yet been discussed in detail with FSU) is that FSU would contribute an amount equal to the cost of one of the two routes. In other cities that have developed partnerships with a university, the contribution typically comes in the form of a student fee.

The recommended Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo crosstown route is proposed in the short-range plan at the request of the Fayetteville City Council. Without the participation of FSU, this route would require one additional bus. The FSU option is an attractive alternative that would require a second bus.

The streamlined Route 9 will still operate every 60 minutes with one bus; there is no cost impact associated with this change. Service to and from Wal-Mart, the primary destination on Route 9, will be more direct. Passengers now riding to Wal-Mart from University Estates must first travel up to Cape Fear Valley North, while passengers in the opposite direction must travel around the mid-route loop.

Route 12

Route 12 connects downtown and University Estates via Murchison Road, and ranks 2nd in weekday ridership and 1st in Saturday ridership. Route 12 operates every 30 minutes on weekdays and Saturday. The only change proposed for Route 12 is in downtown to connect to the new Transit Center. The proposed Route 12 is shown in Figure 8.7

The discontinued outbound segment along Bragg Boulevard and Filter Plant Road will be replaced by Route 3A. Route 12 will leave downtown via Ray Avenue northbound and will enter downtown via Bragg Boulevard into Robeson Street.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-10 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.7 Proposed Route 12

Route 14

Route 14 serves downtown, FTCC, and Cross Creek Mall. It is the most productive weekday route in the FAST network. Route 14 has a mid-route deviation to serve Eutaw Shopping Center. The shopping center generates ridership, but the deviation is cumbersome due to the existing road network in the vicinity and the need to serve FTCC. Route 14 is the only route with average loads above seated capacity on certain trips at certain locations, generally near FTCC.

Two changes are proposed for Route 14. The first is in downtown to connect to the new Transit Center. Route 14 exits downtown to the west, so this change shortens the route. The second change is to introduce a new 14X service that provides a direct connection between downtown and FTCC, bypassing Eutaw Shopping Center. The proposed Routes 14 and 14X are shown in Figure 8.8

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-11 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.8 Proposed Routes 14 and 14X

It is important to note that Eutaw Shopping Center will still receive its current level of service every 60 minutes. The 14X route will result in 30-minute service along the remainder of Route 14. The 14X could operate in limited-stop fashion, or could have a standard stop pattern.

The discontinuation of the current downtown segment, replaced by Route 3B along Franklin/ Person Streets and Route 30 along Russell Street, will save enough time in the schedule to operate every 30 minutes with no increase in the number of buses on this route.

Route 15

No changes are proposed to Route 15 in the short-range plan.

Route 17

Route 17 is a route designed for coverage in west Fayetteville, with a mid-route loop, a long end-of-route loop, and a mid-route deviation. Major destinations are Cross Creek Mall and Wal- Mart on Raeford Road in southwest Fayetteville. It serves Fort Bragg, but the stop is poorly located outside the gate on a one-way segment.

From the beginning of this study, the project team viewed Fort Bragg as an untapped transit resource. FAST had already begun working with Fort Bragg to improve and extend service onto the base, not only to the gate. Security concerns are obviously paramount to Fort Bragg. After extensive negotiation, FAST and Fort Bragg reached an agreement to allow FAST buses onto the base.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-12 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

A direct two-way route between Cross Creek Mall and the mini-mall on the base is absolutely necessary to attract ridership. Cross Creek Mall is a major attraction in itself and also offers transfer opportunities to reach other locations throughout Fayetteville. The mini-mall is a meeting point for base shuttles that serve different areas of Fort Bragg. A direct link between the mini-mall and Cross Creek Mall simplifies off-base travel while providing convenient transfers to and from base shuttles and other FAST routes.

Figure 8.9 shows the proposed changes to Route 17. The Fort Bragg route has been renumbered Route 19 in the figure and is shown in orange. Route 17 will be truncated at the Ponderosa Shopping Center at Santa Fe & Yadkin, will no longer serve Fillyaw and the segment of North Reilly between Fillyaw and Morganton, and will no longer deviate east on Cliffdale Road to the Cliffdale Recreation Center.

Figure 8.9 Proposed Routes 17 and 19

Ideally, because of the agreement regarding security, this route would be structured so that anyone going onto the base would have a destination there. The security agreement will have military personnel boarding the bus when it enters the base to check IDs; any rider without a valid photo ID would get off and wait for the bus to come back out. However, there is enough ridership in the vicinity of Fillyaw & Reilly to justify a deviation west on Fillyaw after the bus leaves the base. Some riders destined for Fillyaw may not be allowed to ride through the base. Stops and shelters will be located at Yadkin & Fillyaw to accommodate these passengers.

The commuter transit benefit program allows an employer to offer transit passes to employees as a tax-free benefit (up to $245 per month). Fort Bragg, like most Federal employment

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-13 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations locations, participates in the commuter tax benefit program. It has not been heavily promoted, primarily because neither FAST nor any other public transportation agency operated service on the base. We strongly suggest that the City urge Fort Bragg to begin actively promoting this benefit to all employees. Active marketing on the base in conjunction with a new direct connection to Cross Creek Mall will maximize transit ridership on the base.

FAST might also consider a partnership with the Army Community Service Family Readiness Group Center. This could include a Welcome Home Program, in which personnel relocating to the Fayetteville area receive a welcome home kit, including passes, transit maps and schedules, coupons, and a gift.

Route 30

Route 30 is different from other FAST routes. This route is designed as a short shuttle to provide a direct connection between downtown and the PWC building on Old Wilmington Road. It has been the least productive FAST route because of its limited purpose.

The new Transit Center will lengthen the route and allow it to provide circulation in downtown. The proposed Route 30 (Figure 8.10) will replace Route 7 along Russell Street. There is currently extra time in the Route 30 schedule, and it appears to be possible to continue operating every 30 minutes. If not, the schedule will be adjusted to operate this route with a single small bus.

Figure 8.10 Proposed Route 30

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-14 Summary of Short-range Recommendations

Figure 8.11 presents the FAST transit network with all short-range recommendations.

Figure 8.11 Short-range FAST Network

8.3 Mid-range Recommendations

Mid-range recommendations address the next three to five years. These recommendations add Sunday service, extend some routes and introduce others to serve new areas, and address frequency and span concerns. Recommendations are described below.

Sunday Service

Sunday transit service in Fayetteville was among the most frequently raised issues in the public outreach efforts for this study. Introduction of Sunday service is envisioned as the first action item in the mid-range plan.

Sunday service is generally proposed to match current late-evening service. Route 5 is added in lieu of Route 9 because of its strong productivity on Saturday; University Estates residents have a connection to Wal-Mart via Route 6. The following routes would operate on Sunday:

• Route 5 • Route 6 • Route 8 • Route 12

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-15 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

• Route 14 (not the 14X) • Route 15 • Route 18 • Route 19 (the new Fort Bragg route) • Pamalee-County Club-Skibo Crosstown with FSU

Figure 8.12 shows the proposed Sunday route network. Sunday service would operate between 8 am and 8 pm.

Figure 8.12 FAST Sunday Route Network

Route 7

In the mid-range time period, two new developments will be completed: a Veterans Administration Medical Center and a satellite campus of FTCC. Both developments are planned in the Raeford Road area east of South Reilly Road, and both are likely to be destinations for transit customers. The best way to do this is to extend Route 7.

Figure 8.13 shows the recommended Route 7 extension from its current westernmost point on the route at Raeford & Ireland westbound via Raeford Road to a new terminus at Wal-Mart. This route path is preliminary; the VA has indicated that it may be possible to operate a bus through its new facility, and access to the FTCC satellite facility is not clear. The extension creates a Raeford Road route with a strong western anchor. Eastbound, the proposed Route 7 will remain on Raeford Road, no longer serving the Cape Fear Valley Health System. Proposed 30-minute service on Route 8 will keep the same number of buses at this location. Route 7 will remain on its current routing between Raeford & Robeson and downtown because of the

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-16 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations difficulty accessing downtown via Raeford Road. The proposed Route 7 would require one additional bus.

Figure 8.13 Proposed Mid-range Route 7

Route 8

The Route 8 short-range proposal added service to Topeka Heights Apartments via a deviation south of Owen Drive. A better solution for this area is to split Route 8 into two routes. Figure 8.14 shows the proposed Routes 8A and 8B.

Route 8A would return to today’s Route 8 alignment with three exceptions. Its path to and from downtown would be via Robeson and Blount instead of Old Wilmington and Campbell; it would join Owen Drive at Southern Avenue instead of continuing the deviation to Mountain Drive: it would not follow the Boone Trail Extension deviation.

Route 8B is a new route between Cross Creek Mall and the airport. It provides new service on McPherson Church Road between Morganton and Raeford Roads, follows the short-range route segment serving Topeka Heights Apartments, then continues via Black and Decker and Airport Roads into the airport. Route 8B would operate every 60 minutes with the same general service span as Route 8 on weekdays and Saturday, and would require one additional bus.

It may be possible to extend service on select trips to the Enterprise Avenue apartments once the routes are split, although a neighborhood shuttle route is the preferable solution.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-17 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.14 Proposed Routes 8A and 8B

Route 10

FAST is implementing a new Route 10 on Strickland Bridge Road route in January 2015. The proposed Route 10 would be changed to provide stronger anchors on either end of the route. On its eastern end, the route would turn north on Glensford Road (once construction is completed to extend Glensford Road south to Raeford) and continue to Cross Creek Mall. On its western end, Route 10 would be extended to Wal-Mart. The proposed Route 10 would provide new service on Glensford Road and a new connection from the Strickland Bridge Road area to Wal-Mart. Figure 8.15 shows this recommendation. An additional bus would be required.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-18 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.15 Proposed Route 10

There is some concern regarding bus capacity at Cross Creek Mall. An alternate proposal would terminate Route 10 somewhere in the vicinity of the Time Warner Cable facility or near Raeford & Glensford/Hope Mills. This might avoid the need for an additional bus. The Route 7 connection can be made anywhere along Raeford once Route 7 is extended, and a transfer to Route 15 or Route 18 could provide access to Cross Creek Mall.

Late Evening Service

The service span on Routes 3 and 7 would be extended until 10 pm on weekdays. The service span on Route 17 would be extended to 9:30 pm.

30 minute Service

Frequency would be improved on Routes 5, 7 (as far as Ireland Drive), 8A, and 15 to every 30 minutes. Four additional buses would be required. Figure 8.16 shows the proposed 30-minute route network.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-19 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.16 30-minute Route Network, Mid-range

Figure 8.17 presents the FAST transit network with all mid-range recommendations.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-20 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.17 Mid-range FAST Network

8.4 Long-range Recommendations

Long-range recommendations address the next six to ten years. We assume that ridership will grow sufficiently by this time to justify a reimagining of FAST that is not constrained by how the system has been planned and developed. The goals and objectives included in Section 8.1 guide the network’s development, which emphasizes direct service on major corridors. Figure 8.18 shows the recommended long-range network

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-21 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Figure 8.18 Long-range FAST Network

Several observations can be made about the proposed network:

• The network keeps strong routes that work well today intact. Routes 4, 5, 6, 12, and 14 are readily recognizable as proposed in the near-term recommendations reflecting the new Transit Center. The zigzag route pattern of Route 6 violates the objective of keeping routes on a single corridor, but the importance of the connections it provides overrides the theoretical ideal. L-shaped routes work very well when there are major destinations at either end. • There is more service in west Fayetteville. This assumes that growth will continue to occur in this area, and that at least some of the growth will be multi-family residential and transit-friendly retail. There are through east-west routes along Morganton and Cliffdale Roads and a new north-south crosstown on Reilly Road. Route 7 along Raeford Road is proposed for extension into Hoke County and the new Cape Fear Valley hospital currently under construction. • Some circulator routes in neighborhoods are continued (Routes 3A, 15, and 18), but could be converted to shuttles with connections to timed radial routes at specified locations. Additional neighborhood routes could be established in areas such as Fisher Lake Road, Bingham Drive, Fisher Road, and Lakewood Drive if development warrants service. • All established routes are assumed to operate every 30 minutes on weekdays until 7 pm. Weekend service will be every 60 minutes. Some routes may be added to the Sunday network.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-22 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

8.5 Input at the Public Meetings

Two public meetings were held at the Main Library on December 4, 2013; the first from 12 noon to 2:30 p.m. and the second from 4:00 – 7:00 p.m. The purpose of these meetings was to present the proposed changes to the overall bus system and individual routes, including short-, mid- and long-range improvements. A total of 54 participants registered at the two sessions. A comment sheet was provided to participants at the registration table.

Many residents from the apartments on Enterprise Avenue attended the meetings and urged FAST to restore service on Route 8 to their neighborhood. As noted earlier, a rerouting of Route 8 to serve Enterprise Avenue is not included in the recommendations due to its impacts on existing service and a relatively low number of boardings along the proposed segment from data from 2006 and 2008. Alternatives include serving this area only on selected trips in the morning and afternoon and establishing a neighborhood shuttle to connect residents with other routes and/or destinations. Different service patterns at different times of day are confusing to riders, so a neighborhood shuttle is the preferred concept. FAST is examining potential routes and hours of service. If a shuttle is implemented, it should be established as a demonstration project for a given period (one year or eighteen months are typical trial periods) with clear performance standards to be met.

The comment sheets indicated great interest in moving Sunday service up to the near term. Due to the cost, Sunday service has remained in the mid-range recommendations. If funding becomes available, however, this recommendation could be moved to the near term. One possibility is to apply for a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant to fund the majority of the cost for the first three years of service. These grants are very competitive, so success is not assured. It could be a way to implement Sunday service ahead of the proposed schedule at minimal cost.

There was also a request from Urban Ministries to deviate Route 8 to serve its offices. This request is being analyzed for its impacts on running time.

8.6 Cost Estimates

Table 8.1 presents annual cost estimates for short-range proposals, using the FY 2013 rate of $62.08 per revenue vehicle hour. The split of Route 3 into two separate routes, 30-minute frequency on Route 6, and the new Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo crosstown route with the FSU option are the only short-range proposals that increase revenue hours and cost. The short- range proposals result in an additional annual cost of $1,031,000. These costs are for fixed- route operation only and do not include additional ADA costs or additional revenue. Chapter 9 provides greater detail on net operating and capital costs associated with the short-range and mid-range proposals.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-23 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Table 8.1 Short-range Costs Annual Daily Change in Revenue Hours Change in Change in Annual Route Peak Buses Revenue Cost Weekday Saturday Sunday Required Hours 3A/3B 12.9 7.9 +1 3,705 $230,032 6 13.5 -- +1 3,443 $213,710 CC-P-S 15.9 12.9 +1 4,726 $293,400 CC-P-S FSU 15.9 12.9 +1 4,726 $293,400 Total 58.2 33.8 +4 16,600 $1,030,544

Table 8.2 presents cost estimates for mid-range proposals, using the FY 2013 rate. Sunday service, the extension of Routes 7 and 10, the Route 8A/8B split, added late evening service on Routes 3A, 3B, 7, and 17, and 30-minute frequency on Routes 5, 7, and 15 increase revenue hours and cost. The mid-range proposals result in an additional annual cost of $2,123,000. These costs are for fixed-route operation only and do not include any additional ADA costs. Chapter 9 provides greater detail on net operating and capital costs associated with the short- range and mid-range proposals.

Table 8.2 Mid-range Costs Annual Daily Change in Revenue Hours Change in Change in Annual Route Peak Buses Revenue Cost Weekday Saturday Sunday Required Hours Sunday 96.0 4,992 $309,903 (8 routes) 7 11.9 10.0 +1 3,552 $220,502 8A/8B 15.9 13.9 +1 4,782 $296,892 10 11.9 10.0 +1 3,552 $220,502 CC-P-S FSU 24.0 1,248 $77,476 Sunday Late evening 15.0 3,825 $237,456 Frequency 48.0 +4 12,240 $759,859 Total 102.7 33.8 120.0 +7 34,191 $2,122,591

Table 8.3 presents cost estimates for long-range proposals, using the FY 2013 rate. There are 23 routes in the long-range recommendations, three more than the 20 in the mid-range (four are added and Route 17 no longer exists in its current form). Later service is added on Routes 4 and 10. Thirteen routes (3A, 3B, 8B, 9, 10, 18, 19, FSU routes, and the four new routes) now have 30-minute frequency. Four new Sunday routes are assumed. The long-range proposals result in an additional annual cost of $3,061,000. 30-minute frequency on all routes accounts for about 60 percent of this cost. These costs are for fixed-route operation only and do not include any additional ADA costs.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-24 Transit Development Plan Update 8. Recommendations

Table 8.3 Long-range Costs Annual Daily Change in Revenue Hours Change in Change in Annual Route Peak Buses Revenue Cost Weekday Saturday Sunday Required Hours New routes 51.0 42.0 3 15,189 $942,933 (3) Added 7.0 1,785 $110,813 span Added 117.0 13 29,835 $1,852,157 frequency Added 48.0 2,496 $154,952 Sunday Total 175.0 42.0 48.0 16 49,305 $3,060,854

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 8-25 Fayetteville Area System of Transit (FAST) Transit Development Plan Update Chapter 9: Financial Plan

9.0 Introduction

A five-year financial plan was prepared to present net costs associated with the service improvements in the TDP short- and mid-range plans. To organize the service improvement projects into the plan, an implementation schedule was developed where short-term projects are programmed in the first year, FY 2016, and mid-range projects are programmed in the latter four years, FY 2017 through FY 2020. An effort was made to distribute projects as evenly as possible over the five year planning horizon of the TDP in order to limit the amount of new net costs in any one year. Long-range projects are not included in the financial plan as it only addresses the next six to ten years.

9.1 Financial Plan

A number of assumptions were made to prepare the TDP financial plan. Those assumptions are shown in Table 9.1 and are based on a variety of factors including the FAST operating budget and projections, past experience, and discussions with FAST staff.

Table 9.1 Financial Plan Assumptions Item Assumption Notes Fully allocated fixed‐route cost per $68.10 Direct costs plus overhead revenue hour Marginally allocated (Direct Cost) fixed‐ $62.08 Direct costs route cost per revenue hour

Complementary ADA service 20% Assumed only for services that will incur additional complementary ADA service.

New Vehicle Cost ‐ $450,000 $450,000 Assumes compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles

The amount expected to be covered through the transfer of FTA Section 5307 Preventative Maintenance Ratio – 16% 16% funds for preventative maintenance activities associated with the new service.

Farebox Recovery Ratio – 16% 16% Total fares divided by total operating costs

Two of the assumptions, vehicle costs and the complementary ADA service costs, are based on general industry standards and reflect a conservative estimate.

Net operating costs and the cost for the new vehicles needed to support each short- and mid- range project are shown in Tables 9.2 and 9.3, respectively. As shown in the operating cost table, total new operating costs are offset by farebox revenues and the transfer of FTA 5307 funding for preventative maintenance. It is important to note that complementary ADA costs are only added for one of the four near-term projects and five of the six mid-term projects and those ADA costs are broken out as a separate line item for each. The other projects are not anticipated to require additional complementary ADA service beyond what is currently being provided now.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 9-1 Transit Development Plan Update 9. Financial Plan

Net annual net operating costs associated with implementation of short-range service improvements are approximately $750,000. Four new vehicles would be needed to implement those services. We expect that a portion of this cost would be borne by Fayetteville State University, with the actual amount subject to negotiation. Total new net operating costs in the fifth year of the plan, which reflect total new annual operating costs if all short- and mid-term improvements are implemented, is approximately $2.5 million. Over the five-year period, the vehicle requirement is 11 new peak vehicles with two additional vehicles needed to meet the FTA spare ratio requirement of 20 percent. The purchase of the two spare vehicles would occur in FY 2016 and FY 2020 consistent with the number of new peak vehicles required to support new services.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 9-2 Transit Development Plan Update 9. Financial Plan

Table 9.2 Five-Year Net Operating Costs Revenue Description FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total Service Improvement/Expansion* Hours Short-Range 3A/3B Service 3A/3B routes splited from Route 3 3,705 $230,006 $230,006 $230,006 $230,006 $230,006 $1,150,032 Route 6 Frequency Improvement Improve frequency to 30 minutes 3,443 $213,741 $213,741 $213,741 $213,741 $213,741 $1,068,707 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown New fixed route 4,726 $293,390 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $1,636,928 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $58,678 $67,177 $67,177 $67,177 $67,177 $327,386 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown (FSU) New fixed route 4,726 $293,390 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $335,884 $1,636,928 Mid-Range 8A/8B Service 8A/8B routes split from Route 8 4,782 $0 $0 $296,867 $296,867 $325,654 $919,387 8A/8B ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $0 $59,373 $59,373 $65,131 $183,877 Sunday Improvements** Sunday service imrpovements for 9 routes 4,992 $0 $339,955 $339,955 $339,955 $339,955 $1,359,821 Sunday Improvements ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $67,991 $67,991 $67,991 $67,991 $271,964 Route 7 Extension Route realignment 3,552 $0 $220,508 $220,508 $220,508 $241,891 $903,416 Route 7 Extension ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $44,102 $44,102 $44,102 $48,378 $180,683 Route 10 Extension Route realignment 3,552 $0 $0 $0 $220,508 $220,508 $441,016 Route 10 Extension ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $0 $0 $44,102 $44,102 $88,203 Late Evening Improvements Late evening improvements on 3A,3B,7, and 17 3,825 $0 $0 $0 $237,456 $237,456 $474,912 Late Evening Improvements ADA Service Add complementary ADA Service $0 $0 $0 $47,491 $47,491 $94,982 Frequency Improvements Improve frequency to 30 minutes on 5,7, and 15 12,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $759,859 $759,859 Total Operating Cost for Fixed-Route Service Improvement/Expansion 49,543 $1,030,528 $1,675,980 $1,972,847 $2,430,811 $3,240,841 $10,351,007 Total Operating Cost for ADA Service Expansion $58,678 $179,270 $238,643 $330,236 $340,270 $1,147,096 Total Operating Cost for Service Improvement/Expansion (Fixed-Route and ADA) $1,089,206 $1,855,250 $2,211,490 $2,761,047 $3,581,111 $ 11,498,103

Farebox Recovery Value $170,151 $273,426 $319,577 $390,254 $516,339 $1,669,747 Preventative Maintenance $164,884 $268,157 $315,655 $388,930 $518,535 $1,656,161 Net Operating Cost - Fixed-Route $754,170 $1,313,667 $1,576,258 $1,981,863 $2,546,237 $8,172,194 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Full Cost (Fixed-Route) $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 $68.10 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Direct Cost (Fixed-Route) $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 $62.08 ADA Service Cost Ratio 20% 20%20%20%20%20% Farebox Recovery Ratio 16.5% 16.3% 16.2% 16.1% 15.9% Preventative Maintenance Ratio 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% *Complementary ADA service costs are included for improvements to hours of service, days of service, and for services to new ar eas. **The full allocated fixed-route cost per hour was used to calculate Sunday service costs; FSU Sunday route calculated separate ly abov e

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 9-3 Transit Development Plan Update 9. Financial Plan

Table 9.3 Five-Year Revenue Vehicle Costs Service Improvement/Expansion Description # of Vehicles FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total Add New Transit Service/Service Area Short-Range 3A/3B Service 3A/3B routes splited from Route 3 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Route 6 Frequency Improvement Improve frequency to 30 minutes 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown New express service 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Country Club-Pamalee-Skibo Crosstown (FSU) New express service 1 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Mid-Range 8A/8B Service 8A/8B routes splited from Route 8 1 $0 $0 $450,000 $0 0 $450,000 Sunday Improvements Sunday service imrpovements for 8 routes 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Route 7 Extension Route realignment 1 $0 $450,000 $0 $0 0 $450,000 Route 10 Extension Route realignment 1 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 0 $450,000 Late Evening Improvements Late evening improvements on 3A,3B,7, and 17 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Frequency Improvements Improve frequency to 30 minutes on 5,7, and 15 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,800,000 $0 ADA Paratransit Service Short-Term ADA service expansion 00000 Mid-Term ADA service expansion 00000 Total New Vehicles 11 $1,800,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $1,800,000 $3,150,000 Total New Vehicles - Spare Ratio 2 $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $450,000 $900,000 Total New Vehicle Costs - Fixed Route 13 $2,250,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,250,000 $4,050,000

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page 9-4