![City and Borough of Juneau ]](http://data.docslib.org/img/37ce5e8dc5ed9bd916ab6185428ba84c-1.webp)
[CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU ]
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 2451 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 001
2. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STANDARDS 035
3. DEMAND ANALYSIS 043
4. FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES 073
5. PARATRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS 115
6. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN 121
7. FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS 153
8. DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY STUDY 169
9. COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT 203
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SERVICE EVALUATION A.1 Fixed-Route Evaluation 236 A.2 Paratransit Evaluation 246 A.3 Peer Review 275 A.4 Ride Check Analysis 301 A.5 Paratransit Performance Analysis 329
APPENDIX B. PUBLIC OUTREACH B.1 Fixed-Route On-Board Survey 340 B.2 Paratransit Customer Survey 387 B.3 Community Survey 399 B.4 Capital Transit Driver Survey 422 B.5 Public Outreach Summary 428
APPENDIX C. COMMENTS 439
APPENDIX D. FISCAL YEAR 2009 STATE OF ALASKA COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS 478
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit No. Exhibit Title Page
Exhibit 1-1 Scenario Compaison Matrix 08
Exhibit 1-2 Miscellaneous Scheduling Recommendations 09
Exhibit 1-3 Baseline Financial Plan 15 Exhibit 1-4 Intermediate Financial Plan 16
Exhibit 1-5 Optimum Financial Plan 16 Exhibit 1-6 Fixed-Route Performance 24
Exhibit 1-7 Care-A-Van Performance 25 Exhibit 1-8 Peer Criteria: FY 2006/07 26
Exhibit 1-9 Fixed-Route Key Indicators 27 Exhibit 1-10 Demand-Response Indicators 27
Exhibit 2-1 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards 39
Exhibit 3-1 Summary of CBJ Demographic Characteristics 44
Exhibit 3-2 Summary of CBJ Economic Characteristics 45
Exhibit 3-3 Summary of CBJ Housing Characteristics 45
Exhibit 3-4 Population Growth 47
Exhibit 3-5 Population by Census Block Group 48
Exhibit 3-6 Youth Population Growth 49
Exhibit 3-7 Youth Population by Census Block Group 50
Exhibit 3-8 Senior Population Growth 51
Exhibit 3-9 Senior Population by Census Block Group 52
Exhibit 3-10 Disabled Population Growth 53
Exhibit 3-11 Disabled Population by Census Block Group 54
Exhibit 3-12 Low-Income Population Growth 55
Exhibit 3-13 Low-Income Population by Census Block Group 56
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-14 Incidence of Vehicle Ownership 57
Exhibit 3-15 Households Absent Automobile Access by Census Block Group 58
Exhibit 3-16 Key Trip Generators 60
Exhibit 3-17 Borough-Wide Trip Generators 61
Exhibit 3-18 Downtown Trip Generators 62
Exhibit 3-19 Mendenhall Valley Trip Generators 63
Exhibit 3-20 Lemon Creek Trip Generators 64
Exhibit 3-21 Existing Units per Acre 67
Exhibit 3-22 Maximum Density by Zoning 71
Exhibit 4-1 Baseline Scenario 76
Exhibit 4-2 Baseline Scenario Schedule 77
Exhibit 4-3 Intermediate Scenario 79
Exhibit 4-4 Proposed NOAA Shuttle 81
Exhibit 4-5 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Schedule 82
Exhibit 4-6 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Sample Configuration 83
Exhibit 4-7 NOAA Shuttle Schedule 84
Exhibit 4-8 NOAA Shuttle Sample Configuration 84 Exhibit 4-9 Intermediate Scenario Service Impacts 85
Exhibit 4-10 Optimum Scenario 87
Exhibit 4-11 Proposed Trunk Line 88
Exhibit 4-12 Proposed Trunk Line Schedule 89
Exhibit 4-13 Proposed Trunk Line Sample Configuration 90
Exhibit 4-14 Proposed Downtown Circulator 91
Exhibit 4-15 Proposed Downtown Circulator Schedule 92
Exhibit 4-16 Proposed Downtown Circulator Sample Configuration 93
Exhibit 4-17 Proposed Douglas Circulator 94
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-18 Proposed Lemon Creek Circulator 95
Exhibit 4-19 Proposed Lemon Creek Circulator Schedule 96
Exhibit 4-20 Proposed Lemon Creek Circulator Sample Configuration 97
Exhibit 4-21 Proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator 98
Exhibit 4-22 Proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator Schedule 99
Exhibit 4-23 Proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator Sample Configuration 100 Exhibit 4-24 Optimum Scenario Service Impacts 101
Exhibit 4-25 Scenario Comparison Matrix 102 Exhibit 4-26 Earlier Morning Service Impact 97
Exhibit 4-27 Later Evening Service Impact 97 Exhibit 4-28 Extended Half-Hour Service Impact 98
Exhibit 4-29 Holiday Service Impact 98
Exhibit 4-30 North Douglas Service Impact 99
Exhibit 4-31 Saturday Express Service Impact 100 Exhibit 4-32 Increased Express Service Frequency Impact 100
Exhibit 4-33 Extend Express Service Day Impact 100
Exhibit 4-34 Summary of Scheduling Recommendations 101
Exhibit 4-35 Thane Service Impact 102
Exhibit 6-1 Fleet List 123
Exhibit 6-2 Number of Peak-Hour Buses by Scenario 129
Exhibit 6-3 Fleet Replacement Strategy – Status Quo 131
Exhibit 6-4 Fleet Replacement Strategy – Expansion 132
Exhibit 6-5 Existing Stops 134
Exhibit 6-6 Map of Existing Stops 137
Exhibit 6-7 List of Priority Shelters 138
Exhibit 6-8 Priority Shelter Locations 140
Exhibit 6-9 New Stops by Scenario 141
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-10 Non-Conforming Stops on State Rights-of-Way 145 Exhibit 6-11 Standard Bus Pullouts 147
Exhibit 6-12 View of Transit Center from Sealaska Building 150
Exhibit 6-13 Proposed Park & Ride Facilities 152
Exhibit 7-1 Federal Capital Funding Source Matrix 156
Exhibit 7-2 Baseline Capital Plan 157
Exhibit 7-3 Growth Capital Plan 158
Exhibit 7-4 Operating Funding Sources Matrix 160
Exhibit 7-5 Historic Budget 161
Exhibit 7-6 Summary of Miscellaneous Recommendations and Costs 162
Exhibit 7-7 Baseline Financial Plan 164 Exhibit 7-8 Summary of Intermediate Changes and Costs 166
Exhibit 7-9 Intermediate Financial Plan 166
Exhibit 7-10 Summary of Optimum Changes and Costs 168
Exhibit 7-11 Optimum Financial Plan 168
Exhibit 8-1 Population Growth 175
Exhibit 8-2 Population Distribution by Census Block Group 176
Exhibit 8-3 Population Density by Parcel 177
Exhibit 8-4 Youth Population Growth 178
Exhibit 8-5 Youth Population Distribution by Census Block Group 179
Exhibit 8-6 Senior Population Growth 180
Exhibit 8-7 Senior Population Distribution by Census Block Group 181
Exhibit 8-8 Disabled Population Growth 182
Exhibit 8-9 Disabled Population Distribution by Census Block Group 183
Exhibit 8-10 Low-Income Population Growth 184
Exhibit 8-11 Low-Income Population Distribution by Census Block Group 185
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 8-12 Incidence of Vehicle Ownership 186
Exhibit 8-13 Households Without Vehicle Access by Census Block Group 187
Exhibit 8-14 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards 191
Exhibit 8-15 Downtown Circulator Alternative A 193
Exhibit 8-16 Downtown Circulator Alternative B 195
Exhibit 8-17 Downtown Circulator Alternative C 197
Exhibit 8-18 Alternative A Financial Plan 199
Exhibit 8-19 Alternative B Financial Plan 200
Exhibit 9-1 Capital Transit Route Network 210
Exhibit 9-2 Care-A-Van Service Area 211
Exhibit 9-3 Private Demand-Response Service Area 214
Exhibit 9-4 Stakeholder Service Schedule (Monday – Saturday) 217
Exhibit 9-5 Stakeholder Service Schedule (Sunday) 218
Exhibit A.1-1 Capital Transit Service Hours 238
Exhibit A.1-2 Revenue by Type 239
Exhibit A.1-3 Fleet List 240
Exhibit A.1-4 Capital Transit Organizational Structure 241
Exhibit A.1-5 Fixed-Route Performance 243
Exhibit A.1-6 Annual Ridership 244
Exhibit A.1-7 Ridership by Route 246
Exhibit A.1-8 Passengers/VSH 247
Exhibit A.1-9 Passengers/VSH by Route 249
Exhibit A.1-10 Passengers/VSM 250
Exhibit A.1-11 Operating Cost/VSH 251
Exhibit A.1-12 Operating Cost/VSM 252
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.1-13 Operating Cost/Passenger 253
Exhibit A.1-14 Farebox Recovery Ratio 254
Exhibit A.1-15 Fare/Passenger 255
Exhibit A.2-1 Organizational Structure 259
Exhibit A.2-2 Care-A-Van Performance 266
Exhibit A.2-3 Ridership 267
Exhibit A.2-4 Passengers/VSH 268
Exhibit A.2-5 Passengers/VSM 269
Exhibit A.2-6 Operating Cost/VSH 270
Exhibit A.2-7 Operating Cost/VSM 271
Exhibit A.2-8 Operating Cost/Passenger 272
Exhibit A.2-9 Farebox Recovery Ratio 273
Exhibit A.2-10 Fare/Passenger 274
Exhibit A.3-1 Peer Criteria: FY 2006/2007 275
Exhibit A.3-2 Capital Transit Route Network 277
Exhibit A.3-3 Santa Fe, New Mexico 279
Exhibit A.3-4 Boise/Garden City, Idaho 280
Exhibit A.3-5 Nampa/Caldwell, Idaho 281
Exhibit A.3-6 Boise, Idaho 282
Exhibit A.3-7 Pueblo Route Network 283
Exhibit A.3-8 Fixed-Route Key Indicators 285
Exhibit A.3-9 Operating Cost/VSH 286 Exhibit A.3-10 Operating Cost/VSM 287
Exhibit A.3-11 Operating Cost/Passenger 288
Exhibit A.3-12 Passengers/VSH 289
Exhibit A.3-13 Passengers/VSM 290
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.3-14 Farebox Recovery Ratio 291
Exhibit A.3-15 Average Fare/Passenger 292
Exhibit A.3-16 Demand-Response Key Indicators 293
Exhibit A.3-17 Operating Cost/VSH 294
Exhibit A.3-18 Operating Cost/VSM 295
Exhibit A.3-19 Operating Cost/Passenger 296
Exhibit A.3-20 Passengers/VSH 297
Exhibit A.3-21 Passengers/VSM 298
Exhibit A.3-22 Farebox Recovery Ratio 299
Exhibit A.3-23 Fare/Passenger 300
Exhibit A.4-1 On-Time Performance by Day 302
Exhibit A.4-2 On-Time Performance by Trip Segment 303
Exhibit A.4-3 On-Time Performance for All Routes 303
Exhibit A.4-4 Weekday On-Time Percentages by Route 304
Exhibit A.4-5 Weekday On-Time Percentages by Route 305
Exhibit A.4-6 Saturday On-Time Percentages by Route 306
Exhibit A.4-7 Saturday On-Time Percentages by Route 306
Exhibit A.4-8 Sunday On-Time Percentages by Route 307
Exhibit A.4-9 Sunday On-Time Percentages by Route 308
Exhibit A.4-10 System-Wide Boarding Averages by Day-Part 310
Exhibit A.4-11 Individual Routes by Day-Part Boarding Averages 311
Exhibit A.4-12 System-Wide Alighting Averages by Day-Part 311
Exhibit A.4-13 Individual Routes by Day-Part Alighting Average 312
Exhibit A.4-14 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part 314
Exhibit A.4-15 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Total Boardings by Stop 314
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4-16 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Boardings 315
Exhibit A.4-17 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Total Alightings by Stop 316
Exhibit A.4-18 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Alightings 316
Exhibit A.4-19 Juneau-Douglas Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part 317
Exhibit A.4-20 Juneau-Douglas Total Boarding by Stop 318
Exhibit A.4-21 Juneau-Douglas Boardings 319
Exhibit A.4-22 Juneau-Douglas Total Alightings by Stop 320
Exhibit A.4-23 Juneau-Douglas Alightings 321 Exhibit A.4-24 Express Service Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part 322
Exhibit A.4-25 Express Service Total Boardings by Stop 323
Exhibit A.4-26 Express Service Boardings 324
Exhibit A.4-27 Express Service Total Alighting by Stop 325
Exhibit A.4-28 Express Service Alightings 325
Exhibit A.4-29 North Douglas Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part 326
Exhibit A.4-30 North Douglas Total Boardings by Stop 327
Exhibit A.4-31 North Douglas Boardings 327
Exhibit A.4-32 North Douglas Total Alighting by Stop 328
Exhibit A.4-33 North Douglas Alightings 328
Exhibit A.5-1 Weekday On-Time Performance 329
Exhibit A.5-2 Weekday On-Time Performance 330
Exhibit A.5-3 Weekend On-Time Performance 331
Exhibit A.5-4 Weekend On-Time Performance 331
Exhibit A.5-5 Aggregate On-Time Performance 332
Exhibit A.5-6 Aggregate On-Time Performance 333 Exhibit A.5-7 Ridership by Day-Part 334
Exhibit A.5-8 Share of Ridership by Day-Part 335
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.5-9 Common Trip Origins 335
Exhibit A.5-10 Common Trip Origins 336
Exhibit A.5-11 Common Trip Destinations 337
Exhibit A.5-12 Common Trip Destinations 338
Exhibit B.1-1 Age 341
Exhibit B.1-2 Gender 342
Exhibit B.1-3 Mobility Impairment 343
Exhibit B.1-4 Employment Status 344
Exhibit B.1-5 Annual Household Income 345
Exhibit B.1-6 Ride-Dependence Cross-Tabulation 346
Exhibit B.1-7 Origin Streets 349
Exhibit B.1-8 Origin Landmarks 350
Exhibit B.1-9 Origin Map 351
Exhibit B.1-10 Destination Streets 352
Exhibit B.1-11 Destination Landmarks 353
Exhibit B.1-12 Destination Map 354
Exhibit B.1-13 Trip Purpose 355
Exhibit B.1-14 Trip Purpose Comparison 356
Exhibit B.1-15 Ridership Frequency 357
Exhibit B.1-16 Ridership Frequency Comparison 358
Exhibit B.1-17 Trip Purpose vs. Frequency Cross-Tabulation 359
Exhibit B.1-18 Influencing Factors 360
Exhibit B.1-19 Length of Patronage 361
Exhibit B.1-20 Length of Patronage vs. Frequency Cross-Tabulation 362
Exhibit B.1-21 Access to Bus Stop 363
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.1-22 Mobility Options 364
Exhibit B.1-23 Seasonal Usage 365
Exhibit B.1-24 Fare Payment 366
Exhibit B.1-25 Fare Payment Comparison 367
Exhibit B.1-26 Trip Purpose vs. Fare Payment Cross-Tabulation 368
Exhibit B.1-27 Frequency vs. Buy Pass Online Cross-Tabulation 369
Exhibit B.1-28 Fare Payment vs. Buy Pass Online Cross-Tabulation 370
Exhibit B.1-29 Service Attributes 371
Exhibit B.1-30 Preferred Service Enhancement 372
Exhibit B.1-31 New Destination 373
Exhibit B.1-32 Trip Purpose vs. Preferred Service Enhancement Cross-Tabulation 374
Exhibit B.1-33 Change in Usage 375
Exhibit B.1-34 Service Improvement vs. Additional Ridership Cross-Tabulation 376
Exhibit B.1-35 Fare Elasticity 377
Exhibit B.1-36 Location Not Served 378
Exhibit B.1-37 Access to Information 379
Exhibit B.1-38 Preferred Print Media 380
Exhibit B.1-39 Preferred Radio Station 381
Exhibit B.1-40 Preferred Television Station 382
Exhibit B.1-41 Frequency vs. Website Use Cross-Tabulation 383
Exhibit B.1-42 Customer Perceptions 384
Exhibit B.1-43 Transit’s Role 385
Exhibit B.1-44 Fare Perceptions 385
Exhibit B.2-1 Respondent Profile 387
Exhibit B.2-2 Age 388
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.2-3 Annual Household Income 389
Exhibit B.2-4 Trip Purpose 391
Exhibit B.2-5 Ridership Frequency 392
Exhibit B.2-6 Length of Patronage 393
Exhibit B.2-7 Mobility Options 394
Exhibit B.2-8 Mobility Options - Other 394
Exhibit B.2-9 Trip Reservation Timing 395
Exhibit B.2-10 Information Access 398
Exhibit B.3-1 Respondent Profile 401
Exhibit B.3-2 Age 402
Exhibit B.3-3 Gender 402
Exhibit B.3-4 Disability 403
Exhibit B.3-5 Annual Household Income 403
Exhibit B.3-6 Access to a Personal Vehicle 404
Exhibit B.3-7 Valid Driver License 405
Exhibit B.3-8 Internet Access 406
Exhibit B.3-9 Visited Website Within Past 12 Months 406
Exhibit B.3-10 Persons in Household 407
Exhibit B.3-11 Day-Part Most Likely to Travel 408
Exhibit B.3-12 Utilized Capital Transit in Last 12 Months 409
Exhibit B.3-13 Trip Purpose 410
Exhibit B.3-14 Trip Purpose - Other 411
Exhibit B.3-15 Ridership Frequency 412
Exhibit B.3-16 Influencing Factors 413
Exhibit B.3-17 Length of Patronage 414
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-18 Access to Bus Stop 414
Exhibit B.3-19 Mobility Options 415
Exhibit B.3-20 Seasonal Usage 416
Exhibit B.3-21 Fare Payment 417
Exhibit B.3-22 Service Attributes 418
Exhibit B.3-23 Specify Location Not Served - Mail 419
Exhibit B.3-24 Specify Location Not Served - Web 419
Exhibit B.3-25 Information Access 420
Exhibit B.3-26 Community Perceptions 421
Exhibit B.4-1 Driver Routes 423
Exhibit B.4-2 Driver Shifts 423
Exhibit B.4-3 Customer Concerns 424
Exhibit B.4-4 Location Not Served 424
Exhibit B.4-5 Recommendation Matrix 427
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 1 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction The City and Borough of Juneau is located in southeastern Alaska. The city was originally settled in the 1880s as a 160-acre mining community. Expansion of the local mining industry led to rapid growth and Juneau was incorporated as a municipality in 1900. The capital was moved from Sitka to Juneau in 1906, bringing with it a significant source of employment. Alaska was granted statehood in 1959 and, as a provision, the City of Juneau was established as a home-rule city. In 1970, Juneau was incorporated as a unified City and Borough, consolidating the City of Douglas, City of Juneau, and Greater Juneau Borough.
Project Overview The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) published a Request for Proposals (RFP) in May 2007 for an update of its Transit Development Plan (TDP) for Capital Transit as well as a Downtown Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study. Through a competitive selection process, the CBJ selected Moore & Associates to prepare the TDP and Downtown Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study. This project includes four main components: 1. Transit Development Plan with five-year horizon, 2. Transit Improvement Plan (TIP) with five-year horizon, 3. Coordinated Human Services Plan, and 4. Downtown Circulator Shuttle Feasibility Study.
The goals of the TDP is two-fold: an objective and comprehensive assessment of public transit services offered in Juneau based on adopted criteria as well as peer comparison and creation of practical strategies for meeting current and forecast demand for transit service throughout the CBJ.
The Coordinated Human Services Plan takes into consideration the challenges posed by Juneau’s demographics and surrounding topography. Given Juneau’s relative isolation, the burden of providing public transportation falls on a limited number of service providers, leaving Capital Transit and Care-A-Van to address potential service gaps identified through our analysis. This element is holistic in
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 2 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
nature in that it was combined with the TDP process to ensure the resulting recommendations of the TDP, TIP, and Coordination element were linked wherever practical.
Governance The City and Borough of Juneau is governed by a council-manager form of government. The Assembly has nine members: the mayor serves as presiding officer. Assembly members are elected on rotating three-year terms during regular municipal elections held the first Tuesday in October.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 3 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Goals, Objectives, and Standards An organization’s mission or visioning statement provides a foundation for the Performance Measurement System. In the case of the City and Borough of Juneau, it serves as a focal point for the Transit Development Plan (TDP). The Performance Measurement System referred to herein was defined in the 1996 Transit Development Plan. Given the data provided by Capital Transit and the City and Borough of Juneau, we believe the performance of both fixed-route and Care-A-Van services has been improving consistently across the past four operating years. The overall operational costs for both the fixed-route and Care-A-Van services have also been increasing yearly. Overall, Capital Transit is performing well in all quantifiable areas (i.e., Passengers/VSH). Therefore, we believe the TDP should focus on adjusting the current service delivery plan to address new and emerging mobility demands throughout Juneau.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 4 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Demand Analysis This chapter identifies areas wherein it is likely forecast demand for transit service within the City and Borough of Juneau will increase.
Population Juneau’s population increased 14.8 percent between 1990 and 2000 according to the federal Census Bureau. The Census Bureau estimated the CBJ’s population at 30,987 in 2005. Should this growth rate continue, Juneau’s population would reach 31,263 residents by 2010.
The majority of Juneau’s population is distributed within the downtown area, Douglas Island, and the Mendenhall Valley. Most Juneau residents live within the urban services boundary, though some live in a rural setting offering little or no access to the infrastructure available to residents in Juneau proper.
Juneau’s youth population increased 18.0 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. Youth’s share of total population increased from 20.5 percent in 1990 to 21.1 percent in 2000. This slight increase denotes increased demand for transit services. The majority of the Borough’s youth population resides in the Mendenhall Valley, with relatively modest concentrations in Douglas and the downtown area.
For the purposes of this study, seniors are defined as individuals 65 years of age or older. Juneau’s senior population increased 36.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. Assuming the trend continues, the senior population will increase to 2,580 by 2010. The senior share of total population increased from 5.2 percent in 1990 to 6.2 percent in 2000. This increase, although modest (i.e., less than one percent), indicates a potential increase in demand for paratransit services within the CBJ. The highest concentrations of seniors within Juneau are in Douglas and the downtown area.
The number of residents indicating a personal disability within Juneau increased 387.8 percent between 1990 and 2000 according to the federal Census Bureau. We believe this figure is skewed given the Census Bureau changed its
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 5 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
methodology relative to the calculation of persons with disabilities between 1990 and 2000. The disabled population’s share of total population increased from five percent in 1990 to 21.2 percent in 2000, due largely to the aforementioned change in calculation methodology. Downtown Juneau, Douglas, and the northern and eastern portions of the Mendenhall Valley are each home to significant clusters of persons with disabilities.
The number of low-income persons residing within Juneau increased 22.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. We believe it can be reasonably assumed the CBJ’s low-income population will increase to 2,100 by 2010. The low-income share of total population increased from 5.5 percent in 1990 to 5.9 percent in 2000. This increase, though slight, indicates growth of the low-income segment relative to overall population growth. The highest concentrations of low-income residents lie within Douglas and the Mendenhall Valley, with modest distribution in the downtown area.
The incidence of households lacking access to a personal vehicle in Juneau decreased 11.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. We believe it can be reasonably assumed the number of households without automobile access will continue to decrease, reaching 761 by 2010. The number of households lacking access decreased from 9.1 percent to 7.4 percent in 2000. This demographic group is the only ride-dependent segment to lose relative share. The highest concentrations of households without vehicle access are located in the downtown area and on Douglas Island.
Development Patterns The City and Borough of Juneau has four primary regions in terms of population and density; downtown Juneau, Lemon Creek, Mendenhall Valley, and Douglas. These areas reflect a mixture of low and high density areas. Densities currently range from 3 to 18 units per acre.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 6 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fixed-Route Service Alternatives Three distinct service scenarios were crafted. Each presents a “blueprint” consisting of alignment and/or schedule alternatives. • Baseline: No alignment changes and some minor schedule changes to reflect current transit demand and external constraints. • Intermediate: Service extension to the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) Terminal and Lena Cove, addition of service along Riverside Drive in the Mendenhall Valley, and scheduling modified to reflect proposed alignments. • Optimum: Complete revamping of Capital Transit’s routing and operating schedule between Juneau’s downtown area and the Mendenhall Valley.
The four service scenarios reflect varied levels of capital and financial investment, expanded Capital Transit’s “service footprint”, and enhanced mobility for the Juneau community. The following matrix summarizes how the three service scenarios, developed by Moore and Associates, relate to the 11 service requirements presented by Capital Transit staff.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 7 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 1-1 Scenario Comparison Matrix Scenario Baseline Intermediate Optimum No routes longer than 60 minutes ● Hourly service to Lena Cove ●● Express service throughout service ● day No less than 60- minute service on ●●● "back loop" No less than 30- minute service on ●●● east loop Downtown circulator ● 30-minute service through Lemon ●●● Creek 30-minute service on Douglas ●●●
30-minute service to Auke Bay ●● No less than 60- minute service along Riverside ●● Drive 30-minute service earlier and later in ● the service day
Miscellaneous Recommendations These recommendations reflect gaps (temporal and spatial) between available transit supply and current and forecast demand identified through our various public outreach activities. The recommendations are framed within following categories: • Scheduling, • Expanded service area, • Fare, and • Administration and policy.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 8 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 1-2 Miscellaneous Scheduling Recommendations
Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Local Service Extend Local Early Morning Hours 1,836 29,665 $202,860 $3,277,650 83,599 1,317,754 Extend Local Late Evening Hours 1,836 29,665 $202,860 $3,277,650 83,599 1,317,754 Increase Local Peak-Hour Frequency 2,754 30,583 $304,289 $3,379,079 125,399 1,359,554 Introduce Limited Service on Holidays 446 28,275 $49,309 $3,124,099 20,523 1,254,678 Improve North Douglas Service 2,295 30,124 $253,575 $3,328,365 23,409 1,257,564 Subtotal 9,167 36,996 $1,012,892 $4,087,682 336,530 1,570,685 Express Service Introduce Saturday Express Service 485 28,314 $53,532 $3,128,322 19,527 1,253,682 Increase Express Frequency 2,432 30,261 $268,709 $3,343,499 98,017 1,332,172 Extend Express Service Day 510 28,339 $56,349 $3,131,139 20,555 1,254,710 Subtotal 3,427 31,256 $378,590 $3,453,380 138,098 1,372,253 Total 27,829 12,594 40,423 $3,074,790 $1,391,482 $4,466,272 1,234,155 474,628 1,708,783
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 9 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Paratransit Service Recommendations The Care-A-Van program serves Douglas Island and the Juneau Urbanized Area, between Thane and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) terminal at Auke Bay. For travel north of the AMHS terminal, Southeast Senior Services contracts with the Haven Park Assisted Living Center.
To standardize the Care-A-Van Process, we recommend contracting with a licensed physician to perform all ADA certifications. Given the cost of providing a CAV trip versus a comparable trip via Capital Transit, we recommend encouraging mode shift whenever practical.
Given evidence of declining on-time performance during evenings, we recommend SESS consider increasing staffing (i.e., part-time driver/dispatcher) to help provide additional coverage. Doing so would eliminate the need for the evening driver to also answer incoming calls, dispatch trips, and drive. This proposed part-time dispatcher could also drive when trip activity exceeds the ability of the evening driver to maintain the 90-percent on-time performance standard.
Care-A-Van currently requests a three-dollar donation for each unlinked trip. SESS tracks each trip made by CAV customers and mails donation request letters on a monthly basis. These request letters include a summary of all trips made by the respective customer as well as a suggested donation to cover the cost of providing the service. Our service evaluation revealed, on average, Care-A-Van patrons are contributing less than one-third of the suggested donation. While we feel the current system has its benefits, we recommend Care-A-Van consider either implementing a policy wherein customers pay the requested (full) donation at the time of service, or adopt a fare policy based on the customer income/affordability index.
We recommend Care-A-Van staff review the policy handbook and update its content to reflect current policies, practices, and procedures.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 10 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Transit Improvement Plan This element includes an inventory of all transit vehicles, amenities, and facilities currently in use, as well as a strategy for the acquisition of supporting capital resources across the next five years to support service development and ultimately improve customer satisfaction.
Fleet Element Ongoing fleet development is crucial to the continued success of a public transit operation. While Capital Transit has done an exceptional job maintaining its current fleet, older vehicles are less efficient and more costly to maintain than newer vehicles. All Capital Transit fixed-route coaches are 30 or 35-foot diesel vehicles. Though operationally reliable, these coaches result in more pollution than comparable vehicles equipped with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or hybrid power sources.
Southeast Senior Services (SESS), operator of the Care-A-Van program, currently operates several of its own vehicles in addition to those owned and provided by the CBJ. SESS are unable to use the CBJ Public Works maintenance facilities for its vehicles. This policy precludes an opportunity for cost savings as the Care-A-Van vehicles must be serviced at a private garage. Therefore we recommend the CBJ consider lifting its ban on servicing non-CBJ vehicles to include the Care-A-Van fleet, and perform a cost analysis to determine if the anticipated savings can actually be realized.
Fleet Mix We recommend the creation of a tiered approach, with different vehicle types for different service characteristics. There are currently three types of Capital Transit services: life-line, regular, and express.
A “life-line” service is exemplified by the North Douglas Route. Life-line services operate relatively infrequently and carry few passengers, yet provide basic mobility for their respective customer group(s). Using a 35- foot coach to carry a handful of customers is a misallocation of resources. A smaller cutaway van could do the same job more efficiently, and the
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 11 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
larger coach could be more effectively utilized on another route to alleviate overcrowding.
“Regular” routes within the Capital Transit network include the Juneau- Douglas Route and the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Route. These routes are the most appropriate venue for a 35 to 40-foot bus given the need to transport large numbers of passengers and to navigate potentially narrow roadways.
The “Express” route from Auke Bay to Juneau provides limited-stop service between the residential portion of the CBJ and the downtown business district. This route experiences extremely high ridership during peak periods versus the local Juneau-Mendenhall Valley routes (Routes 3 and 4). Many express peak-hour trips are filled to capacity revealing a need for larger vehicles with more seating. Given this route travels largely along major thoroughfares it could serve as an alignment for use of larger, 60-foot articulated buses. Such buses would significantly increase capacity, reduce overcrowding, and reduce per seat unit cost.
Vehicle Power Source We recommend the CBJ consider limiting future fleet purchases to alternative fuel vehicles. The benefits of converting the Capital Transit fleet from conventional diesel vehicles to alternative fuel range from fuel savings to reduced emissions, depending upon the power source selected. We recommend exploring the acquisition of advanced diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and hybrid-electric vehicles.
Fleet Replacement Strategy Moore & Associates recommends Capital Transit adopt a 12-year transit bus replacement schedule. This approach will ultimately reduce maintenance costs as the average age of the fleet will be reduced. We also recommend Capital Transit purchase expansion vehicles if additional routes are added, or when increasing frequency of service on existing routes.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 12 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
We also recommend the CBJ replace paratransit vehicles on a six-year schedule to strike a balance between the high recurring capital cost of fleet replacement every four years and the increased maintenance costs associated with keeping older vehicles in active service.
Bus Stop Element The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities suggests agencies develop Transit Improvement Plans (TIPs) to identify capital projects for inclusion within the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The CBJ currently has four different of bus stops: 1. Stops with sign poles, 2. Stops with wooden shelters, 3. Stops with metal shelters, and 4. Stops with stone shelters (Federal Building only).
We recommend the CBJ purchase prefabricated shelters with integrated lighting as well as larger shelters at high-volume stops. New shelters should feature improved service information (including wall-mounted system maps and service schedules). All stops with sign posts should include up-to-date information specific to the route(s) they serve. These tactics will ultimately enhance accessibility of the system to new users and promote the use of transit by “choice riders”.
A significant number of Capital Transit stops located on State Rights of Way (ROW) do not meet safety standards established by the State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. We recommend the CBJ begin addressing these issues.
Facilities Element Capital Transit is headquartered at an operations and maintenance facility located at 10099 Bentwood Place in the Mendenhall Valley. This facility is home to all administration, dispatch, and maintenance activities. Buses are stored and fueled in a gravel lot next to the main structure. Vehicles are maintained in an
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 13 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
attached garage. We recommend the CBJ re-pave the rapidly deteriorating parking lot and vehicle storage areas as poor conditions may be contributing to increased vehicle maintenance costs.
Capital Transit features transfer facilities located adjacent to the Nugget Mall as well as the Federal Building in downtown. The Nugget Mall transfer site is located on Mallard Street and includes a large metal bus shelter on the eastbound side of the street. Customers may access the Juneau-Valley Route, Express Route, and several commuter routes from this location, with timed transfers available throughout the service day.
Main Street Transit Center In 2005, Juneau residents voted to extend a one-percent sale tax to help fund the construction of a new transit center in downtown Juneau. This facility will include a parking garage, transit center, and driver break room. The anticipated site is located at the intersection of Main Street and Egan Drive. The facility will include a police substation, driver break room facilities, restroom, and parking for Capital Transit riders. It will accommodate three to four buses (versus the current two), making interline transfer easier. When complete, it will raise the profile of transit within the community and ultimately benefit Capital Transit, making operations smoother, as well as the service more accessible.
Park & Ride Locations We recommend Capital Transit develop park and ride facilities at key stops along the Express Route’s alignment. The limited-stop nature of the Express Route makes it ideal for inclusion within the initial development of park and ride facilities. Such park and ride lots can be developed by either constructing new facilities adjacent to transit stops, or through agreements with owners of the desired parcels.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 14 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Financial and Capital Plans This chapter presents the capital requirements and five-year operating budget projections required to support the recommendations within the Fixed-Route Service Alternatives chapter (Chapter 4). Three distinct scenarios were developed by Moore & Associates based on input received from the community: Baseline, Intermediate, and Optimum. In each, it is assumed all service recommendations would be implemented as presented.
Exhibit 1-3 Baseline Financial Plan FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue User Fees Fixed-Route $779,672 $795,266 $811,171 $827,395 $843,942 $860,821 Care-A-Van $28,773 $29,924 $31,121 $32,366 $33,660 $35,007 Federal Operating Funds (5311) $707,659 $736,398 $766,143 $796,928 $828,786 $861,752 Federal Capital Funds (5309) $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Local Subsidy $3,351,414 $3,451,956 $3,555,515 $3,662,181 $3,772,046 $3,885,207 Total Revenue $4,867,518 $6,703,701 $5,377,032 $5,318,869 $6,179,846 $7,708,498 Expenditures Operations Administration $401,311 $413,350 $425,750 $438,523 $451,679 $465,229 Operations $3,167,033 $3,262,044 $3,359,905 $3,460,702 $3,564,523 $3,671,459 Maintenance $1,299,175 $1,338,150 $1,378,295 $1,419,644 $1,462,233 $1,506,100 Marketing $0$0$0$0$0$0 Subtotal $4,867,518 $5,013,544 $5,163,950 $5,318,869 $5,478,435 $5,642,788 Capital Plan Vehicles $0 $1,517,087 $213,082 $0 $301,411 $2,065,710 Bus Stops $0 $173,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 Subtotal $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Total Expenditures $4,867,518 $6,703,701 $5,377,032 $5,318,869 $6,179,846 $7,708,498
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 15 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 1-4 Intermediate Financial Plan FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue User Fees Fixed-Route $779,672 $933,301 $979,966 $1,028,964 $1,080,412 $1,134,433 Care-A-Van $28,773 $29,924 $31,121 $32,366 $33,660 $35,007 Federal Operating Funds (5311) $707,659 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Federal Capital Funds (5309) $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Local Subsidy $3,351,414 $3,807,548 $3,853,955 $3,979,663 $4,108,150 $4,239,450 Total Revenue $4,867,518 $7,460,930 $6,078,124 $6,040,993 $6,923,634 $8,474,600 Expenditures Operations Administration $401,311 $413,350 $425,750 $438,523 $451,679 $465,229 Operations $3,167,033 $3,827,879 $3,942,715 $4,060,997 $4,182,826 $4,308,311 Maintenance $1,299,175 $1,338,150 $1,378,295 $1,419,644 $1,462,233 $1,506,100 Marketing $0 $191,394 $118,281 $121,830 $125,485 $129,249 Subtotal $4,867,518 $5,770,773 $5,865,042 $6,040,993 $6,222,223 $6,408,890 Capital Plan Vehicles $0 $1,517,087 $213,082 $0 $301,411 $2,065,710 Bus Stops $0 $173,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 Subtotal $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Total Expenditures $4,867,518 $7,460,930 $6,078,124 $6,040,993 $6,923,634 $8,474,600 Exhibit 1-5 Optimum Financial Plan FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue User Fees Fixed-Route $779,672 $1,564,662 $1,689,835 $1,825,022 $1,971,024 $2,128,706 Care-A-Van $28,773 $29,924 $31,121 $32,366 $33,660 $35,007 Federal Operating Funds $707,659 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Federal Capital Funds $0 $2,296,467 $218,545 $5,628 $707,208 $2,071,681 Local Subsidy $3,351,414 $5,895,155 $5,891,280 $6,013,215 $6,132,037 $6,247,110 Total Revenue $4,867,518 $10,786,208 $8,830,781 $8,876,230 $9,843,929 $11,482,503 Expenditures Operations Administration $401,311 $413,350 $425,750 $438,523 $451,679 $465,229 Operations $3,167,033 $6,417,373 $6,609,894 $6,808,191 $7,012,436 $7,222,809 Maintenance $1,299,175 $1,338,150 $1,378,295 $1,419,644 $1,462,233 $1,506,100 Marketing $0 $320,869 $198,297 $204,246 $210,373 $216,684 Subtotal $4,867,518 $8,489,741 $8,612,236 $8,870,603 $9,136,721 $9,410,823 Capital Plan Vehicles $0 $2,123,922 $213,082 $0 $301,411 $2,065,710 Bus Stops $0 $172,545 $5,464 $5,628 $5,796 $5,970 Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 Subtotal $0 $2,296,467 $218,545 $5,628 $707,208 $2,071,681 Total Expenditures $4,867,518 $10,786,208 $8,830,781 $8,876,230 $9,843,929 $11,482,503
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 16 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Downtown Shuttle Feasibility Study The purpose of this element was to determine the feasibility of a dedicated downtown Juneau shuttle. As envisioned the shuttle would improve mobility, promote the downtown area as a commercial and retail destination, and relieve downtown traffic congestion for residents, persons employed within the downtown area, and visitors alike. The added convenience of a downtown shuttle could also reduce some reliance on personal vehicles in the downtown area, resulting in new ridership for Capital Transit.
Demand Analysis We have identified several key factors driving demand for a circulator shuttle service in downtown Juneau. These factors include available roadway capacity, seasonal congestion, limited parking supply, and competition from emerging retail outside the downtown area.
Demographic Analysis The downtown area’s population increased 38 percent between 1990 and 2000 according to the federal census. The totals are reflective of census block groups two, three, four, and five located within the CBJ. Assuming this growth trend continues, the downtown area population would reach 4,826 by 2010. The majority of the downtown area’s population is clustered in the eastern portion. The downtown area is significantly more urbanized than the balance of the CBJ. A downtown shuttle would be ideal for improving mobility for downtown residents between the western portion of the area (near the Federal Building), and the eastern portion (Franklin Street, The waterfront, etc.).
Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards No previously adopted performance criteria or standards for the proposed downtown shuttle were available. However, based on our initial market research combined with experience with similar projects, we believe a downtown shuttle service is viable and can be operated efficiently and effectively. The goals and objectives set the framework for efficient and effective operations for a downtown circulator shuttle.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 17 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Service Alternatives Alternative A Alternative A includes the alignment from the circulator shuttle implemented in 1984, combined with a fare-free zone. This alignment offers little benefit over existing Capital Transit routes in terms of coverage. Yet, given its compact nature, it could operate with one vehicle on minimal headways (fifteen minutes or less) within the downtown area.
Alternative B This Alternative reflects an attempt to enhance mobility between the eastern and western portions of downtown through the use of an alternative alignment. All current Capital Transit routes travel between the two sections of downtown Juneau via Egan Drive. Alternative B proposes routing the downtown circulator along both the traditional (Egan Drive) and alternative (Calhoun Avenue) alignments. Benefits associated with this alignment include expanded coverage area and increased frequency compared with current transit service in downtown Juneau. Drawbacks include the length of the route, which would require multiple vehicles to achieve a headway of less than fifteen minutes.
Alternative C Alternative C is limited simply to a fare-free zone for existing alignments within the downtown area. This would require passengers to pay a fare upon boarding Capital Transit anywhere outside the downtown area and upon alighting from the bus should they board in the fare free zone and then travel outside of its boundary. Trips originating and terminating within the fare-free zone would be free. This alternative would be the least expensive to implement, requiring no additional vehicles.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 18 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Coordinated Human Services Plan Recipients of federal transit funding are required to complete the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan under the terms of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53) legislation.
The Coordinated Plan is intended to build upon existing, successful coordination plans, and develop strategies to meet the specific needs of target populations residing within Juneau. Ultimately, the Plan will improve coordination in planning and operations amongst the CBJ’s public, private, and non-profit transportation providers.
Funding Sources Three FTA funding programs associated with SAFETEA-LU are designed specifically to enhance the mobility of persons with disabilities, seniors, and low- income individuals. Relevant sections of the FTA legislation include Section 5310 – Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (49 U.S.C. 5310), Section 5311 – Rural and Small Urban Area Formula Grant (49 U.S.C. 5311), and Section 5316 – Job Access Reverse Commute (49 U.S.C. 5316).
Lead Agencies In Alaska, the Department of Transportation/Public Facilities (DOT/PF) developed a program aimed at coordinating transportation services entitled Alaska Public Transportation Management System. APTMS encourages coordination of transportation services between providers as well as DOT/PF, the Alaska Commission on Aging, and the Department of Health and Social Services. These coordination efforts provide grant funding preference to organizations participating in coordinated transportation efforts.
Capital Transit serves as the Lead Agency for coordination efforts within the CBJ. As the Lead Agency, Capital Transit is responsible for either developing, or overseeing the development of the Juneau’s Coordinated Transportation Plan.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 19 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Inventory of Human Transportation Options The following transportation service providers participated in this coordination effort: Capital Transit, Southeastern Senior Services (SESS), Southeast Alaska Independent Living (SAIL), REACH, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Juneau Youth Services (JYS), Southeast Alaska Guidance Association (SAGA), and the Juneau Pioneer Home.
Moore & Associates and CBJ staff made efforts to contact several other providers identified by the Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition (JCTC). These entities either declined to participate in planning efforts or did not respond to good faith communications requesting their involvement.
Duplication of Public Transit Services Fixed-Route Our analysis revealed there is some duplication of service between Capital Transit and the Juneau School District. The Juneau School District offers transportation to district pupils in elementary schools whose residences are more than one-half mile from their school sites, and to secondary school students whose residences are more than 1.5 miles from their school sites on a fixed route and schedule. The Juneau School District also provides transportation services to special education students whose individualized education program warrants such service.
Demand-Response Services offered by other organizations throughout the CBJ include SAIL, St. Vincent De Paul Society, Juneau Youth Services, and SAGA; each of which overlaps the Care-A-Van paratransit program. The transportation programs operated by these social service agencies fall into one of two categories: 1) Those providing transportation services to patrons qualifying for Care-A-Van, and 2) Those providing transportation services to patrons who do not qualify for Care-A-Van. Organizations whose patrons qualify for Care-A-Van service include the Juneau Pioneer Home (seniors), REACH (persons with disabilities), and SAIL (both). Agencies serving patrons who would otherwise be unable to use Care-A-Van
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 20 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
include Juneau Youth Services, SAGA, and St. Vincent de Paul. With the exception of Juneau Youth Services and the Pioneer Home, which operate 24 hours a day, and paratransit programs also operate on shorter service days than Care-A-Van.
Outreach Analysis Moore & Associates and CBJ staff met with the following stakeholder groups as part of the CHSP development process:
• REACH, Inc., • Juneau Youth Services, • Capital Transit, • Southeast Senior Services, • St. Vincent de Paul Society, • Southeastern Alaska Guidance Association, and • Southeast Alaska Independent Living.
The above stakeholders demonstrated a continued interest in coordinating transportation services for the Plan’s targeted populations, which includes seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals. In addition to stakeholder outreach, Moore & Associates also distributed surveys to all JCTC members providing services specific to seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals.
Peer Models Crook County, Oregon Crook County, Oregon was chosen for analysis/comparison given similarities with the City and Borough of Juneau. Similar in size, population, and land-use character, Crook County has experienced many of the same challenges and/or opportunities as Juneau. Therefore, it is logical to assume that by identifying successful strategies in its coordinated transit plan, and setting them aside as a model for Juneau, there is potential applicability of said strategies to the City and Borough of Juneau.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 21 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Prioritizing strategies based on community preference is the most effective way of realizing success by allowing those issues of greatest importance to be brought to the forefront and promptly addressed. Crook County followed this approach which proved instrumental in the development of its coordinated plan.
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) is located in central Alaska. Although the North Star Borough is quite a bit larger than Juneau, it is not so large it cannot suggest strategies relevant to the development of the CBJ’s coordinated human services plan.
Benefits of coordinating transportation services are crucial in helping communities large and small with transportation needs. The Fairbanks North Star Borough exhibited a solid grasp of the planning steps necessary to establish a successful coordinated human services plan. FNSB’s short and long-term goals play a critical role in setting the stage by first introducing the measures with short-term, easily-manageable goals before addressing the challenges with long-term, more all- encompassing goals.
JCTC Coordination Priorities Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition members identified the need for service enhancements as a near-term priority. A good example of such enhancements is SAIL’s desire to add a second wheelchair-accessible vehicle to its taxi token program, improving the ability of its patrons to utilize CBJ taxis on a subsidized basis (evidence that mobility enhancements can be implemented independently of coordination efforts). The second priority identified by JCTC members was the need for additional funding to implement special programs for individual agencies, such as REACH’s desire for additional vehicles for transportation for group homes. Once again, this priority can be addressed independently of coordination efforts.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 22 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Recommended Coordination Strategies In addition to the preceding, Moore and Associates suggested the following for JCTC:
Mobility Manager The JCTC agreed the first and most important step in achieving coordination goals was the hiring of a Mobility Manager. This staffer’s primary responsibilities would include oversight of the CBJ’s transportation coordination efforts.
Call Center We believe implementing a central call center for all CBJ transportation services would improve efficiency and result in a potentially superior end- user experience. We recommend services be placed under the control of a dedicated Mobility Manager to maintain “service assignment”. This would ensure all customers receive the same quality of service regardless of sponsoring agency, trip purpose, ability to pay, etc.
Mobility Training We recommend the JCTC begin an outreach campaign via the recommended Mobility Manager – aimed at educating the target populations (i.e., seniors, persons w/disabilities, low-income individuals) about the benefits of utilizing Capital Transit’s fixed-route program versus demand-response or paratransit programs.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 23 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fixed-Route Evaluation Capital Transit serves Douglas Island between West 10th Street and St. Ann’s, downtown Juneau, Lemon Creek, and the Mendenhall Valley. Routes include the Express Route, Juneau and Douglas Route, and the Juneau to Mendenhall Valley Route (also known as Routes 3 and 4). Capital Transit also offers a number of commuter routes providing limited express service during weekday peak hours.
This section evaluates Capital Transits fixed-route service based on a series of quantitative criteria to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the program as a whole. The indicators were evaluated across a five-year period which allows analysis of recent as well as historic performance.
Exhibit 1-6 Fixed-Route Performance FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Performance Measure Operating Cost $2,334,933 $2,454,050 $2,573,975 $2,823,342 $3,074,790 percent change 5.1% 4.9% 9.7% 8.9% Fare Revenue $566,487 $659,362 $678,243 $701,715 $749,685 percent change 16.4% 2.9% 3.5% 6.8% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 27,829 27,829 27,829 27,829 27,829 percent change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 491,564 491,564 491,564 491,564 491,564 percent change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ridership 1,093,135 1,178,879 1,125,231 1,211,013 1,234,155 percent change 7.84% -4.55% 7.62% 1.91% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $83.90 $88.18 $92.49 $101.45 $110.49 percent change 5.1% 4.9% 9.7% 8.9% Operating Cost/VSM $4.75 $4.99 $5.24 $5.74 $6.26 percent change 5.1% 4.9% 9.7% 8.9% Operating Cost/Passenger $2.14 $2.08 $2.29 $2.33 $2.49 percent change -2.5% 9.9% 1.9% 6.9% Passengers/VSH 39.3 42.4 40.4 43.5 44.3 percent change 7.8% -4.6% 7.6% 1.9% Passengers/VSM 2.222.402.292.462.51 percent change 7.8% -4.6% 7.6% 1.9% Farebox Recovery 24.3% 26.9% 26.4% 24.9% 24.4% percent change 10.7% -1.9% -5.7% -1.9% Fare/Passenger $0.52 $0.56 $0.60 $0.58 $0.61 percent change 7.9% 7.8% -3.9% 4.8%
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 24 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Paratransit Service Evaluation This section evaluates the Care-A-Van service based on a series of quantitative criteria to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the program as a whole. The indicators are evaluated over a four-year period which allows analysis of recent as well as historic performance.
Exhibit 1-7 Care-A-Van Performance FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Performance Measure Operating Cost $739,583 $747,552 $787,564 $865,886 percent change 1.1% 5.4% 9.9% Voluntary Fares $14,705 $20,476 $21,835 $27,935 percent change 39.2% 6.6% 27.9% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 16,010 17,260 17,460 17,460 percent change 7.8% 1.2% 0.0% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 195,307 195,709 212,536 210,003 percent change 0.2% 8.6% -1.2% Ridership 26,285 32,903 34,265 35,729 percent change 25.2% 4.1% 4.3% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $46.20 $43.31 $45.11 $49.59 percent change -6.2% 4.1% 9.9% Operating Cost/VSM $3.79 $3.82 $3.71 $4.12 percent change 0.9% -3.0% 11.3% Operating Cost/Passenger $28.14 $22.72 $22.98 $24.23 percent change -19.3% 1.2% 5.4% Passengers/VSH 1.64 1.91 1.96 2.05 percent change 16.1% 2.9% 4.3% Passengers/VSM 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.17 percent change 24.9% -4.1% 5.5% Farebox Recovery 2.0% 2.7% 2.8% 3.2% percent change 37.8% 1.2% 16.4% Fare/Passenger $0.56 $0.62 $0.64 $0.78 percent change 11.2% 2.4% 22.7% Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 25 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Peer Review A peer review evaluation provides a quantitative methodology for assessing how efficiently and effectively the City and Borough of Juneau’s public transit program is providing service compared with peer providers. Effectiveness is defined as the extent by which a service is achieving its intended goals. By contrast, efficiency is the amount of resources required to achieve the reported outcome.
Our analysis examines the level of service each peer is providing relative to the size of its service area and the number of persons residing therein. The transit operators were identified in the prior Transportation Development Plan (i.e., Valley Regional Transit, Santa Fe), or chosen based on similarity of service area statistics (i.e., population, area, etc.), fleet size, annual ridership, and service offerings. The City and Borough of Juneau’s fixed-route and complementary paratransit services were analyzed separately. All peer data reflects actual FY 2006/07 performance data.
The table below illustrates the primary service characteristics of the reviewed peers.
Exhibit 1-8 Peer Criteria: FY 2006/2007 City and Borough of Juneau City of Santa Fe Valley Regional Transit City of Pueblo Fixed-Route Capital Transit Sante Fe Trails ValleyRide Pueblo Transit Demand-Response Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi Lift Service Area Area (s.q. miles) 40 45 66 39 Population 30,987 80,337 272,625 103,500 Ridership 1,269,884 674,431 1,090,750 1,033,411 Fleet 24 37 45 22 Source: City and Borough of Juneau; City of Santa Fe, NM; National Transit Database.
The Fixed-Route Peer Review compared and contrasted Capital Transit’s key performance indicators for FY 2006/07 with those of Santa Fe Trails, Boise’s ValleyRide and Pueblo Transit. Capital Transit’s VSH and VSM figures are estimates and may not reflect actual FY 2006/07 performance data.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 26 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 1-9 Fixed-Route Key Indicators Capital Transit Santa Fe Trails ValleyRide Pueblo Transit Average Operating Cost $3,074,790 $5,342,740 $6,314,606 $2,930,657 $4,415,698 Fare Revenue $749,685 $216,651 $639,037 $414,720 $505,023 Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 27,829 61,764 87,881 35,092 53,142 Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 491,564 766,676 1,305,043 522,223 771,377 Ridership 1,234,155 602,441 1,052,439 978,577 966,903
Operating Cost/VSH $110.49 $86.50 $71.85 $83.51 $83.09 Operating Cost/VSM $6.26 $6.97 $4.84 $5.61 $5.72 Operating Cost/Passenger $2.49 $8.87 $6.00 $2.99 $4.57 Passengers/VSH 44.35 9.75 11.98 27.89 18.19 Passengers/VSM 2.51 0.79 0.81 1.87 1.25 Farebox Recovery 24.38% 4.06% 10.12% 14.15% 11.44% Fare/Passenger $0.61 $0.36 $0.61 $0.42 $0.52 Source: City and Borough of Juneau, City of Santa Fe, NM, National Transit Database.
The Demand-Response Peer Review compared and contrasted Capital Transit’s key performance indicators for FY 2006/07 with those of Santa Fe Trails, Boise’s ValleyRide and Pueblo Transit. Capital Transit’s VSH and VSM figures are estimates and may not reflect the actual FY 2006/07 performance data.
Exhibit 1-10 Demand-Response Key Indicators Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi-Lift Average Operating Cost $865,886 $1,114,973 $966,045 $583,655 $882,640 Fare Revenue $27,935 $20,476 $67,289 $65,734 $45,359 Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 17,460 23,579 17,183 23,703 20,481 Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 210,003 318,294 219,991 323,951 268,060 Ridership 35,729 71,990 38,311 54,834 50,216
Operating Cost/VSH $49.59 $47.29 $56.22 $24.62 $44.43 Operating Cost/VSM $4.12 $3.50 $4.39 $1.80 $3.45 Operating Cost/Passenger $24.23 $15.49 $25.22 $10.64 $18.89 Passengers/VSH 2.05 3.05 2.23 2.31 2.41 Passengers/VSM 0.170 0.226 0.174 0.170 0.185 Farebox Recovery 3.23% 1.84% 6.97% 11.26% 5.82% Fare/Passenger $0.78 $0.28 $1.76 $1.20 $1.01 Source: City and Borough of Juneau, City of Santa Fe, NM, National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 27 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Ride Check Analysis Moore & Associates conducted a ride check between Monday, September 10, 2007 and Sunday, September 16, 2007 to evaluate Capital Transit’s on-time performance. A total of 355 trips were evaluated. The ride check was conducted across all service days (i.e., weekdays, Saturday, Sunday) as well as all day-parts.
Fixed-Route On-Time Performance Capital Transit’s on-time performance during the assessment period (47.7 percent) was well below the industry standard of 90 percent. We believe the 90- percent standard is attainable for Capital Transit. We calculated Capital Transit’s on-time performance on weekdays (67.6 percent), Saturday (40.6 percent), and Sunday (37.2 percent). The service had the highest on-time performance on weekdays and the lowest on Sunday. Buses were likely to run late on Sunday and likely to run early on Saturday.
Fixed-Route Boarding and Alighting The boarding by day-part analysis revealed boarding activity peaked between 6:30 a.m. to 8:29 am. This early morning day-part had an average of 41.9 boardings per trip. The next highest boarding activity occurred between 7:00 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. (37.0 boardings per trip), while the late afternoon day-part averaged 32.3 boardings per trip. The data indicate most Capital Transit riders make their first trip of the day during the morning “rush hour” (6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.), while return trips typically occur anytime from 3:30 p.m. until the conclusion of the service day.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 28 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Paratransit Performance Analysis Moore & Associates completed a review of Care-A-Van’s trip sheets dated between October 1st and October 13th, 2007. This review reflects a 100-percent sampling of the service completed during the stipulated period. We entered information for both pick-ups and drop-offs (i.e., location, scheduled time, and actual time); and recorded all cancellations, no-shows, and operational variances. The data was analyzed for on-time performance and ridership trends.
The Care-A-Van service had a weekday on-time performance of 97.4 percent for pickups and 89.3 percent for drop-offs. The incidence of early arrival was 1.1 percent for pick-ups and 5.9 percent for drop-offs. The incidence of late arrival was 1.5 percent for pick-ups and 4.8 percent for drop-offs. In summary, Care-A-Van’s on-time performance is excellent, especially given the challenges of weather, limited road network, and physical limitations of the target audience.
A total of 2,549 trips were scheduled, of which 258 were cancelled and six deemed no- shows. Care-A-Van’s weekday ridership peaked during the early afternoon (36.7 percent of daily ridership), while its lowest passenger loads occurred in the evening (3.2 percent). Weekend ridership closely mirrored weekday ridership with a peak in the early afternoon (45.7 percent), and a low in the evening (4.9 percent). Average daily ridership on the weekends was significantly lower than on weekdays, which may explain the higher incidence of early pick-ups. While demand was considerably lower on weekends, Care-A-Van also assigned fewer vehicles, which may contribute to the incidence of late drop-offs.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 29 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Onboard Survey Analysis A self-administered survey was conducted by Moore & Associates onboard Capital Transit buses during all service days (i.e., weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday) and all day-parts between Monday, September 10 and Sunday, September 16, 2007. The survey had several goals: • Assist in the development of a demographic profile of Capital Transit patrons, • Codify typical travel patterns among the survey participants, • Assess customer satisfaction regarding various service attributes, • Identify service enhancements and the propensity for patronage, and • Identify potential marketing and promotional channels.
A total of 267 valid surveys were obtained. A sample of this size has an error variation of +/-6.33 percent at the 95-percent confidence level. This means one can be 95-percent confident the results are accurate within +/-6.33 percent of the general population.
The results were segregated into seven categories: 1. Demographic Information, 2. Travel patterns, 3. Fare, 4. Customer satisfaction, 5. Service enhancements, 6. Information channels, and 7. Rider perceptions.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 30 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Paratransit Customer Survey Analysis With the assistance of Southeast Senior Services, Moore & Associates distributed self- administered surveys to a sampling of registered Care-A-Van (CAV) patrons. The goal of the survey was to: • Develop a demographic profile of CAV patrons, • Identify travel patterns, • Assess customer satisfaction regarding a variety of service attributes, • Identify possible service enhancements, and • Identify preferred marketing channels.
A sampling of 929 Care-A-Van customer names was provided by Capital Transit. From this list, Moore & Associates randomly selected names for two survey mailings. Of the 550 total sample, 91 were returned as undeliverable. From this, we received 91 valid responses from a net sample of 459 (20 percent).
The results were segregated into five categories: 1. Demographic information, 2. Travel patterns, 3. Reservations/scheduling, 4. Customer satisfaction, and 5. Information channels.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 31 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Community Survey Analysis The City and Borough of Juneau—as the managing agent for Capital Transit— contracted with Moore & Associates, Inc. to conduct a survey of community members throughout the Borough. This survey was administered to residents of the CBJ during the final quarter of CY 2007, and sought to accomplish the following: • Collect information at the community level. • Assist in the development of a demographic profile of CBJ residents. • Gain insight into normal or typical travel patterns within the survey population. • Assess customer satisfaction regarding various Capital Transit service attributes. • Identify potential service enhancements and the propensity to patronage Capital Transit. • Identify “most favored” marketing or promotional channels.
Surveys were conducted using two distinct methodologies: Internet and direct mail. The web survey was made available on the Capital Transit website (http://www.juneau.org/capitaltransit/) between November 7 and December 5, 2007. Two hundred and fourteen surveys were collected using the web-based approach. The direct mail survey included two rounds of mailings. A sample of 211 valid surveys was collected via the direct mail method. This translates to a 95-percent confidence level and ± 6.89 margin of error.
We segregated the results into seven categories: 1. Demographic information, 2. Travel patterns, 3. Fare, 4. Customer satisfaction, 5. Service enhancements, 6. Information channels, and 7. Community perceptions.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 32 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Capital Transit Driver Survey Analysis Moore & Associates views drivers as valuable stakeholders in the Transit Development Plan process given their combined, operating and customer service roles. Therefore, we designed a self-administered survey to solicit feedback regarding Capital Transit’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as recommendations for possible service improvements. The survey consisted largely of open-ended questions, allowing Capital Transit’s drivers flexibility in crafting their responses.
Survey forms were distributed during a meeting with Capital Transit drivers conducted in early November, 2007. Drivers were asked to return the surveys using a postage-paid reply envelope. Of the thirty surveys distributed, six were returned (i.e., 20-percent response).
The analysis is split into three sections: • Employment background, • Service evaluation, and • Recommendations.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 33 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Public Outreach Summary In order to effectively identify and quantify the mobility needs of the Juneau community, several methods of community outreach were undertaken in support of the Transit Development Plan process. As discussed in prior sections of this report, an on-board survey, community survey, and Care-A-Van customer survey were conducted to collect information regarding demographics, travel patterns, awareness of transit, preferred information channels, perceptions regarding service attributes, and desired/potential service enhancements. To supplement these, we also conducted several community meetings as well as stakeholder roundtables.
While surveys can provide valuable data, they do not provide the opportunity for dialogue. Therefore, a series of seven at-large community meetings was convened between October 2007 and March 2008. Meetings were held at city hall, as well as the Mendenhall Valley, Lemon Creek, and Douglas Island.
In addition to public outreach, Moore & Associates also facilitated meetings with several audience-specific stakeholder groups.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 34 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STANDARDS
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 35 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 2 – GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STANDARDS
This chapter advances a Performance Measurement System governing the public transit programs (i.e., fixed-route, paratransit) provided by the City and Borough of Juneau.
An organization’s mission or visioning statement provides a foundation for its Performance Measurement System. In the case of the CBJ, it serves as a focal point for the City’s Transit Development Plan (TDP). The Performance Measurement System discussed herein was defined in the 1996 Transit Development Plan:
To provide the City and Borough of Juneau with an up-to-date TDP, including a schedule of capital investments needed for the completion of the plan, through the planning period.
To provide decision-makers within the City and Borough of Juneau accurate information on which to base decisions regarding the future of Capital Transit and to express those decisions in a comprehensive document, including statements of policy and objectives.
To provide the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Federal Transit Administration with accurate information on which to base future capital grant decisions concerning Capital Transit.
To support the identified mission and vision, the following core values have been developed by Moore & Associates:
• Efficiency, • Effectiveness, • Responsiveness, • Inclusiveness, and • Environmental consciousness.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 36 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Goals, Objectives, and Standards An effective Performance Measurement System is composed of goals, objectives, and performance standards.
• Goals are statements that qualify the desired results. They are the end toward which efforts are directed. They are general and timeless, yet theoretically attainable.
• Objectives provide quantifiable measures of the goals. They are more precise and capable of both attainment and measurement.
• Standards set quantifiable targets for achieving the adopted goals.
The City and Borough of Juneau had no previous set performance standards by which to assess its current performance. However, given the data provided by Capital Transit and the City and Borough of Juneau, we believe the performance of both fixed-route and the Care-A-Van services has been improving consistently across the past four fiscal operating years. The operational costs for both the fixed-route and Care-A-Van services have also been increasing. Overall, Capital Transit is performing well in all quantifiable areas (i.e., Passengers/VSH), and should therefore focus on adjusting the service to address new and emerging mobility demands throughout Juneau.
The following tables link the adopted goal to the quantifiable measure; then compares actual performance from FY 2006/07 with recommended performance standards.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 37 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 38 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 2-1 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards Goal I. Operate an efficient and effective system that maximizes service and minimizes cost impacts. Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Minimize operating costs. Operating Cost/VSH Fixed-route: Life-line $65.00 Regular $110.49 $85.00 Trunk $95.00 Care-A-Van $49.59 $35.00 Operating Cost/Passenger Fixed-route: Life-line $10.00 Regular $2.49 $4.00 Trunk $2.00 Care-A-Van $24.23 $15.00 Farebox recovery Fixed-route 10.0% 24.4% 20.0% 30.0% Care-A-Van 3.2% 10.0% Maximize use of transit funding. Coordinated Human Services Plan Meets standard No duplication of service Increase transit usage. Annual growth in ridership Fixed-Route 1.91% At least 3.5% Care-A-Van 4.30% No more than 3% Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour (VSH) Fixed-route: Life-line 10.0 Regular 44.3 40.0 Trunk 60.0 Care-A-Van 2.1 3.0 Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile (VSM) Fixed-route: Life-line 0.5 Regular 1.46 1.5 Trunk 2.5 Care-A-Van 0.17 0.50
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 39 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Goal II. Provide safe, reliable, and high quality transportation. Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Provide safe service. Headway Times: Life-line Meets standard. Three times daily Regular Meets standard. Hourly Trunk Meets standard. Half-hourly Travel Time Meets standard. Travel time no more than three times that of car travel time. Ratio of Passengers to Available Seats No more than 145 percent of available seats. Passenger Injuries Fixed-route Meets standard. Less than one passenger injury 100,000 passenger boardings. Care-A-Van Meets standard. Less than one passenger injury 10,000 passenger boardings. Preventable accidents Fixed-route No data Minimum of 60,000 miles between preventable collision accidents. Care-A-Van Meets standard. Shelter location. In progress. Make sure all future bus shelters are in compliance with Alaska DOT/PF standards Reliable transit service. On-time performance Fixed-route 48.5% 90 percent of all monthly trips operate on-time (defined as no later than 5 minutes and no earlier than the published schedule). Care-A-Van Meets standard. 90 percent of all monthly trips operate on-time (defined as within 15 minutes of the scheduled pick-up time). Missed trips Fixed-route Meets standard. Less than one percent of total monthly trips (defined as no later than 15 minutes past the scheduled pick-up time or missed entirely).
Care-A-Van Meets standard. Less than one percent of the monthly trips (defined as no later than 30 minutes past the scheduled pick-up time or missed entirely).
Minimize transfer wait times. Meets standard. No more than 5 minutes for transfer wait time. Missed transfers Fixed-route Meets standard. Less than five percent of the monthly transfers by route (missed transfer defined as missed connection from one bus to another). Spare ratio Fixed-route Meets standard. 20 percent Care-A-Van Meets standard. Maintenance schedule Fixed-route Meets standard. All regularly scheduled maintenance completed within 500 miles or Care-A-Van Meets standard. five days of scheduled date/cycle. Implement transit facilities maintenace Meets measure. program. Complaint resolution. Needs improvement. Monthly reports detailing number and type of complaint as well as resolution status. Offer mandatory and optional training Meets measure. opportunities to improve safety and professional development. Road calls Fixed-route No data No less than 10,000 miles between road calls. Defined as incidence Care-A-Van Meets standard. where service is interrupted longer than five minutes due to a mechanical failure (except for flat tires). Demand-response. Trip reservations Meets standard. 90 percent of DAR customers and all ADA-eligible trips scheduled within 60 minutes of requested pick-up time. Trip denials Meets standard. No more than three percent of total monthly trip requests result in a denial due to capacity constraints, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 40 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Goal III. Serve the transportation needs of the community. Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Improve mobility. Offer a menu of optional services and In progress. Implement shuttle, carpool program, rural service, and park & ride facilities aimed at specific high yield program by FY 2012/13. markets including a downtown shuttle, implementing a carpool program, rural route-deviation service, and park and ride program. Improve service visibility. Provide Capital Transit Information Centers Meets measure. in the Downtown/Mendenhall Valley areas.
Hire a marketing firm to design a marketing Not yet implemented. campaign for Capital Transit which includes disseminating basic advertising and information on the system, educating the community on the benefits of transit, and working with major trip generators on an on- going basis. Maximize accessibility. Geographic coverage. Some neighborhoods Transit service within 1/2 mile of 80% of households within Capital not covered (i.e., Transit service area. Thane, Lena Cove).
Accessibility. Some stops are 100 percent of fleet handicap accessible. unmarked. All transit vehicles and stops marked appropriately. Bicycle racks on all Capital Transit vehicles.
Care-A-Van certification Not yet implemented. Implement a single set of standards for CAV certification by identifying a single physician to perform all certifications.
Goal IV. Evaluate, monitor and improve transit services on an on-going basis. Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Ongoing, mandatory enhancement . Regularly programmed service evaluations. Meets standards. Independent evaluations at intervals of no greater than 5 years.
Ongoing, mandatory reporting. Regularly programmed data collection and Needs improvement. Monthly performance reports including such information as vehicle reporting. service hours, vehicle service mileage, fare revenue, ridership, accidents, and injuries.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 41 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Goal V. Undertake effective marketing, outreach, and public participation. Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Develop Marketing Plan. Actual expenditures. Does not meet Not less than 3 percent of annual operating budget. standard. Encourage citizen participation Provide various opportunities for customer Needs improvement. Conduct annual outreach prior to meetings to encourage public input feedback. on unmet needs.
Goal VI. Coordinate transit system development with community planning and development efforts and land-use policy. Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Improve staffing structure Structure Capital Transit's staffing to allow Not yet implemented Hire at least one additional administrative staffer. the Transit Manager to have more due to budget community interaction including major constraints. employers. Enhance connection between transportation and land use. Preservation of the right of way the Meets standard. Preserve right-of-way. community will use to build a future fixed guideway transportation system. Create a framework for Capital Transit to Not yet implemented. work with municipal agencies to ensure that future planning and development processes includes an emphasis on pedestrian and transit-friendly designs.
Create a framework for Capital Transit to In progress. Update Capital Improvement Plan. work with State and local government to ensure that new roadway and facility design encourages and supports the safe extension of public transportation services.
Encourage consideration of transit needs in Needs improvement. Specify service levels. Identify capital improvements to be included in land-use policies within the CBJ during the new developments. development review and approval process. Work with retailers and business community to increase accessibility to the public transit service network.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 42 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3. DEMAND ANALYSIS
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 43 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 3 – DEMAND ANALYSIS
This chapter identifies areas wherein it is likely forecast demand for transit service within the City and Borough of Juneau will increase. The first section of the chapter creates a profile of the CBJ’s social, economic, and housing characteristics, followed by a detailed analysis of portions of the CBJ wherein higher concentrations of ride-dependent persons reside. This is followed by a discussion of significant trip generators and development patterns.
Social Profile According to Census 2000, 6.8 percent of the City and Borough of Juneau’s population age 25 and above has not graduated from high school. This figure is approximately half that of the State of Alaska and one-third that of the country as a whole. The percentage of residents with a bachelor’s degrees or higher in Juneau (36.0 percent) is substantially higher than either Alaska or the nation as a whole.
Exhibit 3-1 Summary of CBJ Demographic Characteristics Education Percentage of Percentage Median Percentage over 25 Percentage High Percentage Males of Females Age without High School School Graduate or Bachelors Degree Diploma Higher or Higher CBJ 50.4% 49.6% 35.3 6.8% 93.2% 36.0% Alaska 51.7% 48.3% 32.4 11.6% 88.3% 24.7% Nationally 49.1% 50.9% 35.3 19.6% 80.4% 24.4% Source: Census 2000
Economic Profile According to Census 2000, the unemployment rate in Juneau is considerably lower than Alaska as a whole. This translates to an elevated need for transportation to and from jobs during peak hours on weekdays. Given the concentration of public sector jobs in Juneau and the region’s reliance on the government and tourism for employment, reliable and affordable mobility options between the downtown area and outlying residential communities are critical.
When choosing a travel mode, 62.9 percent of Juneau commuters drive alone, 4.3 percent take public transit, and 8.0 percent walk. These figures hold promise as per
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 44 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
capita transit use is twice as great in Juneau than in Alaska at-large. Further, more residents walk to work than either the state or the nation as a whole. This indicates Juneau residents are willing to explore alternate mobility options, further underscoring Capital Transit’s Competitive position.
The median household income for Juneau was $62,034 in 2000. This is significantly higher than either Alaska or the nation as a whole ($51,571 and $41,994, respectively). The same is true for per capita income and family income. These figures indicate a modest level of ride-dependency in Juneau, meaning many Capital Transit patrons are “choice riders.”
Exhibit 3-2 Summary of CBJ Economic Characteristics Commute Income Percentage Median Social Public Median Per Capita Unemployed Drive Alone Public Transit Walked Household Security Assistance Family Income Income Income Income Income CBJ 4.0% 62.9% 4.3% 8.0% 62,034 13.1% 5.7% 70,284 26,719 Alaska 6.1% 66.5% 1.8% 7.3% 51,571 13.7% 8.7% 59,036 22,660 Nationally 3.7% 75.7% 4.7% 2.9% 41,994 25.7% 3.4% 50,046 21,587 Source: Census 2000
Housing Profile According to Census 2000, fewer than 15 percent of Juneau homeowners spend more than 35 percent of their income on housing. This figure is lower than either Alaska or the nation as a whole. Median home value and rent are each higher than state and national averages, indicating there is a disparity in the market leading to disproportionately high rents. We conclude Juneau is neither significantly more nor less affordable than the state or nation as a whole because higher household income offsets higher living cost.
Exhibit 3-3 Summary of CBJ Housing Characteristics Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Median Ratio of Ratio of Rooms per Median Ownership Median Rental Structure Value Costs to Rent Costs to Income Income CBJ 4.9 195,100 14.8% 863 27.3% Alaska 4.7 144,200 16.2% 720 25.4% Nationally 5.3 119,600 15.8% 602 29.5% Source: Census 2000
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 45 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Service Area Characteristics Juneau is essentially a land-locked community. Extended travel beyond the CBJ can only be achieved via land or sea. The area road network provides access from downtown area to Douglas and the Mendenhall Valley. Water-based travel can be made via the Alaska Marine Highway System, a state-run ferry system offering service throughout Southern Alaska, Coastal British Columbia, and Bellingham, WA.
Comprehensive Plan The CBJ’s Comprehensive Plan guides local planning efforts. The Comprehensive Plan was being updated concurrent with the drafting of this TDP to integrate transportation and land-use planning frame a complimentary approach. Although it has not yet been adopted, draft Policy 8.1 of the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element (Chapter 8) addresses public transit and its foreseen role in the CBJ:
It is the policy of the CBJ to promote and facilitate transportation alternatives to private vehicles as a means of reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and the consumption of fossil fuels, and to provide means of transportation to all residents.
This policy is supported by development guidelines governing the inclusion of sidewalks and infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians in existing neighborhoods and planned development to promote connections required for the successful provision of public transit throughout the CBJ.
The Transportation Element also includes six Implementing Actions: 1. Complete and/or upgrade a continuous separated bicycle/pedestrian pathway between the Mendenhall Valley and downtown Juneau by connecting those portions now existing. 2. Continue to update, adopt, and implement the Capital Transit Development Plan. 3. Identify, map, and designate on the CBJ GIS system and in Land-Use Maps of the Comprehensive Plan a Bus Rapid Transit alignment which the CBJ should purchase an adequate easement or right-of-
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 46 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
way for travel lanes, park and ride facilities, and transit stops and transfer stations. 4. Along the identified Bus Rapid Transit alignment for the CBJ, identify potential transit and transfer stops or nodes and re-zone land around those nodes for high-density residential and/or mixed-use and employment centers to facilitate the convenient and efficient use of the BRT or transit trolley system. 5. To reduce the demand for land-consuming parking spaces and reliance upon fossil fuels, the CBJ should urge Downtown Juneau State, Federal, and their own local government agencies to participate in a Coordinated Downtown Transportation Management Program (TMP) managed by CBJ staff or a third-party administrator. 6. Work with the School District to identify safe pedestrian and bicycle pathways for students to travel to and from school facilities. Safe bus shelters and covered routes for “walking buses” should be provided where appropriate.
Population The City and Borough of Juneau’s population increased 14.8 percent between 1990 and 2000 according to the federal Census Bureau. The Census Bureau estimated the CBJ’s population at 30,987 in 2005; a significantly slower rate of growth than experienced between 1990 and 2000. Should that growth rate continue, the CBJ’s population would reach 31,263 residents by 2010.
Exhibit 3-4 Population Growth Total Population 1990 26,751 2000 30,711 Net Change 3,960 Percent Change 14.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The majority of Juneau’s population is distributed within the downtown area, Douglas Island, and the Mendenhall Valley. Most Juneau residents live within the urban services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 47 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
boundary, though some live in a rural setting offering little or no access to the infrastructure available to residents in Juneau proper.
Exhibit 3-5 Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 48 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Ride-Dependent Population In most communities throughout the nation, the transit-dependent population is typically comprised of youth (ages of 5 to 17), seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals with incomes at or below the state poverty level ($25,820 annually for a family of four). Individuals in these groups have a greater propensity to use public transit due in large part to the absence of mobility options.
Youth Population For the purposes of this study, the term “youth” is defined as individuals between 5 and 17 years of age. The City and Borough of Juneau’s youth population increased 18.0 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. Assuming the trend continues, the CBJ’s youth population will increase to 7,651 by 2010.
The youth share of the total population increased modestly from 20.5 percent in 1990 to 21.1 percent in 2000. This increase translates to increased demand for transit services. One potential option is a youth shuttle that makes regular stops at recreational facilities and after-school programs between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekday Shuttles of this nature provide a valuable service to the community and generally proven quite popular.
Exhibit 3-6 Youth Population Growth Youth Population 1990 5,479 2000 6,464 Net Change 985 Percent Change 18.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The majority of Juneau’s youth resides in the Mendenhall Valley, with relatively modest concentrations in Douglas and the downtown area. The basic needs of youth are typically addressed by parents or the school district, making public transit access unnecessary for many trips, though transit often fills a critical need in improving mobility for youth making non school-related trips.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 49 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-7 Youth Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 50 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Senior Population Seniors are defined as individuals 65 years of age or older. The Borough’s senior population increased 36.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. Assuming the trend continues, the CBJ’s senior population will increase to 2,580 by 2010.
The senior share of total population increased from 5.2 percent in 1990 to 6.2 percent in 2000. This increase, although modest (less than one percent), indicates a potential increase in demand for paratransit services, as many within this demographic are otherwise unable to undertake basic trips on their own. Ensuring these residents have adequate access to healthcare and other community services is critical to the CBJ’s overall quality of life.
Exhibit 3-8 Senior Population Growth Senior Population 1990 1,385 2000 1,890 Net Change 505 Percent Change 36.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The highest concentrations of seniors within the CBJ are in Douglas and The downtown area. Seniors in Douglas often rely on paratransit services to reach healthcare facilities in downtown Juneau and the Mendenhall Valley. Residents in the downtown area live three miles from the majority of the CBJ’s healthcare facilities and often rely on public transportation for access to said services.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 51 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-9 Senior Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 52 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Persons with Disabilities The number of residents indicating a personal disability in the City and Borough of Juneau increased 387.8 percent from 1990 to 2000 according to the federal Census Bureau. We believe this figure is skewed given the Census Bureau changed its methodology relative to the calculation of persons with disabilities between 1990 and 2000. Therefore, a higher percentage of residents were counted in 2000 than in 1990. There is no evidence to suggest a demographic shift significant enough occurred to support a 388-percent increase.
The disabled share of the total population increased from five percent in 1990 to 21.2 percent in 2000, largely due to the aforementioned change in Census Bureau methodology.
Exhibit 3-10 Disabled Population Growth Disabled Population 1990 1,336 2000 6,517 Net Change 5,181 Percent Change 387.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The downtown area, Douglas Island, and the northern and eastern portions of the Mendenhall Valley are each home to high concentrations of persons with disabilities. Therefore, these areas require coverage from the Care-A-Van service in order to address the basic mobility needs of the persons residing therein. Care-A-Van functions as the complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) component of the CBJ’s public transit program. ADA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements mandate the Care-A-Van service area and operating hours must mirror that of Capital Transit.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 53 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-11 Disabled Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 54 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Low-Income Population The number of persons of low-income residing within the CBJ increased 22.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. Therefore, we believe it can be reasonably assumed the CBJ’s low-income population will increase to 2,100 by 2010.
The low-income share of total population increased from 5.5 percent in 1990 to 5.9 percent in 2000. This increase, though slight, illustrates growth of the low- income segment relative to overall population growth. Low income residents are likely dependent upon public transit for mobility, and Capital Transit service planning efforts should take this need into consideration.
Exhibit 3-12 Low-Income Population Growth Population in Poverty 1990 1,468 2000 1,797 Net Change 329 Percent Change 22.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The highest concentrations of low-income residents lie within Douglas and the Mendenhall Valley, with relatively modest numbers in the downtown area. Low- income individuals in Douglas are somewhat isolated from services available in the downtown area and the Mendenhall Valley and therefore must often rely on Capital Transit for access such as services. The Coordinated Human Services element of this study outlines practical strategies for enhancing mobility for the target population via a framework of public-private partnerships.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 55 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-13 Low-Income Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 56 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Incidence of Vehicle Ownership The number of households lacking access to a personal vehicle in Juneau decreased 11.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal Census Bureau. Therefore, we believe it can be reasonably assumed the number of households without automobile access will decrease to 761 by 2010. This demographic group is the only ride-dependent segment to lose relative share.
Exhibit 3-14 Incidence of Vehicle Ownership Households without Vehicle Access 1990 970 2000 859 Net Change -111 Percent Change -11.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The highest concentrations of households without vehicle access are located in the downtown area and Douglas Island. Households in the downtown area are less dependent upon personal vehicles than their counterparts in other areas of the CBJ perhaps in large part due to the compact nature of the downtown area. Many residents in Douglas utilize transit for travel into the downtown area and/ or the Mendenhall Valley.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 57 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-15 Households Absent Automobile Access by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 58 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Trip Generators The identification of significant activity centers throughout the CBJ provides the basis for: • Identifying and quantifying demand for public transit service, and • Identifying temporal and spatial service gaps.
The majority of the CBJ’s larger employment centers are located in the downtown area, while the majority of the CBJ’s retail centers are in the Mendenhall Valley. Healthcare, educational, and recreation destinations are spread throughout the CBJ, allowing easy access to these services for residents of the different portions of the CBJ. The list of trip generators was developed based on discussions with CBJ staff and residents combined with our professional experience. A full inventory can be found in Exhibit 3-16.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 59 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-16 Key Trip Generators Name Address Juneau City Hall 155 S. Seward St State Office Building 333 Willoughby Ave Centennial Hall 101 Egan Dr Federal Building 709 W 9th St Reifenstein Dialysis Center 9109 Mendenhall Mall Rd Bartlett Memorial Hospital 3260 Hospital Dr Rainforest Recovery Center 3250 Hospital Dr Fred Meyer 8181 Glacier Hwy Costco 5225 Commercial Blvd Wal-Mart 6525 Glacier Hwy Nugget Mall 8745 Glacier Hwy Mendenhall Mall 9109 Mendenhall Mall Rd University of Alaska Southeast 11120 Glacier Hwy Juneau Douglas High School 1639 Glacier Ave Alyeska Central School 3141 Channel Dr Juneau SDA Christian School 4890 Glacier Hwy Dzantik'I Heeni Middle School 1600 Renninger St Juneau Alternative High School 811 W 12th St Adult & Vocational Education 1111 W 8th St Glacier Valley Elementary School 3400 Tongass Blvd Harborview Elementary School 10014 Crazy Horse Dr Riverbend Elementary School 2901 Riverside Dr Center for Community 8800 Glacier Hwy Juneau Senior Center 895 W 12th St Southeast Senior Services 419 6th St Juneau International Airport 2358 Mendenhall Loop Rd Juneau-Douglas City Museum 114 W 4th St Alaska State Museum 395 Whittier St Auke Bay Harbors 101 Harbor Dr Alaska Job Center Network 10002 Glacier Hwy Alaska Vocational Institute 210 Ferry Way US Veterans Employment Services 1111 W 8th St REACH 213 3rd St Cornerstone 5636 Glacier Hwy Glory Hole 247 S Franklin St Glacier Manor Halfway House 5597 Aisek St Cedar Park 3414 Foster Ave Sealaska Heritage Institute 1 Sealaska Plaza Valley Senior Center 9055 Atlin Dr Juneau Christian Center 8001 Glacier Hwy Juneau Library 292 Marine Way
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 60 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-17 Borough-Wide Trip Generators
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 61 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-18 Downtown Trip Generators
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 62 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-19 Mendenhall Valley Trip Generators
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 63 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-20 Lemon Creek Trip Generators
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 64 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Demand for Water-Based Transit In addition to analyzing demand for traditional rubber-tire transit service throughout the CBJ, Moore & Associates evaluated the potential for marine service linking Douglas Island and downtown Juneau as a means to bypass congestion on the Juneau-Douglas Bridge. Water taxis and shuttles are becoming commonplace in coastal communities as an alternative to oft-times more circuitous land-based options.
Current development along Douglas Island south of the Juneau-Douglas Bridge is largely linear in nature. Most development has occurred along Douglas Highway and a modest number of cross streets, yet given the island’s steep topography west of the highway, the road network is limited to a relatively narrow strip between the Gastineau Channel and the mountains to the west. This linear pattern lends itself well to accommodating traditional bus service yet makes accommodating a water taxi more challenging. Such a service, by design, would have to limit the number of points in Douglas wherein a landing is made in order to realize time savings over traditional bus service. Only a modest number of Douglas residents would be within a reasonable walking distance of such landings, meaning many would have to utilize another mode of travel in order to access the water taxi, making accessing such a service less convenient than simply driving north to the bridge.
Given the popularity of Juneau as a cruise destination during the summer months, it is also possible any water taxi might encounter congestion in the Gastineau Channel at certain times of day when cruise ships are maneuvering within the waterway. This could hamper operations, increasing travel time between Douglas Island and downtown Juneau.
At present, there is also only modest congestion along Douglas Highway and the Juneau-Douglas Bridge during weekday peak hours. Given the absence of congestion impacting travel times for traditional rubber-tired transit vehicles, there is no demand to mitigate congestion along that corridor using an alternate mode. It is also likely a water taxi would not offer significant time savings given the high rate of speed vehicles are able to travel along Douglas Highway and the
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 65 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
relatively low speed a water taxi would be able to travel safely across the Channel.
Development Patterns This section seeks to identify current demand and forecast future demand for transit service through an analysis of residential densities present throughout the CBJ. The City and Borough of Juneau has four primary regions in terms of population and density (i.e., downtown area, Lemon Creek, Mendenhall Valley, and Douglas). These areas reflect a mixture of low and high density areas. Density currently ranges from 3-18 units per acre.
Existing Development Douglas has the highest concentration of density as determined by existing dwelling units. The majority of the parcels have existing units in the range of 6-18 units per acre. The majority of potential transit ridership is within one-half mile walk from an existing transit route.
Density varies within the Mendenhall Valley. The majority of parcels have a range of existing units, from 4 to 10 units per acre. A significant portion of potential riders are within a one-half mile walk of a current Capital Transit alignment. The Mendenhall Valley is largely residential and contains significant clusters of each ride dependent populations (i.e., youth, senior, persons with disabilities, low-income individuals).
Downtown Juneau serves as the primary commercial district. While the downtown area includes concentrations of densely zoned parcels, the larger portion of the downtown area is zoned for commercial and mixed- use development. This area contains numerous trip generators (Exhibit 3-18) and transit demand is high. The potential for higher-density development in the future is significantly greater than in other areas of the CBJ.
Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 66 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PPLAN
Exhibit 3-21 Existing Units per Acre
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 67 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PPLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 68 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Maximum Development Potential The CBJ’s maximum potential population density is determined through zoning. If allowed to reach maximum potential, transit demand within individual areas and neighborhoods could increase dramatically.
The Mendenhall Valley remains a primarily residentially zoned district, with some light commercial and industrial zoning to the south. The Mendenhall Valley has significant clusters of each of the ride-dependent populations. It is reasonable to conclude these populations will either remain similarly high or increase if the full potential of the region is met. The increase in the number of ride-dependent persons would increase the demand for public transportation such as fixed-route bus service. While no zone within the Mendenhall Valley would surpass a density of 18 units per acre, the majority of available land would be at a density of 4- 5 units per acre. Given the size of the Mendenhall Valley area, should maximum density be reached, the area would represent the single greatest population within the CBJ.
Douglas is predominantly residential. The growth potential of the area indicates many parcels could contain up to 18 units per acre. If maximized, the portion served by Capital Transit would include a mix of 4- 5 units per acre and 11-18 units per acre zones. Given existing density, a substantial increase in ridership is a definite possibility.
The downtown area holds the greatest potential for population density. This area holds the only zones possible of exceeding 18 units per acre. With the inclusion of potential growth from mixed-use zones that allow for a maximum of 60 units per acre (June 5, 2006 Zoning Districts Legend), downtown Juneau could feature the ingle greatest density within the CBJ. Mixed-use development has the potential of increasing transit ridership. The outcome is dependent largely upon enhanced transit service. Increased population density would create increased parking and traffic congestion. Public transportation then becomes a more
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 69 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
attractive option for commuting across town. The implementation of a downtown shuttle would be ideal for linking the downtown area with other areas of the city without causing an undue increase in traffic congestion.
Traffic density inevitably increases proportionally with population density unless a viable and attractive alternative exists. The potential growth capability of the CBJ is enormous. Whether or not CBJ reaches its forecast density, an efficient public transportation system represents support of the CBJ’s Comprehensive Plan, affordable housing, and economic development.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 70 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 3-22 Maximum Density by Zoning
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 71 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 72 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4. FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 73 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 4 – FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Service Scenarios In crafting the following service scenarios, Moore & Associates drew upon the CBJ’s prior Transit Development Plan (1996), community meetings, our service evaluation, public surveys, ride checks, and interviews with CBJ staff and community stakeholders. We sought to identify service gaps as well as “less productive” route segments and for day-parts. In summary, we sought to identify strategies for optimizing existing Capital Transit resources as well as present practical recommendations for sustainable service development.
Capital Transit serves Douglas Island between West 10th Street and St. Ann’s, downtown Juneau, Lemon Creek, and the Mendenhall Valley. Routes include the Express Route, Juneau and Douglas Route, and Juneau to Mendenhall Valley Route (also known as Routes 3 and 4). Capital Transit also offers a number of commuter routes offering peak-hour service on weekdays. The Juneau to Douglas Route and Juneau to Mendenhall Valley Route operate between 7:00 a.m. and 11:45 p.m., while the Express Route operates between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Three distinct service scenarios were crafted. Each represents a “blueprint” consisting of alignment and/or schedule alternatives: • Baseline: No alignment changes and some minor schedule changes to reflect current transit demand and external influencing factors. • Intermediate: Service extension to the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) Terminal and Lena Cove, introduction of service along Riverside Drive, and scheduling amended to reflect proposed alignments. • Optimum: Complete revamping of Capital Transit’s routing and operating schedule between Juneau’s downtown area and the Mendenhall Valley.
The relative merits of each service alternative are discussed. Any alignment changes are accompanied by maps illustrating the proposed changes. Any scheduling changes are accompanied by revised sample schedules illustrating potential impacts.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 74 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Baseline Scenario In this first scenario, we recommend the CBJ undertake no change to the current Capital Transit route network. Instead, we recommend its operating schedule be revised to reflect prevailing traffic conditions and actual bus running times. Doing so would address on-time performance issues by inserting more running time, ensuring buses arrive at time-points as published. While many current riders factor in extra time with the understanding Capital Transit’s time-points reflect best-guess estimates, poor on-time performance ultimately undermines customer faith in the service as well as presenting a barrier to attraction of new riders. Adjusting the Capital Transit operating schedule to improve on-time performance will result in reduced service frequency along Davis Avenue.
Recommendations • No changes to the existing Capital Transit route network. • Amend operating schedules to reflect actual running times and prevailing operating conditions. (i.e., ridership, traffic conditions, etc.)
Advantages • Steady and predictable ridership growth. • Simple and inexpensive implementation plan. • System retains its familiarity to current riders. • Improved on-time performance. • Increased customer satisfaction.
Disadvantages • Some areas would remain either unserved or “underserved”: o Lemon Creek commercial area. o Riverside Drive. o AMHS Terminal and/or Lena Cove. • Some areas would continue to feature capacity in excess of current demand: o Mendenhall Valley “back loop.” o Significant portions of Glacier Highway. o North Douglas.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 75 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Some service points present dangerous conditions for transit vehicles (i.e., uncontrolled intersections). • No increase in efficiency. • Frequency on Davis Avenue would be reduced to hourly. • Proposed service changes do not reflect those needs identified through the public process. • Transit “footprint” remains focused on key arterials.
Exhibit 4-1 Baseline Scenario
The following is a sample schedule with additional running time to address on-time concerns identified through our ride check, field observations, and community meetings.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 76 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-2 Baseline Scenario Schedule
FRANKLIN 4TH MAIN FEDERAL LEMON NUGGET MENDENHALL VALLEY DEHARTS/A MENDENHALL MENDENAHALL NUGGET FEDERAL FRANKLIN ROUTE STREET STREET STREET BUILDING HOSPITAL CREEK SWITZER MALL MALL BLVD. UKE BAY BLVD MALL MALL SWITZER LEMON CREEK HOSPITAL BUILDING STREET 3 7:00 AM 7:05 AM 7:15 AM 7:24 AM 7:30 AM 3 7:00 AM 7:05 AM 7:10 AM 7:20 AM 7:30 AM 7:39 AM 7:48 AM 7:52 AM 7:58 AM 8:07 AM 8:17 AM 8:22 AM 8:29 AM 8:38 AM 8:47 AM 8:54 AM 4 7:30 AM 7:35 AM 7:40 AM 7:50 AM 8:00 AM 8:10 AM 8:15 AM 8:24 AM 8:33 AM 8:43 AM 8:49 AM 8:58 AM 9:03 AM 9:13 AM 9:20 AM 9:25 AM 3 8:00 AM 8:05 AM 8:10 AM 8:20 AM 8:30 AM 8:39 AM 8:48 AM 8:52 AM 8:58 AM 9:07 AM 9:17 AM 9:22 AM 9:29 AM 9:38 AM 9:47 AM 9:54 AM 4 8:30 AM 8:35 AM 8:40 AM 8:50 AM 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 9:15 AM 9:24 AM 9:33 AM 9:43 AM 9:49 AM 9:58 AM 10:03 AM 10:13 AM 10:20 AM 10:25 AM 3 9:00 AM 9:05 AM 9:10 AM 9:20 AM 9:30 AM 9:39 AM 9:48 AM 9:52 AM 9:58 AM 10:07 AM 10:17 AM 10:22 AM 10:29 AM 10:38 AM 10:47 AM 10:54 AM 4 9:30 AM 9:35 AM 9:40 AM 9:50 AM 10:00 AM 10:10 AM 10:15 AM 10:24 AM 10:33 AM 10:43 AM 10:49 AM 10:58 AM 11:03 AM 11:13 AM 11:20 AM 11:25 AM 3 10:00 AM 10:05 AM 10:10 AM 10:20 AM 10:30 AM 10:39 AM 10:48 AM 10:52 AM 10:58 AM 11:07 AM 11:17 AM 11:22 AM 11:29 AM 11:38 AM 11:47 AM 11:54 A M 4 10:30 AM 10:35 AM 10:40 AM 10:50 AM 11:00 AM 11:10 AM 11:15 AM 11:24 AM 11:33 AM 11:43 AM 11:49 AM 11:58 AM 12:03 PM 12:13 PM 12:20 PM 12:25 P M 3 11:00 AM 11:05 AM 11:10 AM 11:20 AM 11:30 AM 11:39 AM 11:48 AM 11:52 AM 11:58 AM 12:07 PM 12:17 PM 12:22 PM 12:29 PM 12:38 PM 12:47 PM 12:54 P M 4 11:30 AM 11:35 AM 11:40 AM 11:50 AM 12:00 PM 12:10 PM 12:15 PM 12:24 PM 12:33 PM 12:43 PM 12:49 PM 12:58 PM 1:03 PM 1:13 PM 1:20 PM 1:25 PM 3 12:00 PM 12:05 PM 12:10 PM 12:20 PM 12:30 PM 12:39 PM 12:48 PM 12:52 PM 12:58 PM 1:07 PM 1:17 PM 1:22 PM 1:29 PM 1:38 PM 1:47 PM 1:54 PM 4 12:30 PM 12:35 PM 12:40 PM 12:50 PM 1:00 PM 1:10 PM 1:15 PM 1:24 PM 1:33 PM 1:43 PM 1:49 PM 1:58 PM 2:03 PM 2:13 PM 2:20 PM 2:25 PM 3 1:00 PM 1:05 PM 1:10 PM 1:20 PM 1:30 PM 1:39 PM 1:48 PM 1:52 PM 1:58 PM 2:07 PM 2:17 PM 2:22 PM 2:29 PM 2:38 PM 2:47 PM 2:54 PM 4 1:30 PM 1:35 PM 1:40 PM 1:50 PM 2:00 PM 2:10 PM 2:15 PM 2:24 PM 2:33 PM 2:43 PM 2:49 PM 2:58 PM 3:03 PM 3:13 PM 3:20 PM 3:25 PM 3 2:00 PM 2:05 PM 2:10 PM 2:20 PM 2:30 PM 2:39 PM 2:48 PM 2:52 PM 2:58 PM 3:07 PM 3:17 PM 3:22 PM 3:29 PM 3:38 PM 3:47 PM 3:54 PM 4 2:30 PM 2:35 PM 2:40 PM 2:50 PM 3:00 PM 3:10 PM 3:15 PM 3:24 PM 3:33 PM 3:43 PM 3:49 PM 3:58 PM 4:03 PM 4:13 PM 4:20 PM 4:25 PM 3 3:00 PM 3:05 PM 3:10 PM 3:20 PM 3:30 PM 3:39 PM 3:48 PM 3:52 PM 3:58 PM 4:07 PM 4:17 PM 4:22 PM 4:29 PM 4:38 PM 4:47 PM 4:54 PM 4 3:30 PM 3:35 PM 3:40 PM 3:50 PM 4:00 PM 4:10 PM 4:15 PM 4:24 PM 4:33 PM 4:43 PM 4:49 PM 4:58 PM 5:03 PM 5:13 PM 5:20 PM 5:25 PM 3 4:00 PM 4:05 PM 4:10 PM 4:20 PM 4:30 PM 4:39 PM 4:48 PM 4:52 PM 4:58 PM 5:07 PM 5:17 PM 5:22 PM 5:29 PM 5:38 PM 5:47 PM 5:54 PM 4 4:30 PM 4:35 PM 4:40 PM 4:50 PM 5:00 PM 5:10 PM 5:15 PM 5:24 PM 5:33 PM 5:43 PM 5:49 PM 5:58 PM 6:03 PM 6:13 PM 6:20 PM 6:25 PM 3 5:00 PM 5:05 PM 5:10 PM 5:20 PM 5:30 PM 5:39 PM 5:48 PM 5:52 PM 5:58 PM 6:07 PM 6:17 PM 6:22 PM 6:29 PM 6:38 PM 6:47 PM 6:54 PM 4 5:30 PM 5:35 PM 5:40 PM 5:50 PM 6:00 PM 6:10 PM 6:15 PM 6:24 PM 6:33 PM 6:43 PM 6:49 PM 6:58 PM 7:03 PM 7:13 PM 7:20 PM 7:25 PM 4 6:30 PM 6:35 PM 6:40 PM 6:50 PM 7:00 PM 7:10 PM 7:15 PM 7:24 PM 7:33 PM 7:43 PM 7:49 PM 7:58 PM 8:03 PM 8:13 PM 8:20 PM 8:25 PM 3 7:30 PM 7:35 PM 7:40 PM 7:50 PM 8:00 PM 8:09 PM 8:18 PM 8:22 PM 8:28 PM 8:27 PM 8:36 PM 8:41 PM 8:47 PM 8:56 PM 9:03 PM 9:08 PM 4 8:30 PM 8:35 PM 8:40 PM 8:50 PM 9:00 PM 9:10 PM 9:15 PM 9:24 PM 9:33 PM 9:43 PM 9:49 PM 9:58 PM 10:03 PM 10:13 PM 10:20 PM 10:25 PM 3 9:30 PM 9:35 PM 9:40 PM 9:50 PM 10:00 PM 10:09 PM 10:18 PM 10:22 PM 10:28 PM 10:27 PM 10:36 PM 10:41 PM 10:47 PM 10:56 PM 11:03 PM 11:08 PM 4 10:30 PM 10:35 PM 10:40 PM 10:50 PM 11:00 PM 11:10 PM 11:15 PM 11:24 PM 11:33 PM 11:43 PM 11:49 PM 11:58 PM 12:03 AM 12:13 AM 12:20 AM 12:25 A M
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 77 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Intermediate Scenario In this scenario, we recommend routing changes in the Mendenhall Valley as well as the introduction of transit service to Lena Cove and the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute (NOAA). These changes are coupled with schedule revisions designed to improve on-time performance. This recommendation replaces half-hour service on the Mendenhall Valley’s “back loop” with hourly service along Riverside Drive. Though the “back loop” allows for higher travel speed, we identified only modest demand in this area. By contrast, Riverside Drive serves as an arterial through the Mendenhall Valley— Juneau’s single-largest population cluster. Service on the “back loop” as well as Lena Cove/NOAA would be provided on an hourly basis. The proposed operating frequency reflects our best efforts to balance transit supply with actual and/ or perceived demand.
Recommendations • Hourly service on the “back loop” and Glacier Highway between the Mendenhall Mall and Auke Bay. • Introduction of service along Riverside Drive. • Introduction of service to Lena Cove/NOAA. • Introduction of service to the AMHS Terminal. • Amend operating schedules to reflect actual running times and prevailing operating conditions. • No change to current Express or Douglas service.
Advantages • Expanded transit service area. • Probable increased in annual ridership. • Balancing of transit supply and demand. • Enhanced mobility options for persons employed at the NOAA facility. • Intermodal linkage with AMHS.
Disadvantages • Less frequent service along the Mendenhall Valley’s “back loop”. • Less frequent service between Mendenhall Mall and Auke Bay. • Increase in annual operating cost.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 78 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Frequency on Davis Avenue would be reduced to hourly. • Probable need for additional vehicles. • Increased traffic along Riverside Drive.
Exhibit 4-3 Intermediate Scenario
Through a variety of public outreach efforts, demand for transit service to the AMHS Terminal and Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute at Lena Cove was identified. This has also been among the top priorities of the Juneau Chamber of Commerce. Introduction of a shuttle from DeHart’s to the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute on
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 79 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
an hourly basis strikes a balance between transit demand and supply. Doing so would provide a schedule sufficient to offer some access to the terminal, while not sending empty buses several miles past DeHart’s.
The AMHS features an irregular operating schedule. Therefore, the provision of seamless intermodal connectivity is challenging at best. However, given the presence of the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute (60,000 square feet), as well as several significant employers in close proximity to the AMHS Terminal, The extension of Capital Transit service is warranted.
To offset the addition of the Lena Cove/NOAA shuttle service, we reduced the frequency of service along Glacier Highway between the Mendenhall Mall and Auke Bay, as well on Mendenhall Loop Road between Auke Bay and Riverside Drive. Although this constitutes a net reduction in total service level, we do not believe current demand warrants half-hour service. To complement the proposed “back loop” service adjustment, we recommend the CBJ consider introducing service along Riverside Drive. Given concentrations of residential development along Riverside Drive, we forecast a growth in transit patronage, assuming Capital Transit undertakes appropriate targeted marketing. Currently, local residents west of Mendenhall Loop Road must walk a considerable distance to access transit service. Introducing service along Riverside Drive would enhance the mobility of persons residing within this neighborhood.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 80 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-4 Proposed NOAA Shuttle
The following schedule incorporates additional run time intended to address schedule adherence concerns identified through our ride check, field observations, and community meetings. The schedule indicates how much time from the beginning of the run (Franklin Street) it takes to reach each subsequent time-point for Routes 3 and 4. Route 3 serves Riverside drive and Route 4 serves DeHart’s and the Back Loop. The routes alternate serving Lemon Creek. Route 3 takes 1 hour and 52 minutes to complete a circuit while Route 4 takes 1 hour and 59 minutes to complete a circuit.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 81 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-5 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Schedule
FRANKLIN MAIN FEDERAL LEMON NUGGET VALLEY DEHARTS/A RIVERSIDE MENDENAHALL NUGGET LEMON FEDERAL FRANKLIN STREET 4TH STREET STREET BUILDING HOSPITAL CREEK SWITZER MALL BLVD. UKE BAY DR MALL MALL SWITZER CREEK HOSPITAL BUILDING STREET Route 3 0:00 0:02 0:13 0:23 0:30 0:40 0:49 0:58 1:06 1:10 1:19 1:24 1:30 1:39 1:47 1:52 Route 4 0:00 0:02 0:13 0:23 0:30 0:40 0:44 0:53 1:02 1:12 1:21 1:30 1:35 1:46 1:54 1:59
We propose the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Routes operate every half hour, alternating between Routes 3 and 4. This will lead to half-hour headways throughout the majority of the route and hourly service along the Back Loop and along Riverside Drive. We propose the route operates Monday through Saturday, 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.; and Sunday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The route will require a total of four vehicles to provide half-hour headways during peak hours.
The following sample schedule represents one possible configuration for service between Juneau and the Mendenhall Valley.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 82 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-6 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Sample Configuration FRANKLIN 4TH MAIN FEDERAL LEMON NUGGET VALLEY DEHARTS/A RIVERSIDE MENDENAHALL NUGGET LEMON FEDERAL FRANKLIN ROUTE STREET STREET STREET BUILDING HOSPITAL CREEK SWITZER MALL BLVD. UKE BAY DR MALL MALL SWITZER CREEK HOSPITAL BUILDING STREET 3 6:23 AM 6:27 AM 6:32 AM 6:37 AM 6:43 AM 6:52 AM 7:00 AM 7:05 AM 4 6:49 AM 6:58 AM 7:03 AM 7:08 AM 7:19 AM 7:27 AM 7:32 AM 3 6:10 AM 6:12 AM 6:23 AM 6:33 AM 6:40 AM 6:50 AM 6:59 AM 7:08 AM 7:16 AM 7:20 AM 7:29 AM 7:34 AM 7:40 AM 7:49 AM 7:57 AM 8:02 AM 4 6:33 AM 6:35 AM 6:46 AM 6:56 AM 7:03 AM 7:13 AM 7:17 AM 7:26 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:54 AM 8:03 AM 8:08 AM 8:19 AM 8:27 AM 8:32 AM 3 7:05 AM 7:07 AM 7:18 AM 7:28 AM 7:35 AM 7:45 AM 7:54 AM 8:03 AM 8:11 AM 8:15 AM 8:24 AM 8:29 AM 8:35 AM 8:44 AM 8:52 AM 8:57 AM 4 7:36 AM 7:38 AM 7:49 AM 7:59 AM 8:06 AM 8:16 AM 8:20 AM 8:28 AM 8:36 AM 8:46 AM 8:55 AM 9:00 AM 9:06 AM 9:17 AM 9:22 AM 9:24 AM 3 8:06 AM 8:08 AM 8:19 AM 8:29 AM 8:36 AM 8:46 AM 8:57 AM 9:05 AM 9:13 AM 9:17 AM 9:26 AM 9:31 AM 9:37 AM 9:46 AM 9:53 AM 9:58 AM 4 8:36 AM 8:38 AM 8:49 AM 8:59 AM 9:06 AM 9:16 AM 9:20 AM 9:28 AM 9:36 AM 9:46 AM 9:55 AM 10:00 AM 10:06 AM 10:17 AM 10:22 AM 10:24 AM 3 9:06 AM 9:08 AM 9:19 AM 9:29 AM 9:36 AM 9:46 AM 9:57 AM 10:05 AM 10:13 AM 10:17 AM 10:26 AM 10:31 AM 10:37 AM 10:46 AM 10:53 AM 10:58 AM 4 9:36 AM 9:38 AM 9:49 AM 9:59 AM 10:06 AM 10:16 AM 10:20 AM 10:28 AM 10:36 AM 10:46 AM 10:55 AM 11:00 AM 11:06 AM 11:17 AM 11:22 AM 11:24 AM 3 10:06 AM 10:08 AM 10:19 AM 10:29 AM 10:36 AM 10:46 AM 10:57 AM 11:05 AM 11:13 AM 11:17 AM 11:26 AM 11:31 AM 11:37 AM 11:46 AM 11:53 AM 11:58 A M 4 10:36 AM 10:38 AM 10:49 AM 10:59 AM 11:06 AM 11:16 AM 11:20 AM 11:28 AM 11:36 AM 11:46 AM 11:55 AM 12:00 PM 12:06 PM 12:17 PM 12:22 PM 12:24 P M 3 11:06 AM 11:08 AM 11:19 AM 11:29 AM 11:36 AM 11:46 AM 11:57 AM 12:05 PM 12:13 PM 12:17 PM 12:26 PM 12:31 PM 12:37 PM 12:46 PM 12:53 PM 12:58 P M 4 11:36 AM 11:38 AM 11:49 AM 11:59 AM 12:06 PM 12:16 PM 12:20 PM 12:28 PM 12:36 PM 12:46 PM 12:55 PM 1:00 PM 1:06 PM 1:17 PM 1:22 PM 1:24 PM 3 12:06 PM 12:08 PM 12:19 PM 12:29 PM 12:36 PM 12:46 PM 12:57 PM 1:05 PM 1:13 PM 1:17 PM 1:26 PM 1:31 PM 1:37 PM 1:46 PM 1:53 PM 1:58 PM 4 12:36 PM 12:38 PM 12:49 PM 12:59 PM 1:06 PM 1:16 PM 1:20 PM 1:28 PM 1:36 PM 1:46 PM 1:55 PM 2:00 PM 2:06 PM 2:17 PM 2:22 PM 2:24 PM 3 12:58 PM 1:00 PM 1:11 PM 1:21 PM 1:28 PM 1:38 PM 1:47 PM 1:56 PM 2:04 PM 2:08 PM 2:17 PM 2:22 PM 2:28 PM 2:37 PM 2:45 PM 2:50 PM 4 1:36 PM 1:38 PM 1:49 PM 1:59 PM 2:06 PM 2:16 PM 2:20 PM 2:28 PM 2:36 PM 2:46 PM 2:55 PM 3:00 PM 3:06 PM 3:17 PM 3:22 PM 3:24 PM 3 1:58 PM 2:00 PM 2:11 PM 2:21 PM 2:28 PM 2:38 PM 2:47 PM 2:56 PM 3:04 PM 3:08 PM 3:17 PM 3:22 PM 3:28 PM 3:37 PM 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 4 2:36 PM 2:38 PM 2:49 PM 2:59 PM 3:06 PM 3:16 PM 3:20 PM 3:28 PM 3:36 PM 3:46 PM 3:55 PM 4:00 PM 4:06 PM 4:17 PM 4:22 PM 4:24 PM 3 2:50 PM 2:52 PM 3:03 PM 3:13 PM 3:20 PM 3:30 PM 3:39 PM 3:48 PM 3:56 PM 4:00 PM 4:09 PM 4:14 PM 4:20 PM 4:29 PM 4:37 PM 4:42 PM 4 3:36 PM 3:38 PM 3:49 PM 3:59 PM 4:06 PM 4:16 PM 4:20 PM 4:28 PM 4:36 PM 4:46 PM 4:55 PM 5:00 PM 5:06 PM 5:17 PM 5:22 PM 5:24 PM 3 3:50 PM 3:52 PM 4:03 PM 4:13 PM 4:20 PM 4:30 PM 4:39 PM 4:48 PM 4:56 PM 5:00 PM 5:09 PM 5:14 PM 5:20 PM 5:29 PM 5:37 PM 5:42 PM 4 4:36 PM 4:38 PM 4:49 PM 4:59 PM 5:06 PM 5:16 PM 5:20 PM 5:28 PM 5:36 PM 5:46 PM 5:55 PM 6:00 PM 6:06 PM 6:17 PM 6:22 PM 6:24 PM 3 4:42 PM 4:44 PM 4:55 PM 5:05 PM 5:12 PM 5:22 PM 5:31 PM 5:40 PM 5:48 PM 5:52 PM 6:01 PM 6:06 PM 6:12 PM 6:21 PM 6:29 PM 6:34 PM 4 5:36 PM 5:38 PM 5:49 PM 5:59 PM 6:06 PM 6:16 PM 6:20 PM 6:28 PM 6:36 PM 6:46 PM 6:55 PM 7:00 PM 7:06 PM 7:17 PM 7:22 PM 7:24 PM 3 5:42 PM 5:44 PM 5:55 PM 6:05 PM 6:12 PM 6:22 PM 6:31 PM 6:40 PM 6:48 PM 6:52 PM 7:01 PM 7:06 PM 7:12 PM 7:21 PM 7:29 PM 7:34 PM 4 6:36 PM 6:38 PM 6:49 PM 6:59 PM 7:06 PM 7:16 PM 7:20 PM 7:28 PM 7:36 PM 7:46 PM 7:55 PM 8:00 PM 8:06 PM 8:17 PM 8:22 PM 8:24 PM 3 7:06 PM 7:08 PM 7:19 PM 7:29 PM 7:36 PM 7:46 PM 7:55 PM 8:04 PM 8:12 PM 8:16 PM 8:25 PM 8:30 PM 8:36 PM 8:45 PM 8:53 PM 8:58 PM 4 8:06 PM 8:08 PM 8:19 PM 8:29 PM 8:36 PM 8:46 PM 8:50 PM 8:59 PM 9:08 PM 9:18 PM 9:27 PM 9:36 PM 9:41 PM 9:52 PM 10:00 PM 10:07 PM 3 9:06 PM 9:08 PM 9:19 PM 9:29 PM 9:36 PM 9:46 PM 9:55 PM 10:04 PM 10:12 PM 10:16 PM 10:25 PM 10:30 PM 10:36 PM 10:45 PM 10:53 PM 10:58 PM 4 10:06 PM 10:08 PM 10:19 PM 10:29 PM 10:36 PM 10:46 PM 10:50 PM 10:59 PM 11:08 PM 11:18 PM 11:27 PM 11:36 PM 11:41 PM 11:52 PM 12:00 AM 12:05 A M 3 11:06 PM 11:08 PM 11:19 PM 11:29 PM 11:36 PM 11:46 PM 11:55 PM 12:04 AM 12:12 AM 12:16 AM 12:25 AM 12:30 AM 12:36 AM 12:45 AM 12:53 AM 12:58 A M
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 83 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following schedule reflects proposed run times for the NOAA Shuttle from DeHart’s to Lena Cove and back. The schedule indicates how much time from the beginning of the run (DeHart’s/Auke Bay) it takes to reach each subsequent time-point for The NOAA Shuttle. The shuttle takes 46 minutes to complete a circuit.
Exhibit 4-7 NOAA Shuttle Schedule DEHARTS/ AMHS AMHS DEHARTS/A AUKE BAY TERMINAL NOAA TERMINAL UKE BAY 0:00 0:08 0:23 0:38 0:46
We propose the NOAA shuttle operate on an hourly basis Monday through Saturday, 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and Sunday, 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The route will require one vehicle to provide one-hour headways during peak hours.
The following sample schedule represents one possible configuration for the NOAA shuttle.
Exhibit 4-8 NOAA Shuttle Sample Configuration DEHARTS/A AMHS AMHS DEHARTS/A UKE BAY TERMINAL NOAA TERMINAL UKE BAY 6:49 AM 6:57 AM 7:12 AM 7:27 AM 7:35 AM 7:16 AM 7:24 AM 7:39 AM 7:54 AM 8:02 AM 8:46 AM 8:54 AM 9:09 AM 9:24 AM 9:32 AM 9:46 AM 9:54 AM 10:09 AM 10:24 AM 10:32 AM 10:46 AM 10:54 AM 11:09 AM 11:24 AM 11:32 AM 11:46 AM 11:54 AM 12:09 PM 12:24 PM 12:32 PM 12:46 PM 12:54 PM 1:09 PM 1:24 PM 1:32 PM 1:46 PM 1:54 PM 2:09 PM 2:24 PM 2:32 PM 2:46 PM 2:54 PM 3:09 PM 3:24 PM 3:32 PM 3:46 PM 3:54 PM 4:09 PM 4:24 PM 4:32 PM 4:46 PM 4:54 PM 5:09 PM 5:24 PM 5:32 PM 5:46 PM 5:54 PM 6:09 PM 6:24 PM 6:32 PM 6:46 PM 6:54 PM 7:09 PM 7:24 PM 7:32 PM
The following table illustrates the proposed service hours and annual cost associated with each route in the Intermediate Scenario.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 84 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-9 Intermediate Scenario Service Impacts Proposed Service Hours Cost by Intermediate Scenario Cost/VSH Weekly Annually Route Juneau-Mendenhall Valley 386 19,697 $2,176,320 Juneau Douglas 134 6,831 $754,748 Express 48 2,432$110.49 $268,709 Commuter 52 2,637 $291,359 NOAA Shuttle 60 3,048 $336,743 Total 679 34,645 $3,827,879
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 85 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Optimum Scenario In this scenario, we recommend the CBJ make significant changes to the Capital Transit route structure. Based on input from meetings with the Juneau community as well as CBJ staff, we have identified a need to revise the system to one trunk line combined with time-transfers with several local circulators. The circulators would replace all current Juneau routes with the exception of the Douglas and North Douglas routes. We are also proposing service be extended to Lena Cove and the AMHS Terminal.
Recommendations • Extend express trunk line to Lena Cove on an hourly basis. • Introduce downtown area circulator between the downtown library and Bartlett Regional Hospital. • Introduce Lemon Creek circulator between Bartlett Regional Hospital and Fred Meyer. • Introduce Mendenhall Valley circulator including hourly service along Riverside Drive.
Advantages • More frequent service throughout much of the core service area. • Reduced travel time between Auke Bay and downtown Juneau. • Enhanced utilization of existing resources. • Improved on-time performance. • Service to AMHS Terminal. • Service to Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute. • Hourly service along Riverside Drive. • Reduced single-occupant vehicle traffic along Riverside Drive. • Reduced travel time for most trips.
Disadvantages • Potential resistance to change by current transit riders. • Hourly service along “back loop” between Riverside Drive and Auke Bay. • Increased annual operating cost. • Need for additional vehicles.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 86 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Probable increase in transfer rate (i.e., circulators to trunk line) in order to complete trip.
Exhibit 4-10 Optimum Scenario
We recommend the CBJ consider creating a single, limited-stop trunk line providing service every half-hour between downtown Juneau and Auke Bay, and hourly service between Auke Bay and the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute at Lena Cove. While the existing Capital Transit network includes two routes providing service between Auke Bay and downtown Juneau (one express, one local), this service recommendation
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 87 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
streamlines the respective alignments resulting in 30-minute service seven days a week. The trunk line would make stops at the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute, AMHS Terminal, DeHart’s, Mendenhall Mall (transfer point with the proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator), Wal-Mart (transfer point with the proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator and the Lemon Creek Circulator), Bartlett Regional Hospital (transfer point with the proposed Lemon Creek Circulator and the proposed Downtown Circulator), Federal Building (transfer point with proposed Downtown Circulator and the proposed Douglas Circulator), and Main Street Transit Center. We also recommend park and ride facilities be developed at key locations along the Trunk Line.
Exhibit 4-11 Proposed Trunk Line
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 88 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following schedule indicates how much time from the beginning of the run (Main Street) it takes to reach each subsequent time-point. Lena Cove-bound runs take 1 hour and 57 minutes to complete a circuit while DeHart’s-bound runs take 1 hour and 42 minutes to complete a circuit.
Exhibit 4-12 Proposed Trunk Line Schedule
MAIN FEDERAL MENDENHALL AMHS DEHART'S DEHART'S MENDENHALL FEDERAL MAIN HOSPITAL WAL-MART NOAA WAL-MART HOSPITAL STREET BUILDING MALL TERMINAL (arrive) (depart) MALL BUILDING STREET To Lena Cove 0:00 0:04 0:11 0:21 0:32 0:47 0:57 1:17 1:17 1:25 1:36 1:46 1:53 1:57 To DeHart's 0:00 0:04 0:11 0:21 0:32 0:40 1:02 1:10 1:21 1:31 1:38 1:42
We propose the Trunk Line operates every half hour, alternating between Service to Lena Cove and service to DeHart’s. This will lead to half-hour headways throughout the majority of the route and hourly service between DeHart’s and Lena Cove. We propose the route operates Monday through Saturday, 6:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday, 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The route will require a total of four vehicles to provide half-hour headways during peak hours.
The following sample schedule presents one possible configuration for the Trunk Line service. Timed transfers with community circulators (i.e., Lemon Creek, Downtown, Mendenhall Valley) favor inbound travel in the morning and outbound travel in the evening.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 89 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-13 Proposed Trunk Line Sample Configuration
MAIN FEDERAL MENDENHALL AMHS MENDENHALL FEDERAL MAIN HOSPITAL WAL-MART NOAA DEHART'S WAL-MART HOSPITAL STREET BUILDING MALL TERMINAL MALL BUILDING STREET 6:20 AM 6:28 AM T 6:39 AM T 6:49 AM 6:56 AM T 7:00 AM 6:20 AM 6:30 AM 6:50 AM 6:58 AM T 7:09 AM T 7:19 AM T 7:26 AM T 7:30 AM 7:10 AM 7:18 AM T 7:29 AM T 7:39 AM T 7:46 AM T 7:50 AM 6:33 AM 6:37 AM 6:44 AM 6:54 AM 7:05 AM 7:20 AM 7:30 AM 7:50 AM 7:58 AM T 8:09 AM T 8:19 AM T 8:26 AM T 8:30 AM 7:00 AM 7:04 AM 7:11 AM 7:21 AM 7:32 AM 7:47 AM 7:57 AM 8:17 AM 8:25 AM T 8:36 AM T 8:46 AM T 8:53 AM T 8:57 AM 7:30 AM 7:34 AM 7:41 AM 7:51 AM 8:02 AM 8:32 AM 8:40 AM T 8:51 AM T 9:01 AM T 9:08 AM T 9:12 AM 8:00 AM 8:04 AM 8:11 AM 8:21 AM 8:32 AM 8:47 AM 8:57 AM 9:17 AM 9:25 AM T 9:36 AM T 9:46 AM T 9:53 AM T 9:57 AM 8:30 AM 8:34 AM 8:41 AM 8:51 AM 9:02 AM 9:32 AM 9:40 AM T 9:51 AM T 10:01 AM T 10:08 AM T 10:12 AM 9:00 AM 9:04 AM 9:11 AM 9:21 AM 9:32 AM 9:47 AM 9:57 AM 10:17 AM 10:25 AM T 10:36 AM T 10:46 AM T 10:53 AM T 10:57 AM 9:30 AM 9:34 AM 9:41 AM 9:51 AM 10:02 AM 10:32 AM 10:40 AM T 10:51 AM T 11:01 AM T 11:08 AM T 11:12 AM 10:00 AM 10:04 AM 10:11 AM 10:21 AM 10:32 AM 10:47 AM 10:57 AM 11:17 AM 11:25 AM T 11:36 AM T 11:46 AM T 11:53 AM T 11:57 AM 10:30 AM 10:34 AM 10:41 AM 10:51 AM 11:02 AM 11:32 AM 11:40 AM T 11:51 AM T 12:01 PM T 12:08 PM T 12:12 PM 11:00 AM 11:04 AM 11:11 AM 11:21 AM 11:32 AM 11:47 AM 11:57 AM 12:17 PM 12:25 PM T 12:36 PM T 12:46 PM T 12:53 PM T 12:57 PM 11:30 AM 11:34 AM 11:41 AM 11:51 AM 12:02 PM 12:32 PM 12:40 PM T 12:51 PM T 1:01 PM T 1:08 PM T 1:12 PM 12:00 PM 12:04 PM 12:11 PM 12:21 PM 12:32 PM 12:47 PM 12:57 PM 1:17 PM 1:25 PM T 1:36 PM T 1:46 PM T 1:53 PM T 1:57 PM 12:30 PM 12:34 PM 12:41 PM 12:51 PM 1:02 PM 1:32 PM 1:40 PM T 1:51 PM T 2:01 PM T 2:08 PM T 2:12 PM 1:00 PM 1:04 PM 1:11 PM 1:21 PM 1:32 PM 1:47 PM 1:57 PM 2:17 PM 2:25 PM T 2:36 PM T 2:46 PM T 2:53 PM 2:57 PM 1:30 PM 1:34 PM 1:41 PM 1:51 PM 2:02 PM 2:32 PM 2:40 PM T 2:51 PM T 3:01 PM 3:08 PM 3:12 PM 2:00 PM 2:04 PM 2:11 PM T 2:21 PM 2:32 PM 2:47 PM 2:57 PM 3:17 PM 3:25 PM 3:36 PM 3:46 PM T 3:53 PM 3:57 PM 2:30 PM 2:34 PM 2:41 PM T 2:51 PM 3:02 PM T 3:32 PM 3:40 PM 3:51 PM 4:01 PM 4:08 PM 4:12 PM 3:00 PM 3:04 PM 3:11 PM T 3:21 PM T 3:32 PM T 3:47 PM 3:57 PM 4:17 PM 4:25 PM 4:36 PM 4:46 PM T 4:53 PM 4:57 PM 3:30 PM 3:34 PM 3:41 PM T 3:51 PM T 4:02 PM T 4:32 PM 4:40 PM 4:51 PM 5:01 PM 5:08 PM 5:12 PM 4:00 PM 4:04 PM 4:11 PM T 4:21 PM T 4:32 PM T 4:47 PM 4:57 PM 5:17 PM 5:25 PM 5:36 PM 5:46 PM T 5:53 PM 5:57 PM 4:30 PM 4:34 PM 4:41 PM T 4:51 PM T 5:02 PM T 5:32 PM 5:40 PM 5:51 PM 6:01 PM 6:08 PM 6:12 PM 5:00 PM 5:04 PM 5:11 PM T 5:21 PM T 5:32 PM T 5:47 PM 5:57 PM 6:17 PM 6:25 PM 6:36 PM 6:46 PM T 6:53 PM 6:57 PM 5:30 PM 5:34 PM 5:41 PM T 5:51 PM T 6:02 PM T 6:32 PM 6:40 PM 6:51 PM 7:01 PM 7:08 PM 7:12 PM 6:00 PM 6:04 PM 6:11 PM T 6:21 PM T 6:32 PM T 6:47 PM 6:57 PM 7:17 PM 7:25 PM 7:36 PM 7:46 PM T 7:53 PM 7:57 PM 6:30 PM 6:34 PM 6:41 PM T 6:51 PM T 7:02 PM T 7:32 PM 7:40 PM 7:51 PM 8:01 PM 8:08 PM 8:12 PM 7:00 PM 7:04 PM 7:11 PM T 7:21 PM T 7:32 PM T 7:47 PM 7:57 PM 8:17 PM 8:25 PM 8:36 PM 8:46 PM T 8:53 PM 8:57 PM 7:30 PM 7:34 PM 7:41 PM T 7:51 PM T 8:02 PM T 8:10 PM 8:18 PM 8:29 PM 8:39 PM 8:46 PM 8:50 PM 8:00 PM 8:04 PM 8:11 PM T 8:21 PM T 8:32 PM T 8:40 PM 8:48 PM 8:59 PM 9:09 PM T 9:16 PM 9:20 PM 8:30 PM 8:34 PM 8:41 PM T 8:51 PM T 9:02 PM T 9:10 PM 9:18 PM 9:29 PM 9:39 PM T 9:46 PM 9:50 PM 9:00 PM 9:04 PM 9:11 PM T 9:21 PM T 9:32 PM T 9:40 PM 9:48 PM 9:59 PM 10:09 PM T 10:16 PM 10:20 PM 9:30 PM 9:34 PM 9:41 PM T 9:51 PM T 10:02 PM T 10:10 PM 10:18 PM 10:29 PM 10:39 PM T 10:46 PM 10:50 PM 10:00 PM 10:04 PM 10:11 PM T 10:21 PM T 10:32 PM T 10:40 PM 10:48 PM 10:59 PM 11:09 PM T 11:16 PM 11:20 PM 10:30 PM 10:34 PM 10:41 PM T 10:51 PM T 11:02 PM T 11:10 PM 11:18 PM 11:29 PM 11:39 PM T 11:46 PM 11:50 PM 11:00 PM 11:04 PM 11:11 PM T 11:21 PM T 11:32 PM T 11:40 PM 11:48 PM 11:59 PM 12:09 AM T 12:16 AM 12:20 AM 11:30 PM 11:34 PM 11:41 PM T 11:51 PM T 12:02 AM T 12:10 AM 12:18 AM 12:29 AM 12:39 AM T 12:46 AM 12:50 AM
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 90 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The proposed Downtown Circulator makes short, frequent trips between downtown Juneau and Bartlett Regional Hospital, allowing for transfer to the proposed Trunk Line, Lemon Creek Circulator, North Douglas Route, and Douglas Circulator. This alignment does not reflect separate efforts to introduce a dedicated circulator within downtown Juneau.
Exhibit 4-14 Proposed Downtown Circulator
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 91 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following schedule indicates how much time from the beginning of the run (Federal Building) it takes to reach each subsequent time-point. The Downtown Circulator takes 41 minutes to complete a circuit.
Exhibit 4-15 Proposed Downtown Circulator Schedule FEDERAL MAIN HIGH FEDERAL BUILDING STREET HOSPITAL SCHOOL BUILDING 0:00 0:08 0:25 0:38 0:41
We propose the Downtown Circulator operates every half hour, Monday through Saturday, 6:15 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.; and Sunday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The route will require a total of two vehicles to provide half-hour headways during peak hours.
The following sample schedule presents one possible configuration for the proposed Downtown Circulator service.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 92 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-16 Proposed Downtown Circulator Sample Configuration FEDERAL MAIN HIGH FEDERAL BUILDING STREET HOSPITAL SCHOOL BUILDING 6:15 AM 6:23 AM 6:40 AM 6:53 AM 6:56 AM T 6:45 AM 6:53 AM 7:10 AM 7:23 AM 7:26 AM T 7:05 AM 7:13 AM 7:30 AM 7:43 AM 7:46 AM T 7:45 AM 7:53 AM 8:10 AM 8:23 AM 8:26 AM T 8:12 AM 8:20 AM 8:37 AM 8:50 AM 8:53 AM T 8:27 AM 8:35 AM 8:52 AM 9:05 AM 9:08 AM T 9:12 AM 9:20 AM 9:37 AM 9:50 AM 9:53 AM T 9:27 AM 9:35 AM 9:52 AM 10:05 AM 10:08 AM T 10:12 AM 10:20 AM 10:37 AM 10:50 AM 10:53 AM T 10:27 AM 10:35 AM 10:52 AM 11:05 AM 11:08 AM T 11:12 AM 11:20 AM 11:37 AM 11:50 AM 11:53 AM T 11:27 AM 11:35 AM 11:52 AM 12:05 PM 12:08 PM T 12:12 PM 12:20 PM 12:37 PM 12:50 PM 12:53 PM T 12:27 PM 12:35 PM 12:52 PM 1:05 PM 1:08 PM T 1:12 PM 1:20 PM 1:37 PM 1:50 PM 1:53 PM T 1:27 PM 1:35 PM 1:52 PM 2:05 PM 2:08 PM T 1:46 PM 1:54 PM 2:11 PM T 2:24 PM 2:27 PM 2:16 PM 2:24 PM 2:41 PM T 2:54 PM 2:57 PM 2:46 PM 2:54 PM 3:11 PM T 3:24 PM 3:27 PM 3:16 PM 3:24 PM 3:41 PM T 3:54 PM 3:57 PM 3:46 PM 3:54 PM 4:11 PM T 4:24 PM 4:27 PM 4:16 PM 4:24 PM 4:41 PM T 4:54 PM 4:57 PM 4:46 PM 4:54 PM 5:11 PM T 5:24 PM 5:27 PM 5:16 PM 5:24 PM 5:41 PM T 5:54 PM 5:57 PM 5:46 PM 5:54 PM 6:11 PM T 6:24 PM 6:27 PM 6:16 PM 6:24 PM 6:41 PM T 6:54 PM 6:57 PM 6:46 PM 6:54 PM 7:11 PM T 7:24 PM 7:27 PM 7:16 PM 7:24 PM 7:41 PM T 7:54 PM 7:57 PM 7:46 PM 7:54 PM 8:11 PM T 8:24 PM 8:27 PM 8:16 PM 8:24 PM 8:41 PM T 8:54 PM 8:57 PM 8:46 PM 8:54 PM 9:11 PM T 9:24 PM 9:27 PM 9:16 PM 9:24 PM 9:41 PM T 9:54 PM 9:57 PM 9:46 PM 9:54 PM 10:11 PM T 10:24 PM 10:27 PM 10:16 PM 10:24 PM 10:41 PM T 10:54 PM 10:57 PM 10:46 PM 10:54 PM 11:11 PM T 11:24 PM 11:27 PM 11:16 PM 11:24 PM 11:41 PM T 11:54 PM 11:57 PM
We do not propose any changes be made to Douglas service.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 93 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-17 Proposed Douglas Circulator
Whereas Lemon Creek is currently served by Routes 3 and 4, we recommend replacing those routes with a local circulator offering more frequent service between Bartlett Regional Hospital and Fred Meyer. This would make trips within the Lemon Creek area shorter and facilitate interline transfer with the proposed Trunk Line. Whereas the current Express Route makes no stop between the Federal Building and the Nugget Mall, the proposed route structure allows for Lemon Creek residents to transfer to the Trunk Line at either Wal-Mart or Bartlett Regional Hospital, whichever may be closer. Lemon Creek residents would also have the option of transferring directly to the Downtown Circulator
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 94 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
at the hospital or the Mendenhall Valley Circulator at Wal-Mart. We propose introducing service to the commercial/industrial area along Shaune Drive and Commercial Boulevard (an area which includes Costco and Home Depot, service to which was frequently requested during our community meetings). Given the Lemon Creek Circulator does not travel along Yandukin Drive, we recommend the Fred Meyer stop be relocated to the western portion of the parking lot where congestion is modest.
Exhibit 4-18 Proposed Lemon Creek Circulator
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 95 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following schedule indicates how much time from the beginning of the run (Fred Meyer) it takes to reach each subsequent time-point. The Lemon Creek Circulator takes 50 minutes to complete a circuit.
Exhibit 4-19 Proposed Lemon Creek Circulator Schedule FRED FRED MEYER WAL-MART COSTCO HOSPITAL COSTCO WAL-MART MEYER 0:00 0:07 0:17 0:22 0:30 0:42 0:50
We propose the Lemon Creek Circulator operates every half hour, Monday through Saturday, 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m.; and Sunday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The route will require a total of two vehicles to provide half-hour headways during peak hours.
The following sample schedule presents one possible configuration for the proposed Lemon Creek Circulator service.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 96 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-20 Proposed Lemon Creek Circulator Sample Configuration FRED WAL- FRED MEYERWAL-MART COSTCOHOSPITAL COSTCO MART MEYER 6:30 AM 6:37 AM T 6:47 AM 6:52 AM T 7:00 AM 7:12 AM 7:20 AM 6:53 AM 7:00 AM 7:10 AM 7:15 AM T 7:23 AM 7:35 AM 7:43 AM 7:20 AM 7:27 AM T 7:37 AM 7:42 AM T 7:50 AM 8:02 AM 8:10 AM 7:55 AM 8:02 AM T 8:12 AM 8:17 AM T 8:25 AM 8:37 AM 8:42 AM 8:27 AM 8:34 AM T 8:44 AM 8:49 AM T 8:57 AM 9:09 AM 9:17 AM 8:42 AM 8:49 AM T 8:59 AM 9:04 AM T 9:12 AM 9:24 AM 9:32 AM 9:27 AM 9:34 AM T 9:44 AM 9:49 AM T 9:57 AM 10:09 AM 10:17 AM 9:42 AM 9:49 AM T 9:59 AM 10:04 AM T 10:12 AM 10:24 AM 10:32 AM 10:27 AM 10:34 AM T 10:44 AM 10:49 AM T 10:57 AM 11:09 AM 11:17 AM 10:42 AM 10:49 AM T 10:59 AM 11:04 AM T 11:12 AM 11:24 AM 11:32 AM 11:27 AM 11:34 AM T 11:44 AM 11:49 AM T 11:57 AM 12:09 PM 12:17 PM 11:42 AM 11:49 AM T 11:59 AM 12:04 PM T 12:12 PM 12:24 PM 12:32 PM 12:27 PM 12:34 PM T 12:44 PM 12:49 PM T 12:57 PM 1:09 PM 1:17 PM 12:42 PM 12:49 PM T 12:59 PM 1:04 PM T 1:12 PM 1:24 PM 1:32 PM 1:27 PM 1:34 PM T 1:44 PM 1:49 PM T 1:57 PM 2:09 PM 2:17 PM 1:42 PM 1:49 PM T 1:59 PM 2:04 PM T 2:12 PM 2:24 PM 2:32 PM 1:51 PM 1:58 PM T 2:08 PM 2:13 PM T 2:21 PM 2:33 PM 2:41 PM 2:21 PM 2:28 PM T 2:38 PM 2:43 PM T 2:51 PM 3:03 PM 3:11 PM 2:51 PM 2:58 PM T 3:08 PM 3:13 PM T 3:21 PM 3:33 PM 3:41 PM 3:21 PM 3:28 PM T 3:38 PM 3:43 PM T 3:51 PM 4:03 PM 4:11 PM 3:51 PM 3:58 PM T 4:08 PM 4:13 PM T 4:21 PM 4:33 PM 4:41 PM 4:21 PM 4:28 PM T 4:38 PM 4:43 PM T 4:51 PM 5:03 PM 5:11 PM 4:51 PM 4:58 PM T 5:08 PM 5:13 PM T 5:21 PM 5:33 PM 5:41 PM 5:21 PM 5:28 PM T 5:38 PM 5:43 PM T 5:51 PM 6:03 PM 6:11 PM 5:51 PM 5:58 PM T 6:08 PM 6:13 PM T 6:21 PM 6:33 PM 6:41 PM 6:21 PM 6:28 PM T 6:38 PM 6:43 PM T 6:51 PM 7:03 PM 7:11 PM 6:51 PM 6:58 PM T 7:08 PM 7:13 PM T 7:21 PM 7:33 PM 7:41 PM 7:21 PM 7:28 PM T 7:38 PM 7:43 PM T 7:51 PM 8:03 PM 8:11 PM 7:51 PM 7:58 PM T 8:08 PM 8:13 PM T 8:21 PM 8:33 PM 8:41 PM 8:21 PM 8:28 PM T 8:38 PM 8:43 PM T 8:51 PM 9:03 PM 9:11 PM 8:51 PM 8:58 PM T 9:08 PM 9:13 PM T 9:21 PM 9:33 PM 9:41 PM 9:21 PM 9:28 PM T 9:38 PM 9:43 PM T 9:51 PM 10:03 PM 10:11 PM 9:51 PM 9:58 PM T 10:08 PM 10:13 PM T 10:21 PM 10:33 PM 10:41 PM 10:21 PM 10:28 PM T 10:38 PM 10:43 PM T 10:51 PM 11:03 PM 11:11 PM 10:51 PM 10:58 PM T 11:08 PM 11:13 PM T 11:21 PM 11:33 PM 11:41 PM 11:21 PM 11:28 PM T 11:38 PM 11:43 PM T 11:51 PM 12:03 AM 12:11 AM 11:51 PM 11:58 PM T 12:08 AM 12:13 AM T 12:21 AM 12:33 AM 12:41 AM
Whereas the Mendenhall Valley is currently served by Routes 3 and 4, we recommend replacing those routes with a local circulator offering more frequent service between Riverside Drive and Wal-Mart. This change would also provide service to the Juneau International Airport seven days a week, introduce service along Riverside Drive—a largely untapped area—and facilitate quick trips within the Valley. Access to the Trunk line would be possible via transfers at the Mendenhall Mall, DeHart’s, or Wal-Mart. Trips
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 97 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
to Lemon Creek would be possible by transferring to the proposed Lemon Creek Circulator at Wal-Mart. A reduction in service level to hourly is recommended along the “back loop” given the route segment has historically garnered only modest ridership.
Exhibit 4-21 Proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator
The following schedule indicates how much time from the beginning of the run (Wal- Mart) it takes to reach each subsequent time-point. Trips made via Riverside Drive take 41 minutes to complete a circuit while trips made via Back Loop Road take 47 minutes to complete.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 98 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-22 Proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator Schedule NUGGET VALLEY RIVERSIDE MENDENHALL WAL-MART MALL BLVD DR DEHART'S MALL AIRPORT WAL-MART Via Riverside Dr. 0:00 0:10 0:15 0:24 0:29 0:35 0:41 Via Back Loop 0:00 0:10 0:15 0:27 0:35 0:41 0:47 We propose the Mendenhall Valley Circulator operates every half hour, alternating between service to Riverside Drive and DeHart’s. This will lead to half-hour headways throughout the majority of the route and hourly service along Riverside Drive and Back Loop Road. We propose the route operates Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. to 12:15 a.m.; and Sunday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The route will require a total of two vehicles to provide half-hour headways during peak hours.
The following schedule presents one possible configuration for the proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator service.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 99 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-23 Proposed Mendenhall Valley Circulator Sample Configuration WAL- NUGGET VALLEY RIVERSIDE MENDENHALL MART MALL BLVD DR DEHART'S MALL AIRPORT WAL-MART 5:57 AM 6:07 AM 6:12 AM 6:21 AM 6:26 AM T 6:32 AM 6:38 AM T 6:41 AM 6:51 AM 6:56 AM 7:08 AM 7:16 AM T 7:22 AM 7:28 AM T 7:17 AM 7:27 AM 7:32 AM 7:41 AM 7:46 AM T 7:52 AM 8:01 AM T 7:54 AM 8:04 AM 8:09 AM 8:18 AM 8:23 AM T 8:29 AM 8:35 AM T 8:03 AM 8:13 AM 8:18 AM 8:30 AM 8:38 AM T 8:44 AM 8:50 AM T 8:54 AM 9:04 AM 9:09 AM 9:18 AM 9:23 AM T 9:29 AM 9:35 AM T 9:03 AM 9:13 AM 9:18 AM 9:30 AM 9:38 AM T 9:44 AM 9:50 AM T 9:54 AM 10:04 AM 10:09 AM 10:18 AM 10:23 AM T 10:29 AM 10:35 AM T 10:03 AM 10:13 AM 10:18 AM 10:30 AM 10:38 AM T 10:44 AM 10:50 AM T 10:54 AM 11:04 AM 11:09 AM 11:18 AM 11:23 AM T 11:29 AM 11:35 AM T 11:03 AM 11:13 AM 11:18 AM 11:30 AM 11:38 AM T 11:44 AM 11:50 AM T 11:54 AM 12:04 PM 12:09 PM 12:18 PM 12:23 PM T 12:29 PM 12:35 PM T 12:03 PM 12:13 PM 12:18 PM 12:30 PM 12:38 PM T 12:44 PM 12:50 PM T 12:54 PM 1:04 PM 1:09 PM 1:18 PM 1:23 PM T 1:29 PM 1:35 PM T 1:03 PM 1:13 PM 1:18 PM 1:30 PM 1:38 PM T 1:44 PM 1:50 PM T 1:54 PM 2:04 PM 2:09 PM 2:18 PM 2:23 PM T 2:29 PM 2:35 PM T 2:03 PM 2:13 PM 2:18 PM 2:30 PM 2:38 PM T 2:44 PM 2:50 PM T 2:35 PM 2:45 PM 2:50 PM 2:59 PM 3:04 PM T 3:10 PM 3:16 PM T 2:59 PM 3:09 PM 3:14 PM 3:26 PM 3:34 PM T 3:40 PM 3:46 PM T 3:35 PM 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 3:59 PM 4:04 PM T 4:10 PM 4:16 PM T 3:59 PM 4:09 PM 4:14 PM 4:26 PM 4:34 PM T 4:40 PM 4:46 PM T 4:35 PM 4:45 PM 4:50 PM 4:59 PM 5:04 PM T 5:10 PM 5:16 PM T 4:59 PM 5:09 PM 5:14 PM 5:26 PM 5:34 PM T 5:40 PM 5:46 PM T 5:35 PM 5:45 PM 5:50 PM 5:59 PM 6:04 PM T 6:10 PM 6:16 PM T 5:59 PM 6:09 PM 6:14 PM 6:26 PM 6:34 PM T 6:40 PM 6:46 PM T 6:35 PM 6:45 PM 6:50 PM 6:59 PM 7:04 PM T 7:10 PM 7:16 PM T 6:59 PM 7:09 PM 7:14 PM 7:26 PM 7:34 PM T 7:40 PM 7:46 PM T 7:35 PM 7:45 PM 7:50 PM 7:59 PM 8:04 PM T 8:10 PM 8:16 PM T 7:59 PM 8:09 PM 8:14 PM 8:26 PM 8:34 PM T 8:40 PM 8:46 PM T 8:35 PM 8:45 PM 8:50 PM 8:59 PM 9:04 PM T 9:10 PM 9:16 PM T 8:59 PM 9:09 PM 9:14 PM 9:26 PM 9:34 PM T 9:40 PM 9:46 PM T 9:35 PM 9:45 PM 9:50 PM 9:59 PM 10:04 PM T 10:10 PM 10:16 PM T 9:59 PM 10:09 PM 10:14 PM 10:26 PM 10:34 PM T 10:40 PM 10:46 PM T 10:35 PM 10:45 PM 10:50 PM 10:59 PM 11:04 PM T 11:10 PM 11:16 PM T 10:59 PM 11:09 PM 11:14 PM 11:26 PM 11:34 PM T 11:40 PM 11:46 PM T 11:35 PM 11:45 PM 11:50 PM 11:59 PM 12:04 AM T 12:10 AM 12:16 AM T
The following table illustrates the proposed service hours and annual cost associated with each route in the Optimum Scenario.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 100 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-24 Optimum Scenario Service Impacts Proposed Service Hours Cost by Optimum Scenario Cost/VSH Weekly Annually Route Juneau Douglas 134 6,831 $754,748 Commuter 52 2,637 $291,359 Downtown Circulator 163 8,294 $916,408 $110.49 Lemon Creek Circulator 203 10,353 $1,143,889 Mendenhall Valley Circulator 174 8,886 $981,773 Trunk Line 413 21,081 $2,329,196 Total 1,139 58,082 $6,417,373
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 101 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Summary of Proposed Scenarios The three service scenarios represent varying levels of capital and financial investment, service enhancement, and ultimately increased mobility for the Juneau community. The matrix below summarizes how the three scenarios relate to the 11 service requirements presented by Capital Transit staff.
Exhibit 4-25 Scenario Comparison Matrix Scenario Baseline Intermediate Optimum No routes longer than 60 minutes ● Hourly service to Lena Cove ●● Express service throughout service ● day No less than 60- minute service on ●●● "back loop" No less than 30- minute service on ●●● east loop Downtown circulator ● 30-minute service through Lemon ●●● Creek 30-minute service on Douglas ●●●
30-minute service to Auke Bay ●● No less than 60- minute service along Riverside ●● Drive 30-minute service earlier and later in ● the service day
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 102 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Miscellaneous Recommendations We believe the following service recommendations can be implemented regardless of which scenario is chosen by the Assembly. These recommendations reflect disparities between available transit supply and current and forecast demand identified through our various community involvement activities. Said recommendations are framed within following categories: • Scheduling, • Expanded service area, • Fare, and • Administration and policy.
Scheduling A critical component of any Capital Transit service/operation recommendation is revision of current operating schedules to more effectively meet growing demand for transit service. Such requests include extending the service day, enhancing weekend service, improving North Douglas service, expanding express service, and implementing limited holiday service. These recommendations apply only to the Baseline and Intermediate Scenarios, as the implementation of the Optimum Scenario would drastically change the schedules these recommendations were designed to address.
Earlier Morning Service Our community outreach efforts identified significant demand for increased service in the early morning. Therefore, we recommend the service day start at 6:00 a.m. to accommodate transit patrons with “early-start” schedules. Many survey respondents, stakeholders, and public meeting attendees identified challenges using Capital Transit to travel to work before 7:30 a.m. Starting service earlier in the day could significantly increase ridership and potentially reduce peak-hour roadway traffic levels. The following table summarizes the estimated number of service hours required to extend the service day.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 103 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-26 Earlier Morning Service Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Valley 15,929 1224 17,153 $1,759,995 $135,240 $1,895,235 798,302 61,322 859,624 Douglas 6,831 612 7,443 $754,757 $67,620 $822,377 248,729 22,277 271,006 Total 22,760 1,836 24,596 $2,514,752 $202,860 $2,717,612 1,047,031 83,599 1,130,630 Later Evening Service Similar to our recommendation to start the Capital Transit service day earlier on weekday mornings, we recommend the last bus depart Main Street at 12:35 a.m. to accommodate persons working late-night schedules. Given the last Valley bus currently leaves the Main Street Transit Center at 10:35 p.m., we feel additional ridership could be realized by extending the service day. This step would allow persons employed in the downtown area more flexibility in choosing transit as well as potentially reduce the incidence of intoxicated driving given the bus schedule would be more closely aligned with “last call”. The following table presents the estimated number of service hours.
Exhibit 4-27 Later Evening Service Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Valley 15,929 1224 17,153 $1,759,995 $135,240 $1,895,235 798,302 61,322 859,624 Douglas 6,831 612 7,443 $754,757 $67,620 $822,377 248,729 22,277 271,006 Total 22,760 1,836 24,596 $2,514,752 $202,860 $2,717,612 1,047,031 83,599 1,130,630
More Frequent Peak-Hour Service Capital Transit’s ridership has grown significantly since implementing 30-minute service. However, a common complaint heard throughout the various public meetings was that half-hour service begins at approximately 8:00 a.m., when a significant number of area residents are already at work. The current Capital Transit schedule affords little flexibility to those persons who must arrive at jobs in the downtown area before 8:00 a.m. The series of community meetings also identified appreciable demand for half-hour service after 6:30 p.m. The following table presents the estimated number of service hours required to achieve this service enhancement.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 104 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-28 Extended Half-Hour Service Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Valley 15,929 1836 17,765 $1,759,995 $202,860 $1,962,855 798,302 91,984 890,286 Douglas 6,831 918 7,749 $754,757 $101,430 $856,187 248,729 33,415 282,144 Total 22,760 2,754 25,514 $2,514,752 $304,289 $2,819,042 1,047,031 125,399 1,172,430
Introduce Limited Holiday Service A common complaint voiced throughout the various community workshops was the absence of transit service on major holidays. The lack of service on holidays severely impacts mobility for ride-dependent residents, potentially robbing them of an opportunity to reach work or participate in community events. Therefore we recommended the introduction of limited service on all holidays currently observed by Capital Transit on a six-month trial basis, employing a Sunday service level.
Exhibit 4-29 Holiday Service Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Valley 15,929 312 16,241 $1,759,995 $34,510 $1,794,505 798,302 15,648 813,950 Douglas 6,831 134 6,965 $754,757 $14,799 $769,556 248,729 4,875 253,604 Total 22,760 446 23,206 $2,514,752 $49,309 $2,564,061 1,047,031 20,523 1,067,554
Enhance North Douglas Service The current Capital Transit service in North Douglas offers limited travel options given it provides only three round trips each weekday. The route includes five time points, two of which are actually in the North Douglas area (Bonnie Doon and the terminus at Sundown Drive). The remainder of the stops are “flag stops,” wherein riders may, where it is deemed safe to board/alight, flag down the bus at any point along the Douglas Highway alignment. While this policy increases the flexibility of the service, ride checks indicated the route is patronized primarily by “regulars” flagging the bus at the same stops every day. The “flag stop” policy also presents an operational safety issue for Capital Transit, the customer, and other vehicles on the road as the bus must make unexpected stops on short notice in areas that may not be appropriate or safe given the presence of a blind curve, lack of sufficient turnout space, etc.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 105 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
We recognize this route functions chiefly as a “life-line” service which will likely never reach ridership levels experienced by other Capital Transit routes. However, we believe recent increases in fuel prices could increase the transit market on North Douglas presenting an opportunity for increased service. The linear nature of the community makes the provision of effective transit service viable, though the relatively higher incomes of Douglas households may imply residents are largely “choice” riders versus ride-dependent. We believe increased investment in this route could yield significant return as the current level of service supports little travel flexibility (i.e., one morning, one mid-day, and one evening trip). Therefore, we recommend introducing hourly weekday service on this route between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on a six-month trial basis. The introduction of more frequent service should be coupled with the installation of bus stop sign posts every half-mile along Douglas Highway, and the addition of several time points to the schedule (which should be printed separately from the other “Commuter” routes).
Exhibit 4-30 North Douglas Service Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed North Douglas 765 2,295 3,060 $84,525 $253,575 $338,099 7,803 23,409 31,212 Total 765 2,295 3,060 $84,525 $253,575 $338,099 7,803 23,409 31,212
Saturday Express Service Our service analysis revealed quantifiable demand for express service on Saturday. Therefore, we recommend running the Express Route on Saturday to support weekend travel between the Valley and the downtown area. This enhancement would also result in decreased trip time between downtown Juneau and the Mendenhall Valley. Currently, ride-dependent persons must use Capital Transit’s slower local service to travel between downtown and the Valley. Express service would support downtown Juneau’s effectiveness as a destination on weekends, as well as improve home-to-work travel for persons working on Saturday.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 106 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-31 Saturday Express Service Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Express 2,432 484.5 2,917 $268,709 $53,532 $322,240 798,302 19,527 817,829 Total 2,432 485 2,917 $268,709 $53,532 $322,240 798,302 19,527 817,829
Increase Express Service Frequency Given current ridership levels and limitations associated with peak-hour capacity, we recommend implementing half-hour headways on the Express Route. This can be achieved through the addition of one vehicle. Doing so would result in increased flexibility as transit riders would be able to choose from twice as many trip times as the current service. We believe this service change would not only result in additional ridership, but also reduce overcrowding, translating to greater customer satisfaction.
Exhibit 4-32 Increased Express Service Frequency Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Express 2,432 485 2,917 $268,709 $53,532 $322,240 798,302 19,527 817,829 Total 2,432 485 2,917 $268,709 $53,532 $322,240 798,302 19,527 817,829
Extend Express Service Day Through our public involvement efforts, we identified a desire among current riders for earlier morning and later evening express service on weekdays. This would result in increased mobility options for those who must arrive downtown prior to 7:30 a.m. and leave after 5:30 p.m. The current schedule does not address the need for these riders and beginning the service day an hour earlier and ending it an hour later. Therefore, we recommend Capital Transit approach this recommendation on a six-month trial basis.
Exhibit 4-33 Extend Express Service Day Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Express 2,432 510 2,942 $268,709 $56,349 $325,058 798,302 20,555 818,857 Total 2,432 510 2,942 $268,709 $56,349 $325,058 798,302 20,555 818,857
The following table summarizes all service recommendations included within this section.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 107 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 4-34 Summary of Scheduling Recommendations
Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Local Service Extend Local Early Morning Hours 1,836 29,665 $202,860 $3,277,650 83,599 1,317,754 Extend Local Late Evening Hours 1,836 29,665 $202,860 $3,277,650 83,599 1,317,754 Increase Local Peak-Hour Frequency 2,754 30,583 $304,289 $3,379,079 125,399 1,359,554 Introduce Limited Service on Holidays 446 28,275 $49,309 $3,124,099 20,523 1,254,678 Improve North Douglas Service 2,295 30,124 $253,575 $3,328,365 23,409 1,257,564 Subtotal 9,167 36,996 $1,012,892 $4,087,682 336,530 1,570,685 Express Service Introduce Saturday Express Service 485 28,314 $53,532 $3,128,322 19,527 1,253,682 Increase Express Frequency 2,432 30,261 $268,709 $3,343,499 98,017 1,332,172 Extend Express Service Day 510 28,339 $56,349 $3,131,139 20,555 1,254,710 Subtotal 3,427 31,256 $378,590 $3,453,380 138,098 1,372,253 Total 27,829 12,594 40,423 $3,074,790 $1,391,482 $4,466,272 1,234,155 474,628 1,708,783
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 108 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Expanded Service Area Service to Thane Residents of the Thane community have requested the introduction of limited public transit service along Thane Road. There is currently no transit service within Thane. Given road conditions and limited ridership forecasts, we recommend a 90-day trial service along Thane Road using cutaway-type vehicles. This service could reduce the number of vehicles along Thane Road while enhancing mobility for Thane residents. We recommend a service configuration similar to that in-use for North Douglas service – one morning trip, one midday trip, and one evening trip every weekday.
Exhibit 4-35 Thane Service Impact Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Thane 0 765 765 $0 $84,525 $84,525 0 7,803 7,803 Total 0 765 765 $0 $84,525 $84,525 0 7,803 7,803
Another option would be to modify the CAV program to include general public eligibility for Thane residents. This could be accomplished using one of two different approaches: 1) Have CAV vehicles make several regularly-scheduled daily trips to Thane for pick ups and drop offs, or 2) modify CAV eligibility requirements to allow all Thane residents to schedule demand-response trips.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 109 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fare We recommend Capital Transit aggressively market its non-cash fare options. Capital Transit should make transit passes available for purchase via its website as well as encourage more retailers to offer transit passes and tokens for sale. We also recommend Capital Transit consider allowing patrons to pro-rate monthly passes. Given the ease-of-use associated with monthly passes versus cash fare, allowing residents to purchase half-price monthly passes mid-month or weekly passes would promote increased pass usage, reduce dwell-time at stops, and reduce administrative burden associated with cash fare collection.
Many transit agencies are introducing smart cards as a method of fare payment. Smart cards allow patrons to store value on cards with a magnetic strip. Each time the rider boards a transit vehicle, the card is swiped through a card reader, which deducts the appropriate fare from the card. This would allow Capital Transit to realize the benefits of non-cash fare media (i.e., reduced dwell time, reduced administrative burden), while still realizing full fare from patrons (i.e., avoids cost savings associated with unlimited-ride passes). Introducing a smart card system would, however, require increased capital investment in the form of card readers and the cards themselves.
There is also interest among some Capital Transit patrons to introduce annual passes. The most effective method of implementing this system would be to offer interested patrons the opportunity to subscribe to a service whereby they are billed each month and receive an unlimited-ride monthly pass at the end of each month. It is likely a true annual pass would only benefit a small number of riders willing (or able) to purchase a pass at the beginning of the year given prorating annual passes would become burdensome from an administrative point of view.
There is significant interest among stakeholders, CBJ staff, and the Juneau community to explore the possibility of a “fare-free” system. Such systems are in place in communities nation-wide, including Logan, Utah; Coral Gables, Florida; and Clemson, South Carolina (the latter being the result of a partnership between Clemson University and the City). These systems have seen significant ridership gains as a result of the decision to offer fully-subsidized transit service to the general public. Given these systems do not collect fare, local government must contribute more funding to make up
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 110 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
for lost revenue. The increases in ridership could also increase demand for transit past the system’s ability to cope, leading to overcrowding and the need for additional vehicles. The benefit to the community, environment, and economy associated with introducing a fare-free policy is tremendous, given Capital Transit would be able to capture a much larger share of trips made throughout its service area. Offering transit free of charge is an excellent solution for jurisdictions looking to reduce the community’s demand for gasoline, impact on the environment, and congestion while improving mobility for ride-dependent residents as well as “choice riders.”
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 111 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Administration and Policy Staffing Through site visits and discussions with Capital Transit staff, we have identified a need for additional staffing at the administrative level. Present staffing levels appear insufficient to address immediate needs as well as system growth. Recent growth has brought with it increased demand for service planning, data collection and reporting, and customer service. We recommend the City and Borough of Juneau hire at least one planner/analyst to assist the Transit Manager with near-term projects as well as day-to-day administrative functions. We believe this investment would result in improved data collection, customer satisfaction, and program efficiency.
Data Collection and Reporting Capital Transit does not have a formal process for data collection and reporting. Capital Transit tracks its cost, revenue, and ridership, yet relies on estimates for vehicle revenue miles or vehicle revenue hours. Given the importance of effective service monitoring in assessing system performance, we recommend Capital Transit begin recording this information and including it within monthly reports alongside ridership and revenue. This would allow the Transit Manager to regularly evaluate service performance and make source adjustments as necessary.
Complaint Resolution One common criticism arising from the community meetings was the need for an improved complaint resolution system. Several attendees expressed concerns their complaints were not being properly addressed. Capital Transit does not have a formal complaint resolution system, leaving some complaints unresolved (at least in the minds of residents) and potentially impacting customer satisfaction. We believe all complaints should receive a response within 10 business days, as well as logged and compiled into monthly reports. We recommend the Transit Manager also consider convening periodic community meetings to solicit feedback and update the community on Capital Transit’s performance and service development.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 112 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Snow Day Alerts Given Capital Transit’s policy of adjusting its routes and schedule for safety purposes on days with heavy snowfall, we recommend a more effective notification/communication process be established to alert riders who may be inconvenienced by temporary changes to the service.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 113 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 114 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. PARATRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 115 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 5 – PARATRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS
In 1974, Southeast Senior Services began operating a door-to-door, reservation-based service open to seniors (age 60 and over) within the City and Borough of Juneau. Capital Transit subsequently worked with Southeast Senior Services in 1981 to develop a program providing service to all persons with disabilities within the CBJ. The result was the Care-A-Van program, which was introduced in March 1982. The program was expanded significantly during the 1990’s in response to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) legislation. Currently, the service primarily utilizes funding from its contract for services with Capital Transit, supplemented by funding from the Older Alaskans Commission on Nutrition, Transportation, and Support Services; Medicaid billings; and private donations.
Care-A-Van serves Douglas Island and the Juneau Urbanized Area, between Thane and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) terminal at Auke Bay. For travel north of the AMHS terminal, SESS contracts with the Haven Park Assisted Living Center.
The recommendations presented herein reflect an objective and comprehensive evaluation of Capital Transit’s complementary paratransit service: Care-A-Van. Our evaluation included a site visit, interviews with contractor staff, performance evaluation, customer survey, and peer review. While the service is exemplary for the most part, our analysis did reveal some areas for potential improvement.
Based upon a two-week review of Care-A-Van trip sheets, we noted excellent on-time performance for customer pick-ups throughout the service day. However, we discovered drop-off time often eroded as the service day progressed. Only 70 percent of scheduled drop-offs occurred on-time during the evening. We believe this can be attributed to the fact Care-A-Van utilizes a single vehicle in the evening, which impacts its ability to maintain on-time performance.
Reflective of Care-A-Van policy, only ADA-certified individuals are eligible for a subscription trip. A subscription trip is akin to a standing reservation, wherein a patron is not required to secure individual ride reservations each time he/she travels to a specified/recurring location.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 116 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
At the time of our evaluation, subscription trips comprised approximately two-thirds of all Care-A-Van trips. The majority involved travel to/from Bartlett Regional Hospital, Senior Center, Riefenstein Dialysis, and REACH.
ADA regulations allow a maximum of 50 percent of system capacity dedicated at any time of day to a subscription service. An exception to this is possible if excess non- subscription capacity exists during a given day-part. ADA also allows an agency to establish trip purpose restrictions and/or a waiting list specific to subscription trips.
Through interviews with Care-A-Van operations staff, we noted the training manual does not include all current operating procedures. The Rider’s Manual also contains some inaccuracies. Most notably, it indicates a suggested donation of two dollars when the actual policy is three.
Through our analysis we discovered Care-A-Van is realizing only 78 cents per passenger trip. Given the suggested donation is three dollars per trip, modifications should be made to the Care-A-Van donation procedure to increase farebox recovery. This change would also increase Care-A-Van’s competitive position vis-à-vis peer operators.
ADA Compliance Our evaluation of the Capital Transit program revealed a desire for transit service in a number of emerging neighborhoods throughout Juneau. Assuming the CBJ elects to expand the Capital Transit service area, the CAV service would need to be expanded to continue its complementary function.
We recommend contracting with a licensed physician to perform all ADA certifications. Given the cost of providing a CAV trip versus a comparable trip via Capital Transit, we recommend encouraging mode shift whenever practical.
Given the very modest trip denial rate, coupled with the virtually non-existent patron no- show factor, it does not appear the current popularity of subscription trips is negatively impacting the quality and/or operation of the CAV program. Therefore, we recommend
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 117 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
the CBJ seek an exemption from this policy. This could be accomplished through clear documentation of efforts toward compliance with the ADA standard. The CBJ should: 1) continue to monitor the incidence of trip denials on a monthly basis, 2) initiate dialogue with Bartlett Hospital, Senior Center, Riefenstein Dialysis, and REACH to determine if their respective program/service scheduling would allow for a shift in demand throughout the service day, 3) disseminate current CAV policy information to each CAV registrant, and 4) conduct a cost analysis regarding the purchase of a larger capacity vehicle for assignment to the most popular subscription service destination(s) and/or run(s).
Service Delivery Given evidence of declining on-time performance during the evening, we recommend SESS consider increasing staffing (part-time driver/dispatcher) to help provide additional coverage. Doing so would eliminate the need for the evening driver to also answer incoming customer calls, dispatch, and drive. This proposed part-time dispatcher could also drive when trip activity outpaces the ability of the evening driver to maintain a 90- percent on-time performance.
Fare Care-A-Van currently requests a three-dollar donation for each unlinked trip. SESS tracks every trip made by CAV customers and mails donation request letters on a monthly basis. These request letters include a summary of all trips made by the respective customer as well as a suggested donation to cover the costs of providing the service. Our service evaluation revealed, on average, Care-A-Van patrons are remitting less than one-third of the suggested donation. While we feel the current system has its benefits, and provides mobility at a fraction of the actual cost to persons often on limited incomes, the heavy subsidy comes at the expense of program/service improvement. Therefore, we recommend Care-A-Van consider either implementing a policy wherein customers pay the requested (full) donation at the time of service, or adopt a fare policy based on customer income/affordability index.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 118 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Employee Handbook Care-A-Van’s handbook was last updated in March 2003 and includes information specific to driver training, general responsibilities, dealing with passengers, and vehicle inspection and maintenance procedures. We recommend Care-A-Van staff review the handbook and update its content to reflect current policies, practices, and procedures.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 119 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 120 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
6. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 121 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 6 – TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Transit Improvement Plan presents a framework for the ongoing development of the capital infrastructure necessary for the effective provision of public transit service throughout the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ). This element includes an inventory of all vehicles, amenities, and facilities currently in use, as well as a strategy for the development of additional capital resources across the next five years to support transit service enhancements and ultimately increase customer satisfaction.
The Plan is divided into three elements: fleet, bus stops, and facilities. Each plays a critical role in the effective provision of public transit services within the CBJ. Within each element we outline existing conditions followed by discussion of next steps required to implement any recommended service changes as well as respond to community input arising throughout this process.
Revenue Fleet Fleet development is crucial to the continued success of the Capital Transit operation. The cleanliness and reliability of an operation’s vehicles plays a vital role in attracting choice riders. Whereas ride-dependent customers may exhibit a greater tolerance for an outdated fleet, choice riders expect newer vehicles with more amenities. While Capital Transit has done an exceptional job maintaining its current fleet (e.g., some vehicles have been in continuous service for 16 years), these older vehicles are less efficient and more costly to maintain than newer vehicles. All Capital Transit fixed-route coaches are 30 or 35-foot, diesel vehicles. Though operationally reliable, these coaches result in more pollution than comparable vehicles equipped with either Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or hybrid power sources.
Southeast Senior Services (SESS), the operator of the Care-A-Van program, currently operates several of its own vehicles in addition to those owned by the CBJ. SESS is unable to use the CBJ Public Works maintenance facilities for its vehicles. This precludes an opportunity for possible cost-savings as the Care-A-Van vehicles must be serviced at a private garage. Therefore, we recommend the CBJ consider lifting its current ban on servicing non-CBJ vehicles to include the Care-A-Van fleet, and conduct a cost analysis to determine if the forecast savings can actually be realized.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 122 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-1 Fleet List Vehicle # Year Vehicle Make Vehicle Model Fuel Type Serial # Plate # Dept 6006 1990 Ford Ranger Gasoline 1FTCR15T2LPA29751 XXR596 Admin 6041 2000 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD2SL14YU021448 XXW826 Capital Transit 6042 2000 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD2SL16YU021449 XXW827 Capital Transit 6043 2000 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD2SL12YU021450 XXW828 Capital Transit 6044 2000 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD2SL14YU021451 XXW829 Capital Transit 6206 2002 King Trailer 4XBUR8272A000201 XXZ632 Shop 6223 1992 Orion Orion I-30' Conventional Diesel 2B1119779N6003142 XXT109 Capital Transit 6224 1992 Orion Orion I-30' Conventional Diesel 2B1119770N6003143 XXT110 Capital Transit 6225 1992 Orion Orion I-30' Conventional Diesel 2B1139776N6003139 XXT111 Capital Transit 6226 1992 Orion Orion I-30' Conventional Diesel 2B1139772N6003140 XXT112 Capital Transit 6227 1992 Orion Orion I-30' Conventional Diesel 2B1139774N6003141 XXT113 Capital Transit 6238 2002 Startrans E350 Super Duty Gasoline 1FDWE35L92HA50234 XXZ491 CAV 6239 2002 Startrans E350 Super Duty Gasoline 1FDWE35L02HA50235 XXZ492 CAV 6339 2003 El Dorado AeroLite 200 Gasoline 1FDWE35S23HB37112 XYA173 CAV 6345 2003 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD2GL173U025645 XYA410 Capital Transit 6346 2003 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD2GL193U025646 XYA409 Capital Transit 6347 2003 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD2GL103U025647 XYA408 Capital Transit 6407 2004 Ford F350 Gasoline 1FDWF37S44EA69828 XYA672 Admin 6432 2004 El Dorado AeroLite 200 Gasoline 1FDWE35SO4HA78501 XXU647 CAV 6433 2004 El Dorado AeroLite 201 Gasoline 1FDWE35S24HA78502 XXU645 CAV 6434 2004 El Dorado AeroLite 202 Gasoline 1FDWE35S44HA78503 XXU646 CAV 6435 2004 El Dorado AeroLite 203 Gasoline 1FDWE35S64HA78504 XXU644 CAV 6648 2006 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD4KV176C029750 XYA680 Capital Transit 6649 2006 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD4KV196C029751 XYA681 Capital Transit 6650 2006 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD4KV106C029752 XYA682 Capital Transit 6651 2006 New Flyer D35LF Conventional Diesel 5FYD4KV126C029753 XYA683 Capital Transit 6708 2007 Ford Freestar SE Gasoline 2FMZA51647BA15495 Admin 6809 2008 Ford F350 Gasoline 1FTWF31598EA02834 Admin 6904 1999 Ford Taurus Gasoline 1FAFP52U9XG239945 XXR274 Admin Source: City and Borough of Juneau
Fleet Mix Capital Transit embraces a “one size fits all” philosophy with respect to fleet composition. While this may have worked well in years past, we believe modifications to fleet mix should be considered as the service expands to meet changing community mobility needs. We recommend the adoption of a tiered approach, with different vehicle types for different service characteristics. There are currently three different types of Capital Transit services: life-line, regular, and express.
A “life-line” route is exemplified by the North Douglas Route. Life-line services operate infrequently and carry few passengers, but should not be eliminated given they provide basic mobility. Using a 35-foot coach to carry a handful of customers is a misallocation of resources. A cutaway vehicle could do the same
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 123 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
job more efficiently, and the larger coach might be better used on another route to alleviate overcrowding.
“Regular” routes within the Capital Transit network include the Juneau-Douglas Route and the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Route. These routes provide local service on a frequent basis throughout the entire service day. They serve as the “back bone” of the Capital Transit route network and travel on a wide variety of road types, from Douglas Highway to downtown’s Franklin Street, and from the private Mendenhall Mall Road to the region’s only limited-access highway, Egan Drive (State Route 7). These routes are the most appropriate venue for the 35 to 40-foot bus given the need to both carry large numbers of passengers and potentially navigate relatively narrow roadways.
The “Express” Route from Auke Bay to Juneau provides limited-stop service between the primary residential portion of the CBJ and its central business district. This route experiences extremely high ridership during peak travel periods versus the local Juneau-Mendenhall Valley Routes (Routes 3 and 4). Many express peak-hour trips are filled to capacity revealing a need for larger vehicles with more seating. Given these routes travel largely on major thoroughfares they serve as the most appropriate alignment for potential use of larger, 60-foot articulated buses. Such buses would significantly increase capacity, reduce overcrowding, and enhance brand visibility. Beyond the initial capital cost, from an operational point of view, the per-seat cost is often comparable to smaller vehicles.
The neighborhood circulators proposed in the Optimum scenario present the opportunity to utilize smaller, cutaway-type vehicles. Cutaways are significantly cheaper to operate on a per mile basis than traditional 40-foot diesel coaches and can be employed to expand transit’s “foot print” throughout Juneau.
Vehicle Power Source Given Juneau’s reputation as an environmentally conscious community, we recommend the CBJ consider focusing future fleet purchases on alternative fuel vehicles. The benefits of converting the fleet from conventional diesel vehicles to
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 124 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
alternative fuel range from fuel savings to reduced emissions, depending upon the power source selected. New technologies vary considerably in acquisition cost. The following is a discussion of different power-sources currently available and in-use through the nation.
Advanced Diesel Vehicles Improvements to the fuel combustion system and after-treatment devices such as particulate traps and oxidation catalysts are combined with the use of low or ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel in Advanced Diesel Vehicles to significantly reduce emissions versus conventional diesel vehicles.
Advanced Diesel Vehicles require a much lower capital outlay than other alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrid-diesels. The use of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel can reduce Particulate Matter (PM) emissions by as much as 95-percent over conventional diesel, yet cost more per gallon than conventional diesel and often face limited availability. There is no discernable increase in fuel efficiency associated with the use of Advanced Diesel Vehicles.
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is the most common form of alternative fuel in use within the transit industry today. Natural gas (85 to 99 percent methane) is a clean-burning, less expensive, and relatively abundant fossil fuel. Given natural gas is mostly methane, CNG vehicles have much lower non-methane hydrocarbon emissions than gasoline vehicles, yet higher emissions of methane. Since the fuel system is closed, there are no evaporative emissions and refueling emissions are negligible. Cold-start emissions from CNG-powered vehicles are also low, since cold-start enrichment is not required, resulting in reduced carbon monoxide emissions.
Most compressed natural gas buses are equipped with a diesel engine modified to a spark-ignition engine that is optimized for the use of natural
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 125 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
gas. Gas cylinders are utilized which can be refueled at fueling stations with compressed natural gas.
Generally speaking, CNG buses are 17 to 41-percent less fuel efficient than conventional diesel buses. They have a substantially lower driving range than diesel buses depending upon the capacity of the gas cylinders.
Converting Capital Transit’s fleet from diesel to CNG would require a significant capital outlay for new vehicles and a fueling station. There remains conflicting data regarding the actual savings in greenhouse gas emissions across the life-cycle of CNG versus diesel buses.
Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Hybrid-Electric Vehicles (HEVs) have two power sources. One converts fuel into useable energy; and the other, an electric motor powered by an advanced energy storage device, lowers the demand placed on the first power source. Advantages include: • Vehicles can run in local zero-emission mode when required (e.g., in downtown Juneau or the Mendenhall Valley when air quality is an issue). • Vehicles can be powered "conventionally" when higher speeds are required. • The combustion engine runs mostly under optimum conditions, thereby reducing energy consumption and resulting emissions. • The engine can be downsized compared to a conventional drivetrain with the same performance, meaning lower engine weight and greater efficiency. • Regenerative braking capability helps minimize energy loss and can recover the energy used to slow down or stop a vehicle. • Longer driving range compared to most battery-electric buses.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 126 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Disadvantages include a significant increase in the cost of the vehicle (up to 50 percent more than conventional diesel) and increased maintenance costs (parts and labor).
Fuel savings can be dramatic. A recent study in New York City found diesel-hybrid vehicles were 45-percent more fuel-efficient than conventional diesels. Capital Transit’s fleet could save as much as $225,000 per year in fuel costs ($2.7 million over the 12-year life of the coaches) versus the current fleet.
Electric Trolley Buses Given the perceived abundance of hydro electric power available throughout Juneau, it may be possible to introduce electric trolley bus service within the downtown area. Trolley buses operate using electric power supplied through overhead wires. These systems are in place in cities worldwide and offer significant advantages over conventional diesel buses. The vehicles run completely on electrical power supplied off the grid, which means there are no emissions while operating electrically. The electric engines have much greater torque than conventional diesels, making them ideal for the hills in and around downtown Juneau. Given the lack of moving parts, the vehicles have a much longer life-cycle. Lastly they are almost silent in operation.
The disadvantages associated with electric trolley busses include a significant initial capital investment in overhead wires, possible opposition to having wires strung throughout the service area, and the fact the buses would need to have some form of back-up engine to power them during deadhead mileage between downtown and the service facility.
As Juneau residents and businesses discovered in April 2008, the distribution system that provides electricity to Juneau is vulnerable to natural disasters that can eliminate Juneau’s access to clean, cheap hydroelectricity virtually instantaneously. Furthermore, as Juneau’s demand for electricity grows, it has the potential to outstrip the available
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 127 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
supply of hydroelectricity, resulting in the need to generate electricity by burning diesel fuel. For these reasons, developing an electricity- dependent transit service, even for a single route, such as a downtown shuttle is not practical at this time.
Fleet Replacement Strategy Federal Transit Administration regulations stipulate large, heavy-duty vehicles— such as those in Capital Transit’s fixed-route fleet—must be kept in service for at least 12 years (or 500,000 miles) in order to be eligible for replacement funding. While the current Capital Transit schedule exceeds this requirement, Moore & Associates recommends Capital Transit replace future coaches on a 12-year schedule. This approach will ultimately reduce maintenance costs as the average age of the fleet will be reduced. We also recommend Capital Transit purchase expansion vehicles as additional routes are added or when increasing frequency of service on existing routes.
FTA regulations also stipulate light-duty vehicles, including regular and specialized vans—such as Care-A-Van’s paratransit fleet—be kept in service at least four years (or 100,000 miles) in order to receive replacement funding. While the current schedule meets this requirement, Moore & Associates recommends the CBJ replace future vehicles on a six-year schedule to strike a balance between the recurring capital cost of fleet replacement every four years and the increased maintenance costs associated with keeping older vehicles in active service.
The scenarios proposed in the Fixed-Route Service Alternatives (Chapter 4) require varying levels of investment in revenue fleet. The table below contrasts each scenario by the number of vehicles required based on peak-hour operations.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 128 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-2 Number of Peak-Hour Buses by Scenario
We believe Capital Transit’s 33.3-percent spare ratio during peak-hours (i.e., one spare vehicle for every three in revenue service) contributes positively to the service’s ability to minimize lapses in service due to maintenance issues. However, the additional capital costs associated with purchasing the extra vehicles needed to maintain a 33.3-percent spare ratio might be better spent improving bus stop amenities or purchasing larger vehicles offering more capacity. The status quo fleet replacement schedule is applicable to all three service scenarios given it provides for 16 vehicles in service during peak hours. The status quo fleet replacement plan can be found in Exhibit 6-3.
Should Capital Transit introduce expanded service in the form of increased frequency, service hours, or expanded service area, we recommend a replacement strategy aimed at increasing fleet size. The growth fleet replacement schedule provides for a maximum of 18 vehicles available for revenue service, meaning Capital Transit would have more room to increase frequency along routes where demand warrants such action. This strategy can be found in Exhibit 6-4.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 129 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 130 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-3 Fleet Replacement Strategy – Status Quo
Year Year Vehicle Mode Type Power Source FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 Purchased Replaced 6223 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6224 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6225 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6226 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6227 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6041 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6042 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6043 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6044 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6238 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2002 2009/10 6239 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2002 2009/10 6339 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2002 2009/10 6501 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2009 2015/16 6502 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2009 2015/16 6503 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2009 2015/16 6345 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2003 2015/16 6346 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2003 2015/16 6347 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2003 2015/16 6432 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6433 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6434 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6435 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6504 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6505 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6506 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6507 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6648 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 6649 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 6650 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 6651 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 7001 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7002 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/22 7003 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/22 7004 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7005 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7006 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2012 2024/25 7007 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2012 2024/25 7501 FR 60' Articulated Bus Advanced Diesel 2012 2024/25 7502 FR 60' Articulated Bus Advanced Diesel 2012 2024/25 7008 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2015 2015/16 7009 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2015 2015/16 7010 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2015 2015/16 7011 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19 7012 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19 7013 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19 7014 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 131 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-4 Fleet Replacement Strategy – Expansion
Year Year Vehicle Mode Type Power Source FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 Purchased Replaced 6223 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6224 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6225 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6226 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6227 FR 30' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 1992 2008/09 6041 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6042 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6043 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6044 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2000 2012/13 6238 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2002 2009/10 6239 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2002 2009/10 6339 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2002 2009/10 6501 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2009 2015/16 6502 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2009 2015/16 6503 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2009 2015/16 6345 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2003 2015/16 6346 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2003 2015/16 6347 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2003 2015/16 6432 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6433 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6434 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6435 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2004 2011/12 6504 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6505 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6506 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6507 CAV 22' Cutaway Gasoline 2011 2017/18 6648 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 6649 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 6650 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 6651 FR 35' Transit Bus Conventional Diesel 2006 2018/19 7001 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7002 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/22 7003 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/22 7004 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7005 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7006 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7007 FR 35' Transit Bus Advanced Diesel 2008 2020/21 7008 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2012 2024/25 7009 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2012 2024/25 7501 FR 60' Articulated Bus Advanced Diesel 2012 2024/25 7502 FR 60' Articulated Bus Advanced Diesel 2012 2024/25 7010 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2015 2015/16 7011 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2015 2015/16 7012 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2015 2015/16 7013 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19 7014 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19 7015 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19 7016 FR 35' Transit Bus Diesel Hybrid 2018 2018/19
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 132 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Bus Stop Element This portion of the Transit Improvement Plan includes an inventory of current bus stop amenities as well as a strategy for their enhancement.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities encourages agencies to develop Transit Improvement Plans (TIPs) to identify capital projects for inclusion within the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). It should be noted that should the CBJ elect to use 5311 funds for capital procurement, those funds are allocated through an annual solicitation process independent of the STIP process. The CBJ currently has four different types of bus stops: 1. Stops with sign poles, 2. Stops with wooden shelters, 3. Stops with metal shelters, and 4. Stops with stone shelters (Federal Building only).
The vast majority of bus stops located along Capital Transit route alignments feature only a sign pole. Most wooden and metal shelters are located in the Lemon Creek and Mendenhall Valley areas, with few in downtown Juneau or Douglas. The North Douglas Route in particular has only a handful of published stops and no signage (the route relies upon a “flag stop” policy). Many sign posts lack basic information regarding the specific route on which they lie. Community feedback supports the need for improved transit signage/service information at the bus stop level.
Bus shelters play a critical role in the success of a public transit program. Shelters build awareness of the service and can generate advertising revenue. Yet first and foremost they can provide safety and comfort. Bus shelters play a vital role in attracting additional ridership, especially for services operating in harsh climates such as Juneau. The absence of adequate amenities at bus stops can deter riders from using transit given the relative comfort and convenience offered by a personal vehicle.
The last in-depth evaluation of bus stop amenities within the CBJ was conducted in 1994. The resulting Bus Passenger Shelter Design and Location Study recommended shelters be installed at 16 stops throughout the system. Since that time, seven of the 16 shelters have been installed.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 133 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The table below lists all stops within the Capital Transit route network by area.
Exhibit 6-5 Existing Stops Area Stop Direction Address Type 1306 Seward Hwy inbound 1306 Seward Hwy sign 3414 Foster Ave 3414 Foster Ave metal 3221 Douglas Hwy 3221 Douglas Hwy sign 2981 Douglas Hwy 2981 Douglas Hwy sign David St inbound David St/Douglas Hwy sign Forest Edge inbound Douglas Hwy/Vista Dr sign Creek St inbound Creek St/Douglas Hwy sign Crow Hill inbound Crow Hill/Douglas sign Geneva Woods inbound 1617 Douglas Hwy sign Gastineau School 1507 3rd St sign Douglas Depot inbound 1017 3rd St sign C St and 3rd St inbound C St/3rd St sign St. Ann's Ave turnaround St. Ann's Ave/Treadwell St sign Sandy Beach Stairs Savikko Park/Savikko Rd. sign Summers St inbound Summers St/St. Ann's Ave sign
Douglas Juneau Montessori 750 Saint Anns Ave sign Douglas Post Office 904 3rd St. sign Douglas Library 1016 3rd St sign Gastineau School 1507 3rd St sign Geneva Woods outbound 1617 Douglas Hwy metal Crow Hill outbound Crow Hill/Douglas Hwy sign Creek St outbound Creek St/Douglas Hwy sign Forest Edge outbound Vista Dr/Douglas Hwy sign David St outbound David St/Douglas Hwy sign 2990 Douglas Hwy 2990 Douglas Hwy sign Budget Insurance 3090 Douglas Hwy sign 3240 Douglas Hwy 3240 Douglas Hwy sign Breeze Inn outbound 1306 Seward Hwy sign Juneau Library 292 Marine Way sign Front and Franklin St Front St/Franklin St wood 4th and Franklin St 4th St/Franklin St sign Main St Main St/Front St sign Main St parking lot Egan St/Main St metal Willoughby and Egan Willoughby St/Egan St sign ANB Hall 320 W Willoughby Ave sign A&P outbound 615 W Willoughby Ave metal A&P inbound 615 W Willoughby Ave metal Federal Bldg outbound 709 W 9th St stone Federal Bldg inbound 709 W 9th St sign 10th St outbound 10th St/12th St sign Harborview inbound 1255 Glacier Avenue sign
Downtown Juneau Downtown Behrends Ave outbound Glacier Ave/Behrends St metal Behrends Ave inbound Glacier Ave/Behrends St metal Breakwater outbound 1711 Glacier Ave sign Breakwater inbound 1712 Glacier Ave sign AWARE Shelter outbound 1547 Glacier Hwy metal AWARE Shelter inbound 1548 Glacier Hwy sign 1900 Glacier Hwy outbound 1900 Glacier Hwy sign 1900 Glacier Hwy inbound 1900 Glacier Hwy sign Source: 2007 Capital Transit Bus Stop Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 134 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-5 Existing Stops Area Stop Direction Address Type Hospital 3260 Hospital Dr metal SEARCH Clinic Hosptial Dr/Salmon Lane metal Salmon Creek Lane Hospital Dr/Salmon Creek Lane metal Wire St outbound Glacier Hwy/Wire St wood Wire St inbound Glacier Hwy/Wire St wood Blackerby St outbound Glacier Hwy/Blackerby St sign Blackerby St inbound Glacier Hwy/Blackerby St sign Craig St outbound Glacier Hwy/Craig St sign Craig St inbound Glacier Hwy/Craig St sign Pioneer's Home 4675 Glacier Hwy wood Vanderbuilt Hill outbound Glacier Hwy/Craig St wood Vanderbuilt Hill inbound Glacier Hwy/Craig St wood Grant's Plaza outbound 5165 Glacier Hwy wood Grant's Plaza inbound 5166 Glacier Hwy sign Anka St outbound Glacier Hwy/Anka St metal Anka St inbound Glacier Hwy/Anka St metal Lemon Creek turnaround Lemon Creek Rd/Churchill Way sign Lemon Creek Churchhill Way Lemon Creek Rd/Churchill Way sign Mountain Ave Davis Ave/Mountain Ave sign Davis Avenue Glacier Hwy/Davis Way wood Alaway Way outbound Glacier Hwy/Alaway Way sign Alaway Way inbound Glacier Hwy/Alaway Way sign Wal-Mart outbound 6525 Glacier Hwy metal Wal-Mart inbound 6526 Glacier Hwy metal Switzer outbound 6590 Glacier Hwy sign Switzer inbound 6591 Glacier Hwy sign Gastineau Humane Soc. outbound 7705 Glacier Hwy sign Gastineau Humane Soc. inbound 7706 Glacier Hwy sign Fred Meyer outbound 8181 Old Glacier Hwy wood Fred Meyer inbound 8182 Old Glacier Hwy wood Nugget Mall 8745 Glacier Hw metal Lyle's 2093 Jordan Ave sign Airport 1873 Shell Simmons Dr sign Shell Simmons outbound 9150 Glacier Hwy metal Shell Simmons inbound 9101 Glacier Hwy metal Valley Restaurant outbound 9320 Glacier Hwy metal Pipeline Park outbound 2400 Mendenhall Loop Rd metal Pipeline Park inbound 2401 Mendenhall Loop Rd metal Mendenhall Mall outbound 9105 Mendenhall Mall Rd none Mendenhall Mall inbound 9106 Mendenhall Mall Rd sign Mendenhall Valley Atlin Ave outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Atlin Ave sign James Blvd inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/James Blvd sign Nancy St outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Nancy St sign Nancy St inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Nancy St sign Source: 2007 Capital Transit Bus Stop Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 135 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-5 Existing Stops Area Stop Direction Address Type Cinema Dr outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Cinema Dr sign Cinema Dr inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Cinema Dr sign Steven Richards outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Steven Richards Dr sign Steven Richards inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Steven Richards Dr sign Floyd Dryden outbound 3800 Mendenhall Loop Rd sign Floyd Dryden inbound 3801 Mendenhall Loop Rd sign Valley Blvd outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Valley Blvd sign Mendenhall Blvd inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Valley Blvd metal Thunder Mountain outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Thunder Mountain Blvd sign Taku Blvd inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Taku Blvd metal Dredge Lake outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Dredge Lake Rd sign Dredge Lake inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Dredge Lake Rd metal Mint Way outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Mint Way sign Mint Way inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Mint Way sign Mendenhall River School outbound 9001 Mendenhall Loop sign Mendenhall River School inbound 9002 Mendenhall Loop sign River Road outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/River Road sign Mendenhall Valley Mendenhall River Road inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/River Road sign Montana Creek Rd outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Montana Creek Rd sign Montana Creek Rd inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Montana Creek Rd sign Wren Dr outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Wren Dr sign Wren Dr inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Wren Dr sign Spring Way outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Spring Way sign Spring Way inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Spring Way sign Windfall Ave outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Windfall Ave sign Windfall Ave inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Windfall Ave sign Radcliffe Rd south Glacier Hwy/Radcliff Rd sign Radcliffe Rd north Glacier Hwy/Radcliff Rd sign UAS Crosswalk outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Auke Lake Way sign UAS Crosswalk inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Auke Lake Way sign UAS Campus 11120 Glacier Hwy metal Auke Bay outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Caroline St metal Auke Bay inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Caroline St sign Fritz Cove south Mendenhall Loop Rd/Fritz Cove sign Fritz Cove north Mendenhall Loop Rd/Fritz Cove sign Auke Lake south Glacier Hwy/Wilma Ave sign Auke Lake north Glacier Hwy/Wilma Ave sign Auke Bay Engineers Cut-Off Rd south Glacier Hwy/Engineers Cut-Off Rd sign Engineers Cut-Off Rd north Glacier Hwy/Engineers Cut-Off Rd sign Sherwood Lane north Glacier Hwy/Sherwood Lane metal Sherwood Lane south Glacier Hwy/Sherwood Lane metal Industrial Blvd south Glacier Hwy/Industrial Blvd metal Industrial Blvd north Glacier Hwy/Industrial Blvd metal Source: 2007 Capital Transit Bus Stop Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 136 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The map below illustrates the relative density of shelter types throughout the Capital Transit service area.
Exhibit 6-6 Map of Existing Stops
Source: 2007 Capital Transit Bus Stop Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 137 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As part of the TDP, Moore & Associates developed a list of transit stops at which additional amenities are recommended. These stops were identified using the criteria outlined in the previously-cited Bus Passenger Shelter Design and Location Study: • Total passenger boardings, • Usage by seniors and disabled persons with disabilities, • Surrounding land use, • Exposure to the elements, and • Level of transit service.
Exhibit 6-7 List of Priority Shelters Area Stop Direction Address Type Creek St outbound Creek St/Douglas Hwy sign Forest Edge outbound Vista Dr/Douglas Hwy sign Crow Hill outbound Crow Hill/Douglas Hwy sign
Douglas David St outbound David St/Douglas Hwy sign u Juneau Library 292 Marine Way sign Alaska State Museum 395 Whittier Street none
Junea AWARE Shelter inbound 1548 Glacier Hwy sign Switzer outbound 6590 Glacier Hwy sign Switzer inbound 6591 Glacier Hwy sign Fred Meyer outbound 8181 Old Glacier Hwy wood Creek Lemon Fred Meyer inbound 8182 Old Glacier Hwy wood Airport 1873 Shell Simmons Dr sign Mendenhall Mall outbound 9105 Mendenhall Mall Rd none Valley Blvd outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Valley Blvd sign
Valley Thunder Mountain outbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Thunder Mountain Blvd sign Mendenhall Auke Bay inbound Mendenhall Loop Rd/Caroline St sign
Given the climate characteristics present in Juneau, bus shelters should: • Provide rain and wind protection, • Allow for proper visibility, • Be properly illuminated, • Be resistant to vandalism, • Require little maintenance, • Be ADA compliant, • Be durable (i.e., long lifecycle), and • Be appropriately sized.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 138 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Capital Transit’s bus shelters currently have been the subject of criticism from the community and state Department of Transportation for not meeting some of these criteria. In particular, some shelters limit visibility around corners, are susceptible to vandalism and weathering, lack sufficient trash-receptacle capacity, and aren’t aesthetically pleasing. We conclude wooden shelters are more susceptible to problems than the newer, metal shelters. Therefore we recommend the CBJ purchase prefabricated shelters with integrated lighting systems as well as larger shelters at high- volume stops. New shelters should also feature improved service information (including large format system maps and service schedules). All stops with sign posts should include up-to-date schedule information specific to the route they serve. These steps, taken collectively, will ultimately improve the accessibility of the system to new users and promote the use of transit by a greater number of residents.
Given most new shelters will be placed within State of Alaska right-of-way, we recommend Capital Transit work closely with the State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) to ensure each new shelter is located properly to ensure the safety of drivers, pedestrians, and transit patrons.
The map below illustrates location by shelter type within the Capital Transit service area.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 139 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-8 Priority Shelter Locations
The table below illustrates the new stops deemed necessary to support by each of the proposed operating scenarios. Given any service expansion would require the installation of new sign posts, we recommend Capital Transit use this as an opportunity
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 140 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
to explore the use of new technologies aimed at improving the transit experience for customers. A recurring complaint voiced by existing transit customers is the lack of sufficient lighting at transit stops. Insufficient lighting at night creates a security issue as patrons must wait in the dark where they cannot be seen by passing motorists, as well as making them more susceptible to crime. Poor lighting also increases the likelihood buses will fail to see waiting customers and pass them by. This problem can be solved either through the installation of improved street lighting, or the use of new, solar- powered, lighted sign posts such as the i-STOP offered by Carmanah Technologies. These sign posts include service information and a user-activated strobe light to alert buses to the presence of waiting patrons. The posts are solar-powered and do not require extensive trenching for their installation, making them ideal for addressing these concerns in the more rural portions of the service area (Douglas Highway, Mendenhall Loop Road).
Exhibit 6-9 New Stops by Service Scenario Scenario Area Intermediate Optimum Glacier Highway/Auke Nu Drive Glacier Highway/Auke Nu Drive AMHS Highway Terminal AMHS Highway Terminal Glacier Highway/Point Louisa Road Glacier Highway/Point Louisa Road Glacier Highway/Point Lena Loop Road Glacier Highway/Point Lena Loop Road NOAA NOAA
Auke Bay Glacier Highway/Point Lena Loop Road Glacier Highway/Point Lena Loop Road Glacier Highway/Point Louisa Road Glacier Highway/Point Louisa Road Glacier Highway/Auke Nu Drive Glacier Highway/Auke Nu Drive Riverside Drive/Taku Boulevard Riverside Drive/Taku Boulevard Riverside Drive/Sharon Street Riverside Drive/Sharon Street Riverside Drive/Rivercourt Way Riverside Drive/Rivercourt Way Valley Thunder Mountain High School Thunder Mountain High School n 12th Street/C Street 12th Street/A Street 8th Street/Calhoun Avenue
Downtow Main Street/Calhoun Avenue Shaune Drive/Barrow Street Costco/Home Depot Creek Lemon Lemon Commercial Boulevard/Anka Street
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 141 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Alaska Department of Transportation has in place a set of clear guidelines for all bus pullouts on State right-of-way (ROW). Bus pullout geometry is assumed to be sufficient if the following conditions are met: 1. A pedestrian landing of at least 5 feet is available. (Unpaved shoulder is included as acceptable. Sidewalk is included as a landing.) 2. The paved area available for the pullout is at least 11 feet wide and 46 feet long. A 10 foot pullout meets minimum requirements, but should be evaluated for expansion if the roadway is to be reconstructed. 3. The acceleration taper is 2.5:1 or less and the deceleration taper is 4:1 or less.
Lighting was assumed to be sufficient if the waiting area had an illumination level of at least 0.8 foot candles.
The Alaska Department of Transportation identified 102 bus pullouts in Juneau on state routes. There are just over 50 locations, with typically one pullout on either side of the road. Of these, only 4 meet the full State DOT/PF requirements for bus pullout geometry and illumination. The findings are as follows:
Geometry: • Nineteen bus pullouts did not have a pedestrian landing, paved or unpaved. Of these, 11 were on Back Loop Road. These locations should be addressed first as this is the most critical deficiency. • Sixteen bus pullouts have a paved shoulder width of seven feet or less. These locations are a priority because the bus will oftentimes still be in the travel lane, sometimes forcing vehicles into the opposing lane. • Twenty-nine bus pullouts have a paved shoulder width of eight to nine feet. These locations should be upgraded, but are not as critical as those mentioned above. • Eighteen bus pullouts just meet the minimum width requirements, have a pullout length of 45 feet or less, or have substandard acceleration or deceleration tapers. These pullouts should function well as is and should be addressed only if the roadway is reconstructed.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 142 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Eighteen bus pullouts met all the geometric requirements as described above. All bus pullouts along Twin Lakes drive are in this category, with the exception of one pullout with a 10-foot pullout width.
Lighting: • Twenty-three bus pullouts lacked lighting. Of these, 11 were on Back Loop Road. Lighting should be installed at these locations. • Twenty-one bus pullouts had poor lighting, ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 foot candles. New lighting should be installed at these locations or existing lighting should be improved. • Ten bus pullouts had fair lighting, ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 foot candles. Lighting should be improved at these locations, but not until those mentioned above are addressed. • Fourteen bus pullouts had lighting just below the required levels at 0.7 foot candles. These locations nearly meet standards and should be addressed only if the roadway or pullout is being reconstructed. • Thirty-three bus pullouts have acceptable lighting. Ten of the 14 pullouts on Mendenhall Loop Road are in this category and all locations on Mendenhall Loop Road had at least some lighting.
The following exhibit includes a list of all stops along State ROW:
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 143 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 144 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-10 Non-Conforming Stops on State Rights-of-Way Curbed Pullout Unpaved Pullout Pullout Waiting Pullout Lighting Other Notes / Stop Road At Heading Y / N Width Width Length Tapers Area Lighting Recommendation Priority Recommendations Priority Recommendations General Douglas Hwy Notes: Remove parking and reduce total # 1 Douglas Hwy C St To Bridge Y 9 N/A N/A None Y 0.5 Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 3 stops 2 Douglas Hwy C St To Douglas Y 9 N/A N/A None Y None Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 1 3 Douglas Hwy D St / Library To Bridge Y 9 N/A N/A None Y None Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 1 4 Douglas Hwy D St / Library To Douglas Y 10 N/A N/A None Y None Build new pullout 4 Install Lighting 1 5 Douglas Hwy I St To Bridge Y 10 N/A N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 4 None X 6 Douglas Hwy I St To Douglas Y 9 N/A N/A None Y 0.7 Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 4 7 Douglas Hwy Geneva Woods To Bridge Y 7 N/A N/A None Y 0.7 Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 4 8 Douglas Hwy Geneva Woods To Douglas Y 7 N/A N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 2 None X 9 Douglas Hwy Crow Hill Dr To Bridge Y 7 N/A N/A None Y 0.5 Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 3 10 Douglas Hwy Crow Hill Dr To Douglas Y OK N/A 39 2:1A,2.5:1D Y 0.3 Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 2 10A Douglas Hwy Lawson Cr Rd To Bridge Y 8 N/A N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X Douglas 10B Douglas Hwy Creek St To Douglas N 6 10 N/A None N OK Build new pullout 1 None X 10C Douglas Hwy Vista St To Bridge Y OK N/A 42 OK Y None Build new pullout 4 Install Lighting 1 10D Douglas Hwy Vista St To Douglas N 8 13 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 11 Douglas Hwy David St To Bridge Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.6 None X Improve Lighting 4 12 Douglas Hwy David St To Douglas N 6 6 N/A None N 0.4 Build new pullout 1 Improve Lighting 3 14 Douglas Hwy 2981 To Douglas N 3 5 N/A None N 0.3 Build new pullout 1 Improve Lighting 2 15 Douglas Hwy 3200 To Bridge Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.4 None X Improve Lighting 3 16 Douglas Hwy 3201 To Douglas N 5 8 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 17 Douglas Hwy Roundabout To Bridge Y 6 N/A N/A None Y 0.2 Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 2 18 Douglas Hwy Roundabout To Douglas Y 6 N/A N/A None N 0.3 Relocate pullout 1 Improve Lighting 2 Other side of Cordova 25 Glac Willoughby AWARE To Valley Y 10 N/A OK OK Y Box Lum Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 4 26 Glac Willoughby AWARE To Town N 4 10 N/A None Y Box Lum Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 4 Shelter 10' from shoulder 27 Glac Willoughby 1900 To Valley Y 9 N/A OK OK Y Box Lum Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 4 Juneau 28 Glac Willoughby 1900 To Town N 3 9 N/A None Y Box Lum Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 4 29 Twin Lakes Dr Twin Lakes Park To Valley Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.2 None X Improve Lighting 2 30 Twin Lakes Dr Twin Lakes Park To Town Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.1 None X Improve Lighting 2 31 Twin Lakes Dr Blackerby To Valley Y OK N/A OK OK Y Box Lum None X Improve Lighting 4 32 Twin Lakes Dr Blackerby To Town Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.4 None X Improve Lighting 3 33 Twin Lakes Dr Craig St To Valley Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.6 None X Improve Lighting 4 34 Twin Lakes Dr Craig St To Town Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.6 None X Improve Lighting 4 34A Twin Lakes Dr Senior Center To Town N OK N/A OK OK Y 0.2 None X Improve Lighting 2 36 Twin Lakes Dr Lemon Rd To Town Y 10 N/A OK OK Y OK Build new pullout 4 None X Driveway used for pullout - OK for 37 Lemon Rd Western Auto To Valley N 6 20+ N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X now 38 Lemon Rd Western Auto To Town N 6 13 N/A None Y 0.3 Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 2 40 Lemon Rd Anka To Town Y OK N/A OK 2:1A,3:1D Y OK Build new pullout 4 None X 40A Lemon Rd Davis To Town N 8 20+ N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X Lemon CreekLemon 41 Lemon Rd Alaway To Valley Y 5 N/A N/A None Y 0.6 Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 4 42 Lemon Rd Alaway To Town N 5 15 N/A None N 0.3 Build new pullout 1 Improve Lighting 2 43 Lemon Rd Walmart To Valley Y 8 N/A OK OK Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 44 Lemon Rd Walmart To Town Y OK N/A 45 OK Y OK Build new pullout 4 None X 45 Lemon Rd DOT To Valley Y 8 N/A N/A None Y None Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 1 45A Lemon Rd DOT To Town N 8 20+ N/A None Y 0.5 Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 3 46 Lemon Rd Animal Shelter To Valley Y 8 N/A N/A None Y 0.3 Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 2 47 Lemon Rd Animal Shelter To Town N 6 16 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X Source: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 145 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-10 Non-Conforming Stops on State Rights of Way Curbed Pullout Unpaved Pullout Pullout Waiting Pullout Lighting Other Notes / Stop Road At Heading Y / N Width Width Length Tapers Area Lighting Recommendation Priority Recommendations Priority Recommendations 48 Lemon Rd Fred Meyers To Valley Y OK N/A OK OKA,3.5:1D Y None Build new pullout 4 Install Lighting 1 Light for pullout, 49 Lemon Rd Fred Meyers To Town Y OK N/A OK 2:1A,3.5:1D Y OK/None Build new pullout 4 need Lt for shelter 3 50 Glac Nugget Shell Simmons To Town Y OK N/A OK 2:1A,OKD Y 0.5 Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 3 51 Glac Nugget Shell Simmons To Valley Y 9 N/A OK OK Y 0.2 Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 2 52 Glac Nugget Glacier Hwy N To Town Y OK N/A 45 2:1A,3.5:1D Y 0.3 Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 2 53 Glac Nugget Glacier Hwy N To Valley Y 9 N/A OK OK Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 54 Glac Nugget Skate Park To Town Y OK N/A 45 2:1A,3.5:1D Y 0.3 Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 2 55 Glac Nugget Skate Park To Valley Y OK N/A 45 2:1A,3.5:1D Y 0.3 Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 2 General Loop Road Uncurbed Note: Add pathway to bring seperated path 56 Loop Rd James To Town Y OK N/A OK 1.5:1A,OKD Y OK Build new pullout 4 None X up to road at bus stop 57 Loop Rd Atlin To Glacier Y OK N/A OK OKA,3.5:1D Y 0.5 Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 3 59 Loop Rd Nancy To Glacier Y OK N/A 43 OK Y OK Build new pullout 4 None X 60 Loop Rd Cinema Dr To Town N 8 20+ N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 61 Loop Rd Cinema Dr To Glacier N 8 20+ N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 63 Loop Rd Stephen Rich To Glacier Y OK N/A OK OKA,3.5:1D Y 0.3 Build new pullout 4 Improve Lighting 2 64 Loop Rd Floyd Dryden To Town N 7 13 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 2 None X 65 Loop Rd Floyd Dryden To Glacier N 8 20+ N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 66 Loop Rd Valley Blvd To Town Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.2 None X Improve Lighting 2 67 Loop Rd Valley Blvd To Glacier Y OK N/A OK OK Y 0.7 None X Improve Lighting 4 68 Loop Rd Taku To Town N 7 17 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 2 None X 69 Loop Rd Taku To Glacier N 7 20+ N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 2 None X 70 Back Loop Rd Loop To Glacier N 5 12 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 2 None X 70A Back Loop Rd Loop To Auke Bay Y 9 N/A N/A None N 0.7 Relocate pullout 1 Improve Lighting 4 other side Dredge Lk Rd 71 Back Loop Rd Chelsea Ct To Auke Bay N 7 13 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 2 None X 72 Back Loop Rd Mint Way To Glacier N 7 15 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 2 None X 73 Back Loop Rd Mend Riv School To Auke Bay N 8 13 N/A None Y None Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 1 74 Back Loop Rd Mend Riv School To Glacier N 7 12 N/A None Y None Build new pullout 2 Install Lighting 1 75 Back Loop Rd River Rd To Auke Bay N 7 11 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 76 Back Loop Rd River Rd To Glacier N 8 11 N/A None N OK Build new pullout 1 None X Mendenhall Valley Mendenhall 77 Back Loop Rd Montana Cr Rd To Auke Bay N 8 11 N/A None N 0.7 Build new pullout 1 Improve Lighting 4 78 Back Loop Rd Montana Cr Rd To Glacier N 8 13 N/A None Y None Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 1 79 Back Loop Rd Wren To Auke Bay N 8 10 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 80 Back Loop Rd Wren To Glacier N 8 11 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 81 Back Loop Rd Spring Way To Auke Bay N 8 9 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 82 Back Loop Rd Spring Way To Glacier N 8 10 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 83 Back Loop Rd Windfall To Auke Bay N 7 10 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 84 Back Loop Rd Windfall To Glacier N 8 10 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 85 Back Loop Rd UAS To Auke Bay N 8 11 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 86 Back Loop Rd UAS To Glacier N 8 16 N/A None Y Path Lt Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 2 Pathway light doesn't light bus stop Driveway used for pullout - OK for 87 Back Loop Rd Glacier Hwy To Auke Bay N 9 20+ N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X now 88 Back Loop Rd Glacier Hwy To Glacier N 7 16 N/A None Y 0.3 Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 2 89 Glacier / Egan Fritz Cove Rd To Town N OK 20+ N/A None Y 0.6 None X Improve Lighting 3 90 Glacier / Egan Fritz Cove Rd To Auke Bay Y 8 8 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 91 Glacier / Egan Auke Lake To Town N 9 14 N/A None Y None Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 1 92 Glacier / Egan Auke Lake To Auke Bay N OK 20+ OK OK Y None None X Install Lighting 1 93 Glacier / Egan Eng Cutoff Rd To Town N 9 17 N/A None Y OK Build new pullout 3 None X 94 Glacier / Egan Eng Cutoff Rd To Auke Bay N 8 12 N/A None N OK Build new pullout 1 None X 95 Glacier / Egan Sherwood To Town N 9 15 N/A None Y None Build new pullout 3 Install Lighting 1 96 Glacier / Egan Sherwood To Auke Bay N 7 15 N/A None Y 0.2 Build new pullout 2 Improve Lighting 2 97 Glacier / Egan Industrial Blvd To Town N 8 16 N/A None Y 0.3 Build new pullout 3 Improve Lighting 2 98 Glacier / Egan Industrial Blvd To Auke Bay N OK 15 OK OK Y 0.1 None X Improve Lighting 2 99 Glacier Hwy N Radcliff To Town N 5 10 N/A None Y None Build new pullout 2 Install Lighting 1 100 Glacier Hwy N Radcliff To Auke Bay N 5 8 N/A None N None Build new pullout 1 Install Lighting 1 Source: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 146 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities also developed a set of standard pullout designs to guide the improvement of future stops and existing non-conforming stops.
Exhibit 6-11 Standard Bus Pullouts
Source: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 147 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-11 Standard Bus Pullouts
Source: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 148 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Facilities Element Existing Facilities Capital Transit is headquartered at an operations and maintenance facility located at 10099 Bentwood Place in the Mendenhall Valley. This facility houses all administration, dispatch, and maintenance personnel. Buses are stored and fueled in a gravel lot next to the main structure. Vehicles are maintained in an attached garage. The facility is aging and any significant expansion in rolling stock may warrant an expansion on a short term basis.
We recommend the CBJ utilize capital funds to re-pave the rapidly deteriorating parking lot and vehicle storage areas as poor conditions may be contributing to increased vehicle maintenance costs.
Capital Transit features transfer facilities at the Nugget Mall and Federal Building in downtown. The Nugget Mall transfer site is located on Mallard Street and includes a large metal bus shelter on the eastbound side of the street. Customers may access the Juneau-Valley Route, Express Route, and several commuter runs from this location, with timed transfers throughout the service day.
The Federal Building transfer point is located at the corner of Glacier Avenue and Ninth Street and features a large concrete and metal shelter connected to the Federal Building on the northbound side of Ninth Street, and a sign post on the southbound side of Ninth Street. Riders may access the Juneau-Douglas, Juneau-North Douglas, Juneau-Valley, Express, and several commuter runs at this location.
Capital Transit also operates a transit center in a city parking lot on the corner of Main Street and Egan Drive. This facility has two metal shelters on a raised platform with wheelchair access. It is located in the center of a busy parking lot. A driver break room is located nearby on the corner of Main and Front Streets.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 149 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Main Street Transit Center In 2005, Juneau residents voted to extend a one-percent sale tax to help fund the construction of a new transit center in downtown Juneau. The site is located at the intersection of Main Street and Egan Drive. The facility will include a parking garage, police substation, driver break room, and public restroom. It will be capable of accommodating three to four buses (versus the current two), making interline transfers easier. When complete, it will raise the profile of transit within Juneau and benefit Capital Transit, making operations smoother as well as making the service more accessible.
Exhibit 6-12 View of Transit Center from Sealaska Building
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
Park & Ride Locations One potential barrier to transit use by “choice” riders is the lack of park and ride facilities throughout the Capital Transit service area. Park and ride facilities promote transit use by providing secure parking in central locations with ready access to transit. Patrons drive from their homes – which may or may not have local transit service – and park at a convenient location where they can access
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 150 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
regularly-scheduled, limited-stop service to their destination. This approach promotes transit use by “choice” riders and often reduces demand for parking within a central business district. Park & Ride facilities become attractive as an alternative to driving the full length of a given trip when drivers would otherwise be faced with significant congestion or parking difficulties. Park & Ride facilities offer little benefit to those living within a five to ten-minute walk or bicycle ride from the Park & Ride location. Though even those who would otherwise walk or ride a bicycle may opt to drive to the Park & Ride in inclement weather. In terms of total trip length, most would simply drive the entire distance and avoid using the Park & Ride should the cumulative amount of time spent driving to the Park & Ride and waiting for the bus to arrive approach the amount of time needed to simply drive all the way to the ultimate destination, barring external factors such as concern for the environment.
We recommend Capital Transit develop park and ride facilities at key stops along the Express Route’s alignment. The limited-stop nature of the Express Route makes it ideal for inclusion within the initial development of park and ride facilities. These park and ride lots could be developed by either constructing new facilities adjacent to transit stops, or through agreements with owners of existing lots in the area.
Should Capital Transit implement the recommendations contained within the Optimum Scenario, we recommend additional park and ride facilities at the Safeway, Wal-Mart, and Bartlett Regional Hospital.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 151 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 6-13 Proposed Park & Ride Facilities
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 152 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
7. FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 153 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 7 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS
This chapter presents the capital requirements and five-year operating budget projections required to support the recommendations contained within the Fixed-Route Service Alternatives Chapter (Chapter 4). Three distinct scenarios were developed by Moore & Associates based on input received from the community: Baseline, Intermediate, and Optimum. The scenario titles were derived from those service scenarios presented within the CBJ’s prior TDP.
This chapter is composed of two sections – a Capital Plan forecasting capital costs associated with implementing recommendations within the Transit Improvement Plan; and a Financial Plan estimating the cost of implementing each of the scenarios outlined in Chapter 4.
Capital Plan The Capital Plan identifies cost figures for recommendations included within the Transit Improvement Plan. To support the operational recommendations included within Chapter 4, we developed a comprehensive fleet replacement strategy which recommends Capital Transit shift from sole reliance upon traditional diesel coaches to one which also includes alternative fuel vehicles.
Federal Capital Funding Sources Various capital grant programs are available to public transit agencies through the Federal government’s Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Program (SAFETEA-LU) legislation. These grants range from the all-encompassing Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5309 program which allocates funding for all programs with few eligibility requirements, to the FTA Section 5308 program which requires recipients to be in either current or former air quality non- attainment areas.
The City and Borough of Juneau’s Capital Transit and Care-A-Van services are eligible for capital grants through FTA Sections 5309, 5311, 5316, and 5317. At present, the CBJ only utilizes funds from Sections 5309 and 5311 grant
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 154 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
programs. Capital Transit currently only uses Section 5311 funds to cover operating costs given the program does not receive, or is not eligible for any other federal sources of operating funds. The State of Alaska currently limits individual communities to $1,000,000 annually in Section 5311 funds and Capital Transit reserves those to cover operating expenses. Section 5309 is the most likely source for future capital funding for Capital Transit fleet for bus stop amenity expansion. It should be noted, however, that Capital Transit is unlikely to receive a larger apportionment of 5309 funds in the future.
Given demographic trends within the CBJ, Section 5316 (Job Access/Reverse Commute) funds are also a possibility. This program provides grant funding aimed at enhancing mobility for low-income persons lacking transportation options to work as well as for additional funding for transit services linking commuters with job opportunities away from traditional job centers (i.e., reverse commute). This funding opportunity could be used to purchase vehicles and install bus stop amenities supporting the extension of service to fisheries in Auke Bay as well as the Lemon Creek commercial area (i.e., Costco and Home Depot).
It should be noted the majority of monies identified within Exhibit 7-1 has either been earmarked for specific projects by the Federal Government or is programmed for allocation in other Alaskan communities.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 155 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit 7-1 Federal Capital Funding Source Matrix
FY 2007/08 Program Name Description Eligibility Recipient Grant Type State Allocation Funding is available for areas that do not Congestion Mitigation Invests in projects that reduce criteria air meet the National Ambient Air Quality and Air Quality pollutants regulated from transportation-related Standards (non-attainment areas) as well State Formula $6,991,806 Program (CMAQ) sources. as former non attainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Assists non-attainment and maintenance areas in achieving or maintaining National Ambient Air 5308 Clean Fuels Quality Standards and supports emerging clean Same as above. State Discretionary $0 Grant Program fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses. Provides capital assistance for new and 5309 Bus and Bus replacement buses and related equipment and All capital projects. State Discretionary $17,018,000 Facilities Program facilities. Assists private non-profit groups in meeting the 5310 Transportation for transportation needs of the elderly and persons Elderly Persons and Local private non-profit agencies and with disabilities when the transportation service State Formula $289,932 Persons with certain public bodies. provided is unavailable, insufficient, or Disabilities inappropriate to meeting these needs. Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative assistance to state Provides operating funding to states for the agencies, local public bodies, Indian tribes, purpose of supporting public transportation in and non-profit organizations, and 5311 Rural and Small areas of less than 50,000 residents. Enhances operators of public transportation services. State Formula $5,821,286 Urban Areas mobility of local residents and assists in the Projects to meet the requirements of the maintenance, development, improvement, and Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean use of public transportation systems. Air Act, or bicycle access projects, may be funded at 90 percent Federal match. Provides financial assistance for transportation 5316 Job services planned, designed, and carried out to Projects must be included in a locally- Access/Reverse meet the transportation needs of eligible low- developed, human service transportation State Formula $236,931 Commute income individuals, and of reverse commuters coordinated plan. regardless of income. Reduces barriers to transportation services and expands mobility options available to persons 5317 New Freedom Same as above. State Formula $126,046 with disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA. Source: Federal Transit Administration
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 156 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The five-year Baseline Capital Plan presented below reflects the capital purchases necessary for the implementation of the Baseline Scenario. The Plan includes additional funds for expansion and modernization of the transit Maintenance Facility, given our fleet recommendations (diesel-electric hybrid and articulated buses) would present different maintenance requirements. The Plan does not reflect the additional costs associated with the implementation of any of the activities listed within the “Miscellaneous Recommendations” section of the Fixed-Route Service Alternatives Chapter (Chapter 4).
Exhibit 7-2 Baseline Capital Plan FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Fleet 35-foot Advanced Diesel Coach 5 $1,517,087 $0 $0 $0 $0 35-foot Diesel-Electric Hybrid Coach $0 $0 $0 $0 2 $955,242 60-foot Advanced Diesel Coach $0 $0 $0 $0 2 $1,110,469 22-foot Gasoline Cutaway $0 3 $213,082 $0 4 $301,411 $0 Subtotal 5 $1,517,087 3 $213,082 0 $0 4 $301,411 4 $2,065,710 Bus Stops Standard Sign Posts 19 $3,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 i-STOP Sign Posts $0$0$0$0 $0 Prefabricated Metal Bus Shelters 16 $169,744 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 35 $173,070 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Facilities Main Street Transit Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Maintenance Facility $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 Park & Ride Lots $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $400,000 0 $0 Total 40 $1,690,157 3 $213,082 0 $0 4 $701,411 4 $2,065,710
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 157 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The five-year Expansion Capital Plan below reflects the capital purchases necessary to support implementation of the Optimum Scenario. The Plan includes additional funds for expansion and modernization of the Maintenance Facility given some of the new vehicle purchases (diesel-electric hybrid and articulated buses) will bring with them new maintenance challenges. The plan does not reflect the additional costs associated with the implementation of any of the recommendations listed under the “Miscellaneous Recommendations” section of the Fixed-Route Service Alternatives chapter (Chapter 4).
Exhibit 7-3 Growth Capital Plan
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 158 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Financial Plan The Financial Plan forecasts the costs of implementing the recommendations included within the Fixed-Route Service Alternatives Chapter (Chapter 4). These changes vary in scope from simple schedule amendments (Baseline Scenario) to a complete reconfiguration of the fixed-route service structure (Optimum Scenario). Therefore, they vary in cost from no additional resources (Baseline Scenario) to three million dollars/annum (Optimum Scenario). The Plan also includes anticipated changes in user fees as well as estimated funding from grant programs supporting the implementation of each proposed service scenario.
Federal Operational Funding Sources Numerous operational grant programs are available to public transit agencies through the Federal government’s SAFETEA-LU program (which is set to expire in 2009). These grants range from FTA Section 5311 program which allocates funding for transit programs operating in communities with 50,000 residents or less, to Section 5317 which requires recipients to adopt a Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. The City and Borough of Juneau’s Capital Transit and Care-A-Van services are eligible for operational grants through FTA Sections 5311, 5316, and 5317. At present, the CBJ only utilizes funds from Sections 5311. The Federal Transit Administration allows agencies to use Section 5311 funds to cover up to 50 percent of annual operating costs. In FY 2006/07, Capital Transit used section 5311 funds amounting to approximately 27 percent of its total operating budget. This can be attributed to the limited nature of 5311 funds in Alaska, forcing the State to develop a formula allocating funds based on population of the area served (50 percent), number of projected riders (25 percent), and projected revenue miles (25 percent). Capital Transit can expect to receive no more than $1,000,000 in 5311 funds to use to cover either capital or operating expenses.
It should be noted funding sources listed in both tables 7-1 and 7-4 are not mutually exclusive and total funds available apply to both capital and financial allocations. This means should Capital Transit elect to use $1,000,000 dollars in Section 5311 funds for capital expenses, it would have no money available for operating purposes.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 159 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Given a Coordinated Human Services Plan was completed in conjunction with the transit development Plan, the CBJ is now eligible to receive Sections 5316 and 5317 funding for transit service enhancement.
Exhibit 7-4 Operating Funding Sources Matrix
FY 2007/08 Program Name Description Eligibility Recipient Grant Type State Allocation Funds may be used for capital, operating, and Provides operating funding to states administrative assistance to state agencies, for the purpose of supporting public local public bodies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit transportation in areas of less than 5311 Rural and organizations, and operators of public 50,000 residents. Enhances mobility Small Urban transportation services. Projects to meet the State Formula $5,821,286 of local residents and assists in the Areas requirements of the Americans with Disabilities maintenance, development, Act, the Clean Air Act, or bicycle access improvement, and use of public projects, may be funded at 90 percent Federal transportation systems. match. Provides financial assistance for transportation services planned, 5316 Job designed, and carried out to meet the Projects must be included in a locally-developed Access/Reverse State Formula $236,931 transportation needs of eligible low- cordinated human service transportation plan. Commute income individuals, and of reverse commuters regardless of income. Reduces barriers to transportation services and expands mobility 5317 New options available to persons with Same as above. State Formula $126,046 Freedom disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA. Source: Federal Transit Administration
The table below illustrates Capital Transit’s expenditures since FY 2002/03. The Capital Transit budget is split into three sections – Administration, Operations, and Maintenance – each with its own separate line items for personnel, supplies, etc. It should be noted both fixed-route and Care-A-Van expenses are combined within this budget.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 160 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 7-5 Historic Budget FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Administration Personnel $200,002 $206,825 $217,422 $238,335 $237,853 Supplies $12,788 $6,949 $7,534 $5,754 $8,531 Services and Charges $112,584 $105,746 $94,017 $137,518 $139,781 Travel and Training $2,399 $2,481 $1,832 $5,211 $3,457 Subtotal $327,773 $322,001 $320,805 $386,818 $389,622 Operations Personnel $1,705,195 $1,770,000 $1,808,927 $1,984,279 $2,208,426 Supplies $13,420 $3,137 $18,159 $35,628 $25,793 Services and Charges $614,435 $678,992 $746,786 $799,629 $833,314 Travel and Training $1,882 $1,920 $104 $3,806 $7,256 Subtotal $2,334,932 $2,454,049 $2,573,976 $2,823,342 $3,074,789 Maintenance Personnel $367,921 $433,864 $411,280 $474,973 $515,318 Supplies $364,920 $377,771 $445,424 $472,930 $590,236 Services and Charges $39,487 $45,894 $38,969 $145,968 $152,183 Travel and Training $2,013 $2,922 $2,766 $4,565 $3,036 Capital Outlay $1,770 Miscellaneous $882 $562 Subtotal $774,341 $862,221 $899,321 $1,098,436 $1,261,335 Total $3,437,046 $3,638,271 $3,794,102 $4,308,596 $4,725,746
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 161 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Miscellaneous Recommendations The table below illustrates the estimated effects on Vehicle Service Hours, Cost, and Ridership associated with the miscellaneous recommendations outlined in the Fixed-Route Service Alternatives chapter (Chapter 4). These recommendations can be implemented individually, and forecasts of the effects of each recommendation on Capital Transit’s Vehicle Service Hours, Cost, and Ridership are presented.
Exhibit 7-6 Summary of Miscellaneous Recommendations and Costs
Annual Vehicle Service Hours Annual Cost Annual Ridership Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Current Additional Proposed Local Service Extend Local Early Morning Hours 1,836 29,665 $202,860 $3,277,650 83,599 1,317,754 Extend Local Late Evening Hours 1,836 29,665 $202,860 $3,277,650 83,599 1,317,754 Increase Local Peak-Hour Frequency 2,754 30,583 $304,289 $3,379,079 125,399 1,359,554 Introduce Limited Service on Holidays 446 28,275 $49,309 $3,124,099 20,523 1,254,678 Improve North Douglas Service 2,295 30,124 $253,575 $3,328,365 23,409 1,257,564 Subtotal 9,167 36,996 $1,012,892 $4,087,682 336,530 1,570,685 Express Service Introduce Saturday Express Service 485 28,314 $53,532 $3,128,322 19,527 1,253,682 Increase Express Frequency 2,432 30,261 $268,709 $3,343,499 98,017 1,332,172 Extend Express Service Day 510 28,339 $56,349 $3,131,139 20,555 1,254,710 Subtotal 3,427 31,256 $378,590 $3,453,380 138,098 1,372,253 Total 27,829 12,594 40,423 $3,074,790 $1,391,482 $4,466,272 1,234,155 474,628 1,708,783
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 162 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Baseline Financial Plan All revenues are listed at the top of Exhibit 7-7. Revenue sources include user fees (fares and donations), federal operating grants (Section 5311), federal capital grants (Section 5309), and a local subsidy. The local subsidy makes up the difference between total operating expenses and operating revenues (such as Section 5311 and user fees). All expenses are listed on the bottom of Exhibit 7-7. Expenses include administration, operations, maintenance, marketing, and capital outlay (i.e., vehicles, bus stop amenities, facilities). In the Baseline Scenario, the only factor contributing to increased operating cost is inflation as no service enhancements would be implemented. Detailed capital costs can be found in Exhibit 7-2.
Five-year operating expenses have been developed using the following assumptions: 1. All recommendations outlined in the Baseline Scenario (Chapter 4) would be implemented within the year listed. 2. Purchases of replacement vehicles would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Baseline Capital Plan. 3. Other capital purchases would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Baseline Capital Plan. 4. Operational costs are based on CBJ-provided data. 5. The rate of inflation is forecast at no greater than three percent per annum. 6. Demand-response ridership and donation revenue are projected to increase four percent/annum based on recent actual performance. 7. Fixed-route ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase two percent/annum based on recent ridership trends. 8. Any operating expenses not covered through farebox recovery or federal operating funds (i.e., Section 5311) will be covered through Local Transportation Funds (i.e., the CBJ’s general fund). 9. All capital expenses will be covered through federal capital funds (i.e., Section 5309). 10. No changes in fare structure would occur. 11. None of the miscellaneous recommendations would be implemented.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 163 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 7-7 Baseline Financial Plan FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue User Fees Fixed-Route $779,672 $795,266 $811,171 $827,395 $843,942 $860,821 Care-A-Van $28,773 $29,924 $31,121 $32,366 $33,660 $35,007 Federal Operating Funds (5311) $707,659 $736,398 $766,143 $796,928 $828,786 $861,752 Federal Capital Funds (5309) $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Local Subsidy $3,351,414 $3,451,956 $3,555,515 $3,662,181 $3,772,046 $3,885,207 Total Revenue $4,867,518 $6,703,701 $5,377,032 $5,318,869 $6,179,846 $7,708,498 Expenditures Operations Administration $401,311 $413,350 $425,750 $438,523 $451,679 $465,229 Operations $3,167,033 $3,262,044 $3,359,905 $3,460,702 $3,564,523 $3,671,459 Maintenance $1,299,175 $1,338,150 $1,378,295 $1,419,644 $1,462,233 $1,506,100 Marketing $0$0$0$0$0$0 Subtotal $4,867,518 $5,013,544 $5,163,950 $5,318,869 $5,478,435 $5,642,788 Capital Plan Vehicles $0 $1,517,087 $213,082 $0 $301,411 $2,065,710 Bus Stops $0 $173,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 Subtotal $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Total Expenditures $4,867,518 $6,703,701 $5,377,032 $5,318,869 $6,179,846 $7,708,498
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 164 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Intermediate Financial Plan Five-year operating expenses have been developed using the following assumptions: 1. All recommendations outlined in the Intermediate Scenario (Chapter 4) would be implemented within the year listed. 2. Purchases of replacement vehicles would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Baseline Capital Plan. 3. Other capital purchases would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Baseline Capital Plan. 4. Operational costs are based on CBJ-provided data. 5. Marketing assumes five percent of operating expenses in FY 2008/09 and three percent every fiscal year thereafter. 6. The rate of inflation is forecast at no greater than three percent per annum. 7. Demand-response ridership and donation revenue are projected to increase four percent/annum based on recent ridership trends. 8. Fixed-route ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase five percent/annum. 9. Capital Transit will receive an expected $1,000,000 in Section 5311 operating funds per Fiscal Year beginning in FY 2008/09. 10. Any operating expenses not covered through farebox recovery or federal operating funds (i.e., Section 5311) will be covered through local subsidy (i.e., the CBJ’s general fund). 11. All capital expenses will be covered through federal capital funds (i.e., Section 5309). 12. No changes in fare structure would occur. 13. None of the miscellaneous recommendations would be implemented.
The table below illustrates the effects implementing the Intermediate Scenario will have on vehicle service hours and operating cost.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 165 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 7-8 Summary of Intermediate Changes and Costs
Intermediate Current Service Scenario Service Difference Annual Operating Cost Intermediate Scenario Hours Cost/VSH Hours Weekly Annually Weekly Annually Weekly Annual Current Intermediate Difference Juneau-Mendenhall Valley 312 15,929 386 19,697 74 3,768 $1,759,974 $2,176,320 $416,346 Juneau Douglas 134 6,831 134 6,831 0 0 $754,748 $754,748 $0 Express 48 2,432 48 2,432 0 0 $268,709 $268,709 $0 Commuter 52 2,637 52 2,637 0 0 $291,359 $291,359 $0 NOAA Shuttle 0 0 60 3,048 60 3,048 $110.49 $0 $336,743 $336,743 Downtown Circulator 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Lemon Creek Circulator 000000 $0$0$0 Mendenhall Valley Circulator 000000 $0$0$0 Trunk Line 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Total 546 27,829 679 34,645 134 6,816 $3,074,790 $3,827,879 $753,089 All revenues are listed at the top of Exhibit 7-9. Revenue sources include user fees (fares and donations), federal operating grants (Section 5311), federal capital grants (Section 5309), and a local subsidy. The local subsidy makes up the difference between total operating expenses and operating revenues (such as Section 5311 and user fees). All expenses are listed on the bottom of Exhibit 7-9. Expenses include administration, operations, maintenance, marketing, and capital outlay (i.e., vehicles, bus stop amenities, facilities). Factors contributing to increased operating cost in the Intermediate Scenario include service enhancements in the Mendenhall Valley (i.e., service along riverside drive, a shuttle to NOAA) and inflation. Detailed capital costs can be found in Exhibit 7-2.
Exhibit 7-9 Intermediate Financial Plan FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Revenue User Fees Fixed-Route $779,672 $933,301 $979,966 $1,028,964 $1,080,412 $1,134,433 Care-A-Van $28,773 $29,924 $31,121 $32,366 $33,660 $35,007 Federal Operating Funds (5311) $707,659 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Federal Capital Funds (5309) $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Local Subsidy $3,351,414 $3,807,548 $3,853,955 $3,979,663 $4,108,150 $4,239,450 Total Revenue $4,867,518 $7,460,930 $6,078,124 $6,040,993 $6,923,634 $8,474,600 Expenditures Operations Administration $401,311 $413,350 $425,750 $438,523 $451,679 $465,229 Operations $3,167,033 $3,827,879 $3,942,715 $4,060,997 $4,182,826 $4,308,311 Maintenance $1,299,175 $1,338,150 $1,378,295 $1,419,644 $1,462,233 $1,506,100 Marketing $0 $191,394 $118,281 $121,830 $125,485 $129,249 Subtotal $4,867,518 $5,770,773 $5,865,042 $6,040,993 $6,222,223 $6,408,890 Capital Plan Vehicles $0 $1,517,087 $213,082 $0 $301,411 $2,065,710 Bus Stops $0 $173,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 Facilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 Subtotal $0 $1,690,157 $213,082 $0 $701,411 $2,065,710 Total Expenditures $4,867,518 $7,460,930 $6,078,124 $6,040,993 $6,923,634 $8,474,600
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 166 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Optimum Financial Plan Five-year operating expenses have been developed using the following assumptions: 1. All recommendations outlined in the Optimum Scenario (Chapter 4) would be implemented within the year listed. 2. Purchases of replacement vehicles would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Growth Capital Plan. 3. Other capital purchases would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Growth Capital Plan. 4. Operational costs are based on CBJ-provided data. 5. Marketing assumes five percent of operating expenses in FY 2008/09 and three percent every fiscal year thereafter. 6. The rate of inflation is forecast at no greater than three percent per annum. 7. Demand-response ridership and donation revenue are projected to increase four percent/annum based on recent ridership trends. 8. Fixed-route ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase eight percent/annum. 9. Capital Transit will receive an expected $1,000,000 in Section 5311 operating funds per Fiscal Year beginning in FY 2008/09. 10. Any operating expenses not covered through farebox recovery or federal operating funds (i.e., Section 5311) will be covered through local subsidy (i.e., the CBJ’s general fund). 11. All capital expenses will be covered through federal capital funds (i.e., Section 5309). 12. No changes in fare structure would occur. 13. None of the miscellaneous recommendations would be implemented.
The table below illustrates the effects implementing the Intermediate Scenario will have on vehicle service hours and operating cost.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 167 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 7-10 Summary of Optimum Changes and Costs
Optimum Current Service Scenario Service Difference Annual Operating Cost Optimum Scenario Hours Cost/VSH Hours Weekly Annually Weekly Annually Weekly Annual Current Optimum Difference Juneau-Mendenhall Valley 312 15,929 0 0 -312 -15,929 $1,759,974 $0 -$1,759,974 Juneau Douglas 134 6,831 134 6,831 0 0 $754,748 $754,748 $0 Express 48 2,432 0 0 -48 -2,432 $268,709 $0 -$268,709 Commuter 52 2,637 52 2,637 0 0 $291,359 $291,359 $0 $110.49 Downtown Circulator 0 0 163 8,294 163 8,294 $0 $916,408 $916,408 Lemon Creek Circulator 0 0 203 10,353 203 10,353 $0 $1,143,889 $1,143,889 Mendenhall Valley Circulator 0 0 174 8,886 174 8,886 $0 $981,773 $981,773 Trunk Line 0 0 413 21,081 413 21,081 $0 $2,329,196 $2,329,196 Total 546 27,829 1,139 58,082 593 30,253 $3,074,790 $6,417,373 $3,342,583
All revenues are listed at the top of Exhibit 7-11. Revenue sources include user fees (fares and donations), federal operating grants (Section 5311), federal capital grants (Section 5309), and a local subsidy. The local subsidy makes up the difference between total operating expenses and operating revenues (such as Section 5311 and user fees). All expenses are listed on the bottom of Exhibit 7-11. Expenses include administration, operations, maintenance, marketing, and capital outlay (i.e., vehicles, bus stop amenities, facilities). Factors contributing to increased operating cost in the Optimum Scenario include significant expansion of service hours, increased frequency, and inflation. Detailed capital costs can be found in Exhibit 7-3.
Exhibit 7-11 Optimum Financial Plan
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 168 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
8. DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 169 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
CHAPTER 8 – DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
The City and Borough of Juneau introduced a Downtown Circulator Shuttle and public transit Fare-Free Zone in downtown Juneau in 1984. This chapter examines the feasibility of implementing a circulator shuttle to once again operate in Juneau’s downtown area. To this end, the chapter examines past efforts in detail and demand for transit service within downtown Juneau. Our analysis identified attainable goals, objectives, and performance standards for such a shuttle, developed different service scenarios for the shuttle’s operation, and created a supporting financial and capital plan.
Purpose The purpose of this effort is to determine the feasibility of a dedicated downtown Juneau shuttle. The shuttles goal is to improve community mobility, promote the downtown as a commercial and retail destination, help and mitigate downtown traffic congestion for residents, persons employed within the downtown area, and visitors to Juneau. The added convenience of a downtown shuttle could also reduce reliance on personal vehicles in the downtown area.
Background Originally settled in the 1880’s as a mining community, Juneau became Alaska’s capital in 1906, bringing new public sector employment opportunities. In 1970, Juneau was incorporated as a unified City and Borough, consolidating the City of Douglas, City of Juneau, and Greater Juneau Borough. It is a community comprised of nearly 31,000 residents as of 2006, with approximately 3,500 living within the downtown area. The downtown area is the most densely-populated area within the City and Borough of Juneau. It also features the greatest number of employment opportunities given the numerous government offices located therein.
Given the geography and land use characteristics found along the Inside Passage, travel beyond the CBJ can only be achieved via land or sea. The area road network provides access from downtown Juneau to Douglas and the Mendenhall Valley.
The Alaska Marine Highway System is a state-run ferry system offering service throughout Southern Alaska, with coastal British Columbia, and Bellingham, WA..
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 170 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Downtown Juneau is home to several large employers, public agencies, and retail shops.
Methodology The design of the downtown shuttle reflects Moore & Associates’ professional judgment, demand analysis, and route and schedule planning. A consensus was reached among community members and stakeholders regarding the desire for a downtown shuttle. The community, through a series of stakeholder and public meetings, along with CBJ staff, helped to identify the potential mission and desire of a dedicated downtown shuttle. The meetings were critical in developing the service characteristics, as they allowed our project team to codify the community’s expectations of the proposed downtown shuttle service. From this information, three service alternatives were created. For each of these alternatives, operating configurations and supporting financial plans were developed.
Past Efforts – 1984 Shuttle In 1984, the transportation consulting firm TDA, inc. analyzed the feasibility of introducing a circulator shuttle service within downtown Juneau. Within this report, alternatives for a downtown circulator shuttle service were given, and a final route and timetable were presented. The Assembly adopted the service plan, and the shuttle began operating in November 1984.
Recommendations The service approach recommended in the 1984 report and subsequently undertaken by the CBJ included both a dedicated circulator shuttle service and Fare-Free Zone within the downtown area. This circulator shuttle alignment and fare-free zone followed Egan Drive in the northern portion of downtown to Franklin Street, where the zone extended south to Marine Way. In 1984, all Capital Transit routes originated and terminated in downtown Juneau. Patrons could travel free on regular Capital Transit routes if the trip originated and ended within the zone. If the trip did not remain within the fare-free zone, riders would pay the fare either when boarding if their trip began inside the zone, or when alighting if the trip concluded after leaving the zone. The goal of this program was to supplement existing routes and improve mobility for downtown residents,
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 171 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
workers, and visitors. The service called for an additional bus to be in operation along with all existing alignments, generating 137 daily vehicle service miles, for an annual total of 34,500 additional miles.
Outcomes After a year of operation, the performance of the downtown shuttle pilot program was analyzed by TDA in a report published March 1986. This report went into detail regarding the implementation and performance of the downtown shuttle. The main goals for the downtown shuttle were: • Improve downtown mobility for residents, area employees, and visitors, • Encourage transit use in the off-peak hours when excess transit capacity is available, • Reduce dependency on the private auto, and • Reduce peak-period traffic congestion.
Through the use of a survey and cordon count, the shuttle was analyzed and found to have met two of the goals admirably: improving mobility and encouraging off-peak transit use. After the first year of shuttle service, 40 percent surveyed riders stated they would not have made the trip without the shuttle. Capital Transit’s ridership increased an average of 20 percent due to the downtown shuttle. Daily ridership in the fare-free zone hit a peak of 1,200 patrons by the end of 1985. The report also states Capital Transit revenue increased during the pilot program, however operating data was not provided.
The two substantially unmet goals were: reduce reliance on the single occupant and reduce-peak period roadway congestion. Only five percent of those riders surveyed indicated that they would have used a car for the surveyed trip. This indicates the majority of the trips made on the downtown shuttle were made by patrons who were either ride-dependent, or would have taken transit or another alternative mode (i.e., biking or walking) regardless of the presence of a fare-free zone and circulator shuttle.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 172 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Demand Analysis We have identified several key factors driving demand for a “renewed” circulator shuttle with the downtown area. These include available roadway capacity, seasonal congestion, limited parking supply, and competition from emerging retail destinations outside of downtown Juneau.
Roadway Capacity Further development of the road network in the downtown area is very limited given topographic and land-use constraints. The downtown core is situated on a narrow strip of land between Mount Roberts and Gastineau Channel. Downtown Juneau was expanded significantly through the construction of sturdy piers extending into the channel, meaning a portion of downtown Juneau sits on either fill or a comprehensive network of piers. This, combined with the fact downtown Juneau is almost completely built-out, means no additional road capacity will be added in the foreseeable future. Given roadway capacity is static, any increases in demand (i.e., more traffic) must be managed through alternative means (i.e., Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Seasonal Congestion Juneau is the premier cruise destination in Southeastern Alaska, given its picturesque setting, access to the Mendenhall Glacier, and historic charm. Every day during the cruise season (mid May to mid October) upwards to 15,000 cruise passengers and staff disembark into the downtown area on foot to shop, board buses to the glacier, and visit area attractions. These visitors place strain on the transportation network as the foot traffic disrupts traffic flow and fills the sidewalks. While the number of tourists riding Capital Transit has increased each year, ridership continues to be dominated by Juneau residents. By contrast, the cruise industry and private operators offer a number of programs tailored specifically for their guests. These include rubber-wheeled trolleys for guided tours and over-the-road coaches for travel to the Mendenhall Glacier and other destinations. Therefore, they contribute little to the overall mobility of Juneau residents. This leaves open an opportunity for another service – such as a circulator shuttle – to improve mobility for residents, persons employed within the downtown core, and visitors alike.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 173 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Parking Supply The current parking supply within walking distance of key downtown area employers and retail destinations is largely limited to on-street parking with one- hour time limits. These spots function efficiently for the purpose of promoting quick trips to retail, but fail to accommodate persons employed in the downtown area. Parking structures and lots are available in downtown Juneau but – especially during harsh winter weather – are not within comfortable walking distance of key worksites. A dedicated circulator shuttle would allow persons employed downtown to park in remote structures and use the shuttle to access their respective worksites, thus relieving demand on parking supply within the downtown core, reducing the number of commuters driving into downtown, and increasing parking availability for downtown merchants.
Retail Competition Beginning in the 1970s, with the construction of the Nugget Mall and Mendenhall Mall, Lemon Creek and the Mendenhall Valley have emerged as retail destinations within the CBJ. Big-box retailers opening in those areas have begun to compete with downtown Juneau merchants. These destinations feature an abundance of free parking and are often located in proximity to residential communities. It is unlikely that small, locally-owned downtown businesses would be able to adopt the same business models that have made many national retailers successful. However, as downtown areas nationwide have illustrated, practical improvements can often stem the tide of urban flight by retailers. Of particular concern is convenience. Downtown Juneau has a limited road network and supply of parking, which can sometimes make visiting the area challenging. To this end, an attractively branded downtown circulator shuttle could become an important economic stimulus tool. It could serve to reduce roadway congestion, promote downtown Juneau as a destination, and limit demand for parking.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 174 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Demographic Analysis To accurately assess demand for a circulator shuttle amongst downtown residents, Moore & Associates performed demographic analysis trends within the area. The maps in this section reflect data from Census 2000 at the Block Group level. This is the most accurate data currently available across all population groups.
Population The downtown area’s population increased 38 percent between 1990 and 2000. The totals are reflective of census block groups two, three, four, and five, all of which are located within the CBJ. Assuming this growth trend continues, the downtown population could reach 4,826 by 2010.
Exhibit 8-1 Population Growth Total Population 1990 2,534 2000 3,497 Net Change 963 Percent Change 38.0% 2010 4,826 Source: U.S. Census
The majority of the downtown area’s population is distributed in the eastern portion. The downtown area is significantly more urbanized than the balance of the CBJ. A downtown shuttle could prove ideal for improving mobility for downtown residents between the western portion of the area (near the Federal Building), and the eastern portion (near city hall and retail destinations).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 175 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-2 Population Distribution by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census
The following map reflects the number of dwelling units per acre in each parcel within the downtown area. High concentrations of units are clustered north of the
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 176 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Federal Building as well as near the State Capitol. The area near the Federal Building could benefit significantly from a fare-free circulator shuttle given it is incovenient to walk throughout the downtown core during harsh weather and not palatable to pay full fare for a relatively short bus ride.
Exhibit 8-3 Population Density by Parcel
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
Ride-Dependent Population In many communities throughout the nation, the ride-dependent population is comprised of youth (ages of 5 to 17), seniors, persons with disabilities, and low income individuals. Persons within these groups have a greater propensity to use public transit often due to the absence of other mobility options.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 177 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Youth Population For the purposes of our analysis, the term “youth” is defined as individuals between 5 and 17 years of age. Downtown Juneau’s youth population increased 29.7 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal census. Figures from the Juneau School District indicate the trend has subsequently reversed. Enrollment in the Juneau School District (CBJ-wide) decreased from 5,189 to 4,989 between 2005 and 2007.
Youth’s share of the total population in downtown decreased from 14.2 percent in 1990 to 13.4 percent in 2000. This decrease in youth population indicates traditional families are migrating from downtown to residences in or near the Mendenhall Valley.
Exhibit 8-4 Youth Population Growth Youth Population 1990 360 2000 467 Net Change 107 Percent Change 29.7% 2010 607 Source: U.S. Census
The majority of the CBJ’s youth population resides in the Mendenhall Valley, with relatively modest concentrations in Douglas and downtown Juneau. With respect to the downtown area, youth population is evenly dispersed. The basic mobility needs of the youth population are typically addressed by parents or the school district, making public transit unnecessary for some trips, although transit still fills a critical need in improving mobility for youth making non school-related trips.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 178 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-5 Youth Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 179 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Senior Population Seniors are defined as individuals 65 years of age or older. The downtown area’s senior population increased 69.3 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal census. Assuming the trend continues, downtown’s senior population could increase to 786 by 2010.
The senior share of total population increased from 10.8 percent in 1990 to 13.3 percent in 2000. This increase translates to additional demand for paratransit services within the downtown area as many within this demographic are otherwise unable to make basic trips on their own or using the traditional fixed-route bus service. Ensuring these residents have adequate access to healthcare and other community services is an important element of the downtown’s quality of life.
Exhibit 8-6 Senior Population Growth Senior Population 1990 274 2000 464 Net Change 190 Percent Change 69.3% 2010 786 Source: U.S. Census
The concentrations of seniors within the downtown area are dispersed fairly evenly. Residents of downtown Juneau live within a three mile radius of the majority of the CBJ’s healthcare facilities and must often rely on public transportation to access such services.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 180 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-7 Senior Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 181 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Persons with Disabilities The number of residents indicating a personal disability within the downtown area increased more than 2000 percent between 1990 and 2000 according to the federal census. We believe this figure is skewed given the Census Bureau changed its methodology relative to the calculation of persons with disabilities between 1990 and 2000. Therefore a higher percentage of residents were counted in 2000 than in 1990. There is no evidence to suggest a demographic shift of such magnitude occurred to support a 2000-percent increase. Further it is important to understand that respondents to the federal census are essentially “self- categorizing”
The disabled share of total population in the downtown area increased from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 28.3 percent in 2000, largely due to the aforementioned change in Census methodology. Given the total population estimate of 4,826 for the year 2010, if the percentage of persons with mobility impairments remains steady, the number of would be 1,366 in 2010.
Exhibit 8-8 Disabled Population Growth Disabled Population 1990 46 2000 989 Net Change 943 Percent Change 2050.0% 2010 1,366 Source: U.S. Census
Downtown Juneau has one of the greatest concentrations of persons with disabilities in the CBJ. Currently these areas require coverage from the Care-A-Van service in order to address basic mobility needs. Given the special needs of this demographic, we do not forecast a substantial mode shift from Care-A-Van to the proposed shuttle.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 182 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-9 Disabled Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 183 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Low-Income Population The number of low-income individuals residing in the downtown area increased 42.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, based on federal data. From this we believe it can be reasonably assumed the downtown area’s low-income population will increase to 292 by 2010.
The low-income share of total population in downtown Juneau increased from 5.7 percent in 1990 to 5.8 percent in 2000. Such residents are more likely dependent upon public transit for basic mobility, and Capital Transit service planning and coordination efforts need to take this into consideration.
Exhibit 8-10 Low-Income Population Growth Population in Poverty 1990 144 2000 205 Net Change 61 Percent Change 42.4% 2010 292 Source: U.S. Census
The greatest concentration of low-income individuals lies in the eastern portion of the downtown area. We believe low-income persons residing in downtown Juneau would greatly benefit from a fare-free zone. Their mobility options to destinations throughout downtown would be dramatically increased. More trips would be generated by increasing travel options.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 184 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-11 Low-Income Population by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 185 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Incidence of Vehicle Ownership The number of households absent access to a personal vehicle in the downtown area increased 9.5 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the federal census. We believe it can be reasonably assumed the number of households without automobile access will increase to 304 by 2010.
The total number of households in the downtown area grew from 1,264 in 1990 to 1,682 in 2000. Interestingly, the number of downtown households without vehicle access decreased from 20 percent in 1990 to 16.5 percent in 2000. This decrease indicates an opportunity for improved ridership is available should downtown residents be convinced to leave their private auto at home and use transit for trips when possible. Residents without vehicle access are largely dependent upon public transit for mobility.
Exhibit 8-12 Incidence of Vehicle Ownership Households without Vehicle Access 1990 253 2000 277 Net Change 24 Percent Change 9.5% 2010 304 Source: U.S. Census
The greatest concentration of households throughout the CBJ lacking vehicle access is located in downtown Juneau. The eastern portion reflects a large cluster of households without access to personal vehicles. Households within the downtown area are less dependent upon personal vehicles than their counterparts in other areas of the Borough given the compact nature of the downtown area. We believe introduction of a downtown shuttle would be a significant boon for this demographic.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 186 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-13 Households Without Vehicle Access by Census Block Group
Source: U.S. Census
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 187 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Downtown Shuttle Examples In crafting recommendations for a downtown circulator shuttle, we felt it was advantageous to examine similar efforts undertaken in other communities.
City of Long Beach, CA Long Beach Transit responded to increased congestion in its central business district by implementing a downtown shuttle service called the "Runabout" in 1991. As the business community grew increasingly reliant upon patronage generated by the shuttle, the City decided to subsidize the shuttles by establishing a fare-free downtown. Far surpassing LBT’s expectations, ridership skyrocketed from 200,000 to more than 1.5 million in just three years. To meet the growing demand and support the city's reemergence as one of the West Coast's most dynamic tourist and business centers, the Runabouts evolved into a comprehensive system called The Passport. The fleet of shuttles grew from ten to 28, and service expanded to connect downtown with the MTA’s Blue Line light rail service, Belmont Shore, Queen Mary, Catalina Landing, the new Aquarium of the Pacific, and Long Beach State University. Today, The Passport carries nearly three million passengers yearly.
City of Burbank, CA To increase downtown Burbank’s ability to compete with emerging retail and employment centers in neighboring communities, the Downtown Burbank Partnership – a non profit mutual benefit corporation funded though voluntary property tax increases for downtown business – introduced a free shuttle, The shuttle operated on 20-minute headways throughout downtown Burbank. The Property-Based Business Improvement District (P-BID) used additional tax revenues to make sidewalk and roadway improvements, undertake marketing, organize events, and subsidize the shuttle’s fares. The shuttle was operated by the City of Burbank’s Burbank Bus program and provided connections between remote parking structures located at the periphery of the downtown core as well as the Burbank Metrolink Station. Since the P-BID was formed in 2003, property values and retail sales have each increased more than 30 percent.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 188 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada The Downtown Halifax Business Commission (DHBC) introduced Free Rides Everywhere Downtown (FRED) – a free seasonal shuttle – in 1996. FRED operates seven days a week, 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., during the summer season. The shuttle enhances mobility within downtown Halifax, encouraging residents and visitors alike to get out, see more, and do more in the area. FRED also boasts an on-board visitor commentary provided by the DHBC. The 40- minute loop includes Lower Water Street, Barrington Street, Spring Garden Road, and the Halifax Citadel. With over 60,000 unlinked trips in 2006, FRED has become a critical component of the downtown Halifax mobility network. Tourists recognize FRED as a safe and welcoming way to tour the city, while residents hop on FRED as a convenient means to get around.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 189 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards This section advances a Performance Measurement System governing the proposed Downtown Circulator Shuttle. These performance criteria were developed to allow for the circulator shuttle’s performance to be measured and assessed.
An effective Performance Measurement System is composed of goals, objectives, and measures.
• Goals are statements that qualify the desired results. They are the end toward which efforts are directed. They are general and timeless, yet theoretically attainable.
• Objectives provide quantifiable measures of the goals. They are more precise and capable of both attainment and measurement.
• Measures set quantifiable targets for achieving the adopted goals.
The City and Borough of Juneau did not establish prior performance standards with which to assess downtown shuttle performance. However, given the data provided by the City, we believe a downtown shuttle service is viable and can be operated efficiently and effectively. Therefore, these goals and objectives set the framework for efficient and effective operations for a downtown circulator or shuttle.
The following tables link the adopted goal to the quantifiable measure; they then compare actual performance from the previous downtown shuttle operations with realistic performance standards.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 190 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-14 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards
Goal I. Operate an efficient and effective downtown circulator shuttle service that maximizes service and minimizes cost impacts. Objective Performance Measure Performance Standard Minimize operating costs. Operating Cost/VSH $80.00 Operating Cost/Passenger $2.50 Increase transit usage. Annual growth in ridership At least 3.5% Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour (VSH) 30.0 Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile (VSM) 2.5 Goal II. Provide safe, reliable, and high quality transportation. Objective Performance Measure Performance Standard Provide safe service. Ratio of Passengers to Available Seats. No more than 145 percent of available seats. Passenger Injuries. Less than one passenger injury 100,000 passenger boardings. Preventable accidents. Minimum of 60,000 miles between preventable collision accidents. Shelter location. Make sure all future bus shelters are in compliance with Alaska DOT/PF standards. Reliable transit service. On-time performance. 90 percent of all monthly trips operate on-time (defined as no later than 5 minutes and no earlier than the published schedule). Frequency At least every 15 minutes. Missed trips. Less than one percent of total monthly trips (defined as no later than 15 minutes past the schedule pick-up time or missed entirely). Minimize transfer wait times. No more than 5 minutes for transfer wait times. Less than five percent of the monthly transfers by route (missed transfer Missed transfers. defined as missed connection from one bus to another). Spare ratio. 20 percent Maintenance schedule. All regularly scheduled maintenance completed within 500 miles or five days of scheduled date/cycle. Road calls. No less than 10,000 miles between road calls. Defined as incidence where service is interrupted longer than five minutes due to a mechanical failure (except for flat tires). Goal III. Evaluate, monitor and improve the circulator shuttle service on an on-going basis. Objective Performance Measure Performance Standard Ongoing, mandatory enhancement . Regularly programmed service evaluations. Independent evaluations at intervals of no greater tha n 5 years. Ongoing, mandatory reporting. Regularly programmed data collection and Monthly performance reports including such information as vehicle reporting. service hours, vehicle service mileage, fare revenue, ridership, accidents, and injuries.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 191 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Service Alternatives In crafting recommended alignments and configurations for the Downtown Circulator Shuttle, Moore & Associates analyzed travel demand within the area, considered community and stakeholder feedback, as well as prior efforts. We developed three separate alignments for the shuttle. These alignments may be configured in several different ways: • Incorporated into the existing Capital Transit route network as an individual route (similar to the Optimum Scenario outlined in the TDP). • Stand-alone service run by a private sector entity. • A hybrid approach.
From information amassed through previous implementation, community participation, and our professional experience, this analysis seeks to determine the most effective and efficient option for a downtown circulator. There is also interest in providing shuttle service to the Rock Dump on South Franklin to alleviate the need for new downtown businesses to provide their own independent shuttle services for employees parking there. In analyzing the feasibility of operating a circulator service to the Rock Dump we discovered a number of challenges stemming from large crowds impeding vehicle movement during the summer season, to an absence of demand during the off-season.
Alternative A Given the shuttle program introduced in 1984 was considered a success by many, and considering it was only cancelled due to absence of dedicated funding, reviving that alignment could prove to be successful once again. Alternative A includes the 2.5-mile alignment from the circulator shuttle implemented in 1984, combined with a fare-free zone. This route offers little benefit over existing routes in terms of coverage, but given its compact nature, it could operate with one vehicle on minimal headways (fifteen minutes or less) within the downtown area.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 192 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-15 Downtown Circulator Alternative A
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 193 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Alternative B This Alternative reflects an attempt to improve mobility between the eastern and western portions of the downtown area through the use of an alternative route. All current Capital Transit alignments travel between the two sections of downtown Juneau via Egan Drive. In most instances, this is brief (between Main Street and Willoughby Avenue). Yet, this maneuver still requires transit vehicles, often at capacity, to transition from a complete stop to the high speeds common on that thoroughfare. While this has become standard operating procedure, we feel it fails to take into account an alternative route along Calhoun Avenue. Alternative B proposes routing the downtown circulator along both the traditional (Willoughby Avenue) and alternative (Calhoun Avenue) alignments. Doing so would result in a 2.8-mile route improving mobility for residents northeast of the Federal Building and northwest of the State Capitol. Such an alignment would require vehicles capable of navigating the narrower road network (especially along Calhoun Avenue). Benefits associated with this alignment include expanded coverage area and increased frequency compared with current routing in the downtown area. Drawbacks include the length of the route, which would require multiple vehicles in order to realize headways of less than fifteen minutes.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 194 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-16 Downtown Circulator Alternative B
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 195 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Alternative C Given the limited road network present in the downtown area combined with challenging topography, alignment options for the downtown circulator are limited. Slight tweaks can be made to any of the recommendations. Still, there are only so many streets within downtown Juneau suitable for transit service. Alternative C is limited to a fare-free zone for existing alignments within the downtown. This would require passengers to pay a fare upon boarding the bus anywhere outside of downtown Juneau, and upon alighting from the bus should they board in the fare free-zone and then travel outside of its boundaries. Trips originating and terminating within the fare-free zone would be free. This alternative would be the least expensive to implement, requiring no additional vehicles. Any reduction in headway time within the downtown area would require additional expenditure given service would have to be added to current routes. Drawbacks include diminished fare revenue due to some trips being complimentary, and only minor improvements in mobility and congestion versus the other alternatives which reflect a “new”, dedicated service.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 196 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-17 Downtown Circulator Alternative C
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 197 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Financial Plan This section presents the capital requirements and five-year operating projections required to support the alternatives presented above. Three distinct scenarios were developed by Moore & Associates based on forecast demand, community and stakeholder discussion, and prior efforts. In each, it is assumed all service recommendations would be implemented as presented.
Alternative A Financial Plan Five-year expenses have been developed using the following assumptions: 1. All recommendations outlined in Alternative A would be implemented in the year listed. 2. Purchases of replacement vehicles would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Capital Plan line item. 3. Our calculations assume the circulator shuttle would operate every half- hour, Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4. An hourly operating cost of $110.49 is assumed. 5. The rate of inflation is forecast at no greater than three percent per annum. 6. Marketing assumes an allocation of five percent of total operating budget in year one and three percent every year thereafter. 7. No fare would be charged.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 198 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-18 Alternative A Financial Plan Expenses FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Operating Operations $366,274 $377,263 $388,580 $400,238 $412,245 Marketing $18,314 $11,318 $11,657 $12,007 $12,367 Total Operating Expenses $384,588 $388,580 $400,238 $412,245 $424,612 Capital # of Vehicles 20002 Cost of Vehicles $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $154,500 Total Capital Expenses $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $154,500 Total Expenses $534,588 $388,580 $400,238 $412,245 $579,112 Revenue Fare $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Local $76,918 $77,716 $80,048 $82,449 $84,922 FTA $457,670 $310,864 $320,190 $329,796 $494,190 Total Revenue $534,588 $388,580 $400,238 $412,245 $579,112
Alternative B Financial Plan Five-year expenses have been developed reflective of the following assumptions: 1. All recommendations outlined in Alternative B would be implemented in the year listed. 2. Purchases of replacement vehicles would take place during the fiscal year identified in the Capital Plan line item. 3. Our calculations assume the circulator shuttle will operate every 15 minutes, Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4. An hourly operating cost of $110.49 is assumed. 5. The rate of inflation is forecast at no greater than three percent per annum. 6. Marketing assumes an allocation of five percent of total operating budget in year one and three percent every year thereafter. 7. No fare would be charged.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 199 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Exhibit 8-19 Alternative B Financial Plan Expenses FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 Operating Operations $631,119 $650,052 $669,554 $689,641 $710,330 Marketing $31,556 $19,502 $20,087 $20,689 $21,310 Total Operating Expenses $662,675 $669,554 $689,641 $710,330 $731,640 Capital # of Vehicles 20002 Cost of Vehicles $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $154,500 Total Capital Expenses $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $154,500 Total Expenses $812,675 $669,554 $689,641 $710,330 $886,140 Revenue Fare $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Local $132,535 $133,911 $137,928 $142,066 $146,328 FTA $680,140 $535,643 $551,713 $568,264 $739,812 Total Revenue $812,675 $669,554 $689,641 $710,330 $886,140
Alternative C Financial Plan Alternative C does not require a financial plan as no service hours are being added. Its implementation may be accompanied by a drop in fare revenue, but this is difficult to quantify given the number of riders originating and terminating trips within the proposed fare-free zone has not been accurately quantified.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 200 DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE FEASIBILITY
Service Recommendation Given sufficient demand exists within downtown Juneau to support the introduction of a dedicated fare-free shuttle, Moore & Associates recommends the CBJ implement Alternative B. This configuration would increase transit’s footprint within downtown Juneau through increased service area, a fare-free policy, and enhanced frequency. Among the possible alternatives, Alternative B is the most effective in addressing concerns raised by staff, stakeholders, and members of the community. Alternative B is the best-suited alternative for improving mobility for residents and visitors in downtown Juneau.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 201 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 202 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
9. COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 203 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
CHAPTER 9 – COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES ELEMENT
As part of the development of the City and Borough of Juneau’s (CBJ) Transit Development Plan, Moore & Associates also prepared a Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. Recipients of federal transit funding are required to complete the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan under the terms of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53) legislation. For several years, the Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition (JCTC) has been working towards improving coordination among transportation providers in the CBJ. This group is composed of, paratransit providers, client-based providers and Capital Transit. Capital Transit is the designated Lead Agency for coordination efforts within the CBJ.
Federal Legislation In August 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), reauthorizing funding for transportation services. As part of this reauthorization, grantees under the Elderly and Disabled Transportation (Section 5310), Job Access and Reverse Commute (Section 5316), and New Freedom (Section 5317) programs must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible for federal funding. Potential projects must be part of a “locally-developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan.” Said plan must be developed through a local process that includes representation within of public, private, and non-profit transportation services, human services providers, and the general public.
A Coordinated Human Services Plan (“coordinated plan”) identifies the transportation needs of specific populations under Sections 5310, 5316, and 5317; provides strategies for meeting those local needs; and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation.
The Coordinated Plan is intended to build upon existing, successful coordination models, while developing strategies aimed at meeting the specific needs of the Juneau Community. Ultimately, the Plan will enhance coordination in planning and operations among Juneau’s public, private, and non-profit transportation providers.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 204 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Funding Sources Three FTA funding programs associated with SAFETEA-LU are designed specifically to enhance the mobility of persons with disabilities, seniors, and low-income individuals.
Section 5310 – Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (49 U.S.C. 5310) Section 5310 is a formula-based funding source which The Alaska Department of Transportation administers to private, non-profit groups addressing the transportation needs of seniors and persons with disabilities when transportation service(s) offered within the designated area is unavailable, insufficient, or unsuitable. Funds are apportioned based on populations of the above designated demographics within Alaska (i.e. seniors, persons with disabilities).
Funds are prioritized based on an annual program of projects associated with a state-wide grant application. The Alaska Department of Transportation ensures:
• Local applicants and project activities are eligible and in compliance with federal requirements,
• Private, nonprofit transportation providers have an opportunity to participate in the competitive process, and
• The program provides for coordination of federally-assisted transportation services.
Once the FTA approves an application, corresponding funds are available for state administration of the program as well as for allocation to individual sub- recipients.
Section 5311 – Rural and Small Urban Area Formula Grant (49 U.S.C. 5311) This program provides capital and operating funds on a “matched” basis to public transportation providers serving communities with populations under 50,000. Specialized service providers may access these funds through partnering with a public transportation provider in a coordinated community transportation framework. Non-Urbanized Formula Program grants provide project administration, capital and operating assistance, through the respective state, to
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 205 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
non-urbanized areas (i.e., less than 50,000 in population) for public transportation. State agencies, local public bodies, and agencies thereof; private non-profit and private for-profit organizations, and operators of public transportation services are eligible to apply.
Section 5316 – Job Access Reverse Commute (49 U.S.C. 5316) Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) is a formula-based funding channel that addresses the unique, employment-related commuting challenges faced by low-income individuals and public assistance recipients. Among the challenges are:
• Significant distance between home and work, • Multiple destinations (i.e., work-site, childcare), and • Working hours when public transit services are reduced or not available.
The state directly allocates funds for areas like Juneau with populations under 200,000. For areas with populations over 200,000, funds are provided to the designated recipient, which in turn apportions the same. The formula is based on the number of eligible low-income individuals and public assistance recipients within the designated area. SAFETEA-LU authorized $727 million in JARC grants during Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009.
Section 5317 – New Freedom Initiative (49 U.S.C. 5317) Similar to JARC, the New Freedom Initiative aims to provide transportation services to disadvantaged individuals. This initiative is a new program – introduced in SAFETEA-LU – that supports new public transportation services and mobility alternatives beyond that required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et. seq.)
Disadvantaged individuals (i.e., persons with disabilities, low-income individuals, the ride-dependent) face other significant challenges in accessing services within their respective community. The geographic dispersion of these populations often creates challenges for human service organizations focused on delivering transportation to their clients.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 206 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Federal, state, and local organizations created specialized programs to meet specific transportation needs in response to these challenges. There are at least sixty-two federal programs providing special services to transportation- disadvantaged persons. Most are human service programs that fund limited transportation services providing eligible participants with access to target services such as job training, health care, senior centers, or rehabilitation programs. The New Freedom program was developed to “reduce the gap” between transportation programs operated by social service agencies and those operated by public agencies.
Lead Agencies The Federal Transit Administration established the United We Ride initiative in December 2003 to improve coordination of human service transportation in America. The objective of United We Ride is to implement the President's Executive Order on Human Service Transportation Coordination by eliminating barriers between federal programs, thereby enhancing coordination of human service transportation programs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and low-income individuals who depend on public transportation to access employment, health, and other critical services.
In Alaska, the Department of Transportation/Public Facilities (DOT/PF) developed a program aimed at coordinating transportation services entitled Alaska Public Transportation Management System (APTMS). APTMS is a state-wide asset inventory and implementation initiative supporting local efforts in coordinating transportation services. This effort encourages coordination of transportation services between providers as well as the DOT/PF, Alaska Commission on Aging, and Department of Health and Social Services. These coordination efforts provide grant funding preference to organizations participating in coordinated transportation efforts.
Capital Transit serves as the Lead Agency for coordination efforts within the CBJ. As the Lead Agency, Capital Transit is responsible for either developing, or overseeing the development of, the CBJ’s Coordinated Plan. The locally-developed coordinated plan must include goals, assessment of needs, inventory of available services, inventory of
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 207 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
community resources, gaps in service, strategies to address gaps in service, and prioritized projects.
Benefits of Coordinated Transportation Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 101 defines coordination as the “sharing of the transportation resources, responsibilities, and activities of various agencies with each other for the overall benefit of their community.” At its core, agencies with coordinated transportation realize both financial benefits and improved levels of service.
TCRP Report 101 notes there are three key benefits resulting from coordinating transportation services:
• Additional funding – Agencies who participate in the coordination process often have access to additional funding sources, which translates to additional funding.
• Efficiency and effectiveness improvements – Coordination can reduce cost and increase the level and quality of service offered.
• Increased mobility – Enhanced access to jobs, healthcare, and other needed destinations at a lower cost per trip.
Demographic Analysis Current census data and demographic projections identified within the Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition Plan highlight the need for expanding current transportation programs. The greatest concern identified was the number of persons age 85 and older, a demographic growing at a rate nearly four times faster than the general population. Traditional automobile and fixed-route bus services often fail to meet transit services mobility needs of the elderly.
Other segments of the nation's ride-dependent population, including seniors age 65 and older, persons with disabilities, and low-income families, are also growing. These segments constitute the core market for public transportation in many communities. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume demand for transportation services, especially flexible, non-traditional services, will be increasingly identified through a coordinated plan process.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 208 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
For additional discussion of demographic trends within the CBJ refer to Chapter 3.
Inventory of Human Transportation Options Moore & Associates reviewed the transportation programs operated by the CBJ, as well as services offered by several local non-profit social service organizations. In addition to those transportation service providers listed below, both Moore & Associates and CBJ staff made efforts to contact several other providers identified by the JCTC. These entities either declined to participate in coordination efforts or did not respond to good faith efforts requesting their involvement.
Fixed-route, paratransit, and client-based transportation service areas were assessed to identify possible service gaps (temporal and spatial), duplication of service, and barriers to service coordination.
Fixed-Route Services Capital Transit Capital Transit is a fixed-route bus service operated by the City and Borough of Juneau using 16 transit coaches. Routes travel between downtown Juneau and Auke Bay, as well as in Douglas and North Douglas. The service operates Monday through Saturday, 6:45 a.m. to 11:45 p.m.; and Sunday, 8:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. The Juneau to Mendenhall Valley and Juneau to Douglas routes operate on half-hour headways, Monday through Sunday; while the Express Route operates on a one-hour headway, Monday through Friday. Base fare is $1.50, with discounted fare available for youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, and students.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 209 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Exhibit 9-1 Capital Transit Route Network
Paratransit Services Southeast Senior Services (SESS) Southeast Senior Services, a division of Catholic Community Services (CCS), operates the CBJ‘s complementary ADA-paratransit program, Care-A-Van. Care- A-Van provides curb-to-curb service within three-quarters of a mile of any fixed- route alignment. As required by the ADA, paratransit service hours mirror that of the fixed-route. The CBJ owns eight vans assigned to the Care-A-Van program while SESS provides four. A donation of three dollars is requested per ride.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 210 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Exhibit 9-2 Care-A-Van Service Area
Client-Based Services Southeast Alaska Independent Living (SAIL) SAIL, in cooperation and Juneau Taxi & Tours, administers a subsidized taxi service for persons with disabilities as well as residents age 60 and older. The service operates throughout the CBJ, and is available 24-hours a day, seven days a week. A lift-equipped taxi-van is also available for patrons unable to access the regular taxi.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 211 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
SAIL also operates the Outdoor Recreation and Community Access (ORCA) program, offering persons with disabilities access to recreational opportunities throughout the CBJ using an accessible van. The organization also partners with Eaglecrest Ski Area to provide access to the CBJ-owned ski resort for persons with disabilities through the ORCA Adaptive Ski Program.
REACH, Inc. REACH is a privately-run, non-profit organization for developmentally disabled individuals. REACH offers a wide range of services tailored to persons with disabilities and their families. These programs range from education and job placement to home-based support services. The agency also provides client- based transportation for assisted living residents. REACH transports its clients throughout Juneau Monday through Sunday, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
St. Vincent de Paul Society The St. Vincent de Paul Society is a privately-run, non-profit organization providing qualifying CBJ residents with housing, childcare, economic assistance, low-interest loans, and transportation. Patrons must be either age 60 or above, disabled, or qualify as low-income to be eligible for transportation services. Service availability varies based on housing program status. Clients who live off- site can access transportation Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Persons domiciled in society housing have access Monday through Sunday, 24 hours a day.
Juneau Youth Services (JYS) Juneau Youth Services is available to young adults and at-risk youth. JYS provides residential, mental health care, and counseling services. This service is restricted to youth participating in the residential program given the prohibition from leaving the residential facilities unaccompanied by a supervisor. Juneau Youth Services operates throughout the Borough, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 212 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Southeastern Alaska Guidance Association (SAGA) SAGA is an alternative community and youth outreach program. It provides transportation to clients 16 through 25 years of age that qualify as low-income, educationally-disadvantaged, or other related social challenges. These clients participate in one or more of the four programs offered by SAGA: • The Service Corps Program provides opportunities for AmeriCorps members to lead and serve on teams completing priority projects on public lands throughout Alaska. • Young Alaskans Building Affordable Housing is a program offering hands- on construction and general educational skills. • The Eagle Valley Center is an adventure-based education program, offering workshops, training, physical challenges, and outfitting and guide services. • The Connections Program places AmeriCorps members with qualifying community agencies that serve Alaskan youth and their communities.
Services operate throughout Juneau, Monday through Sunday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Juneau Pioneer Home The Pioneer Home is a State-run assisted living facility for persons 65 years and older who have lived in Juneau for more than one year. Currently there is a waiting list for the housing program. The Home partners with the University of Southeast Alaska to provide certified nurse aide training. Periodically, Home staff offer workshops/training specific to persons with dementia and/or their caregivers. It operates two vehicles 24 hours a day. Transportation services are restricted to Juneau Pioneer Home residents.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 213 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Exhibit 9-3 Private Demand-Response Service Area
Duplication of Public Transit Services Fixed-Route Our analysis revealed some duplication of service between Capital Transit and the Juneau School District. The Juneau School District offers transportation to pupils enrolled in its elementary schools whose residences are more than one- half mile from their school sites, and to secondary school students whose residences are more than 1.5 miles from their school sites. The district also
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 214 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
provides transportation services to special educations students whose individualized education program necessitates such transport.
Given the Juneau School District offers a very limited service for a target demographic (i.e., school children) while Capital Transit offers an extensive, general public fixed-route service, there is only modest duplication of service.
Paratransit The CBJ’s Care-A-Van program is the only service within the CBJ that qualifies as an ADA-required complementary paratransit service. Its service area, hours, and customer base overlap significantly with many of the paratransit programs offered by social service agencies throughout the CBJ. We believe this can be attributed chiefly to ADA legislation which mandates its existence. Given the size and scope of the Care-A-Van program, its focus is on accommodating the greatest share of trips by seniors and persons with disabilities.
Demand-Response Services offered by other organizations throughout the CBJ include SAIL, St. Vincent de Paul Society, Juneau Youth Services, and SAGA; each of which feature some overlap with the Care-A-Van paratransit program. The transportation programs operated by these social service organizations fall into one of two categories: 1) Those providing transportation services to patrons qualifying for Care-A-Van, and 2) Those providing transportation services to patrons who do not qualify for Care-A-Van. Organizations whose patrons qualify for Care-A-Van service include the Juneau Pioneers Home (seniors), REACH (persons with disabilities), and SAIL (both). Organizations serving patrons who would otherwise be unable to use Care-A-Van include Juneau Youth Services, SAGA, and St. Vincent de Paul. With the exception of Juneau Youth Services and the Pioneers Home, which operate 24 hours a day, all demand-response programs also feature a shorter service day than Care-A-Van.
Supplementary analysis was conducted to identify potential temporal gaps within the CBJ’s public demand-response service. The only temporal gaps identified occur between midnight and 7:00 a.m., a period when Juneau Youth Service and
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 215 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
the Juneau Pioneers Home offer transportation services. Given the historic lack of demand for non-emergency medical (NEMT) transportation during this period, we do not view this perceived gap in service(s) to be “reasonable to meet” at this time. Identified temporal gaps are illustrated in the following charts.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 216 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 9-4 Stakeholder Service Schedule (Monday – Saturday)
Community Transit hours of service (MONDAY-SATURDAY) TIME 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 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00
Capital Transit
Care-A-Van
REACH, Inc
Juneau Youth Services
Saint Vincent De Paul
SAIL Inc. Taxi-Cab token program
Juneau Pioneer Home
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 217 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Figure 9-5 Stakeholder Service Schedule (Sunday)
Community Transit hours of service (SUNDAY) TIME 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 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00
Capital Transit
Care-A-Van
REACH, Inc
Juneau Youth Services
Saint Vincent de Paul
SAIL Inc. Taxi-Cab token program
Aware Inc.
Juneau Pioneers Home
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 218 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Outreach Analysis This section details outreach efforts undertaken by Moore & Associates as part of the combined TDP/CHSP process. This section details only those efforts specifically related to the Coordinated Plan. A complete discussion of all outreach supporting the TDP/CHSP process can be found in Appendix B.5. Moore & Associates and CBJ staff met with the following stakeholder groups as part of the CHSP development process:
• REACH, Inc., • Juneau Youth Services, • Capital Transit, • Southeast Senior Services, • St. Vincent de Paul Society, • Southeastern Alaska Guidance Association, and • Southeast Alaska Independent Living.
The above stakeholders have demonstrated a continued interest in coordinating transportation services for the Plan’s targeted population, which includes seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals. In addition to stakeholder outreach, Moore & Associates also distributed surveys to all Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition members providing services specific to seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals.
Stakeholder and Public Outreach In July 2005, the Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition held its first meeting. A broad array of public and private entities came together to promote efficient, affordable, accessible transportation throughout the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska.
Stakeholder & Public Workshops From October 2007 through June 2008, Moore & Associates participated in four meetings with the JCTC as well as numerous informal meetings and discussions with individual JCTC members.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 219 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
An overview of the history of SAFTEA-LU legislation and its corresponding funding was provided with attendees. Participants were then invited to introduce their agency, discuss transportation services offered, and communicate mobility needs or concerns.
At the service level, participants reached consensus that general mobility (i.e., service area coverage), cost of public transportation, and public demand- response services are existing strengths. Stakeholders subsequently voiced concerns addressing the need to improve coordination (i.e., transfer opportunities, coordination between smaller services, client/community outreach, client and employee training, and expanded service efforts).
JCTC members agreed there is a measure of cooperation between transportation services providers within Juneau, yet not enough that the community would not benefit from improvements brought about via the potential recruitment of a Mobility Manager, central call center, or other initiatives developed as a result of the Plan. In addition, coalition members identified a critical need for increased capital and operational improvement funding.
As the final step, participants developed a list of priority outcomes they would like to see arise from the Coordination Plan (in order of priority); 1. Hiring a dedicated Mobility Manager. 2. Assess and prioritize enhancements for individual agencies. 3. Identify and prioritize special programs targeted at specific customer groups.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 220 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Peer Models Crook County, Oregon Crook County, Oregon was chosen for analysis/comparison given perceived similarities with the City and Borough of Juneau. Similar in size, population, and land-use character, Crook County has experienced many of the same challenges and/or opportunities as Juneau. Therefore, it is logical to assume that by identifying successful strategies in its Coordinated Plan and setting, there is a likelihood those strategies could prove successful in Juneau.
Background The Crook County Coordinated Transportation Plan (CCCTP) process was led by the county’s Special Transportation Fund Committee (STF). The other entity involved in the facilitation and implementation of the Plan was the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC). The COIC identified stakeholders and other public participants who would later help identify and prioritize Plan strategies.
Coordination Efforts The STF’s first step was to review the demographic, income, employment, and transportation data amassed in order to profile the composition of its community. The second step included a survey codifying transportation service in the community, funding, and administrative capacity in the county. The final and most important step of the pre-planning process was the identification and inventorying of public transit and human service agencies’ transportation capabilities.
Coordination Once the pre-planning information was gathered, stakeholder meetings were convened. They included representatives from government agencies, elderly services, organization serving low-income individuals, those with disabilities, educational institutions, and veterans’ organizations. These meetings allowed community members to be active in articulating their needs to better allocate transportation priorities.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 221 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Consolidation vs. Brokerage Subsequent to the stakeholder meetings, the COIC identified and analyzed barriers, gaps, and system priorities. Once these challenges were identified, the COIC began crafting a strategic plan to develop and identify administrative bodies that could implement and regulate the Plan.
There are several different ways to approach the challenge of coordinating a public transit and human services transportation plan. A consolidation of services approach requires organizations to “surrender” their transportation vehicles to a service provider (typically the local public transit provider), which then oversees the delivery of all mobility services in the community. This approach eliminates the need for patrons to look up all the care providers’ numbers or the need to call a multitude of providers. Rather, it supports the one-stop call center. Additionally, there is the transit brokerage method which relies heavily upon technology. It consists of a computer with a scheduler program which utilizes information provided by the patron to provide trip planning assistance. This method is as effective, or potentially more effective, than consolidation without the painstaking process of signing over service provider vehicles to one agency which may not have the funding to support an expanded level of service.
Crook County chose the more feasible approach of introducing a transit brokerage and a general coordination of services using simple, yet effective, strategies. The COIC or Cascades East Ride Center (CERC) call center was established providing computerized ride scheduling and dispatch services for the medical ride brokerage and Crook County Dial-A-Ride. Expansion of Dial-A- Ride service boundaries beyond a current eight-mile radius accompanied by an increase in availability of inter-community services to certain regions was also established.
Other strategies included the expansion of service hours, strengthening the existing transportation network, and developing a monitoring program to assess effectiveness/return on investment.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 222 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Other strategies include a voucher system for non-emergency medical trips and a program to train transportation providers to act as outpatient transporters. However, those strategies listed previously took higher precedence based on stakeholder discussion.
Conclusion Prioritizing strategies based on community preference is the most effective way of implementing goals by allowing those issues of greatest importance to be brought to the forefront and promptly addressed. Crook County followed this rule and other guidelines which have proven instrumental in the development of its coordinated plan.
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) is located in central Alaska. Although the North Star Borough is quite a bit larger than Juneau, it is not so large it cannot offer helpful strategies assisting in the development of the CBJ’s coordinated transportation plan.
Overview Fairbanks North Star Borough began the process of developing a coordinated human services plan in 1999 when the United Way of the Tanana Valley began compiling and analyzing information for later use. The Cultural Technical Advisory Group (CTAG) was created in 2004 with representatives from all local public, private, and non-profit transportation providers. The group’s main focus was to promote equitable access to transportation services for all members of the community through the enhancement of mobility using coordinated resources and cooperative strategies. The City and Borough of Juneau developed a similar organization known as the Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition which is intended to realize many of the same goals.
Along with the establishment of the CTAG, a survey was administered to establish resource needs. Evaluation of the resource needs and demographic data allowed for clear identification of the most significant spatial and temporal service gaps within the FNSB.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 223 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Gaps The CTAG identified a need for additional transportation service for persons living in many non-urbanized areas through inclusion of taxi companies and expansion of public transit services. A call for more wheelchair lift-equipped vehicles was made along with the need for increased outreach to local businesses to raise awareness of public transportation. Also identified was a need to promote mode shift from demand-response to fixed-route services.
Coordination Strategies The Fairbanks North Star Borough developed both short and long-term goals and objectives for implementation. The short-term goals are basic and inexpensive, while the long-term goals are more complicated, generally more expensive, and reflect the requirements established by the Federal Transit Administration.
FNSB short-term strategies include convening regular stakeholder meetings, establishment of a travel planner to guide patrons of human service organizations through arranging trips for patrons, purchase of a large wheelchair paratransit vehicle, and securing a lift-equipped van for taxi providers. Strategy steps such as introducing travel planning services and convening regular meetings between local human service agencies, in theory, would accomplish the goal of decreasing dependence on agency vehicles and allow for continued close coordination among stakeholders.
FNSB’s long-term strategies are quite detailed. They focus on maximizing transportation resources and implementing a centralized scheduling and dispatch center capable of performing trip planning for clients on an as-needed basis. This has proven to be an effective solution, and we believe Juneau could also benefit from a centralized call center. Leveraging funding opportunities that optimize transportation resource utilization has also been successful in other coordinated plans. Juneau would need to be aggressive in seeking funding to ensure enough funds are available to maintain and enhance transportation services in the community. It is also critical funds be distributed equitably, leaving no organization, whether public or private, under-funded. The last strategy is also
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 224 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
paramount in any coordinated plan. Increasing awareness, education, and support of transportation services throughout a community significantly improves a plan’s effectiveness. These efforts include an outreach campaign to inform the community about coordination, encourage partnerships among agencies, and regular monitoring of participating agencies and patrons to assess effectiveness/return on investment.
Conclusion Benefits of coordinating transportation services are critical in helping communities large and small with transportation needs. The Fairbanks North Star Borough has a solid grasp of the planning steps necessary to establish a successful coordinated human services plan. FNSB’s short and long-term goals play a critical role in setting the stage by first introducing the measures with short- term, easily-manageable goals before addressing the challenges with long-term, more all-encompassing goals.
Coordinated Plan The goals of this Plan were entirely community-driven and reflect a combination of goals and strategies developed previously by the JCTC, as well as priorities identified by Coalition members as necessary outcomes of this project.
Goals Identified by the JCTC The JCTC crafted a Coordination Plan demonstrating a vision toward the future while taking into account both current service needs and future opportunities. Specific goals and strategies were identified as tools for improving human services transportation coordination within Juneau.
Goal 1: Maximize transportation resources within the City and Borough of Juneau that meet the specific needs of all riders.
Strategy 1.1: Minor routing modifications on public fixed-route transit service to reduce overlapping service producing an overall streamlined fixed-route service for the CBJ. The eliminated segments could be reallocated to areas that do not yet feature services.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 225 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Strategy 1.2: Annually identify transportation resources and user needs. This strategy identifies information, cost options, governance restrictions and user needs that realize an optimization of transportation options. This can be accomplished through an annual survey: • Update provider inventory, • Develop and distribute rider needs survey, • Quantify current utilization and maximum capacity, • Define criteria for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and • Quantify transportation cost for each resource.
Strategy 1.3: Develop and implement a process to assist riders in identifying their specific mobility options. This strategy provides all relevant information to current and future users on the varied transportation options available to them. This will be accomplished through user-friendly information, direct education on using transportation, and identifying varied methods of payments: • Develop training program for potential riders, caseworkers, and community on how to use mobility options. • Develop strategies to shift riders to least-costly transportation options. • Identify the different transit options required to link specific populations to specific destinations. • Develop information packet for mailing to potential riders and specialized clustered housing programs. • Identify options for payments and pre-payment plans including Medicaid, ride booklets, gift certificates, and special events sponsored by area organizations. • Identify options to assist in moving necessities along with people.
Strategy 1.4: Ensure passengers are transported on safe vehicles. This strategy is to provide standards, which all participating vehicles and drivers will adhere to, ensuring the safety and comfort of all riders. Develop training and procedures for the following:
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 226 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
• Maintenance. • Drivers. • Driver/dispatcher communications.
This strategy identifies and tracks needed data to measure efficiency of goals. The process should define: • Cost effectiveness attributes and the data to be collected; • Service effectiveness attributes and data to be collected; • Quality attributes and data to be collected.
Goal 2: Ensure providers can participate to a level that complements their respective agency's services.
Strategy 2.1: Establish requirements for participation. This strategy develops the contracts, agreements, and requirements for each participating entity: • Develop maintenance and/or fuel contract. • Define vehicle maintenance standards. • Define driver training and certification requirements. • Develop a standardized Memorandum of Understanding. • Utilize collective expertise in helping drivers understand best service techniques for special needs riders.
Strategy 2.2: Identify role of individual mobility providers. This strategy ensures each agency’s participation complements the JCTC’s mission: • Define primary role of mobility providers. • Identify existing constraints and restrictions of mobility providers. • Define service availability of transit providers. • Utilize collective expertise in helping clients understand transportation procedures and guidelines.
Strategy 2.3: Implement centralized scheduling and dispatch. • Install automated scheduling software at call center and on-board electronics on buses.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 227 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
• Allow for dispatcher to also double as driver. • Facilitate the fundamental elements of scheduling and dispatching of all coordinated transportation vehicles.
Goal 3: Leverage funding opportunities to optimize transportation resources within the community.
Strategy 3.1: Maximize reimbursements for transportation services and increase coordination for reimbursements. This strategy defines the cost per ride, reimbursement process and transportation revenue sources for all participating members: • Obtain approval on Medicaid reimbursement rate. • Obtain approval on insurance reimbursement rate. • Implement process for reimbursement billing. • Define and implement cost-allocation model. • Exact payments of three-dollar donations for Care-A-Van.
Strategy 3.2: Assist in obtaining funds for accessible vehicles for any mobility provider, including those operated by private, for-profit companies. The purpose of this strategy is to increase the accessible vehicles operated by any and all mobility providers. This will be accomplished by seeking capital funds that will assist in the acquisition of accessible vehicles: • Identify state and federal funding options in support of private transportation companies. • Explore options for public-to-private lease programs.
Strategy 3.3: Utilize coordinated transportation partnerships for vehicle replacement funding. This strategy ensures the coordinated transportation fleet is replaced as needed to ensure the safety of all riders via the development of a community-wide vehicle replacement schedule.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 228 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Goal 4: Increase awareness and support of transportation services to all community sectors.
Strategy 4.1: Inform the community of opportunities created by coordinated transportation. This strategy addresses the public’s awareness of mobility options including the economic, health, and social benefits arising from well-coordinated transportation. • Establish an outreach effort for community organization presentations. • Develop a central interactive website for informing the community of coordinated transportation options. • Participate in transportation-based conferences and training to share transportation information and resources. • Update the 2003 Care-A-Van handbook.
Strategy 4.2: Identify increased economic benefits. This strategy identifies and tracks data demonstrating the relationship between transportation and the local economy.
Strategy 4.3: Identify increased quality of life benefits. This strategy identifies and tracks data demonstrating the relationship between transportation and quality of life.
Strategy 4.4: Encourage innovative public/private/individual partnerships. This strategy identifies and promotes opportunities to expand transportation services by involving new partners as well as local, state, and national transportation organizations: • Ensure hotel and tour companies have accessible vehicles. • Work with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA) to expand local mobility options. • Work with the Alaska Mobility Coalition (AMC) to develop state-wide vehicle insurance pool and effect state and national legislation regarding mobility.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 229 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Strategy 4.5: Provide service information onboard all vehicles pertinent to rider needs. This strategy identifies and creates information flyers of interest to the rider as well as making them available on all transportation vehicles: • Develop a frequently asked questions (FAQ) pamphlet describing coordinated transportation service. • Provide space for general information including health, housing, and benefit services.
Strategy 4.6: Encourage active participation from people with special transportation needs in coordination efforts and planning. This strategy ensures rider's needs are reflected in planning for transportation services through the development of a method of public participation and input into the work of the JCTC.
Strategy 4.7: Establish public relations and media campaign to educate the community. This strategy expands community awareness and ridership within the community: • Develop effective advertising and promotion plan. • Develop informational mail outs with transportation options and costs. • Develop information sharing plan with all agencies, senior housing, public assistance office, and others involved in providing direct and/or indirect transportation services. • Develop and distribute Directory of Transportation Providers including "emergency contacts".
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 230 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
JCTC Coordination Priorities During a meeting with the JCTC held on March 4, 2008, three priority outcomes from the Coordinated Plan process were identified. In order of priority, these were: 4. Hiring a dedicated Mobility Manager. 5. Assess and prioritize enhancements for individual agencies. 6. Identify and prioritize special programs targeted at specific customer groups.
To avoid possible bias, JCTC members identified the Mobility Manager as their main priority. Absent a dedicated Mobility Manager, coordinating transportation within the CBJ would likely become the responsibility of one of the JCTC members, all of whom already have significant work loads. Delegating Mobility Manager responsibilities to a single JCTC member might also create a bias toward that entity.
JCTC members also identified a need for service enhancements as a priority moving forward. A good example is SAIL’s desire to add a second wheelchair-accessible vehicle to its taxi token program, improving accessibility of its patrons to utilize local taxis on a subsidized basis (evidence that mobility enhancements can be implemented independently of coordination efforts). The final priority identified by JCTC members was the need for additional funding to implement special programs for individual Coalition members, such as REACH’s desire for additional vehicles for transportation for group homes. Here again, we believe this priority can be addressed independently of coordination efforts.
Recommended Coordination Strategies Mobility Manager The JCTC indicated the first and most important step in realizing its coordination goals was the hiring of a Mobility Manager. This staffer’s primary responsibilities would include oversight of Juneau transportation coordination efforts. An experienced, dedicated Mobility Manager could streamline the often-times complicated process of coordinating all components of the Plan (i.e., implementation of a call center, identifying and securing funding, training, marketing, etc.).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 231 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
Call Center Agencies providing transportation services within the CBJ may consider the benefits of a centralized call center. The implementation of such a program could begin with the adoption of a single, toll-free phone number for all transportation procedures within the CBJ. By channeling all calls to a single dispatch center, the customer service process would be streamlined. Furthermore, riders may be directed by dispatch to the service(s) which most closely fits their need.
We believe implementing a central call center for all transportation services throughout Juneau could improve efficiency and result in potentially superior end- user experience. We recommend services be placed within the purview of a dedicated Mobility Manager’s office to maintain neutrality. This would ensure all customers receive the same level of service.
The Mobility Manager’s office could also serve as the dispatch center. This function would require the installation of several phone lines and adequate dispatch staff for coverage. Further, an interactive voice mail system should be implemented allowing callers to leave a message with a trip request or listen to service information outside traditional business hours. Benefits of an interactive voice mail service include 1) significant reduction of occurrence of busy signals, 2) reduction in hold time, and 3) improved customer service.
Mobility Training Generally, demand-response trips cost more to provide than fixed-route trips. Mobility training efforts would shift those more able-bodied riders from demand- response to fixed-route service.
By shifting riders to fixed-route, participating organizations would reduce operating costs associated with providing demand-response services and increase ridership on Capital Transit. We recommend the JCTC undertake an outreach campaign – through its Mobility Manager – aimed at educating residents about the benefits of utilizing Capital Transit’s fixed-route service versus demand-response or paratransit programs.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 232 PUBLIC TRANSIT – HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION PLAN
JCTC members could offer incentives or education services for demand- response riders to increase fixed-route ridership while also decreasing the cost of demand-response services. Strategies aimed at promoting a mode-shift could include: 1. Free rides: Coalition members could purchase or subsidize monthly passes for their patrons able to use Capital Transit. 2. Mobility training: Rider education is an effective way of shifting demand- response riders onto fixed-route programs. Riders could be taught how to ride to and from specific locations through basic trip training provided either by the individual operator or the Mobility Manager. Mobility training provides seniors and persons with disabilities with a greater level of independence and connectivity with the Juneau community.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 233 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 234 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SERVICE EVALUATION
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 235 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A.1 – FIXED-ROUTE EVALUATION
Capital Transit provides more than one million unlinked trips annually, an incredible number given the City and Borough’s (CBJ) resident population. Capital Transit has been able to capture a significant share of those trips made within the CBJ given factors such as the linear nature of the road network and commute patterns, severe winter weather conditions, an environmentally-conscious populace, and 18-hour service days.
Capital Transit ridership has remained stable across the past five years, never varying more than 7.5 percent in a single year. In total, ridership has grown 12.9 percent since FY 2002/03, or 3.2 percent per annum. This relatively modest growth in the face of increasing external measures within the community at-large raises the following: • Is the current Capital Transit service effectively addressing the mobility needs of the Juneau community? • What service changes are needed to address perceived program deficiencies as well as long-term growth program?
While the Juneau community has grown over the last decade, Capital Transit’s approach to service delivery has changed very little. We believe its continued strong ridership is due more to the willingness of Juneau residents to choose transit than any efforts made by Capital Transit (i.e. marketing, pricing strategies).
The goal of this service evaluation is the advancement of practical recommendations for quantifiably enhancing both the productivity and effectiveness of Capital Transit. Our analysis includes operational, maintenance, and administrative functions.
Objectives of Evaluation The objectives of this evaluation are to evaluate areas of the Capital Transit program’s operations (both internal and external) that impact the daily delivery of fixed-route service and to advance recommendations leading to sustainable service enhancements.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 236 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The ultimate goal is to optimize the number of trips provided as cost effectively as possible, to maintain a high level of quality, and to ensure the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) effectively leverages Capital Transit as a mobility enhancing strategy.
Evaluation Approach A site visit was conducted on October 30, 2007 to observe Capital Transit operations and collect system data. The meeting included interviews with Capital Transit administrative staff, drivers, and dispatchers. An inspection of Capital Transit’s fleet and fleet maintenance facility was completed along with an observation of the dispatching and communications procedures in order to assess the ability of the existing facility to meet current as well as anticipated Capital Transit program needs.
Service Overview Capital Transit initiated service in 1970 between Douglas and Juneau. In 1975, service was extended to the Mendenhall Valley. Capital Transit’s complementary paratransit service (Care-A-Van) began operating in 1982. In that same year, the first bus stop signs were posted and express bus service was extended to the Juneau International Airport.
Capital Transit and Care-A-Van achieved compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1995 (two years before the 1997 deadline). In 2001, Capital Transit increased service level to 30-minute headways on non-express trips between Douglas and downtown Juneau, and between the Mendenhall Valley and downtown Juneau. In 2002, Capital Transit crossed the one million unlinked trips/year threshold.
Today Capital Transit serves Douglas Island between Sundown Drive and St. Ann’s, downtown Juneau, Lemon Creek, and the Mendenhall Valley. Routes include the Express Route, Juneau and Douglas Route, and the Juneau to Mendenhall Valley Route (also known as Routes 3 and 4). Capital Transit also offers a number of commuter routes providing limited-express service during weekday peak hours.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 237 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.1.1 Capital Transit Service Hours Service Day Route Monday through Friday Saturday Sunday Express 7:03 a.m. to 5:55 p.m. Juneau to Douglas 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Route 3 7:05 a.m. to 11:20 p.m. 7:05 a.m. to 11:20 p.m. 8:48 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. Route 4 6:50 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. 6:50 a.m. to 11:45 p.m. 9:22 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Lemon Creek Express 7:10 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. Mendenhall Valley Commuter 6:45 a.m. to 7:40 a.m. Mendenhall Valley Express 6:50 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. Lemon Creek/Mendenhall Valley Express 3:02 p.m. to 5:36 p.m. Douglas Express 7:30 a.m. to 7:55 a.m. Juneau to North Douglas 7:00 a.m. to 5:55 p.m.
Capital Transit does not operate on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day,
Fare Structure The base adult fare for each unlinked trip is $1.50 and one dollar for youth age 6 to 18. Children five years and younger may travel free of charge when accompanied by a fare- paying adult. All inter-line transfers are free (subject to time limits). Fare may be paid via Capital Transit token, monthly pass, or exact change. The price of a monthly pass is $36.00 ($12.00 for youth) which offers unlimited rides during the month of issuance. Tokens are priced at $24.00 for a roll of twenty.
Monthly passes and tokens can be purchased at the Municipal Building on 155 South Seward Street, Mendenhall Valley Public Library, Hearthside Books (Downtown and Nugget Mall), and the customer service counters at the A&P Market and Fred Meyer in Lemon Cove.
Fare Collection As part of our comprehensive evaluation of Capital Transit’s fixed-route service, we analyzed the amount and type of fare collected by Capital Transit between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07. Token share of total fare collected by Capital Transit declined from 11.5 percent in FY 2002/03 to 8.9 percent in FY 2006/07. Cash fare declined from 51.5 percent of total fare in FY 2002/03 to 48.4 percent in FY 2006/07. Our onboard survey revealed most riders use the service five or more times per week. Therefore, it is no surprise the significant increase in overall ridership and fare revenue was coupled with
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 238 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
an increase in monthly pass usage (increased from 36.9 percent in FY 2002/03 to 42.6 percent in FY 2006/07).
Exhibit A.1-2 Revenue By Type
$400,000
$362,831 $342,397 $350,000 $329,330
$307,109 $292,011 $300,000 $319,534 $298,224 $295,078
$250,000 $253,875
$200,000 $208,992
$150,000
$100,000 $75,837 $72,684 $65,270 $63,935 $66,989
$50,000
$0 FY 2002/03 FY2003/04 FY2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Tokens Cash Fare Monthly Pass
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
The Capital Transit fleet consists of 16 heavy-duty transit vehicles housed and maintained at the Capital Transit maintenance and administration facility at 10099 Bentwood Place.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 239 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.1.3 Fleet List Item # Vehicle # Year Vehicle Make Vehicle Model Serial # Plate # 1 6041 2000 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD2SL14YU021448 XXW826 2 6042 2000 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD2SL16YU021449 XXW827 3 6043 2000 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD2SL12YU021450 XXW828 4 6044 2000 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD2SL14YU021451 XXW829 5 6223 1992 Orion Orion I-30' 2B1119779N6003142 XXT109 6 6224 1992 Orion Orion I-30' 2B1119770N6003143 XXT110 7 6225 1992 Orion Orion I-30' 2B1139776N6003139 XXT111 8 6226 1992 Orion Orion I-30' 2B1139772N6003140 XXT112 9 6227 1992 Orion Orion I-30' 2B1139774N6003141 XXT113 10 6345 2003 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD2GL173U025645 XYA410 11 6346 2003 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD2GL193U025646 XYA409 12 6347 2003 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD2GL103U025647 XYA408 13 6648 2006 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD4KV176C029750 XYA680 14 6649 2006 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD4KV196C029751 XYA681 15 6650 2006 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD4KV106C029752 XYA682 16 6651 2006 New Flyer D35LF 5FYD4KV126C029753 XYA683 Source: City and Borough of Juneau
Fixed-Route Operations Staffing Capital Transit is a division of the Borough’s Public Works Department. The Transit Division receives support services, including personnel, payroll, finance, administration, and facility maintenance from the Public Works Department. A full-time Transit Manager oversees the day-to-day administration of Capital Transit.
In addition to the Transit Manager, Capital Transit also employs a full-time safety and training manager and full-time administrative assistant, the latter is tasked with responding to customer calls as well as miscellaneous administrative duties. Capital Transit employs 31 drivers (14 full-time and 17 part-time), three of whom serve as “Leads”. Maintenance is performed by one supervisor and five mechanics. One entry-level mechanic is charged with cleaning, maintaining, and repairing bus shelters throughout the Capital Transit service area. The Capital Transit organizational structure is illustrated below.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 240 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.1.4 Capital Transit Organizational Structure
Public Works Department
Water Wastewater Capital Waste Streets Fleet Utility Utility Transit Management Maintenance
Transit Manager
Administration Drivers Maintenance
Administrative Training Assistant Manager Maintenance Supervisor
Lead Lead Lead
Mechanics (5)
Full-Time Drivers (14)
Part-Time Drivers (17)
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
The CBJ houses Capital Transit administrative, training, dispatch, and maintenance functions in the public works structure located at 10099 Bentwood Place in the Mendenhall Valley. This facility also provides vehicle overnight storage.
Findings: The number and nature of personnel assigned to the various Capital Transit functions—management/administrative, drivers, dispatchers, and driver/dispatcher trainers—is less than that found at comparable transit organizations. The administrative area is particularly thin, and there is little time/ capacity for a variety of core functions such as service planning, service quality
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 241 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
assurance, and marketing. The maintenance staff continues to perform very well given the limitations of the physical facility. Furthermore, the surrounding parking/yard is in need of repair, as it is full of large pot holes and inadequate drainage. Given the layout of the current facility, there is little room for program growth. Current staffing level is insufficient for the provision of the level of support required beyond the vehicles themselves (i.e., shelters, bus stops, etc.). The Transit Division relies upon the Public Works/Street staff to handle snow removal from bus stops/shelters.
Training Following a pre-hire background check and substance screening, Capital Transit’s driver training program includes no less than one week of CPR/First Aid, behind-the wheel, Smith System, and PASS instruction. Drivers are expected to have a Commercial Driver License (CDL), at least 18 months of driving experience prior to hire, and possess the basics of defensive driving, vehicle handling, procedures for loading and unloading passengers, wheelchair securing and restraint procedures, and accident and emergency procedures.
New dispatchers are trained on-the-job by Capital Transit’s dispatching staff. Dispatchers learn essential skills along with vehicle monitoring and personnel management, telephone courtesy, customer relations, emergency procedures, etc.
Findings: Capital Transit’s training program is adequate to support current program level.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 242 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fixed-Route Performance Indicators This section evaluates Capital Transits fixed-route service based on a series of quantitative criteria to determine effectiveness and efficiency. The indicators were evaluated across a five-year period which supports illustration of recent as well as historic performance.
Exhibit A.1-5 Fixed-Route Performance FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Performance Measure Operating Cost $2,334,933 $2,454,050 $2,573,975 $2,823,342 $3,074,790 percent change 5.1% 4.9% 9.7% 8.9% Fare Revenue $566,487 $659,362 $678,243 $701,715 $749,685 percent change 16.4% 2.9% 3.5% 6.8% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 27,829 27,829 27,829 27,829 27,829 percent change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 491,564 491,564 491,564 491,564 491,564 percent change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ridership 1,093,135 1,178,879 1,125,231 1,211,013 1,234,155 percent change 7.84% -4.55% 7.62% 1.91% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $83.90 $88.18 $92.49 $101.45 $110.49 percent change 5.1% 4.9% 9.7% 8.9% Operating Cost/VSM $4.75 $4.99 $5.24 $5.74 $6.26 percent change 5.1% 4.9% 9.7% 8.9% Operating Cost/Passenger $2.14 $2.08 $2.29 $2.33 $2.49 percent change -2.5% 9.9% 1.9% 6.9% Passengers/VSH 39.3 42.4 40.4 43.5 44.3 percent change 7.8% -4.6% 7.6% 1.9% Passengers/VSM 2.222.402.292.462.51 percent change 7.8% -4.6% 7.6% 1.9% Farebox Recovery 24.3% 26.9% 26.4% 24.9% 24.4% percent change 10.7% -1.9% -5.7% -1.9% Fare/Passenger $0.52 $0.56 $0.60 $0.58 $0.61 percent change 7.9% 7.8% -3.9% 4.8% Source: City and Borough of Juneau
Ridership Ridership increased by more than 140,000 unlinked trips (12.9 percent) between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07. Throughout this period, annual ridership only declined one time (between FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05). It is clear continued ridership growth is fueled by the community’s commitment to public tranist as a viable transportation/mobility option for cost, convenience, and environmental-related reasons.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 243 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Juneau’s population increased by less that one percent per annum between 2000 and 2005. By contrast, Capital Transit’s ridership increased (on average) by 3.2 percent per annum between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07.
Exhibit A.1-6 Annual Ridership
1,250,000
1,234,155
1,211,013 1,200,000
1,178,879
1,150,000
1,125,231
1,100,000 1,093,135
1,050,000
1,000,000 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
Ridership by Route Ridership at the individual route level was available only for FY 2003/04 forward.
The Valley Route experienced the greatest ridership growth, averaging 760,000 unlinked trips per annum (more than three times the Douglas Route’s ridership). Ridership increased 7.2 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. This is significantly higher than the system growth rate (4.6 percent). As a point of reference, public transit ridership nationally increased by four percent/annum.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 244 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Douglas Route had the second highest ridership in the Capital Transit system, averaging more than 240,000 unlinked trips per annum. Douglas Ridership increased 3.1 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07.
The Express Route had the third highest ridership, averaging more than 97,000 unlinked trips per annum. Ridership increased 8.4 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07, well above the system growth rate. Dominant travel pattern is between the Mendenhall Valley and Juneau. This leads to limited service between the two destinations namely Lemon Creek.
Capital Transit’s Commuter Routes (Lemon Creek Express, Mendenhall Valley Commuter, Mendenhall Valley Express, Douglas Express, and North Douglas) experienced the lowest ridership within the Capital Transit system, averaging under 90,000 unlinked trips per annum. We believe this can be attributed to the current schedule. These routes offer the majority of their trips in the early mornings and early evenings, with few trips in between and no service on weekends. Commuter Route ridership declined 13.0 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. This corresponds with increases in ridership along the Express Route, which since its introduction has offset demand on some commuter routes (though commuter routes providing service to Lemon Creek remain popular).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 245 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.1-7 Ridership by Route
900,000
798,302 800,000 782,456 744,926 720,332 700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000 248,729 241,111 232,089 239,149
200,000
90,395 102,447 97,777 103,362 98,017 89,107 100,000 75,033 86,046
0 FY 2003/04 FY2004/05 FY2005/06 FY2006/07
Valley Douglas Express Commuter Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 246 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour One of the most commonly used yardsticks for assessing public transit service performance is Passengers/VSH. It quantifies the number of rides provided within a single service hour.
Capital Transit’s Vehicle Service Hours remained steady and ridership grew each year with the exception of FY 2004/05. The Passengers/VSH indicator mirrors ridership trends almost exactly given the fact the VSH measure is an estimate. Capital Transit averaged 42.0 Passengers/VSH during the surveyed period. Overall, the indicator climbed 12.7 percent between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07. To maintain the current trend of increased Passengers/VSH, Capital Transit should consider implementing a targeted marketing campaign coupled with service enhancements tailored at addressing concerns raised through community outreach efforts undertaken in conjunction with this TDP (i.e., improve on-time performance, increase capacity during peak hours, etc).
Exhibit A.1-8 Passengers/VSH
45.0
44.3 44.0
43.5 43.0
42.4 42.0
41.0
40.4 40.0
39.3 39.0
38.0
37.0
36.0 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 247 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour by Route To continue our assessment of Capital Transit’s fixed-route service, we conducted an analysis of Passengers/VSH on the individual route basis. Using data for the period from FY 2003/04 to FY 2006/07.
The Valley Route had the highest Passengers/VSH of any Captial Transit route, averaging 47.8. The indicator increased 7.1 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. The indicator was highest in FY 2006/07 (50.1) and lowest in FY 2004/05 (45.2). The increase in Passengers/VSH between FY 2004/05 and FY 2006/07 corresponds with an increase in system-wide ridership over the same period.
The Express Route had the second greatest productivity, averaging 40.1 Passengers/VSH. The indicator increased 8.3 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. The indicator was highest in FY 2005/06 (42.5) and lowest in FY 2003/04 (37.2).
The Douglas Route had the third-highest productivity, averaging more than 35 Passengers/VSH. The indicator increased 3.1 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. The indicator was highest in FY 2006/07 (36.4) and lowest in FY 2004/05 (34.0).
The Commuter Routes (Lemon Creek Express, Mendenhall Valley Commuter, Mendenhall Valley Express, Douglas Express, and North Douglas) exhibited the lowest productivity, averaging less than 34 Passengers/VSH. The indicator decreased 12.9 percent between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. The indicator was highest in FY 2003/04 (38.8) and lowest in FY 2004/05 (28.5).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 248 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.1-9 Passengers/VSH by Route
60.0
50.1 49.1 50.0 46.8 45.2 42.5 40.2 40.3 38.8 40.0 36.4 37.2 35.0 34.0
35.3 33.8 30.0 32.6
28.5
20.0
10.0
0.0 FY 2003/04 FY2004/05 FY2005/06 FY2006/07
Valley Douglas Express Commuter
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 249 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile The Passengers/VSM metric is another method commonly employed to evaluate public transit service effectiveness. It tracks the number of passengers transported for each service mile traveled.
Given the VSM value is an estimate, Capital Transit’s Vehicle Service Miles remained steady while ridership grew each year except FY 2004/05. Capital Transit averaged 2.38 Passengers/VSM during the analysis period. Overall, this indicator climbed 13.1 percent between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07. Similar to the Passengers/VSH indicator, Capital Transit’s ability to increase this hinges on increasing ridership through service enhancements aimed at attracting new riders and convincing current riders to use Capital Transit for a larger share of their travel needs.
Exhibit A.1-10 Passengers/VSM
2.55
2.51 2.50
2.46 2.45
2.40 2.40
2.35
2.30 2.29
2.25
2.22 2.20
2.15
2.10
2.05 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 250 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour This indicator serves as a measure of a transit program’s cost-effectiveness by tracking the cost to provide a single hour of revenue service.
Capital Transit’s Operating Cost/VSH indicator increased significantly between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07 (31.7 percent), well above the regional inflation rate. Increases in operating costs are due primarily to increases in overtime pay and benefits. Hiring additional staff could reduce overtime (which increased more than 30 percent in FY 2006/07 alone).
Exhibit A.1-11 Operating Cost/VSH
$120.00
$110.49
$100.00 $101.45
$92.49 $88.18 $80.00 $83.90
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 251 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile This metric serves as a barometer of a transit program’s cost-effectiveness by illustrating the cost of providing a single mile of revenue service.
The Operating Cost/VSM indicator increased rather significantly between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07 (31.8 percent), well above the annual inflation rate for the Juneau Urbanized Area. As with the Operating Cost/VSH indicator, the increase in the Operating Cost/VSM indicator can be attributed to increases in labor and benefits of Capital Transit employees.
Exhibit A.1-12 Operating Cost/VSM
$7.00
$6.26 $6.00
$5.24 $5.74
$5.00 $4.99 $4.75
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 252 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Passenger Another gauge of cost effectiveness, Operating Cost/Passenger analyzes how much Capital Transit is spending to provide each unlinked trip.
On average, the CBJ spent $2.27 to provide each unlinked trip during the analysis period. The indicator jumped 16.4 percent between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07. The indicator was at its highest in FY 2006/07 ($2.49) and lowest in FY 2003/04 ($2.08). This trend reveals a decrease in cost effectiveness as operating cost outpaces ridership growth.
Exhibit A.1-13 Operating Cost/Passenger
$2.60
$2.50 $2.49
$2.40
$2.30 $2.33 $2.29
$2.20
$2.14 $2.10
$2.08
$2.00
$1.90
$1.80 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 253 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox recovery ratio reveals the percentage of operating cost “recovered” through passenger fares. It is the most common measure of public subsidy of a transit service. Fixed-route programs serving areas comparable to Juneau typically have a recovery threshold of not less than 10 percent.
Capital Transit’s farebox recovery ratio during the analysis period stood at 25.4 percent. The indicator spiked to 26.9 percent in FY 2003/04 before retreating to 24.4 percent in FY 2006/07. While the indicator remains above the peer standard, we believe the three- year decline warrants consideration of a fare adjustment (so that fare revenue stays on par with operating expense).
Exhibit A.1-14 Farebox Recovery Ratio
27.5%
27.0% 26.9%
26.5% 26.4%
26.0%
25.5%
25.0% 24.9%
24.5% 24.4% 24.3%
24.0%
23.5%
23.0%
22.5% FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 254 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fare/Passenger This metric indicates the average fare paid for each unlinked trip provided by Capital Transit.
Capital Transit collected fifty-seven cents for each unlinked trip during the analysis period. The indicator rose 17.3 percent between FY 2002/03 and FY 2006/07. The indicator was at its highest in FY 2006/07 and its lowest in FY 2002/03. This indicator is approximately half the base fare due to the great use of non-cash fare media (i.e., monthly passes, tokens, etc.) As discussed in the prior section, we recommend the CBJ adopt a policy of periodic fare adjustments to ensure revenue stays abreast of operational cost.
Exhibit A.1-15 Fare/Passenger
$0.62 $0.61 $0.60
$0.60
$0.58 $0.58
$0.56 $0.56
$0.54
$0.52 $0.52
$0.50
$0.48
$0.46 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 255 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A.2 – PARATRANSIT EVALUATION
It is important a community’s demand-response service evolves to reflect local transportation needs, and the City and Borough of Juneau’s (CBJ) Care-A-Van program is no exception. Growth in Care-A-Van’s target population has resulted in a more than 25-percent increase in ridership in FY 2004/05. Growth slowed significantly thereafter, increasing only 4.1 percent and 4.3 percent in FY2005/06 and FY 2006/07, respectively. This slowing trend raises a number of questions: • Has probable supply and demand balanced out? • Are the needs of the target demographic being addressed adequately? • Was the 25-percent growth spurt an anomaly?
A core challenge for the Care-A-Van program is balancing the needs of ADA-certified individuals and seniors with those of the general public in a community where the population has grown from 26,751 in 1990 to 30,987 in 2005 (15.8 percent increase). Based on Census 2000, the number of persons with disabilities translates to nearly five percent of the CBJ’s total population, while seniors accounted for approximately six percent. It is important to note, however, these population segments are not mutually exclusive. In other words, there are not 3,400 unique individuals (i.e., 11 percent of the CBJ’s reported 2000 population) who are either elderly or disabled. Rather, we believe the combined demographic to be approximately 1,400 (approximately 4.5 percent of the population) based on parallel market research undertaken in connection with the TDP.
A number of factors impact Care-A-Van’s overall level of service including effectiveness and quality of the operation itself, and the degree to which the Capital Transit’s fixed- route service is capable of expanding and attracting persons who otherwise would rely upon Care-A-Van.
The goal of this section is to advance recommendations designed to enhance the effectiveness of the program while maintaining the high customer satisfaction which Care-A-Van has come to enjoy. A parallel goal is to determine if practical opportunities exist for meeting (at least some) of the mobility needs of the target populations through service modifications to the CBJ’s fixed-route service (i.e., Capital Transit), with a goal of
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 256 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
mode-shifting able-bodied persons to the more cost-effective service. Our analysis will examine operational, maintenance, and administrative functions.
Objective of Evaluation The objective of this evaluation are to evaluate areas of the Care-A-Van service’s operations (both internal and external) that impact the daily delivery of demand- responsive service, and to develop practical recommendations leading to sustainable service improvements.
The cornerstone goal is to optimize the number of trips provided as cost-effectively as possible, preserve the service quality which Care-A-Van patrons have come to expect, and ensure the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) is positioned to address any demand increase arising from population growth.
Evaluation Approach An on-site visit was conducted on October 31, 2007 to observe Care-A-Van daily operations and collect system data. As part of the visit we interviewed Marianne Mills, Southeast Senior Services (SESS) Program Director; Larry Bussone, SESS Regional Coordinator; and Dale Morris, Care-A-Van Supervisor. Discussions with Capital Transit staff were also held on several occasions to solicit information regarding possible Care- A-Van program concerns, collect performance data, and review data collection procedures and responsibilities.
Dial-A-Ride Service Overview Southeast Senior Services began operating (absent CBJ funding) a door-to-door, reservation-based service for seniors (age 60 and over) within the Borough in 1974. Capital Transit worked with Southeast Senior Services in 1981 to develop a program providing service to all persons with disabilities. The result was the Care-A-Van program, introduced in March 1982. The program was expanded significantly during the 1990’s in response to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Currently the service utilizes funding from its contract for services with Capital Transit, supplemented by funding from the Older Alaskans Commission on Nutrition, Transportation, and Support Services; Medicaid billings; and donations.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 257 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Care-A-Van serves Douglas Island as well as mainland Juneau between Thane and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) terminal at Auke Bay. For client travel north of the AMHS terminal, SESS contracts with the Haven Park Assisted Living Center.
The Care-A-Van fleet consists of 10 cutaway vehicles: seven owned by the CBJ and three by SESS. The CAV fleet is housed at the Care-A-Van facility located at 1805 Glacier Highway. SESS-owned vehicles are serviced at Karl’s Auto & Marine Repair (10010 Camden Place) as the Capital Transit maintenance facility is available only for CBJ-owned vehicles. Hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.; and Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Per ADA guidelines, CAV operating days/hours must mirror those of the fixed-route service.
Program Operations Staffing Southeast Senior Services is one of three programs administered by Catholic Community Services (CCS). CCS also administers the Child Care and Family Resources (CCFR) and Hospice and Homecare of Juneau (HHCJ) programs. Southeast Senior Services (administered by Program Director Marianne Mills) provides nutrition, transportation, and support services in the following communities: Yakutat, Skagway, Haines, Juneau, Hoonah, Angoon, Sitka, Kake, Wrangell, Metlakatla, Craig/Klawock, Ketchikan, and Hydaburg.
The first four communities fall under the purview of Regional Director Larry Bussone. The remaining communities are split between two other regional directors. Care-A-Van functions as the ADA complementary paratransit program to the CBJ’s fixed-route public transit service. Daily operations are managed by Care-A-Van Supervisor Dale Morris. Mr. Morris supervises nine full-time drivers and six part-time drivers. Note: part-time drivers are employed on an on- call/substitute basis). Other staff include one full-time dispatcher and one full-time dispatch assistant.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 258 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.2-1 Organizational Structure
Source: Southeast Senior Services
The Care-A-Van program is provided under a contract between the CBJ and SESS. The current contract runs through summer 2008. The annual cost of the program (2007) was approximately $865,000.
SESS administers the Care-A-Van program from agency-owned offices located at 1805 Glacier Highway, north of the downtown area. This facility serves as the yard where all vehicles are stored when not in use, as well as the reservation and dispatch center supervised by Dale Morris. SESS has been able to significantly reduce driver and dispatcher turnover since moving to its current facility.
Findings: The number of personnel assigned to the various demand-response functions—program management/administrative, drivers, dispatchers, and driver/ dispatcher trainers—are supporting the current Care-A-Van operation at an effective level. The service is able to respond to nearly all trip requests in an efficient and timely manner, and at a reasonable cost (based on comparison with peer operators).
Training Following a pre-employment background check and substance screening, Care- A-Van’s training program includes 5-6 days of CPR/First Aid, “behind-the-wheel”, Smith System, and PASS instruction. New drivers are required to go on the road with a certified trainer to learn the basics of defensive driving, vehicle handling, procedures for loading and unloading passengers, wheelchair securing and restraint procedures, accident and emergency procedures, service area coverage, and driver reporting requirements.
New dispatchers receive on-the-job training from Care-A-Van’s experienced dispatching staff and program manager. Candidates learn essential skills for dispatching along with vehicle monitoring and personnel management, ADA
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 259 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
requirements, telephone protocol, customer relations, and emergency procedures.
Findings: Care-A-Van has a comprehensive training program for “new hire” drivers and dispatchers. As is the case for similar transit programs, some Care- A-Van drivers require recurrent Smith System and PASS training. Care-A-Van is also using a training manual developed in 2003. Therefore, we recommend updating the manual and adopting a more proactive approach to recurrent training needs.
Trip Denials Southeast Senior Services’ contract with the CBJ includes a “no turn down” clause meaning it cannot deny service to a patron based solely on scheduling conflicts. A “trip denial” is defined as any trip Care-A-Van is unable to schedule within a one-hour “window” of the time requested. The dispatcher must record whether the patron was ADA-certified, and whether the call was made more than 24-hours ahead of the requested trip time. Care-A-Van dispatch logs are submitted to the CBJ’s Transit Manager for review on a monthly basis.
Findings: Discussions with Care-A-Van staff revealed a trip denial incidence of less than five/month. This denial rate compares favorably with peer operators. Nevertheless, increased demand is placing a strain on current resources. Even with the use of trip planning software (ParaPlan Lite) which enhances scheduling efficiency, continued increase in demand could result in an increase in trip denials absent additional vehicles and drivers.
Trip Cancellations A “trip cancellation” is recorded whenever a client fails to contact the CAV dispatch center at least two hours in advance of the scheduled pick-up time. Otherwise, the incident is considered a “missed trip” (see below). A total of 258 cancellations were recorded during the two weeks surveyed by Moore & Associates, 10.2 percent of the 2,541 trips occurring during the period.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 260 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A high incidence of cancellations and no-shows contributes to poor program productivity. Cancellations and no-shows negatively impact program productivity particularly when a client cancels a ride close to the scheduled pick-up time. This potentially results in a “lost trip” to another rider. Cancellations can also serve as indication of customer concerns regarding ability to secure a ride unless it is booked well in advance of the intended travel day.
Care-A-Van has a policy wherein cancellations are monitored, and patrons who repeatedly cancel rides less than two hours prior to the scheduled pick-up time will have their cancellation classified as “missed trips”.
Findings: The level of cancellations is within an acceptable range. The policies and procedures are working.
Patron No-Shows Demand-response “no-shows” reflect the following: • Failure to cancel a scheduled trip, • Failure to meet the van at the designated pick-up location within five minutes of the scheduled time, or • Repeated failure to cancel a trip at least two hours before the scheduled pick-up time.
During the evaluation period, the incidence of patron “no-shows” was virtually non-existent.
Care-A-Van has instituted a “Rider Suspension Policy” to ensure patrons comply with program policies. Care-A-Van staff provides notice of each policy infraction, including a clear explanation of what is alleged to have occurred. Three infractions within a thirty-day period leads to suspension of service use. The suspension policy includes discussion between the patron and Care-A-Van staff, as well as an adopted appeals process. Care-A-Van provides copies of notices of suspension to the CBJ’s Transit Manager for review.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 261 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Findings: The current policies regarding missed trips are effective in ensuring patrons understand program policies and respect the service needs of other patrons. The incidence of patron “no show” was virtually non-existent during the analysis period.
Subscription Service Reflective of Care-A-Van policy, only ADA-certified patrons are eligible for a “subscription reservation.” A subscription reservation is akin to a standing reservation, wherein a patron is not required to secure individual ride reservations each time he/she travels to a specified/recurring location.
At the time of our program review, subscription rides comprised approximately two-thirds of all Care-A-Van trips. The majority involved travel to/from Bartlett Regional Hospital, Senior Center, Riefenstein Dialysis, and REACH.
ADA regulations allow a maximum of 50 percent of system capacity dedicated at any one time of day to subscription service; an exception being if excess non- subscription capacity exists during a given day-part. ADA also allows an agency to establish trip purpose restrictions and/or a waiting list specific to subscription trips.
Findings: The 50-percent ADA threshold for subscription trips is being exceeded.
Given the very modest trip denial rate coupled with the virtually non-existent patron no-show factor, it does not appear the current popularity of subscription trips is negatively impacting the quality and/or functionality of the CAV program. Therefore, we recommend the CBJ seek an exemption from this policy.
Given the above, we recommend the CBJ document its efforts toward compliance with the ADA standard: 1) Continue to monitor the incidence of trip denials on a monthly basis, 2) initiate dialogue with Bartlett Hospital, Senior Center, Riefenstein Dialysis, and REACH to determine if their respective program/service scheduling would allow for a shift in demand throughout the service day, 3) disseminate current CAV policy information to each CAV
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 262 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
registrant, and 4) conduct a cost analysis regarding the purchase of a larger capacity vehicle for assignment to the most popular subscription service destination and/or run.
Dispatch Procedures The first component of current CAV dispatch procedures examined was dispatch coverage. Care-A-Van weekday and Saturday dispatch coverage is from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Dispatch duties are covered by a supervisor, full-time dispatcher, and dispatch assistant until 4:30 p.m., after which a night dispatcher comes on duty. Often times, given the modest level of activity, night dispatching is performed by a CAV driver using a cell phone. The reservation line closes at 4:30 p.m., so the night dispatcher’s primary responsibility is scheduling return trips. Sunday dispatch coverage is from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. There is no night dispatcher on Sunday.
Dispatchers schedule all Care-A-Van trip requests including subscription trips, advance reservations (scheduled up to 14 days in advance), and same-day trips. In addition to scheduling trips, dispatchers respond to incoming calls regarding service questions, comments, and complaints, maintenance issues, and driver needs.
CAV customer calls are answered on two phone lines--(463-6194 and 586- 6234)--both of which are published in the Juneau phone directory. Customers may also submit trip requests via Care-A-Van’s email address: [email protected]. Trip reservations can be made on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:40 p.m.; and weekends/holidays, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The second component of dispatching procedures is scheduling. Care-A-Van uses ParaPlan Lite software to schedule all trips (including subscriptions), identify missed-trip/cancellation patterns, and generate driver schedules and trip sheets. This software significantly reduces demands placed on supervisor and/or dispatcher time. Given the relatively large service area covered by Care-A-Van, dispatchers attempt to assign vehicles on a zonal basis. This approach contributes to Care-A-Van’s high program productivity.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 263 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Findings: Care-A-Van has an effective dispatching and scheduling process optimizing the utilization of a modest number of vehicles and drivers.
ADA Certification The CBJ administers the ADA certification process. The CBJ’s eligibility requirements are consistent with ADA policies and reflect the following eligibility conditions: • Requires a wheelchair to perform normal daily tasks, • Unable to board/alight a Capital Transit bus, • Unable to access bus stop, • Unable to wait outside, without support, for more than 10 minutes, • Unable to understand and follow transit directions or understand informational signs for reasons other than language or literacy, or • Has a significant visual disability.
The process requires a completed application and a disability determination by a licensed physician, rehabilitation counselor, physical therapist, or other licensed professional. ADA certification lasts indefinitely, although persons with a disability lasting less than one year may apply for temporary eligibility.
Findings: Care-A-Van’s certification process complies with the ADA. The CBJ may wish to limit the certification process to a licensed physician to ensure consistent application of eligibility standards.
ADA Service Compliance To determine the level of compliance with ADA specifications, our project team examined a number of indicators. • Service Area: Care-A-Van provides service within three-quarters of a mile of Capital Transit route alignment during all operating times. • Fare: No set fare is established. A two-dollar donation is requested per unlinked trip.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 264 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Reservations: Care-A-Van accepts reservations between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on weekdays; 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Reservations can be made up to 14 days in advance. • Subscriptions: Standing reservations are available to ADA-certified patrons. • Scheduling: ADA-certified (as well as senior) patrons can expect a CAV vehicle to arrive within 30 minutes of the scheduled pick-up time, no less than 90 percent of the time. • Curb-to-Curb: The program exceeds curb-to-curb standards by providing a door-to-door service as needed.
Findings: Care-A-Van’s operating procedures are consistent with ADA requirements.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 265 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Care-A-Van Performance Indicators This section evaluates the Care-A-Van service based on a series of quantitative criteria to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. The indicators were analyzed across a four-year period.
Exhibit A.2-2 Care-A-Van Performance FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Performance Measure Operating Cost $739,583 $747,552 $787,564 $865,886 percent change 1.1% 5.4% 9.9% Voluntary Fares $14,705 $20,476 $21,835 $27,935 percent change 39.2% 6.6% 27.9% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 16,010 17,260 17,460 17,460 percent change 7.8% 1.2% 0.0% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 195,307 195,709 212,536 210,003 percent change 0.2% 8.6% -1.2% Ridership 26,285 32,903 34,265 35,729 percent change 25.2% 4.1% 4.3% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $46.20 $43.31 $45.11 $49.59 percent change -6.2% 4.1% 9.9% Operating Cost/VSM $3.79 $3.82 $3.71 $4.12 percent change 0.9% -3.0% 11.3% Operating Cost/Passenger $28.14 $22.72 $22.98 $24.23 percent change -19.3% 1.2% 5.4% Passengers/VSH 1.64 1.91 1.96 2.05 percent change 16.1% 2.9% 4.3% Passengers/VSM 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.17 percent change 24.9% -4.1% 5.5% Farebox Recovery 2.0% 2.7% 2.8% 3.2% percent change 37.8% 1.2% 16.4% Fare/Passenger $0.56 $0.62 $0.64 $0.78 percent change 11.2% 2.4% 22.7% Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 266 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Ridership Ridership increased by almost 9,500 unlinked trips (35.9 percent) between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. The greatest single-year increase occurred between FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05, when Care-A-Van attracted an additional 6,618 trips (25.2 percent increase).
Exhibit A.2-3 Ridership
40,000
35,000 35,729 34,265 32,903 30,000
25,000 26,285
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 267 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour One of the most commonly employed yardsticks for assessing service effectiveness, Passengers/VSH, quantifies the number of rides provided within a single revenue service hour.
The indicator increased 25 percent during the evaluation period, an average of 6.3 percent per annum. The largest increase (16.1 percent) occurred between FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05. We believe this increase can be attributed to ridership growth outpacing the addition of revenue hours. This increase in efficiency may be due to the use of trip planning software that streamlined the trip management process.
Exhibit A.2-4 Passengers/VSH
40,000
35,000 35,729 34,265 32,903 30,000
25,000 26,285
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 268 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile The Passengers/VSM metric is another commonly employed standard for evaluating public transit service performance. It indicates the ratio of passengers transported for each service mile traveled.
The indicator increased 30.8 percent across the evaluation period, an average of 7.7 percent per annum. The indicator decreased 4.1 percent in FY 2005/06, but rebounded to its FY 2004/05 level. The growth of this indicator implies the program is able to accommodate service requests more effectively, and may also be tied to the increase in the incidence of subscription trips.
Exhibit A.2-5 Passengers/VSM
0.18
0.17 0.17 0.17
0.16 0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13 0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 269 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour This indicator serves as a measure of a program’s cost-effectiveness, by illustrating the cost of providing a single hour of revenue service.
Between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07, this indicator rose (i.e., 7.3 percent) an average of 1.8 percent per annum. The largest single decrease (improved cost effectiveness) occurred between FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05 (6.2 percent), while the largest single increase occurred between FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07 (9.9 percent).
Exhibit A.2-6 Operating Cost/VSH
$51.00
$50.00 $49.59
$49.00
$48.00
$47.00
$46.20 $46.00
$45.00 $45.11
$44.00
$43.31 $43.00
$42.00
$41.00
$40.00 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 270 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile This metric serves as a measure of a program’s cost-effectiveness by tracking the cost of providing a single mile of revenue service.
Between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07 this indicator rose 8.7 percent, an average of 2.2 percent per annum. The largest single decrease (improved cost-effectiveness) occurred between FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05 (3.0 percent), while the largest single increase occurred between FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07 (11.3 percent).
Exhibit A.2-7 Operating Cost/VSM
$4.20
$4.12 $4.10
$4.00
$3.90
$3.80 $3.82 $3.79
$3.70 $3.71
$3.60
$3.50
$3.40 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 271 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Passenger Another illustration of cost effectiveness, Operating Cost/Passenger, indicates the cost of each unlinked trip.
Between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07, this indicator decreased 13.9 percent, an average of 3.5 percent per annum. The largest single decrease (i.e., improved cost-effectiveness) occurred between FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05 (19.3 percent), while the largest single increase occurred between FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07 (5.4 percent). The overall increase can be attributed to ridership growth outpacing operating costs, meaning Care- A-Van was able to provide more trips for each program dollar.
Exhibit A.2-8 Operating Cost/Passenger
$30.00
$28.14
$25.00
$24.23
$22.72 $22.98
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 272 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox recovery calculates the percentage of operating cost “recovered” through passenger fares. It is the most common measure of public subsidy of a transit service. Demand-response programs serving areas comparable to Juneau typically have a farebox recovery threshold of no less than 10 percent. Given Care-A-Van features a voluntary fare payment policy, it is improbable the target ratio would be achieved.
Between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07, this indicator increased 60.0 percent. The largest increase occurred between FY 2003/04 and FY 2004/05 (35 percent increase). We believe the increase can be attributed to ridership growth (and donation proceeds) outpacing operating cost.
Exhibit A.2-9 Farebox Recovery Ratio
3.5%
3.2% 3.0%
2.7% 2.8% 2.5%
2.0% 2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0% FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 273 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fare/Passenger This metric tracks the average fare collected for each “unlinked” trip provided by Care-A- Van.
Between FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07 this indicator increased 39.3 percent. The largest increase occurred between FY 2005/06 and FY 2006/07 (22.7 percent). The increase is due largely to improved fare collection. The program is still well short of collecting the suggested fare of three dollars per trip. Given the unlikelihood this goal will be attained, we recommend either instituting a mandatory fare or “scaling” the donation based on income. Assuming operating cost and ridership remain unchanged, Care-A-Van will have to collect $2.42 from each passenger to reach the goal of a ten percent farebox recovery ratio.
Exhibit A.2-10 Fare/Passenger
$0.85
$0.78 $0.75
$0.65
$0.64 $0.62
$0.55 $0.56
$0.45
$0.35
$0.25 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 274 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A.3 PEER REVIEW
A peer review provides a quantitative methodology for assessing how efficiently and effectively the City and Borough of Juneau’s public transit program is providing service compared with peer transit providers. Effectiveness is defined as the extent by which a service is achieving its intended goals. By contrast, efficiency is the amount of resources required to achieve the reported outcome.
Our analysis examines the level of service each peer is providing relative to the size of its service area and the number of persons residing therein. The peers were identified in the prior Transportation Development Plan (Valley Regional Transit, Santa Fe), or chosen based on similarity of service area statistics (i.e., population, area, etc.), fleet size, annual ridership, and service offerings. The City and Borough of Juneau’s fixed- route and complementary paratransit services were analyzed separately. All peer data reflects actual FY 2006/07 performance data.
A peer review is not intended to identify a direct match, but rather a range of acceptable performance.
Selected Peers The table below illustrates the comparison criteria of the selected peers.
Exhibit A.3-1 Peer Criteria: FY 2006/2007 City and Borough of Juneau City of Santa Fe Valley Regional Transit City of Pueblo Fixed-Route Capital Transit Sante Fe Trails ValleyRide Pueblo Transit Demand-Response Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi Lift Service Area Area (s.q. miles) 40 45 66 39 Population 30,987 80,337 272,625 103,500 Ridership 1,269,884 674,431 1,090,750 1,033,411 Fleet 24 37 45 22 Source: City and Borough of Juneau; City of Santa Fe, NM; National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 275 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City and Borough of Juneau The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), Alaska’s capital, is located in the state’s panhandle. The CBJ provides fixed-route and ADA complementary parantransit services through its Capital Transit and Care-A-Van programs, respectively. The service area population is approximately 31,000. Nearly 1.3 million unlinked trips were provided in 2007, equating to 42 trips per capita.
The Capital Transit fixed-route program is composed of two “regular” fixed- routes, one express route, and six commuter routes. The services operate Monday through Saturday, 6:45 a.m. to 1:45 p.m.; and Sunday, 8:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Only the two regular routes operate on weekends.
The base fare is $1.50 and a monthly pass is $36.00. Reduced fares are available for qualified youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Children five and younger ride free when accompanied by a fare-paying adult.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 276 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.3-2 Capital Transit Route Network
The CBJ provides curb-to-curb paratransit service within three-quarters of a mile of any fixed-route alignment through its ADA complementary paratransit program, Care-A-Van. Per the ADA, operating hours mirror those of the fixed-route service. The requested donation is three dollars.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 277 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City of Santa Fe Santa Fe is located in northern New Mexico. Like Juneau, Santa Fe is the state capital and home to several four-year universities. The City provides fixed-route service within city limits through its Santa Fe Trails program as well as ADA complementary paratransit service through its Santa Fe Rides program. The service area population is approximately 80,000. Nearly 675,000 unlinked trips were provided in 2007, equating to 8.5 trips per capita.
The Santa Fe Trails fixed-route service is composed of eight distinct routes. The service operates weekdays, 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and Sunday, 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (Note: Only Routes 1, 2, 4, and M operate on Sunday).
The base fare is one dollar, a 1-Day Pass is two dollars, and a 30-Day Pass $20.00. Reduced fares are available for qualified youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Children five and younger ride free when accompanied by a fare- paying adult.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 278 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.3-3 Santa Fe, New Mexico
The City provides curb-to-curb demand-response service within three-quarters of a mile of any fixed-route alignment through its complementary ADA-only paratransit program, Santa Fe Rides. Per the ADA, operating hours mirror those of the fixed-route service. Fares are two dollars for persons with disabilities and five dollars for seniors.
Valley Regional Transit Valley Regional Transit functions as the Regional Public Transit Authority (RTPA) for the counties of Ada and Canyon in southwest Idaho. Like Juneau, Boise is the state capital and home to a four-year university. The service area population is approximately 273,000 significantly greater than Juneau. The RTPA administers
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 279 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
three separate fixed-route services (Boise/Garden City, Nampa/Caldwell, and Intercounty) as well as a complementary ADA paratransit program. Approximately one million unlinked trips were provided in 2007, equating to 3.66 trips per capita.
The Boise/Garden City sub-region is served by 14 distinct fixed-route alignments. Service is available Monday through Friday, 5:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m.; and Saturday, 7:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Eight fixed-route lines operate on Saturday.
The base fare is one dollar, a one-day pass is two dollars, a seven-day pass is $10.00, and a 31-day pass is $36.00. Reduced fares are available for qualified youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Children five and younger ride free when accompanied by a fare-paying adult.
Exhibit A.3-4 Boise/Garden City, Idaho
The Nampa/Caldwell area is served by one primary route with two local branches, one each in the cities of Nampa and Caldwell. Service is provided
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 280 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
every 30 minutes along the main route and every 60 minutes along branch routes. The service is limited to weekdays, from 6:20 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.
The base fare is one dollar, and a monthly pass is $30.00. Reduced fares are available to qualified youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Children five and younger ride free when accompanied by a fare-paying adult.
Exhibit A.3-5 Nampa/Caldwell, Idaho
Valley Regional Transit’s Intercounty service includes five fixed-route alignments linking Ada and Canyon counties, serving the cities of Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian, Middleton, Star, Eagle, and Boise. The Intercounty service operates Monday through Friday, 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
The base fare is one dollar for Routes 40 and 42, and two dollars for Route 42. Reduced fares are available to qualified youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Monthly passes are $36.00 while an all-service monthly pass offering
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 281 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
unlimited throughout the Valley Regional Transit system is $70.00. Children five and younger ride free when accompanied by a fare-paying adult.
Exhibit A.3-6 Boise, Idaho
Valley Regional Transit offers door-to-door, complementary ADA paratransit service through its ACCESS program. Trips may be scheduled anywhere within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed-route alignment in Boise and Nampa/Caldwell. The paratransit service has the same hours as the fixed-route program. The base fare is two dollars.
City of Pueblo Pueblo is located in southeast Colorado. Like Juneau it is home to a four-year university. The service area population is approximately 104,000.
The City provides fixed-route service within city limits through its Pueblo Transit program, and complementary ADA paratransit service through its Citi-Lift
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 282 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
program. Approximately one million unlinked trips were provided in 2007, equating to 9.6 trips per capita.
Pueblo Transit operates 11 fixed-route alignments Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. through 6:30 p.m. The base fare is one dollar and monthly passes are $30.00. Reduced fares are available to qualified youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Children age six and younger ride free when accompanied by a fare- paying adult.
Exhibit A.3-7 Pueblo Route Network
The City of Pueblo also provides curb-to-curb demand-response service through its complementary ADA paratransit program, Citi-Lift. The service provides
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 283 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
service within three-quarters of a mile of any fixed-route alignment operated by Pueblo Transit.
The service is available Monday through Saturday, 6:00 a.m. through 6:30 p.m. The base fare is two dollars, and monthly pass prices vary based on the purchaser’s household income. Citi-Lift has established three income categories for monthly passes. Those with household incomes less than $600 pay $20.00, those between $601 and $1,250 pay $30.00, and those with household incomes over $1,250 pay $40.00 for monthly passes. This system could serve as a model for Care-A-Van should the program decide to move towards charging fare based on the patron’s ability to pay.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 284 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fixed-Route Peer Review The Fixed-Route Peer Review compared and contrasted Capital Transit’s key performance indicators for FY 2006/07 with those of Santa Fe Trails, ValleyRide, and Pueblo Transit. Capital Transit’s VSH and VSM figures are estimates and may not reflect actual FY 2006/07 performance data.
Exhibit A.3-8 Fixed-Route Key Indicators
Capital Transit Santa Fe Trails ValleyRide Pueblo Transit Average Operating Cost $3,074,790 $5,342,740 $6,314,606 $2,930,657 $4,415,698 Fare Revenue $749,685 $216,651 $639,037 $414,720 $505,023 Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 27,829 61,764 87,881 35,092 53,142 Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 491,564 766,676 1,305,043 522,223 771,377 Ridership 1,234,155 602,441 1,052,439 978,577 966,903
Operating Cost/VSH $110.49 $86.50 $71.85 $83.51 $83.09 Operating Cost/VSM $6.26 $6.97 $4.84 $5.61 $5.72 Operating Cost/Passenger $2.49 $8.87 $6.00 $2.99 $4.57 Passengers/VSH 44.35 9.75 11.98 27.89 18.19 Passengers/VSM 2.51 0.79 0.81 1.87 1.25 Farebox Recovery 24.38% 4.06% 10.12% 14.15% 11.44% $0.61 $0.36 $0.61 $0.42 $0.52 Fare/Passenger Source: City and Borough of Juneau, City of Santa Fe, NM, National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 285 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Two performance measures were used to assess service efficiency: Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour (VSH) and Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile (VSM).
Compared with the selected peer operations, Capital Transit demonstrated relatively low level efficiency, given it had the highest Operating Cost/VSH of the peers. This metric is 33 percent above the peer average. ValleyRide was the most efficient of the peers 13.5, percent below the peer average.
Exhibit A.3-9 Operating Cost/VSH
$120.00 $110.49
$100.00
$86.50 $83.51 $80.00 $71.85
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
$0.00 C apital T ransit S anta F e T rails ValleyR ide P ueblo T ransit
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 286 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile This indicator measures how much each transit operator spent to provide one mile of revenue service. Capital Transit was the second “least effective” of the peers approximately 9 percent above the peer average. Santa Fe Trails posted the highest Operating Cost/VSM indicator, 20.8 percent above the peer average.
Exhibit A.3-10 Operating Cost/VSM
$8.00
$6.97 $7.00
$6.26
$6.00 $5.61
$5.00 $4.84
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00 C apital T ransit S anta F e T rails ValleyR ide P ueblo T ransit
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 287 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Passenger Operating Cost/Passenger is a common benchmark for assessing transit service cost effectiveness. Capital Transit was revealed to be the most cost effective, 45.5 percent below the peer average. Santa Fe was the least effective like peers, 94 percent above the peer average. Santa Fe’s performance can be attributed to the lowest annual ridership of the selected peers.
Exhibit A.3-11 Operating Cost/Passenger
$10.00
$8.87 $9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00 $6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$2.99 $3.00 $2.49
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00 C apital T ransit S anta F e T rails ValleyR ide P ueblo T ransit
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 288 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour The Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour (VSH) metric indicates how many, on average, are transported during each revenue hour. As such, it is another common indicator of transit service effectiveness.
Using the above criteria, Capital Transit was the most effective operator nearly 2.5 times the peer average. Again, due to relatively modest annual ridership, Santa Fe’s indicator was the lowest of the peer group, 44.6 percent below the average.
Exhibit A.3-12 Passengers/VSH
50.00
44.35 45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00 27.89
25.00
20.00
15.00 11.98 9.75 10.00
5.00
0.00 C apital T ransit S anta F e T rails ValleyR ide P ueblo T ransit
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 289 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile The Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile (VSM) indicator illustrates total ridership per revenue mile. As such, it is another common indicator of transit service effectiveness.
Based on the above criteria, Capital Transit was the most effective operator within the peer group. Its performance was nearly double the peer average. Pueblo was the second-most effective operator at 25.5 percent above the peer average. Due to its relatively modest ridership, Santa Fe’s indicator was the lowest of the peer group, 47 percent below the average.
Exhibit A.3-13 Passengers/VSM
3.00
2.51 2.50
2.00 1.87
1.50
1.00 0.79 0.81
0.50
0.00 C apital T ransit S anta F e T rails ValleyR ide P ueblo T ransit
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 290 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Farebox Recovery Ratio A transit program’s farebox recovery ratio is arguably one of the two most important performance criteria. This metric calculates the percentage of operating cost “recovered” through passenger fares.
In 2007, Capital Transit achieved a farebox recovery ratio of 24.4 percent, more than double the peer average. As a point of reference, 10 percent is the industry threshold for communities under 50,000. Capital Transit has both the greatest annual fare revenue as well as the second-lowest operational cost. This is evidence of the CBJ’s ability to effectively manage total operating cost while also growing transit ridership. Santa Fe had the lowest farebox recovery, 64 percent below the peer average.
Exhibit A.3-14 Farebox Recovery Ratio
30.0%
25.0% 24.4%
20.0%
15.0% 14.2%
10.1% 10.0%
5.0% 4.1%
0.0% C apital T ransit S anta F e T rails ValleyR ide P ueblo T ransit
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 291 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Average Fare/Passenger Average Fare/Passenger is the ratio between total fare revenue and annual ridership. Capital Transit and ValleyRide posted the highest Average Fare/Passenger, 17.3 percent above the peer average.
The variance between farebox recovery and Average Fare/Passenger can be attributed to the higher incidence of non-cash fare media used by Capital Transit riders. More than 60 percent of Capital Transit customers use non-cash fare media according to the onboard survey. Santa Fe Trails’ indicator was the lowest, at 30 percent below the peer average.
Capital Transit has a base fare of $1.50 and an average paid fare of 61 cents. By contrast ValleyRide/Boise has a base fare of one dollar and an average paid fare of 61 cents.
Exhibit A.3-15 Average Fare/Passenger
$0.70
$0.61 $0.61 $0.60
$0.50
$0.42
$0.40 $0.36
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00 C apital T ransit S anta F e T rails ValleyR ide P ueblo T ransit
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 292 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Demand-Response Peer Review The Demand-Response Peer Review compared and contrasted Care-A-Van key performance indicators for FY 2006/07 with those of Santa Fe Trails, ValleyRide and Pueblo Transit. Care-A-Van VSH and VSM figures are estimates and may not reflect the actual FY 2006/07 performance data.
Exhibit A.3-16 Demand-Response Key Indicators Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi-Lift Average Operating Cost $865,886 $1,114,973 $966,045 $583,655 $882,640 Fare Revenue $27,935 $20,476 $67,289 $65,734 $45,359 Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 17,460 23,579 17,183 23,703 20,481 Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 210,003 318,294 219,991 323,951 268,060 Ridership 35,729 71,990 38,311 54,834 50,216
Operating Cost/VSH $49.59 $47.29 $56.22 $24.62 $44.43 Operating Cost/VSM $4.12 $3.50 $4.39 $1.80 $3.45 Operating Cost/Passenger $24.23 $15.49 $25.22 $10.64 $18.89 Passengers/VSH 2.05 3.05 2.23 2.31 2.41 Passengers/VSM 0.170 0.226 0.174 0.170 0.185 Farebox Recovery 3.23% 1.84% 6.97% 11.26% 5.82% Fare/Passenger $0.78 $0.28 $1.76 $1.20 $1.01
Source: City and Borough of Juneau, City of Santa Fe, NM, National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 293 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour As previously noted, Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile and Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour are both key indicators of service efficiency. Pueblo Citi-Lift had the lowest operating unit cost, 44.5 percent below the peer average. Care-A-Van ranked third in the peer group, 11.4 percent above the peer average. The Operating Cost/VSH indicator for Boise ACCESS ranked first in the peer group, 26.5 percent above the average.
Exhibit A.3-17 Operating Cost/VSH
$60.00 $56.22
$49.59 $50.00 $47.29
$40.00
$30.00 $24.62
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00 Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi Lift
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 294 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile Pueblo Citi-Lift was the most efficient operator, 47.8 percent below the peer average. Care-A-Van was the third-most efficient operator in the peer group, nearly 20 percent above the peer average. The indicator for Boise ACCESS was the highest in the peer group, 27.2 percent above the average.
Exhibit A.3-18 Operating Cost/VSM
$5.00
$4.50 $4.39 $4.12 $4.00
$3.50 $3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00 $1.80
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00 Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi Lift
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 295 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Operating Cost/Passenger Operating Cost/Passenger is a common benchmark for assessing transit service cost effectiveness. It tells how much the operator is spending per each unlinked trip. Pueblo Citi-Lift was the most effective operator, 43.6 percent below the peer average. Care-A-Van was the third-most efficient operator in the peer group, 28.3 percent above the peer average. The indicator for Boise ACCESS was the highest in the peer group, 33.5 percent above the peer average.
Exhibit A.3-19 Operating Cost/Passenger
$30.00
$25.22 $25.00 $24.23
$20.00
$15.49 $15.00
$10.64 $10.00
$5.00
$0.00 C are-A-Van S anta Fe R ide AC C E S S C iti Lift
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 296 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour The Passengers/VSH indicator for Care-A-Van was the lowest among the peers, 14.9 percent below the group average. We believe this can be attributed to Care- A-Van’s modest ridership combined with the significant trip length. Santa Fe Trails had the highest indicator in the group, 26.6 percent above the peer average.
Exhibit A.3-20 Passengers/VSH
3.50
3.05 3.00
2.50 2.31 2.23 2.05 2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi Lift
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 297 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile Similar to Passengers/VSH, Care-A-Van’s Passenger/VSM was the lowest of the peers, 8.1 percent below the average. We believe this can be attributed to Care- A-Van’s slightly lower ridership compared with the greater average trip length. Santa Fe Trails had the highest indicator, 22.2 percent above the peer average.
Exhibit A.3-21 Passengers/VSM
0.250
0.226
0.200
0.174 0.170 0.170
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000 Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi Lift
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 298 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Farebox Recovery Ratio Care-A-Van’s Farebox Recovery Ratio was 44.8 percent below the peer average of 5.8 percent. We believe this can be attributed to its voluntary fare policy. Surprisingly, Care-A-Van’s farebox recovery ratio was not the lowest among the peer group. Santa Fe had the lowest indicator, nearly 70 percent below the peer average. By contrast, Pueblo had the highest recovery ratio.
The farebox recovery standard is 10 percent for demand-response programs.
Exhibit A.3-22 Farebox Recovery Ratio
12.0% 11.3%
10.0%
8.0% 7.0%
6.0%
4.0% 3.2%
1.8% 2.0%
0.0% C are-A-Van S anta Fe R ide ACCESS C iti Lift
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 299 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fare/Passenger The Fare/Passenger metric mirrored farebox recovery for Care-A-Van. The peer average is $1.01, with Boise ACCESS reporting the highest Fare/Passenger and Care-A-Van 23 percent below the peer average. This can be attributed to the fact Care-A-Van relies upon a voluntary fare payment policy.
Exhibit A.3-23 Fare/Passenger
$2.00
$1.80 $1.76
$1.60
$1.40
$1.20 $1.20
$1.00
$0.78 $0.80
$0.60
$0.40 $0.28
$0.20
$0.00 Care-A-Van Santa Fe Ride ACCESS Citi Lift
Source: National Transit Database.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 300 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A-4 – RIDE CHECK ANALYSIS
Moore & Associates conducted a ride check between Monday, September 10, 2007 and Sunday, September 16, 2007 to evaluate Capital Transit’s fixed-route on-time performance. A total of 355 trips were evaluated. The ride check was conducted across all service days (i.e., weekdays, Saturday, Sunday) and all day-parts. A ride check has two primary objectives: 1. Assess schedule adherence, and 2. Assess productivity at the individual bus stop level.
Fixed-Route On-Time Performance On-time performance was assessed at the beginning (departure), midpoint (departure), and end of each trip (arrival). A key aspect of our ride check was a comprehensive and objective evaluation of Capital Transit’s on-time performance under actual field conditions. Methodology for determining the on-time performance of the Capital Transit system is the same system used by Moore & Associates for ride checks at each of our client properties. Our survey coordinators synchronized their time pieces with GCI’s automated clock. In turn, they synchronize their watches with all surveyors. The surveyors then rode Capital Transit’s buses collecting data at all time points along a given route. The data collected by the surveyors were then entered into Microsoft Excel where they were cleaned and analyzed.
The following criteria were used to evaluate on-time performance: • On-time was defined as trip departure within 0-5 minutes of the published time. • Early was defined as any departure prior to the published time. • Late was defined as any departure occurring 6 or more minutes after the published time.
System-Wide Capital Transit’s overall on-time performance during the assessment period (47.7 percent) was well below the industry standard of 90 percent. We believe the 90- percent standard is attainable for Capital Transit. We calculated Capital Transit’s on-time performance on weekdays (67.6 percent), Saturdays (40.6 percent), and
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 301 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Sunday (37.2 percent). Capital Transit had the highest on-time performance on weekdays and the lowest on Sunday. Buses were likely to run late on Sunday and to run early on Saturday.
Exhibit A.4.1 On-Time Performance by Day Total On Time Early Late Weekday 67.6% 26.3% 6.1% Saturday 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% Sunday 37.2% 53.5% 9.3% Overall 48.5% 46.4% 5.1% Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The aggregate schedule adherence was 46.7 percent at trip start. On-time performance decreased to 43.3 percent at trip midpoint, ultimately this figure rose to 55.6 percent at trip-end.
We believe this reveals a problem with “running hot”. This refers to a tendency by drivers to depart early from published stops. “Running hot” is considered problematic because potential passengers can arrive at a bus stop on time and (still) miss their bus because it may have already departed. System-wide, (CT) trips left early at trip start 48.9 percent of the time. Buses departed early from trip mid-point 44.6 percent, and arrived early at the final stop of the line 42.9 percent.
The overall average for “running hot” throughout the survey period was 46.4 percent. We conclude Capital Transit drivers are departing stops ahead of the published time to ensure their run ended on-time. The most likely reason for this is the absence of sufficient “run time” in the Capital Transit schedule.
Late running was less of a problem, but is still worth addressing. System-wide, 4.4 percent of surveyed trips began their run late, 12.2 percent left trip midpoint late, and 3.0 percent arrived at the run terminating point late.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 302 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.2 On-Time Performance by Trip Segment Beginning Midpoint End Total On Time Early Late On Time Early Late Time Early Late Weekday 77.1% 16.9% 6.0% 58.5% 38.2% 3.3% 69.6% 21.4% 9.1% Saturday 27.3% 72.7% 0.0% 54.6% 45.5% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% Sunday 35.7% 57.1% 7.1% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 57.1% 42.9% 0.0% Overall 46.7% 48.9% 4.4% 43.3% 44.6% 12.2% 55.6% 41.4% 3.0% Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The increase in “early arrivals” as trips progress may indicate drivers are not waiting long enough at established time points, and therefore steadily increase the variance between the schedule time and actual running time. The following chart illustrates Capital Transit’s on-time performance.
Exhibit A.4.3 On-Time Performance for All Routes
90.0%
80.0% 77.1%
70.0% 69.6%
60.0% 58.5% 57.1% 54.6% 55.6% 50.0% 46.7% 43.3% 40.0% 40.0% 35.7%
30.0% 27.3%
20.0% 16.7%
10.0%
0.0% Beginning Midpoint End
Weekday Saturday Sunday Overall
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 303 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Route-by-Route On weekdays, Capital Transit’s on-time performance was 77.1 percent at trip- start. The Express Route had the best trip start on-time performance (83.8 percent), while the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route had the lowest (70.0 percent). With respect to trip mid- point assessment, the Express Route had the best on-time performance (90.2 percent), while the North Douglas Route had the lowest (25.0 percent). Gauging on-time performance at trip end, the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route had the highest (76.2 percent), and the North Douglas Route the lowest (33.3 percent). The poor performance of the North Douglas Route is most likely due to its service design. It relies chiefly on flag stops once it departs downtown Juneau. As such, it is often difficult for drivers to remain on schedule. The Express Service’s solid on-time performance can be attributed to the fact each of its stops is a published time-point. Therefore its run time varies little across the average service day.
Exhibit A.4.4 Weekday On-Time Percentages by Route Beginning Midpoint End Overall Weekday On Time Early Late On Time Early Late On Time Early Late On Time Early Late Juneau-Mendenhall 70.0% 15.0% 15.0% 73.5% 20.4% 6.1% 76.2% 14.3% 9.5% 73.6% 16.9% 9.5% Valley-Juneau Juneau-Douglas 79.3% 18.3% 2.4% 33.0% 65.0% 1.9% 67.3% 31.8% 0.9% 58.6% 39.7% 1.7% Express Service 83.8% 16.2% 0.0% 90.2% 9.8% 0.0% 69.6% 8.7% 21.7% 80.6% 11.3% 8.1% North Douglas 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 45.5% 54.5% 0.0% Overall 77.0% 16.9% 6.0% 58.5% 38.2% 3.3% 69.5% 21.4% 9.1% 67.6% 26.3% 6.1% Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The chart below illustrates weekday on-time performance trends for each route. The Juneau-Douglas and North Douglas Routes followed a similar pattern, with on-time performance dipping in the middle of the run before rebounding towards the end of the run. We believe too much time is built into the Juneau-Douglas Route as the incidence of early departures increased from 18.3 percent at trip start to 65.0 percent at midpoint. On-time performance for the Express Route improved between the start and midpoint of the surveyed before diminishing at trip end. The Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route was the only route whose on-time performance improved over the course of the surveyed trip.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 304 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.5 Weekday On-Time Percentages by Route
100.0%
90.0% 90.2%
83.8% 80.0% 79.3% 75.0% 76.2% 73.5% 70.0% 70.0% 69.6% 67.3%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
33.0% 33.3% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0%
10.0%
0.0% Beginning Midpoint End
Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Juneau-Douglas Express Service North Douglas
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
With respect to Saturday service, Capital Transit’s on-time performance was 27.3 percent at trip-beginning. The Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route had the best trip-start performance (33.3 percent), while the Juneau-Douglas Route had the poorest (20.0 percent). With respect to trip mid-point assessments, the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route had the best on-time performance (100.0 percent) while the Juneau-Douglas Route had the lowest (0.0 percent). When assessing on-time performance at trip-end, the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley- Juneau Route had the highest (66.7 percent) and the Juneau-Douglas Route the lowest (0.0 percent). Given the fact the Juneau-Douglas Route never ran late on the Saturday surveyed, we conclude the modest ridership on weekends contributed to less dwell time at stops and therefore a higher incidence of running hot.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 305 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.6 Saturday On-Time Percentages by Route Beginning Midpoint End Overall Saturday On Time Early Late On Time Early Late On Time Early Late On Time Early Late Juneau-Mendenhall 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% Valley-Juneau Juneau-Douglas 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7.1% 92.9% 0.0% Overall 27.3% 72.7% 0.0% 54.5% 45.5% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 40.6% 59.4% 0.0% Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The following chart illustrates Saturday on-time performance for each route. The Juneau-Douglas Route began its Saturday runs on-time 20 percent of the time. Interestingly, the surveyed trips never departed from trip midpoint nor reached trip end point on-time. On-time performance for the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley- Juneau Route peaked in the middle of the Saturday operation.
Exhibit A.4.7 Saturday On-Time Percentages by Route
120.0%
100.0% 100.0%
80.0%
66.7%
60.0%
40.0%
33.3%
20.0% 20.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Beginning Midpoint End
Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Juneau-Douglas
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
With respect to Sunday service, Capital Transit’s on-time performance was 35.7 percent at trip start. The Juneau-Douglas Route had the best trip start on-time performance (36.4 percent), while the Juneau Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 306 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
had the lowest (33.3 percent). With respect to trip mid-point assessment, the Juneau Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route had the best on-time performance (100.0 percent) while the Juneau-Douglas Route had the lowest (0.0 percent). When gauging on-time performance at trip end, the Juneau Mendenhall Valley- Juneau Route had the highest (100.0 percent) and the Juneau-Douglas Route the lowest (45.5 percent). Considering the Juneau-Douglas Route never ran late on the Sunday surveyed, we conclude modest ridership on weekends contributed to less dwell time at stops and therefore a higher incidence of running hot.
Exhibit A.4.8 Sunday On-Time Percentages by Route Beginning Midpoint End Overall Sunday On Time Early Late On Time Early Late On Time Early Late On Time Early Late Juneau-Mendenhall 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% Valley-Juneau Juneau-Douglas 36.4% 63.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 45.5% 54.5% 0.0% 29.0% 71.0% 0.0% Overall 35.7% 57.1% 7.1% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 57.1% 42.9% 0.0% 37.2% 53.5% 9.3% Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The chart below illustrates Sunday on-time performance for each route. The Juneau-Douglas Route began its Sunday runs on-time 36.4 percent of the time, yet never departed trip midpoint on-time. On-time performance for the Juneau Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route peaked in the middle of its Sunday operation.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 307 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.9 Sunday On-Time Percentages by Route
120.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
45.5% 40.0% 36.4% 33.3%
20.0%
0.0% 0.0% Beginning Midpoint End
Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Juneau-Douglas Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 308 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fixed-Route Boarding and Alighting In addition to recording schedule adherence at published timepoints, our performance assessment recorded boarding and alighting activity at each designated bus stop. The tabulations were recorded on the same trip sheets used to evaluate on-time performance. The data were entered into Microsoft Excel. Total boardings and alightings were calculated and assigned according to route, stop, and day-part.
These counts allowed our project team to create a clear picture of ridership patterns. Critical to the evaluation process is segregation by day-part. In doing so, we identified five distinct time blocks: • 6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. (early morning), • 8:30 a.m. to 11:29 p.m. (late morning), • 11:30 p.m. to 3:29 p.m. (early afternoon), • 3:30 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. (late afternoon), and • 7:00 p.m. to 11:45 p.m. (evening).
Boarding by Day-Part Our boarding by day-part analysis revealed boarding activity peaked between 6:30 a.m. and 8:29 a.m. This early morning period averaged 41.9 boardings per trip. The next highest boarding activity occurred between 7:00 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. (37.0 boardings per trip), while the late afternoon averaged 32.3 boardings per trip. The data suggests most Capital Transit riders make their first trip of the day during the morning “rush hour” (6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.), while return trips typically occur anytime from 3:30 p.m. onward.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 309 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.10 System-Wide Boarding Averages by Day-Part
45.0
41.9
40.0
37.0
35.0
32.3
30.0 29.2
25.0
22.9
20.0 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The following table summarizes individual route boarding averages by day-part. The Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route was the most productive, averaging 44.2 boardings. Combined with the fact the Express Route posted 35.1 boardings per trip, it is clear most trips take place between the Mendenhall Valley and Downtown Juneau.
The North Douglas Route experienced the lowest average boarding activity with 3.0 per surveyed trip. This is due probably to the route’s limited frequency combined with a flag stop policy and low-density development in North Douglas.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 310 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.11 Individual Routes by Day-Part Boarding Averages
Boarding Averages by Day-Part Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Evening 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m. 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m. Route Avg Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau 56.7 35.7 48.6 39.9 46.6 44.2 Juneau to Douglas 18.3 11.4 13.5 20.3 31.4 15.8 Express Service 52.4 29.6 28.5 43.5 0.0 35.1 Commuter 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 Day-Part Average 41.9 22.9 29.2 32.3 37.0 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
Alighting by Day-Part System-wide alighting activity peaked between 6:30 a.m. and 8:29 a.m. (37.7 alightings per trip). The next greatest alighting activity occurred during the evening (26.7 alightings per trip), followed by late afternoon (25.1 alightings per trip). Alighting trends mimic boarding trends as day-parts are long enough for most riders to complete their trip within a single period. The results indicate most Capital Transit riders make their first trip of the day during the morning “rush hour” (6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.), while return trips typically occur anytime from 3:30 p.m. onward. The lowest incidence of alighting activity occurred during the late morning (19.7 alightings).
Exhibit A.4.12 System-Wide Alighting Averages by Day-Part
40.0
37.7
35.0
30.0
26.7
25.0 25.1 24.0
20.0 19.7
15.0 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 311 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following table illustrates individual route alighting activity by day-part. The Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route was the most productive (36.3 alightings). Combined with the fact the Express Route experienced 31.7 alightings per trip, it is clear most trips take place between the Mendenhall Valley and Downtown Juneau. As with boardings, the North Douglas Route posted the lowest average alighting activity (2.5 per surveyed trip).
Exhibit A.4.13 Individual Routes by Day-Part Alighting Averages
Alighting Averages by Day-Part Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Evening 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m. 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m. Route Avg Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau 50.9 29.7 38.2 30.2 42.3 36.3 Juneau to Douglas 15.6 10.4 11.2 14.4 17.6 15.8 Express Service 52.4 29.6 28.5 43.5 0.0 31.7 Commuter 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.5 0.0 2.5 Day-Part Avg 37.7 19.7 24.0 25.1 26.7 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 312 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Route-Segment Analysis The route-segment analysis illustrates key stops and points of significant activity. The boarding and alighting data collected at each time point was geocoded using ESRI ArcView 9.2 Geographic Information System (GIS) software. From there, maps were generated to illustrate a visual representation of boarding and alighting trends.
Juneau-Mendenhall Valley–Juneau Route Boarding and Alighting Counts The Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route enjoys the highest ridership in the Capital Transit system because it offers the most comprehensive service, with access to a wide range of housing, employment centers, businesses, and public services.
The Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route provides service from Franklin Street in downtown Juneau, to Lemon Creek via Glacier Highway, and on to the Nugget Mall. The route continues into the Mendenhall Valley to the Mendenhall Mall, Valley Boulevard, DeHart’s/Auke Bay, and Mendenhall Boulevard. After departing from the Mendenhall Valley, the route retraces its path back to downtown Juneau.
The data obtained during the ride checks reveal most boardings and alightings occurred during the early morning (56.7 boardings and 50.9 alightings per trip). Fewest boardings and alightings occurred during the late morning (35.7 boardings and 29.7 alightings per trip). Ridership for this route remained strong throughout the service day.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 313 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.14 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part
Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 1248 1119 56.7 50.9 22 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 1463 1217 35.7 29.7 41 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 2042 1603 48.6 38.2 42 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m 1157 877 39.9 30.2 29 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m 326 296 46.6 42.3 7 Total 6236 5112 44.2 36.3 141 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The five most-frequented stops are noted below. These stops accounted for 40.8 percent of boardings occurring during the survey period.
Exhibit A.4.15 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Total Boardings by Stop Rank Stop Boardings 1 Main St & Egan Dr 616 2 Nugget Mall 602 3 Switzer 566 4 Federal Building 487 5 Mendenhall Mall 276 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
It is clear from the ride check data there is little demand on the “back loop” with the exception of the DeHart’s/Auke Bay stop, which serves several businesses and the University of Alaska-Southeast campus. The route also experienced modest boardings in the downtown area (notable exceptions being the Downtown Transit Center and the Federal Building).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 314 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.16 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Boardings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The five most popular stops are listed below. These stops accounted for 37.7 percent of all alightings occurring during the survey period.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 315 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.17 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Total Alightings by Stop Rank Stop Alightings 1 Nugget Mall 629 2 Switzer 466 3 Federal Building 343 4 Bartlett Regional Hospital 270 5 Franklin St & Front St 218 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
Clusters of significant demand exist near the Nugget Mall as well as the Switzer/Lemon Creek area. As with boardings, little activity occurred on the “back loop” or within downtown Juneau east of the Transit Center.
Exhibit A.4.18 Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Alightings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 316 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Juneau-Douglas Route Boarding and Alighting Counts The Juneau-Douglas Route provides service between Downtown Douglas and Downtown Juneau every half hour. The route attracts less than half the ridership of the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route given there are fewer generators along the alignment.
The Juneau-Douglas Route provides service from Franklin Street in downtown Juneau to St. Ann’s Avenue on Douglas Island. The run begins by making several stops in downtown: Franklin Street, Fourth Street, Main Street, and the Federal Building. From there the run continues to Douglas stopping at Cordova Street, the Post Office, and St. Ann’s. The route retraces its path back to downtown Juneau, with a final stop at Fourth Street.
Ridership for the Juneau-Douglas Route reached its peak during the evening with 31.4 boardings per trip and 17.6 alightings per trip. The period of lowest activity occurred during the late morning day (11.4 boardings and 10.4 alightings per trip). On average, this route had 15.8 boardings and alightings per trip.
Exhibit A.4.19 Juneau-Douglas Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part
Juneau-Douglas Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 311 266 18.3 15.6 17 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 614 561 11.4 10.4 54 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 633 527 13.5 11.2 47 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m 508 361 20.3 14.4 25 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m 377 211 31.4 17.6 12 Total 2443 1926 15.8 15.8 155 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The five most popular stops are listed below. These stops accounted for 81.7 percent of boardings occurring during the survey period.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 317 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.20 Juneau-Douglas Total Boarding by Stop Rank Stop Boardings 1 Federal Building 694 2 Cordova St & Douglas Hwy 504 3 Main St & Egan Dr 450 4 Douglas Post Office 258 5 St. Anns Ave 90 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
Given more than 80 percent of the boardings on this route occurred at just five stops, demand is highly concentrated in Juneau, Douglas, and the Cordova Street area. Similar to the Juneau-Mendenhall Valley-Juneau Route, the Juneau- Douglas Route experienced little ridership in downtown Juneau east of the Transit Center.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 318 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.21 Juneau-Douglas Boardings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 319 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The five most popular stops are listed below. These stops accounted for 86.4 percent of alightings occurring during the survey period.
Exhibit A.4.22 Juneau-Douglas Total Alightings by Stop Rank Stop Alightings 1 Federal Building 633 2 Franklin St & 4th St 405 3 Cordova St & Douglas Hwy 329 4 Douglas Post Office 164 5 Main St & 4th St 134 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
There was considerably more alighting than boarding activity in Juneau on the Juneau-Douglas Route. A total of 405 riders alighted at Franklin Street/Fourth Street, while 134 alighted at Main Street/Fourth Street during the survey period. This is the only route that experienced anything beyond modest ridership in Juneau east of the Transit Center.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 320 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.23 Juneau-Douglas Alightings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 321 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Express Route Boarding and Alighting Counts The Express Route provides limited-stop service between the University of Alaska-Southeast campus at Auke Lake and the State Archives Building in Juneau on a 60-minute headway. This route serves as the most direct path between the residential areas of the Mendenhall Valley and employment centers in Juneau.
The Express Route provides service from the Archives Building in Juneau to Auke Lake and the UAS campus. Stops along this route include the Federal Building, Nugget Mall, Juneau International Airport, DeHart’s/Auke Bay, and the UAS.
Ridership for this route was at its highest during the late afternoon (43.5 boardings and alightings). On a route-level basis, boardings and alightings had the same average value, 154.0. This indicates comparable boarding and alighting activity in the Downtown area and Auke Bay.
Exhibit A.4.24 Express Service Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part
Express Service Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 367 351 52.4 52.4 7 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 414 365 29.6 29.6 14 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 626 570 28.5 28.5 22 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m 522 459 43.5 43.5 12 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m Total 1929 1745 35.1 31.7 55 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The five most popular stops are listed below. These stops accounted for 95.0 percent of boardings occurring during the survey period.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 322 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.25 Express Service Total Boardings by Stop Rank Stop Boardings 1 Nugget Mall 549 2 Federal Building 278 3 State Archives 259 4 Dehart's Auke Bay 158 5 University of Alaska Southeast 109 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
Given the Express Route provides limited-stop service, demand is spread fairly evenly because the bus does not stop between Juneau and the Nugget Mall. The only stop which posted fewer than 100 boarding during the survey period was Juneau International Airport. The airport had lower boarding activity likely due to the fact the service is not configured to cater to passengers traveling to and from the airport. The nearby Nugget Mall also serves as the Mendenhall valley’s primary transfer center, meaning residents in the area are more inclined to board there.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 323 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.26 Express Service Boardings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The five most popular stops are listed below. These stops accounted for 95.2 percent of alighting occurring during the survey period.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 324 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.27 Express Service Total Alighting by Stop Rank Stop Alightings 1 Nugget Mall 509 2 State Archives 403 3 University of Alaska Southeast 220 4 Federal Building 180 5 Airport 81 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
The only stops which posted fewer than 100 alightings during the study period were DeHart’s/Auke Bay and Juneau International Airport.
Exhibit A.4.28 Express Service Alightings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 325 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
North Douglas Route Boarding and Alighting Counts The Juneau-North Douglas Route is chiefly a commuter service providing three round trips each weekday (morning, midday, evening). This line is the only Capital Transit route providing service to North Douglas. Whereas other “peak hour” routes operated by Capital Transit provide limited-stop service between downtown Juneau and well-populated areas, the Juneau-North Douglas Route utilizes a flag stop policy wherein patrons may flag the bus down anywhere between the bridge and Sundown Drive.
The Juneau-North Douglas Route has stops at Franklin Street, Main Street, and the Federal Building. After departing from downtown Juneau, the route continues to North Douglas with stops at Bonnie Doon and Sundown Drive. The North Douglas-Juneau Route retraces is path back to downtown Juneau after departing from North Douglas.
The greatest boarding and alighting activity occurred during the late afternoon (average of 4.0 boardings and 3.5 alightings).
Exhibit A.4.29 North Douglas Boardings and Alightings by Day-Part
North Douglas Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips 6:30 a.m to 8:29 a.m. 8:30 a.m to 11:29 a.m. 11:30 a.m to 3:29 p.m 43 2.01.52 3:30 p.m to 6:59 p.m 87 4.03.52 7:00 p.m to 11:45 p.m Total 12 10 3 2.5 4 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
All published stops where boarding activity occurred are listed below.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 326 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.4.30 North Douglas Total Boardings by Stop Rank Stop Boardings 1 Federal Building 5 2 4th and Franklin Streets 4 3 Bonnie Doon & Douglas Hwy 1 4 Main & Front Streets 1 5 Sundown Drive & Douglas Hwy 1 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
Most Capital Transit riders boarded in Juneau during the survey period. Given the absence of residential density and/or trip generations in North Douglas, few boardings occurred along Douglas Highway.
Exhibit A.4.31 North Douglas Boardings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 327 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
All posted Capital Transit stops where boardings occurred are noted below.
Exhibit A.4.32 North Douglas Total Alighting by Stop Rank Stop Alightings 1 Federal Building 6 2 4th and Franklin Streets 3 3 Bonnie Doon & Douglas Hwy 1 Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
Alighting patterns mimic boarding patterns in that most demand is focused in and around Juneau.
Exhibit A.4.33 North Douglas Alightings
Source: Capital Transit Ride Checks
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 328 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A.5 – PARATRANSIT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Moore & Associates conducted a review of Care-A-Van’s trip sheets dated between October 1 and October 13, 2007. This review reflected a 100-percent sampling of the service during the stipulated period. We entered information for both pick-ups and drop- offs (i.e., location, scheduled time, and actual time); and recorded all trip cancellations, patron no-shows, and operational variances. The data was analyzed for on-time performance and ridership trends.
On-Time Performance Care-A-Van provides its customers with a 30-minute “window” for pick-up and drop-off (15 minutes prior and 15 minutes after). The following criteria were used to evaluate on- time performance: • On-time, defined as the arrival at scheduled origin point within the 30-minute “window”. • Early, defined as any arrival prior to the scheduled 30-minute pick-up “window”. • Late, defined as any arrival after the scheduled 30-minute pick-up “window”.
Care-A-Van had a weekday on-time performance rating of 97.4 percent for pick-ups and 89.3 percent for drop-offs. The incidence of early arrival was 1.1 percent for pick-ups and 5.9 percent for drop-offs. The incidence of late arrival was 1.5 percent for pick-ups and 4.8 percent for drop-offs. In summary, Care-A-Van’s on-time performance is excellent, especially given the challenges of weather, limited road network, and physical limitations of the target audience.
Exhibit A.5-1 Weekday On-Time Performance
Pick Up Drop Off Weekday Early Late On-Time Early Late On-Time Early Morning (6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.) 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 3.1% 3.1% 93.7% Late Morning (8:30 a.m. to 11:29 a.m.) 1.4% 0.8% 97.7% 3.7% 2.8% 93.5% Early Afternoon (11:30 a.m. to 3:29 p.m.) 0.4% 1.1% 98.4% 6.4% 4.2% 89.5% Late Afternoon (3:30 p.m. to 6:59 p.m.) 2.5% 5.0% 92.5% 7.3% 9.1% 83.6% Evening (7:00 p.m. to 11:45 p.m.) 2.6% 0.0% 97.4% 20.0% 10.0% 70.0% Average 1.1% 1.5% 97.4% 5.9% 4.8% 89.3% Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 329 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In an effort to identify potential on-time performance issues, we segregated the surveyed trips into five day-parts. Weekday pick-up on-time performance is highest in the early morning (100.0 percent) and lowest in the late afternoon (92.5 percent). Drop-off and average on-time performance exhibit similar trends, with the greatest schedule adherence in the early morning (93.7 percent and 97.3 percent, respectively), and the lowest in the evening (70.0 percent and 83.5 percent, respectively). The decrease in on- time performance in the late afternoon and evening is not surprising given Care-A-Van operates only one vehicle during that period.
Exhibit A.5-2 Weekday On-Time Performance
100.0% 100.0% 98.4% 97.7% 97.4%
97.3% 95.0% 95.7% 92.5% 93.7% 93.5% 93.9%
90.0% 89.5% 87.9% 85.0%
83.6% 83.5%
80.0%
75.0%
70.0% 70.0%
65.0%
60.0% Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Evening
Pick Up Drop Off Total Source: Southeast Senior Services
Care-A-Van had a weekend on-time performance of 92.6 percent for pickups and 74.7 percent for drop-offs. The incidence of early arrival was 7.4 percent for pick-ups and 13.9 percent for drop-offs, while the incidence of late arrival was 0.0 percent for pick-ups and 11.4 percent for drop-offs. We believe the erosion in weekend on-time performance can be attributed to a greater variety of origin-destination pairings (versus weekdays), and the operation of fewer CAV vehicles. The use of part-time or “coverage” drivers could also be a factor.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 330 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.5-3 Weekend On-Time Performance Pick Up Drop Off Weekend Early Late On-Time Early Late On-Time Early Morning (6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.) 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% Late Morning (8:30 a.m. to 11:29 a.m.) 4.0% 0.0% 96.0% 7.7% 11.5% 80.8% Early Afternoon (11:30 a.m. to 3:29 p.m.) 2.7% 0.0% 97.3% 5.7% 14.3% 80.0% Late Afternoon (3:30 p.m. to 6:59 p.m.) 30.0% 0.0% 70.0% 41.7% 0.0% 58.3% Evening (7:00 p.m. to 11:45 p.m.) 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% Average 7.4% 0.0% 92.6% 13.9% 11.4% 74.7% Source: Southeast Senior Services
Weekend pick-up on-time performance was highest in the early morning (100.0 percent) and lowest in the late afternoon (70.0 percent). Drop-off on-time performance was highest in the late morning (80.8 percent) and lowest in the evening (33.3 percent). Average on-time performance was highest in the early afternoon and lowest in the evening (57.1). Here again, this may be due to a spiking of demand within a short time period (i.e., greater demand than available seats).
Exhibit A.5-4 Weekend On-Time Performance
100.0% 100.0% 97.3% 96.0%
88.9% 90.0% 87.5% 88.2%
80.0% 80.8% 80.0% 75.0%
70.0% 70.0%
63.6% 66.7%
60.0% 57.1%
58.3%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0% 33.3% Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Evening Pick Up Drop Off Total Source: Southeast Senior Services
Care-A-Van had an aggregate on-time performance of 97.1 percent for pickups and 88.4 percent for drop-offs. The incidence of early arrival was 1.5 percent for pick-ups and 6.4
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 331 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
percent for drop-offs, while the incidence of late arrival was 1.5 percent for pick-ups and 4.8 percent for drop-offs.
Exhibit A.5-5 Aggregate On-Time Performance Pick Up Drop Off Total Early Late On-Time Early Late On-Time Early Morning (6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.) 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 3.1% 3.8% 93.1% Late Morning (8:30 a.m. to 11:29 a.m.) 1.6% 0.8% 97.6% 4.0% 3.4% 92.6% Early Afternoon (11:30 a.m. to 3:29 p.m.) 0.6% 1.0% 98.3% 6.3% 4.9% 88.8% Late Afternoon (3:30 p.m. to 6:59 p.m.) 3.8% 4.7% 91.5% 9.1% 8.7% 82.3% Evening (7:00 p.m. to 11:45 p.m.) 4.7% 0.0% 95.3% 23.3% 9.3% 67.4% Average 1.5% 1.4% 97.1% 6.4% 5.2% 88.4% Source: Southeast Senior Services
Patron pick-up on-time performance was highest in the early morning (100.0 percent) and lowest in the late afternoon (91.5 percent). Drop-off and average on-time performance exhibited similar trends, with the highest schedule adherence in the early morning (93.1 percent and 97.1 percent, respectively), and the lowest in the evening (67.4 percent and 81.4 percent, respectively). It appears additional capacity may be warranted during the evening period. While some targeted outreach might prove beneficial, we conclude the majority of evening demand-response travel is independent in nature. In other words, there are fewer “shared” origin-destination pairings during the evening than in other day parts. Therefore, the potential for “trip clusters” is reduced.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 332 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.5-6 Aggregate On-Time Performance
100.0% 100.0% 98.3% 97.6% 95.3% 95.0% 97.1% 95.2% 91.5% 93.5% 93.1% 92.6% 90.0%
88.8% 85.0% 86.7%
82.3% 80.0% 81.4%
75.0%
70.0%
65.0% 67.4%
60.0%
55.0%
50.0% Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Evening
Pick Up Drop Off Total Source: Southeast Senior Services
Ridership Trends We analyzed trip sheets for possible ridership trends by examining all trips made during the survey period. We counted all pick-ups (origins) and drop-offs (destinations), noted their respective location, and segregated trips into respective day-parts. We entered the raw data into Microsoft Excel to facilitate analysis.
As shown in Exhibit A.5-7, a combined 1,295 pick-ups and drop-offs (hereafter referred to as “unlinked trips”) were completed within the survey period (99.6 trips per day). A total of 2,549 trips were scheduled, of which 258 were cancelled and six deemed “no- shows”.
Care-A-Van’s weekday ridership peaked during the early afternoon (36.7 percent of daily ridership), while its lowest activity occurred in the evening (3.2 percent). Weekend ridership closely mirrored weekday ridership, with its peak in the early afternoon (45.7 percent) and its low in the evening (4.9 percent). Average daily ridership on the weekend is significantly lower than on weekdays, which may contribute to the greater incidence of
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 333 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
early pick-ups. While demand is considerably lower on weekends, Care-A-Van also assigns fewer vehicles, which may contribute to the incidence of late drop-off.
Exhibit A.5-7 Ridership by Day-Part
Weekday Weekend Total Ridership Counts Count Avg. Daily Percentage Count Avg. Daily Percentage Count Avg. Daily Percentage Early Morning (6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m.) 174 17.4 14.3% 5 1.7 6.2% 179 13.8 13.8% Late Morning (8:30 a.m. to 11:29 a.m.) 354 35.4 29.2% 25 8.3 30.9% 379 29.2 29.3% Early Afternoon (11:30 a.m. to 3:29 p.m.) 446 44.6 36.7% 37 12.3 45.7% 483 37.2 37.3% Late Afternoon (3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) 201 20.1 16.6% 10 3.3 12.3% 211 16.2 16.3% Evening (7:00 p.m. to 11:45 p.m.) 39 3.9 3.2% 4 1.3 4.9% 43 3.3 3.3% Total 1214 121.4 100.0% 81 27.0 100.0% 1295 99.6 100.0% Source: Southeast Senior Services
Given the modest number of trips provided on weekends, weekday and total ridership trends are nearly identical. Weekday and weekend trends follow a similar pattern, although variance during weekend is more pronounced. Here a significant share of ridership occurred during the middle of the day and smaller shares during the early morning and evening day-parts. We believe can be attributed to Care-A-Van operating a shorter service day on Sunday. Given only one Sunday was assessed, we combined it with Saturday despite different service hours.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 334 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.5-8 Share of Ridership by Day-Part
50.0%
45.0% 45.7%
40.0% 37.3% 36.7% 35.0%
30.0% 30.9% 29.2% 29.3% 25.0%
20.0% 14.3% 16.3% 16.6% 15.0% 13.8% 12.3% 10.0% 6.2% 4.9% 5.0% 3.2% 3.3% 0.0% Early Morning (6:30 Late Morning (8:30 Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Evening (7:00 p.m. a.m. to 8:29 a.m.) a.m. to 11:29 a.m.) (11:30 a.m. to 3:29 (3:30 p.m. to 7:00 to 11:45 p.m.) p.m.) p.m.)
Weekday Weekend Total
Source: Southeast Senior Services
The most common pick-up points included three senior centers (Douglas, Juneau, and Valley), as well as healthcare centers (Bartlett Regional Hospital, Riefenstein Dialysis), and social service organizations (REACH, Polaris House). Bartlett Regional Hospital (53 pick-ups) and the Juneau Senior Center (125 pick-ups) ranked as the most common origin points.
Exhibit A.5-9 Common Trip Origins Location Address Pick Ups Bartlett Regional Hospital 3260 Hospital Dr. 53 Douglas Senior Center 3rd St.& E St. 19 Fireweed Place 415 Willoughby Ave. 24 Juneau Senior Center 895 12th St. 125 Polaris House 434 Willoughby Ave. 17 Rainbow Foods 224 4th St. 15 REACH Clinic 213 3rd St. 24 Riefenstein Dialysis 9109 Mendenhall Mall Rd. 26 SEARHC Clinic 3245 Hospital Dr. 17 Valley Senior Center 9059 Atlin Dr. 28 Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 335 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Pick-up locations are spread throughout Juneau, though significant clusters (i.e., 15 or more during the survey period) included downtown Juneau, Lemon Creek, and the Mendenhall Valley.
Exhibit A.5-10 Common Trip Origins
Source: Southeast Senior Services
The most popular drop-off points included three senior centers (Douglas, Juneau, and Valley), as well as healthcare centers (Bartlett Regional Hospital, Riefenstein Dialysis),
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 336 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
and social service organizations (REACH, Polaris House). Bartlett Regional Hospital (66 drop-offs), REACH (45 drop-offs), and the Juneau Senior Center (114 drop-offs) ranked as the most popular destination points.
Exhibit A.5-11 Common Trip Destinations Location Address Drop Offs Bartlett Regional Hospital 3260 Hospital Dr. 66 Douglas Senior Center 3rd St.& E St. 23 Fireweed Place 415 Willoughby Ave. 25 Juneau Senior Center 895 12th St. 114 Polaris House 434 Willoughby Ave. 18 Rainbow Foods 224 4th St. 15 REACH Clinic 213 3rd St. 45 Riefenstein Dialysis 9109 Mendenhall Mall Rd. 33 SEARCH Clinic 3245 Hospital Dr. 22 Valley Senior Center 9059 Atlin Dr. 31 Source: Southeast Senior Services
Drop-off locations are spread throughout Juneau, though significant clusters (15 or more) included downtown Juneau, Lemon Creek, and the Mendenhall Valley.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 337 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit A.5-12 Common Trip Destinations
Source: Southeast Senior Services
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 338 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
B. PUBLIC OUTREACH
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 339 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B.1 – ONBOARD SURVEY ANALYSIS
A self-administered customer survey was conducted by Moore & Associates onboard Capital Transit buses between Monday, September 10 and Sunday, September 16, 2007. The survey had several goals: • Assist in the development of a demographic profile of Capital Transit patrons, • Codify typical travel patterns among the survey participants, • Assess customer satisfaction regarding various service attributes, • Identify service enhancements and the propensity for patronage, and • Identify potential marketing and promotional channels.
Methodology Surveys were distributed during all service days (i.e., weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday) and all day-parts. In an effort to obtain a “balanced” survey sample, Moore and Associates employed a stratified-random sampling methodology which took into account each route’s relative ridership.
Moore & Associates was responsible for the recruitment, training, and oversight of all survey personnel. The validity of each survey form was verified by our firm’s Survey Coordinators, who also provided on-site supervision throughout the process. Survey forms reflecting unclear or faulty data were not included in the final data sample to reduce the incidence of data skewing.
A total of 267 valid surveys were obtained. A sample of this size has an error variation of +/-6.33 percent at the 95-percent confidence level. This means one can be 95-percent confident the results are accurate within +/-6.33 percent of the general population.
The surveys were entered into our firm’s Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) platform as the data was collected. The data was then cleaned and coded. The raw data was then exported into Microsoft Excel where the tables were translated into graphs to provide visual representation of the findings.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 340 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
We segregated the survey data into seven categories: 1. Demographic information, 2. Travel patterns, 3. Fare, 4. Customer satisfaction, 5. Service enhancements, 6. Information channels, and 7. Rider perceptions.
Demographic Information The majority of respondents were 23-59 years of age (53.3 percent), followed by 17-22 years of age. Interestingly, although the 17-22 year category is much smaller, it still garnered a considerable share of the responses, which implies high school and college- aged students make up a significant portion of Capital Transit’s ridership.
Exhibit B.1.1 Age
60.0%
53.3%
50.0%
40.0%
30.1% 30.0%
20.0%
12.6%
10.0%
4.1%
0.0% Less than 16 years 17-22 years 23-59 years 60 years or older
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 341 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Respondent gender was evenly split: 51.2 percent female and 48.8 percent male.
Exhibit B.1.2 Gender
60.0%
51.2% 50.0% 48.8%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% Female Male
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 342 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Only a small percentage of respondents indicated having a disability that impacted their personal mobility (13.9 percent). This stands in contrast to the 21.2 percent of residents reporting similar disabilities in Census 2000. It may be likely persons with disabilities in Juneau use subscription or demand-responsive service such as Care-A-Van for their mobility needs. Given the low cost/passenger of providing rides through a fixed-route service versus a demand-response service, promoting a mode-shift among persons with disabilities from demand-response to fixed-route is recommended whenever possible. However, inclusion of a high number of mobility-impaired riders on the fixed-route service may require adjustments to the schedule in order to accommodate the extra boarding/alighting time (i.e., wheel chair lifts).
Exhibit B.1.3 Mobility Impairment
100.0%
90.0% 86.1%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% 13.9%
10.0%
0.0% Yes No
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 343 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
When asked how they would best describe themselves, the majority of survey respondents indicated they worked full-time (35.0 percent), worked part-time (17.5 percent), or were students (17.5 percent). Some riders indicated being either retired (8.9 percent) or unemployed (10.2 percent). Given this survey was conducted during the summer season, the number of respondents indicating they were just visiting (3.3 percent) was quite modest.
Exhibit B.1.4 Employment Status
40.0%
35.0% 35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% 17.5% 17.5%
15.0%
10.2% 10.0% 8.9%
5.7% 5.0% 3.3% 2.0%
0.0% Employed full- Employed part- Homemaker Retired Student Military Not currently Just visiting time time employed
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 344 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Respondents were asked to indicate their annual household income. An option was provided to respondents wherein they could “decline to state,” and 14.7 percent chose to do so. Nearly 30 percent of respondents cited an annual household income of less than $20,000. More than 36 percent cited an annual household income between $20,000 and $50,000. Compared with common perceptions of transit ridership, Capital Transit attracts a broader demographic, including a significant group of riders (19.2 percent) with annual household incomes in excess of $50,000.
Exhibit B.1.5 Annual Household Income
35.0%
30.0% 29.5%
25.0%
20.5% 20.0% 19.2%
16.1% 14.7% 15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% Decline to state Less than $20,000 $20,001 - $34,000 $34,001 - $50,000 More than $50,000
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
To assess ride-dependency, we posed two questions: Do you have ready access to an automobile? and Do you have a valid driver license? Answering no to either one of these questions indicates the respondent is (at least) partially ride-dependent, while answering no to both indicates full ride-dependence. We performed a data cross-tabulation to determine how respondents answered these questions collectively. A cross-tabulation is run in SPSS to identify correlations that may exist between individual data sets.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 345 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Of all respondents, 23.9 percent indicated they have possessed both a driver license and had access to a personal vehicle. These riders can be termed “choice riders,” as they have other mobility options yet chose Capital Transit due to cost, environmental, or convenience-related reasons. Nearly 36 percent answered no to one of the two questions, indicating they are at least partially ride-dependent. Of those respondents, 40.3 percent answered no to both questions, indicating a level of complete ride- dependence. This, combined with the partially ride-dependent respondents, indicates 76.1 percent of surveyed riders are ride-dependent to some extent.
Exhibit B.1.6 Ride-Dependence Cross-Tabulation
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.3% 40.0%
30.0% 11.9%
Do you have a valid driver license? driver valid a have you Do 20.0%
23.9% 23.9% 10.0%
0.0% Yes No Do you have access to a personal vehicle?
Yes No
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 346 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Profile Rider Using the data collected from the onboard surveys, Moore & Associates developed a demographic profile of the typical Capital Transit customer: female (51.2 percent), age 23-59 (53.3 percent), and ride-dependent (40.3 percent). This “profile” rider has a household income of less than $20,000 per year (29.5 percent), and does not have a disability that impacts his/her personal mobility (86.1 percent).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 347 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Travel Patterns The onboard survey requested participants indicate the location where they boarded the bus and where they planned to alight that day. Collection and evaluation of origin (boarding) and destination (alighting) data enables the CBJ to address the needs of transit patrons by providing appropriate service to those portions of the surveyed community with the most activity.
Respondents indicated a wide array of origin points for their trips. We provided respondents the option of expressing their origin and destination points as either cross streets or landmarks. We have selected the ten locations with the highest boarding activity—five of them cross streets and five of them landmarks.
The cross-street pairing with the highest level of boarding activity was Main Street and Egan Drive (25.5 percent). More than 17 percent of respondents boarded at Glacier Highway and Ninth Street. When combined with the number of respondents indicating their trip originated at the Federal Building, this figure jumps to nearly 37 percent. Douglas Highway (13.6 percent), Mallard Street (10.0 percent), and Franklin Street (4.5 percent) round out the five top boarding points.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 348 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.1.7 Origin Streets
30.0%
25.5% 25.0%
20.0%
17.3%
15.0% 13.6%
10.0% 10.0%
5.0% 4.5%
0.0% Douglas Hwy Franklin St. Glacier Hwy & 9th St. Main & Egan Dr. Mallard Blvd.
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
The only landmark in the downtown area cited as a significant point of origin was the Federal Building (19.8 percent). The balance of respondents listed landmarks located in either the Mendenhall Valley or the Lemon Creek areas.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 349 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.1.8 Origin Landmarks
25.0%
19.8% 20.0%
15.0%
12.1%
10.0% 8.8%
5.5% 5.0% 4.4%
0.0% DeHart's Federal Building Fred Meyer Nugget Mall Switzer
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 350 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following map illustrates common trip origin points (cross streets and landmarks) throughout the City and Borough of Juneau.
Exhibit B.1.9 Origin Map
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 351 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To identify destinations most utilized by Capital Transit customers, survey participants were asked to indicate their final destination. The cross-street pairing with the highest alighting activity was Douglas Highway (21.7 percent). More than 20 percent of respondents alighted at Glacier Avenue and Ninth Street. When combined with the number of respondents indicating the Federal Building as their destination, the data jumps to 37 percent. Main Street (13.0 percent), Mendenhall Loop Road (13.0 percent), and Glacier Highway (7.2 percent) round out the top five destinations.
Exhibit B.1.10 Destination Streets
25.0%
21.7%
20.3% 20.0%
15.0%
13.0% 13.0%
10.0%
7.2%
5.0%
0.0% Douglas Hwy Glacier & 9th St. Glacier Hwy Main St. Mendenhall Loop Rd.
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 352 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The only landmark in downtown Juneau cited as a significant destination point was the Federal Building (16.7 percent). The remaining listed landmarks were located in either the Mendenhall Valley or Lemon Creek areas.
Exhibit B.1.11 Destination Landmarks
18.0%
16.7%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0% 9.3%
8.0%
6.5%
6.0% 5.6%
4.6%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% DeHart's Federal Building Fred Meyer Hospital Nugget Mall
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 353 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following map illustrates common destination points (cross streets and landmarks) throughout the City and Borough of Juneau.
Exhibit B.1.12 Destination Map
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 354 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Survey Participants were queried regarding trip purpose. It is clear from the data many riders value Capital Transit for travel between home and work. While many transit systems are focused on providing basic mobility, it appears Capital Transit has been able to provide reliable home-to-work service, which provides reasoning for the robust ridership the service experiences on an annual basis. More than 34 percent indicated they use the service primarily as a means to commute to and from their worksite. Meeting the travel need of such patrons ensures a reliable ridership base provided Capital Transit is able to maintain solid on-time performance as commuter-oriented patrons are often more time-sensitive than shopping or recreational trips.
Interestingly, 13.8 percent of respondents indicated they use Capital Transit to commute to school. While fewer in number than respondents commuting to work, this finding is interesting in that many students typically receive rides from parents, drive themselves, or take the school bus rather than utilize public transit for home-to-school travel. We conclude the schedule flexibility offered by Capital Transit for school-related trips is a deciding factor. Personal business (21.9 percent), social or recreational (15.0 percent), and shopping (11.2 percent) were also response options.
Exhibit B.1.13 Trip Purpose
40.0%
35.0% 34.2%
30.0%
25.0%
21.9%
20.0%
15.0% 15.0% 13.8%
11.2%
10.0%
5.0% 3.8%
0.0% Commute to Work Commute to School Shopping Social or Recreational Personal business Other
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 355 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To gain insight into Capital Transit patron behavior, we compared the results of the current survey with the results of surveys conducted in 1986 as part of the CBJ’s prior Transit Development Plan process, and 1994 as part of a Bus Shelter Design and Location Study. The percentage of riders using Capital Transit for home-to-work travel has declined significantly since 1994, while the percentage using Capital Transit for all other purposes has increased significantly. Though the percentage riding for work- related trips has dropped, it is unlikely the actual number of riders has dropped so drastically.
Exhibit B.1.14 Trip Purpose Comparison Trip Purpose Frequency Response 1986 1994 2007 Commute to work 43.0% 60.5% 34.2% Commute to school 6.0% 6.8% 13.8% Shopping 17.0% 7.3% 11.2% Social or recreational 9.0% 4.3% 15.0% Personal business 14.0% 10.8% 21.9% Other 8.0% 10.5% 3.8% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 356 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Participants were also asked how often they ride Capital Transit. The top response was 10 or more time per week (39.6 percent), followed by 5-10 times per week. With 68.4 percent of those sampled indicating they ride Capital Transit more than five times per week, we conclude Capital Transit is perceived as a viable mobility alternative throughout the Juneau community.
Exhibit B.1.15 Ridership Frequency
45.0%
39.6% 40.0%
35.0%
30.0% 28.8%
25.0%
20.0%
15.2% 15.0%
10.0% 8.8% 7.6%
5.0%
0.0% 10+ times per week 5-10 times per week 2-5 times per month Several times per month Several times per year
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 357 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To gain insight into changes in ridership behavior, we compared the results of the most current survey with the results of surveys conducted in 1986 as part of the CBJ’s prior Transit Development Plan process and in 1994 as part of a Bus Shelter Design and Location Study. The results indicate there has been a slight drop in the number of patrons riding Capital Transit 10 or more times per week. This is consistent with the trends identified for Reason for Using Capital Transit. Capital Transit has witnessed an increase in the number of patrons using the service for shopping, social and recreational, and personal business purposes, meaning their share of the total ridership has increased. These riders use Capital Transit less frequently than commuters who typically use it twice or more each day.
Exhibit B.1.16 Ridership Frequency Comparison How Often do You Use Capital Transit? Frequency Response 1986 1994 2007 10+ times per week 43.0% 45.5% 39.6% 5-10 times per week 30.0% 26.4% 28.8% 2-5 times per month 15.0% 15.4% 15.2% Several times per month 6.0% 7.0% 8.8% Several times per year 3.0% 5.7% 7.6% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 358 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To identify/assess the relationship between responses regarding trip purpose and ride frequency, we performed a data cross-tabulation.
There is a strong correlation between patrons who commute to work and/or school and frequency of use. More than 85 percent of those who commute to work, and 82.9 percent of those who commute to school, use Capital Transit at least five trips each week. Those who use the service for personal business, social or recreational, or shopping trips ride Capital Transit less frequently. This data cross-tabulation makes it clear Capital Transit’s dedicated customer base is composed largely of persons commuting to work or school on a frequent and regular basis.
Exhibit B.1.17 Trip Purpose vs. Frequency Cross-Tabulation
100% 3.5% 5.7% 2.4% 10.8% 11.1% 14.3% 14.5% 90% 8.2% 11.4%
13.5% 11.1% 80% 10.9% 21.4% 70% 30.6% 16.4% 34.3% 21.6% 60% 33.3%
50% 28.6%
27.3%
40% 29.7%
30% 55.3% 17.9% 48.6% 44.4% 20% 30.9% 24.3% 10% 17.9%
0% Commute to Work Commute to School Shopping Social/Recreational Personal business Other
10+ times/week 5-10 times/week 2-5 times/month Several times/month Several times/year
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 359 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To gain insight into changes in the reasons influencing selection of Capital Transit, we compared the results of the most current survey with the data obtained in 1986 as part of the CBJ’s prior Transit Development Plan process, and in 1994 as part of a Bus Shelter Design and Location Study. Taken collectively, the data indicates an increase in the number of people choosing Capital Transit due to cost concerns, which corresponds with increased fuel costs nationwide. Across the last few years, many Americans have gained a more solid understanding of the environmental impacts of the conventionally- fueled automobile, and this is reflected in an increase in the number of persons citing environmental reasons for selecting public transit.
Exhibit B.1.18 Influencing Factors What is your main reason for riding Capital Transit? Frequency Response 1986 1994 2007 Cost of Service 15.0% 7.4% 20.8% Lack of Alternatives 40.0% 60.8% 31.4% Environmental 8.0% 4.7% 14.8% Convenience 16.0% 14.9% 21.8% Avoid Traffic 5.0% 8.9% 7.3% Service Quality 4.0% 2.5% 4.6% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 360 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
When asked about the length of their patronage, the number of patrons who have been riding Capital Transit for less than one year is 28.3 percent. However, 44.9 percent indicated they had been riding for more than 3 years while 26.8 percent cited riding for 1 to 3 years. Collectively, this reveals a significant group of long-term riders.
Exhibit B.1.19 Length of Patronage
50.0%
44.9% 45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0% 26.8%
25.0% 22.8%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.5% 5.0%
0.0% First time Less than 1 year 1 to 3 years More than 3 years
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 361 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To examine the relationship between length of patronage and frequency of ridership, we performed a data cross-tabulation.
More than 82 percent of Capital Transit customers indicating riding more than ten times each week have also been riding for more than a year. Similarly, 73.7 percent of those who ride 5-10 times each week have been riding for more than a year. The fact Juneau residents use Capital Transit frequently and across an extended period is further testament to the value of the service. Some who indicated riding Capital Transit for the first time also indicated they ride relatively frequently. We believe this is probably attributable to a misstatement reflecting how often they plan to ride Capital Transit.
Exhibit B.1.20 Length of Patronage vs. Frequency Cross-Tabulation
100%
90%
31.6% 35.1% 80% 43.1% 45.5% 54.5% 70%
60% 26.3%
50% 29.7%
30.6% 40% 27.3%
28.3% 30%
42.1% 20% 32.4%
25.0% 27.3% 10% 17.2%
2.7% 0% 1.4% 10+ times/week 5-10 times/week 2-5 times/month Several times/month Several times/year
First time Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3+ years
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 362 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Respondents were asked how they typically access Capital Transit at the bus stop level. Among the responses specified, 80.6 percent indicated walking to the bus stop, with 45.6 percent walking less than 3 blocks and 35.0 percent walking more than 3 blocks. An additional 4.8 percent cited driving, 8.0 percent bicycle, and 6.8 percent transfer from another bus. In many communities park & ride facilities allow riders to drive their personal vehicles to a designated collection point where they can access public transit. As part of the TDP, we are working with the CBJ’s Community Development staff to identify potential park-and-ride sites within the Mendenhall Valley.
Exhibit B.1.21 Access to Bus Stop
50.0%
45.6% 45.0%
40.0%
35.0% 35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0% 8.0% 6.8% 4.6% 5.0%
0.0% Transfer from another bus Walk more than 3 blocks Walk less than 3 blocks Drive Bicycle
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 363 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To further assess personal mobility opportunities, each survey participant was asked how he/she would have made the trip if Capital Transit not available. The most common response was friend or family member (36.9 percent). An additional 28.8 percent said they would either walk or use a bicycle for their trip. On the other hand, 15 percent would drive themselves and 19.2 percent would not make the trip. We believe this reveals Capital Transit captures a significant number of trips that would otherwise be made using a personal vehicle (thereby contributing to congestion mitigation).
Exhibit B.1.22 Mobility Options
40.0%
36.9%
35.0%
30.0% 28.8%
25.0%
20.0% 19.2%
15.0% 15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% Drive self Walk or bicycle Friend or family member Would not make this trip
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 364 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To gain insight into seasonal variances relating to Capital Transit ridership, we compared the results of the current survey with the results of surveys conducted in 1986 as part of a prior Transit Development Plan process and in 1994 as part of a Bus Shelter Design and Location Study. Two significant variances were noted: an increase in the number of patrons citing summer as the season they ride most often and a decrease in the number citing winter as the season they ride most often.
Exhibit B.1.23 Seasonal Usage During Which Season do you Ride Capital Transit Most Often? Frequency Response 1986 1994 2007 Summer 2.0% 2.5% 12.3% Spring 4.0% 0.8% 3.7% Fall 4.0% 1.5% 6.1% Winter 19.0% 24.3% 13.1% Same all Year 67.0% 71.0% 64.8% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 365 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fare Type Capital Transit patrons were asked how they paid for the surveyed trip. Namely 39 percent revealed they paid full cash fare. The monthly pass ranked second with 37.7 percent, followed by tokens (13.2 percent), VIP Bus Pass (5.4 percent), and Senior Tax Exemption Card (3.5 percent).
We believe this data reveals a ridership growth opportunity. Nearly 40 percent are not currently taking advantage of non-cash fare payment options. Combined with the high incidence of persons making multiple trips each week, it reveals an opportunity to more effectively promote non-cash options and the potential savings realized therein.
Transit programs such as Capital Transit as well as transit customers benefit from the support of non-cash fare media. It reduces dwell time at bus stops as drivers are able to process fares more quickly. Also, administrative burden such as processing cash fares is reduced.
Exhibit B.1.24 Fare Payment
45.0%
40.0% 38.9% 37.7%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0% 13.2%
10.0%
5.4% 5.0% 3.5%
1.2%
0.0% Paid full fare Seniors Tax VIP Bus Pass Tokens Monthly pass Other Exemption Card
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 366 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To gain insight into possible trends in fare payment, we compared the results of the current survey with the results of a survey conducted in 1994 as part of a Bus Shelter Design and Location Study. Between 1994 and 2007, there was a significant increase in the percentage of riders paying the full cash fare. This was accompanied by significant decreases in the number of riders using tokens and Senior Tax Exemption Cards. Interestingly, there was only a slight increase in the incidence of riders using monthly passes.
Exhibit B.1.25 Fare Payment Comparison How did you pay the fare today? Frequency Response 1994 2007 Full fare 25.9% 38.9% Senior Tax Exemption Card 10.2% 3.5% VIP Bus Pass 8.0% 5.4% Tokens 18.9% 13.2% Monthly pass 35.1% 37.7% Other 2.0% 1.2% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 367 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To gain insight into the linkage between trip purpose and the type of fare, we performed a data cross-tabulation.
The cross-tabulation reveals that persons who use Capital Transit to commute to work are most likely to use a monthly pass (49.4 percent). Though not uncommon (32.2 percent), work commuters are less likely to use cash than those riding Capital Transit to go shopping or for personal, social, and recreational purposes. Students commuting to school are most likely to use the monthly pass (57.1 percent), have the lowest incidence of cash fare (17.1 percent), and are second most-likely to use tokens (20.0 percent).
Exhibit B.1.26 Trip Purpose vs. Fare Payment Cross-Tabulation
100% 1.1% 2.9% 1.8%
17.2% 90% 21.4% 30.8% 80%
49.4% 20.7% 55.6% 70% 12.5% 57.1% 10.3% 3.4% 60% 10.7% 7.7% 10.3% 1.8% 50% 2.6%
10.3%
40% 11.1% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 30% 20.0% 51.8% 48.3% 48.7% 20% 2.9% 32.2% 33.3%
10% 17.1%
0% Commute to Work Commute to School Shopping Social/Recreational Personal business Other
Paid full fare Tax Exemption Card VIP Bus Pass Tokens Monthly pass Other
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
When queried regarding the potential of purchasing bus passes online, nearly 40 percent indicated they would take advantage of the option. To further evaluate the results, specifically how they relate to patronage frequency, we performed a data cross- tabulation comparing frequency of ridership to propensity to purchase bus passes online. The results reveal a positive relationship.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 368 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.1.27 Frequency vs. Buy Pass Online Cross-Tabulation
100%
90%
80%
70% 68.1% 72.3% 75.0% 77.3% 60% 83.3%
50%
40%
30%
20% 31.9% 27.7% 25.0% 22.7% 10% 16.7%
0% 10+ times/week 5-10 times/week 2-5 times/month Several times/month Several times/year
Yes No
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 369 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To further clarify the results regarding buying passes online, we performed another data cross-tabulation comparing how patrons paid for the surveyed trip and whether or not they would purchases passes online. The results reveal persons who use monthly passes and tokens are most-likely to purchase passes online, which is logical considering those two media are conducive to internet distribution. Further, 30.9 percent citing using cash fare would be inclined to switch to non-cash fare media should it become available online.
Exhibit B.1.28 Fare Payment vs. Buy Pass Online Cross-Tabulation
100%
90%
80% 49.5% 53.1% 70% 66.7% 69.1% 71.4% 60% 77.8%
50%
40%
30% 50.5% 46.9% 20% 33.3% 30.9% 28.6% 10% 22.2%
0% Paid full fare Seniors Tax VIP Bus Pass Tokens Monthly pass Other Exemption Card
Yes No
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 370 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Customer Satisfaction Capital Transit riders were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with respect to a series of service attributes. Respondents were given a numerical scale wherein six signified very satisfied and one very dissatisfied. The mean score for each service attribute is presented below.
Exhibit B.1.29 Service Attributes Service Attribute Mean Score Overall Service 3.7 Courtesy of Drivers 3.4 Cleanliness of Buses 3.7 Comfort Onboard Buses 3.5 Noise Onboard Buses 3.7 Condition of Bus 3.9 Price of Tokens 3.7 Printed Route & Schedule Info 3.4 Route & Schedule Info At Bus Stops 3.8 Route and Schedule Info Provided by Telephone 3.9 Availability of Bus Shelters 3.1 Cleanliness of Bus Shelters 2.9 Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
Capital Transit received an overall service score of 3.7. Respondents indicated greatest satisfaction regarding condition of buses (3.9), route and schedule Info provided by telephone (3.9), and route and schedule info at bus stops (3.8). Anecdotal data combined with our field observations confirm these are core strengths for Capital Transit. The vehicles are well-maintained and function properly. Route and schedule info is clearly posted at major time-points, providing important information to users; and the customer information line is answered by polite and knowledgeable staff.
Respondents reserved their lowest scores for printed route and schedule info (3.4), availability of bus shelters (3.1), and cleanliness of bus shelters (2.9). Riders are often confused by the complicated nature of Capital Transit’s printed route and schedule information. It is often difficult for first-time riders to understand the schedule, which may prevent them from using the service at all. A lack of bus shelters is a common complaint among Capital Transit patrons given local weather conditions. The shelters are also common targets for vandalism, and due to the isolated nature of many of the shelters, trash and litter can become an issue.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 371 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Service Enhancements Survey respondents were provided a selection of potential service enhancements and queried as to preference. The most popular response was later evening service (41.6 percent) followed by earlier morning service (27.3 percent).
Despite Capital Transit’s already extensive service day, many riders believe it is insufficient. Many respondents indicated Capital Transit would be improved if the day was extended either in the morning or evening. Through community discussion groups, riders communicated a belief morning service begins too late and runs too infrequently, while evening service runs infrequently and ends too early. Beginning the service earlier would allow more flexibility for persons commuting the appreciable distance between the Mendenhall Valley and downtown Juneau, as many begin their work day earlier than 7:30 a.m. (the time the first bus from the Valley reaches downtown Juneau). Further, the last bus outbound from downtown Juneau to the Mendenhall Valley departs Main Street and Egan at 10:35 p.m., leaving those who must work late to find another travel alternative.
Exhibit B.1.30 Preferred Service Enhancement
45.0%
41.6%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0% 27.3%
25.0%
20.0% 18.0%
15.0% 13.1%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% Earlier Morning Service Later Evening Service Saturday Express Extended Service Area
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 372 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
More than 13 percent indicated they would (also) like to expand the Capital Transit service area. Persons choosing this option were asked to specify how they would like to see the service area expanded. By a large margin, service to the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferry terminal in Auke Bay was the most-requested service extension (46.9 percent of those choosing Extended Service Area). This is a common request and (on the surface) appears to be a simple service expansion. However, upon further examination, we believe it would be problematic to provide scheduled service to the ferry terminal given the ferry’s inconsistent schedule. Therefore, any linkage with the ferry terminal should be approached within the context of expanded service to the northern portion of the CBJ, and the Lena Point and Auke Nu Cove areas in particular — and not as a ferry-specific expanded service area.
Exhibit B.1.31 New Destination
50.0% 46.9%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.6% 15.0%
9.4% 9.4% 10.0% 6.3%
5.0%
0.0% Alaska Marine Highway Costco & Home Depot More Buses North Douglas Sunday Service System
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 373 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To further assess customer performance regarding Capital Transit service improvements, we examined the relationship between trip purpose and preferred service enhancement. Our data-tabulation revealed commuters and shoppers would emphasize earlier morning and later evening service over Saturday express service and extended service area, while those who use Capital Transit for social/recreational purposes favor Saturday express service and later evening service over earlier morning service. All respondents indicated a preference for later evening service above all other options. Those using Capital Transit to conduct personal business expressed a preference for extended service area.
Exhibit B.1.32 Trip Purpose vs. Preferred Service Enhancements Cross-Tabulation
100%
11.0% 8.8% 14.7% 14.3% 90% 19.3%
7.1% 80% 17.1% 11.8% 44.4% 32.4% 15.8% 70%
60%
50.0% 44.1% 50% 41.5% 33.3%
40% 33.3% 50.0% 30%
20% 31.6% 30.5% 29.4% 28.6% 10% 22.2%
8.8% 0% Commute to Work Commute to School Shopping Social/Recreational Personal business Other
Earlier Morning Later Evening Saturday Express Extended Service Area
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 374 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Survey respondents were asked how the implementation of the potential service enhancement might affect their patronage. Sixty percent indicated they would add at least three trips each week. This would amount to a significant increase in ridership on an annual basis considering 88.6 percent would (also) add at least one more trip each week.
Exhibit B.1.33 Change in Usage
35.0%
31.8%
30.0% 28.2% 28.6%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
11.4%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% More than 5 trips/week 3-4 trips/week 1-2 trips/week Less than 1/week
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 375 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
To assess the relationship between preferred service enhancement and increased ridership, we performed a data cross-tabulation. The results indicate Capital Transit riders who preferred earlier morning service and later evening service would be the most-likely to add at least three trips each week, while those requesting an extended service area or Saturday express service would add fewer trips. This indicates a strong link between commuters—who utilize the service frequently and form the core of Capital Transit’s ridership—and a preference for extended service hours both in the morning and evening.
Exhibit B.1.34 Service Improvement vs. Additional Ridership Cross-Tabulation
100% 6.0% 10.8% 11.4% 90% 25.0%
25.0% 80% 23.1%
70% 45.5%
60% 31.3%
36.0% 50% 33.8%
40%
30% 25.0% 28.1%
20% 32.3% 33.0%
10% 18.2% 15.6%
0% Earlier Morning Later Evening Saturday Express Extended Service Area
5+ trips/week 3-4 trips/week 1-2 trips/week Less than 1/week
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 376 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Capital Transit customers were queried regarding the amount of additional fare they would be willing to pay should the preferred service alternative be implemented. Most respondents indicated a willingness to pay an additional ten cents (39.1 percent) to twenty-five cents (40.7 percent). With respect to fare elasticity, industry research holds that for every 10-percent increase in fare level, a corresponding three-percent ridership decline can be expected. However, given the economic conditions evidenced in Juneau combined with the high per capita transit patronage, we believe a fare adjustment of twenty-five cents would not result in an appreciable ridership offset.
Exhibit B.1.35 Fare Elasticity
45.0%
40.7% 40.0% 39.1%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.2% 20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% 50 cents more 25 cents more 10 cents more
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 377 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In a separate question, survey respondents were asked if there is a specific location not currently served by Capital Transit that should be, nearly 23 percent responded affirmatively. We identified the five most-common responses. Nearly 50 percent indicated they would like service to the AMHS ferry terminal. The second-most requested site was Costco/Home Depot in Lemon Creek (12.6 percent), followed by Auke Bay (10.4 percent), North Douglas (10.4 percent), and the Airport (4.2 percent). Interestingly, Capital Transit currently provides service to Auke Bay, North Douglas, and the Airport. Therefore, respondents may have intended their response to reflect additional service to Auke Bay, North Douglas, and the Airport. Another explanation could be that respondents were simply unaware of the existing service to those locations.
Exhibit B.1.36 Location Not Served
60.0%
50.0% 47.9%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
12.6% 10.4% 10.4% 10.0%
4.2%
0.0% Airport Ferry Terminal Auke Bay Costco/Home Depot North Douglas
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 378 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Information Channels To help Capital Transit target future marketing efforts, riders were asked how they typically access information about Capital Transit services. The majority (66.8 percent) cited accessing information at the bus stop, reflecting the need for placement and maintenance of accurate and up-to-date service information at all bus stop locations. Additionally, 14.2 percent stated they access transit information from the Capital Transit website, while 12.1 percent indicated they rely on the Capital Transit customer service line.
Exhibit B.1.37 Access to Information
80.0%
70.0% 66.8%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% 14.2% 12.1%
10.0%
3.6% 1.2% 2.0% 0.0% Newspaper Radio Phone line Web site Social service agency At the bus stop
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 379 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
We asked respondents to identify their preferred print media. We identified the five most popular responses. The majority cited the Juneau Empire (78.2 percent). The Capital City Weekly (6.9 percent) and the Anchorage Daily News (4.0 percent) round out the Alaskan publications listed.
Exhibit B.1.38 Preferred Print Media
90.0%
80.0% 78.2%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0% 6.9% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% Anchorage Daily News Capital City Weekly Juneau Empire MSNBC News New York Times
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 380 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Capital Transit riders were also asked to identify their preferred radio station. The five top radio stations were KSUP (37.7 percent) followed by public radio KTOO (17.9 percent), talk KINY (13.2 percent), KXLL (11.3 percent), and KTKU (6.6 percent).
Exhibit B.1.39 Preferred Radio Station
40.0% 37.7%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% 17.9%
15.0% 13.2% 11.3%
10.0%
6.6%
5.0%
0.0% KFMG 100.7 FM KINY 800 AM KSUP 106.3 FM KTKU 105.1 FM KTOO 104.3 FM
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 381 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Survey participants were also asked which television station they watch most often. The five top-cited television stations were ABC (37.1 percent), followed by MTV (11.4 percent), Fox (11.4 percent), NBC (5.7 percent), and PBS (2.9 percent).
Exhibit B.1.40 Preferred Television Station
40.0% 37.1%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
11.4% 11.4%
10.0%
5.7% 5.0% 2.9%
0.0% ABC FOX PBS MTV NBC
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 382 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Survey respondents were asked whether or not they have access to the Internet, 45.9 percent indicated they did not. Nearly 12 percent indicated they use a dial-up connection and 42.6 percent cited a high-speed connection. We then asked if they had ever visited the Capital Transit website, to which 73.2 percent indicated they had not. To further assess possible relationships between patrons who had visited the website and frequency of ridership, we performed a data cross-tabulation. A positive correlation was noted.
Exhibit B.1.41 Frequency vs. Website Use Cross-Tabulation
100%
90%
80%
70% 68.1% 72.3% 75.0% 77.3% 60% 83.3%
50%
40%
30%
20% 31.9% 27.7% 25.0% 22.7% 10% 16.7%
0% 10+ times/week 5-10 times/week 2-5 times/month Several times/month Several times/year
Yes No
Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 383 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Customer Perceptions To gain insight into changes in Capital Transit rider perceptions, we compared the results of the most current survey with the results of surveys conducted in 1986 as part of a prior Transit Development Plan process and in 1994 as part of a Bus Shelter Design and Location Study.
Between 1986 and 2007, there was a significant increase in the number of patrons responding that non-riders think less of them. This appears to contradict current trends as public transit has been embraced recently due to environmental concerns. It appears more riders also believe non-riders are less concerned about the environment, traffic, congestion, and safety. There has also been an increase in the percentage of riders who believe the CBJ has not made Capital Transit convenient enough for non-riders to shift modes.
Exhibit B.1.42 Customer Perceptions Rider Perceptions Percent Responded "True" Statement 1986 1994 2007 Non-riders don’t know enough about Capital Transit. 69.0% 70.4% 72.3% Non-riders think they are better than riders. 35.0% 42.7% 53.4% Non-riders are less concerned about the environment, traffic, congestion, and 39.0% 44.6% 55.2% safety than riders. Capital Transit has not provided non-riders with enough information to make 44.0% 38.8% 54.5% an intelligent decision. Non-riders think driving their car is cheaper than riding transit. 40.0% 41.9% 38.1% Non-riders prefer the freedom and independence of their car. 91.0% 96.0% 83.0% Non-riders haven’t figured out the benefits of riding transit. 69.0% 71.5% 66.8% Capital Transit does not provide convenient service for most non-riders. 48.0% 39.4% 62.1% Non-riders think riding Capital Transit is beneath them. 40.0% 50.0% 54.8% Non-riders think it is more convenient to drive their car. 93.0% 95.7% 86.9% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
We asked respondents to describe Capital Transit’s role in the community and compared the results with those from the 1986 and 1994 surveys. It appears more riders feel the service is intended to reduce pollution and energy consumption, important issues to Juneau residents. There were also significant decreases in the percentage of respondents indicating the service is intended to reduce parking and congestion, as well as the number of respondents indicating the service is chiefly for ride-dependant
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 384 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
and/low-income individuals. These results imply most riders have shifted from thinking Capital Transit is for low-income individuals.
Exhibit B.1.43 Transit’s Role How would you describe the role of Capital Transit in Juneau? Frequency Response 1986 1994 2007 It is a transportation system for which the users pay. 13.0% 13.0% 29.4% It is for people who are unable to operate cars. 9.0% 4.3% 11.5% It is for reducing pollution and energy consumption. 6.0% 5.1% 23.0% It is for people who cant afford to own/operate cars. 18.0% 14.8% 26.8% It is for reducing traffic and parking congestion. 28.0% 13.0% 2.1% It is mostly a transportation system that riders pay for partly for disadvantaged people. 12.0% 22.4% 3.0% Don't know/no opinion. 11.0% 8.4% 4.3% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
We asked how much fare Capital Transit should be collecting and compared the results with data from 1986 and 1994. There is a significant decrease in the number of respondents indicating Capital Transit is collecting the right amount of fare, coupled with slight increases in the percentage of respondents answering that they feel the service should collect either somewhat or a great deal less. This question received the highest percentage of Don’t Know/No Opinion responses, most likely due to the complicated nature of its wording.
Exhibit B.1.44 Fare Perceptions Capital Transit now collects about 25% of its operating expenses from fares paid by passengers. How much should be collected? Frequency Response 1986 1994 2007 Collect a great deal more 5.0% 4.5% 7.7% Amount collected about right 44.0% 38.1% 15.9% Collect a great deal less 2.0% 3.7% 6.9% Collect somewhat more 20.0% 12.3% 15.5% Collect somewhat less 3.0% 8.9% 12.5% Don't know/no opinion 23.0% 32.5% 41.6% Source: Capital Transit Onboard Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 385 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B.2 – PARATRANSIT CUSTOMER SURVEY ANALYSIS
With the assistance of Southeast Senior Services, Moore & Associates distributed self- administered surveys to a sampling of registered Care-A-Van (CAV) patrons. The goal of the survey was to: • Develop a demographic profile of CAV patrons, • Identify travel patterns, • Assess customer satisfaction regarding a variety of service attributes, • Identify possible service enhancements, and • Identify preferred marketing channels.
Methodology Individual survey forms were distributed via first class mail. A sampling of 929 Care-A- Van customer names was provided by Capital Transit. From this list, Moore & Associates randomly selected names for two survey mailings. Recipients were provided a postage-paid reply envelope to facilitate their participation.
Two mailings of 300 and 250 surveys each were completed on Tuesday, November 27 2007 and Friday, January 4, 2008; respectively. Of the 300 surveys in the first mailing, 36 were returned. Although the second mailing was somewhat smaller in sample size, 55 responses were, received. Of the 550 total sample, 91 were returned as undeliverable. Therefore, we received 91 valid responses from a sample size of 459 (20 percent).
The date was entered into our firm’s Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) platform for cleaning and coding. The raw data was then exported into Microsoft Excel where data tables were translated into graphs to facilitate visual representation of the results.
This chapter includes five sections: 1. Demographic information, 2. Travel patterns, 3. Reservations/scheduling,
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 386 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4. Customer satisfaction, and 5. Information channels.
Demographic Information Profile Rider To gain insight into the Care-A-Van customer base, key demographic questions were included within the survey instrument: age, gender, and annual household income. Similar to the community survey, demographic responses were used to build a respondent profile.
Exhibit B.2-1 Respondent Profile Typical Respondent Age Age 65 or older 67.0% Gender Female 71.9% Overall Mobility Disabled 70.0% Annual household income Less than $15,000 61.0% Mobility Options Ride-Dependent 60.7% Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
Given Care-A-Van’s mission as well as eligibility criteria, the customer age distribution was not surprising. Approximately 23 percent of total respondents cited being age 54 or younger. Of the balance, the age bracket 65 to 79 years was the most frequent.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 387 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.2- 2 Age
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
The gender split between Care-A-Van survey respondents skewed toward “female” (79 percent). Participants were asked whether they had a disability (physical and/or mental) impacting their personal mobility. Seventy percent responded affirmatively, which is not surprising given Care-A-Van eligibility requirements.
Respondents were also asked to indicate the mobility category which best applied; either ADA-certified or a senior/person with a disability. More than 83 percent indicated either being a senior and/or person with a disability. The remaining 17 percent indicated being ADA-certified.
A question was included regarding total household income. Nearly 82 percent of all respondents cited an annual household income of less than $30,000. The single largest income bracket (61 percent) was $15,000 or less. Only 6.5 percent of respondents cited a household income of $50,000 or greater. This finding stands in stark contrast to the results of the Capital Transit fixed-route customer survey which revealed less than 30 percent of riders earned less than $20,000 annually while nearly 20 percent of riders earned over $50,000.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 388 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As a point of reference the federal poverty level for a family of four (adjusted for Alaska) in 2008 was $26,500. The average household income throughout the CBJ was $62,034 in 2000.
Exhibit B.2-3 Annual Household Income
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
The survey included two questions designed to gather information regarding access to the Care-A-Van service as well as mobility options. In the first, respondents were asked if they possess a valid driver license, to which 30 percent responded affirmatively. In the second, we asked about access to a personal vehicle. There again, 30 percent responded affirmatively.
To gauge the overall level of ride-dependency, we performed a data cross-tabulation between possession of a valid driver license and access to a personal vehicle. From this, more than 60 percent can be termed ride-dependent, having neither access to a personal vehicle nor a valid driver license. By contrast, only 40.3 percent of Capital Transit riders were identified as ride-dependent in the onboard survey,
This finding tells us two things. First, Care-A-Van rider eligibility criteria are effective and the program is serving the intended population/demographic. Second, there is probably only modest opportunity for mode-shifting current Care-A-Van patrons to the Capital Transit fixed-route service, even if pricing incentives were introduced. From an overall perspective, it probably would not be beneficial for Capital Transit to undertake a
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 389 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
dedicated mode-shift effort, as the total number of patrons making the move would be numerically modest, and the impact of the shift (i.e., increased dwell time at bus stops) would further impact Capital Transit’s already “tight” running times.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 390 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Travel Patterns Respondents were also queried regarding trip purpose. Given the profile rider was a senior and/or disabled, access healthcare was the primary motivation for using CAV (56.6%). Other responses included work (17.1 percent), shopping/business (18.4 percent), and recreational/social (2.6 percent).
Exhibit B.2-4 Trip Purpose
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
Survey participants were asked how often they use Care-A-Van. Interestingly, given the high degree of ride-dependency, nearly 47 percent of those CAV patrons polled indicated riding less than once per week. Another 33 percent indicated using the service 1 to 2 times per week. Therefore, collectively, nearly 80 percent of those CAV patrons surveyed use the service 2 times or less per week. We found this particularly interesting given the dominant travel motivator is “access to healthcare”, and the CAV customer group is relatively ride-dependent (60 percent). Still, given the virtual absence of trip denials (assessed on a monthly basis), we must conclude (again) CAV is doing a very effective job of addressing the mobility needs of its core audience.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 391 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.2-5 Ridership Frequency
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
Along with frequency of patronage, CAV patrons were queried regarding how long they had been using the service. Most indicated a period of more than 2 years (61.8 percent). Given the current eligibility requirements, and assuming CAV patrons are similar to demand-response riders in others communities, the motivator for using the service evolves over time, from a variety of trips in the early years to a more life-line nature (i.e., access to healthcare) in later years.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 392 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.2-6 Length of Patronage
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
CAV patrons were asked how they would have made the surveyed trip if Care-A-Van was not available. Response options included walk, drive, get a ride, and an open- ended other.
Respondents were more likely to choose the open-ended other response when reporting mobility options (56.8 percent). Among persons choosing other, 89.9 percent provided an open-ended response. The most frequently cited responses were taxi (18.7 percent) and bus (15.4 percent), with 2.2 percent indicating Capital Transit specifically. On an aggregate basis, reliance upon either a family member or friend was still the most frequent “specific” response (40 percent).
We did not find the response frequency to either “walk” or “drive” surprising given CAV’s demographic profile (i.e., seniors, persons with disabilities), or “drive” (given the significant level of ride-dependency found within CAV patrons).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 393 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.2-7 Mobility Options
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
Exhibit B.2-8 Mobility Options - Other Mobility Options - Other Taxi 18.7% Bus 15.4% Relative/friend 5.5% Would not make the trip 3.3% Capital Transit 2.2% Change appointments 2.2% Ambulance 1.1% Other 1.1% Don't know 1.1% Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 394 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Reservations/Scheduling In an effort to further assess patron behavior as well as satisfaction, questions specific to the CAV program were posed. Patrons were asked to rate the following service attributes: trip reservations, accessibility of CAV representatives, desired trip/travel time obtained, ease of scheduling return rides, and actual vs. promised scheduling.
Survey participants were asked how far in advanced they typically schedule their CAV trips. Nearly 61 percent cited making their reservation less than 7 days an advance. Only 10 percent indicated scheduling their trips more than 10 days. Eight percent indicated calling for service on the intended day of travel. From this, we conclude the program is operating effectively given the relatively high number of same-day trip requests in contrast to the absence of trip denials.
Exhibit B.2-9 Trip Reservation Timing
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
Respondents were asked to indicate relative ease in reaching a Care-A-Van representative when placing a trip request. Slightly more than 85 percent indicated a positive experience.
This question allowed comment regarding the customer service representative accessibility. Some respondents took the opportunity to compliment the CAV staff on its
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 395 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
overall courtesy. Others reported that, while not being able to reach a customer service representative, a prompt return call was typical.
A series of questions were posed to assess Care-A-Van scheduling effectiveness. The first concerned respondent’s ability to schedule the desired trip/travel time. Only four percent indicated any difficulty obtaining the desired trip time. Respondents were also asked about the ease of scheduling a return ride. More than 88 percent of respondents indicated being able to secure the desired trip time (in connection with return travel). Analyzing both get the desired trip/travel time and schedule return rides aspects, we concluded 85.5 percent of the survey sample was satisfied with the entire trip scheduling (out and return) experience. This is a significant finding given trip scheduling is commonly the most criticized aspect of a demand-response service.
Respondents were queried as to on-time performance. In this instance, does the CAV van arrive at the promised time (within allowable limits). Nearly 90 percent indicated the van arrived at the promised time or within the allowable “window”. Of the approximately 10 percent who believed the van did not arrive (for pickup) at or within the promised timeframe, most believed it was early rather than late. Still, the incidence of actual and/or perceived off-schedule is modest. Further, when one takes into account the relatively large CAV service area, this compares positively with other small-urban demand- response programs.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 396 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Customer Satisfaction Respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the Care-A-Van program. A four-point scale was employed, wherein 1 equated to “poor,” 2 to “fair,” 3 to “good,” and 4 to “excellent”.
Respondents rated their overall experience at 3.53, which falls between good and excellent. This customer rating mirrors the consultant’s observation the program is operating both effectively and efficiently.
Respondents were also provided an opportunity for additional comment at the conclusion of the survey. More than 53 percent provided some type of feedback. Some responses included “Thank you for the service, it is very good”.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 397 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Information Channels Survey participants were asked how they initially learned about the Care-A-Van program. A slight majority cited family/friends (50.6 percent). Other popular responses included social service agencies (44.4 percent). Among the least popular channels were newspaper (2.5 percent) and City/Borough of Juneau website (2.5 percent).
Exhibit B.2-10 Information Access
Source: Care-A-Van Customer Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 398 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B.3 – COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS
The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ)—as the managing agent for Capital Transit— contracted with Moore & Associates, Inc. to conduct a survey of residents throughout the Borough. This survey was undertaken as a core component of the update of Capital Transit’s Transit Development Plan (TDP). Moore & Associates created two different survey instruments to solicit community input: 1. A direct mail instrument for distribution to a random sampling of Juneau households, and 2. A web-based survey for distribution via the Capital Transit website.
Administered to residents of the CBJ during the final quarter of CY 2007, the survey had several core objectives: • Collect information at the community level. • Assist in the development of a demographic profile of CBJ residents. • Gain insight into normal or typical travel patterns within the survey population. • Assess customer satisfaction regarding various Capital Transit service attributes. • Identify potential service enhancements and the propensity to patronage Capital Transit. • Identify “most favored” marketing or promotional channels.
Methodology Surveys were created using two distinct methodologies, web-based and direct mail.
Web The web survey instrument was made available on the Capital Transit website (http://www.juneau.org/capitaltransit/) between November 7 and December 5, 2007. Two hundred and fourteen surveys were collected using the web-based approach.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 399 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Direct Mail A direct mail method was also used in fielding the community survey. A distribution sample was selected using a random-sample methodology. This approach assures accurate representation within a given geographic area. The database from which the sample was collected was current within one month of survey initiation.
Two rounds of surveys were sent to CBJ households over a six-week period. The first round consisted of 1,000 surveys and was mailed out November 1, 2007. Of these, 227 were returned as undeliverable. 162 valid surveys were returned yielding a 21.0-percent response rate.
In the second round of mailings an additional, 400 surveys were distributed. This time around, a deadline was placed on the survey to expedite the data collection process. The deadline used was December 5, 2007 giving potential respondents three weeks. Of those 400 surveys mailed, 97 were returned as undeliverable and 49 were returned completed, yielding a 16.2-percent response rate. Therefore, between the two mailings, 211 surveys were returned, yielding a 19.6- percent response rate.
A sample data of 211 valid surveys was collected using the direct mail method. This translates to a 95-percent confidence level and ± 6.89 margin of error.
The data was entered into our firm’s Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) platform. When it was cleaned and coded. The raw data was then exported into Microsoft Excel where the tables were translated into graphs for a visual representation of the findings.
We segregated the results into seven categories: 1. Demographic information, 2. Travel patterns, 3. Fare, 4. Customer satisfaction, 5. Service enhancements,
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 400 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
6. Information channels, and 7. Community perceptions.
Demographic Information Typical Respondent To understand those who responded to the community survey, demographic questions were built into the survey instrument. Demographic questions ranged from general questions regarding age and gender, to more specific questions such as if the respondent possessed a valid driver license.
A respondent profile is used to display any trends in demographics that assist in portraying the “typical respondent”. Below is a table summarizing the “typical respondent”. As there were two methods used in fielding the survey, demographics from both methods are displayed.
Exhibit B.3-1 Respondent Profile Web Mail Age Age 23-59 88.6% 68.0% Gender Female Female 56% Female 58.4% Disability No Disability 95.8% 91.3% Ride dependence Choice Rider 99.3% 97.4% Internet access Yes 92.2% 88.0% Number of people in household Two 38.0% 47.2% Time most likely to travel 3:30 pm to 6:59 pm 64.0% 71.6% Source: Juneau Community Survey
The majority of respondents were between the ages of 23 and 59 (web 88.6 percent, mail 68 percent). The second highest age group was 60 years and older (web 8.4 percent, mail 29 percent). Respondents who were 22 years old or younger comprised approximately 3 percent of the combined age population.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 401 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-2 Age
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Gender was split evenly in the sample with females (web 56 percent, mail 58.4 percent) being slightly higher than males (web 44 percent, mail 41.6 percent).
Exhibit B.3-3 Gender
Source: Juneau Community Survey
A small fraction of respondents indicated they had some form of disability impacting their personal mobility (web 4.2 percent, mail 8.7 percent).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 402 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-4 Disability
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Respondents were queried as to their annual household income. Most participants cited more than $50,000 (web 54.2 percent, mail 56.3 percent). This was significantly higher than the Capital Transit revealed through the onboard survey (19.2 percent cited making less than $20,000 per annum).
Exhibit B.3-5 Annual Household Income
60.0% 56.3% 54.2% 50.0% Web 40.0% Mail
30.0%
18.7% 20.0% 15.7% 15.2% 11.7% 12.7% 10.0% 7.2% 4.2% 4.0% 0.0% Less than $20,000 to $35,000 to More than Decline to $19,999 $34,999 $49,000 $50,000 state
Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 403 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A majority of respondents indicated having access to a personal vehicle (web 80.7 percent, mail 93.2 percent). The respondents were also asked whether they have a valid driver license. A majority from both methods indicated positively (web 89.6 percent, mail 91.8 percent).
As discussed in the Onboard Survey Analysis, these two questions are common indicators of ride-dependency. As respondents have access to a personal vehicle and a valid driver license, it can be concluded the community at-large is not ride-dependent.
Exhibit B.3-6 Access to a Personal Vehicle
Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 404 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-7 Valid Driver License
Source: Juneau Community Survey
A majority of respondents stated they have access to the Internet (web 92.2 percent, mail 88.8 percent). Following Internet access, a question was posed regarding use of the Capital Transit Website within the last 12 months. Those who took the web survey were more likely to have visited the Capital Transit website (65.1 percent) than those who completed the mail survey (24.3 percent).
Those respondents who took the survey via direct mail were asked if they have visited the Capital Transit Website in the last 12 months. This question was not posed to web respondents as the web survey was offered exclusively on Capital Transit’s website. Of direct mail respondents, 25 percent indicated they had visited the Capital Transit website within the last 12 months (24.3 percent).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 405 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-8 Internet Access
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Exhibit B.3-9 Visited Website Within Past 12 Months
0.8 0.752 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 Mail 0.3 0.243 0.2 0.1
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Participants were asked to indicate the number of persons living in their household. Two was the most common response (web 38 percent, mail 47.2 percent). Households with five or more persons comprised the smallest group (web 5.4 percent, mail 6.7 percent).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 406 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-10 Persons in Household
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Participants were asked to identify what time of day they are most likely to travel. Respondents were allowed to select up to three day-parts. The two time intervals cited most frequently were 8:30 am to 11:29 am (web 56.5 percent, mail 54 percent) and 3:30 pm to 6:59 pm (web 64 percent, mail 71.6 percent).
The frequency associated with the 3:30 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. day-part is reflective of the primary peak-hour commute hour for most members of the workforce. This result mirrors that of the ride check performed in September 2007. The popularity of the 8:30 a.m. to 11:29 a.m. day-part is curious, considering a large number of employees start the work day during the 6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. day-part. This time may also be popular for residents running errands, as the morning peak-hour has passed and stores are beginning to open.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 407 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-11 Day-Part Most Likely to Travel Times Most Likely To Travel Web Mail 6:30 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. 8.9% 14.7% 8:30 a.m. to 11:29 a.m. 56.5% 54.0% 11:30 a.m. to 3:29 p.m. 9.8% 47.4% 3:30 p.m. to 6:59 p.m. 64.0% 71.6% 7:00 p.m. to 11:45 p.m. 15.0% 21.3% Later than 11:45 p.m. 2.3% 1.9% Source: Juneau Community Survey
The next three sections dealt exclusively with respondents who indicated using Capital Transit within the 12 months prior to the survey contact. Participants were asked a series of questions to obtain information regarding travel patterns, fare type, and customer satisfaction. As similar questions were asked of riders in the onboard survey, results from that survey are compared with those from the web-based and direct mail community surveys.
To support our data analysis, a skip pattern was employed in Question 1 to segregate riders from non-riders. If a participant indicated being a non-rider, he/she was able to opt out of questions directed specifically at riders.
Below is a graph illustrating the rider/non-rider responses realized through the web- based and direct-mail surveys. More actual riders participated in the web survey (65.5 percent) whereas non-riders dominated the mail survey (58.3 percent).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 408 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-12 Utilized Capital Transit in Past 12 Months
Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 409 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Travel Patterns Those community survey respondents indicating riding Capital Transit within the last 12 months prior to the survey contact were asked to cite the primary reason for selecting Capital Transit. Respondents were allowed to select up to two responses. Across both methods, commuting to/from work (web 63.6 percent, mail 44.3 percent) was found to be the primary reason, which mirrors the onboard survey results (34.2 percent). Personal business was also highly ranked (web 36.4 percent, mail 23.9 percent).
Exhibit B.3-13 Trip Purpose
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Unlike the onboard survey, community/web respondents were allowed the opportunity to provide an open-ended response when selecting other. None of the provided responses achieved a high frequency.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 410 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-14 Trip Purpose - Other Other - Mail Other - Web Car broke down/in the shop 3 To/from airport 6 Bad weather 1 Car broke down/in the shop 3 To/from airport 1 Save gas 2 Save gas 1 Environment 1 Icy roads 1 Something different 1 Source: Juneau Community Survey
Respondents were asked how often they rode Capital Transit within a stipulated period. Most indicated riding less than three times per week (web 60.5 percent, mail 67.4 percent). This response rate was much greater than the onboard survey, where 10 or more times per week was the top answer (39.6 percent).
The variance in usage between the community and onboard surveys could be reflective of the 12-month qualifier. These respondents may have only used the service a handful of times throughout the year, yet are still considered eligible riders. The onboard methodology differed in that participants were queried while actually riding the bus, thereby substantially increasing the probability of a response indicating significant ridership frequency.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 411 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-15 Ridership Frequency
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Question 5 of the community survey queried respondents as to the primary motivation for choosing Capital Transit. This question was multiple choice, allowing respondents to choose up to two responses. Lack of other alternatives (web 23.3 percent, mail 28.2 percent) was the highest-rated response, mirroring the onboard survey (40 percent).
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 412 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-16 Influencing Factors
30.0% 28.2% 28.2%
25.0% 23.3% 21.7% 22.5% 20.0% 20.0%
16.5% 15.5% 15.5% 15.0% Web Mail
10.0%
5.9% 5.0%
1.6% 1.2% 0.0% Cost Lack Of Other Environmental Convenience Avoid Service Quality Alternatives Traffic/Parking
Source: Juneau Community Survey
More than half of all respondents (both methodologies) indicated they had been using the service for more than three years (web 65.9 percent, mail 64.8 percent). On an aggregate basis, 85 percent of respondents indicated having used the service for at least a year.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 413 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.3-17 Length of Patronage
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Survey participants were allowed multiple responses when asked how they typically access the bus stop. On average (direct mail and web surveys), 94.3 percent cited walking to the stop, which was higher than the onboard survey (80.6 percent). Other responses included drive (web 3.5 percent, mail 6.8 percent), bicycle (web 4.3 percent, mail 6.8 percent), and get dropped off (web 1.4 percent, mail 5.7 percent).
Exhibit B.3-18 Access to Bus Stop
80.0% 69.3% 70.0%
60.0% 55.0%
50.0%
40.0% 33.6% Web 30.7% 30.0% Mail
20.0% 6.8% 6.8% 10.0% 3.6% 5.7% 4.3% 1.4% 0.0% Walk Less Walk More Drive Get Dropped Bicycle Than 3 Than 3 Off At Bus Blocks Blocks Stop
Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 414 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Participants were asked about the availability of other travel alternatives should Capital Transit not be available. As revealed in the demographics section, neither sample can be termed ride-dependent. The greatest response for both samples was drive self (web 55 percent, mail 37.5 percent) as most respondents indicated having access to a personal vehicle and possessing a valid driver license. This stands in contrast to the onboard survey which revealed some degree of ride-dependency.
Other responses included walk or bicycle (web 55 percent, mail 37.5 percent) and friend or family member (web 19.4 percent, mail 22.7 percent). Only a modest number of respondents from either sample indicated they would not make the trip (web 13.2 percent, mail 14.8 percent).
Exhibit B.3-19 Mobility Options
60.0% 55.0%
50.0%
40.0% 37.5%
30.0% Web 25.0% 22.7% 19.4% Mail 20.0% 14.8% 12.4% 13.2% 10.0%
0.0% Drive Myself Walk or Bicycle Friend or Family Would not make Member the trip
Source: Juneau Community Survey
Respondents were asked to identify the season they ride Capital Transit most often. Respondents were most likely to ride year-round (web 65.1 percent, mail 56.5 percent). This was followed by winter (web 23.3 percent, mail 27.1 percent), which also garnered the greatest response from the onboard survey (19 percent). Exhibit B.3-20 Seasonal Usage
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 415 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 416 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Fare Type Respondents cited cash as the most frequently-used fare media (web 44.2 percent, mail 48.8 percent). This was also true in the onboard survey (39 percent). Interestingly, participants using the web-based survey were more likely to want to purchase monthly passes (web 27.1 percent, mail 9.3 percent).
Exhibit B.3-21 Fare Payment
Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 417 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Customer Satisfaction Capital Transit riders were asked to share their overall satisfaction with respect to a series of service attributes. As this portion of the survey was limited to riders, only those individuals who had ridden Capital Transit within the 12 months prior to the survey participated.
A numerical scale wherein one signified poor and six excellent was employed in the community survey. A mean score for each service attribute is presented below.
Exhibit B.3-22 Service Attributes Service Attribute Web Mail Overall service 4.3 4.7 Driver courtesy 4.7 4.9 Cleanliness of buses 4.4 4.4 Condition of buses 4.3 4.6 Price of tokens 4.2 4.5 Price of passes 4.3 4.6 Printed route & schedule information 4.3 4.5 Information at bus stops 3.8 4.0 Route & schedule information provided on-line 4.4 4.5 Route & schedule information provided by telephone 4.0 4.3 Availability of bus shelters 3.1 3.6 Cleanliness of bus shelters 2.8 2.9 Source: Juneau Community Survey
Capital Transit received overall service scores of 4.7 (web) and 4.9 (mail). These numbers were higher than the onboard survey where overall service had a mean score of 3.7. Most attributes were rated good to average, with mean scores ranging from 3.1 through 4.7. Generally speaking, participants in the community direct mail survey posited higher attribute ratings than respondents for either the web survey or onboard survey.
The two lower-rated attributes were availability of bus shelters (web 3.1, mail 3.6) and cleanliness of bus shelters (web 2.8, mail 2.9). These were also the lowest-rated attributes within the onboard survey.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 418 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Service Enhancements Participants were asked if there is a location not currently served by Capital Transit that they think should be. A majority of respondents (web 69.7 percent, mail 64.6 percent) answered in the affirmative. Of those who stated they would like service to another destination, 56 direct mail and 152 web respondents identified locations. Their answers are presented below.
Exhibit B.3-23 Specify Location Not Served - Mail Location Other - Direct-Mail AMHS Terminal 19 Costco/Home Depot 12 Riverside Drive 5 Home Depot 4 NOAA 4 Airport 2 Mendenhall Glacier 2 North Douglas 3 Cohen Dr. 1 David Street- West Juneau 1 Eagle Beach 1 Eagle Crest Road 1 Thunder Mountain High School 1 Source: Juneau Community Survey
Exhibit B.3-24 Specify Location Not Served - Web Location Other - Web AMHS Terminal 74 NOAA 25 Riverside Drive 12 North Douglas 10 Costco/Home Depot 9 Mendenhall Glacier 8 Airport 7 Thane 2 Auke Bay 4 Thunder Mountain High School 1 Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 419 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Information Channels Similar to the onboard survey, respondents indicating they used Capital Transit within the last 12 months prior to the survey were asked how they typically access transit. Similar to the onboard survey, most obtained their information at the bus stop (web 41.9 percent, mail 40.5 percent). Website was the second highest means of accessing information (web 46.5 percent, mail 31.6 percent).
Those respondents who indicated accessing information via radio (web 3.9 percent, mail 6.3 percent) were asked to specify the radio station to which they listen most. Respondents from both methods listened to KINY (one respondent from web, two from mail) and KTOO (one respondent from web, two from mail). Another radio station provided via a web respondent was KSUP (one response). . Exhibit B.3-25 Information Access
Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 420 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Community Perceptions Both riders and non-riders were provided a list of statements pertaining to Capital Transit and its customers. For each statement listed, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed.
More than any other statement, non-riders prefer the freedom and independence of their car was the highest agreed upon response (web 94.9 percent, mail 97.1 percent). Non- riders think driving their car is less expensive than driving (web 74.9 percent, mail 82 percent) was the statement which received the highest disagreement amongst both methods. Respondents also indicated they believe non-riders don’t know enough about Capital Transit (web 72 percent and mail 68.5 percent). Responses to the “position” statements provide important behavioral insight which the CBJ can utilize in the development of future Capital Transit marketing efforts.
Exhibit B.3-26 Community Perceptions
How would you describe the role of Capital Transit in Juneau? Web Mail Statement Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Non-riders don't know enough about Capital Transit. 72.0% 28.0% 68.5% 31.5% Non-riders are less concerned about the environment, traffic & congestion, and safety than riders. 30.3% 69.7% 15.4% 84.6% Capital Transit has not provided the public with enough information to make an intelligent decision about transportation options. 47.4% 52.6% 46.4% 53.6% Non-riders think driving their cars is less expensive than riding transit. 25.1% 74.9% 18.0% 82.0% Non-riders prefer the freedom & independence of their cars. 94.9% 5.1% 97.1% 2.9% Non-riders haven't figured out the benefits of riding transit. 61.7% 38.3% 52.0% 48.0% Capital Transit does not provide convenient service for non-riders. 62.9% 37.1% 58.5% 41.5% Source: Juneau Community Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 421 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B.4 – CAPITAL TRANSIT DRIVER SURVEY ANALYSIS
Moore & Associates views bus drivers as valuable stakeholders in the Transit Development Plan process given their combined safety, operating, and customer service roles. Therefore, we designed a self-administered survey to solicit opinions regarding Capital Transit’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as recommendations for possible service enhancements. The survey consisted largely of open-ended questions, allowing Capital Transit’s drivers flexibility in crafting their responses.
Survey forms were distributed during a meeting with Capital Transit drivers conducted in early November 2007. Drivers were asked to return the surveys using a postage-paid reply envelope. Of the thirty surveys distributed, six were returned ( 20-percent response).
This section is unlike other survey sections with respect to the display of data. Given a very modest sample was secured, responses are represented by the number of respondents who gave a selected response rather than as a percentage. Most questions in the survey, however, were open-ended. Open-ended responses are reported verbatim.
The analysis is split into three sections: • Employment Background • Service Evaluation • Recommendations
Employment Background Three questions were included in the survey to develop a profile of Capital Transit drivers. Information solicited included length of employment, typical route assignment, and typical shift.
Drivers were first asked to report their tenure with Capital Transit. Most indicated driving for a period of 5-10 years (five), while one respondent indicated driving for more than 10 years. Given the substantial tenure among the sample drivers, their input is particularly valuable as it reflects considerable personal and professional experience.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 422 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Drivers were asked to indicate the routes they typically drive. Given drivers may be assigned to more than one route, up to three choices were allowed. More than half indicated driving the express service (4). Other routes listed included Juneau to Douglas (3) and Juneau to Mendenhall Valley (3).
Exhibit B.4-1 Driver Routes Driver Route(s) Express Service 4 Juneau to Douglas 3 Juneau to Mendenhall Valley 3 Mendenhall Valley Express - morning run 1 Juneau to North Douglas 1 North Douglas to Juneau 1 Source: Capital Transit Driver Survey
Finally, drivers were asked to report the shifts they typically drive. Drivers were most likely to work Monday through Friday in the morning hours (4). Only one driver indicated working on the weekend (Saturday).
Exhibit B.4-2 Driver Shifts Driver's Shifts Monday through Friday (6:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., UAS E xpress) Monday through Friday (mornings) Monday through Friday (morning and afternoon) Monday through Wednesday (nights); S aturday Monday through Friday (6:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Douglas), Monday through Thursday (9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Valley) Source: Capital Transit Driver Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 423 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Service Evaluation Two areas of the survey elicited driver insight regarding possible service issues: common customer concerns and under/unserved areas.
Capital Transit customers often bring to a driver’s attention a variety of issues or concerns. These can range from buses being too crowded (2), making/missing transfers (2), and earlier morning service (2). Although some concerns were mentioned more than once, there does not appear to be a single issue which stands out.
Exhibit B.4-3 Customer Concerns Customer Concerns Need half-hour express service. Lot of missed transfers in the winter, due to conditions. Buses late and over crowded. Making transfers. Service ealier in the morning. Crowded Valley buses, no half-hour service early AM and late PM. No weekend UAS Express. Source: Capital Transit Driver Survey
Drivers were also asked if there are any portions of Juneau either not served or “underserved”. Among the responses were Riverside Drive (2), Tee Harbor (1), “Back Loop” (1), beyond Auke Bay (1), and central Mendenhall Valley after morning commuter (1). Similar to customer responses (discussed above), there does not appear to be a single area or service request which stands out.
Exhibit B.4-4 Location Not Served Areas Not Served Riverside Dr. 2 Tee Harbor 1 Back Loop 1 Beyond Auke Bay 1 Central Mendenhall Valley post AM commuter 1 Source: Capital Transit Driver Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 424 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Recommendations The balance of the survey was used to solicit feedback with respect to driver recommendations for possible service enhancement. Five of the six respondents provided feedback. The following aspects were discussed: fleet, maintenance support, service hours, frequency of service, driver assignments, customer information materials, and bus stop amenities.
Drivers believe the Capital Transit fleet needed to be updated. Responses ranged from “newer buses” to “some buses are in pretty bad shape”. Although the driver sample indicated the fleet needed to be updated, riders were asked to assess bus condition via the onboard survey. The data revealed a 3.9 satisfaction rating (using a 5–point scale). Although drivers felt some Capital Transit buses needed replacement, support is perceived as good by both drivers and Capital Transit customers. Employing federal guidelines several Capital Transit coaches are now beyond the recommended replacement threshold.
Drivers were asked to share any recommendations regarding operating hours and service frequency. With respect to service hours, the driver sample cited a need for earlier as well as more frequent morning service. This need was also reflected in the onboard survey. More than 27 percent of those riders surveyed selected earlier morning service when asked about possible service enhancements. Further, this topic arose during community outreach sessions with many attendees indicating “morning service begins too late” and/or operates too infrequently. At the time of our assessment, half- hour service began after 8:00 a.m., which is seen as being too late for many residents.
With respect to frequency of service, drivers communicated a belief that more runs are needed. One driver, however, felt “half-hour service is working great”. Therefore, we cannot identify a consistent recommendation.
During the meeting, drivers were provided with samples of current Capital Transit customer materials. Some drivers felt customer materials need to be more user-friendly, with drivers stating the “current schedule is hard to follow.” Among those drivers who believe Capital Transit’s public information needs to be user-friendly, no specific recommendations were advanced except “make them easier to read”.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 425 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As there were variances between the remaining categories (i.e., driver assignment and bus shelters) no discussion or analysis is made. These attributes are simply presented along with the balance of the recommendations. Only five of the six returned surveys provided recommendations regarding enhancing Capital Transit.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 426 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Exhibit B.4-5 Recommendation Matrix Recommendations Driver #1 Driver #2 Driver #3 Driver #4 Driver #5
Buses 41-47 are poor Somes buses starting out and need new Fleet are in pretty engines or replacements. Replace the bad shape. They make traffic speed so Orions with New Rust holes in slowly as to be a safety Need to replace. Flyers. More newer buses. body. hazzard. Maintenance does Maintenance well with what we support have. None. Seems good to me. Good. Pretty good.
People would like service Service hours More in the More early Half-hour service until 9 earlier and later. Problem morning - earlier morning and later pm or so, express 1 to 2 Earlier in the with later is managing on weekends half hour service. hours longer. morning. intoxicated individuals.
Frequency of Half-hour service Need more runs More 20-minute Could use more service service is and service. service. during the day. working great.
Good except schedules Customer Schedules should be start at Main St. at the information materials Schedule is hard Clear button, more user-friendly, hour, half-hour and five to understand easier to read especially for those minutes. Drivers are told (regular routes). schedules. mentally-challenged. Great. to leave at +9 minutes.
Prefer four-day, full-time shifts over shorter, five- Driver assignments day shifts. No breaks on A real lunch for full-time some Valley and UAS Works Okay. None. UAS Express. Great. Express shifts.
More shelters. Some stops could use Bus stop platforms or pads for ammenities easy loading and More shelters: unloading of wheelchair Crowhill, None. passengers. Breeze Inn. Good. Source: Capital Transit Driver Survey
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 427 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B.5 – PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY
In order to effectively identify and quantify the mobility needs of the Juneau community, several methods of community outreach were undertaken in support of the Transit Development Plan process. As discussed in previous sections of this report, an on- board survey, community survey, and Care-A-Van customer survey were conducted to collect information regarding demographics, travel patterns, awareness of transit, preferred information channels, perceptions regarding service attributes, and desired/potential service enhancements. To supplement the above surveys, we also facilitated at-large community meetings as well as stakeholder roundtables.
Community Outreach While surveys can provide valuable data, they do not provide opportunity for dialogue. Therefore, a series of eight at-large community meetings were convened between October 2007 and June 2008. Meetings were held at city hall, Mendenhall Valley, Lemon Creek, and Douglas Island.
The first meeting was held on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 in the CBJ assembly chambers. The purpose of this meeting was to identify spatial and temporal gaps in transit service, potential marketing opportunities, operational policies, and assess community perceptions/preferences.
Though attendance at this meeting was relatively modest, several core concerns were identified: • Capital Transit does a poor job of informing residents when “snow day” schedules are in effect, and what those schedules entail. • Poor condition and utility of many bus shelters throughout the CBJ. • Capital Transit schedule materials are difficult to understand. • Greater frequency/capacity is needed during peak hours. • Service begins too late in the morning and ends too early in the evening. • Improve service to airport. • Introduce service to AMHS terminal.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 428 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A second series of public meetings occurred on December 3, 4, and 5 at the Glacier Valley Elementary School, Dzantiki Heeni Middle School, and Douglas public library; respectively. The goal of these meetings was to again identify spatial and temporal service gaps, marketing opportunities, infrastructure issues, and other deficiencies.
Though attendance at these meetings was rather modest, several core concerns were identified: • Increase capacity during peak hours. • Establish a Mendenhall Valley park & ride lot. • Consider a Mendenhall Valley local circulator/shuttle. • Increase weekend service. • Implement a downtown area circulator/shuttle. • CBJ should work with area employers to provide/promote transit passes to employees. • Improve intra-service (fixed-route) transfers. • Make transit access a requirement for new residential/commercial development. • Improve maintenance of stops and shelters throughout Juneau. • Increase/enhance bicycle parking. • Future buses should be alternative fuel or electric. • Increase availability of Capital Transit fare media throughout Juneau. • Introduce service to AMHS terminal. • Extend the service day. • Introduce service to emerging commercial areas (defined as Lemon Creek). • Introduce service to Thane. • Introduce holiday service.
A third set of meetings occurred on March 3, 4, and 5 at the Mendenhall Valley library, downtown library, and Douglas library, respectively to present possible scenarios for service enhancement. The meeting at the Mendenhall library was attended by two residents. Together with staff, attendees identified several issues: • Reduce service on the “back loop”.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 429 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Revise CBJ snow plowing policies to eliminate blocking of bus stops/shelters. • Increase number of bus shelters system-wide.
Seventeen residents attended the second meeting. Much of the resulting discussion focused on the previous list of concerns as well as: • Perceptions regarding driver courtesy. • Need for enhanced customer concern resolution. • Poorly-communicated snow-day schedules. • Need for a tiered system of performance standards to reflect individual route characteristics. • Longer service days. • Increased holiday service. • More frequent service earlier in the morning and later in the evening.
Fifteen residents attended the third meeting and communicated many of the same concerns as well as: • Modification to the way Capital Transit is organized and managed (i.e., establish a citizens oversight committee). • Improve on-time performance. • Improper notice for the meetings. • Desire to see Transit Development Plan recommendations actually implemented.
A final public workshop was held on June 16 at Centennial Hall in downtown Juneau. This workshop included no formal presentation but rather allowed members of the community to view maps and copies of the administrative draft of the full report and provide input and ask questions of CBJ and Moore & Associates staff in an informal setting.
Community feedback regarding the possible three service scenarios was generally positive, especially with respect to the Optimum Scenario. Some attendees expressed concern regarding how Capital Transit could build more time into the current schedule given the perception the schedule is already “stretched too tight”. Others expressed concern regarding reducing “back loop” service to once every hour, while some worried
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 430 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
the additional stops along the proposed trunk line would increase the time it would take to travel downtown. Many attendees were pleased with the service recommendation regarding the introduction of community circulators. Attendees were also excited at the possibility of transit service to the AMHS Terminal, along Riverside Drive, as well as to Home Depot and Costco.
In addition to public meetings, public comment was also received via email and through an informal blog maintained by The Juneau Empire. Moore & Associates created an email address – [email protected] – and promoted it via the Capital Transit website to solicit comment from residents unable to attend any of the community meetings. Several dozen emails were received either through the cited address or through CBJ staff. Among the more salient comments were: • Introduce service to Channel Drive. • Introduce service to Thane. • Improve accessibility to bus shelters during the winter. • Need for improved process/resolution of customer concerns. • Schedule reliability • Dissatisfaction with Capital Transit’s “snow day” policy. • Introduce service to Lena Cove/NOAA facility.
In addition to the above emails, The Juneau Empire posed a question via its “VoxBox” blog (http://juneaublogger.com/voxbox). Readers were asked, “What improvements, if any, do you think would best serve public transportation in Juneau?” The entry garnered 41 responses, half of which, given the nature of a blog, were not specific to the question/issue. The balance provided valuable input. Among the issues communicated were: • Cleanliness of stops and shelters. • Service to Costco and Home Depot. • Passenger behavior and hygiene. • Routes and operating schedules need to be updated to reflect current traffic and growth patterns. • Service to Lena Cove/NOAA facility. • Future buses should be alternative fuel.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 431 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Replace the current Capital Transit fleet. • More frequent service. • Improve/enhance transit signage throughout Juneau. • Update the fare system (defined as electronic fare media/card readers). • Improve Capital Transit customer information materials. • Improve “snow day” notification process/policy.
The Juneau Empire also asked its online readers on March 2, 2008, “Does Capital Transit do a good job with the bus service?” Of 322 respondents, 209 (65 percent) indicated they believed Capital Transit was doing a good job.
Stakeholder Outreach In addition to public outreach, Moore & Associates also facilitated meetings with several audience-specific stakeholder groups.
Cruise Industry On Monday, August 27, CBJ staff and Moore & Associates met with representatives from the Juneau cruise industry to introduce the TDP project as well as discuss the possibility of establishing a downtown circulator shuttle. The concerns raised by the cruise industry focused on the target population. Cruise representatives indicated they would support any program aimed at enhancing mobility within the downtown area, but expressed a desire for the proposed shuttle to serve the community at-large, and not solely the cruise customer. The primary reason for this was three-fold: First, the probable limited capacity of the shuttle/circulator versus the number of patrons arriving via cruise ships on an average day. Second, the existence of cruise-aligned transportation services already present in Juneau. Third, limited access to the cruise piers given prevailing traffic patterns/volumes.
State of Alaska On Monday, August 27, 2007, CBJ staff and Moore & Associates met with State of Alaska Department of Transportation, Public Facilities, and Marine Highway System staff. This meeting focused largely on the Transit Improvement Plan (TIP) aspect of the project. Discussions revealed a desire for the CBJ to compile
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 432 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
a master list of bus shelter locations to submit to the State prior to the next funding cycle. DOT/PF representatives also expressed some concerns regarding shelter and crosswalk placement. To wit, some shelters impact driver visibility around corners and therefore present safety hazards. DOT/PF staff noted the CBJ should consider setting back further from the respective roadway and investigate the possibility of purchasing crash-tested shelters. DOT/PF staff also supported extension of Capital Transit service to the AMHS Terminal as well as the Airport.
Downtown Business Association On Monday, August 27, 2007, CBJ staff and Moore & Associates met with members of the Juneau Downtown Business Association’s board of directors. This meeting focused largely on the possibility of introducing a downtown circulator shuttle. The DBA expressed concern the compatibility with existing cruise industry transportation services. The Board noted anything that enhances mobility for both residents and businesses in the downtown area is a great idea given the proliferation of retail/service sector competition elsewhere in the CBJ. The DBA has subsequently retained Moore and Associates to conduct a dedicated DTS study.
Planning Commission On Monday, August 27, 2007, CBJ staff and Moore & Associates met with members of the City and Borough of Juneau Planning Commission to introduce the project. Planning Commissioners were enthusiastic and provided valuable input. Members pointed to difficulties with weather interfering with transit ridership, and indicated the Capital Transit route structure has shortcomings in terms of service to developing areas.
A second presentation was made to the Planning Commission on June 17, 2008. The Commission responded favorably to scenarios proposed within the Transit development Plan but expressed a desire that Moore & Associates revise and clarify supporting financial tables.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 433 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Juneau Economic Development Council On Monday, August 27, Moore & Associates met with Lance Miller, Executive Director of the Juneau Economic Development Council. Mr. Miller noted Juneau is moving away from professional services and becoming a retail hub, and that wages are dropping due to the introduction of big box retailers such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot. He identified a number of employers who would benefit from transit service tailored to their operating schedule including Home Depot, Costco, fisheries, and smokeries. He also indicated the attractiveness of using hybrid electric vehicles in conjunction with the proposed downtown circulator/shuttle as such vehicles could reduce emissions and run more quietly.
Given schedule conflicts surrounding the first meeting, a second meeting with the Juneau Economic Development Council took place on Wednesday, October 31, 2007. This second meeting had better attendance, and the following issues were communicated: • Mendenhall Valley, Downtown, and Lemon Creek circulators could function well with connections to an express trunk line. • UAS might be a good partner for a shuttle to the new NOAA facility. • Pro-rated (versus “full-month”) monthly passes should be available. • Electronic passes should be considered as future fare media. • Bus service is needed to Costco and Home Depot given the high number of entry level/low-income employees. • Capital Transit’s current public information (i.e., bus brochures) is not easy to understand. • The Express Route needs more capacity.
Juneau Community Development Department On Tuesday, August 28, 2007, Moore & Associates met with Community Development Department staff to introduce the TDP project and solicit staff input. Community Development Department staff recommended Moore & Associates consider recommending alternative fuel vehicles and add feeder lines to the Mendenhall Valley “feeding” a trunk line. Staff also recommended Capital Transit introduce service along Riverside Drive given the concentration of residential development nearby. Another recommendation was offering large employers
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 434 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
discounted monthly passes to promote transit ridership and reduce roadway congestion at peak travel times. Staff also recommended establishing park & ride facilities and additional dedicated transit centers.
In a second meeting on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, CDD staff reviewed the consultant’s draft service scenarios and supported the increased level of service recommended therein. Staff also recommended coordinating the North Douglas Route with a transfer to the Eagle Crest bus during the ski season.
A third meeting was held with CDD staff on Tuesday, June 17 to review the administrative draft of the Transit Development Plan. Staff made a number of recommendations and indicated the Optimum Scenario would best meet the future needs of the Juneau community. Staff also expressed a desire to ensure the Transit Development Plan be complementary to the Comprehensive Plan update currently in progress.
Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition On Tuesday, August 28, 2007, CBJ staff and Moore & Associates met with members of the Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition to discuss the Coordinated Transportation Plan element of the TDP. The JCTC is composed of representatives from several local social service organizations. The meeting served as an introduction of the Coordinated Transportation Plan and an inventory of mobility needs and service gaps (temporal and spatial).
A second meeting with JCTC members was convened on Monday, October 29, 2007. This meeting focused on developing steps for coordinating and streamlining transportation services in Juneau. Several suggestions were advanced including establishing a single-point call center, a one-stop information clearinghouse where clients could go to identify the optimal transportation alternative, and a travel-trainer program to encourage possible mode-shift to Capital Transit’s fixed-route service. Also, copies of the mobility inventory worksheet were distributed.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 435 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A third meeting with JCTC members was convened on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. This meeting focused on identifying and ranking coordination priorities. Each organization listed its individual needs as well as potential priorities for the CBJ as a whole. These needs were then ranked and will be included within the Coordinated Transportation Plan.
A fourth meeting was held on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 to allow JCTC members to comment on the draft Coordinated Human Services and Transit Development Plans. While attendance was modest (only three JCTC members), valuable input was received regarding some changes to the document. Consensus was also reached regarding the scope of the Plan. An email was subsequently sent out informing the rest of the Coalition of the comment deadline of June 30, 2008.
Alaska State Museum On Tuesday, October 30, 2007, CBJ staff and Moore & Associates met with representatives from the Alaska State Museum to introduce the concept of a downtown circulator. Museum staff noted the nearest bus stop is not properly signed, and they would be willing to have a shelter placed on museum property as long as it is properly sited. Museum staff indicated strong support for a downtown circulator and indicated possible funding for the circulator.
St. Vincent de Paul On Wednesday, December 26, 2007; and again on Tuesday, March 4, 2008; CBJ staff met with Dan Austin, a representative of St. Vincent de Paul, Mr. Austin identified a need for earlier morning and later evening Capital Transit service, as well as expanded weekend and holiday service. He also noted Costco and Home Depot are too far from the nearest (current) bus stop for their employees to use transit on a regular basis. He also raised concerns regarding safety at bus stops including treacherous ice and snow as well as crime. Mr. Austin stated better lighting and the addition of emergency call buttons at bus stops would help improve safety. Lastly, he communicated a desire for transit service closer to his facility, which is located between the Nugget Mall and the Airport.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 436 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Private Stakeholder Meeting A meeting was held on Monday, October 29, 2007 at the CBJ Assembly Chambers specific to private transportation stakeholders. The goal of this meeting was to introduce the TDP project, identify spatial and temporal service gaps, possible joint marketing opportunities, and infrastructure issues. Attendees included representatives from the cruise industry, bus tours industry, taxi companies, and the public. Attendees highlighted the following: • Capital Transit’s route structure is outdated. • Buses don’t reach downtown Juneau early enough or leave late enough. • Need for real 30-minute headways. • Need for transit service along Riverside Drive, • Unmet needs arising from employers near AMHS Terminal and Lena Cove. • Need for a downtown shuttle/circulator. • Improve circulation in the Mendenhall Valley.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 437 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Page Intentionally Blank.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 438 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
C. COMMENTS
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 439 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Emails:
From: Rod Swope
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:29 PM
Subject: Capital Transit Development Plan
Ben,
As a follow-up to the brief presentation that was made to the Public Works & Facilities Committee today:
1) Bob Doll’s suggestion that we identify specific alternatives (improvements) in some order of priority was a very good suggestion. It’s equally important that we have good accurate cost information for each alternative (an alternative would be, for example, extension of bus service to the new NOAA lab, extension of bus service to the AMHS ferry terminal, improved bus service to UAS, etc).
2) In their analysis, is the consultant planning to examine the feasibility of electric buses as being viable for any segment or portion of our transit system?
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 440 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
From: Sahaj Kaur Elliott
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 10:08 PM Subject: bus system input
Mr. Lyman,
I am a 27 year resident of Juneau, for the last 17 years a Valley dweller. For the last year and a half I have been a regular public transportation user. I decided in May of 2006 to try doing without a car. In recent months I have had to acknowledge that using public transportation to, from and around the Valley is simply untenable. I had to give up teaching my early morning yoga class downtown because it simply is not possible to get there via public trans before 7:30 a.m. I am a regular volunteer for many of Juneau's non-profit organizations that hold evening events. I have had to give up volunteering for some of these because the last bus leaves downtown @ 10:30pm and I would not be able to leave in time to catch it. I have many times witnessed buses so full that the driver had to drive past people waiting there. They were simply out of luck and had to wait another hour for the next one.
People cannot get to and from work with these conditions occurring as regularly as they do. I am a true believer in public transportation and have some workable suggestions for some changes to the present routes and schedules. Our routes have not changed in 20 years in Juneau and they are not functional. I would like to go back to using public trans and would like to help the process along. Please let me know how I may be of service in this regard.
Sincerely,
Grace Elliott
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 441 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. Lyman and Mr. Kern,
I was thinking this morning while riding the bus to work about how Capital Transit could provide service to more areas while reducing transit time... I thought about providing service into the Costco area via Anka Street, which would obviously add many minutes to the route... but what about the idea of providing access to Costco, Home Depot, etc. by a pedestrian bridge from the Davis Avenue bus turn around across Lemon Creek into the Costco area? I have always heard rumors about the CBJ constructing another road access in this vicinity so I am sure that the Planning or Engineering Department have looked into property ownership in this area, or possibly in relation to the gravel dredging permit. This bridge could be similar in nature to the pedestrian bridge over the Mendenhall River connecting Dimond Park to the Brotherhood Bridge Trail (http://www.dot.state.ak.us/sereg/asbuilts/Assetts/JNU/72120.pdf), although I would suspect that this span would be shorter in length.
I have taken the liberty to include the CBJ's transit consultant in this e-mail, as well as some very helpful people that may be able to provide additional information on the subject.
Thank you for your time.
Brett Serlin
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 442 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
From: Sara Chambers
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:09 PM Subject: idea for transit
Hi, Ben. I heard an idea from a constituent today: How about small vans (like the Care- A-Van style) to pick up on routes that may not have the ridership for traditional buses-- like Thane and the NOAA facility/Lena/ferry proposed route?
Thanks,
Sara Chambers Assemblymember
City and Borough of Juneau
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 443 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
From: Marjorie Menzi
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:39 AM Subject: Transit Study
Hi Ben,
I attended the public meeting at the Douglas Library regarding the Transit Plan but failed to ask you about the timetable for the study. During what period will the consultant be taking public comments? What are the next steps, especially regarding public comment? The Thane Neighborhood Association is especially interested in knowing this. Would additional comments be sent to you or directly to the consultant? If the latter, please give me the name and email address. Also, you asked me to remind you that I would like a copy of the public comments received so far along with the priority/emphasis (stars!) given to the suggested ideas by the attending members of the public.
Thank you very much for your work on this important public service issue. Marjorie Menzi
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 444 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This is a formal email expressing our wish that service, no matter how small or infrequent, be amended to include the Thane neighborhood. Both my wife and I would love to have bus service to our neck of the woods.
Thanks and happy holidays.
Matt and Kathy Huston
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 445 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to tell you that I would absolutely use public transportation to and from Thane Road if it was available. In the summertime I often ride my bike down thane road to catch the morning express to the Valley, but in winter, of course, it is impossible. I would often utilize this service if it was available.
I do like the idea of opening school bus service to the public. I am in Japan currently, and Japan, like the rest of the world, puts its school children on its public transit system. Of course Japan also puts a lot of money into its public transit system and has extensive bus services even in remote areas, providing access even though few people may use it.
Christopher Behnke
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 446 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Greetings:
I understand that you are considering what kinds of public transit should be added in Juneau. I recommend a public shuttle for Thane Road, and for Thane residents to be able to ride the existing school buses to and from town. I think Thane Road is too narrow and bumpy for a regular-sized city bus.
Thank you, Megan Behnke
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 447 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Greetings:
Thane Road is a bit narrow and bumpy for full-sized city busses, but I believe there would be a number of residents who would use a van if a Thane shuttle were part of the public transit system. Additionally, several school busses come out here several times a day, nearly empty. Perhaps they could also pick up Thane residents and take them to (or from) town, by some arrangement with the public bus system.
Thane has about 60 households, I believe, and many of us are keenly aware of the less- than optimal state of Thane Road. By making public transportation available, the city might substantially reduce the wear and tear on the road, and lessen the risk of those driving it, by reducing the overall number of vehicles on the road. Those would be very good results.
It might be a good idea for the city to conduct a formal survey of Thane residents, to gauge if there is sufficient interest in van service to warrant further investigation.
Thank you for considering this.
Larri Spengler
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 448 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Hello,
We would really appreciate some level of public transportation from Thane to downtown Juneau. However, I do not believe the road is wide enough, or safe enough for full scale transit bus service, nor do I believe the population exists on Thane to warrant a full scale and regular bus service.
Might it be possible to consider a smaller 9 passenger van, similar to a Care-A-Van, coming down Thane at key times of day (morning work commute hour, mid day hour, after work commute, eg). This spur service could drop all riders at the central bus location downtown where they can connect to the rest of the CBJ transit system.
Sandro & Sharon Lane
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 449 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dear Mr Moore:
As Thane Rd residents with small children, we VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE the introduction of large commercial buses into our neighborhood!! There are no sidewalks, and we fear for the safety of our children who may be playing or walking to friends' houses. All the inherent dangers of large vehicles speeding down our quiet road populated by children come to mind. Most Thane residents moved to Thane to enjoy the quiet and freedom from traffic that pervades other parts of Juneau. And many of us with children chose to live in Thane particularly so we may raise our children in a safe environment.
Even if buses did travel within the posted speed limit (which is questionable and would be functionally unmonitored), many Thane residents agree that the speed limit is already too high for our road. Our neighborhood association has tried to have it reduced, but because Thane is officially a state highway, that cannot be accomplished. That, despite the fact that it is a dead end road and a residential neighborhood with no sidewalks! There already exists a SERIOUS problem with vehicles speeding above even the posted speed limit.
Further, the road between town and our neighborhood is narrow, curvy, bumpy, hilly and of general poor quality Therefore, any additional large vehicle traffic poses additional serious risks to others who use the road regularly. This includes car traffic, pedestrians, runners, and bikers. Not to mention berry pickers along the road in summer.
Last, but certainly not least, the noise and smell from large diesel buses would be one more insult that we would have to endure along with helicopter noise and the summer tourist season which has become intolerable to these Thane residents having to travel multiple times daily through the noisy, smelly, congesting bus traffic downtown. Once it arrives right in our very own neighborhood, it's time for us to find a new place to live.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 450 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
We are generally supporters of safe, practical, and energy conserving public transportation. However, the ONLY way we could support public transportation to Thane would be if it were provided in small vans that use the Sheep Creek area as a drop off and pick up point. In this way, no regular commercial traffic would enter our fragile neighborhood and endanger our children and otherwise negatively impact our quality of life.
Sincerely,
Tom Schumacher and Bridget Mansfield
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 451 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
My Turn: Capital Transit needs more than lip service
STAN MARSTON
What is wrong with Capital Transit? It is public transportation, you know. The service has regressed to a joke. The public doesn't complain because it gets no response from the city or Capital Transit. Not even a feeble attempt.
It's not that there are no complaints or problems. The riders know it falls on deaf ears. The city of Juneau and the bus company see this as "We are doing a great job" because no one is complaining. This is far from the truth. I ride the bus daily. I hear a litany of complaints from other riders. Just ask anyone waiting at a bus stop how inadequate the service really is, and be prepared to get a very long list.
Just today, a bus almost ran me over as I was getting off it in front of Gastineau Elementary School. The sidewalk was a sheet of ice and I slid toward the bus as the driver raced to get back into traffic. He was totally unconcerned about safety. If I had not had a sack of groceries in my left hand to block me from the bus, I would have slid right under his rear wheel. I shudder to think about what kind of damage that would have caused to me.
No one - the city, the bus company or the bus drivers - seems to care if the bus stops are safe. Just look at how they are not lit at night or how they are plowed in with snow. This situation should never exist in the first place. Will the solution to this problem be to eliminate the service, like they do for Cordova Street or Lemon Creek when it gets a little slick?
I immediately called Capital Transit and the person who answered the phone frustrated me. You could even hear him snicker. His attitude was, "Here is another crackpot." He said, "We all make mistakes," "I'll talk to the bus driver," and "I'll call you back." He didn't ask for my phone number, I had to ask him to take it. Four hours later, I still have not heard from him, and I probably never will.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 452 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I don't care what color the bus is or what the name is; where the safety is concerned, more needs to be done than merely saying, "I'll talk to the bus driver." There should be immediate action, not tomorrow, not next week, but today, right now! Every bus stop should be inspected for safety and remedied immediately. The snow and ice problem is going to exist for several more months. This is public transportation, you know.
There were public meetings several months ago to discuss the problems and hear the suggestions of the public. One of the last questions asked was, "This is only lip service, isn't it?" Of course an official said it wasn't, but I knew from years of experience that it was.
How much money has been wasted on studies that could have been used to improve the services?
It's very convenient the way the city and the bus company are organized. The city can say it is not its responsibility, and that the bus company needs to address this issue. The bus company says it is not its responsibility and that the city needs to address that. Neither is held responsible to follow the mandates, and the riders are the ones that suffer.
How convenient to be able to do that.
And for the last 10 years, we have heard how they are going to improve the routes and schedule. Ha, more lip service!
Stan Marston is a Douglas resident.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 453 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Hello Jim Moore and Ben Lyman,
I have some comments and suggestions regarding the bus service. The article in the Juneau Empire today mentions the buses leaving early and you, Jim, commented you are surprised there aren’t more complaints. That is probably because someone at Capital Transit has learned how to use the delete key. I have sent emails to Capital Transit 7 times in the last year and a half complaining about buses leaving the Nugget Mall early and not waiting for commuters transferring after work. You know how many responses I have received from Capital Transit? None. In the newspaper article John Kern states, “We have all learned how to adjust.” I would prefer Mr. Kern just keep silent rather than patronize me with words such as these. I have been riding the bus for over 6 years now and I will tell you one thing most bus riders are in agreement about – that it is real obvious that the people who make the decisions regarding all facets of Capital Transit operation, including the buses they choose to purchase, never actually ride the bus. The ‘new’ buses they have purchased have 10 less seats than the ‘old’ buses. While I am sure there are ADA compliance regulations they need to adhere to, there are buses built in this country that are ADA compliant and have more seats than the ones Capital Transit currently operates. The Municipality of Anchorage operates just such buses. I have been on buses here where there were more than 20 people having to stand. I would also like to add one more complaint and that is the total lack of respect by young riders for all adults on the bus system. Some of these young people are profane and will not get up to give their seat to an adult. It happened again just this morning on the regular valley bus heading to the Nugget Mall at 7 am. The front section of seats on these buses consists of 9 seats. There were 5 teenagers taking up 5 of those 9 seats. A 50ish woman got on at the Mendenhall Mall. There were already 15-20 people ( mostly adults) standing up. One woman already sitting asked this teenage boy to please give his seat to the woman who had just gotten on the bus. He looked at her and indignantly said, “I’m not getting up and giving my seat to her.” I do have empathy for some of these young kids as I can imagine they are not getting a whole lot of guidance at home but that still doesn’t make it alright to carry this disrespect onto public transportation.
So these are my recommendations:
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 454 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Next time the CBJ needs to purchase new buses, please get buses that have more seats. Be a little more considerate of riders needing to make a connection at the Nugget Mall. • Have the bus drivers ask teenage (and younger) riders to please get up and give their seat to an adult that is standing. • Have the bus drivers please monitor the foul language on the bus and ask them to stop when they speak in this manner. Some of the drivers do this already but most of them don’t. • Better snow removal at all bus stops. • Thank you for the study and allowing me to comment. I sincerely hope some positive changes result from this effort as I feel past studies were mainly for show because they really didn't result in anything more than lip service.
Thank you, Charley Larson
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 455 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
From: Jim Scholl
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 10:57 PM Subject: Transit Plan Comment - Help me get to Harborview Elementary to play chess with kids
Mr. Lyman & Mr. Kern, I could get to my kid's school during lunch hour to run chess club if you ran the bus at 15 min intervals! I live 1/2 mile from work and ride my bicycle in the spring and fall on days when I don't need to run into Harborview. If there was 15 minute service I could use the bus during lunch to get back and forth between work and Harborview and not have to use my car at all! And I'm not the lone ranger.
The Transit plan solution to congested buses is utterly ridiculous. Running bigger buses on the same half hour schedule does nothing to address the on-demand needs of commuters. Increased service does. And congested buses are the indication that service needs to be increased. Increase service to 15 minute intervals at least during peak commuting times.
Jim Scholl
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 456 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Letters:
THANE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
4545 Thane Road, Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-9768 [email protected]
Board of Directors
Larri Irene Spengler, Pres. Sioux Douglas
Sally Bibb Sandro Lane Al Bixby Paula Terrel
David Crosby Chris Zimmer
Benjamin Lyman, Community Development Department City and Borough of Juneau
155 South Seward St. Juneau, AK 99801
January 14, 2008
Re: Thane Road public transit
Dear Mr. Lyman,
We understand the CBJ is currently reviewing public transportation options and policies. The Thane Neighborhood Association, for 16 years representing some sixty households on Thane Road, would like you to consider the following for Thane Road, which (with the exception of school buses) currently has no public transportation.
• A number of Thane residents indicate they would use public transportation.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 457 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Large passenger busses, such as those currently in use in the CBJ, are not safe on Thane, given the current alignment and the condition of Thane road. • A small shuttle passenger van connecting to downtown, at key times of the day, would adequately serve the needs of Thane • Can school busses be used to accommodate residents? They travel back and forth on Thane nearly empty, several times a day. • The city should survey Thane residents to more accurately gauge ridership levels needed for planning.
While a means of public transportation on Thane not only would help reduce fuel demand, it would also improve Thane Road safety by reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Adding a bus service on Thane with large busses would be problematic both from safety and wear-and-tear perspectives and would not be supported by the association.
Thank you for considering and including our thoughts in your planning process.
Sincerely yours, Larri Irene Spengler, President
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 458 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 459 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 460 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Date: June 25, 2008 To: Ben Lyman, CBJ Project Manager
From: The Juneau Commission on Sustainability
Re: Draft Transit Development Plan
The Juneau Commission on Sustainability (JCOS) has reviewed the June 2008 Transit Development Plan drafted by the consultants, Moore & Associates. JCOS finds many excellent recommendations throughout the Plan, but highlights here those in particular that are consistent with CBJ’s principles of sustainability delineated in Resolution 2401am: 1. Support a stable, diverse, and equitable economy; 2. Protect the quality of the air, water, land, and other natural resources; 3. Conserve native vegetation, fish, wildlife habitat, and ecosystems; 4. Minimize human impacts on local and worldwide ecosystems; and 5. Minimize energy usage and the release of greenhouse gases.
JCOS respectfully offers the following endorsements on the Plan’s recommendations and some additional comments for incorporation into the draft plan:
1. Optimum Scenario. JCOS endorses the Optimum Scenario for expansion of the Transit system (Fix-Route Service Alternatives, p. 11-21). [Principles 1, 4 and 5] 2. Fleet Development. The “one size fits all” fleet model is no longer appropriate for capital transit service in Juneau. It is more efficient both from a cost and energy- use standpoint to dedicate smaller transit vehicles to the “life-line” routes rather than 35-40’ buses, since the ridership for these routes is low. Likewise, larger, 60-foot articulated buses should be considered for the routes with most intense use to increase capacity and reduce over-crowding (Transit Improvement Plan, p. 3-4). [Principles 1, 4 and 5]. Limit the purchase of future buses to alternatively fueled vehicles (Transit Improvement Plan p. 4-6). JCOS respectfully adds that, to the extent it is feasible and practical, Capital Transit should seek to integrate diesel-electric hybrid buses earlier than 2012 (under Expansion Plan) to abate the fiscal impact of rapidly rising diesel fuel prices. According to Moore &
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 461 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Associates, diesel-electric hybrid coaches can reduce fuel costs by as much as 45%, reducing operating costs by as much as $2.7 million over the 12- year life of each coach (Transit Improvement Plan, p. 7). In addition, JCOS recommends that diesel-electric hybrid buses be dedicated first to routes through residential areas, due to their low emissions and quieter engines. [Principles 2, 4 and 5] 3. Bus Shelters. The importance of bus shelters cannot be overstated, as they are essential to minimizing issues of inclement weather that discourage many people from riding the bus. Shelters also make a psychological statement about how important the transit system is to the city. The quality of the shelter design itself can help reduce litter and vandalism at bus stops; creative designs increase visibility of the bus stop providing both safety and public awareness. Shelters must be durable, attractive, and well-lit and include amenities such as trash and recycling cans. Wherever possible, the bus shelter should collaborate with business owners and/or neighborhood residents to be a clean, attractive, desirable structure that supports the adjacent business. For example, CBJ and Nugget Mall owners could work together to incorporate the area between the street and the mall's "back door" to make the bus stop a more welcoming and comfortable place. In addition, coordination with the CBJ Streets Department and ADOT/PF should be enhanced to ensure that access to the shelters in the winter is maintained by these agencies during snow removal operations to ensure that snow and snow berms are kept cleared around these structures (Transit Improvement Plan, p. 18-19). [Principles 1, 4 and 5] 4. Park and Ride facilities should be considered for development at key points along commuter routes (Transit Improvement Plan, p. 23-24). JCOS adds that the CBJ consider reduced property tax or other incentives to encourage park and ride lots on private property as may be necessary in some areas. [Principles 1, 4 and 5] 5. Downtown Circulator Shuttle. JCOS echoes the comments of the JEDC, CDD, DBA, cruise industry, the Alaska State Museum, members of the community, and private stakeholders in support of the concept of a downtown circulator shuttle (Community Outreach Summary, pp. 1-9) and concurs with Moore & Associates that such service “is viable and can be operated efficiently and effectively.” (Executive Summary, p. 14). [Principles 1, 4 and 5] The JCOS endorses Alternative B for the shuttle route and supports JEDC’s comments that the
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 462 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
circulator route be considered a candidate for diesel/electric hybrid vehicles due to their reduced emissions and quieter engines (Community Outreach Summary, p. 6). [Principles 1, 2, 4 and 5] 6. Transit Outreach. A central call center for all CBJ transportation services and an outreach campaign would increase accessibility and promote increased ridership (Executive Summary p. 20). [Principles 1 and 4] 7. On-time Performance. Capital Transit should seek to achieve 90 % on-time performance (Executive Summary p. 25). [Principle 1] 8. Airport and AMHS Terminal Service. JCOS echoes the comments of community members and ADOT/PF recommending that service be expanded to these areas. (Community Outreach Summary, p.6). [Principle 1] 9. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards. JCOS recommends an additional Goal be incorporated into the draft plan that addresses the value of “environmental consciousness, that encompasses the following: Define and commit to a percentage reduction in greenhouse gases generated by Capital Transit and a percentage reduction in the use of fossil fuels over an agreed-upon period. JCOS recommends the percentages be determined by Capital Transit in consultation with Moore & Associates. (Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards). [Principles 4 and 5]
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 463 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 464 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 465 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Public Involvement:
Brainstormed ideas and votes from public meetings held on December 3 and 5, 2007:
Public Preferences for Service Improvements December 3-5, 2007 public meetings 14
12
10
8
6 Number of Votes 4
2
0
) e s e n s e e ts et sit s rs ce inal ing ns ow ic c ic tric e e o ator area tow tops rvice rv v os ick ttee nce tops aw t rvi ul t r t a s ec ran Zone pacity lator(s) n s e ervi e mi ass x l e rvice** a ic u & Se S er pments l T p shel C c ow f om o se d se Market n r d Servicepo ar of snrs M nt s el/el & n ta od C day Service D D Ride Lot( AM joi uated c ainten Far oa i Ci i en & & le r d fu ns n destinatitow ol e it a Trans ce on o ree Ferry Term w n helte tbound s p m ti F e R lley H ley s ater P u gr an tive a a Homeal ept c L Multiple bus osizes ge devel toke n ow V / k Earli iv r sto rna o ide Driveber of bus eak Per D o om Trans re C ll t s wnto ed Weekc . V r l with te duc tow Than P o st ta G helters at major to run CapitaE um o top al f l Ma s d wn reas Valley Parks mprovepes nt of la ar hase o River New ith D ov api i y e al ike be al o rc ed n n Men C t b d B u D w Inc ee hall s to p s e to C te rem n to ss reas ic tw en w pa endenh s to Inc erv be now n rou ol bus & nto M ay S S North Douglastiple route--keep or expand Covered Mend ho ow stria c Mul buses shoulier w ce of Expres te trips S e D ccess a requirem nu ede A New Eas P -rout t e Interfa 30-mi R
Make Transi
Service Improvement
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 466 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 467 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 468 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 469 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 470 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 471 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 472 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 473 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 474 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 475 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 476 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 477 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
D. FISCAL YEAR 2009 STATE OF ALASKA C. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION HUMAN
SERVICES GRANTS
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 478 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MEMORANDUM CITY/BOROUGH OF JUNEAU Public Works Department /Capital Transit 10099 Bentwood Place Juneau, AK 99801
DATE: October 22, 2008
TO: Juneau Assembly Members
THROUGH: Joe Buck, Public Works Director
FROM: John Kern, Transit Superintendent
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009 State of Alaska Community Transportation Human Services
The Juneau Coordinated Transportation Coalition (JCTC) met on August 19 to review and adopt recommendations for the Fiscal Year 2009 State of Alaska Community Transportation Human Services Grants. There were four projects submitted and they are ranked 1-4 in order of the priority recommended by the JCTC. This prioritization and the corresponding project descriptions are recommended for adoption by the Assembly as part of the Coordinated Human Services Element, Chapter 9, of the Transit Development Plan/Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. This memo and the following project descriptions are incorporated into the Plan as Appendix D Fiscal Year 2009 State of Alaska Community Transportation Human Services Grants.
1. Taxi Voucher Program for the Juneau Road System. 2. Lift-equipped Taxi for the Juneau Road System. 3. Paratransit Small Bus with Three Wheelchair Stations. 4. Small Sedan for Employee-Escorted Travel of Homebound Clients to Medical and Shopping.
John Kern Transit Manager Capital Transit 10099 Bentwood Place Telephone 907-789-6903
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 479 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JUNEAU’S COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Community JUNEAU Requesting Agency: Southeast Alaska Independent Living (SAIL) Inc.
Contract Person: Joan Herbage O’Keefe Phone: 907-586-4920 ext. #230 Email: [email protected]
TITLE OF PROJECT: Taxi Voucher Program for the Juneau road system.
Use: To render on-demand taxi service affordable for people with disabilities and riders over the age of 60 (purchase of services) on the Juneau road system.
1) Can the Juneau Public Transit or Care A Van, the established transit service, in the community currently meet the needs of the applying agency's project? If not, explain why not. The Taxi Voucher program is a compliment to the lift-equipped taxi service and fills a critical and “special” niche in the Juneau Coordinated Transportation service array. This program is a compliment—not a replacement—to the valuable services provided Care-a-Van and Capital Transit. Users of the program are meticulously screened for eligibility (documented disability and/or senior status); are currently limited to $60 worth of rides per month; and are required to sign a form saying they will only use vouchers when Care-a-Van and/or Capital Transit will not meet their transportation needs.
Eligible users of this project are those individuals who are sometimes unable to plan ahead to schedule transportation through Care-A-Van; those living outside the Transit/Para-transit boundaries; and those who need transportation before or after the scheduled hours of operation of Transit/Para-transit.
2) Does the Requesting Agency serve persons with disabilities? Beneficiaries of the Alaska Mental Health Trust? (AMHT = dementias, TBI, persons with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness) Please describe clients, approximate numbers served per year. SAIL serves approximately 550 seniors and people with disabilities in the Juneau area—approximately ¼ are AMHT beneficiaries—however this vehicle will be available for all persons needing a lift-equipped on-demand ride, regardless if they are a registered SAIL consumer.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 480 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3) Describe these clients’ specific social service, treatment, or medical and transportation needs to be addressed by this request. Seniors and people with disabilities use the lift-equipped taxi for the full gamut of transportation needs including medical appointments, to receive social services, obtain groceries, and do other errands.
4) How much would your project cost? What type of vehicle do you wish to purchase and would it be used or new? If you want “purchased services” please estimate the numbers of hours of service per week or month that clients would be using transportation services. Due to high fuel prices, the CBJ Assembly recently approved rate increases for the local cab companies which will result in an increase cost to the consumers. The last two grant cycles SAIL has received $50,000 each year for this program. SAIL would like to request $55,000 this cycle.
Consumers (‘clients’) use the vehicle 24:7 and 365 days a year. Average ridership is 400 rides per month.
5) If your project is “purchase of services” is your agency willing to donate toward the 20% of required local match funds? Is there a source of revenue to which the cost of rides by the clients can be charged, as a way for Transit to use “earned income” as all or part of the required “match”?
The taxi vendor provides a 20% bulk discount to meet the match requirement. Additionally, the rider pays 40 cents on the dollar. Total match = 60%
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 481 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JUNEAU’S COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Community JUNEAU Requesting Agency: Southeast Alaska Independent Living (SAIL) Inc.
Contract Person: Joan Herbage O’Keefe Phone: 907-586-4920 ext. #230 Email: [email protected]
TITLE OF PROJECT: Lift-equipped taxi for the Juneau road system.
Use: The vehicle requested in this application (five-passenger low-floor mini-van with wheel-chair station and manual lift) is needed to guarantee that a lift equipped on-demand taxi is available 24:7, 365 days a year. Every system needs a ‘back up’—with the new two-year grant process, a new taxi needs to be approved now to guarantee seamless availability of a lift-equipped taxi to serve the Juneau road system.
1) Can the Juneau Public Transit or Care A Van, the established transit service, in the community currently meet the needs of the applying agency's project? If not, explain why not. This lift-equipped taxi fills a critical and “special” niche in the Juneau Coordinated Transportation service array. This vehicle is a compliment—not a replacement—to the valuable services provided Care-a-Van and Capital Transit.
Eligible users of this project are those individuals who are sometimes unable to plan ahead to schedule transportation through Care-A-Van; those living outside the Transit/Para-transit boundaries; and those who need transportation before or after the scheduled hours of operation of Transit/Para-transit. Here are a few examples of riders:
• A Juneau resident with a disability was excited about the potential of employment as a grocery stocker. He would have been forced to abandon his employment goal because shift hours stretched beyond Para-transit and Capital Transit hours of operation but fortunately is able to secure rides with the lift equipped taxi and is an employed, contributing member of our community. • A Juneau resident who lives beyond Para-Transit boundaries no longer can drive. He would be forced to sell his home and move closer to town however the lift-equipped taxi allows him to make his doctor’s appointments and other errands and to keep his home and independence. • A Juneau resident woke up sick and needing desperately to go to the doctor. The doctor could get her in that morning but Care-a-van was unavailable until the following day. She called the lift-equipped taxi and made the appointment.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 482 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
• Care-a-van is frequently unavailable because of high demand, especially during peak hours of operation. Additionally, many seniors and people with disabilities have difficulty, especially when the weather is poor (ice, snow, etc.), making it to the nearest bus stop.
2) Does the Requesting Agency serve persons with disabilities? Beneficiaries of the Alaska Mental Health Trust? (AMHT = dementias, TBI, persons with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness) Please describe clients, approximate numbers served per year. SAIL serves approximately 550 seniors and people with disabilities in the Juneau area. This vehicle will be available for all persons needing a lift-equipped on-demand ride, regardless if they are a current consumer of SAIL services.
3) Describe these clients’ specific social service, treatment, or medical and transportation needs to be addressed by this request. Seniors and people with disabilities use the lift-equipped taxi for the full gamut of transportation needs including medical appointments, to receive social services, obtain groceries, and do other errands.
4) How much would your project cost? What type of vehicle do you wish to purchase and would it be used or new? If you want “purchased services” please estimate the numbers of hours of service per week or month that clients would be using transportation services. The estimated delivery price of a lift-equipped taxi with a manual lift is $53,500. According to our current vendor, Juneau Taxi and Tours (selected through a RFP process and a JCTC Proposal Evaluation Committee) the lift-equipped taxi provides 5 to 9 rides per day to people who need the lift.
5) These projects require a 20% match. If buying a vehicle, your agency pays the 20% of total purchase & shipping price and that 20% becomes your “lease” price for leasing the vehicle to use. Is your agency willing to provide the cash match to buy the vehicle? SAIL is prepared to commit to securing the 20% match. In the last decade, SAIL has applied for and received four vehicles through this process. In every instance SAIL has successfully secured the needed match. The match for the first lift-equipped taxi in Capitol City was approved by both the Rasmuson Foundation and the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) through Assembly vote. The latter option was best aligned with the program as therefore CBJ provided the match. The match for the second lift-equipped taxi was provided by a capital appropriation secured through the Juneau delegation.
6) If your project is “purchase of services” is your agency willing to donate toward the 20% of required local match funds? Is there a source of revenue to which the cost of rides by the clients can be charged, as a way for Transit to use “earned income” as all or part of the required “match”? Not applicable
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 483 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Southeast Senior Services
JUNEAU’S COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FY 2009 DOT GRANT PROJECT MINI-APPLICATION
Community _Juneau______Requesting Agency: __Southeast Senior Services______
Contact Person:__Marsha Partlow______Phone:_(907) 463-6153_____
Email:[email protected]______
TITLE OF PROJECT: Paratransit Small Bus with Three Wheelchair Stations
Use: The vehicle requested in this application (eight passenger cutaway bus with three wheelchair stations) is needed by the Care-A-Van paratransit service to replace a vehicle which has extensive rust problems. The vehicle to be replaced is an active part of the fleet on which the Care-A-Van depends. Care-A-Van is operated by Southeast Senior Services.
1) Can Juneau Capital Transit or Care-A-Van, the established transit service in the community currently meet the needs of the applying agency's project? If not, explain why not.
Care-A-Van, Juneau’s complementary paratransit service, is the program requesting the project. The new vehicle will help the Care-A-Van staff continue to meet the high demand for service to both senior citizens and to persons with disabilities of any age. Accessibility, customer service, and passenger safety will be enhanced through this project.
2) Does the Requesting Agency serve persons with disabilities? Beneficiaries of the Alaska Mental Health Trust?
In Fiscal Year 2007, Care-A-Van served 369 persons over the age of 60 with 19,073 rides and 212 persons with disabilities under 60 with 14,784 rides. All passengers are either beneficiaries of the Alaska Mental Health Trust, have physical disabilities or are over 60 years of age.
3) Describe these clients’ specific social service, treatment, or medical and transportation needs to be addressed by this request.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 484 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, Care-A-Van does not prioritize trips according to trip purpose; within the Capital Transit service area, Care-A-Van will take passengers wherever they request, ranging from the senior center to the market to medical appointments or the university.
4) How much would your project cost?
Through this project, Southeast Senior Services wishes to purchase a vehicle valued at $61,000.
5) These projects require a 20% match. Is your agency willing to provide the cash match to buy the vehicle?
Through a formal resolution, our Board of Directors has already authorized 20% of its own fund balance money to guarantee the required cash match.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 485 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
COMMUNITY RIDE JUNEAU’S COORDINATED COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ( SFY CAPITAL GRANT PROJECT MINI-APPLICATION
Community __JUNEAU Requesting Agency: __CENTER FOR COMMUNITY__
Contract Person:___CONNIE J. SIPE______Phone:__907-747-6960___
Email:[email protected]______
TITLE OF PROJECT:
_Small sedan for employee-escorted travel of homebound clients to medical and shopping (clients mostly elderly or adults with severe physical disabilities)_____
(The “use” of the vehicle, type of vehicle, or type of “purchased services” your agency needs from the Transit System--either fixed route, paratransit, or “special”--you define)
1) Can the Juneau Public Transit or Care A Van, the established transit service, in the community currently meet the needs of the applying agency's project? If not, explain why not. (like our schedules don’t work, the rides need to be client specific, etc. ) No, because the time restrictions on the paid employee care providers who must escort these clients will not allow the employee and client to use either regular transit nor Care A Van services. The payor sources (Medicaid, in home services grants, or private pay of limited income clients) will only allow (or can only afford) very direct, one-client at a time, direct point-to- point transportation to and from the medical appointments or shopping errands. The restrictions can not tolerate even the waiting times at a store for a taxi to respond to a dispatch call, as most payor sources restrict the weekly or bi- weekly shopping trip to one hour in a town like Juneau--which includes travel round trip. This vehicle would also be used by paid employee care providers to clients to travel between the homes of clients, or to perform errands for clients who do not accompany the employee, when the payor source will not allow or pay for the time that it would take for the employee care provider to walk, bike, or take public transit. Center for Community, like most service provider agencies, has been forced because of insurance and liability problems to forbid employee care providers from using their own cars to transport a client. Insurance concerns are also pressing the agency
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 486 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN employer to forbid use of privately owned vehicles even to run errands when the client is not in the car, and of course, employer care providers are reluctant to drive their own cars for these errands because of both high fuel costs and the liability exposure (by the law of vehicle insurance, the insurance of the owner of the auto is the first responsible party in case of an accident, and Center for Community--the employer--cannot legally assume anything more than secondary liability on the employee’s auto.)
2) Does the Requesting Agency serve persons with disabilities? Beneficiaries of the Alaska Mental Health Trust? (AMHT = dementias, TBI, persons with developmental disabilities, persons with mental illness) Please describe clients, approximate numbers served per year. Yes, the Requesting Agency serves 100% persons--clients-- with disabilities. All clients are either housebound or only able to go out with physical assistance or with cognitive supervision. This vehicle would be used to serve approximately 20 clients at a time, many of them on an ongoing weekly basis, perhaps several times a week for some clients. Over a year, the agency would use the vehicle to serve a total of about 40 clients. Of these clients, 2 are persons with developmental disabilities, about 8 would be persons with ADRD, 1 or 2 would be persons with TBI, and 2 to 4 would be persons suffering physical disability as the result of chronic alcoholism.
Juneau Care A Van drivers are currently providing pick-up and delivery of Rx orders for many housebound seniors/ adults in Juneau. Some of the clients covered by this project are included in the group that Care A Van has been serving. We understand that Care A Van’s capacity to meet this Rx need has been causing great strain on their primary transportation services. Center for Community pledges to use this vehicle and our paid employees to try to coordinate Rx pick up and deliveries while performing the same task for a paid client that lives near other, non-paying clients (such as residents of the same apartment building).
3) Describe these clients’ specific social service, treatment, or medical and transportation needs to be addressed by this request. These clients, mostly senior citizens, but also many adults with degenerative or chronic crippling illnesses, must rely on paid agency employee caregivers to do their various shopping errands, and to escort them to various medical appointments. Especially as to shopping errands, these clients do not get to experience going out to make their own selections, because the payor time limits on the paid caregivers are so strict that the employee care provider and her client cannot get to the store and back in the time limits if they must use public transportation of any kind.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 487 CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU – TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5) How much would your project cost? What type of vehicle do you wish to purchase and would it be used or new? If you want “purchased services” please estimate the numbers of hours of service per week or month that clients would be using transportation services. Center for Community’s project would cost about $30,000, to purchase a new, fuel efficient, hybrid sedan, such as a hybrid from Toyota or Honda. CFC would provide all fuel, tires, and maintenance.
6) These projects require a 20% match. If buying a vehicle, your agency pays the 20% of total purchase & shipping price and that 20% becomes your “lease” price for leasing the vehicle to use. Is your agency willing to provide the cash match to buy the vehicle? Yes, the Board of Center for Community has set aside the 20% match for this project from reserves already in hand.
7) If your project is “purchase of services” is your agency willing to donate toward the 20% of required local match funds? Is there a source of revenue to which the cost of rides by the clients can be charged, as a way for Transit to use “earned income” as all or part of the required “match”? Not applicable.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES PAGE 488