CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE STUDY CRAIG COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PREPARED BY RHODESIDE & HARWELL, INCORPORATED AND FOURSQUARE INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
JANUARY 18, 2012
ADOPTED APRIL 5, 2012
PHOTO CREDITS: MONROE HEALTH CENTER, 2011 MAJOR VEHICLES, 2011 RHODESIDE & HARWELL, 2011 1
MILLIE HARRISON, CHAIRMAN FRED CRAFT, VICE CHAIRMAN NEW CASTLE DISTRICT CRAIG CITY DISTRICT
CARL BAILEY, MEMBER MARTHA MURPHY, MEMBER POTTS MOUNTAIN DISTRICT SIMMONSVILLE DISTRICT
KEITH DUNBAR, MEMBER RICHARD C. FLORA CRAIG CREEK DISTRICT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
COUNTY OF CRAIG P.O. Box 308 New Castle, Virginia 24127 540-864-5010 Phone 540-864-5590 Fax R12-36
A Resolution Accepting and Approving Final Draft of CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE STUDY
WHEREAS, Craig County residents have expressed a need for adequate transportation for seniors, the disabled and those without reliable access to private motor vehicles in Craig County, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors applied for and received approval of a Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), Technical Assistance grant, and appointed a Feasibility Study Steering Committee made up of regional public transportation stakeholders to engage in the study process, and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) committed time in its FY2011 Rural Transportation Work Program to assist the County and DRPT in the study process, and
WHEREAS, the RVARC and the County of Craig requested that DRPT use its departmental on-call consultants to complete the study and that study is completed and has been presented to the Board of Supervisors of Craig County, now
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Craig County that the final draft of the Craig County Transit Service Study dated January 18, 2012 and submitted to the Board this day, by the RVARC be accepted and approved.
The Board of Supervisors of Craig County, in a regular meeting on 5th day of April 2012, adopted this Resolution.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1.0 Existing Conditions Analysis ...... 1 1.1 Population and Employment Centers ...... 1 1.2 Traffic Generators in Craig County ...... 4 1.3 Primary Destinations Outside of Craig County ...... 5 1.4 Travel Patterns ...... 6 1.5 Existing Transit Services ...... 7 1.6 Existing and Future Land Uses ...... 8 2.0 Craig County Precedent Research ...... 12 2.1 Peer Selection Process ...... 12 2.2 Service Area Characteristics of Selected Peers ...... 12 2.3 Transit Service Characteristics of Selected Peers ...... 16 2.4 Peer System Descriptions ...... 17 2.4.1 Graham County Transit, Graham County, North Carolina ...... 17 2.4.2 Swain Public Transit, Swain County, North Carolina ...... 20 2.4.3 Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency (UCRHA), Cookeville, Tennessee ...... 22 2.4.4 Rockbridge Area Transportation Systems, Lexington, VA...... 27 3.0 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight ...... 29 3.1 Service Concepts ...... 29 3.1.1 Out‐of‐County Bus Service to Salem and Roanoke ...... 29 3.1.2 Intra‐County Weekly Zone‐Based Limited Demand‐Response Service ...... 32 3.1.3 Enhanced Ridesharing ...... 33 3.2 Oversight and Coordination ...... 38 3.2.1 Mobility Manager ...... 38 3.2.2 Local Transit Commission ...... 40 4.0 Potential Service Providers ...... 41 4.1 Provider Descriptions ...... 41 4.1.1 RADAR ...... 41 4.1.2 Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission’s RIDE Solutions ...... 42 4.1.3 Valley Metro ...... 42
Craig County Transit Service Study i April 2012 Table of Contents
4.1.4 Local Office of Aging ...... 42 4.1.5 LogistiCare ...... 42 4.1.6 Craig County Health Center ...... 43 4.1.7 Craig County Department of Social Services ...... 43 4.2 Transit Provider Models ...... 43 4.2.1 Professional Contractor ...... 43 4.2.2 Community Management ...... 43 5.0 Funding Sources and Service Costs ...... 45 5.1 Funding Sources ...... 45 5.1.1 Federal Funding Sources ...... 45 5.1.2 State Funding Sources ...... 46 5.1.3 Regional Collaboration ...... 48 5.2 Transit Service Concept Costs ...... 49 5.2.1 Professional Contractor Operations Costs ...... 49 5.2.2 Community Management Operations Costs...... 49 5.2.3 Total Cost: Basic Contractor Service ...... 50 5.2.4 Total Cost: Expanded Contractor Service...... 51 5.3 Local Match Requirement ...... 52 6.0 Implementation Plan and Timeline ...... 54 6.1 Implementation Plan ...... 54 6.1.1 Establish Transportation Commission ...... 54 6.1.2 Coordinate with the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission ...... 54 6.1.3 Public Involvement and Final Service Determination ...... 55 6.1.4 Park and Ride Identification ...... 56 6.1.5 Grants Application Process ...... 56 6.1.6 Request for Proposals Process ...... 58 6.2 Implementation Timeline and Responsibilities ...... 59
Appendices Appendix A: Existing Service and Route Maps (Valley Metro, Mountain Express, and Smart Way) Appendix B: Potential Craig County Transit Service Peers Appendix C: Potential Out‐of‐County Service Schedule Appendix D: Public Meeting and Transportation Survey Materials
Craig County Transit Service Study ii April 2012 CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE STUDY Executive Summary
According to the 2010 US Census, Craig County has a population of 5,190. There are two significant population centers within Craig County: the Town of New Castle area and Paint Bank. The County’s land use is entirely rural in nature, with 80 percent of the land designated National Forest or zoned for agricultural uses. Since 1970, the County’s population has steadily increased at rates of 11 to 16 percent per decade; however, population growth in the last ten years was less POPULATION OF CRAIG COUNTY 1900 - 2010 than two percent. According to local officials, employment rates are low, but 6,000 underemployment is a common 5,000 problem for residents. Thirty‐three 4,000 3,000
percent of the County’s workforce 5,190 5,091
2,000 4,711 4,372 4,293 4,100 3,948 3,769 3,562 3,524 3,452 travels over 45 minutes to get to work, 1,000 3,356 and the County’s median household 0 income is approximately $45,000, compared with $59,000 statewide (US Census Bureau 2009 and Census 2010).
Craig County Transit Needs Adequate transportation for seniors, the disabled and those without reliable access to a private motor vehicle is a common challenge in rural America. Craig County is no different, as public transportation service is currently unavailable. Many residents struggle to access essential medical services and basic shopping opportunities. Approximately one quarter of the County’s population is age 60 and older, compared with 18 percent nationwide. Additionally, over 100 households in the county lack a personal vehicle, and even more must share a vehicle or cannot depend on its use. As residents age in place, and economic opportunities remain limited, the demand for public transportation will likely increase.
In addition to accessing basic services, the County’s social services office indicated that a challenge for many residents who receive social services is adequate transportation to employment opportunities. Additionally, local officials estimate that approximately 80 percent of Craig’s working population commutes outside the County. These facts, coupled with the fact that many Craig County residents have shift‐based or set work schedules, suggest strong commuter transit opportunities.
TRANSIT SERVICE STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
PROJECT GOALS PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1. Provide accessibility to essential medical 1. Provide service at a low cost to the consumer. services and shopping both within and outside Craig County. 2. Use a cost effecitve approach for Craig County and any involved service providers. 2. Provide commute options for Craig Couty residents. 3. Design a service that is both convenient and simple to understand.
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐1 Adopted April 2012 Peer Review An initial task for the Transit Feasibility Study was to conduct a peer review to determine what type of transit services might be most appropriate for the County. Seventeen potential peer transit systems were selected from rural regions of Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee, based primarily on the similarity of their population density to Craig County’s (16 people per square mile). The four most applicable examples were studied and documented in detail, including transit service type, schedules, characteristics (ridership, revenue miles, etc.), operating budgets, funding sources, and operators. Graham County Transit and Swain Public Transit in North Carolina operate in service areas with very low population per square mile and in a mountainous region similar to Craig. Rockbridge Area Transit Authority (RATS) is an example within Virginia. Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency (UCHRA) operates rural transit, including a vanpool service, in 14 counties in Tennessee. The information from these peer reviews served UCHRA “UCARTS” Transportation Service to guide the recommendations in this study. Vehicles
Transit Service Concepts
Interviews with Craig County stakeholders indicated that PRIMARY DESTINATIONS FOR access to medical facilities, community services such as POTENTIAL RIDERS grocery stores and pharmacies, and commuter assistance are assistance are the major areas of unmet transportation City of Covington need, especially for the elderly and disabled, in Craig • MeadWestvaco County. Three types of service for Craig County are proposed to meet these needs in a streamlined and City of Salem cost‐effective manner: • Salem VA Medical Center 1. Out‐of‐County service to Salem and Roanoke; • Lewis Gale Medical Center 2. Intra‐County, zone‐based limited demand response • Yokohama Tire Corporation service; and • Walmart 3. Enhanced Ridesharing service. City of Roanoke Recognizing the critical importance of local guidance and transit expertise in establishing and maintaining a successful • Norfolk Southern transit system, this study also proposes: • Valley View and Tanglewood Malls • Roanoke Memorial Hospital 1. A volunteer Transportation Commission for the • Virginia Medical Center County; and 2. A Mobility Manager serving Craig County and other Roanoke County rural areas in the Roanoke Valley. • Catawba Hospital
Craig County
• County Public Schools • Mick or Mack and Family Dollar • Health and Dental Centers • Paint Bank General Store
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐2 Adopted April 2012 Out‐of‐County Service An Out‐of‐County service is proposed to provide access to medical and basic services in Salem and Roanoke, in a cost effective manner. This bus service would operate once a week at the start of service, with the potential for additional days of service, should future demand and funding support it. The initial Out‐of‐County service route would make the following stops: NEW CASTLE: Park and Ride
SALEM: National College; Walmart Superstore; VA Medical Center; Lewis Gale Medical Center
ROANOKE: Tanglewood Mall; Virginia Western Community College; Roanoke Memorial Hospital
OUT-OF-COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE CONCEPT
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐3 Adopted April 2012 Intra‐County Service Transportation needs also exist within Craig County to New Castle, where many of the County’s basic services are located. A zone‐based Intra‐County transportation service is proposed three days per week, during which each of the three proposed zones would be served on one specified day of the week. The three proposed zones are:
1. North County Zone: North of the Town of New Castle, including Route 609, Route 611, Route 615, Route 617
2. Route 311 Zone: Town of New Castle North to the Craig County High School, Paint Bank to the Roanoke County line along Route 311, Route 621 South to the County line
3. South County Zone: South of the Town of New Castle, including Route 658, Route 632, State Route 624, Route 42
INTRA-COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICE ZONES
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐4 Adopted April 2012 Enhanced Ridesharing Ridesharing is the practice of individuals with similar trip origins and destinations sharing rides (e.g., carpooling and vanpooling), and provides an economical mode of transportation for commute‐based and other trips. The enhanced ridesharing recommendation for Craig County is to work more closely with the Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional Commission’s RIDE Solutions staff to provide more information and opportunities for carpooling and vanpooling between Craig County and other parts of the region. Eventually, this may include Craig County participation in a new regional public vanpool program. Enhanced ridesharing in Craig County would require establishing park and ride locations in the County, since it currently does not have any designated park and rides within its boundaries.
Craig County Courthouse Parking Lot, Adjacent to Potential Church on Route 311 with an Empty Parking Lot on a Weekday Park‐and‐Ride
Transportation Commission and Mobility Manager An all‐volunteer Transportation Commission is recommended for Craig County. This Commission would be comprised of a variety of community stakeholders, elected officials, local organizations and citizen representatives who would receive periodic information on the performance of the transit service, work with the transit provider to improve service, and help disseminate information about the service.
The Mobility Manager would serve as the local point of contact for individuals needing assistance, as well as oversee and manage day‐to‐day transit operations. This person would work closely with the Transportation Commission and have a strong presence in the community. This study recommends that the Mobility Manager be housed at the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission and provide service to other rural counties, in addition to Craig.
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐5 Adopted April 2012 Transit Providers and Cost Based on the potential service providers CONTRACTOR OPERATING COSTS available, the County could either contract with a third‐party provider of human service $15,563 Route 311 Corridor transportation for a professionally‐managed transportation program, or work with a group $11,177 North County Zone of local organizations to provide a community‐based service operated by $14,441 South County Zone volunteers and managed by a Mobility Manager. Selecting an established contractor to operate the Craig County service would be costly, but would require the least amount of labor, as the County would essentially pay for the service and provide oversight. This option would require a Mobility Manager, but to a lesser extent than if the program was locally‐operated. If funding is available, the preference would be to select a contractor, as they have the experience and resources needed to provide human service transportation. Initial cost estimates for the annual operation of the Out‐of‐County and Intra‐County services is expected to be just over $60,000. Additional costs would include purchasing a new, 20‐passenger, lift‐equipped bus at approximately $62,000.
A locally‐operated service would have an annual cost of approximately $16,000, which is significantly less than the contractor example because the service would be operated much differently. It is assumed that the locally‐operated program would utilize local LOCALLY-OPERATED PROGRAM volunteers as drivers and potentially as transit OPERATING COSTS schedulers (if not existing staff or a Mobility Manager, pending available funds); therefore, labor Marketing costs are not included in this scenario. Additionally, Gas a less‐costly 12‐passenger van at approximately Contingency $40,000 would not require a Commercial Driver’s License to operate and could therefore more easily Insurance be operated by volunteer drivers. Regardless of Maintenance operating structure, funding for marketing and contingency has been assumed for the outset of the program.
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐6 Adopted April 2012 Funding Sources Transit services can be funded through a combination of federal grants, state aid grants and local match funding. Craig County stakeholders will need to assess the funding sources for transportation currently available from various organizational and community resources. These include, but are not limited to, social service agencies and organizations serving the elderly and disabled, as well as other community non‐profits in the region that could contribute to the local match requirement.
RELEVANT FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION GRANTS Federal Grant Purpose Matching Ratios (Federal/Local Funding) FTA Section 5310 – Supports the purchase of vehicles and Federal 80%/Local 20% split of eligible For Elderly Persons and equipment that provide service for the expenditures. Persons with Disabilities elderly and the disabled.
FTA Section 5311 – Provides funding to States for the purpose Operating: For Rural Areas of supporting public transportation in 50%/50% split of eligible expenses. rural areas with population of less than 50,000. Capital: Federal 80%/Local 20% split of eligible expenditures. FTA Section 5316 ‐ Supports the operating and capital costs Operating: Jobs Access and Reverse of special programs designed to connect 50%/50% split of eligible expenses. Commute Program unemployed people to jobs. Capital: Federal 80%/Local 20% split of eligible expenditures.
FTA Section 5317‐ Supports capital and operating costs of Operating: New Freedom Program new public transportation services and 50%/50% split of eligible expenses. new public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans Capital: with Disabilities Act of 1990. Federal 80%/Local 20% split of eligible expenditures (including a mobility manager).
DRPT typically provides a portion of the capital local match. Recently it has provided 17.5%, but this amount can vary.
The Commonwealth of Virginia provides a number of grants to local transit operators that Craig County could apply for and use to fund local transit service. The Commonwealth offers state aid grant awards for operating and capital assistance that provide a portion of the local match requirement for accessing FTA grant funding. Operating assistance is determined based on a formula of the total amount of funding that a transit provider was approved to receive from federal grants, and the total amount of funds available for operating assistance from the state in that given year. Typically, for 5311 the state’s operating assistance provided amounts to approximately 15 percent of the 50 percent required local match. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation also offers grants for demonstration projects, transportation demand management, and senior transportation.
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐7 Adopted April 2012 Implementation Implementing the proposed transit service will be a multi‐step process that will require an investment of the time and expertise of Craig County staff, Regional Commission staff, and Craig elected officials and residents over the next two years. The following chart outlines the key tasks, dates, and responsibilities for establishing the service.
TRANSIT SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Task Completion Date Primary Responsibility January – February 2012 Public Meeting January 9 Consultant Inform about Transit Study 6:30 ‐ 7:30 p.m. Kickoff transit survey County Courtroom Request volunteers for the transportation commission Distribute, collect, and tally surveys January Craig County Establish a County Transportation Commission January Craig County County staff and RIDE Solutions meeting January Craig County Prepare application for 5317 funds for Mobility January (prepare) Regional Commission Manager February (due) County Board of Supervisors votes on Transit Service March 1 Craig County Study endorsement May ‐ September 2012 DRPT Grant Application Decision for Mobility Manager May Regional Commission Funding Advertise for Mobility Manager Position June Regional Commission Hire Mobility Manager August Regional Commission Initiate outreach to private employers of Craig County September Craig County* residents regarding a Vanpool program January – June 2013 Prepare DRPT grant application: January (prepare) Craig County* Out‐of‐county and intra‐county service operations February 1 (due) Technical assistance for a vanpools program implementation study DRPT grant application decisions May Craig County* Issue an RFPs June Craig County* Out‐of‐county and/or intra‐county service provider Contractor to conduct a vanpool program implementation study Summer 2013 – Winter 2014 Select service provider and contractor Fall Craig County* Start Craig County Public Transit Service Winter 2013‐2014 Craig County* *With support from the selected Mobility Manger
Craig County Transit Service Study ES‐8 Adopted April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
1.0 Existing Conditions Analysis
1.1 Population and Employment Centers The 2010 U.S. Census indicates that Craig County has a population of 5,190, and a total of 2,170 households, of which approximately 1,504 are families. According to the Census, each household contains an average of 2.37 residents, and each family consists of approximately 2.86 people. The Census also indicates that, overall, there is an average density of approximately 16 people per square mile in the County. Craig County is part of the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area. County stakeholders identified the two major population centers within the County as the New Castle area, which accounts for approximately 40 percent of the County’s population, and Paint Bank, which accounts for a few hundred residents (Figure 1.1). The remaining population resides in the outlying 330 square miles of the County. In general, the County’s population is aging, and approximately 25 percent are 60 years of age or older (Table 1.1). Additionally, 99 percent of residents in the County are white (Table 1.2).
Table 1.1: Age Distribution and Average Household Size in Craig County Median Age 21+ years (%) 60+ years (%) 70+ years (%) Average Household Size 45 75% 25% 11% 2.37 Source: Census 2010
Table 2.2: Race in Craig County White American Black or Asian Native Hawaiian and Some Two or Indian African Other Pacific Islander other race more races American 99% 0.2% 0.1% 0% 0 % 0% 1%
Source: Census 2010
Figure 1.1: Craig County 2010 Population by Block Source: Census 2010
Craig County Transit Service Study 1 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
According to County stakeholders, several Craig County residents are Medicaid recipients. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Estimates Branch estimated that in 2009, the median household income in Craig County was approximately $45,125, and that the incomes of approximately nine percent of the County’s households were below the poverty level (Table 1.3). The U.S. Census Bureau poverty status is determined by comparing annual income to a set of dollar values called poverty thresholds that vary by family size, number of children, and age of householder. If a family’s income before taxes is less than the dollar value of their threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered to be in poverty. For people not living in families, poverty status is determined by comparing the individual’s income to his or her poverty threshold. The poverty thresholds are updated annually to allow for changes in the cost of living using the Consumer Price Index. They do not vary geographically.
Table 1.3: Median Income and Poverty Level in Craig County Median Household Income Income Below the Poverty Level $45,125 9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009
According to the local social services office, a challenge for many Craig County social services recipients is adequate transportation to employment opportunities. Per the region’s 2008 Coordinated Human Services Mobility Plan, over 100 households in West Craig County (west of Route 311) are without automobiles, creating a high percentage of residents without transportation options. Additional reasons for inadequate auto transportation, cited by County stakeholders, include the age, health status and income of County residents, as well as general unreliability of personal vehicles. According to data from the American Community Survey (2005‐2009), the majority of Craig County residents drive to work alone, and over half of all households in the County have access to three or more vehicles (Tables 1.4 and 1.5). Table 1.4: Means of Transportation to Work in Craig County Public Taxicab, Motorcycle, Drove Alone Rideshare Walked Worked at home Transportation Bicycle or Other 81% 13% 0% 1% 0% 5% Source: ACS 2005‐2009
Table 1.5: Household Vehicle Availability in Craig County No Vehicles Available 1 Vehicle Available 2 Vehicles Available 3+ Vehicles Available 0% 17% 27% 56% Source: ACS 2005‐2009
The Virginia Employment Commission, citing information from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) Unit and Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicates that the total civilian labor force in Craig County in July 2011 was 2,520. Of the County’s July 2011 civilian labor force, approximately 2,310 residents were employed and approximately 210 residents were unemployed. The unemployment rate in Craig County in July 2011 was 8.3 percent. According to County officials, the County as a whole does not suffer from high unemployment, but instead suffers from high underemployment. County officials also note that employment rates have remained consistent over the last few years and have not followed national patterns.
Craig County Transit Service Study 2 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
According to the Virginia Labor Market Indicators, the largest employer in Craig County is the public school system, which serves approximately 720 elementary, middle and high school students (Table 1.6). According to County stakeholders, the leading employers in Craig County are the electric co‐op, Craig‐Botetourt Electric Cooperative (Rural Electric), and the local grocery store, Mick or Mack IGA. County stakeholders identified major employers located outside of Craig County as Norfolk Southern, Virginia Tech, Yokohama Tire Corporation, Lewis Gale Medical Center, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Catawba Hospital, and local banks.
Table 1.6: Top 10 Employers in Craig County – 4th Quarter 2010Rank Rank Employer Size Class 1 Craig County Public School Board 100 to 249 employees 2 County of Craig 50 to 99 employees 3 Mick or Mack IGA 20 to 49 employees 4 Paint Bank General Store 20 to 49 employees 5 Craig Botetourt Electric Co‐operative, Inc. 20 to 49 employees 6 Rwc Enterprises Inc 20 to 49 employees 7 Innovative Community Solutions 20 to 49 employees 8 The Farmer's and Merchant's Bank 20 to 49 employees 9 Castle Sands Company 10 to 19 employees 10 Wilderness Adventure at Eagle Landing 10 to 19 employees Source: Virginia Labor Market Indicators
According to County officials, approximately 80 percent of employed Craig County residents travel outside the County to their jobs. The majority of these individuals travel to Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke for employment, while a much smaller percentage of residents travel to Covington, Blacksburg and Giles County. The American Community Survey (2005‐2009) estimates that the majority of Craig County residents travel for a period of 30 to 44 minutes, one‐way, to employment (Table 1.7). According to County staff, the variety of professions of County residents generates traffic patterns that generally coincide with shift work and weekday business hours. As a result, peak travel times occur from 6:00 AM to 8:00 AM and from 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM (Table 1.8).
Table 1.7: Travel Time to Work in Craig County 0‐15 minutes 15‐29 minutes 30‐44 minutes 45‐59 minutes 60‐89 minutes 90+ minutes 11% 19% 37% 22% 5% 6% Source: ACS 2005‐2009
Craig County Transit Service Study 3 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
Table 1.8: Time Leaving Home to Go to Work for Workers 16+ Years Who Did Not Work at Home Population Time Estimate 12:00 a.m. to 4:59 a.m. 27 5:00 a.m. to 5:29 a.m. 203 5:30 a.m. to 5:59 a.m. 120 6:00 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. 544 6:30 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. 279 7:00 a.m. to 7:29 a.m. 259 7:30 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. 291 8:00 a.m. to 8:29 a.m. 185 8:30 a.m. to 8:59 a.m. 130 9:00 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. 87 10:00 a.m. to 10:59 a.m. 4 11:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. 14 12:00 p.m. to 3:59 p.m. 238 4:00 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. 84 Total 2,465 Source: ACS 2005‐2009
1.2 Traffic Generators in Craig County
Major traffic generators in New Castle, as identified by County stakeholders, include: The County’s public schools (McCleary Elementary School and Craig County High School‐Middle School) The County’s Health and Dental Centers Mick or Mack IGA Rural Electric Family Dollar New Castle Commons
Major traffic generators within Craig County, but not in New Castle, as identified by County stakeholders, include: Paint Bank Castle Sands (industrial site approximately three miles east of New Castle)
Black Diamond Ranch, located near the intersection of Route 658 and 632, is a relatively new residential development in the County. This community was identified by County leaders as a traffic generator, due to the frequency of part‐time residents who travel to the area for football games and seasonal vacations. Additional tourist traffic generators, identified by County stakeholders, include the Jefferson National Forest, annual bike races and seasonal hunting activities.
Craig County Transit Service Study 4 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
1.3 Primary Destinations Outside of Craig County
Major destinations outside of Craig County, as identified by County stakeholders, include the following: (Note: Primary destinations shown in bold.)
City of Covington MeadWestvaco
City of Salem Salem VA Medical Center Lewis Gale Medical Center Yokohama Tire Corporation Walmart Snyder Nursing Home and Richfield Retirement Community National College‐Salem
City of Roanoke Norfolk Southern Valley View Mall Roanoke Memorial Hospital VA Medical Center Roanoke Regional Airport Patrick Henry Governor’s School Colleges and universities (Western Virginia Community College, ECPI, Jefferson College, Virginia Western University and Hollins University) Nursing/Assisted Living Homes (Brandon Oaks, Our Lady of the Valley, South Roanoke, Pleasant Ridge)
Roanoke County Catawba Hospital
Town of Blacksburg Virginia Tech
Giles County Carilion Giles Memorial Hospital (Pearisburg) Manufacturing Employers (Celanese Acetate LLC, Chemical Lime Co., Bucyrus)
The physical location of these destinations in relation to Craig County is shown in Figure 1.2.
Craig County Transit Service Study 5 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
Figure 1.2: Craig County Location Map
1.4 Travel Patterns
According to County leaders and stakeholders, Craig County residents living closest to the Giles County line, including Simmonsville, John’s Creek and Dick’s Creek residents, commute southwest to jobs in Blacksburg (Virginia Tech) and Giles County. As identified by County stakeholders, the peak travel times for commuters to Blacksburg are 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. The primary Craig County roadways used for Blacksburg and Giles County commutes are Routes 621, 42, and 658.
County stakeholders identified residents living closer to the northern part of the County as generally commuting southeast to jobs in Roanoke. County staff estimate that 75 percent of the County’s outgoing weekday traffic travels to Roanoke, which places the majority of the weekday traffic burden on Route 311.
As identified by County stakeholders, weekday travel along Route 311 to Roanoke begins at approximately 6:00 AM, and weekday travel along Route 311 to New Castle begins at approximately 4:00 PM. Off‐peak trips taken by County residents typically include health‐ and shopping‐related destinations, predominantly located in the cities of Salem and Roanoke.
Craig County Transit Service Study 6 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
1.5 Existing Transit Services
Valley Metro is the public transportation provider for the Roanoke Valley area and offers fixed‐route service, specialized transportation for the disabled and special event shuttles. Valley Metro also provides commuter bus service between Roanoke and the New River Valley area, via the Smart Way Bus. A Smart Way Bus stop is located approximately ten miles from the Craig County line. Valley Metro does not offer vanpool service. Service area maps for Valley Metro and Smart Way are located in Appendix A.
RADAR is a non‐profit corporation that provides rural public transit services and specialized transit primarily in the "Greater Roanoke Valley.” RADAR provides transit service for physically‐disabled, mentally‐ disabled‐, or transportation‐disadvantaged individuals. RADAR is an independent transit service, but it is contracted by Valley Metro to provide paratransit services. RADAR operates the CORTRAN transit service to qualified, Roanoke County residents who are 60+ years old, or are ADA Paratransit Eligible. RADAR also operates the STAR (Specialized Transit – Arranged Rides) demand‐response transit service of the Valley Metro. STAR provides transportation to qualified, disabled individuals who are unable to ride a Valley Metro bus. STAR serves the entire City of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton, and the City of Salem, within 0.75 mile of either side of a Valley Metro fixed route. To qualify for STAR service, individuals must complete and submit an application to Valley Metro. Additionally, RADAR operates the Mountain Express service, which provides deviated fixed‐route service to the citizens of Clifton Forge, Iron Gate and Covington, Virginia. This service attracts approximately 1,500 riders per month. A service area map for Mountain Express is located in Appendix A.
RIDE Solutions is a regional ridesharing program operated by the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission in cooperation with the New River Valley Planning District Commission. It is a grant‐funded program that provides free carpool matching services for citizens of the Roanoke and New River Valley regions and surrounding areas within southwestern Virginia. RIDE Solutions works with individuals to facilitate one‐on‐one carpool matches, and with employers to create company‐wide alternative transportation programs. Craig County is currently served by RIDE Solutions, and is considered part of the Botetourt/Alleghany/Craig subzone of the RIDE Solutions service area.
LogistiCare provides contracted transit services to Medicaid and Medicare populations in Craig County, commercial and senior members, special‐needs students and ADA paratransit riders. LogistiCare requires that riders make appointments, but the service cannot generally commit to a specific time, which makes it difficult for riders to keep medical appointments. This service has a reputation among some Craig County residents for being unreliable.
Other, private transit options include Virginia Tech, which operates a vanpool program for its employees, and the Salem VA Medical Center, which offers a free handicap‐accessible shuttle van to veterans, visitors, and staff.
Formal Park & Ride areas include Hanging Rock, located at Exit 140 off of I‐81, and Falling Branch, located at Exit 118 off of I‐81. Additionally, County residents utilize local convenience stores and other familiar locations as informal Park & Ride areas.
Craig County Transit Service Study 7 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
1.6 Existing and Future Land Uses
Craig County is a rural community, rich in forest and agricultural resources. Over 50 percent of the County is US Forest Service property and 80 percent of the County is zoned agricultural. While the County’s population grew significantly (12‐16 percent per decade) between 1970 and 2000, population growth between 2000 and 2010 increased less than two percent. As a result, land uses over the past decade have remained relatively consistent. As of the 2010 Census, the population is 5,190. A summary of the County’s population between 1900 and 2010 is presented in Table 1.9.
Table 1.9: Population Change 1900 ‐ 2010 Year Population Change % 1900 4,293 ‐ 1910 4,711 13.0 1920 4,100 ‐9.7 1930 3,562 ‐13.1 1940 3,769 5.8 1950 3,452 ‐8.4 1960 3,356 ‐2.8 1970 3,524 5.0 1980 3,948 12.0 1990 4,372 10.7 2000 5,091 16.4 2010 5,190 1.9 Sources: Craig County Comprehensive Plan (2002) and U.S. Census Bureau (2010)
Craig County’s residential core, home to 40 percent of the population, is located in the New Castle area. Future land use plans, as presented in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, indicate that New Castle and its immediate surroundings serve as the Multi‐Purpose Growth Area (MPGA). The intent is to cluster residential, commercial, and industrial development in the MPGA, therefore protecting the rest of the county for agriculture, forestry, conservation, and very low density development.
Figure 1.3 presents the Recommended Future Land Use Map from the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Figure 1.4 presents the draft Future Land Use Map currently under consideration as part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan update. Land Uses in Figure 1.4 are similar to those in Figure 1.3; however, the MPGA is extended along the length of Route 311 between the Town of New Castle and Catawba. Route 311 serves as the primary roadway connecting New Castle and the major employment and shopping destinations in the City of Salem and the City of Roanoke. The Draft Future Land Use Map (Figure 1.4) also shows a small MPGA around Paint Bank, in northwest Craig County, and an industrial area northeast of New Castle. As shown in Figure 1.5, the County’s zoning is consistent with its future land use plans (Figure 1.4).
Craig County Transit Service Study 8 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
Figure 1.3: Future Land Use Map from 2002 Comprehensive Plan
Craig County Transit Service Study 9 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
Figure 1.4 Draft Future Land Use Map (under consideration by the County Planning Commission)
Craig County Transit Service Study 10 April 2012 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions Analysis
Figure 1.5: Zoning Map
Note: This zoning map has been adopted by the Craig County Board of Supervisors. A version without the “draft” label is not readily available.
Craig County Transit Service Study 11 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
2.0 Craig County Precedent Research
2.1 Peer Selection Process As Craig County does not currently operate transit service, peers were selected on the basis of similarity of their service area and the potential applicability of the service provided in those areas to Craig County. An initial list of potential peer programs was created based on two factors:
Service area similarity in land use, population density and terrain to Craig County; and Best practice examples of rural transit service.
Using the American Public Transportation Association’s list of transit agencies by state and 2010 Census data for county‐level population, fifteen potential peers roughly similar in population size in the mountainous rural areas of Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee were selected. In addition, suggestions for potential rural transit best practice programs from across the nation were solicited from staff at Rural Planning Organizations of America’s Rural Transportation program, the Community Transportation Association of America, and other rural transportation program managers. This outreach yielded two more potential peers for Craig County. In total, 17 potential peers were evaluated for inclusion in the Craig County Peer Review (Appendix B).
The 17 selected potential peers were evaluated primarily on their comparability to Craig County in terms of population density (population per square mile). Many of the potential peers operated in service areas with a population density far higher than the 16 people per square mile found in Craig County. Few counties with a population under 10,000 were found to operate transit service; no county with a population per square mile of under 20 was found that operated its own transit service, although counties with low densities are sometimes served by demand responsive transit service.
2.2 Service Area Characteristics of Selected Peers The transit programs selected for inclusion in this peer review are listed below in Table 2.1. Two of the programs selected, Graham County Transit and Swain Public Transit, operate in service areas with a very low population per square mile, and in a mountainous rural region of North Carolina similar to Craig. Rockbridge Area Transit Authority (RATS) was included because while it operates in a rural area that is more populous and more densely developed than Craig, it is an example of a peer program within Virginia. Finally, the Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency (UCHRA) in Sparta, Tennessee operates transit service for 14 rural counties in Central Tennessee. Three of these counties have a population of fewer than 10,000, are located in mountainous rural regions, and have a population per square mile of 30 or less. UCHRA was the only potential peer found that operates a rural vanpool service, a type of service that Craig County is interested in exploring.
Craig County Transit Service Study 12 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Table 2.1: Craig County Selected Peer Agencies/Programs by Service Area Population Density
Agency/Program Population Land Area Population per (Census 2010) Square Mile (Square Miles)
Craig County (VA) 5,190 331 16
Graham County Transit (NC) 8,861 433 20
Rockbridge Area Transit Authority (VA) 35,000 600 58
Swain Public Transit (NC) 13,981 541 26
Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency (TN) 317,743 2,741 116
Clay County, TN 7,861 259 30
Pickett County, TN 4,945 175 28
Van Buren County, TN 5,508 275 20
The peer systems selected operate in service areas whose populations are very similar to Craig County across a number of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Importantly, the proportions of working age and older adults in Craig County, as shown in Table 2.2, is very close to those of the peer system communities.
Table 2.2: Age Distribution and Average Household (HH) Size County Median Over 21 years 60 years and 70 years and Average HH Age (%) over (%) over (%) Size
Craig County, VA 45 75% 25% 11% 2.37
Graham County, NC 44 75% 28% 13% 2.37
Swain County, NC 41 73% 23% 11% 2.42
Clay County, TN 45 76% 28% 13% 3.31
Pickett County, TN 47 78% 31% 15% 2.31
Van Buren County, TN 45 76% 25% 11% 2.43
Rockbridge County, VA 47 78% 29% 15% 2.32
Source: Census 2010
Craig County Transit Service Study 13 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Nearly all of the peer systems selected operate in communities that, like Craig County, have a long established resident population with little in‐migration, reflected in the racial compositions of these communities shown in Table 2.3. In Swain County, NC and to a lesser extent in neighboring Graham County, NC, there is a significant Native American population. Swain County, NC is home to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation.
Table 2.3: Peer System’s Community Race Characteristics County White American Black or Asian Hawaiian Some Two or Indian African & Pacific other more American Islander race races
Craig County, VA 99% 0.2% 0.1% 0% 0 % 0% 1%
Graham County, NC 90% 6% 0.2% 0.3% 1% 1% 2%
Swain County, NC 67% 27% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4%
Clay County, TN 97% 0.3% 1% 0.1% 1% 1% 1%
Pickett County, TN 98% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1% 1% 1%
Van Buren County, TN 98% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1%
Rockbridge County, VA 95% 1% 3% 1% 0.4% 0.4% 1%
Source: Census 2010
Table 2.4 compares median income and the percentage of households whose incomes fall below the federal poverty level. By these measures, Craig County and Rockbridge County, VA compare quite favorable. However, it should be noted that the federal poverty level is not always the best measure of economic distress. The federal poverty level is determined by income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. In 2010, the poverty level for a family of four with two parents and two adults was $22,113. This number is not adjusted for geographic region, even though there are large differences in the cost of living by region. The higher median income levels among the two Virginia jurisdictions, Craig County and Rockbridge County, may reflect a higher cost of living in Virginia when compared to North Carolina or Tennessee. In reality, the proportion of households experiencing economic difficulties in Craig County and Rockbridge County may be much higher than the number of households living below the federal poverty level.
Craig County Transit Service Study 14 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Table 2.4: Median Income and Residents with Income Below the Poverty Level County Median Income Income Below the Poverty Level
Craig County, VA $48,845 9%
Graham County, NC $27,786 21%
Swain County, NC $33,272 23%
Clay County, TN $32,134 19%
Pickett County, TN $24,757 22%
Van Buren County, TN $30,359 20%
Rockbridge County, VA $43,311 12%
Source: American Community Survey, 2005‐2009 Estimates
Seventy percent of Craig County’s working residents have commute times of 30 minutes or greater, by far the highest proportion of long‐travel time commuters among the peer system communities (Table 2.5). This may reflect the fact that nearly all of Craig’s working age population has to leave the county to access employment. Several of the peer systems communities also lack employment locations within their service areas (particularly Graham County, NC and Van Buren County, TN).
Table 2.5: Travel Time to Work County Under 15 15‐29 30‐44 45‐59 60‐89 90+ minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes
Craig County, VA 11% 19% 37% 22% 5% 6%
Graham County, NC 53% 25% 16% 4% 1% 1%
Swain County, NC 38% 48% 10% 2% 1% 1%
Clay County, TN 23% 27% 29% 11% 8% 1%
Pickett County, TN 37% 26% 13% 13% 7% 3%
Van Buren County, TN 32% 32% 25% 5% 1% 4%
Rockbridge County, VA 31% 43% 17% 5% 3% 1%
Source: American Community Survey, 2005‐2009 Estimates
The proportion of residents who drive alone to work in Craig County is quite similar to that of the peer system communities. Craig County has the largest proportion of residents currently carpooling to work,
Craig County Transit Service Study 15 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research perhaps in part because there is no public transportation service currently available in Craig County. This could also reflect the higher travel times in Craig County (Table 2.6).
Table 2.6: Means of Transportation to Work County Drove Carpool Public Walked Other1 Worked at alone transportation home
Craig County, VA 81% 13% 0% 1% 0% 5%
Graham County, NC 83% 11% 0% 4% 0% 2%
Swain County, NC 88% 7% 0% 1% 0% 4%
Clay County, TN 83% 7% 1% 3% 1% 5%
Pickett County, TN 84% 10% 0% 3% 1% 2%
Van Buren County, TN 87% 6% 1% 2% 2% 3%
Rockbridge County, VA 78% 12% 0% 2% 1% 6%
Source: American Community Survey, 2005‐2009 Estimates
2.3 Transit Service Characteristics of Selected Peers Service characteristics for the selected peer programs from the National Rural Transit Database are shown in Table 2.7, and National Transit Database definitions for the service characteristics are provided in footnotes where applicable. Ridership (shown in unlinked passenger trips2), and sponsored ridership3 are measures of the use of the transit service by residents. Vehicle revenue miles4 and vehicle revenue hours5 are typical measures of how much service is provided by a transit agency. All of these measures vary widely among the peers selected due to the differences in size and scope of the services provided. The service characteristics of a transit service provided for Craig County may someday most closely resemble that of Graham County Transit, but will likely be more limited in ridership and service provided in its early start‐up phase.
1 Other includes taxicab, bicycle, motorcycle and all other transportation modes. 2 The number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination. 3 Sponsored service includes public transportation services that are paid, in whole or in part, directly to the transit provider by a third party. These services may be offered by transit providers as part of a Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. Common sponsors include the Veterans Administration, Medicaid, sheltered workshops, the Association for Retarded Citizens‐Arc, Assisted Living Centers, and Head Start programs. 4 The miles that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service. 5 The hours that vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service.
Craig County Transit Service Study 16 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Table2 7: Service Characteristics, 2009 Agency Ridership Ridership Vehicle Vehicle (Regular (Sponsored Revenue Revenue UPT) UPT) Miles Hours
Graham County Transit (NC) 8,541 10,202 233,873 7,767
Rockbridge Area Transit Authority (VA) 15,0966 Not 379,512 Not Available Available
Swain Public Transit (NC) 46,825 19,303 171,445 16,566
Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency (TN) 154,630 Not 2,555,964 141,835 Available
2.4 Peer System Descriptions
2.4.1 Graham County Transit, Graham County, North Carolina Graham County (population 8,861) is located in the far western end of North Carolina. It borders the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and two‐thirds of the county is in the Nantahala National Forrest. The Appalachian Trail meanders through the county with elevations in the county ranging from 1,177 to 5,560 feet. Robbinsville, the Graham County seat, has 620 residents. Aside from Robbinsville there are several smaller population clusters in the County, with the rest of the County’s population disbursed throughout the county.
Graham County Transit, founded in 1999, provides human service and general public transportation service to Graham County. Graham County Transit is utilized by residents to access non‐emergency medical appointments, shopping, employment, and Senior Center services. All residents of Graham County are eligible to ride Graham County Transit, but the needs of individuals with medical needs and disabilities are prioritized. Graham County is classified as a Tier 1 county by the State of North Carolina, a rating given to the most economically distressed counties in the state. Twenty‐nine percent of the County’s population is eligible for Medicaid. It is also geographically isolated by terrain and distance from major centers of development. The County has one manufacturing plant, one grocery store, one medical clinic, one dentist office and no clothing or shoe stores. There are no hospitals in Graham County. The majority of trips taken on Graham County Transit are medical trips for seniors and work trips for disabled persons. Just 12 percent of all trips on Graham County Transit are general public transportation.
6 Based on the average ridership per month, as provided by RATS.
Craig County Transit Service Study 17 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Demand response requests for transportation are accommodated on a first‐come, first served basis, and must be made at least 24 hours in advance for local service and 48 hours in advance for out‐of‐county service. The Graham County transit office is open Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The agency employs a director, assistant director, dispatcher, four full‐time drivers and five part‐time drivers. Graham County Transit’s vehicle fleet includes three mini vans, four high top handicap accessible vans and one 20 seat bus.
Graham County Transit’s administrative budget for FY 2012 is $148,742. Federal Transit Administration grant funds provide 65 percent ($97,800), state funding provides 20 percent ($29,575) and Graham County is required to provide a 15 percent ($21,357) of administrative budget funding for FY 2012. Staff salary and benefits costs comprise nearly $100,000 of the overall budget and are by far the agency’s largest administrative expenditure, followed by rent, utilities and office supplies for the central office (over $18,000). More than $3,600 is budgeted for marketing, advertising and promotional items for FY 2012. Graham County Transit’s FY 2012 capital budget is $3,969. Of their capital budget, $396 is from the Graham County General Fund, and the rest of the funds are provided by the state.
The agency funds its operating budget on a fee for service model, meaning that the trip type determines which account the trip is billed to. For example, Industrial Opportunities (an employment center that provides work for disabled persons), provides funding to support their patron’s use of Graham County Transit. The local senior center provides funding for the use of Graham County Transit by its patrons, and one of the senior center staff members has a Commercial Driver’s License and uses Graham County Transit vans to take seniors to shopping and other trips when they are not otherwise in use.
The agency’s annual operating expenditures for FY 2011 were $295,964. Figure 2.1 presents a breakdown of the operating budget by funding sources. Nearly 80 percent of the agency’s operating budget is funded by the state and by the Graham County Department of Social Services. Federal funding in Graham County Transit’s operating budget includes, Work First, North Carolina’s program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid (via the Graham County Department of Social Services). Graham County provided a 10 percent match to some of the allocations from the Rural Operating Assistance Program, amounting to over $6,000 in operating assistance.
Craig County Transit Service Study 18 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Figure 2.1: Graham County Transit FY 2011 Operating Budget Funding Sources Senior Medical Clinic, Work First (TANF), Center, $5,996, 2% $5,731, 2% $8,924, 3% Industrial Opprotunites, Inc. , $20,918, 7% Graham County General Fund, $20,984, 7% Rural Operating Assistance Program (State), $118,039, 40% Graham County Department of Social Services, $115,293, 39%
Note: Cherokee County Department of Social Services contributed $89 in operating funding in FY11.
The Graham County Transit’s total FY 2012 budget is $455,184 of which in Graham County will provide $28,166 (6 percent) from its General Fund for administration, capital and operating. The agency expects a revenue surplus of $44,671 to be contributed to its contingency reserve fund. The FY 2012 operating expenditures are not projected to differ too greatly from the FY 2011 actual expenditures, but include $8,000 in charitable contributions.
There is no fare charged to riders, as the state won’t allow Tier 1 counties to charge public transit fares. Graham County Transit does accept donations from patrons and other local organizations. In addition to its local demand response service, Graham County Transit operates a weekday daily scheduled service from Robbinsville to two slightly large nearby municipalities in the state: Andrews (20 miles), and Cherokee (41 miles). The daily route to Cherokee operates Monday through Saturday, and provides transportation directly to a dialysis center. Once at the dialysis center, the van waits there until all of the riders are finished with their appointments, unless there are other stops in Cherokee that were requested that day. The route to Andrew utilizes the one full‐size bus owned by Graham County Transit and provides transportation to an employment site for disabled persons, departing in the mornings and returning following the end of the work day (5:00 p.m.). Three times a week the route to Andrews continues on to the town of Marble (27 miles from Robbinsville).
Craig County Transit Service Study 19 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Graham County Transit also schedules trips based on demand from Robbinsville to several other municipalities, including: Asheville (73 miles), Bryson City (30 miles), Sylva (45 miles), Waynesville (68 miles), Murphy (36 miles), and Hayesville (46 miles). While not a regularly scheduled service, Graham County Transit currently provides daily service to Asheville, a trip that is primarily serves employment access needs. The agency has found that as gas prices rise, the number of members of the general public requesting trips to access work, shopping and other basic needs that would have otherwise have used a personal vehicle increases greatly. Graham County Transit also sees a demand increase in the winter months, when many seniors are reluctant to drive in the snow.
Graham County Transit will work with individuals needing regular transportation to work outside of the county. The agency will schedule recurring trips on a month‐to‐month basis for school and employment trips, and on a longer‐term basis for individuals with specific medical needs. For example, they are currently transporting one individual undergoing daily cancer treatments to a facility outside of the county, and are scheduled to do so for the next six to eight weeks. For students needing transportation to the regional community college campus in Murphy, Graham County Transit will set up a recurring trip that fits their class schedule.
Graham County Transit emphasizes the need to provide riders with clear policies and service expectations from the outset of the service. While they provide an unlimited number of rides to patrons, they do reserve the right to deny transportation for a month to individuals that are a “no show” for two scheduled pick‐ups. In Graham County, where the population is very disbursed with many trips requested by individuals that reside nine to ten miles from Robbinsville, the “no show” policy is particularly important to serve all patrons in a time and cost effective manner. When a new patron first requests transit service, Graham County Transit enters their personal information (name, phone number, home address, emergency contact) into their trip scheduling software, and send a letter to the individual outlining that they provide and the agency’s policies.
2.4.2 Swain Public Transit, Swain County, North Carolina Swain County (population 13,981) is located on the far western edge of North Carolina in the Great Smoky Mountains, just north of Graham County. Aside from the Swain County seat of Bryson City (population approximately 1,300) and the Qualla Boundary reservation of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee in the eastern portion of the county, no other major population centers exist within the county. A large proportion of Swain County is located within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and the Nantahala National Forest also extends just to the south of Bryson City.
Swain Public Transit (SPT), a private non‐profit that provides transit service for Swain County, provides transportation on a demand response basis as well as weekday deviated fixed route service. Transit services operate from 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Any resident in need of transportation to access medical appointments, day care, shopping, employment or any other trip, can request transportation service. In FY 2011, SPT provided 13,915 passenger trips. Nearly half (45 percent) of trips on SPT are commute trips, with the remainder of trips being a mix of medical, shopping and other trips. Almost all medical, shopping and employment locations are outside of Swain County, generating a variety of trip purposes. Passengers requiring special assistance must make their trip request 24 hours
Craig County Transit Service Study 20 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research in advance for trips within Swain County and one week in advance to schedule a trip outside the county. All other passengers must make their trip reservations the day prior to the trip if it is out‐of‐county. Ridership overall is very sensitive to gas prices. SPT saw a 23 percent increase in ridership when gas prices spiked in Fall 2010
SPT has a fleet of 11 vehicles, including one 24‐passenger bus, four high‐top, lift equipped, handicap accessible vans, three Ford 3‐50 model vans, and three minivans (one of these is handicap accessible). SPT’s eight full‐time drivers are specially trained to assist disabled passengers. In addition to its drivers, SPT’s staff includes a director, assistant director and dispatcher operating out of a central office in Bryson City.
Swain Public Transit’s FY 2011 $399,264 annual budget revenues were funded through a wide variety of sources. Federal grants, including FTA grants 5310 (Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities) and 5311 (Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas), and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, supported capital acquisitions and much of the program administration costs, as well a small amount of the operating expenses. In total, in FY 2011 federal grants comprised 31 percent of all SPT revenues. A full third of the FY 2011 revenues, $126,288, came from North Carolina’s state funded Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP). Some of the ROAP funding was used as local match for 5310, but the vast majority of ROAP funds were for operations. Contract revenues, most significant among these revenues from the Department of Social Service’s disbursements of Medicaid transportation subsidies, comprised 25 percent of SPT revenues. Swain County contributed 10 percent of the program’s FY 2011 funding, and farebox revenue was 2 percent.
SPT’s fares for trips from its Bryson City headquarters are presented in Table 2.8. Swain County pays 50 percent of the trip fare for all commute trips. In July 2011, there were 2,100 work trips on SPT, with Swain County paying $1,500 in fares for these trips. The local senior services agency also provides 90 percent of the fare for senior citizens. There are many seniors using SPT to get to work, and these riders receive both the senior and commute‐trip subsidies meaning their commute trips are free.
Craig County Transit Service Study 21 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
Table 2.8: Swain Public Transit Round Trip Fares from Bryson City, NC Distance General Senior (Miles) Public Citizens
Bryson City (city limits) 0 $1.00 Free
Within 5 miles of Transit Office 5 $3.00 $1.00
Whittier, NC 7 $5.00 $2.50
Cherokee, NC 10 $7.00 $3.50
Sylva, NC 18 $10.00 $5.00
Waynesville, NC and Franklin, NC 34 $20.00 $10.00
Asheville, NC 65 $30.00 $15.00
Asheville Airport 70 $35.00 $17.50
In addition to this demand response service, Swain Public Transit provides weekday deviated fixed route services, permitted to deviate up to a quarter mile from the route. Deviated fixed route services include daily peak period service primarily serving employment trips, a Dialysis/Cancer Treatment Center route, a shuttle service to Western Carolina University and Southwestern Community College, and a daily deviated fixed route for senior citizens. While some deviated fixed route service was designed with specific users and trip types in mind, any passenger requesting transportation is accommodated on any route or demand response trip that fits with their trip purpose. For example, an individual needing access to a medical appointment may be placed on a deviated fixed route service if that trip and vehicle type fits their needs.
2.4.3 Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency (UCHRA), Cookeville, Tennessee The Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency, based in Sparta, provides rural transit service to 14 counties in the central region of Tennessee. While UCHRA’s transit service overall covers a service area far larger than Craig County, it does serve three counties that are similar in size, terrain and population density to Craig: Clay, Pickett, and Van Buren Counties.
Clay County is located in the north central part of the state on the border with Kentucky. Dale Hollow Lake, a popular tourist and recreational area, is the central economic driver for the county. The town of Celina, the only incorporated jurisdiction in the county with approximately 1,400 residents, is the county seat.
Pickett County is located in the north central part of the state, on the border with Kentucky and just to the east of Clay County. A small part of the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area is located
Craig County Transit Service Study 22 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research in Pickett County. The Pickett County seat of Brydstown has approximately 900 residents, and three other small unincorporated but locally recognized communities exist in Pickett County, with the rest of the population disbursed throughout the county.
Van Buren County is located in the central region of Tennessee. Its county seat, Spencer, has a population of approximately 1,700 and is the only incorporated jurisdiction within the county. The Falls Creek State Park and the Big Bone Cave are major recreational attractions within the county. The county is very mountainous and remote; there is not a single traffic light in the entire county. Van Buren County residents must travel a minimum of 30 minutes outside the county to access basic services, including medical services.
UCHRA’s local demand response transit service, Upper Cumberland Area Rural Transit System (UCARTS), operates from a local county office for each of the 14 counties it covers.7 The Van Buren County office was merged with the neighboring White County office, but UCARTS has a local Van Buren County phone number that forwards to the White County office. The service is open to all citizens in the county regardless of age or disability status, but first priority is given to the elderly, handicapped, economically disadvantaged, and individuals with medical needs. UCHRA believes in coordination of services, so one van transports all users, including the disabled, seniors, commuters and members of the general public. UCARTS utilizes lift‐equipped cut‐away vans to provide service. UCARTS operates Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Local trips (within the county, based on the designated county zone) are $1.00 each way and $1.00 for each additional stop. Fares outside of the zone are based on miles traveled.
All trip requests must be made 48 hours in advance, and reservations are taken on a first‐come, first‐ served basis. Trip requests made with less than 48 hours prior notice are accommodated as space and schedules allow. In very rural areas, particularly Van Buren County, accommodating trips with less than 48 hours notice is difficult. An intake specialist in each of the county transit offices utilize a centralized database and dispatch/route match system to schedule trips. Several years ago, a zone transportation system was implemented to provide more efficient UCARTS intra‐county service. Each county is divided into two zones, and one zone will receive service on Mondays and Wednesdays, the other on Tuesdays and Thursdays. These trips will typically arrive in the county seat at 10 a.m., and depart around 2:00 p.m., providing riders with enough time to accomplish shopping, errands or make other appointments in town. When UCARTS began offering service by zone, they paid for an insert into the local newspapers to advertise the service to residents. Many of their users begin by using the intra‐county service, and as they become familiar with public transportation then use UCARTS to access out‐of‐county trips.
All UCARTS vehicles are maintained a central vehicle maintenance facility in Cookeville. UCHRA has found that it is more cost effective and increases the vehicle’s useful life by 75,000‐100,000 additional miles by performing maintenance at a central facility, rather than having vehicles maintained at external facilities located throughout their service area.
7 The material in the remainder of this section obtained through a phone interview with UCHRA or adapted in part or in whole from the Upper Cumberland Human Resources Agency 2010‐2011 Annual Report.
Craig County Transit Service Study 23 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
UCARTS is funded through a variety of sources, including federal funding, state funding (Department of Transportation and Commission on Aging and Disability), local government funding, contract revenues, farebox revenues, and in‐kind donations. Federal and state funding provide 75 percent of the total funding, while local funding covers the remaining 25 percent. Federal funds accessed include three FTA grant funds, including Section 5311 (Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas), Section 5316 (Job Access and Reverse Commute), and Section 5317 (New Freedom). The state provides much of the local match for these funds, but local governments provide the match for new vehicle purchases. Local funding includes revenues service contracts, fares and local government contributions. In‐kind donations are also critical to the operation of UCARTS. County highway departments provide the fuel for UCARTS vehicles at their vehicle facilities. Figure 2.2 provides a breakdown of UCARTS funding sources.
Figure 2.2: UCARTS Funding Sources
Families First Local Funding, (TANF), 4% 16%
5317, 1%
5316, 6% Medicaid, 43%
5311, 30%
UCARTS operates using fee for service contracts, meaning individual trips are charged to different accounts depending on the trip purpose. For example, if someone is riding the vehicle to get to work, then UCARTS would pay for that trip form JARC funds using a trip mileage rate. In Tennessee the rural public transportation organizations provide Medicaid‐funded transportation, and these contracts are often through managed care organizations. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities have their own, individual contracts for transportation services for their residents. Individuals wishing to take advantage of UCARTS services must register with the service. Those seeking assistance through the Job Access program (funded by JARC) must complete a Job Access application process. General rural public transportation trips are funded with 5311.
In general, UCHRA has found that the more layering of funding sources used to support an individual vehicle, the closer the agency comes to paying for it. Operating a service where trip types are segregated, that is where job access trips are on one vehicle and human services trips another, would
Craig County Transit Service Study 24 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research not be sustainable for UCARTS. Often, a service may begin primarily to serve one type of trip in particular, but riders with other trip purposes will quickly begin using that service. For example, a new deviated fixed route service that runs four times a day from Livingstone, Tennessee to Cookeville to assist the elderly and disabled in reaching medical appointments attracted a dozen riders who are students attending a vocational school in Livingstone during its first week of operation.
UCHRA works closely with a number of local agencies and facilities that support UCARTS service. County highway offices are aware of who in each county is on dialysis or other specialized medical needs, and will clear roads leading to these individuals homes during inclement weather, and help ambulance services reach these individuals if necessary. Medical facilities and doctor’s offices are also now cognizant of which patients are utilizing UCARTS service to access their facilities, and schedule their appointments accordingly. While UCARTS does connect with local bus service in Cookeville, its users are not inclined to use urban public transportation as UCARTS provides a door‐to‐door service. Even if it did not provide door‐to‐door service, it is unlikely that rural and elderly residents would use the urban bus system given the infrequent headways and long travel times that it would entail.
In FY 2009 the 14 counties served by UCARTS generated 163,380 passenger trips. Most of these trips were generated in the urban areas; just 17,358 trips were taken from Clay, Picket and Van Buren Counties in FY 2010.
Table 2.9: UCARTS Service Characteristics for Selected Counties County Drivers Vans Total Annual Trips General Public Contract JARC (FY 2010) Transportation Medical Trips
Clay County 5 4 8,343 4,884 2,656 803
Pickett 3 3 6,900 4,000 1,200 1,700 County
Van Buren 2 2 2,015 914 1,013 88 County
UCARTS operates two transit services that serve employment trips. Its rural commuter vanpool program provides 8‐and 15‐ passenger vans for short‐term and long‐term lease to any individual needing transportation to work or job‐training. This service is funded by a federal transportation grant that is administered through the University of Tennessee Transportation Center. UCARTS vans are leased to an individual responsible for recruiting van riders and managing the vanpool group. The monthly van cost is typically ranges from $400 to $500, meaning for a van with 10 riders the per rider cost would be $40 to$50 per month. UCARTS performs maintenance on the leased vans at their central vehicle maintenance facility in Cookeville. In FY 2009 UCHRA’s transit service leased 17 vans through their rural vanpools program throughout their service area. None of these vans leased provided service to Clay, Pickett or Van Buren Counties. The agency has yet to be successful in marketing the vanpool program or
Craig County Transit Service Study 25 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research ridesharing in general to residents in the most rural counties in their service area. Rural residents must have a car for transportation, and they are not accustomed to relying on others to provide transportation. A local school system is the most avid user of the UCARTS vanpool program. However, the school system is utilizing the vans not for employee transportation, but to transport teachers to work and trainings.
In addition to the vanpool program, the UCHRA’s Job Access Program provides transportation to work for low‐income individuals that have no other means of transportation to their place of employment. In FY 2009 the Job Access program served 249 individuals and provided 31,232 passenger trips. The Job Access Program is funded with Tennessee Department of Transportation funding, as well as funding from the Federal Transit Administration. These trips are accommodated on general use UCARTS vehicles, alongside contract medical and general public transportation trips.
UCHRA has found that providing direct assistance with trip planning and orienting rural residents to public transportation through an individual connection is the most effective way of marketing UCARTS to rural residents. UCHRA employs two mobility managers and one travel trainer; both of these positions were funded through JARC and New Freedom. The travel trainer position is funded by New Freedom, and “is the best money” they’ve ever spent according to the UCARTS Director. The person in this position meets seniors and persons with disabilities at their homes, teaches them how to call the county transit office and schedule a trip, rides the bus with them to their destination and back, and provides a personal orientation to using the bus. UCARTS emphasizes that it is important that the travel trainer be a social person; the individual in this position currently at UCHRA is very good at talking to people and helping them feel comfortable with the service. UCARTS believes that the travel trainer position has been the most effective form of outreach to rural residents, and is particularly effective in reaching those residents that have no exposure to public transportation. UCHRA has also had success marketing their services to rural residents by purchasing informational inserts local newspapers.
The two mobility managers each serve seven of UCHRA’s 14 counties. These positions provide personalized trip planning assistance. Local county intake specialists are instructed never to turn down a ride, but in cases where they cannot meet someone’s transportation need to transfer the call to a mobility manager. Mobility managers have the ability to coordinate service across multiple counties; in cases where the rider’s own county’s service cannot meet their needs, a van from another county traveling through that rider’s county may be able to pick them up. In instances where individuals call in wanting to know how to use the bus, or need to go somewhere two days a week, the mobility manager can work directly with that individual to identify additional UCARTS resources that may fit meet their transportation needs. For example, when an individual requests a trip that cannot be met by the transit service based in their own county the mobility manager is able to identify other county vehicles that could fulfill the trip request. Mobility managers also coordinate with medical offices and other facilities to make sure that they know when UCHRA vehicles will arrive so that they can schedule patient appointments accordingly. This type of coordination takes a great deal of communication, both within the agency and with passenger destinations. Mobility manager positions are eligible as capital expenditures under JARC, meaning the local match requirement is less than what it would be for operating assistance through JARC and more financially feasible.
Craig County Transit Service Study 26 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
One of the main fears that rural residents using public transportation for the first time have is that they’ll be “left” and forgotten, unable to return home after being transported to a larger metropolitan area. When UCARTS began service it would give riders a business card with a toll free phone number to the agency ensure that riders always had a way to reach a UCARTS dispatcher. Making sure that rural residents know where exactly they’ll be picked up and how to get in touch with the service at all times is important, particularly if the destination is at a hospital or other large facility with multiple pick‐ up/drop‐off points.
UCHRA also has a local UCARTS advisory committee for each county that meets once a quarter over a provided lunch that helps them reach local communities and rural residents. These local advisory committees typically include six to seven community leaders, including the county executive or city mayor, local bankers, headstart program directors and human services directors, among others. At these meetings, UCHRA staff hand out flyers and provide information for each committee member to disseminate in the local community.
2.4.4 Rockbridge Area Transportation Systems, Lexington, VA Rockbridge County, population 35,000, is located in the west central area of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley and is split by Interstate 81. Two cities, Lexington and Buena Vista, straddle I‐81 in close proximity to the I‐64/I‐81 interchange. The county is generally rural in nature with a significant agriculture industry and is characterized by rolling hills and mountainous terrain. Tourism comprises a significant portion of the county’s economy.
Rockbridge Area Transportation Systems (RATS) provides demand responsive bus service throughout Rockbridge County, including the cities of Buena Vista and Lexington. They operate Monday through Friday with very limited Saturday service. They also provide service on holidays for dialysis clients. RATS estimated that they provide service 261 days per year, an average of 22 days per month, both of which are consistent with typical weekday transit service.
RATS has 17 buses and 17 employees. It is funded through grants from local governments, foundations, and by donations from the community, including Washington and Lee University, Robert E. Lee Church, and Carillion Foundation, which provides a 20% match to DRPT for vehicle purchase. RATS has a sliding scale fare structure based on income level, distance traveled, and vehicle type utilized.
RATS has three large Supreme buses (12 passenger ADA accessible), five raised roof body‐on–chassis vehicles with wheelchair lifts, and nine various cars and minivans. There are no restrictions on use of the service, which is heavily utilized by Medicaid recipients, low income free healthcare qualified residents, and low income, elderly, and the disabled.
To advertise their services, RATS relies on the visibility of their vehicles with the company name and telephone number on the sides, in addition to distributing pamphlets at area businesses, word of mouth, and networking with area human service agencies. They would like to increase the number of private paying residents in Rockbridge County and possibly expand to additional areas.
Craig County Transit Service Study 27 April 2012 Chapter 2 Precedent Research
RATS has an annual budget of $521,750, but identified a lack of new funding sources as a problem. They feel they have maximized the local funding resources in Rockbridge County. RATS utilizes the following funding sources:
Logisticare (Medicaid recipients for which Logisticare reimburses RATS on a per trip basis) Virginia Premier (low income free healthcare qualified recipients for which Virginia Premier reimburses RATS on a per trip basis) Lexington City Buena Vista City Rockbridge County United Way Resident fundraising /donations Private pay (fares) New Freedom 5310 vehicle human service capital for vehicles State senior transportation grant
In March of 2011, RADAR Transit began operating the Maury Express, a deviated fixed‐route service in the cities of Lexington and Buena Vista, both in Rockbridge County. There are two routes, one in each city, operating Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with one hour headways. The fare is $0.50 per trip. Route deviation up to ¾ of a mile is available for ADA certified patrons at no extra charge. Children under the age of six years old ride at no charge. Washington & Lee University and Virginia Military Institute (VMI) students ride free upon presentation of a valid student ID card.
Craig County Transit Service Study 28 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight
3.0 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight
Interviews with Craig County stakeholders revealed three major areas of unmet transportation need in the community: Access to medical care facilities for the elderly, disabled, and individuals that lack access to a reliable private vehicle; Access to daily needs (including shopping, errands, and basic social services) for the elderly, disabled, and individuals that lack access to a reliable private vehicle; and Commuter assistance in terms of providing options for commute trips, mainly to Roanoke.
Designing a single transit solution to meet all of these needs is challenging, although the more needs that can be met with a single service, the easier that service will be to fund and support. However, in order to help meet the three needs identified above, this study proposes three types of service for Craig County, each intended to meet different trip needs in a streamlined and cost‐effective manner. These new services are: Out‐of‐County Service to Salem and Roanoke Intra‐County Zone‐Based Limited Demand Response Service Enhanced Ridesharing (Carpooling and Vanpooling) – for Commute and Non‐Commute Trips
Ensuring that these services are successful will require the input and oversight of the Craig County community. However, recognizing that local government resources are limited, this study proposes that Craig County: Establish a volunteer Transportation Commission to provide oversight of any new service implemented, to assist with disseminating information, and to continue to document unmet transportation needs in the Craig County community. Work with the Regional Commission or a private transit contractor to hire a Mobility Manager to provide day‐to‐day assistance in meeting transportation needs to Craig County residents, and serve as a point of contact for any new service implemented.
3.1 Service Concepts
3.1.1 Out‐of‐County Bus Service to Salem and Roanoke
A trip to access key medical facilities, shopping, higher education and other basic needs in Salem and Roanoke was identified as one of the top unmet transportation needs in Craig County. This bus trip is proposed as operating once a week at the start of service; an additional day of service could be added should the demand and funding exist to support it at a later time.
The service would start in New Castle and make the stops listed below and shown in the map in Figure 3.1. All those wishing to use the service would need to meet at a designated pick‐up location in the Town of New Castle or a designated parking lot along the Route 311 corridor. Continuing the service beyond Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital would add expense without providing access to additional significant weekly trip generators.
Craig County Transit Service Study 29 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight
The Out‐of‐County service route would make the following stops, as shown in Figure 3.1: New Castle, VA National College, 1813 E Main St, Salem, VA Wal‐Mart Superstore, 1851 W Main St, Salem, VA VA Medical Center, 1970 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA Lewis Gale Medical Center, 1900 Electric Road, Salem, VA Tanglewood Mall, Roanoke, VA Virginia Western Community College, 3095 Colonial Ave., Roanoke, VA Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, VA
Detailed schedule information is available in Appendix C. This service would make two roundtrips between New Castle and Roanoke, with one morning and one early afternoon trip leaving New Castle. Passengers utilizing this service to access medical facilities would need to make their appointments around the service schedule. This trip would utilize one lift‐equipped vehicle, either a 15‐passenger, lift‐ equipped van (such as a Ford E‐350) or a cut‐away, lift‐equipped 20‐passenger bus.
Designated pick‐up/drop‐off locations would need to be identified at each of the stops. Multiple stops at the Lewis Gale Medical Center and Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital could be made to provide service throughout both medical campuses. Riders would be given a business card with the name and cell phone number of the driver, should they have any questions about when and where pick‐up will occur.
The proposed Salem and Roanoke trip route would connect with Valley Metro bus routes at every stop. The Out‐of‐County service is designed to provide access to medical and basic services in a cost effective manner. By providing connections to Valley Metro, the service reach is extended without adding costs to the new service. The Out‐of‐County service will connect with 12 Valley Metro bus routes at its designated stops. These routes include:
51, 55 Tangelwood Mall ‐ Campbell Court 52, 56 Campbell Court ‐ Tangelwood Mall 71, 72 Lewis Gale Hospital ‐ Campbell Court 75, 76 Veterans Hospital ‐ Campbell Court 81, 82 Goodwill Salem ‐ Campbell Court 91, 92 Lewis Gale Hospital ‐ Goodwill Salem
Individuals who are not physically capable of using Valley Metro service have several options for transportation to additional locations. Those over the age of 60 can use the Local Office on Aging’s Vital Services Transportation to access critical appointments not served by the Out‐of‐County service. Vital Services Transportation provides transportation via taxi‐cab vouchers as well as van service. Disabled individuals can utilize Valley Metro’s paratransit service, STAR (Specialized Transit – Arranged Rides), for a $3.00 fare.
Craig County Transit Service Study 30 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight
Figure 3.1: Route Concept for Out‐of‐County Bus Service from Craig County to Salem and Roanoke
Craig County Transit Service Study 31 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight
3.1.2 Intra‐County Weekly Zone‐Based Limited Demand‐Response Service
In addition to providing Out‐of‐County service to Salem and Roanoke, a need also exists for transportation within Craig County to New Castle. All of the basic services located within Craig County are found in the Town of New Castle. This includes the only grocery store (Mick‐or‐Mack IGA), shopping (Family Dollar), and public library in the County, as well as the Department of Social Services, Health Center, Dental Center, the main post office (there is one other post office in Paint Bank), and the Craig County Courthouse. Residents without reliable transportation often miss important medical and social services appointments in New Castle.
To meet the need for Intra‐County service, a three day per week, zone‐based transportation service is proposed. Each zone would be provided with Intra‐County transportation service once a week, such that in total the service would operate three days per week. The three proposed zones are:
North County Zone (North of the Town of New Castle, including, Route 609, Route 611, Route 615, Route 617) Route 311 Zone (Town of New Castle North to the Craig County High School, Paint Bank to the Roanoke County line along Route 311, Route 621 South to the County line) South County Zone (South of the Town of New Castle, including Route 658, Route 632, State Route 624, Route 42)
Figure 3.2 is a map of the proposed zone boundaries. Residents in each of these three zones wanting to use the transportation service to travel into New Castle would need to schedule their pickup at least 24 hours in advance by calling a local Craig County transit service phone number. A lift‐equipped vehicle would leave from New Castle and pick up those individuals that have scheduled trips at about 8:00 am and arrive in New Castle by approximately 10:00 am. After arriving in New Castle, the vehicle used to provide the service would be parked in a central location in the Town, such as the Craig County Courthouse parking lot. The parking lot would be the designated stop from which the vehicle would leave on its return trip in the afternoon. At 3:00 pm the vehicle would depart New Castle and return residents to their homes by 5 pm. In order to limit the service to one round trip a day for cost containment, there needs to be a long enough span to allow everyone using the service that day to conduct their business.
Craig County Transit Service Study 32 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight
Figure 3.2: Proposed Intra‐County Zone Boundaries
3.1.3 Enhanced Ridesharing
Ridesharing is the practice of individuals with similar trip origins and destinations sharing rides, and refers to both carpools (groups of five of fewer individuals sharing a ride in a privately owned vehicle) and vanpools (groups of six or more individuals sharing a ride in a large van, often leased from a private provider). Ridesharing is an economical way to provide reliable transportation for many trips, although it has been traditionally focused on commute trips. The Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional Commission’s RIDE Solutions office currently provides carpool ride matching assistance to registered Craig County commuters. RIDE Solutions staff is very interested in working more closely with Craig County, and they currently work with a number of employers of Craig County residents located throughout the Roanoke Valley region. Some of these employers have asked RIDE Solutions to assist their employees coming from Craig County, citing the difficulty that some of their employees have in maintaining access to a reliable form of transportation.
The enhanced ridesharing recommendation for Craig County is to work more closely with the RIDE Solutions staff to provide more information and opportunities for carpooling and vanpooling between Craig County and other parts of the region. This, in conjunction with the identification and development of park and ride locations in Craig County, could likely provide a low cost, sustainable option for Craig County residents for both commute trips and other trips outside the county.
Craig County Transit Service Study 33 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight
According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data, 13 percent of Craig County residents carpool to work. However, RIDE Solutions staff believes that there may be an even larger market for commute ridesharing among Craig County residents, but that several factors are currently inhibiting its growth. They’ve found that it is far more difficult to market their services to commuters in Craig and other rural communities than it is in urbanized areas. To reach commuters in Roanoke, RIDE Solutions relies upon online outreach through social media and other media campaigns. They’ve found that these outreach strategies are less effective in rural communities. The RIDE Solution’s sign for commuter assistance on Route 311 in Craig County has generated phone calls to the agency to report traffic accidents or physical roadway concerns from callers who are not aware of what services are offered by “commuter assistance.” RIDE Solutions is interested in building a closer relationship with residents in Craig County. In the future, RIDE Solutions can work directly with Craig County to explore new ways to reach rural residents.
3.1.3.1 Carpool (Ride Matching)
The ride matching software currently in use by RIDE Solutions is over a decade old and is nearly obsolete. It requires Regional Commission staff to manually match individuals with potential carpool partners that have entered themselves into the database. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is procuring a new ride matching software that will be housed on the Internet and have a feature that allows users to match themselves with existing carpools or find other commuters with similar schedules to form new carpools. DRPT is currently inviting local input into this new software to ensure that it will meet community needs.
In Craig County’s case, carpooling may be an effective transportation solution for not only commute purposes, but also transportation for other trip purposes. Craig County could seek to work with RIDE Solutions staff to develop input into the procurement of the new ride matching database to ensure that it has features that will enable Craig County and other rural residents to use it for non‐commute trip matching. For example, a virtual message board for only Craig County residents could allow residents with recurring transportation needs not met by the other proposed service (e.g., needing transportation to a medical facility in Montgomery County) to connect with an individual making that trip for commute or other purposes. There will be a feature on the new ride matching tool that will allow a local administrator (the Mobility Manager or local volunteer) to input information on behalf of others, so that residents without Internet access or who are unfamiliar with how to use an online tool can gain access to this database. It would be ideal if Craig County and RIDE Solutions met to discuss the new ride matching software and prepare a statement of software capability needs for DRPT’s consideration as soon as possible.
3.1.3.2 Vanpool
Once RIDE Solutions’ new ride matching software is in place, it will reduce the amount of time RIDE Solutions spends on traditional ride matching activities, and allow them to focus on other priorities. One of these other priorities is establishing a regional vanpool program. The Regional Commission’s long‐ term Transportation Demand Management Plan includes a “vision” for new services, should additional funding come available. A regional vanpools program is currently in this long‐term plan. Vanpooling is a popular form of transit for commuters throughout Virginia, particularly in areas that are outside of
Craig County Transit Service Study 34 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight major metropolitan areas and lack the population density to support traditional transit or long‐distance commuter bus. Craig County shares some of these characteristics with other communities in Virginia where vanpooling is currently successful.
Compared with mass transit, vanpools have very low operating costs. Typically, within three to four years of operation, the additional federal formula funds for transit generated by a public vanpool program not only support the vanpools program entirely, but generate a “surplus” of new funds that can be used to fund other regional transit needs.
Vanpools typically provide transportation to work for individuals that have consistent, established working hours. Since many residents are employed at specific office, manufacturing or industrial locations in Roanoke County, Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Montgomery County, and Alleghany County, forming vanpool rider groups with similar or the same schedules and destinations should not be difficult. RIDE Solutions staff has had success working directly with employers. The first vanpool groups for a RIDE Solutions vanpool program would likely be through direct employer outreach rather than general marketing to the community. Employers of Craig County residents have contacted to RIDE Solutions to solicit assistance for their employees in the past, so it is possible that these employers may also be willing to contribute start‐up funding for the RIDE Solutions vanpool program. In some areas of the country, large employers operate their own vanpools fleets only for their employees. In neighboring Montgomery County, Virginia Tech operates an employee vanpool program8 that could serve as a model for the RIDE Solutions vanpool program. However, it should be noted that no Craig County residents currently participate in the Virginia Tech Vanpool Program.
Vanpool programs are typically either directly operated (an agency owns the vans, such as the vanpool program operated by Hampton Roads Transit), or “purchased” (the agency contracts with private vendors to provide the vans and the service).The private vendors can be a combination of employers and/or vanpool leasing firms such as Enterprise Rideshare and VPSI, and other smaller leasing or owner‐ operator vanpool firms. Vanpools typically are an attractive transit commute option for workers with longer commutes, particularly those over 40 miles. Nearly 60 percent of Craig County residents have a commute that is 50 miles or greater one way, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics database. In the Northern Virginia area, the typical monthly cost of a van that travels 80 miles roundtrip per workday is typically around $1,200. By contrast, the monthly cost of a similar vanpool in Tennessee’s Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency’s program ranges from $400 to $500 per van. The price of gas is the most significant determinant in the monthly cost of a van. The cost of the van is split among the van riders, while the driver typically rides for free. A $500 van with 10 subscribed riders equates to a $50 monthly fare, while a $1,200 van with 10 subscribed riders equates to a $120 monthly fare per passenger, a far cheaper alternative to driving alone and a very viable alternative for someone without access to a vehicle.
Vanpooling is less costly than commuting in a privately owned vehicle for most commute trips over 25 miles one way. This cost savings is the primary factor that attracts commuters to vanpools. To help making vanpools more attractive to potential riders, the RIDE Solutions vanpool program may also choose to “buy down” the price of the vanpool fare by providing a monthly subsidy per van. In large metropolitan areas that operate purchased transportation vanpool programs, the fare buy down is a common practice that has been very effective in attracting new riders to join vanpools and to help vanpools maintain a consistent ridership on each van. However, vanpool programs that are directly
8 http://www.facilities.vt.edu/tcs/alternative/van.asp#details
Craig County Transit Service Study 35 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight operated by transportation agencies do not typically offer the fare buy down and have still been successful in maintaining consistent levels of ridership. Additionally, any vanpool rider receiving other social services benefits (such as Welfare to Work funding) may qualify to have the cost of their trip covered by transportation benefits offered under these programs. Employers may also offer a pre‐tax transit benefit that will reduce the cost of using transit for their employees or they may provide a monthly transit benefit directly to their employees.
3.1.3.3 Park and Rides
Park and Rides are designated parking lots where commuters leave their personal vehicles for the day while finishing their commute to work via ridesharing or transit. Craig County currently does not have any designated park and rides within the County’s boundaries, although there are two designated regional Park and Rides not far from the Craig County line, at Orange Market on Route 311 and at I‐81 exit 140.
Several potential park and ride were identified in Craig County as part of this study. Most of these sites would be shared parking with existing uses, and all are located on Route 311 between New Castle and the Craig County line, the main commuting corridor to Salem and Roanoke. There are several convenience stores/gas stations and churches that have parking lots in this corridor that are large enough to accommodate a park and ride in addition to their typical daily uses. Churches in particular do not tend to have large events on weekdays and are often ideal partners in shared parking arrangements (see Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3: Church on Route 311 between New Castle and the Craig County Line, Empty Parking Lot on a Weekday
Craig County also has an unpaved portion of the Craig County Courthouse Parking Lot (seen in Figure 3.4), which could be paved to accommodate a future park and ride in town. The Craig Courthouse Parking Lot Park and Ride extension would be approximately 27,000 square feet, and paving this surface would cost approximately $81,000. Striping the park and ride would cost an additional $9,000, for a
Craig County Transit Service Study 36 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight total approximate cost of $90,000.9 While establishing a shared parking relationship with an existing use on Route 311 would be more cost effective than paying for the paving and maintenance of a new park and ride lot owned directly by Craig County, the central location of the Craig County Courthouse facility (within walking distance of many New Castle residents) would definitely be an advantage of using this location.
Figure 3.4: Craig County Courthouse Parking Lot – Adjacent to Potential Park and Ride
Ridesharing, particularly vanpooling, may be a concept unfamiliar to many rural commuters. A potential method to inform residents is an information board installed at the park and ride with information about types of service(s) offered. Other transit services could be posted on such a board, as a central point for obtaining initial information about transportation options. Established vanpools may also wish to post their schedules and contact information for the lead point of contact so that others interested in joining can easily access this information. Craig County can contract directly with a local small business to construct the information board, and possibly also a shelter at the park and ride. A rough estimate of the cost to construct an information board and a shelter at the site may be as much as $10,000. A typical manufactured bus shelter can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000, depending on the type of shelter and associated amenities.
Sometimes vanpools can accommodate one‐time rides for individuals needing to be dropped off at nearby medical facilities. For example, a vanpool traveling to Salem could indicate that it is also willing to drop riders off at the Lewis Gale Medical Center, but these individuals would have to wait until the end of the day to be picked up on the return trip to Craig County.
At least one Craig County park and ride should have a designated kiss and ride area. Kiss and rides allow passengers to be dropped off and picked up at the transit stop by car. Kiss and ride areas can be either be signed short‐term parking spots or a pull‐through traffic lane, allowing cars to drop off and pick up passengers. Kiss and rides are usually found at airports or rail transit stations. While including a kiss and ride area at a park and ride is atypical, it may make sense in Craig County where 17 percent of Craig County households have only one vehicle available in their household, according to the American Community Survey. Including a kiss and ride in the design of a park and ride facility will allow families to
9 Costs based on data from the County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Procedure Manual for the Preparation and Checking of Street Improvement and Grading Plans, 2011.
Craig County Transit Service Study 37 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight use the same personal vehicles for other trips. The cost to include a kiss and ride is minor, mainly the cost for signage and striping.
Finally, should a park and ride location be designated in the Town of New Castle where there are the greatest number of nearby residents, accommodations for biking and walking to the park and ride should be considered. Able bodied residents living within a few miles of the town may wish to leave their vehicles at home for other family members to use. One percent of commuters currently walk to work in Craig County according to ACS data, and these individuals are likely domiciled in the Town of New Castle. A traditional bike rack that accommodates eight to nine bikes is relatively inexpensive, costing $400 to $500. In addition to racks, signage designating bicycle routes and warning drivers of bicycles should be added.
3.2 Oversight and Coordination
3.2.1 Mobility Manager The provision of transit service alone may not be enough to ensure its success. In rural areas where residents are unfamiliar with how to use transit and may be unable to access transit information on the Internet or through other means, a local point of contact providing individual assistance is critical. A Mobility Manager is someone that can serve as a point of contact for those needing individual assistance.
The Mobility Manager’s role in Craig County would be to: Help Craig County residents who have a transportation need determine if any of the services provided will meet their need; Facilitate transportation solutions for those whose needs are not met with existing service; Provide travel training services, by teaching individuals or groups (i.e., senior centers and other community groups) how to use transit; Disseminate information on transit service to the local community through flyers and presentations (i.e., presenting to a Parent‐Teacher Association, church group, etc.); Coordinate with RIDE Solutions staff to promote carpooling, vanpooling, park and ride, telework and transit; Document unmet transportation needs in the Craig community; Maintain information on the performance of transit service in Craig County and present it to local stakeholders and groups as requested; and Assist Craig County in the implementation of transit service as needed.
The Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission applied for grant funding for a Mobility Manager in the past, but the application was not successful. It is possible that the Regional Commission could bolster a future grant application by highlighting the need for this position for implementing the Craig County service, and service in other rural communities. Over time, the Regional Commission may be able to employ two to three Mobility Managers, one covering the rural jurisdictions north of the City of Roanoke, one covering the rural jurisdictions south of the City of Roanoke, and one covering the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, as well as Roanoke County. It is also possible a contractor selected to operate the transit service could apply for the funding for a Mobility Manager position, and thus the Mobility Manager would become an employee of the service provider. However, if the Mobility Manager were
Craig County Transit Service Study 38 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight employed by the transit service contractor, then it would not be possible for this position to contribute to the oversight of the service itself.
It is crucial that the person in this position have a significant “face time” requirement in Craig County and in each of the communities they serve. Typically DRPT prefers that the Mobility Manager position be placed at the Regional Commission or regional level. The Regional Commission should be the home of any future Mobility Manager for several reasons: A Mobility Manager employed at the Regional Commission would have access to all of the resources and expertise of the Commission overall. By serving multiple counties, there will be enough work for the position to be full‐time. The Mobility Manager would also have detailed knowledge of the needs and services available across multiple counties, and may be able to make connections that otherwise would not happen. If a Regional Commission employee, the Regional Commission would provide the limited local match required. It would also take the burden of hiring and managing the employee away from the Craig County government.
Table 3.1 provides the estimated total cost of a full time Mobility Manager position, assuming that the Regional Commission or the selected transit service contractor takes the lead in hiring this position. The local match requirements assume that an FTA grant (Section 5317, New Freedom) provides 80 percent of the funding for this position, with DRPT providing 17.5 percent of the 20 percent local match. However, it should be noted that the actual amount of funding provided by the Commonwealth for the 5317 local match varies from year to year.
The salary of a full‐time Mobility Manager was estimated to be $42,000, with an additional 28 percent added for benefits. The salary estimate was based on the average 2010 salary for a Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other ($41,590) and for Dispatchers, except fire/police ($40,690) for the Roanoke region found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage estimates database. An estimate of wage inflation was set at 3 percent per year.
Table 3.1: Estimated Total Cost for Full Time Mobility Manager, FY 2013‐FY 2019 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Full Time FTE (Salary and Benefits) $53,760 $55,373 $57,034 $58,745 $60,507 $62,323 $64,192 Local Match Required (20%) $10,752 $11,075 $11,407 $11,749 $12,101 $12,465 $12,838 DPRT Contribution to Local Match (17.5%) $9,408 $9,690 $9,981 $10,280 $10,589 $10,906 $11,234 Regional Commission Local Match (2.5%) $1,344 $1,384 $1,426 $1,469 $1,513 $1,558 $1,605 Provisional operating cost estimates for planning purposes only.
While a regional Mobility Manager is DRPT’s preference, this does not mean that a Mobility Manager application for Craig County only would not be considered. If Craig County wishes to seek a Mobility Manager just for the County itself, this would likely need to be a part‐time paid position. Craig County would be able to apply for Section 5317 grant funding to pay for this position, but the burden of doing the application process and managing the employee would be on the Craig County government. The advantage in having a Mobility Manager focused only on the Craig County transit service is that the
Craig County Transit Service Study 39 April 2012 Chapter 3 Needs, Service Concepts and Proposed Oversight person in this position will come to know the local community’s transportation needs and resources well.
3.2.2 Transportation Commission In addition to having a Mobility Manager oversee and manage the day‐to‐day transit operations in Craig County, this study recommends that Craig County establish an all‐volunteer Transportation Commission (“Commission”) to provide input and oversight of the transit service. This Commission could be comprised of a variety of community stakeholders, including elected officials, the county administrator, local Department of Social Services Director, Health and Dental Center staff, local office on aging and senior center staff, and citizen representatives. The Commission would receive periodic information on the performance of the transit service implemented in Craig, and work with the transit provider to improve the service and help disseminate information on transit throughout the Craig community. This group would meet quarterly. Typically involving a wide range of community stakeholders on an ongoing basis will have a significant impact on how successful any type of service implemented will be.
Craig County Transit Service Study 40 April 2012 Chapter 4 Potential Service Providers
4.0 Potential Service Providers
4.1 Provider Descriptions A variety of potential service providers were evaluated for this study. This includes both existing public transportation service providers and other organizations that could have the capacity to operate public transportations service, including local human services agencies (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Potential Service Providers Service Provider Description Current Transportation Services provided in Craig County RADAR Non‐profit corporation that provides rural public transit None. services and specialized transit primarily in the Greater Roanoke Valley. RADAR provides transit service for physically disabled, mentally disabled, and transportation‐disadvantaged individuals. RIDE Solutions Regional ridesharing program operated by the Roanoke Currently provides ride Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission. Grant‐funded matching assistance to Craig program that provides free carpool/vanpool/transit County residents and matching services for citizens of the Roanoke and New employers. River Valley regions and the surrounding areas. Valley Metro Public transportation provider serving the Roanoke None. Valley. Services offered included fixed‐route bus service, paratransit, commuter bus service to the New River Valley, and special event shuttles. Local Office on Aging Provides transportation to individuals 60 or older, with Service area includes Craig Vital Services low incomes, who have a need for transportation to a County, but it is unclear if the Transportation doctor or other critical appointment. program operates in Craig. LogistiCare Provides transportation for Medicaid recipients. Serves Craig County. Craig County Health Health and Human Services grant funded Health Clinic. None. Center Craig County Local social services department responsible for the Provides gas vouchers to Department of Social administration of Virginia Initiative for Employment not clients enrolled in programs Services Welfare (VIEW) and other federal benefits. with eligible transportation expenses.
4.1.1 RADAR Several discussions were held with staff from some of these potential service providers and program managers at the DRPT. RADAR would be willing to operate the human services transportation proposed for Craig, and the Out‐of‐County and Intra‐County service, and has provided their trip rates as well as insight as to which federal grants to access to assist with paying for this service. RADAR uses professional, part‐time drivers. Labor rates as well as insurance, maintenance, fuel and all operating costs of the service are included in their cost per trip estimates for the proposed services to Craig. There are many advantages in using an established human services transportation provider. Not only is RADAR able to estimate the costs of starting a new service with a greater accuracy than might otherwise be possible, but the organization would provide professional management of the service implemented
Craig County Transit Service Study 41 April 2012 Chapter 4 Potential Service Providers in Craig. RADAR already has trip scheduling software, a driver training program, and possesses spare vehicles that could be used when the Craig County vehicle is undergoing maintenance, therefore eliminating the need for the Craig County service to have its own spare vehicle fleet. RADAR also establishes local advisory committees that meeting quarterly in every community where they implement service.
4.1.2 Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission’s RIDE Solutions Craig County’s Enhanced Ridesharing service would be implemented as part of the work that is done or being planned by the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission’s RIDE Solutions office. The infrastructure and expertise to facilitate a growth in ridesharing exists at RIDE Solutions, but greater coordination is needed with Craig County and other rural communities to ensure that the next ride matching database and next phase of ridesharing outreach can meet the needs of rural residents for both commute and non‐commute trips.
4.1.3 Valley Metro Valley Metro’s role in Craig’s transit service will likely be limited to providing information on Valley Metro services for Craig County to distribute to its residents who wish to travel to locations in Roanoke not accessible via Craig’s Out‐of‐County service. Valley Metro may also be the fiscal home of a regional vanpool program, since the agency already has a National Transit Database identification number that will enable the program to report data to the federal government that generates additional formula funds for the region.
4.1.4 Local Office of Aging The Local Office of Aging (LOA), a regional organization that serves Craig County in addition to Alleghany and Botetourt Counties and the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem, provides a transportation service in the Roanoke area called Vital Services Transportation. Vital Services Transportation utilizes volunteer drivers to provide transportation either in a private automobile or a van, and they also provide taxi cab vouchers. LOA’s local office in Craig County currently provides Meals on Wheels to Craig County seniors.
4.1.5 LogistiCare LogistiCare has a contract with the state to provide Medicaid transportation. LogistiCare can purchase tickets/tokens that provide the fare for their clients to use existing fixed‐route transit services; however, they are prohibited by the state from “dumping”10 (placing) their clients onto existing paratransit services without sufficient payment. If LogistiCare wishes to use existing paratransit services, they must pay the full cost of the paratransit trip. Some Craig County stakeholders have expressed frustration with the service provided by LogistiCare in the County, asserting that LogistiCare providers often do not respond to trip requests from Medicaid recipients in a timely manner, or at all. This frequently leads to missed medical appointments, a problem for both patients and care providers.
10 “Medicaid Dumping” is the terminology commonly used to describe the phenomenon of Medicaid providers placing their clients in existing paratransit services without paying the full cost of the trip.
Craig County Transit Service Study 42 April 2012 Chapter 4 Potential Service Providers
4.1.6 Craig County Health Center The Craig County Health Center does not currently provide any transportation services, but since it is a Health Center Program grantee under 42 U.S.C.254b, it may be eligible to seek additional U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funds for operating or contributing to the operation of a transportation service.
4.1.7 Craig County Department of Social Services The Craig County Department of Social Services (DSS) has a limited amount of funding in several line items in their existing social services programs that allow them to pay for transportation services for their clients. There is $3,500 available in a “purchased services” line item that includes transportation, among other things, for the Craig County clients of Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW), Virginia’s welfare to work program. Of this $3,500, Craig County DSS spends about $1,200 annually on transportation related expenses, predominately going to the purchase of gas vouchers. VIEW’s transportation funding must go to purchasing transportation to support commute trips, but could be used for Craig County services (such as a vanpool program) that met the work trip needs of their clients. There is also a $640 line item that can be used for purchased services including transportation in the Craig County DSS’s Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. Unlike in other areas of the state where the local DSS budget is large enough to directly provide ongoing operating support to transit services, the Craig County DSS’s budget does not allow for this. However, Craig County DSS has expressed a strong interest in being involved in the implementation of transit service in Craig County going forward.
4.2 Transit Provider Models Based on the potential service providers available to Craig County, two basic models for the management of the human services transportation exist: Craig County can contract with a third‐party provider of human services transportation (such as RADAR)to provide a professionally‐managed human services transportation program, or The county can work with a group of local organizations to provide a community‐based service, operated with volunteers and part‐time management in the form of the Mobility Manager.
4.2.1 Professional Contractor Selecting RADAR or another contractor to operate the Craig County service may be more costly, but it would be the least labor‐intensive option, requiring the County essentially to pay for the service and provide oversight; the Mobility Manager would still be needed, but to a lesser extent. Given the resources and expertise in providing human services transportation that a professional contractor would provide, selecting a contractor to provide the service would be the preferable option if funding is available. If this option were pursued, an RFP would be released and a competitive process undertaken to select the contractor.
4.2.2 Community Management A service operated by a local human services agency, or by a consortium of these groups, has some significant operational differences than one provided by a professional human services transportation operator. A locally operated service would cost less than a professionally operated one, in large part
Craig County Transit Service Study 43 April 2012 Chapter 4 Potential Service Providers because it would need to use volunteer drivers, and be operated with a smaller, less costly vehicle (a 15 passenger van) that does not require a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) to operate. Scheduling would need to be done by a volunteer or someone designated at one of the participating organizations, or the Mobility Manager if the funding for that position can be secured.
Recognizing that the funding for RADAR or another contracted provider of human services transportation may not be available in Craig County, program budgets for both a contractor‐operated and a locally‐operated program have been prepared for this study. Craig County’s service could be initially operated by a local consortium of human services organizations, and as it grows the service could transition to professional management under a professional firm such as RADAR.
In either scenario, the employment of a Mobility Manager, either through Craig County or through a larger regional program with the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission, is a critical component of making the transit investment work. If Craig County residents do not know what their transportation options are or where to find out about them, the service is less likely to be successful.
Craig County Transit Service Study 44 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs
5.0 Funding Sources and Service Costs
5.1 Funding Sources Transit services are funded through a combination of federal grants (formula and discretionary), state aid grants and local match funding.
5.1.1 Federal Funding Sources Table 5.1 provides an overview of the available Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants. Typically, rural transit services are easily funded with Section 5311 rural transportation funds once a secure, permanent source of local match funding is in place. Transportation services that serve a reverse commute trip, including vanpools, can be funded with Section 5316, Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC). However, since these funds (5316) require a 50 percent local match, DRPT has not been able to consistently obligate all of the JARC funding allocated to Virginia. Generating a 50 percent local match for JARC to fund the startup costs of a regional vanpool program may be challenging. However, with regional partners each contributing to this, as well as potential employer contributions, JARC may be a reasonable funding source to consider for the initial program costs of a regional vanpool program. Finally, Section 5317 New Freedom provides funding for transportation services that provide accommodations beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As mentioned earlier, DRPT provides a percentage (currently 17.5 percent) of the required local match for capital expenses under 5317, reducing the local share to just 2.5 percent. Again, the actual amount of funding provided by the Commonwealth for the 5317 local match varies from year to year. Funding a Mobility Manager position is an eligible capital expense under 5317.
Craig County Transit Service Study 45 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs
Table 5.1: Relevant Federal Transit Administration Grants Federal Grant Purpose Eligible Recipients Federal/Local Matching Ratios FTA Section 5310 – Supports the purchase of Private Non‐Profit Federal 80%/Local 20% split Transportation for vehicles and equipment Organizations that serve the of eligible expenditures. Elderly Persons and that provide service for the elderly and disabled. Persons with elderly and the disabled. Disabilities FTA Section 5311 – Provides funding to States Local and State Government Operating: Rural Areas for the purpose of Transportation District 50%/50% split of eligible supporting public Commissions expenses. transportation in rural Public Service Corporations areas with population of Private Non‐Profit Capital: less than 50,000. Organizations Federal 80%/Local 20% split of eligible expenditures. FTA Section 5316 ‐ Supports the operating Local and State Government Operating: Jobs Access and and capital costs of special Transportation District 50%/50% split of eligible Reverse Commute programs designed to Commissions expenses. Program connect unemployed Public Service Corporations people to jobs. Private Non‐Profit Capital: Organizations Federal 80%/Local 20% split of eligible expenditures. FTA Section 5317‐ Supports capital and Local and State Government Operating: New Freedom operating costs of new Public Service Corporations 50%/50% split of eligible Program public transportation Private non‐profit expenses. services and new public organizations transportation alternatives Capital: beyond those required by Federal 80%/Local 20% split the Americans with of eligible expenditures Disabilities Act of 1990. (including a mobility manager).
DRPT typically provides a portion of the capital local match. Recently it has provided 17.5%, but this amount can vary. Table adapted from Table 2‐2, Public Transportation and Transportation Demand Management Grant Program Application Guidance, FY 2012, Department of Rail and Public Transportation
5.1.2 State Funding Sources Table 5.2 provides an overview of the State Aid Grant Assistance offered by DRPT. This information is updated with each annual grant cycle. DRPT plans to release its FY 2013 Grant Application in November or December 2011. The State Aid Grants awards for operating and capital assistance are not independent of the federal grants awards. Operating assistance is determined based on a formula of the total amount of funding that a transit provider was approved to receive from federal grants, and the total amount of funds available for operating assistance from the state in that given year. Typically, for 5311 the state’s operating assistance provided amounts to approximately 15 percent of the 50 percent required local match.
In the past, Demonstration Project Assistance supported the implementation of new transit services such as those proposed by Craig, but the focus of this grant program changes from year to year. In
Craig County Transit Service Study 46 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs recent years, Demonstration Project Assistance awards have gone to providing security and safety equipment upgrades or new information technology equipment. In general, Demonstration Project Assistance in recent years has gone to projects that are finite in scope. Since this grant requires only a 5 percent local match, it is generally not too difficult for localities to find the supporting funding. Grant awards for this item range from $100,000 to $500,000, and the competitiveness of the grant varies from year to year depending on how many project proposals are submitted. Frequently, this grant is not as competitive as other State Aid grants. The Senior Transportation Grant program also requires only a 5 percent local match, but it has a more competitive grant application process.
Finally, the state’s TDM Operating Assistance and Transportation Management Project Assistance are another source of potential start‐up funding for a regional vanpool program. In FY 2012, DRPT awarded $4 million in TDM Operating Assistance and Transportation Management Project Assistance to agencies throughout the Commonwealth. Agencies receiving these grants must provide 20% matching funds. The costs of a regional vanpool program will vary considerably depending on the model of vanpool program selected by RIDE Solutions and regional partners. However, it is unlikely that the full start‐up costs of a vanpool program would be covered by a TDM Assistance grant alone. It is more likely that the vanpool program start‐up costs could be met through a combination of DRPT‐funded TDM Assistance, federally provided JARC, employer and other local jurisdiction contributions.
Craig County Transit Service Study 47 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs
Table 5.2: Relevant State Aid Grant Programs State Aid Purpose Eligible Recipients Matching Ratios Grant Program (Up to indicates maximum match) Operating Supports costs borne by Local and State Government Up to 95% of eligible Assistance eligible recipients for Transportation District Expenses operating related public Commissions transportation expenses Public Service Corporations Typically provided as approximately 15% of 5311 local match Capital Supports costs borne by Local and State Government Up to 95% of eligible Assistance eligible recipients for public Transportation District expenses transportation capital Commissions project Public Service Corporations
Demonstration Innovative investments in Local and State Government Up to 95% of eligible Project all functional areas of public Transportation District expenses Assistance transportation Commissions Supports Public Service Corporations
Senior Supports small projects and Local and State Government Up to 95% of eligible Transportation programs ($10,000‐ Transportation District expenses Program $20,000) that improve Commissions mobility for senior citizens Public Service Corporations Private Non‐Profit Organizations TDM Supports administration of Local and State Government Up to 80% of eligible Operating local and regional Transportation District expenses Assistance Transportation Demand Commissions Management/ Commuter Public Service Corporations Assistance programs Planning District Commissions Transportation Supports Transportation Local and State Government Up to 80% of eligible Management Demand Management Transportation District expenses Project projects and programs that Commissions Assistance encourage the reduction of Public Service Corporations SOV travel Planning District Commissions Transportation Management Associations Table adapted from Table 2‐1, Public Transportation and Transportation Demand Management Grant Program Application Guidance, FY 2012, Department of Rail and Public Transportation
5.1.3 Regional Collaboration Another funding option that Craig County may wish to pursue is collaboratively funding the Out‐of‐ County service with Roanoke County. The Out‐of‐County service could make an additional stop in Catawba on Route 311 en route to Salem and Roanoke. Craig County would need to explore this option further with Roanoke County to determine their interest in this option, and how joint funding of this service may work.
Craig County Transit Service Study 48 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs
5.2 Transit Service Concept Costs
This section presents projected service concept costs on a fiscal year basis for the Out‐of‐County and Intra‐County service proposed for Craig County. Projected costs for the Enhanced Ridesharing program proposed in this study are not included in this analysis. The cost of a regional vanpool program would be dependent on the type of vanpool program structure selected, and would be distributed across participating localities and available grant funding as previously described. There is no cost to Craig County to provide input along with the Region Commission into the design of the new regional ride matching database application that DPRT is currently scoping. The Mobility Manager position would be expected to assist in the dissemination of ridesharing information within Craig County.
5.2.1 Professional Contractor Operations Costs RADAR provided costs for operating the Out‐of‐County and Intra‐County services as proposed (Table 5.3). These cost estimates should be considered provisional for planning purposes. In addition to the operating costs, RADAR (or another contractor) would need to purchase a new vehicle to operate the Craig County service, which would be 20‐passenger, lift‐equipped bus built on a Ford E‐450 chassis at a cost of $62,000.
The information provided by RADAR on the cost of the service should be considered as an example of the cost of procuring the service from a contractor. If Craig County desired a professional contractor to operate their transit service, the County would need to procure the service through a competitive solicitation.
Table 5.3: RADAR’s Estimated Annual Operating Costs – Out‐of‐County and Intra‐County Service (Contractor Example) Route Route Length (miles) Per Trip Cost Annual Cost (One Way) (Once a Week Service) Out‐of‐County to Salem and Roanoke 41 $68 $20,679 Route 311 Corridor 58 $85 $15,563 North County Zone 24 $ 42 $11,177 South County Zone 44 $ 74 $14,441 Total $61,861 Cost estimates provided by RADAR.
5.2.2 Community Management Operations Costs Table 5.4 provides estimated annual operating costs of a locally operated program. These costs are less than those of providing the service via the RADAR example, but there would be significant differences in the way the service would be operated. No labor costs are included in this scenario, since it is assumed that the drivers will be volunteers and management of the program, including trip scheduling, will be done by existing staff at an organization participating in the locally operating program, or by the Mobility Manager. The vehicle used to operate the service would be a lift‐equipped, 12 passenger, Ford E‐350, costing $40,000. Operating this vehicle would not require a Commercial Driver’s License.
At least at the outset of a locally operated program, a funding for marketing and contingency has been assumed in the annual budget. The actual cost of a locally operated program may vary considerable
Craig County Transit Service Study 49 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs from what is presented in Table 6, depending on the cost of gas as well as the amount of marketing required to ensure program success.
Table 5.4: Annual Estimated Operating and Marketing Cost of a Locally Operated Program Expense Cost Purpose or Basis Marketing $3,000 Printing flyers, and supporting other outreach. Suggested cost identical to the Graham County Transit budget for postage, promotional items and advertisements for FY 2012. Gas $7,848 Annual total vehicle miles by 10 miles per gallon vehicle. Contingency $500 Contingency fund to cover any unforeseen expenses or cost overruns. Insurance $1,855 State’s AdVANtage program rate determined via the online rate calculator.11 Vehicle Maintenance $2,500 “Other vehicle expenses,” Transportation Statistics Annual Report Average Household Transportation Expenditures: 2004–2009, Table 4‐35, Transportation Statistics Annual Report, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Total Graham County Transit FY 2012 vehicle repair and maintenance budget of $5,000 for a vehicle fleet that includes three mini vans, four high top handicap accessible vans and one 20 seat bus. Total $15,703 Provisional operating cost estimates are for planning purposes only.
5.2.3 Total Cost: Basic Contractor Service Tables 5.5 and 5.6 provide the total estimated cost of providing the proposed services to Craig County. Several key assumptions have been made in the availability and use of federal and state aid grants for public transportation that apply to both of these scenarios: Craig County receives a Demonstration Project Assistance Grant and provides five percent of local operating assistance in the first year of the program’s operation. 5311 grant funding is utilized to provide 50 percent of the operating expenditures after the first year, state aid operating assistance provides an additional 15 percent, Craig County provides 35 percent of the total operating budget. The transit vehicle is replaced every five years (approximately 125,000 miles). A part‐time Mobility Manager is hired by the Regional Commission or a transit service contractor using 5317 Capital funding 80 percent of this position’s salary, the Commonwealth providing 17.5 percent of this salary (although the Commonwealth percentage varies year to year), and Craig County providing 2.5 percent of the salary. All costs are assumed to increase due to inflation at a rate of three percent per year, with the exception of capital costs. The Regional Commission is successful in receiving grant funding for a Mobility Manager position for FY 2013, and Craig County successfully begins transit service in FY 2014.
11 https://drm.trs.virginia.gov/Vaccs/vanpool_calculator.asp
Craig County Transit Service Study 50 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs
Table 5.5: Estimated Total Cost to Craig County for a Contractor Operated Program, FY 2014‐FY 2019 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Operating $3,093 $22,301 $22,970 $23,659 $24,369 $25,100
Capital $12,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,400
Marketing $3,000 $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478
Total $18,493 $25,391 $26,153 $26,937 $27,745 $40,978
Provisional operating cost estimates for planning purposes only.
Table 5.6: Estimated Total Cost to Craig County for a Locally Operated Program, FY 2014‐FY 2018 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Operating $635 $4,579 $4,717 $4,858 $5,004 $5,154
Capital $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000
Marketing $3,000 $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478
Total $11,635 $7,669 $7,900 $8,136 $8,381 $16,632
Provisional operating cost estimates for planning purposes only.
5.2.4 Total Cost: Expanded Contractor Service While it is recommended that at the start of service, one Out‐of‐County trip per week and one trip per week per zone in the Intra‐County service be provided, the demand for service may in fact be higher than what this would provide. As a result, several tables that provide an overview of cost estimates for an increase in service are shown below. All of the assumptions in the following tables, including Craig County receiving a DRPT Demonstration Project Assistance in the first year of service, remain the same as in the proposed service recommendation.
In particularly, it is believed that demand for the Out‐of‐County service may exceed a once a week trip. Table 5.7 is the estimated cost to Craig County for providing two days of Out‐of‐County service, and Intra‐County service.
Table 5.7: Estimated Cost to Craig County for Two Days of Out‐of‐County Service, Intra‐County Service, FY 2014‐ FY 2019 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Operating $4,127 $28,889 $29,756 $30,649 $31,568 $32,515
Capital $12,400 $0 $0 $0 $12,400
Marketing $3,000 $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478
Total $19,527 $31,979 $32,939 $33,927 $34,944 $48,393
Provisional operating cost estimates for planning purposes only.
Craig County Transit Service Study 51 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs
Table 5.8 shows the estimated cost to Craig County for providing Out‐of‐County service three days a week, while providing the Intra‐County service as well. A key distinction in Table 9 is the assumption that Craig County would need to fund the purchase of two vehicles to operate this service, instead of one.
Table 5.8: Estimated Cost to Craig County for Three Days of Out‐of‐County Service, Intra‐County Service, FY 2014‐FY 2019 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Operating $5,161 $36,127 $37,211 $38,327 $39,477 $40,661 Capital $24,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,800 Marketing $3,000 $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478 Total $32,961 $39,217 $40,393 $41,605 $42,853 $68,939 Provisional operating cost estimates for planning purposes only.
Tables 5.9 and 5.10 display the estimated cost to Craig County for two and three days of Out‐of‐County service only. In these scenarios, it is assumed that the Intra‐County transportation needs are met through the Enhanced Ridesharing service and though access to other resources through the Mobility Manager. Again, these tables were prepared for informational purposes only.
Table 5.9: Estimated Cost to Craig County for Two Days of Out‐of‐County Service ONLY, FY 2014‐FY 2019 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Operating $2,068 $14,476 $14,910 $15,357 $15,818 $16,292 Capital $12,400 $0 $0 $0 $12,400 Marketing $3,000 $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478 Total $17,468 $17,566 $18,093 $18,635 $19,194 $32,170 Provisional operating cost estimates for planning purposes only.
Table 5.10: Estimated Cost to Craig County for Three Days of Out‐of‐County Service ONLY, FY 2014‐ FY2019 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Operating $3,102 $21,713 $22,365 $23,036 $23,727 $24,439 Capital $12,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,400 Marketing $3,000 $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478 Total $19,284 $25,609 $26,377 $27,169 $27,984 $41,223 Provisional operating cost estimates for planning purposes only.
5.3 Local Match Requirement Meeting the needs of Craig County residents with an affordable, well‐designed transit service is possible, but it is difficult to accomplish without the commitment of local funds and management resources. Craig County stakeholders should collaboratively assess the currently available funding sources for transportation across all organizations and sources in the community, including but not limited to the social service agencies, organizations serving the elderly and disabled, and other community non‐profits
Craig County Transit Service Study 52 April 2012 Chapter 5 Funding Sources and Service Costs in Craig and the Roanoke Valley region that could contribute funding to meet a local match requirement. DRPT needs to be sure that any new local transit service implemented will be given the financial support, marketing, and oversight at the local level needed to be truly successful.
Craig County stakeholders may also wish to conduct some type of community involvement or community survey to assess the level of need and interest in using the proposed transit service. Craig County DSS has indicated a willingness to distribute such a survey to all of the local DSS clients. Surveys could also be sent home with students enrolled in the Craig County Public School System, and distributed at other community group and religious community meetings, including possibly placed in Church bulletins or other community group newsletters. Without greater public outreach and some type of survey, it will be difficult to ascertain what the ridership or level of demand for the proposed service will be. It is possible that some aspects of the service can be scaled back, but it is also possible that the proposed service will not be enough to meet the level of demand for transportation assistance currently present in Craig County. Craig County may wish to leverage assistance in conducting this outreach with the Regional Commission, and from other interested organizations and groups that could provide assistance in organizing the distribution and analysis of a survey or organizing and advertising a community forum.
Craig County Transit Service Study 53 April 2012 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan and Timeline
6.0 Implementation Plan and Timeline
Implementing the proposed transit service will be a multi‐step process that will require an investment of the time and expertise of Craig County staff and citizens over the next two years. However, once service is implemented, it should not require a significant effort on the County’s part to maintain. 6.1 Implementation Plan
6.1.1 Establish Transportation Commission The first step towards establishing transit service in Craig County should be the formation of a volunteer Craig County Transportation Commission (the Commission) that will oversee service implementation and form the basis for the local oversight group once the service is in place. This group should be comprised of representatives from relevant organizations (i.e., the Craig County Department of Social Services, Health Clinic, local senior center representatives) and elected officials, as well as interested citizens. Commission members will need to commit to being available for monthly meetings, and preferably the Commission leadership (Chair or Co‐Chairs) should be able to provide assistance on a more frequent basis during the implementation period. After transit service is established, it is likely that the Commission would only need to meet on a quarterly basis.
6.1.2 Coordinate with the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission Several of the service elements proposed in this plan will require significant coordination with the Roanoke Valley‐Allegheny Regional Commission. Regional Commission staff have indicated that they welcome the opportunity to work more closely with Craig County and to develop some of the more regionally focused services that are identified in Chapter 4 as needs for Craig. The Craig County staff and Transportation Commission leadership should reach out to the Regional Commission’s Transportation Planning and Ridesharing (RIDE Solutions) staff to:
Coordinate implementation of the enhanced ridesharing services. Provide input on development of the new regional ridesharing database that will be procured by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) on behalf of the Regional Commission. Craig County can request that the new software include features that are oriented towards one‐time non‐commute trips, allowing those in need of transportation to medical appointments or other basic services to ride with commuters. Discuss the potential for a vanpool program. Work with the Regional Commission to apply for a DRPT Technical Assistance grant to study potential models for a regional vanpool program focused on rural commuters. Foster deeper relationships with employers outside Craig County that employ many Craig County residents. These relationships can help Craig County’s staff and Transportation Commission members understand the needs of these employers and employees, and assess their willingness to contribute financially to a regional vanpool program or other ridesharing initiatives. Provide input to the Regional Commission as they apply for DRPT grant assistance to create a Mobility Manager position that will serve Craig County, and other jurisdictions in the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany region..
Craig County Transit Service Study 54 April 2012 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan and Timeline
Assess the ability of the Regional Commission to provide staff assistance in the implementation of other aspects of the Craig County transit service.
6.1.3 Public Involvement and Final Service Determination
The service concepts for the out‐of‐county bus service to Salem and Roanoke and the intra‐county weekly zone‐based service were prepared based on the input of a select group of Craig County stakeholders, since to‐date there has not yet been an opportunity to solicit the input of a broader group of Craig County citizens. Prior to the launch of the transit service, further vetting of the service proposal with potential users in the Craig County Community should be undertaken. Reaching as many potential users of the service as possible for the input prior to the launch of the service is ideal. Three general steps for ensuring adequate public input into the proposed services are outlined as a part of this implementation plan:
1. General Public Involvement Meeting Plans are in place for early 2012 general public involvement meeting. The presentation at this meeting will include an overview of the complete service proposal. This meeting will be advertised widely throughout the Craig County community, and the public will be given the opportunity to provide their comments on the service proposals at the meeting. Local media may also be invited to the meeting. 2. General Community Outreach Public involvement materials prepared as a part of this study can be presented at other community meetings. The materials will also be posted on the Craig County website, and made available in hardcopy form at the Craig County Public Library. 3. Survey Craig County stakeholders may also wish to conduct a simple community survey to assess the level of transit need and interest in the proposed transit service. Craig County DSS has indicated a willingness to distribute such a survey to all of the local DSS clients. Surveys could also be available online; at the County Public Library and Mick or Mack; sent home with students enrolled in the Craig County Public School System; and distributed at other community group and religious community meetings, including possibly placed in Church bulletins or other community group newsletters. A drop box for completed surveys could be provided in public locations. A survey is probably the best way to ascertain what the ridership or level of demand for the proposed service will be. It is possible that some aspects of the service can be scaled back, but it is also possible that the proposed service will not be enough to meet the level of demand for transportation assistance currently present in Craig County. Survey distribution can be undertaken by volunteers on the Craig County Transportation Commission, by high school students as part of a class project, or by other community groups. The Regional Commission will assist with survey analysis, to the extent that their resources allow.
Printing brochures that explain the service proposal and ways through which Craig County residents can submit their input to the appropriate place (via the survey, at a community meeting or directly to the County Administrator’s office via email or telephone), should be prepared and distributed in advance of the public meeting, the community outreach, and the survey distribution. The brochure can be a simple black and white tri‐fold in order to keep the cost to a minimum.
Craig County Transit Service Study 55 April 2012 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan and Timeline
Once the public involvement process is concluded, the Craig County Transportation Commission and County Administrator can meet to determine the final scope of the transit service to be implemented. The input received via the public involvement meeting and general outreach, as well as through the survey, should be incorporated in the final service determination. If the survey indicates a high level of interest in the weekly trip to Salem and Roanoke, and less of an interest in the intra‐county service, then the implementation may be re‐oriented to focus more on providing the out‐of‐county service. The budget spreadsheets provided to Craig County as a part of this study can be used to examine the financial impact of the implementing transit service if the final service determination varies from what was initially recommended in this study. The amount of service implemented should be tailored to what is understood can be consistently supported with both ridership and an adequate amount of local county match funding to ensure that it is sustainable in the long‐term.
6.1.4 Park and Ride Identification
Several potential sites for new park and ride facilities were identified in this study. Should the County and the Transportation Commission wish to pursue this designating a park and ride in Craig County, and possibly providing additional infrastructure at this site (i.e. bike racks or rider information board), there will need to be a more detailed analysis of the best potential park and ride location. The proposed survey can include questions on the interest of residents in using a park and ride facilities, and where these facilities are needed throughout the county.
One of the potential park and ride locations identified in this study is an unpaved county‐owned land parcel in the center of the Town of New Castle. If the county’s analysis indicates that a New Castle location is the best location for a park and ride, the Transportation Commission can further explore the cost of paving that area and providing any other desired amenities there. The other identified potential park and ride locations are existing, privately‐owned parking facilities located along Route 311 at complementary land uses, such as gas stations with large parking lots and churches where are not typically in use on weekdays. If the county’s analysis indicates that a Route 311 location would be best, then the Transportation Commission can begin to explore the interest of these land owners in allowing the county to designate a park and ride on their parking lots. Many transportation agencies across the country currently have shared parking agreements with private land owners, and Craig County can reach out to DRPT and others for guidance in negotiating such an agreement.
6.1.5 Grants Application Process
Prior to the launch of any transit service, Craig County will need to secure funding to operate the service. The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation’s grant application process operates on an annual basis, and the disbursement of state operating and capital assistance funds are tied to the disbursement of federal transportation grant funding. The DRPT Grant Application Guidelines are released each calendar year in late November, and grant applications are due to the Commonwealth in February of the following year. DRPT provides assistance in the preparation of grant applications from September through January each year. Grant application decisions are determined by mid‐March, and applicants are notified about the status of their applications between April and May. Grant agreements between DRPT and the recipient organizations are developed and executed starting on July 1st for state programs and October 1st for federal programs.
Craig County Transit Service Study 56 April 2012 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan and Timeline
Craig County needs to focus their efforts on completing the survey, finalizing the service proposals, and working with the Regional Commission to implement the Mobility Manager position over the next year to put in place the initial infrastructure to support a grant application for the FY 2014grant cycle for the out‐of‐county and intra‐county services. The grant applications for the FY 2014 grant cycle are due in February 2013, and funding would become available in July or October 2013, depending on the source of the grant. The Regional Commission is currently moving ahead with a grant applications for the Mobility Manager for the FY 2013 grant cycle, and if the application is successful the position should be advertised in August 2012.
DRPT administers both of the federal grants that have been proposed to be used to fund service in the County, so the County needs to familiarize itself only with DRPT’s procedures. The Regional Commission is also familiar with federal and DPRT grants, and can assist Craig County as they prepare the applications for the Out‐of‐County and Intra‐county service. Additionally, since the service proposal recommends that only the out‐of‐county and intra‐county services be operated directly through the County, the other services (enhanced ridesharing and the Mobility Manager position) that are more appropriately operated at the regional level will require the Regional Commission to apply for the relevant grants. Craig County will also need to budget for providing the required local match in the annual county budgeting process. The County will need to consider when the local match will be available when planning for the launch of the service.
Table 6.1 provides an overview of the grants that are assumed to fund the proposed services in the service proposal, and who would be the lead application agency for each of these grants and services.
Table 6.1: Grant Programs for use in funding transit service in Craig County Federal or State Aid Grant Craig County Transit Service Grant Application Lead Agency Program Operating Out‐of‐County and Intra‐county service Craig County Assistance Demonstration Out‐of‐County and Intra‐county service, Craig County Project Assistance operating funding FTA Section 5311 – Out‐of‐County and Intra‐county service, Craig County Rural Areas operating and capital funding Technical Assistance Vanpool service study Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission TDM Operating Vanpool service – operating assistance Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Assistance Regional Commission
Transportation Enhanced ridesharing and vanpool Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Management service – administrative funding Regional Commission Project Assistance assistance FTA Section 5317‐ Mobility manager position Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany New Freedom Regional Commission Program (preferable) or Craig County
Craig County Transit Service Study 57 April 2012 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan and Timeline
6.1.6 Request for Proposals Process
Following a successful grant application for its out‐of‐county and intra‐county service, Craig County will need to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit vendor proposals for operating the service. Craig County may wish to seek assistance from the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission or other input from agencies or neighboring jurisdictions that have solicited similar services in recent years when drafting the RFP document. Given the small staff of the Craig County government, it may be advisable to have members of the Transportation Commission be a part of the RFP vendor selection committee.
Craig County Transit Service Study 58 April 2012 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan and Timeline
6.2 Implementation Timeline and Responsibilities
Table 6.2 presents the timeline for the implementation of transit service in Craig County. While service would not be able to begin until late 2013, the remains a significant amount of planning and preparation to be done in the interim In the event that Craig County needs more time to complete the pre‐grant application implementation steps, this process can be shifted a year and the service can be implemented in FY 2014.
Table 6.2: Craig County Transit Service Implementation Timeline and Responsibilities Primary Task Completion Date Responsibility January – February 2012 Public Meeting January 9 Consultant Inform about Transit Study 6:30 ‐ 7:30 p.m. Kickoff transit survey County Courtroom Request volunteers for the transportation commission Distribute, collect, and tally surveys January Craig County Establish a County Transportation Commission January Craig County County staff and RIDE Solutions meeting January Craig County Prepare application for 5317 funds for Mobility Manager January (prepare) Regional Commission February (due) County Board of Supervisors votes on Transit Service Study March 1 Craig County endorsement May ‐ September 2012 DRPT Grant Application Decision for Mobility Manager Funding May Regional Commission Advertise for Mobility Manager Position June Regional Commission Hire Mobility Manager August Regional Commission Initiate outreach to private employers of Craig County residents September Craig County* regarding a Vanpool program DRPT Grant Application Decision for Mobility Manager Funding May Regional Commission January – June 2013 Prepare DRPT grant application: January (prepare) Craig County* Out‐of‐county and intra‐county service operations February 1 (due) Technical assistance for a vanpools program implementation study DRPT grant application decisions May Craig County* Issue an RFPs June Craig County* Out‐of‐county and/or intra‐county service provider Contractor to conduct a vanpool program implementation study Summer 2013 – Winter 2014 Select service provider and contractor Fall Craig County* Start Craig County Public Transit Service Winter 2013‐2014 Craig County* *With support from the selected Mobility Manger
Craig County Transit Service Study 59 April 2012 Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Service and Route Maps (Valley Metro, Mountain Express & Smart Way)
Craig County Transit Service Study A‐1 April 2012 Valley Metro Florist Rd. Insert For Downtown Roanoke Area 81 Airport Rd. Edinburgh 12,16,82,86 81 21 Square Downtown Roanoke Transit Routes 11,15,85 Routes to and fromRead Campbell Court Wells Ave. 601 21,25,81 25 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA InboundMountain Route 12,86 Roanoke 26 Outbound Route To Valley View Mall from Peters Creek Rd. Town 11 25 Municipal Square 11 & 15Campbell Court Airport Shenandoah Ave. 22,26,86 Blvd. Ruritan Rd. Friendship Aviation Dr. Aviation 26
To Campbell Court from Town Sq. 25 Manor St. Jefferson 12 & 16 Gainsboro Rd. Norfolk Ave. Valley View Mall 76 Thirlane Rd. 32 Crossroads Hershberger Rd. Norfolk Southern Rwy. Shopping 16,32,82
21 & 25 Oakland Blvd. Rd. Plantation To Crossroads Mall from Salem Ave. 55,61 32 Salem Ave. Cove Rd. Mall 65,75 12,22,26,36,42 Campbell Court 65,71,75 31 22 52,56,62,66,72,86 N Valley 21 Preston 11,15,21,25 22 & 26 To Campbell Court from Court 55,61,71,81,85 Pennsylvania Ave. 22,26 Campbell
Crossroads Mall 86 St. 3rd 31 Marr 26 CEI Court Valley View Blvd. 22 11,15,21 31 & 35 16 Edinburgh Dr. Campbell Ave. 16,56,62 Breckinridge 25,81,85 Blue Hills 31,35,41,51Dr. Campbell Ave. To Vinton from Campbell 780 15 72,66 72,76,82 William Fleming 12 Junior 25 Court High School 11 Cornell Dr. High School 32 & 36 Ferncliff Ave. Valley 56,62 16 16 55,61,71 To Campbell Court from GrandviewFloraland Dr. William Ruffner Fleming Ave. Ole Monterey St. 1st Routt Rd. Rd. Oliver Vinton Peach Tree View 41 Junior High School Huff Lane Golf Course Statesman 85 Huntington Blvd. Old Mountain Rd. Elementary Williamson Rd. Industrial Roanoke 15
To Southeast Roanoke from Dr. N. Church Ave. St. 2nd Park Centre for Jefferson St. Jefferson
Valley View W. Rd. Williamson Harvest Fairhope 12 11 71 Industry 42 Campbell Court Cove Rd. Broad St. Valley View Tinker 56,62 36,42,52 Shopping Mall Creek Blue Hills Bullitt Ave. To Campbell Court from Oakland 55,61 35,41,51 Elementary Golf Course 51 & 55Southeast Roanoke 101 15 Hershberger Greenland 85 25 Granby St. Seibel Dr. Goodwill 52 & 56To Tanglewood Mall from 581 Round Hill Rd. Plantation Industries Oakland Blvd. Campbell Court Florida Ave. Cove Rd. Elementary
Guildhall King St. Gun Club Rd. Club Gun Fugate Rd. ALT 220 11 11 81 West Side 460 82 Elementary Hillcrest 61 To Campbell Court from Belle Ave. Peters Creek Rd. Forest Hill Liberty Tanglewood Mall 91 92 Fresno St. Mason
Hollins Rd. Hollins Comer Rd. 62 Roanoke St. To Brambleton & Red Rock Westside Blvd. Country Club 26 from Campbell Court Mason's Electric Rd. Roanoke Aspen Salem Andrews Rd. 31 65 24th St. Norfolk Southern Rwy. Plaza Blvd. Roanoke 81 M 10th St. To Campbell Court from Golfside Ave. assachusettsAcademy Creek 32 Red Rock 82 Hunt Ave. Forest Hill Melrose Ave. Syracuse Ave. East Gate 66 Blvd. 20th St. Park Berkley Rd. East Gate To Carlton & Grandin from 431 Carroll Ave.19th St. 16th St. 11 LaFayette Lincoln Noble Ave. 32 Campbell Court Caldwell St. 71 side Terrace Melrose Staunton Ave. Elementary Thurston Ave. Richard Ave. Liberty Dunbar 21 To Campbell Court from West Towers Rugby Blvd. 460 12 13th Belle Ave. 31
Forest Park Forest 72 Carlton & Grandin Creek 85 Salem Trpk. 15 460 Melrose Ave. 86 30th St. Washington Gus To Lewis Gale Hospital from Peter's Fairview Park 22 Archbold 75 Old Stevens Elementary King St. Campbell Court To Salem Moorman Ave. 81 Nicks 10th St. 16 Ruddell (See Inset) Centre 82 Eastern Ave. Westside Troutland 11th St. Madison McDowell Orange Ave. Westwood Hollins Rd. Blvd. 76 To Campbell Court from 24th St. Loudon Ave. Dale Dunkirk
from Lewis Gale Hospital Rd. Hemlock Shenandoah Ave. 22th St. Roanoke Vinton Indian War Memorial Blvd. Civic Washington Ave. Moorman Center son Rock 652 81 Ave. To Veterans Hospital from 18th St. 75 Village 8th St. East 76 5th St. Harrison am Walnut Campbell Court 75 76 Gainsboro St. 92 Salem Pollard 35 Andrews Maple Elementary 14th St. Willi Walnut Cleveland 82 Hurt Park Kimball 31 Virginia Veterans Gilmer Catholic 31 To Campbell Court from 92 Care Center Elementary Church 25 Virginia Ave. River Park Veterans Hospital 32 75 76 5th St. Wise Fallon 36 Shopping 85 Norfolk Southern Rwy. 10th St. Wells 24 Veterans Salem Transportation 26 Fallon Park Park Augusta Bedford Center Elementary Ave. To Goodwill Salem from Administraton 18th St.Patterson Ave. Museum Dale NS Shops Valley St. 3rd. 35 Electric Rd. Medical Center 65 Ave. Vernon Campbell Court Norfolk Campbell Metro 24 Norwich 66 35 Parkside Court Campbell 36 Plaza Hardy Rd. 419 Park Dale Ave. 71 Tazewell Ave. Lake Dr. Plaza To Campbell Court from 6th St. 72 2nd. St. Apperson Dr. Roanoke River Goodwill Salem tainView 15th St. 35 Blvd. Chestnut Church KenwoodGreen Clearview Terr. 13th St. Campbell 36 Jamison Moun Marshall Ave. Manor
65 14th To Peters Creek Road from 92 brier Campbell Court Memorial Ave. Virginia 11th St. Montrose Public Clearview Bullitt Ave. 13th Heights Elm Ave. 7th St. 91 Lee-Hi 61 Library Fauquier Elementary Wasena 62 42 Tayloe VINTON Shopping Center Wasena Jefferson St. To Campbell Court from Park 41 Niagara wood Memorial Ave. Highland Community Hospital Peters Creek Road of the Roanoke Valley Malvern Wasena Ave. 56 52 Keagy Rd. Edge Chesterfield St. Denniston 9th St. Morningside 41 Brandon Ave. Derwent Windsor Ave. To Lewis-Gale Hospital from Braeburn Dr. 71 72 Goodwill Salem Maiden 42 Carlton 51 Lewis Gale Poplar Rd. Woodrow Highland 55 Hospital Hill Wilson 66 Park Morningside To Goodwill Salem from Junior Walnut Ave. Gordon Main St. Woods Elementary Roanoke Lewis-Gale Hospital High School Arbutus Ave. Deyerle Rd. Brandon Ave. 65 River Wasena Morgan Riverdale Rd. Grandin Rd. Elementary 220 York Rd. Brandon Morningside Fairway Dr. 221 Ave. Park Highland Rd. d. 86 Mud Lick Rd. Towers 42 Patrick Henry Shopping Bennington St.Queen Victory Ann High School 62 Center Roanoke Stadium Belleview Ave. Carlton Rd. Guilford Ave. Roanoke Franklin R 41 Industrial 91 Wonju St. Sports The Park Shrine Complex Roanoke Riverland Rd. Pike Hill 61 Star King Grandin Rd. Park McClanahan Roanoke Charles Bennington 92 Overland Rd. . Memorial Ave Hospital Place Broadway Rutrough James Madison Colonial Ave. Rd. Middle School 23rd. Mill Southeast Roanoke Mountain Medical Center LEGEND Goodwill Spring Rd. bleton Fishburn Park Mount 81 Elementary Carolina Industries Grandin Bram Franklin Rd. 26th St. Street Crystal Court Virginia Western Pleasant
Roanoke 81 Rd. Mountain Elementary Spring 460 College Main St. Community College Elementary U.S. Highway Spartan East 82 Square Jefferson St. 92 Lakeside 56 Blvd. 581 Interstate 91 Plaza Yellow Fleetwood Ave. J. B. Fishburn Pkwy. 460 Andrew Roanoke Red Rock Avenham 15 91 Salem 55 Bus Route Lewis Salem Trpk. 92 Middle Rd. Plaza 220 West Bandy Rd. Salem School 617 Route Variation 91 Texas St. Rosalind Ave. Blvd. Plaza 4th St. College St. 92 Salem Civic Electric 221 City Railroad Center Ogden G. W. 91 Colonial Ave. 52 Carver Landmark Roanoke Blvd. Garden Elementary South Side Jae Valley Rd. Veterans Pebble Nursing Home Mayfield Dr. Hospital Administraton 76 51 Medical Center 75 Creek Ray Rd. Apt. Please note that routes may change due SALEM to road construction detours. Call 92 92 Tanglewood for the latest route information. Mall Lee-High MILES 982-2222 Lewis Gale Shopping Center Hospital 1/4 1/2 3/4 91 Brandon Keagy 72 Yellow Grand Pavillon © Braeburn 71 2006 Valley Metro MountainNew Spring Branch Garden City 116Map designed by Smartmaps, Knoxville, TN. Roanoke Rd. Elementary Mountain Electric Rd. 419
The Mountain Express offers a deviated fixed route service to the citizens of Clifton Forge, Iron Gate and Covington.
The Service operates five days a week. Monday - Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. See inside of this brochure for a schedule of stops and times.
A fare of fifty cents per trip is charged and must be paid when boarding the van. Exact change is required. Children under the age of six years old ride at no charge.
Individuals who are ADA certified may request the van to deviate off its route to make pick-ups and drop offs. This distance may not exceed 3/4 of a mile off the route.
For more information regarding this service call (800) 964-5707 Ext. 3 or 4. Miles
Þ
B
A
2
! (
81 0
§ ¨ ¦
y
5
6
1 a 1
! (
4
Þ City of Roanoke w
1 k
581 r
§ ¨ ¦ a
3
220
t u P
! (
e
3
g 4
Þ 460
t u 1
11 d i t u
R
1 e
u 4 l
Þ B 1 419 4 311
! ( 0
4 Þ 1 Salem 1.5
Þ 036912 Glenvar 137 ! ( Dixie Caverns Dixie
2
3 Þ
1 Roanoke County Elliston
! ( 8
Ironto 2
Þ 460
t u 1 COMMUTER SERVICE MAP ! ( Shawsville 81 § ¨ ¦
603
C
B 8
Þ 11 5
! (
Þ
A 8
Montgomery County 11 8 6 ! ( ! ( 7 ! ( Þ
4
1
1 THE SMART WAY Blacksburg 114 Christiansburg Prepared by the staff of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, 2004. Commission, Regional Valley-Alleghany Roanoke of the staff the by Prepared The Smart Way Way Smart The Route Service Bus Stops 1: Campbell 1: Campbell Court Transportation Center 2: Hotel Roanoke and Center/ Conference Center Ed. Higher the Airport Regional 3: Roanoke 140 - Exit & Lot Ride Park 4: 118A - Exit & Lot Ride Park 5: 6: Christiansburg K-Mart Research Center 7: Corporate Center Student 8: Squires Virginia Tech Campus ! ( Appendices
Appendix B: Potential Craig County Transit System Peers
Craig County Transit Service Study B‐1 April 2012 Appendices
Table B‐1: Potential Craig County Peers Evaluated for Precedent Research Inclusion Peer Name Location Area Served Population Pop/Sq. Service Type(s) Ridership Number (Sq. Miles) Mile 1 North Central Montana Hill, Blaine Counties 7,166 23,853 3 Fixed Route Transit 2 Coast Transportation Whitman, Asotin, and 3,537 68,665 19 Demand Response Garfield Counties, WA 3 Swain County Transit Swain County, NC 541 13,981 26 Demand Response, Human 46,825 Services, Commuter Routes 4 Graham County Transit Graham County, NC 433 20 Fixed Route (Once a day, 8,541 8,861 Weekday Service), Demand Response. 5 Alleghany In Motion Alleghany County, NC 236 11,155 47 Demand Response 6,794 6 Rockbridge Area Transit Rockbridge, VA 600 35,000 58 Demand responsive, including Service (RATS) to medical centers outside county 7 Northwest TN Rural Public Tennessee 4355 255,244 59 Demand Response 42,998 Transportation 8 Mountain Empire Transit Lee, Scott and Wise 1,389 95,500 69 Demand Response 68,355 Counties, and The City of Norton. 9 Mitchell County Mitchell County, NC 222 15,579 70 Demand Response 32,665 Transportation Authority 10 Avery County Avery County, NC 247 17797 72 Demand Response 12,768 Transportation Authority 11 Upper Cumberland Human Tennessee (14 Counties) 2,741 317743 116 Commuter Vanpools, Demand 154,630 Resource Agency Response 12 Rowan Transit System Rowan County, NC 524 130,340 249 Demand Response 43,692 13 Graham Transit Bluefield, VA 7 5,226 747 Deviated fixed route/Dial‐a‐ride 35,225 14 Mountain Express Covington, Clifton Forge, 9 10,650 1,170 Deviate Fixed‐Route 12,958 and Iron Gate 15 Federated Transportation Bourbon, Harrison, and 45,966 Human Services, Rural 29,031 Services Nicholas Counties, KY Commuter Bus 16 LKLP Community Action Hazard, KY Demand Response 53,498 17 Rural Transit Enterprises Mount Vernon, KY Demand response public transit 95,935 Coordinated, Inc. system, intercity transit.
Craig County Transit Service Study B‐2 April 2012 Appendices
Appendix C: Potential Out‐of‐County Service Schedule
Craig County Transit Service Study C‐1 April 2012 Appendices
Weekly Trip to Salem/Roanoke
8:00 am leave New Castle, VA
8:30 am arrive Salem, VA National College, 1813 E Main St, Salem, VA 24153 Wal‐Mart Superstore, 1851 W Main St, Salem, VA 24153 VA Medical Center, 1970 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 Lewis Gale Medical Center, 1900 Electric Road, Salem, VA 24153
9:15 am arrive Roanoke, VA Tanglewood Mall, Roanoke, VA Virginia Western Community College, 3095 Colonial Ave., Roanoke, VA 24018 Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia
11:00 am depart Roanoke, VA Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia Virginia Western Community College, 3095 Colonial Ave., Roanoke, VA 24018 Tanglewood Mall, Roanoke, VA
11:45 am depart Salem, VA Lewis Gale Medical Center, 1900 Electric Road, Salem, VA 24153 VA Medical Center, 1970 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 Wal‐Mart Superstore, 1851 W Main St, Salem, VA 24153 National College, 1813 E Main St, Salem, VA 24153
12:30 pm arrive New Castle, VA
1:00 pm depart New Castle, VA
1:30 am arrive Salem, VA National College, 1813 E Main St, Salem, VA 24153 Wal‐Mart Superstore, 1851 W Main St, Salem, VA 24153 VA Medical Center, 1970 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 Lewis Gale Medical Center, 1900 Electric Road, Salem, VA 24153
2:15 am arrive Roanoke, VA Tanglewood Mall, Roanoke, VA Virginia Western Community College, 3095 Colonial Ave., Roanoke, VA 24018 Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia
5:00 pm depart Roanoke, VA Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia Virginia Western Community College, 3095 Colonial Ave., Roanoke, VA 24018 Tanglewood Mall, Roanoke, VA
5:30 pm depart Salem, VA
Craig County Transit Service Study C‐2 April 2012 Appendices
Lewis Gale Medical Center, 1900 Electric Road, Salem, VA 24153 VA Medical Center, 1970 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 Wal‐Mart Superstore, 1851 W Main St, Salem, VA 24153 National College, 1813 E Main St, Salem, VA 24153
6:00 pm arrive New Castle, VA
Craig County Transit Service Study C‐3 April 2012 Appendices
Appendix D: Public Meeting and Transportation Survey Materials
Craig County Transit Service Study D‐1 April 2012 MEETING MINUTES
Craig County Transit Service Study – Public Meeting RHI #35891
DATE: January 16, 2012 MEETING DATE: January 9, 2012 MEETING LOCATION: Craig County Courthouse, New Castle, VA ATTENDEES: Michelle Ballard (Craig County’s Monroe Health Center) Barbara Davis (Planning Commission, Craig City District) George Field (Planning Commission, Potts Mountain District) John McClure (Planning Commission, Craig Creek District) Sharon Parker (Craig County’s Monroe Health Center) Nathan Sanford (RADAR Transit) Norman Taylor (Planning Commission, New Castle District) Bernie Tripp (New Castle resident) Jim Weber (Craig County DSS) Jennifer Durling (Retired Craig County Board Member) Richard Flora (Craig County Administrator) Suzanne Abbott Holth (Craig County Administration) Ed Wells (RVARC) Jake Gilmer (RVARC) Lora Byala (Foursquare ITP) Shana Johnson (Foursquare ITP) Meredith Judy (Rhodeside & Harwell) Emily Kish (Rhodeside & Harwell)
Richard Flora, Craig County Administrator, opened the meeting and thanked the attendees for participating.
Meredith Judy of Rhodeside & Harwell and Shana Johnson of Foursquare briefly presented a PowerPoint covering the following topics: o Team introduction o Project background o Craig County transit needs and goals o Service recommendations o Funding and next steps o Community Transportation Needs Survey o Questions and Discussion
320 King Street Suite 202 Alexandria, VA 22314
703-683-7447 ph 703-683-7449 fx www.rhodeside-harwell.com
Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 There were no questions or comments following the presentation, however a few participants provided comments after the meeting.
GENERAL COMMENTS How do the three recommendations link up? Would the intra‐county routes easily fit with the out‐of‐the‐ county shuttle schedule? Would the park and ride be on the out‐of‐county shuttle route? o Answer: The service is intended to be operated with one vehicle, so that one day a week (say Monday) it would provide the out‐of‐county service, and Tuesday‐Thursday it would provide the in‐county service. The study considered running both the intra‐county and out‐of‐county service in a single day, but this was difficult to achieve due to trip times and availability of a single vehicle for both services. If the contractor is able schedule the service so the out‐of‐county and intra‐county services can operate within a single day, that would be a strong option. In general, it would be hard to get residents to use these services unless they were disabled or elderly. o Answer: These services were designed specifically to serve the needs of the elderly, disabled, and those otherwise without reliable access to a motor vehicle, while remaining open to the general public.
OUT‐OF‐COUNTY SHUTTLE Is the out‐of‐county shuttle designed for commuters or shoppers/medical appointments? It seems like the timing of those two activities might not match up. o Answer: The out‐of‐county service is intended to serve shopping, medical and community college facilities, and not employment sites. The enhanced ridesharing solution is primarily intended to serve commute needs. Is the out‐of‐county shuttle a fixed route or based on where the riders want to go? o Answer: The out‐of‐county services is fixed route. It is designed to stop at the key destinations identified by the study’s stakeholder team, while containing the cost of the service by not stopping at every desired location. For example, extending the service to the Valley View Mall was explored, but this would significantly add to service cost, and two other important shopping destinations (Tanglewood Mall and the Salem Walmart) are already stops on the out‐of‐county service. When Abbot’s bus traveled from New Castle to the City of Roanoke it had very low ridership. It arrived right in downtown Roanoke, but would make unauthorized stops at other locations (such as Lewis Gale Medical Center) if requested. Residents did transfer from Abbot’s Bus to the system that is today Valley Metro once in Roanoke. o Answer: The study team is aware of the Abbot’s bus, but we were unable to access definitive ridership data or other information on this service. The study team understands this service last operated sometime in the 1980s, and since this was a long time ago the service may not be a strong comparison to the services proposed in this study. For example, gas prices and the number of elderly citizens in the community have both increased since the 1980s, and these factors would likely drive a more robust demand for public transportation in the County.
IN‐COUNTY SHUTTLE There is too long of a waiting period between the in‐county shuttle would arrive in New Castle (10am) and when it would depart (3pm). There would be nothing for people to do once they were done with their chores (getting groceries, going to the health or dental clinic) in New Castle, before the shuttle departed. This long waiting period would be particularly difficult for the elderly. o Answer: This five hour period in New Castle prior to making the return trip was designed to allow residents the opportunity to make scheduled medical and dental appointments, but may be reduced or made flexible Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 depending on the exact transportation needs. Coordination between the Craig County Dental Center, the Craig County Health Center, and the transit service provider may allow appointments to align with intra‐ county shuttle arrival. This could reduce the necessary wait time between shuttle arrival in New Castle and departure for the return trip. An east‐west zone system may work more efficiently than a north‐south zone system, given the distance between the Roanoke County line and Paint Bank. It may even work best to do a NE, SW, SE, SW system given the distances and the terrain that needs to be traveled. o Answer: The exact form of the zones for the intra‐county service will need to be determined in conjunction with the contractor selected to operate the service. The selected contractor will study the most cost‐ effective and time‐efficient form for the zone structure. The results of the Craig County Transportation Needs Community Survey will also help determine how best to structure the zones for the intra‐county service. It would be hard for elderly to sit in a vehicle for a period of several hours while others are being picked up, before arriving in New Caste. o Answer: Wait times are an important consideration that will need to be factored into the final service plan for the intra‐county service. In the peer systems reviewed for this study, particularly Graham County Transit and Swain Public Transit, passengers picked up at the start of some trips did experience long wait times on the bus, but understood that this was the result of the service structure and not easily avoidable. These wait times will be minimized as much as possible. I noticed the volunteer driver program from the study wasn’t mentioned. Is that not seen as a viable alternative? o Answer: The community‐run, volunteer driver option was created for the Craig County Transit Feasibility Study as an alternative if the contractor‐operated service proved cost prohibitive for the County. The study’s local stakeholder team expressed a preference to operate a professional, reliable contractor‐ operated service, so the locally‐operated service was not discussed in the public meeting. This locally – operated service is still an option for the County, but is a less desirable alternative.
ENHANCED RIDESHARING There is a high rate of carpooling in the County already. Residents are open to ridesharing options. o Answer: According to the 2005‐2009 American Community Survey, 13 percent of commuters currently carpool to work. The Enhanced Ridesharing service is designed to formalize and expand upon the high rates of ridesharing that currently exist in the county.
PUBLIC MEETING AND SURVEY MATERIALS Attached are the materials prepared for the January 9 public meeting: PowerPoint presentation Two‐page recommendations description Three display boards Comment sheet Meeting press release Materials for the Community Transportation Needs Survey were also distributed at the meeting: Two‐page survey Survey signage 1/16/2012
Craig County Transit Feasibility Study
Public Meeting January 9, 2012 1
AGENDA
. Introductions . Project Background . Transit Needs and Goals . Service Recommendations . Funding & Next Steps . Community Transportation Needs Survey . Questions & Discussion
2
1 1/16/2012
INTRODUCTIONS
Project Team . Craig County . Roanoke Valley – Alleghany County Regional Commission (RVARC) . Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)
Consultants . Rhodeside & Harwell . Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning (ITP)
3
BACKGROUND
2 1/16/2012
PROJECT PROCESS
Conduct Interviews and Analyze Data
Determine Needs and Goals
Propose Service Concepts
Develop Funding and Implementation Strategy
TRANSIT SERVICE NEEDS & GOALS
. Provide accessibility to essential medical services and shopping both within and outside Craig County. . Provide commute options for Craig County residents.
OBJECTIVES . Low cost to the consumer . Cost effective for the County and service providers . Convenient and simple to understand
6
3 1/16/2012
PRIMARY DESTINATIONS FOR RESIDENTS
City of Salem City of Roanoke Craig County
• Salem VA Medical Center • Norfolk Southern • County Public Schools • Lewis Gale Medical Center • Valley View Mall • Mick-or-Mack • Yokohama Tire Corp. • Tanglewood Mall • Family Dollar • Walmart • Roanoke Memorial Hospital • Health and Dental Centers • Virginia Medical Center • Paint Bank General Store
City of Covington Roanoke County
• MeadWestvaco • Catawba Hospital
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
4 1/16/2012
PROPOSED SERVICE CONCEPTS 1. Out-of-County Bus Service to Salem and Roanoke 2. In-County Shuttle Bus 3. Carpooling and Vanpooling
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT & OVERSIGHT
1. Volunteer Transportation Commission 2. Mobility Manager
9
OUT-OF-COUNTY BUS: Proposed Destinations
1. Downtown New Castle 2. Salem • Walmart • VA Medical Center • Lewis Gale Medical Center • National College • 1 day per week initially 3. Roanoke • 2 round trips per day • Tanglewood Mall • Additional days could be added, depending on need • Virg in ia Wes tern Commun ity Co llege • Roanoke Memorial Hospital
10
5 1/16/2012
OUT-OF-COUNTY BUS: Proposed Route
11
IN-COUNTY SHUTTLE: Access to Local Services
1. Travel from Home to New Castle • Arrive in New Castle by 10 a.m. • Depart New Castle at 3 p.m. 2. Zone Based Service • County divided into three service zones • Service one day per week for each zone 3. Scheduled Pickups • Reservation made 24 hours in advance of trip
12
6 1/16/2012
IN-COUNTY SHUTTLE: Proposed Zones
13
RIDESHARE: Carpooling & Vanpooling
1. Travel to Work • Common destinations at major employment sites • Similar work hours • Reduced travel cost 2. Other Trips • Coordination for other shared destinations • Mobilityyg manager as coordinator 3. RIDE Solutions Program • A service of the Regional Commission • Experience with Rideshare 14
7 1/16/2012
MANAGEMENT & OVERSIGHT 1. Volunteer Transportation Commission • Represent diverse stakeholders: local organizations, employers, elected officials, Craig County citizens, and others • Assist mobility manager in improving service and distributing information to potential riders • Meet on a quarterly basis
2. Mobility Manager • Provide information and assistance to riders and potential riders (e. g., coordinate ridesharing in coordicoordinationnation with RIDE Solutions staff) • Assist transit service contractor with general oversight • Work with local Transportation Commission • Assist Craig and a limited number of other rural jurisdictions, with the Regional Commission serving as the mobility manager employer
15
FUNDING & NEXT STEPS
8 1/16/2012
ESTIMATED TRANSIT SERVICE COSTS
1. Transit Service Estimated Transit Service Costs to Craig County, FY 2014 to FY 2019 (In-County and Out-of-County Bus) Year Total Estimated Cost to Costs in table: Craig County
• Include a professional third-party FY 2014 $18,500* provider, such as RADAR or a FY 2015 $25,000 similar organization. FY 2016 $26,000 • Assume use of Federal and FY 2017 $27,000 Commonwealth grants. FY 2018 $28,000 FY 2019 $41,000** • Are estimates. Actual costs will vary depending on routing and * Includes vehicle purchase, assumes demonstration grant service use. ** Includes replacement vehicle cost
2. Mobility Manager Position (no cost to Craig County) 3. Park and Ride Lot • Expand Courthouse Parking Lot (pave and stripe) ≈ $90,000 • Share an Existing Parking Lot = Minimal Cost 17
NEXT STEPS 1. Identify Community Needs • Transportation Needs Survey • Craig County Transportation Commission 2. Coordinate with the Regional Commission • RIDE Solutions Program (ridesharing opportunities) • Grant application assistance (Federal and Commonwealth funding) • Financial partnership (local grant match) • Regional coordination 3. Pursue Federal and Commonwealth Funding Sources • Mobility Manager position • Public transportation capital (vehicle) and operating costs 4. Hire a Mobility Manager and Select an Operator
Public Meeting Begin Craig Public Transit Steps Described Above January 2012 Winter 2013-14 18
9 1/16/2012
SURVEY: Community Transportation Needs
. To determine the high-priority transportation needs of residents
. Findings will guide transit service selection for the short- and long-term
. Survey period: Jan 9 – Feb 3, 2012
. Available at: Mick-or-Mack, Library, County Administrator’s Office, Paint Bank General Store, County Web Site
19
QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION
Project Contacts . Richard Flora, Craig County Administrator (540) 864-5010 . Jake Gilmer, Regional Commission (540) 343-4417
10 CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY January 2012
Transit Service Recommendations:
1. OUT‐OF‐COUNTY SERVICE TO SALEM AND ROANOKE would provide access to medical facilities, shopping centers, and community colleges in Salem and Roanoke. The proposed bus service would initially operate one day per week, and travel to the following locations: New Castle ‐ Park & Ride Salem ‐ National College; Walmart; V.A. Medical Center; Lewis Gale Medical Center Roanoke ‐ Tanglewood Mall; VA Western Community College; Roanoke Memorial Hospital
2. IN‐COUNTY, ZONE‐BASED SERVICE would provide access to basic services in the Town of New Castle. The proposed zone‐based service would divide the County into three zones, and each would receive bus service to New Castle once a week.
3. ENHANCED RIDESHARING SERVICE would allow individuals with similar trip origins and destinations to share a ride. Carpools and vanpools are examples of ridesharing. This service would require designation of park & ride locations in the County.
Bus Vehicle Examples Oversight Recommendations:
1. A TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION would be an all‐volunteer community stakeholders group including Craig County citizens, local businesses/organizations, and elected officials. The Commission would provide guidance to the service provider in order to improve service and disseminate information to a wide audience.
2. A MOBILITY MANAGER would serve as the local point of contact for individuals needing transportation assistance and oversee day‐to‐day transit operations, while working closely with the Transportation Commission. This study recommends that the Mobility Manager be housed at the Roanoke Valley‐Alleghany Regional Commission and shared between Craig County and other rural counties in the region.
Vanpool or Shuttle Vehicle Example Rural Park & Ride Example PROPOSED OUT‐OF‐COUNTY SERVICE TO SALEM AND ROANOKE
PROPOSED ZONES FOR IN‐COUNTY SERVICE
For more information, please contact Richard Flora, Craig County Administrator at (540) 864‐5010.
The Craig County Transportation Needs Community Survey is available through February 3, 2012 at http://craigcountyva.gov/, and Mick‐or‐Mack IGA, the Paint Bank General Store, the County Administrator’s Office and the Craig Library. CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposed Zones for In-County Shuttle Service One Day per Week per Zone
Legend
State Route 311 Roadways ² South Zone 311 Corridor Zone North Zone
01.534.560.75 Miles
New Castle
1/9/12 CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Proposed Out-of-County Bus Service One Day per Week
National College
Wal-Mart Superstore
VA Medical Center
Lewis Gale Medical Center
Virginia Western Community College Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital
00.511.520.25 Miles
Legend Tanglewood ² Mall Out-of-County Service 1/9/12 CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Transit Options
SHUTTLE BUS: IN-COUNTY AND OUT-OF COUNTY SERVICE
VANPOOL
PARK AND RIDE LOT/ CARPOOLS
1/9/12 CRAIG COUNTY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY Public Meeting January 9, 2012
Comment Form
If you have any comments or questions about the information presented this evening, please note them on this form and place your completed form in the COMMENT BOX at the Sign‐In Table.
Thank you. Please leave your completed form in the Comment Box.
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: December 13, 2011 Contact: Richard Flora Phone: (540) 864-5010 Web: www.craigcountyva.gov
CRAIG TO HOST PUBLIC MEETING FOR TRANSIT SERVICE FEASIBILITY STUDY
New Castle, Va. – Craig County will host a public meeting on Monday, January 9, 2012 to present and obtain public input on potential transit services for County residents. The format will be a brief presentation followed by a question and answer session.
The transit service recommendations are based on a six-month study lead by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, in close collaboration with Craig County representatives and the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. The study includes recommendations for shuttle service within the County, as well as transit options for shopping and medical care, and ridesharing improvements for employment outside of Craig. In addition, the study outlines funding and service management options.
The January 9 public meeting will also serve as the kickoff for the Craig County Transportation Needs Community Survey. This survey is designed to determine County transportation priorities, which will guide phasing and implementation of the study’s recommendations.
The Transportation Needs Community Survey will be available at the January 9 public meeting. It will also be available at several New Castle locations from January 10 – February 3, 2012. These locations include the Mick-or-Mack, Craig County Public Library, and the County Administrator’s Office.
The January 9 public meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Craig County Courthouse. In March, the Craig County Transit Service Feasibility Study will go to the Board of Supervisors for endorsement.
Anyone interested in reviewing the Draft Craig County Transit Service Feasibility Study may access it on the County’s web site: http://www.craigcountyva.gov/. The document is also available for review at the County Administrator’s Office and the Craig County Public Library during regular business hours.
If you have questions, please contact Richard Flora at (540) 864-5010 or by email at [email protected]. # # #
Craig County Administrator’s Office P.O. Box 308 New Castle, VA 24127 (540) 864-5010
Craig County Transportation Needs Community Survey
Please take a few minutes to complete both sides of this survey. The information will be used to determine high priority transportation needs for Craig County residents. Thank you for your participation! Note: You do not need to write your name on this survey. All responses are confidential.
Transportation Needs
1. Do you ever have trouble getting to work or school?
☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, where are you trying to go? ______
2. Do you ever have trouble getting to medical appointments?
☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, where are you trying to go? ______
3. Do you ever have trouble getting to shopping destinations?
☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, where are you trying to go? ______
4. Where do you travel to for work? ☐ Town of New Castle ☐ Blacksburg ☐ Paint Bank ☐ Other Montgomery County Location ☐ Other Craig County Location ☐ Giles County ☐ City of Salem ☐ Botetourt County ☐ Roanoke County ☐ Other Location:______☐ City of Roanoke ☐ Retired ☐ Covington ☐ Disabled (not able to work) ☐ Clifton Forge ☐ Not Employed ☐ Other Alleghany County Location
Who is your employer? ______
5. Where do you travel frequently for shopping, medical services, and other needs? ☐ Town of New Castle ☐ Clifton Forge ☐ Paint Bank ☐ Other Alleghany County Location ☐ Other Craig County Location ☐ Blacksburg ☐ City of Salem ☐ Other Montgomery County Location ☐ Roanoke County ☐ Giles County ☐ City of Roanoke ☐ Botetourt County ☐ Covington ☐ Other Location:______
1 (please turn over) Craig County Transportation Needs Community Survey (Continued)
6. If a bus service was offered that traveled from New Castle to Salem and Roanoke, and stopped at major hospitals, Virginia Western Community College, other educational institutions, and large shopping centers, would you use this service?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If you checked yes, how often would use this service? ☐ Once or twice a month ☐ Twice a week ☐ Once a week ☐ Three times a week or more
7. If a bus shuttle service was offered that picked you up at your home and brought you to New Castle, would you use this service?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If you checked yes, how often would you use this service? ☐ Once or twice a month ☐ Twice a week ☐ Once a week ☐ Three times a week or more
8. How many licensed drivers are in your household? ☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ More than 4
How many working cars are there in your household?
☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ More than 4
9. Are you physically capable of driving a car and have a driver’s license?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Survey Respondent Information
10. Where do you live in Craig County?
☐ New Castle Area ☐ West of Route 311 ☐ Paint Bank Area ☐ East of Route 311
11. How old are you? ☐ 18 to 24 years ☐ 35 to 44 years ☐ 55 to 64 years ☐ 25 to 34 years ☐ 45 to 54 years ☐ 65 years and older
12. Additional Comments ______
______
______
______2 Thank you for your input! PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR INPUT! Do you ever have trouble getting to work, shopping or doctors?
Would you use a bus to reach New Castle, Salem or Roanoke?
Complete the Craig Transportation Needs Community Survey!
The Survey is Available at: • Mick-Or-Mack IGA • Paint Branch General Store • County Administrator’s Office • http://craigcountyva.gov • Library
Completed surveys should be deposited in a survey return box by February 3, 2012.
Craig County Administrator’s Office P.O. Box 308 New Castle, VA 24127 (540) 864-5010