Phase I Final Report and Recommended Plan 19 April 2012
BPT Contract #4400006253 – MMOE2
Work Order #52 – Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Deliverable #7 – Recommended Plan and Phase I Final Report
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
(Page Intentionally Left Blank)
______Final Report Page i
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Introduction 1
Service Area Profile 3 Population Trends 5 Population Density 11 Transportation-Disadvantaged Population Groups 14 Employment and Commuting 28 Major Travel Generators 34 Mobility Needs Assessment 40 Future Land Use 42
Existing Conditions 45 Service Description 45 Fare Structure 53 Demand Responsive Services 55 Physical Plant and Assets 55 Organization 57 Trends 59 Summary 64
Peer and Trend Analysis 65 Peer Selection 65 Overview of Analysis Techniques 67 Peer Group Analysis 70 Trend Analysis 80 Combination Analysis 88
Rider Survey 94 Survey Methodology 94 Survey Results 99
Resident Survey 113 Survey Methodology 113 Survey Results 114
______Final Report Page ii
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page
Community Leader Interviews 129 Community Leaders 129 Findings and Results 129
Staff Input 140 Process 140 Findings and Results 140
Route Diagnostics Analysis 143 Analysis Overview 143 Data Assembly 143 Diagnostic Techniques 144 Cost Centers 146 Contribution Analysis 151 Strategic Planning 154 Ordinal Ranking 158 Supply and Demand Review 161
Service Guidelines and Adequacy 165 Service Availability 166 Service Design 176 Service Quality 181 Fiscal Condition 188
Fare Structure Review 193 Existing Fare Structure 193 Fare History 197 Fare Structure Evaluation 199 Fare Proposals 201
Marketing Plan 204 System Identity 204 Passenger Information and Marketing Materials 205 Customer Experience 212 Advertising 213 Public Relations/Outreach 214 Program Definition 214 ______Final Report Page iii
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page
Recommended Plan 216 Planning Inputs 216 Overall Planning Goals 219 Recommendations – Current Routes 220 Recommendations – New Services 263 Recommendations - Other 269 Implementation Schedule 272 Capital Program 273 Operating Forecasts 280 Monitoring Program 284 Summary 288
Appendix A A1
Appendix B B1
______Final Report Page iv
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
(Page Intentionally Left Blank)
______Final Report Page v
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
LIST OF TABLES Page
Table 1 – Berks County Population Changes 6 Table 2 – Disabled Population 28 Table 3 – Major Travel Generators 36 Table 4 – Route Description 46 Table 5 – Frequency of Service 49 Table 6 – Span of Service 52 Table 7 – Fare Structure 54 Table 8 – Fixed Route Vehicle Fleet 57 Table 9 – Staffing 58 Table 10 – Operating Statistics 60 Table 11 – Ridership and Productivity 60 Table 12 – Operating Financial Results 60 Table 13 – Financial Measures 61 Table 14 – Financial Results by Mode 62 Table 15 – Operating Funding by Source 63 Table 16 – Capital Expenditures by Category 63 Table 17 – Capital Funding by Source 64 Table 18 – Comparison of Peer Group with BARTA 72 Table 19 – Peer Analysis – Social Effectiveness Measures 73 Table 20 – Peer Analysis – Revenue Generation Measures 74 Table 21– Peer Analysis – Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures 75 Table 22 – Peer Analysis – Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures 77 Table 23 – Peer Analysis – Maintenance and General and Administration Performance 79 Table 24 – Trend Analysis – Comparison of Peer Group with BARTA 81 Table 25 – Trend Analysis – Social Effectiveness Measures 82 Table 26 – Trend Analysis – Revenue Generation Measures 83 Table 27 – Trend Analysis – Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures 84 Table 28 – Trend Analysis – Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures 85 Table 29 – Trend Analysis – Maintenance and General and Administration Measures 87 Table 30 – Combination Analysis – Social Effectiveness Measures 89 Table 31 – Combination Analysis – Revenue Generation Measures 90 Table 32 – Combination Analysis – Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures 90 Table 33 – Combination Analysis – Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures 91 Table 34 – Combination Analysis – Maintenance and General and Administration Measures 92 Table 35 – Summary Performance Rating 92 Table 36 – Community Leader Interview Participants 130
______Final Report Page vi
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Page
Table 37 – Fully Allocated Cost Model 148 Table 38 – Financial Results By Route 150 Table 39 – Farebox Recovery and Contribution to Deficit 153 Table 40 – Deficit Per Passenger and Market Share 157 Table 41 – Passenger Productivity Score and Rank 160 Table 42 – Deficit Score and Rank 161 Table 43 – Service Supply Characteristics 162 Table 44 – Route Spacing Guide 167 Table 45 – Bus Stop Spacing Guide 172 Table 46 – Bus Route Classification Guide 173 Table 47 – BARTA Route Classifications 174 Table 48 – Span Guide 174 Table 49 – Frequency Guide 175 Table 50 – Directness Guide 177 Table 51 – Speed Guide 177 Table 52 – Route Directness 179 Table 53 – Route Speed 180 Table 54 – On-Time Performance Guide 182 Table 55 – Bus Shelter Priority Guide 186 Table 56 – Bench Priority Guide 186 Table 57 – Farebox Recovery Guide 190 Table 58 – Route Farebox Recovery 191 Table 59 – Productivity Guide 191 Table 60 – Route Productivity 192 Table 61 – Existing Fare Structure 194 Table 62 – Ridership and Revenue Composition (FY 2010-2011) 196 Table 63 – Fare History 198 Table 64 – Percent Changes in Fares (FY 2002-2003 to FY 2010-2011) 199 Table 65 – Weekday Ridership Versus Saturday Ridership 270 Table 66 – Farebox Recovery Rate and Passenger per Hour Rankings 271 Table 67 – Sunday Transit Worthiness Score 272 Table 68 – Implementation Schedule 273 Table 69 – Fleet Requirement 274 Table 70 – Bus Purchase Program 275
______Final Report Page vii
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) Page
Table 71 – Recommended Bus Stop Signs by Route 276 Table 72 – Recommended Shelters and Benches by Route 277 Table 73 – Information Kiosk Locations 278 Table 74 – Capital Improvement Program (Current Year Dollars) 279 Table 75 – Capital Funding Forecasts 280 Table 76 – Operating Forecasts 280 Table 77 – Ridership Forecasts 281 Table 78 – Three-Variable Cost Model (Fiscal Year 2011-12) 282 Table 79 – Financial Forecasts 282 Table 80 – Operating Assistance (Current Year Dollars) 283 Table 81 – Operating Assistance (Percent) 284 Table 82 – Service Standards 285
______Final Report Page viii
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
(Page Intentionally Left Blank)
______Final Report Page ix
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
LIST OF FIGURES Page
Figure 1 – Berks County (Study Area) 4 Figure 2 – Municipal Population 7 Figure 3 – Municipalities Exceeding Berks County’s Population Growth Rate 8 Figure 4 – Municipal Population Change (Percent) 9 Figure 5 – Municipalities Accounting for 90% of Berks County Population Growth from 2000 to 2010 10 Figure 6 – Municipal Population Change (Numeric) 11 Figure 7 – Population Density 12 Figure 8 – Municipalities with Population Densities Exceeding 1,500 Persons/Sq. Mile 13 Figure 9 – Senior Citizen Population by Municipality 16 Figure 10 – Density of Senior Citizens by Municipality 17 Figure 11 – Percentage of Senior Citizens by Municipality 18 Figure 12 – Youth Population by Municipality 19 Figure 13 – Density of Youth Population by Municipality 20 Figure 14 – Percentage of Youth Population by Municipality 21 Figure 15 – Low Income Population by Municipality 22 Figure 16 – Density of Low Income Population by Municipality 23 Figure 17 – Percentage of Low Income Population by Municipality 24 Figure 18 – Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality 25 Figure 19 – Density of Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality 26 Figure 20 – Percentage of Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality 27 Figure 21 – 2002 to 2009 Employment Change by Municipality 29 Figure 22 – Job Distribution and Density 30 Figure 23 – 2002 to 2009 Employment Change by Job Sector 31 Figure 24 – Distribution of Resident Workers by Place of Work 32 Figure 25 – Distribution of Employed Workers by Place of Residence 33 Figure 26 – 2000 & 2009 Work Mode Split 34 Figure 27 – Major Travel Generators 35 Figure 28 – Mobility Needs Score 42 Figure 29 – Future Land Use Plan 44 Figure 30 – BARTA System Map 47 Figure 31 – Administrative Organization 59 Figure 32 – Performance Indicators 69 Figure 33 – Respondent Locations 128 Figure 34 – Distribution of Operating Speed 149 Figure 35 – Cumulative Effect of Farebox Recovery On Deficit 152
______Final Report Page x
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) Page
Figure 36 – Relationship Between Farebox Recovery and Contribution To Deficit 156 Figure 37 – Relationship Between Deficit Per Passenger And Market Share 158 Figure 38 – Service Supply Characteristics – Passengers Per Hour 163 Figure 39 – Service Supply Characteristics – Farebox recovery 164 Figure 40 – Service Coverage – Production End 170 Figure 41 – Service Coverage Attraction End 171 Figure 42 – Route 1 222 Figure 43 – Route 2 223 Figure 44 – Route 3 226 Figure 45 – Route 4 228 Figure 46 – Route 5 229 Figure 47 – Route 6 231 Figure 48 – Route 7 233 Figure 49 – Route 8 235 Figure 50 – Route 9 237 Figure 51 – Route 10 239 Figure 52 – Route 11 241 Figure 53 – Route 12 243 Figure 54 – New Route (Penn Street Crosstown) 244 Figure 55 – Route 14 245 Figure 56 – New Route (Reading-Lebanon Express) 246 Figure 57 – Route 15 247 Figure 58 – Route 16 249 Figure 59 – New Route (Berkshire Shuttle) 250 Figure 60 – Berkshire Mall Routes 251 Figure 61 – Route 17 252 Figure 62 – Route 18 254 Figure 63 – Route 19 256 Figure 64 – Route 20 258 Figure 65 – Route 21 260 Figure 66 – Route 22 262 Figure 67 – New Route (Berkshire Mall to Kenhorst Plaza via Sinking Springs) 264 Figure 68 – New Route (Berkshire Mall to Fairgrounds Square Mall) 266 Figure 69 – New Route (BTC to Kutztown) 268 Figure 70 – Shelter Examples 277 Figure 71 – Information Kiosks 278
______Final Report Page xi
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
(Page Intentionally Left Blank)
______Final Report Page xii
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
(Page Intentionally Left Blank)
______Final Report Page xiii
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
INTRODUCTION
The Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority (BARTA) operates a public transportation system to assure mobility for Berks County residents and access to employment, shopping, medical and recreational sites in the communities within the County. BARTA operates both fixed route bus service and demand responsive services for residents with special needs. The services include fixed route bus service on 21 routes which operate six days per week (i.e., Monday through Saturday). In addition, BARTA provides paratransit service for those persons eligible under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as senior citizens.
Recognizing the importance of the bus system to the residents and the considerable investment in terms of operating assistance and capital investment, BARTA, at the behest of PennDOT’s Bureau of Public Transportation (BPT) has undertaken this comprehensive analysis of individual bus routes and the entire route network. To assure that service satisfies current needs and responds to those of the future, several sequential analysis tasks have been included in this assignment. Initial efforts are directed to describing the service area in terms of population, jobs and key demographic factors that influence transit need and use. Other early steps are directed to describing the current transit system with the focus on the operating, financial and ridership characteristics of the BARTA bus system.
Subsequent tasks were directed towards the conduct of survey efforts, both of existing riders and residents of the county, to solicit their views on the current bus network and desired improvements. The individual routes and the overall bus system were subjected to various analyses techniques, along with an assessment of the service relative to acceptable guidelines. Based on these considerations, various route alternatives were considered and evaluated, ultimately leading to a recommended plan.
To solicit comments throughout the study process, interim reports were prepared at key study milestones. This encouraged dialogue and discussion on study findings as they become available. This final report is a compendium of these previously prepared documents. In this way, a context is provided for the recommended plan in terms of key data input and considerations along with the overall study rationale.
The recommended plan provides a staged program of service improvements during the next five years. It should serve as a blueprint to guide future changes to the bus system and their expected operating, ridership and financial impacts, as well as the necessary capital items needed to support the recommended services. A monitoring program has been developed which will help gauge the successfulness of the recommendations, as well as allow for changes within the five year implementation due to changes in demographics, new development or additional economic short comings.
______Final Report Page 1
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
It is important to note that BARTA does a more than admirable job providing transit options to the residents and employees who travel within or through Berks County on a daily basis. Efficiency and effectiveness measures all agree that the service provided by BARTA is top notch. All staff members, from the administration to the drivers, should be commended for helping create and maintain this well-oiled machine. This assignment has proven difficult in that it is much easier to realign bus routes or create new services for bus systems which perform poorly. The recommendations for BARTA are intended to maintain the system’s high expectations, as well as to take advantage of several routing opportunities and new markets that are beginning to emerge.
______Final Report Page 2
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
SERVICE AREA PROFILE
Berks County comprises an area of 864 square miles with a population of 411,442 persons (2010 U.S. Census). The county is located in southeastern Pennsylvania and bordered by Schuylkill County (north), Lehigh County (northeast), Montgomery County (east), Chester County (southeast), Lancaster County (southwest), and Lebanon County (west). Sections of the Appalachian Mountains form its northern and southern boundaries.
The county is divided into 73 municipalities (44 townships, 28 boroughs, and one city). An elected body governs each of the municipalities, with each municipality responsible for establishing and administering municipal financial budgets, providing general services and road maintenance, and responsible for land use controls, such as zoning and subdivision regulations and building permits.
Government funded transportation projects and programs in Berks County are managed by the Berks County Planning Commission, which serves as the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the entire county. A map of Berks County and the surrounding area is presented in Figure 1.
Approximately two-thirds of the population resides within the Reading Urbanized Area (i.e., defined as an area with at least 50,000 people and an overall population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile), which spread out from the central portion of Berks County and encompasses about half of the municipalities in the county. At the core of this urbanized area is the City of Reading, which is the largest population center and principal city in the county and also serves as the county seat. The Reading Urbanized Area is the primary economic activity center and labor market in the county. Except for three urban clusters (i.e., urban areas with less than 50,000 people but with an overall population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile) that have developed around the boroughs of Hamburg, Kutztown and Topton, the remaining sections of the county are still largely comprised of open space and woodlands with low residential densities and limited commercial activity.
Berks County is served by a number of federal and state highways - I-176, I-76 (i.e., the Pennsylvania Turnpike), I-78, and US 422 - that provide access to regional urban centers, including Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Baltimore and New York City. The driving time from the Reading area to reach Harrisburg and Philadelphia is approximately one hour, with the Baltimore and New York City areas being about a two hour drive.
______Final Report Page 3
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 1 - Berks County (Study Area)
Source: U.S. Census and the Berks County Planning Commission
The data presented in this report has been analyzed at the municipal and county levels and was drawn from a variety of sources, including the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, the 2005- 2009 and 2009 American Community Survey (ACS), the Berks County Planning Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics.
In every decennial census since 1940, two questionnaires have been used to collect information: a “short form” with only basic questions such as age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin; and a “long-form” with the basic set of questions and about 50 additional questions on socioeconomic and housing characteristics. Only one in six households received the long-form questionnaire in 2000. Beginning in 2010, the decennial census was a short-form only census,
______Final Report Page 4
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
with the long-form questionnaire replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS), which will provide detailed demographic and socioeconomic data every year.
At the time of this study, the results from the 2010 U.S. Census were used to compare the overall population change that has occurred at the county and municipal levels since the last decennial census in 2000. More detailed socioeconomic and demographic statistics for Berks County were derived from the ACS. For geographical areas with less than 20,000 people - in Berks County, this includes the vast majority of municipalities - the 2005-2009 ACS is the most current data set available at this time; the 2005-2009 ACS is a sample of population estimates collected between January 2005 and December 2009. For geographical areas containing more than 65,000 people, the ACS provides a one-year estimate of data collected between January 2009 and December 2009.
It is important to recognize that the ACS is an estimates based survey using sample data that is subject to a margin of error and is not as accurate as the decennial census. However, even with this limitation, the ACS provides more timely information compared to the 2000 Census and a reasonable estimate of population characteristics and is therefore, more useful in terms of planning public transportation services in the county.
Another point worth noting is the ACS and the U.S. Census use different methodologies for data collection, such as the wording of certain questions, residency rules, and the ways in which the data is tabulated. Accordingly, these differences can affect the comparability of the two data sets. The U.S. Census Bureau recommends that only the one-year ACS estimates be used when making comparisons with the decennial census and the comparisons should use derived measures such as percents rather than population totals.
One drawback of the 2005-2009 ACS is that the data set does not provide information on the disability status of the population due to changes made to the disability questions beginning with the 2008 ACS. Information on the disabled population for areas with less than 20,000 people will not be available until five consecutive years of the revised disability questions have been processed. As a result, this report will not present disability statistics at the municipal level. However, the ACS does provide disability statistics for areas with more than 65,000 people. Since persons with disabilities is one of the core markets for public transportation systems, this report will examine the disabled population at a higher level using the 2009 ACS; the areas analyzed include Berks County, the Reading Urbanized Area, and the City of Reading.
Population Trends
Berks County has experienced a consistent rate of growth dating back to the 1990 U.S. Census. During the ten year period between 1990 and 2000, the county’s population increased from 336,523 to 373,638, an increase of 11%. From 2000 to 2010, the population in Berks County increased from 373,638 to 411,442, an increase of approximately 10% during this ten ______Final Report Page 5
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
year period. Berks County is presently the 9th most populous county in Pennsylvania, and was the 5th fastest growing county in the state during the past decade in terms of numeric growth and was ranked 16th for its overall rate of growth. Population projections prepared by the Berks County Planning Commission estimate that by 2020 the county’s population will grow by approximately nine percent to 449,306. This data shows that Berks County has gained approximately 37,000 residents every ten years, with this trend expected to continue through the current decade. The historical and projected population in Berks County is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - Berks County Population Changes Population Percent Year Population Change Change 1990 336,523 -- -- 2000 373,638 37,115 11.0 2010 411,442 37,804 10.1 2020 449,306 37,864 9.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Berks County Planning Commission
With 88,082 residents, the City of Reading is the most populous municipality in Berks County with a population over three times higher than the next largest municipality, Spring Township (pop. 27,119) and accounts for approximately one-fifth of the county’s total population. The most populated municipalities are concentrated in the central portion of the county and are located in or adjacent to the Reading Urbanized Area. Overall, this urban area accounts for approximately two-thirds of the county’s total population (Figure 2).
The least populated municipalities with less than 1,500 residents are located in the outlying areas of the county and are mostly comprised of smaller boroughs less than one square mile in size. The least populated municipality is New Morgan Borough with 71 residents.
There were 19 municipalities that grew faster than the countywide average of 10.1% between 2000 and 2010, and of this group, nine had growth rates exceeding 30% (Figure 3). Almost one-half of the municipalities exhibited growth rates that were below the county average, and about one-quarter of the municipalities lost population over the ten year period.
______Final Report Page 6
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 2 - Municipal Population
Source: 2010 U.S. Census
______Final Report Page 7
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 3 - Municipalities Exceeding Berks County’s Population Growth Rate
Average New Morgan borough Caernarvon township Sinking Spring borough Amity township Maidencreek township Ontelaunee township Lower Heidelberg township South Heidelberg township Maxatawny township Jefferson township Exeter township Muhlenberg township Centerport borough Upper Bern township Wernersville borough Spring township Washington township Centre township Bernville borough 0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%110.0%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census
Population growth is fairly evenly distributed throughout Berks County with the only noticeable pattern being that the municipalities that gained the most residents are generally located along the major corridors such as US 222, US 422, I-76 and I-176. The municipalities that lost population are primarily located in the northern, northwestern, and eastern sections of the county; three of the municipalities that lost population are located in the Reading Urbanized Area. The largest population decline occurred in Shoemakersville Borough, where the overall population dropped by approximately one-third. The spatial distribution of municipal population change by percent is shown in Figure 4.
______Final Report Page 8
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 4 - Municipal Population Change (Percent)
Source: 2010 U.S. Census
In terms of numeric population change, a total of 12 municipalities accounted for approximately 90% of the total population growth in Berks County (Figure 5). Of this group of municipalities, ten were located in or within close proximity to the Reading Urbanized Area with the other two municipalities - Maxatawany Township and Caernarvon Township - located in the northern and southern peripheries of the county, respectively (Figure 6).
There were 21 municipalities located throughout Berks County that added less than 100 residents between 2000 and 2010, with this group almost evenly divided between boroughs and townships. Numeric population change follows a similar pattern to population change on a percentage basis, with Shoemakersville Borough also losing the largest number of residents in Berks County over the ten year period (-746).
______Final Report Page 9
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 5 - Municipalities Accounting for 90% of Berks County Population Growth from 2000 to 2010
Reading city
Exeter township
Spring township
Amity township
Muhlenberg township
Maidencreek township
Maxatawny township
South Heidelberg township
Caernarvon township
Sinking Spring borough
Lower Heidelberg township
Cumru township
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Source: 2010 U.S. Census Bureau
______Final Report Page 10
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 6 - Municipal Population Change (Numeric)
Source: 2010 U.S. Census Bureau
Population Density
While the overall population provides some indication of the level of potential transit demand, the population density of individual areas provides a better indicator of the character of the area (i.e., urban, suburban, rural) and the propensity of the population to use public transportation services. Public transportation tends to attract more riders in denser areas for many reasons, including the fact that densely populated areas tend to include a diversity of income and age groups. Also, denser development patterns tend to include a mix of uses and are often characterized by a higher degree of transit-friendly design that makes using public transportation service more convenient for the rider. Accordingly, land use density can have a significant impact on the productivity and effectiveness of transit services.
______Final Report Page 11
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
In general, fixed-route bus transportation is more practical and successful in areas with at least 1,500 persons per square mile. Areas with lower densities generally are better suited for low frequency, demand-response, or subscription services. The density of the population in each municipality in Berks County is presented in Figure 7, with the municipalities with density rates in excess of 1,500 persons per square mile listed in Figure 8. Overall, a total of 29 municipalities in Berks County exhibit a population density greater than 1,500 persons per square mile. Of this group, eight municipalities are not served by the BARTA fixed route bus system, with Boyertown and Kutztown Boroughs being two of the more prominent municipalities without BARTA fixed route bus service.
Figure 7 - Population Density
Source: 2010 U.S. Census
______Final Report Page 12
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 8 - Municipalities with Population Densities Exceeding 1,500 Persons per Square Mile
Reading city Kenhorst borough Laureldale borough Shillington borough Kutztown borough Wernersville borough Womelsdorf borough Topton borough Bernville borough Shoemakersville borough Bally borough Hamburg borough Bechtelsville borough Lenhartsville borough Muhlenberg township 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Source: 2010 U.S. Census
Overall, the population density in Berks County is approximately 676 persons per square mile, which is the 12th highest among Pennsylvania counties and is approximately two-thirds higher than the statewide average of 280.
The City of Reading and several of the smaller boroughs located throughout Berks County exhibit the highest density levels. This is to be expected, as these urban areas were historically built at much greater densities on smaller lots compared to later development patterns and have generally been limited from annexing additional land, which constrains their land area and tends to increase their density. It should be recognized that the density total will exceed the actual population total if the municipality is less than one square mile in size.
Looking at Berks County as a whole, the municipalities located in and/or adjacent to Reading Urbanized Area comprise the most densely populated area in the county. According to the U.S. Census, the population density within this urbanized area is approximately 2,600 persons per square mile.
______Final Report Page 13
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
In contrast, the vast majority of townships in the outlying areas of Berks County exhibit density levels lower than the county average of 476 persons per square mile, which is consistent with the rural and limited development that has occurred in these areas of the county.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Population Groups
To plan effective public transportation services, it is important to identify certain segments of the population that typically have a greater dependence on, and make more extensive use of public transportation services as a result of having limited or no private transportation options available. Individuals confronted with this mobility limitation generally include the senior citizen and youth populations, persons living below the poverty line, and households without access to an automobile. These groups typically rely on transit services to access jobs, services, education and other activities. In many instances, individuals associated with these population groups listed above often exhibit multiple transit-dependent characteristics.
The section below presents the demographic characteristics of the four “transportation – disadvantaged” population groups listed above, with the objective of identifying areas in Berks County with the greatest need for public transportation service - where large numbers of the populations live and also where the highest densities of these populations are located. Analysis is presented through maps using demographic data at the municipal level from the 2005-2009 ACS.
Since the municipalities in Berks County vary in size, both geographically and in population, three maps for each population group were created - one that shows the absolute numbers of persons, a map showing the density (persons per square mile) and another map showing the percentage of the population. For example, a large geographic area will dilute the density of a large population, while a smaller population spread over smaller geographic area will have a higher density. As a result, the three separate maps viewed together provide a more useful measure of the conditions throughout Berks County.
As noted previously, one limitation of the 2005-2009 ACS is that this data source does not include information pertaining to persons with disabilities. Since information on the disabled population is available in the 2009 ACS, the disability statistics for Berks County, the Reading Urbanized Area and the City of Reading will be presented to provide a broader overview of one of the core markets for public transportation service. Again, it is important to recognize that the ACS is an estimates based survey using sample data that is subject to a margin of error and is not as accurate as the decennial census.
Senior Citizen Population - Persons over 65 years old typically exhibit a greater reliance on public transportation compared to other age groups. Often, these individuals have limited income and in some instances, may have a disability which limits their ability to operate an automobile. Senior citizens also tend to locate in the more urban areas, where access to ______Final Report Page 14
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
healthcare and other activities is more readily available. However, it is important to recognize that with the baby boom generation - those born between 1945 and 1964 - beginning to retire, the traditional assumptions used to assess the travel behavior of this demographic category is rapidly changing. First, compared to previous generations of senior citizens, the senior citizen population of today has much less familiarity with public transportation and continues to rely on the use of their personal automobile well into old age. Second, a growing trend among the senior citizen population is the preference to age in place at home rather than enter some type of senior care facility. These two areas will provide considerable challenges for transit systems in the near future.
According to the 2005-2009 ACS, approximately 57,000 people age 65 and older reside in Berks County. This represents 14.2% of the overall county population and is slightly below the statewide average of 15.3%. The geographic distribution of the senior citizen population in Berks County is shown in Figure 9. Municipalities with more than 1,500 senior citizen residents are located in or partially within the boundary of the Reading Urbanized Area. The senior populations in these municipalities range from 1,682 in Bern Township to 7,622 in the City of Reading.
There are 13 municipalities in Berks County where the senior citizen population density exceeds the countywide average of 676 persons per square mile (Figure 10). Of this group, ten are clustered in the Reading Urbanized Area with their senior citizen density levels ranging from 530 in Wernersville Borough up to almost 2,000 seniors per square mile in West Reading Borough. The three remaining municipalities are all boroughs and include Boyertown, Kutztown, and Shoemakersville. With 1,320 senior citizens per square mile, Boyertown has the second largest senior citizen density in the County. Kutztown and Shoemakersville exhibit 600 and 480 senior citizens per square mile, respectively.
In almost one-half of the municipalities in Berks County, the senior citizen population exceeds the countywide average of 14.2% (Figure 11) with the majority of these municipalities located in or partially within the Reading Urbanized Area or in the northern and eastern sections of the county. Municipalities where senior citizens comprise at least one-quarter of the population are all boroughs and include West Reading and Wyomissing in the Reading Urbanized Area and Lyons and Boyertown which are located in the northern and eastern sections of Berks County, respectively.
______Final Report Page 15
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 9 - Senior Citizen Population by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
______Final Report Page 16
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 10 - Density of Senior Citizens by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
______Final Report Page 17
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 11 - Percentage of Senior Citizens by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
Youth Population – The youth population (persons under 18 years) is another group which generally relies more heavily than the general public on public transportation services, as many are unable to drive legally or have no access to a car. The 2005-2009 ACS showed that there were 97,093 persons under the age of 18 in Berks County which represents 24.2% of the county population and is slightly higher than the statewide average of 22.5%. The distribution of the youth population in Berks County is presented in Figure 12 with the figure showing that the highest numbers of young people are located in the municipalities in or partially within the boundary of the Reading Urbanized Area.
______Final Report Page 18
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 12 - Youth Population by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
In approximately one-third of the municipalities in Berks County, the resident youth population exceeds the countywide average of 476 persons per square mile, with the density of young people ranging from 479 per square mile in Wyomissing Borough to almost 2,700 per square mile in the City of Reading (Figure 13). Conversely, the density of the youth population in the remaining portions of the County is generally below 100. This contrast is attributed to the fact that the highest concentrations of youth population are almost entirely located in the smaller urban areas rather than the larger townships where the population is more disbursed.
______Final Report Page 19
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 13 - Density of Youth Population by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
As shown in Figure 14, the youth population is more evenly distributed throughout Berks County when evaluated on the percentage of the total population. Many of the larger townships which exhibited low densities of young people actually exceed the countywide average of 24.2%. It can also be seen that with the exception of the City of Reading - where almost one- third of the population is under 18 - the municipalities with above average youth populations are farther removed from the central core of Berks County as compared to the other population groups. The spatial distribution of the youth population is a good indicator of suburban development patterns and single family housing construction.
______Final Report Page 20
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 14 - Percentage of Youth Population by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
Persons at or Below the Poverty Line - Another important target population for public transportation includes people living at or below the defined poverty level. Lower income persons tend to rely more heavily on public transportation because many are unable to afford an automobile, or choose not to use their limited income for an automobile. The 2005-2009 ACS showed a total of 45,733 persons in Berks County living at or below the poverty level which represents 11.8% of the county population. This figure is slightly lower than the statewide average of 12.1%.
Figure 15 shows the overall population of persons living at or below the poverty level in each municipality in Berks County. Municipalities with at least 1,000 low income residents are primarily located in or partially within the boundary of the Reading Urbanized Area and include the City of Reading, Muhlenberg Township, Spring Township, and Exeter Township. The other
______Final Report Page 21
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
municipality with at least 1,000 low income residents is Kutztown Borough; however, this high number could be attributed to the student population attending Kutztown University.
Figure 15 - Low Income Population by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
In terms of density, Figure 16 shows that low income populations in five municipalities exceed the countywide average of 676 persons per square mile. Four of the municipalities are in the Reading Urbanized Area and exhibit densities ranging from approximately 700 in Kenhorst Borough to almost 2,800 in the City of Reading; the remaining municipality is Kutztown Borough where there is almost 1,200 low income residents per square mile, which represents the second highest rate in the County after Reading.
There are seven municipalities where the percentage of low income residents exceeds the countywide average of 11.8%; of this group, the number ranges from 15% in Maxatawny Township to a high of 34.7% in the City of Reading. The location of these municipalities is shown in Figure 17. ______Final Report Page 22
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 16 - Density of Low Income Population by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
______Final Report Page 23
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 17 - Percentage of Low Income Population by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
Households without Access to an Automobile - Households which do not have access to a private automobile is an important statistic as this group is considered to be entirely dependent upon alternative transportation sources. The 2005-2009 ACS showed a total of 12,090 housing units in Berks County with no vehicles available, which comprises eight percent of the total housing units in the county. This figure is lower than the statewide average of 11.2%.
Municipalities with more than 200 housing units without access to an automobile are primarily located in or partially within the boundary of the Reading Urbanized Area with Boyertown Borough and Maxatawny Township also exhibiting at least 200 housing units without automobiles (Figure 18).
______Final Report Page 24
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 18 - Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
The high number of carless housing units in Maxatawny Township may be attributed to students attending Kutztown University without having access to an automobile. The City of Reading is a significant outlier in that the city has over 7,000 housing units without access to an automobile, which far surpasses the municipality with the second largest number of carless housing units in Berks County - Cumru Township with 399 carless housing units.
The density of housing without access to an automobile is shown in Figure 19. Not surprisingly, the City of Reading has the highest number of carless housing units per square mile with 769. In addition to Reading, two other municipalities in the Reading Urbanized Area exhibit more than 200 carless housing units per square mile, West Reading Borough with 265 and Laureldale Borough with 213. The only other municipalities in Berks County with more than 125 carless housing units per square mile include Boyertown Borough with 306 and
______Final Report Page 25
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Kutztown Borough with 167. Overall, the vast majority of the municipalities in Berks County have less than 25 carless housing units per square mile.
Figure 19 - Density of Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
Figure 20 shows that there are seven municipalities where the number of zero car housing units exceeds the countywide average of eight percent. Three of these municipalities are located in or adjacent to the Reading Urbanized Area and include the City of Reading, West Reading Borough and Lower Heidelberg Township. The other municipalities include Boyertown Borough, Maxatawny Township, Kutztown Borough and Hamburg Borough. Over one-quarter of housing units in Reading do not have access to an automobile, which is the highest rate in Berks County and accounts for approximately two-thirds of the total number of carless housing units in the county. The percentage of carless housing units among the other six municipalities range from 9.2% in Kutztown Borough to 13.3% in Boyertown Borough.
______Final Report Page 26
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 20 - Percentage of Zero Car Housing Units by Municipality
Source: 2005-2009 ACS
Persons with Disabilities - Persons with disabilities are another segment of the population that has an above average need for transit services due to the potential for lessened access and mobility. In many instances, the disability experienced by this population group prevents them from driving an automobile. When discussing disabilities in this section, all disabilities are considered together; this includes hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care and employment. Further, the disabled population in this section reflects working age residents 18 years and older. As noted previously, the 2005-2009 ACS did not provide information on this population group on account of the Census Bureau introducing a new set of disability questions beginning in 2008. As a result, the most current information on the disabled population is only available in the 2009 ACS. Although analysis at the municipal level is not possible at this time, a broader overview of the disabled population residing in Berks County, the Reading Urbanized Area and the City of Reading can be provided using the 2009 ACS, as these areas have populations in excess of 65,000 people. ______Final Report Page 27
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The 2009 ACS indicated that a total of 43,621 persons in Berks County have some type of disability, which represents approximately 11% of the county population and is lower than the statewide average of 12.1%. Approximately two-thirds of the disabled population in Berks County lives in the Reading Urbanized Area, which is very similar to the overall share of the county’s total population residing in this area. However, almost one-half (42.5%) of the disabled residents in the Reading Urbanized Area live in the City of Reading even though the city comprises approximately one-third of the urban area’s total population (30.1%), according to the 2009 ACS. The disproportionate number of disabled residents living in the City of Reading is likely attributed to the concentration of services that are available, as well as the fact that the city is well served by the BARTA bus system. The break-out of the disabled population by geographical area is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Disabled Population Percent of Area Number Population Berks County 43,621 10.9% Reading Urbanized Area 29,795 11.6% City of Reading 12,675 15.7% Pennsylvania 1,491,217 12.1% Source: 2009 ACS
Employment and Commuting
The need for and the nature of the public transportation services in an area also depends on certain economic factors such as employment and the commuting patterns of employees in a given area. It is essential to understand these factors when planning for employment related transportation services. Employment data and commuting patterns for Berks County was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics for the years 2002 and 2009.
Employment Trends and Characteristics - According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, employment in Berks County increased from 163,080 jobs in 2002 to 163,304 jobs in 2009, an increase of less than one percent (+224).
At the municipal level, the City of Reading posted the largest absolute increase in jobs during the eight year period, with the city’s job base expanding from 37,196 jobs in 2002 to 40,705 in 2009. This translates to a growth of 3,509 jobs, or an increase of 9.4%. Approximately one-quarter of the jobs in Berks County were located in Reading in 2009, a slight increase from the 22.8% share in 2002. Conversely, West Reading Borough posted the largest drop in employment during the eight year period, as the number of jobs in the municipality fell from 8,722 in 2002 to 3,855 in 2009. This represents a loss of 4,917 jobs, or a decline of 56.1%.
______Final Report Page 28
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The top 10 municipalities that experienced the highest rates of employment growth or employment decline between the 2002 to 2009 period are listed in Figure 21.
Figure 21 - 2002 to 2009 Employment Change by Municipality
Reading city 9.4% Spring township 42.3% Richmond township 31.9% Wernersville borough 219.1% Amity township 33.3% Robesonia borough 58.9% Tilden township 52.9% Caernarvon township 22.3% Ontelaunee township 20.5% Maidencreek township 22.8% Bally borough ‐20.2% Hamburg borough ‐21.0% South Heidelberg township ‐24.7% Birdsboro borough ‐35.3% Womelsdorf borough ‐53.8% Fleetwood borough ‐43.7% Heidelberg township ‐64.4% Muhlenberg township ‐8.4% Wyomissing borough ‐16.0% West Reading borough ‐56.1% ‐5,000 ‐4,000 ‐3,000 ‐2,000 ‐1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
Figure 22 shows the total number of jobs in 2009 by municipality as well as the density of employment. Based on the overview of Berks County’s population and development characteristics, it is not surprising that employment is heavily concentrated in the City of Reading and other municipalities within the Reading Urbanized Area, as this area is where many of the county’s services, institutions, and important transportation corridors are located. Other relatively high concentrations of jobs are evident in the Boyertown and Kutztown areas.
Employment density is a good indicator of land use patterns supportive of transit for work trip destinations. The areas in Berks County with the highest densities of jobs comprise the primary service area of the BARTA fixed route bus system. The relatively low concentration of jobs in the other outlying areas of Berks County is consistent with the rural character and limited commercial activity occurring in these areas at this time.
______Final Report Page 29
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 22– Job Distribution and Density
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
During the 2002 to 2009 period, five industry sectors accounted for almost two-thirds of the employment in Berks County. These sectors include manufacturing, health care and social assistance, retail trade, educational services, and accommodation and food services. However, these industries exhibited divergent trends during this eight year period, as the number of jobs in manufacturing, retail, and accommodation and food services declined, while jobs in the health care and social assistance and educational services increased.
In fact, the manufacturing sector posted the largest job losses in Berks County over the eight year period (-8,573) with health care and social assistance sector posting the largest job growth (+9,034). Employment change by industry sector is presented in Figure 23.
______Final Report Page 30
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 23 - 2002 to 2009 Employment Change by Job Sector
Health Care and Social Assistance 50.5% Educational Services 15.8% Transportation and Warehousing 38.8% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 142.4% Utilities 18.8% Public Administration 2.9% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1.7% Management of Companies and Enterprises 1.8% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.4% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) ‐0.1% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing ‐5.4% Wholesale Trade ‐3.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation ‐13.3% Accommodation and Food Services ‐4.6% Information ‐24.8% Construction ‐7.5% Finance and Insurance ‐9.7% Retail Trade ‐4.2% Admin & Support, Waste Mgmt & Remediation ‐24.5% Manufacturing ‐23.1% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 9,000 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1,500
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
Employed Persons and Place of Work - Resident workers refer to the number of employed persons who live in Berks County and commute to jobs in their county or other counties, as well as those who work at home. Figure 24 lists the distribution of Berks County resident workers by place of work in 2002 and 2009. Approximately 184,971 workers resided in Berks County in 2009, which is 10.7% higher than the number in 2002. Almost 60% of these people (57.9%) worked within the county. Nearly one-quarter (23.9%) of the resident workforce commuted to the four adjoining counties of Montgomery, Lehigh, Chester, and Lancaster, with approximately five percent commuting to Bucks, Lebanon, and Philadelphia Counties. Overall, the number of Berks County resident workers commuting across the county border increased from about 34% to 42% over the eight year period.
______Final Report Page 31
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 24 - Distribution of Resident Workers by Place of Work
57.9% Berks County 65.9%
Montgomery County 9.4% 8.0%
5.0% Lehigh County 4.7%
Chester County 4.9% 3.9% 4.5% Lancaster County 3.7%
Bucks County 1.7% 1.2% 1.7% Lebanon County 1.5%
Philadelphia County 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% Dauphin County 1.3%
Other 11.7% 9.7%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
2009 (184,971) 2002 (167,085)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
In contrast, Figure 25 presents the distribution of Berks County workers by their place of residence. Over the eight year period, approximately two-thirds of the workers resided in Berks County, with the total number dropping from 67.5% to 65.6% during this period or a decline of about three percent.
Of the 56,236 workers (34.4%) who commuted into Berks County in 2009, over half (58.2%) lived in the six bordering counties of Montgomery, Lancaster, Schuylkill, Lehigh, Lebanon, and Chester. Workers commuting into Berks County from Bucks, Philadelphia, and York County accounted for another 6,215 workers (11.1%). The number of workers commuting into Berks County from Lancaster and Chester Counties increased by nearly 20% between 2002 and 2009, with workers commuting into the county from other counties increasing by approximately 15% over the seven year period. At the same time, the number of workers coming from Lebanon and Philadelphia Counties dropped by approximately 15% and 12%, respectively, between 2002 and 2009.
Since Berks County has a total of 184,971 resident workers and 163,304 in-county jobs, the county is a net exporter of 21,667 workers to employers outside the county.
______Final Report Page 32
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 25 - Distribution of Employed Workers at Place of Residence
65.6% Berks County 67.5%
4.6% Montgomery County 4.4%
4.1% Lancaster County 3.4%
4.0% Schuylkill County 4.1%
2.9% Lehigh County 3.0%
2.4% Chester County 2.0%
2.1% Lebanon County 2.5%
1.3% Bucks County 1.2%
1.3% Philadelphia County 1.4%
1.2% York County 1.2%
10.6% Other 9.2%
‐10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
2009 (163,304) 2002 (163,080)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
Means of Transportation - Approximately 90% of Berks County workers rely on the private automobile as a means of their journey to work. During a nine year period between the 2000 Census and the 2009 American Community Survey, single occupant vehicle use is estimated to have increased by approximately 6%, with a corresponding 4% decrease in carpooling. The percentage of workers walking to work declined by nearly 2%, while the use of a bicycle to commute to work increased by approximately 6%. The number of Berks County residents working at home gained popularity increasing almost 50%, from 2.9% in 2000 to 4% in 2009.
The share of workers using public transportation dropped from 1.5% to 1.2% over the nine year period. At the municipal level, the use of public transit is highest in the City of Reading, at 8.7% or approximately 2,555 workers. In only five other municipalities (Mt. Penn Borough, Sinking Spring Borough, South Heidelberg Township, Tilden Township, and West Reading Borough) was the mode share for public transit higher than 2%. Figure 26 shows how Berks County residents commuted to work in 2000 and 2009.
______Final Report Page 33
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 26 - 2000 & 2009 Work Mode Split
81.1% Drove Alone 81.1%
10.0% Carpooling 9.1%
1.5% Public Transportation 1.2%
3.6% Walked 3.4%
0.2% Bicycle 0.2%
2.9% Worked at Home 4.0%
0.7% Other 1.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
2000 (177,831 Workers) 2009 (188,598 workers)
Source: 2000 U.S. Census & 2009 ACS
Major Travel Generators
Major travel generators are those origins from which a concentrated transit demand is typically generated and those destinations to which both transit dependent persons and choice riders are attracted. They include major employers (with at least 500 employers at a single location), medical facilities, educational facilities, retail destinations (shopping centers and malls and stand-alone big-box retailers), senior citizen facilities, multi-family housing (apartments and townhouses), post-secondary institutions, and industrial sites and business parks.
The major trip generators were identified through various government websites such as the Pennsylvania Center for Workforce Information and Analysis, the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, the Berks County Planning Commission, the Berks County Human Services and Resource Directory, and internet searches. Figure 27 depicts the distribution of major trip generators throughout Berks County with Table 3 providing the inventory of the generators and their location.
______Final Report Page 34
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
There are certain attractions such as medical centers, post-secondary schools or shopping centers that are depicted twice on the map since they also act as major employers. Examples include Reading Hospital, Kutztown University, and Cabela’s.
Figure 27 - Major Travel Generators
______Final Report Page 35
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 3 - Major Travel Generators Major Employers (> 500 Employees) Location Reading Hospital 1,000-4,999 Reading Carpenter Speciality Alloys 1,000-4,999 Reading St. Josephs Medical Center 1,000-4,999 Reading Kutztown University 1,000-4,999 Kutztown Peneske Logistics 1,000-4,999 Reading VF Outlet 500-999 Reading Wachovia 500-999 Reading Boscov's 500-999 Reading Alcon Laboratories Inc. 500-999 Sinking Springs Ashley Furniture Industry 500-999 Leesport Arrow international Inc. 500-999 Reading RM Palmer Co. 500-999 Reading Reading Community College 500-999 Reading Sweet Street Desserts 500-999 Reading Bachman Co. 500-999 Wyomissing CMU 500-999 Reading Caron Treatment Center 500-999 Wernersville Cabela's 500-999 Hamburg Exide Technologies 500-999 Reading First Energy Corp 500-999 Reading Morgan Corp 500-999 Morgantown Worley Parsons 500-999 Reading Shopping Centers Location VF Outlet Reading Boscov's Reading Cabela's Hamburg Target Reading Wal-Mart Supercenter Temple Wal-Mart Wyomissing Wal-Mart Supercenter Bechtelsville Exeter Commons Reading Reading Mall Reading Shelbourne Square Exeter Kenhorst Plaza Reading Kings Mall Shopping Center Kutztown Fairgrounds Square Mall Reading Madison Square Shopping Center Reading Penn Plaza Reading Towne Square Plaza Wyomissing Broadcasting Square Wyomissing Spring Towne Center Sinking Spring Berkshire Mall Reading
______Final Report Page 36
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 3 - Major Travel Generators (Continued) Medical Centers Location Reading Hospital Reading St. Josephs Medical Center Reading Caron Treatment Center Wernersville Emergency Department Reading St. Clair Hospital Reading Wernersville State Hospital Wernersville Senior Citizen Facilities Location Hamburg Center Hamburg Lutheran Home at Topton Topton Berks County Home Leesport Berkshire Center Reading Golden Livingcenter Reading Highlands at Wyomissing Wyomissing Kutztown Manor Inc Kutztown Laurel Center Hamburg Manorcare Health Services Laureldale Manorcare Health Services Sinking Spring Manorcare Health Services West Reading Mifflin Center Shillington Phoebe Berks Health Care Center, Inc Wernersville Spruce Manor Nursing & Rehab Center West Reading Senior Citizen Facilities Location Transitional Care Center Wyomissing Wyomissing Nursing and Rehab Center Reading Henner Senior Apartments Womelsdorf Oakshire Senior Apartments Reading Reading Elderly Reading Columbia Cottage Wyomissing Dayspring Homes Inc. Reading Grand View Manor Fleetwood Hearthstone at Maidencreek Reading Berks Leisure Living Leesport Chestnut Knoll Boyertown Country Meadows at Tupehocken Wyomissing Evans Retirement Center Fleetwood Green Hills Manor Assisted Living Green Hills The Hawthorne Reading Liberty Square Stouchburg Miller Personal Care Home Reading Romyn's Country Home, Inc. Birdsboro Colonial Manor Adult Home Douglasville Danken House Wernersville Golden Ridge at Furnace Knoll Robesonia Harmony Hill Assisted Living Womelsdorf
______Final Report Page 37
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 3 - Major Travel Generators (Continued) Multi-Family Housing Location 100 Park at Wyomissing Square Wyomissing Amity Gardens Apts. Douglassville Amity Manor Apts. Douglasville Antietam Arms Apts. Reading Autumn Park Reading Azzolina Apts. Reading Berkshire Garden Apts. Reading Berkshire Hills Sinking Springs Berkshire Terrace Apts. Reading Berkshire Village Apts. Reading Birdsboro Estates Birdsboro Bnai Birth House of Reading Reading Bookbindery Reading Briar Cliff Townhouses Kutztown Brighton Apts. Reading Cambridge Commons Apts. Reading Carsonia Manor Apts. Reading Century Hall Apts. Reading Chestnut Court Apts. Reading Clearview Apts. Hamburg Concord Court Apts. Reading Country Club Apts. Reading Court Street Commons Apts. Reading Court Tower Apts. Reading Multi-Family Housing Location Deer Path Woods Townhouses Reading Deerfield Townhomes Reading Dwight D. Eisenhower Apts. Reading Eastwick at Exeter Reading Edgemont Terrace Apts. Reading Elm View Apts. Reading Episcopal House of Reading Reading Flying Hills Apts. Reading Franklin & Noble Manor Shoemakersville Franklin Court Apts. Boyertown Franklin Tower Reading Furnace Creek Manor Robesonia George M. Rhodes Reading Glenside Homes Reading Governor Mifflin Apts. Shillington Henner Apts. Womelsdorf Hillcrest Village Boyertown Hollywood Court Apts. Reading Hugh Carcella Apts. Reading
______Final Report Page 38
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 3 - Major Travel Generators (Continued) Jamestown Village Reading John Lutz Apts. St. Lawrence Kennedy Towers Reading Knitting Mill Hamburg Kutztown Garden Apts. Kutztown Laurel Court Apts. Fleetwood Lincoln Park Apts. Reading Lincoln Residences Reading Market Square Apts. Reading Miller Enterprises Reading Mt. Penn Manor Reading Northmont Apartments. Reading Northvale Hill Apts. Womelsdorf Oak Forest Apts. Reading Oak Meadows Apts. Reading Oakbrook Homes Reading Oakshire Senior Apts. Reading Park Court Apts. Womelsdorf Park Place Bally Penn.'s Common Court Apts. Reading Penn's Crossing Senior Apts. West Lawn Pennside Manor Apts. Reading Providence House Reading Queen of Angels Apts. Reading Reading Elderly Housing Reading Rittenhouse Apts. Boyertown Riverloft Apts. Reading Samual G. Hubert Reading Saucony Cross Apts. Kutztown Saucony Meadows Apts. Kutztown Sencit Towne House Reading Settlement at Reed Farm Reading Shillington Commons Apts. Reading Southgate at West Ridge Leesport Spring Valley Apts. Reading Springside Manor Apts. Reading Springwood Garden Apts. Reading St. Lawrence Garden Apts. Reading Tarsus Manor Fleetwood Township Village Apts. Reading Victoria Crossings Reading Warwick Apts. Boyertown Weidner Manor Douglassville Will-O-Hill Apts. Reading Wilson Manor Kutztown
______Final Report Page 39
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 3 - Major Travel Generators (Continued) Woodgate Apts. Reading Woodland Plaza Apts. Reading Wyndcliffe House Apts. Hamburg Wynnewood at Wyomissing Reading Wyomissing Garden Apts. Reading Post-Secondary Schools Location Reading Community College Reading Kutztown University Kutztown Albright College Reading Penn State Berks Reading
There are a total of 22 employers in Berks County with at least 500 employees at a single location. Employers with employees at multiple locations throughout the county such as school districts or government offices are not included in this list. In general, 15 of the 22 employers are located in the Reading Urbanized Area Reading with a significant concentration of employers located in the City of Reading. The largest employers comprise the medical, educational, and manufacturing sectors, which is consistent with the previous analysis of the county’s job sector. In general, the majority of trip generators are concentrated in the Reading Urbanized Area where most of the county’s population resides. Smaller pockets of transit generators can be found in the eastern, northern, and northeastern sections of the county in and around the boroughs of Hamburg, Kutztown, and Boyertown, respectively.
Not shown in the map are social service agencies - employment assistance and job training, counseling, government services - which play an important role for many of the riders that utilize the BARTA bus system. These agencies were obtained from the Berks County Human Services and Resource Directory dated January 2008. The majority of social service agencies in Berks County are located in the City of Reading, which is consistent with the city being the county seat and principal urban center in the county. Many of the other social service agencies are located in adjacent municipalities in the Reading Urbanized Area.
Mobility Needs Assessment
This section presents an overview of the likelihood of transit use and a composite measure of mobility need. An assessment of mobility need was performed to identify those areas in Berks County with the greatest need and potential demand for public transportation service. Over a dozen variables were used to rate each municipality in terms of transit potential. These variables include both rates and aggregate measures of mobility need. Rates such as the percentage of seniors in the total population and the density of the senior population are useful in understanding the composition of an area. Aggregate measures, such as the total senior citizen population indicate the potential for travel in general, and transit trip making in particular.
______Final Report Page 40
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
A total of 17 variables were used to analyze transit need for Berks County and include: population, population density, senior population in terms of number, percent and density, youth population in terms of number, percent and density, zero car households in terms of number, percent and density, low income population in terms of number, percentage and density, percentage of trips by transit, and employment in terms of number and density. A notable exclusion from this list is persons with disabilities. As noted previously, data for this population group at the municipal level was not available in the 2005-2009 ACS data set used for this report.
For all variables, higher values are indicative of greater need and likelihood of transit use. For example, a municipality with high senior citizen density or a high number of zero car housing units exhibits greater mobility need and propensity for transit use. In this analysis, a standardized score has been used to combine the different variables. With this approach for each variable, the municipality with the lowest value is assigned a score of zero while the municipality with the highest value is assigned a value of 100. The other areas are computed by interpolating between maximum and minimum values. These scores can then be added for 17 variables. Accordingly, the highest possible score would be 1,700.
Figure 28 presents the Mobility Needs Score by municipality for Berks County. Overall, approximately two-thirds of the municipalities score below the countywide average of 215. The higher mobility need scores are evident in the Reading Urbanized Area and in various boroughs located in the outlying sections of the county, which is not surprising as these areas include above average levels of potentially transportation disadvantaged population groups and households. Municipalities with mobility need scores of at least 400 include the boroughs of Boyertown, Kenhorst, Mount Penn, and West Reading Borough and the City of Reading. Of this group of five municipalities, Reading is the outlier with a score of 1,386; the four boroughs range from 406 in Mount Penn to 621 in West Reading. In addition, there are seven municipalities with scores ranging between 300 and 399; this group includes six boroughs - Fleetwood, Kutztown, Laureldale, Shoemakersville, Wernersville, and Wyomissing - and one township – Muhlenberg.
______Final Report Page 41
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 28 - Mobility Needs Score
Of the municipalities with a mobility needs score of at least 300, the boroughs of Boyertown and Kutztown are the only municipalities that are not served by the BARTA fixed route bus system.
Future Land Use
Land use decisions in Berks County are guided by the county’s comprehensive plan - Berks Vision 2020 - which was adopted in 2003 to serve as a regional guide for municipal land use decisions and designed to protect critical resource areas and to promote more “livable communities.” The Vision 2020 Future Land Use Plan consists of six major categories of land use, with two of the categories relevant to transportation planning: Existing Development and Growth Areas. The purpose of these land use strategies is to re-direct and/or channel future growth to areas in the county where development has already occurred in order to maximize the efficiency of public infrastructure and services - such as transportation networks - while at the ______Final Report Page 42
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
same time encouraging the redevelopment of the county’s traditional activity centers such as the City of Reading and the smaller boroughs distributed throughout the county. The goal of this approach is to protect critical natural resources and to promote more “livable communities” for all residents in Berks County. The Growth Area category is divided into two categories:
Designated Growth Areas - This category includes land adjacent to Existing Development where residential and mixed use development is permitted or planned and where public infrastructure services are available or have been planned; and
Future Growth Areas - This category includes land outside of and adjacent to a Designated Growth area or in a rural area adjacent to Existing Development where mixed use development has been permitted or planned in accordance with the orderly extension and provision of public infrastructure services.
According to the Future Land Use map accompanying the Vision 2020 comprehensive plan and re-created in Figure 29, it is envisioned that most of the designated and future growth areas in Berks County will be within the Reading Urbanized Area and along the major roadway corridors that radiate outward from the Reading area, in particular US 422, US 222 and SR 61. The majority of the remaining planned growth areas are located in or adjacent to the larger boroughs such as Boyertown, Hamburg, and Kutztown, with small pockets of future growth planned at certain interchanges along I-78 and I-176. In general, much of the northern half of Berks County as well as the southeastern and southwestern peripheries of the county are expected to remain rural or preserved for agricultural use.
______Final Report Page 43
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 29 - Future Land Use Plan
Source: Berks County Planning Commission - Berks Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan
______Final Report Page 44
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter presents a description of the current BARTA bus system in terms of the route network, service levels and the staff and the physical resources of the agency. In addition, other carriers that offer fixed route public transportation service in the BARTA service area are described. Trends for the last four years were described for key operating statistics, ridership and financial statistics. Of interest is the funding provided by local, state and federal sources for both operating and capital assistance. These results provide a historical perspective and baseline for future planning activities.
Service Description
BARTA operates 21 distinct bus routes within Berks County, with all of the services focusing on the City of Reading and the adjacent communities. The current fixed route services, with the exception of one cross-town bus line (Route 6), operate through the BARTA Transportation Center (BTC) This facility is adjacent to the Sovereign Center and only a block from Penn Street which is the major spine of downtown Reading. The BTC is situated on an entire city block bounded by 8th, Cherry, 7th and Franklin Streets. BARTA operates a partial pulse system where many routes arrive and depart from the centrally located BTC at similar times. This helps to facilitate transferring in a convenient manner between the various routes. The network of routes are listed in Table 4 and shown in Figure 30. The intercity service operated by Bieber Trailways is also presented in the table.
As mentioned previously, 20 of BARTA’s routes operate through the BTC, with 19 of these originating or terminating at this location. Only Route 19 is a through route which has the BTC as an intermediate stop along the route. The BARTA routes radiate from the BTC to serve different neighborhoods and activity centers throughout the region. Some activity centers are served by multiple routes (e.g., North Reading Plaza is served by Routes 1 and 3, and the Vanity Fair Outlets is served by Routes 6, 14, 15 and 16), however the alignment of these routes differ to serve various markets.
There are 14 routes that are aligned in a north-south direction, with the other seven routes being aligned in an east-west direction. As shown in Figure 30, the routes provide extensive coverage in the City of Reading and the surrounding ______Final Report Page 45
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
communities. Service also extends to other portions of Berks County (e.g., Womelsdorf, Lyons Station, Hamburg, Morgantown, etc.) to connect to outlying neighborhoods and trip generators.
Table 4 - Route Description Route Name Direction From To BARTA 1 Temple via 5th Street NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center North Reading Plaza 2 Fairgrounds Square Market NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center Fairgrounds Square Market 3 Temple via Kutztown Road NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center North Reading Plaza 4 10th/11th Streets NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center 10th & Exeter Sts 5 Albright College NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center Reservoir Rd & Hampden Blvd Spring Street/Berkshire 6 EB/WB Hampden Blvd & Reservoir Rd Berkshire Mall Heights/Crosstown Butter Lane (Stony Creek Towne 7 Pennside EB/WB BARTA Transportation Center Houses) 8 Reiffton/Birdsboro EB/WB BARTA Transportation Center Birdsboro 9 Grill via Kenhorst NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center Kenhorst Plaza E. Wyomissing Blvd & Margaret 10 Brookline NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center St 11 Mohnton via Shillington NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center Mohnton - Church & Main St Lincoln Park via Reading 12 EB/WB BARTA Transportation Center Berkshire Hills Hospital 14 Wernersville via Sinking Spring EB/WB BARTA Transportation Center Wernersville Hospital 15 Berkshire Mall EB/WB BARTA Transportation Center Berkshire Mall Broadcasting Square/Berkshire 16 EB/WB BARTA Transportation Center Giant Mall 17 Glenside/Airport/Berks Heim NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center St. Joseph's MC/Berks Heim Windsor St & Schuylkill Ave/St. 18 Schuylkill Avenue NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center Joseph's MC Riverside/FirstEnergy 19 NB/SB 19th St & Cotton St FirstEnergy Stadium Park & Ride Stadium/Cotton St via BTC 20 Route 61/Hamburg NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center Cabela's 21 Morgantown Express NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center Morgantown East Penn Manufacturing Co. 22 Lyon Station/East Penn-Deka NB/SB BARTA Transportation Center (Deka) Bieber Trailways Reading-Lebanon-Harrisburg BARTA Transportation Center Harrisburg Bus Terminal Philadelphia Greyhound Bus Reading-King of Prussia-Philadelphia Kutztown Terminal Reading-Kutztown-Wescosville- New York City Port Authority BARTA Transportation Center Hellertown-New York City Bus Terminal New York City Port Authority Harrisburg-York-Lancaster-New York City Harrisburg Bus Terminal Bus Terminal
______Final Report Page 46
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 30 - BARTA System Map
Route 1 serves North Reading Plaza via 5th Street and also provides service to Career Link, the Fairgrounds Square Mall and the Muhlenberg Shopping Center. Route 2 operates from the BTC to the Fairgrounds Square Market via the 9th and 10th Street couplet, and also serves the Fairgrounds Square Mall and City Hall. Much like Route 1, Route 3 operates to the North Reading Plaza; however this route serves the 9th Street and Kutztown Road corridors. Route 4 operates via the 10th and 11th Street couplet and serves the Giant Food Market on 10th and Rockland Streets. Route 5 offers service from the BTC to Albright College via 13th Street and Hampden Boulevard in the northbound direction and from Albright College via 12th Street in the southbound direction. Route 6, the only crosstown route that does not provide service through the BTC, operates between Albright College and the Berkshire Mall, and also stops at the Vanity Fair Outlets. Service is provided from the BTC to the Stony Creek Towne Houses on Route 7 via Perkiomen Avenue and Carsonia Avenue. Route 8 is an east-west oriented route that operates between the BTC and Birdsboro with service to the Reading Mall, Exeter Commons, Shelbourne Square Shopping Center and the Exeter Square Walmart. Route 9 is a north-south route operating from the BTC to Kenhorst Plaza, and offers service to Alvernia College and the Sencit Towne House Apartments. Route 10 operates to South Reading via Bingaman Street and Lancaster Avenue, with service to the Brookline Plaza and Oakbrook. ______Final Report Page 47
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
North-south service to Mohnton from the BTC is offered on Route 11, with service to the Shillington Shopping Center. Route 12 operates between the BTC and Berkshire Hills, with stops at Reading Hospital, Lincoln Plaza, Spring Towne Center and the Highlands and Wyomissing. Route 14 is a route that is aligned in an east-west direction and operates to Wernersville State Hospital and the Womelsdorf Park and Ridelot. Other stops on Route 14 include the Vanity Fair Outlets, Sinking Spring Plaza, and Phoebe Berks Village. Route 15 operated between the BTC and the Berkshire Mall, with stops at the Vanity Fair Outlets, Berkshire Square and Berks Technical Institute.
Route 16 offers service between the BTC and the Giant on State Hill Road, with stops at the Vanity Fair Outlets, Penn State Berks, Broadcasting Square and the Berkshire Mall. Service is operated between the BTC and St. Joseph Medical Center via Central Avenue and Schuylkill Avenue on Route 17, with service extending to Berks Heim, Berks Heim Annex and Berks County Prison. Route 18 operates between the BTC and Windsor Street and Schuylkill Avenue, offering service to the Price-Rite market. This route also offers night time service on an hourly basis to the St. Joseph Medical Center.
Route 19 is the only through route that operates to and from the BTC, but does not originate/terminate trips from there. This route begins its daily service from 19th and Cotton Streets, operates through the BTC and to FirstEnergy Stadium. This route also serves the Price- Rite market. Route 20 operates to Hamburg and Cabela’s, with stops at the Leesport Park and Ridelot and the Redner’s Park and Ridelot in Woodland. Route 21, known as the Morgantown Express, offers service between the BTC and the Morgantown Business Park. Lastly, Route 22 operates from the BTC to Lyon Station and East Penn Manufacturing.
Bieber Trailways operates a few bus lines that either originate in or operate through the City of Reading from a terminal at 3rd and Court Streets. The Reading-Lebanon-Harrisburg route operates from the downtown terminal to the Harrisburg Bus Terminal, with stops in Sinking Spring, Womelsdorf, Lebanon, and Hershey. The Reading-King of Prussia-Philadelphia route begins service in Kutztown and offers stops at Penn State Schuylkill, Pottstown and Norristown before arriving in Philadelphia, where it stops at 30th Street Station, 16th Street and the Greyhound Bus Terminal.
There are two routes operated by Bieber that offer service from Reading to New York City. The Reading-Kutztown-Wescosville-Hellertown-New York City route begins at the downtown terminal in Reading and operates to the Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) in New York City. The Harrisburg-York-Lancaster-New York City route offers a single trip, early in the morning, from Reading to the PABT.
______Final Report Page 48
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Frequency of Service – Table 5 details the frequency of service of the BARTA and Bieber Trailways routes that are operated in the service area. As the exhibit shows, many of the BARTA routes operate with 30 minute frequencies or better during the peak morning and afternoon periods, Monday through Friday. Some of the routes maintain these frequencies throughout the day, with others operating less frequent service during the non-peak periods. As a system, the BARTA routes have few routes that operate with frequencies of greater than 60 minutes, although it is important to note that not every route is operated throughout the service day. BARTA’s Saturday service offers frequencies that are similar to the frequencies operated during weekday off-peak periods. For purposes of this analysis, the morning peak period is 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, while the afternoon peak period is 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
Table 5 - Frequency of Service Weekday Saturday Early AM PM Late Route Name Direction AM Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Midday BARTA NB 30 30 20 30 60 -- 30 1 Temple via 5th Street SB 30 30 20 30 60 -- 30 NB -- -- 60 ------60 2 Fairgrounds Square Market SB -- -- 60 ------60 NB 30 60 60 30 -- -- 60 3 Temple via Kutztown Road SB 30 30 60 38 -- -- 60 NB 20 20 20 20 40 60 40 4 10th/11th Streets SB 21 20 20 20 40 40 40 NB 45 30 45 45 -- -- 45 5 Albright College SB 28 45 45 45 -- -- 45 Spring Street/Berkshire WB 60 60 ------6 Heights/Crosstown EB -- 60 -- 60 ------WB 30 30 60 30 -- -- 60 7 Pennside EB 30 30 60 30 -- -- 60 WB -- 60 60 60 60 -- 60 8 Reiffton/Birdsboro EB 60 60 60 60 -- -- 60 NB 60 60 60 60 -- -- 60 9 Grill via Kenhorst SB 60 60 60 60 -- -- 60 NB 30 30 30 45 60 -- 30 10 Brookline SB 30 30 30 45 60 -- 30 NB 30 30 60 40 -- -- 60 11 Mohnton via Shillington SB 30 40 60 30 -- -- 60 WB 45 45 90 45 -- -- 90 12 Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital EB -- 45 90 68 -- -- 90 WB 30 30 30 30 -- -- 30 14 Wernersville via Sinking Spring EB -- 30 30 40 30 -- 30 WB 30 30 30 30 -- -- 30 15 Berkshire Mall EB 30 30 30 30 30 -- 30 Broadcasting Square/Berkshire WB 30 30 30 30 60 60 30 16 Mall EB -- 30 30 30 36 60 30 ______Final Report Page 49
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 5 - Frequency of Service (Continued) Weekday Saturday Early AM PM Late Route Name Direction AM Peak Midday Peak Evening Night Midday NB 30 60 60 60 -- -- 60 17 Glenside/Airport/Berks Heim SB 57 62 60 60 -- -- 60 NB 30 30 20 30 60 60 30 18 Schuylkill Avenue SB 30 30 20 24 60 60 30 Riverside/FirstEnergy NB 30 30 60 30 50 -- 60 19 Statium/Cotton St via BTC SB 30 30 60 30 40 -- 60 NB 60 1 trip -- 2 trips -- 1 trip -- 20 Route 61/Hamburg SB -- 60 1 trip 60 1 trip 1 trip 1 trip NB -- 1 trip -- 1 trip ------21 Morgantown Express SB 1 trip ------NB 2 trips -- 2 trips -- -- 2 trips -- 22 Lyon Station/East Penn-Deka SB -- 2 trips 2 trips -- -- 2 trips -- Bieber Trailways WB 1 trip -- 1 trip 1 trip 1 trip -- -- Reading-Lebanon-Harrisburg EB -- -- 1 trip 105 ------WB -- -- 1 trip 1 trip 1 trip 1 trip -- Reading-King of Prussia-Philadelphia EB 1 trip 1 trip 1 trip 1 trip ------Reading-Kutztown-Wescosville- NB 1 trip 60 75 90 1 trip -- 120 Hellertown-New York City SB -- -- 90 60 45 75 120 NB 1 trip ------Harrisburg-York-Lancaster-New York City SB ------
The BARTA route with the most frequent service is Route 4, which operates between the BTC and 10th and Exeter Streets. This bus line is relatively short compared to some of the other BARTA routes, which helps explain its frequencies of 20 minutes throughout the day. Evening service on Route 4 is less frequent; however, this route is one of the three routes that does offer later evening service. The Morgantown Express route has the fewest trips per day of any of the BARTA routes, operating two round trips between downtown Reading and the Morgantown Business Park.
Some differences are noted in headways by direction which reflects one additional or one fewer trip during the operating period under review. For the most part, BARTA routes operate at relatively uniform headways. Moreover, the headway policy is user-friendly since buses typically operate at clockface headways of 20, 30 and 60 minutes.
Bieber Trailways offers relatively few trips from Reading to its destinations in New York City, Harrisburg and Philadelphia. The Reading-Lebanon-Harrisburg route operates four trips in each direction on the weekdays, and two trips during weekends and holidays. The Reading-King of Prussia-Philadelphia route offers five trips in each direction during the weekdays and two trips in each direction on weekends and holidays. The Reading-Kutztown-Wescosville-Hellertown- New York City route offers the highest level of service among the Bieber routes offering service ______Final Report Page 50
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
to and from Reading, with ten trips from Reading to New York City and 15 from New York City to Reading. This route operates with 60 minute headways during the peak period in the peak direction. More frequent service is offered from New York City to Reading in the evening hours on this route. The Harrisburg-York-Lancaster-New York City route offers one trip into New York City from Reading on the first trip of the day. All other trips on this route do not serve the City of Reading.
Span of Service – Equally as important as to how often buses operate is when the service is available for the public’s use. The information regarding the span of service for each route operated by BARTA and Bieber Trailways. The information is provided in terms of bus departure times from the route’s originating point to the time when each route ends its service day. The span of service is shown for both weekday and weekend service, although BARTA weekend service operates only on Saturdays (Table 6).
During the weekday period, nearly all of the BARTA routes begin in the 5:00 AM hour, with one route (Route 4) beginning even earlier (i.e., 4:55 AM). The three routes that do not begin that early on weekdays are Routes 2 (10:30 AM start), 6 (6:30 AM start), and 21 (6:15 AM start). The time that daily service ends is dependent on the route and what it serves. Some of the routes operate through the 6:00 PM hour, while others extend into the later evening hours.
BARTA’s Saturday routes, which provides scaled back service when compared to week day hours and service levels, begin offering service in the 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM hours and generally cease their service day at the same times as during the week day period. The routes that are not operated on Saturday are Route 6, Route 21 and Route 22.
The routes operated by Bieber Trailways during the weekday period offer earlier service in the peak direction (i.e., to Harrisburg, to Philadelphia, to New York City) in the morning, and later service in the peak direction in the afternoon and evening hours. For instance, the Reading- King of Prussia-Philadelphia route departs towards Philadelphia at 6:00 AM; however, the first return trip originating in Philadelphia does not depart until 9:30 AM. Conversely, the last bus that departs Reading heading towards Philadelphia arrives at the Greyhound Bus Terminal at 8:15 PM, yet the last vehicle departing Philadelphia arrives at the downtown Reading terminal at 11:15 PM. This practice is designed to meet the needs of the commuting public who use these routes to get to and from work. Weekend service operated by Bieber Trailways - which is offered on both Saturday and Sunday - has start and stop times that vary from the weekday service
______Final Report Page 51
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 6 - Span of Service Weekday Weekend Route Name Direction Start Stop Start Stop BARTA NB 5:30AM 10:10PM 6:30AM 10:10PM 1 Temple via 5th Street SB 6:00AM 10:40PM 7:00AM 10:40PM NB 10:30AM* 1:55PM* 10:30AM 1:55PM 2 Fairgrounds Square Market SB 10:55AM* 2:30PM* 10:55AM 2:30PM NB 5:15AM 6:15PM 6:15AM 5:45PM 3 Temple via Kutztown Road SB 5:45AM 6:45PM 6:45AM 6:15PM NB 5:40AM 11:00PM 6:40AM 10:40PM 4 10th/11th Streets SB 4:55AM 10:20PM 4:55AM 10:20PM NB 5:30AM 5:51PM 6:15AM 5:51PM 5 Albright College SB 5:20AM 6:15PM 6:36AM 6:15PM Spring Street/Berkshire WB 6:30AM 4:00PM -- -- 6 Heights/Crosstown EB 7:00AM 4:30PM -- -- WB 6:00AM 6:30PM 7:00AM 6:30PM 7 Pennside EB 5:30AM 6:00PM 6:30AM 6:00PM WB 6:00AM 8:00PM 7:31AM 6:00PM 8 Reiffton/Birdsboro EB 5:00AM 7:00PM 7:00PM 5:31PM NB 6:12AM 6:45PM 7:12AM 6:45PM 9 Grill via Kenhorst SB 5:45AM 6:12PM 6:45AM 6:12PM NB 5:45AM 10:10PM 6:45AM 10:10PM 10 Brookline SB 5:30AM 9:55PM 6:30AM 9:55PM NB 6:00AM 6:30PM 7:00AM 6:30PM 11 Mohnton via Shillington SB 5:30AM 6:00PM 6:30AM 6:00PM WB 5:30AM 6:15PM 6:15AM 6:15PM 12 Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital EB 6:15AM 7:00PM 7:00AM 7:00PM WB 5:00AM 7:00PM 6:30AM 6:15PM 14 Wernersville via Sinking Spring EB 6:00AM 8:00PM 7:15AM 7:00PM WB 5:30AM 6:00PM 6:30AM 6:00PM 15 Berkshire Mall EB 6:00AM 6:30PM 7:00AM 6:30PM WB 5:45AM 10:40PM 5:45AM 10:40PM 16 Broadcasting Square/Berkshire Mall EB 6:35AM 11:15PM 6:35AM 11:15PM NB 5:45AM 6:15PM 6:15AM 6:15PM 17 Glenside/Airport/Berks Heim SB 6:15AM 6:45PM 7:10AM 6:45PM NB 5:40AM 10:36PM 6:40AM 10:36PM 18 Schuylkill Avenue SB 5:52AM 11:10PM 6:52AM 11:10PM Riverside/FirstEnergy Statium/Cotton St NB 5:30AM 9:40PM 6:30AM 9:45PM 19 via BTC SB 5:30AM 9:30PM 7:00AM 9:30PM NB 5:05AM 11:00PM 5:05AM 11:00PM 20 Route 61/Hamburg SB 6:05AM 12:00AM 6:05AM 12:00AM 7:05AM 7:50AM NB -- -- 3:40PM 4:25PM 21 Morgantown Express 6:15AM 7:05AM SB -- -- 2:45PM 3:25PM
______Final Report Page 52
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 6 - Span of Service (Continued) Weekday Weekend Route Name Direction Start Stop Start Stop NB 5:15AM 10:55PM -- -- 22 Lyon Station/East Penn-Deka SB 6:25AM 12:05AM -- -- Bieber Trailways WB 5:00AM 8:45PM 10:00AM 7:00PM Reading-Lebanon-Harrisburg EB 9:30AM 6:30PM 7:45AM 4:30PM WB 9:30AM 11:15PM 12:01PM 11:30PM Reading-King of Prussia-Philadelphia EB 6:00AM 8:15PM 8:00AM 8:15PM Reading-Kutztown-Wescosville-Hellertown-New NB 6:00AM 10:30PM 5:00AM 10:00PM York City SB 7:30AM 3:15AM 9:00AM 3:00AM NB 5:00AM 7:45AM -- -- Harrisburg-York-Lancaster-New York City SB ------*Friday Only
Fare Structure
BARTA utilizes a fare structure that is relatively simple. The base cash fare is $1.70 for an adult passenger. Passengers will have to pay an additional $0.25 for each zone boundary that is crossed during each individual trip. Discounts are available for students (with student identification) and the Handicapped. Students receive a $0.50 savings (approximately 29%), while the handicapped receive a 50% savings. Handicapped passengers must have proper identification. Senior citizens and children under the age of five are able to ride BARTA services at all times at no cost. Seniors must register with BARTA and obtain the Pennsylvania Commonwealth ID card. There is a fee of $0.25 for passengers who wish to transfer from one BARTA route to another. Table 7 details BARTA’s fare structure.
______Final Report Page 53
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 7 - Fare Structure Fare Media Amount Single Ride Base Cash Fare $1.70 Student $1.20 Handicapped $0.85 Seniors Free Children (5 and under) Free Transfers $0.25 Zone Fare $0.25 One Day Pass Anywhere $3.00/$4.00 31 Day Pass Adult Anywhere $47.00 Student Anywhere $29.00 10 Trip Pass Adult Anywhere $17.30 Student Anywhere $11.00 Other Passes Park-N-Ride Pass $31.00
In addition to the single ride cash fare, BARTA offers several different options for passengers willing to purchase bus passes. BARTA has a one day anywhere pass that costs $3.00 and can be used continuously throughout one service day. If the pass is bought on the bus, the cost for the one day pass is $4.00. BARTA also offers a 31 Day Pass which allows a passenger to travel to any destination within the BARTA system without having to pay a zone fare or transfer fee between routes. This pass is available for adults at $47.00 and for students at a savings of approximately 38%. The 31 Day Pass is activated when first used, rather than a monthly pass which only covers a specific month. The BARTA pass provides a convenience to riders since they aren’t required to have exact change when boarding the bus. Also, the pass affords a discount to riders. For example, a person who uses the bus to commute to and from work would make approximately 42 one-way trips in a month for an average cost per trip of $1.12, versus the base cash fare of $1.70. Persons who transfer or ride more frequently would receive an even greater discount.
BARTA has a 10 Trip Pass for adults for $17.30 and for students for $11.00, offering a savings of approximately 36%. This pass allows an individual the opportunity to take ten trips from one destination to another, without having to pay a zone fee. Transfers between different routes would have to be paid, as the ten trip pass counts each trip taken on an individual bus as one trip. BARTA additionally offers a Park-N-Ride pass which are valid to and from park-n-ride lots only.
______Final Report Page 54
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Demand Responsive Services
BARTA provides complimentary ADA paratransit service to the local fixed route service, as required by the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, through its Special Services Division. Curb-to-curb service is provided to persons who are unable to utilize the fixed route system. Trips must begin and end within three-quarters of a mile of the alignment of BARTA’s current bus routes. This paratransit service is provided during the same days and hours as the BARTA fixed route bus system. Potential passengers must meet eligibility requirements. Advanced reservations are required at least a day before the trip.
BARTA also provides non-ADA demand service to other groups, including senior citizens using the Shared Ride Program, persons with disabilities (PwD), the Area Agency on Aging (AAA), and Mental Health/Mental Retardation (MH/MR). Service is also provided for those who need to get to and from medical appointments through the Medical Assistance Transportation Program (MATP). MATP service is only for non-emergency medical appointments. The BARTA paratransit system is significant and will be examined in greater detail at a later part of this study. This report focuses on the fixed route bus system.
Physical Plant and Assets
The four major categories of assets utilized by BARTA to provide fixed route bus service are the administrative, operations and maintenance facility, the BARTA Transportation Center, the Park and Ridelots, and the vehicles themselves. The administrative, operations and maintenance facility is located at 1700 North 11th Street in Reading. This facility is where the buses are stored during non-operating hours (approximately 80% of the vehicles are stored inside, with the remaining 20% parked outside) and also where regular maintenance work, including servicing, preventative maintenance checks and repairs, are performed. Both minor and major collision work is performed at this facility, which also houses a paint shop. The vehicles are also washed and fueled at this location. Most administrative functions are performed at this location, including dispatch.
The BARTA Transportation Center (BTC), located at 8th and Cherry Streets in Reading, is the beginning and ending point for the majority of the BARTA fixed route services. This facility provides a climate controlled environment for passengers to wait for their bus to arrive. Service information is displayed on a transit information board both inside in the passenger waiting area and outside in the passenger loading area, and a public announcement system announces all bus arrivals and departures. All but one of the BARTA ______Final Report Page 55
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
routes operate to this facility (Route 6), and of the routes that do offer service to the BTC, all but one begin or end each trip at this location. The one service that is through-routed is Route 19. There are ten bus berths at the BTC facility. The location is not staffed by BARTA employees; however, bus tickets are sold, and security provided, through an outside contractor.
BARTA purchased the Franklin Street Station of the former Reading Railroad, which is adjacent to the BTC. Design and engineering plans are being prepared which will restore the building as a passenger waiting area as well as provide space for six bus berths. It will represent a significant expansion of bus and passenger capacity of the BTC, as well as afford rail connections with the Schuylkill Valley Metro Plan.
There are five Park and Ridelots that BARTA maintains and provides with fixed route bus service. The first Energy Stadium Park and Ridelot is served by Route 19. The Hamburg Park and Ridelot and the Leesport Park and Ridelot are both served by Route 20. The Shelbourne Square Park and Ridelot is served by Route 8, and the Womelsdorf Park and Ridelot is served by Route 14.
BARTA maintains a fleet of vehicles capable of supporting its fixed route operations (Table 8). BARTA has a mixed fleet of 57 heavy duty buses that range in length from 34 to 40 feet, with a majority of the vehicles being manufactured by Gillig between 2004 and 2010. The most common model is the low floor Gillig BRT35LF, of which BARTA owns 30. Of these 30 vehicles, the 24 built in 2005 and 2007 have 36 seats, while the six produced in 2008 has 32 seats. BARTA’s entire fixed route vehicle fleet is wheelchair accessible. Currently, all of BARTA’s fixed route vehicles fall within their suggested useful economic life (i.e., useful economic life for heavy duty transit vehicle is recognized as 12 years). The 2003 Optima’s and New Flyers will need to be replaced after 2015.
BARTA currently requires 44 buses during the peak service periods, which leaves 13 vehicles as spare buses. This results in a spares ratio of approximately 29%. While there is no set industry standard for a transit agency’s spare ratio, it is widely accepted that a 20% spare ratio is sufficient for needs of most transit agencies. Since BARTA has several different vehicle models and buses with varying lengths, its spare ratio is somewhat high, but not unreasonable.
______Final Report Page 56
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 8 - Fixed Route Vehicle Fleet Model Lift Manufacturer Model Year Number Length Seats Equipped? Fixed Route Vehicles Optima Opus34LF 2003 4 34' 31 yes New Flyer D40LF 2003 3 40' 39 yes Optima Opus34LF 2004 5 34' 31 yes Gillig G20D102N4 2004 2 40' 37 yes Gillig BRT35LF 2005 17 35' 36 yes Gillig BRT35LF 2007 7 35' 36 yes Gillig BRT35LF 2008 6 35' 32 yes Gillig G27D102N4 2008 2 40' 39 yes Gillig G27D102N4 2009 2 40' 39 yes Gillig G30D102N4 2009 5 40' 39 yes Gillig G30D102N4 2010 4 40' 39 yes
In addition to its revenue vehicles, BARTA also maintains a fleet of non-revenue vehicles that serve in a support capacity. BARTA owns two tow trucks and two pick-up trucks that are used when revenue vehicles break down while operating in revenue service. BARTA also owns six sedans and SUVs which are used in an administrative capacity.
Organization
BARTA is a municipal authority, which began operations in 1973 as the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority. In January, 2010, it changed its name to Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority, which reflects the decision of the City of Reading to no longer provide transit funding. BARTA is the designated funding recipient of federal and state transit grants which help support the transit system. The Executive Director, who reports to a ten member Board of Directors, is responsible for developing an annual transit budget, establishing procedures, ensuring compliance with state and federal grants, and deciding on service levels.
With the exception of the demand responsive service that is contracted through Easton Coach, BARTA provides its own bus drivers, operations and maintenance staff to support the transit routes that it operates. A list of personnel is presented in Table 9, which details the BARTA’s staff by job category. There are 77 drivers that operate the routes on the fixed route system; of these 77, 74 are full-time drivers with the remaining three being part-time drivers. BARTA employs 36 drivers for the paratransit system, 17 of whom have their CDL license and 19 of whom do not. BARTA has a 22 person maintenance staff who are responsible for the upkeep of all of the transit vehicles and the facilities. BARTA’s administrative duties are performed by a staff of 23 people.
______Final Report Page 57
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 9 - Staffing Full Part Position Time Time Administration 21 2 Drivers Fixed Route 74 3 Paratransit 17 0 Non- CDL Paratransit 17 2 Maintenance 18 4 Total 147 11
Figure 31 details the hierarchy of the organization. As mentioned, the Executive Director reports to a Board of Directors. Reporting directly to the Executive Director are the Assistant Executive Director for Equipment, Facilities, Projects and Systems, the Assistant Executive Director for Operations, Safety and Training, the Director of Finance, and the Director of Administration and Human Resources.
______Final Report Page 58
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 31 - Administrative Organization
Trends
To provide a context for the current system analysis, operating, ridership and financial information was tabulated for the previous four years. Values are presented for the fixed route system only, and include statistics such as revenue hours and revenue miles, as well as bus system ridership, expenses and the revenue collected. The sources of the statistical information were PennDOT’s Bureau of Public Transportation’s (BPT) Legacy Report, which is submitted annually to BPT as part of the Act 44 requirements. Information was also gathered from the National Transit Database (NTD) that BARTA submits annually to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). BARTA staff indicated that greater reliance be placed in the Legacy Reports than information from NTD. For this reason, the trend data is only for a four year period (i.e., Fiscal Year 2006-2007 through Fiscal Year 2009-2010).
As shown in Table 10, over the four year period of this analysis, the revenue hours and revenue miles have remained mostly unchanged. There have been small increases and decreases from one year to the next, but overall, the values for these two measures have only changed by tenths of a percent. It is worth noting that the most recent fiscal year (i.e., FY09-10) had an increase in peak vehicles; however the revenue hours increased minimally and the revenue miles decreased slightly. ______Final Report Page 59
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 10 - Operating Statistics Item FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Change Revenue Hours 127,720 123,275 125,586 127,992 0.21% Revenue Miles 1,486,837 1,510,167 1,506,549 1,484,336 (0.17%) Peak Vehicles 42 42 42 44 4.76% Average Speed (mph) 11.64 12.25 12.00 11.60 (0.38%)
BARTA’s annual system ridership is displayed in Table 11, which also details the productivity measures of passengers per hour, passengers per mile and passengers per peak vehicle. The ridership level has increased by approximately six percent over the four-year period; however the highest ridership level occurred in FY2008-2009, not during the most recent fiscal year. The lowest ridership level occurred during the first year of this trend analysis, FY06- 07. In terms of productivity, all of the measures have increased over the course of the analysis period.
Table 11 - Ridership and Productivity Item FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Change Ridership 2,746,020 2,853,590 2,916,930 2,908,763 5.93% Passengers/Revenue Hour 21.50 23.15 23.23 22.73 5.70% Passengers/Revenue Mile 1.85 1.89 1.94 1.96 6.10% Passengers/Peak Vehicle 65,381.48 67,942.50 69,450.67 66,108.25 1.11%
To determine financial trends for the BARTA bus system during the past four years, relevant statistics were calculated for Fiscal Years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010. As seen in Table 12, the cost of the service has increased by about seven percent or only 1.80% on an average annual basis. Since service levels have remained relatively constant during the four-year period, the increase in operating cost is attributable to inflation. Revenues have also increased; however not at the same rate as operating costs. The net effect of costs rising faster than revenues earned is that the deficit has increased by approximately 8.5%. Fares paid by riders as a percentage of costs (i.e., farebox recovery) decreased from 28.58% in FY06-07 to 27.84% in FY09-10, a decrease of greater than 2.5%. Stated differently, in FY06-07, a dollar paid by the rider required a subsidy of $2.50; in FY09-10 the subsidy required for every dollar paid was $2.59.
Table 12 - Operating Financial Results Item FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Change Operating Costs $8,165,480 $8,941,720 $9,485,170 $8,767,830 7.38% Farebox Revenue $2,333,340 $2,577,140 $2,439,600 $2,441,390 4.63% Operating Deficit $5,832,140 $6,364,580 $7,045,570 $6,326,440 8.48% Farebox Recovery 28.58% 28.82% 25.72% 27.84% (2.56%)
______Final Report Page 60
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 13 shows the effects of the changes on the various annual statistics on BARTA’s performance on a per unit basis. Two important measures presented in the exhibit are the operating cost per passenger and operating cost per revenue hour, which indicate financial effectiveness and efficiency, respectively.
Table 13 - Financial Measures Item FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Change Financial Results per Revenue Hour Operating Cost $63.93 $72.53 $75.53 $68.50 7.15% Farebox Revenue $18.27 $20.91 $19.43 $19.07 4.41% Deficit $45.66 $51.63 $56.10 $49.43 8.24% Financial Results per Revenue Mile Operating Cost $5.49 $5.92 $6.30 $5.91 7.56% Farebox Revenue $1.57 $1.71 $1.62 $1.64 4.81% Deficit $3.92 $4.21 $4.68 $4.26 8.66% Financial Results per Peak Vehicle Operating Cost $194,416 $212,898 $225,837 $199,269 2.50% Farebox Revenue $55,556 $61,361 $58,086 $55,486 (0.13%) Deficit $138,860 $151,537 $167,751 $143,783 3.54% Financial Results per Passenger Operating Cost $2.97 $3.13 $3.25 $3.01 1.37% Farebox Revenue $0.85 $0.90 $0.84 $0.84 (1.22%) Deficit $2.12 $2.23 $2.42 $2.17 2.41%
The table indicates that the operating costs per revenue hour increased by approximately 7% between FY06-07 and FY09-10; however, during fiscal years FY07-08 and FY08-09 operating cost per revenue hour increased significantly, before decreasing during the most recent fiscal year. These results may reflect changes in fuel costs prices during the five year trend period. Over the same period, the farebox revenue collected per revenue hour increased by more than 4%. The financial results per revenue mile values experienced a similar situation, where operating costs and farebox revenue both increased per revenue mile, but with the operating costs rising at a higher rate (i.e., 7.56% versus 4.81%). Similarly, the operating costs were highest during FY2008-2009, then decreased in most recent fiscal year. The deficit per revenue hour and the deficit per revenue mile both increased by greater than 8% across the four-year period. Deficit per revenue hour and deficit per revenue mile both reached their highest levels in FY2008-2009.
The operating cost per passenger, which is an indication of financial effectiveness, has increased by more than 1%, while revenue per passenger has decreased approximately 1% over the four-year period. The result is that the deficit per passenger has risen by more than 2.4%.
The concluding portion of the trend review describes the funding situation. Since riders only cover a small portion of the costs of the bus system, BARTA requires both operating ______Final Report Page 61
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
assistance to underwrite the deficit and funding for capital investments. Table 14 details the operating revenues, cost and deficit over a four year period. While the farebox revenue has increased by greater than 4.5%, the money received from the other revenue streams has decreased significantly. For the most part, these differences in revenue may reflect the way funding for senior citizen transportation was tracked in BARTA’s accounting system. Pennsylvania Lottery funds were based on the number of senior citizen riders. The reimbursement basis has changed to a four variable formula where senior citizen ridership is one component of the formula.
Table 14 - Financial Results by Mode Item FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Change Revenues Farebox $2,333,339 $2,577,135 $2,439,604 $2,441,391 4.63% Advertising/Charter/School $171,169 $165,485 $73,189 $63,100 (63.14%) Other $707,649 $87,451 $89,284 $299,009 (57.75%) Total $3,212,157 $2,830,071 $2,602,077 $2,803,500 (12.72%) Costs Operating $8,165,483 $8,941,717 $9,485,173 $8,767,829 7.38% Reconciled Items $15,194 $0 $0 $0 -- Total $8,180,677 $8,941,717 $9,485,173 $8,767,829 7.18% Deficit Total $4,968,520 $6,111,646 $6,883,096 $5,964,329 20.04%
In terms of operating cost, the fixed route bus system increased more than 7% over the four-year period. FY06-07 was the only year that BARTA had reconciled items. BARTA’s deficit has increased approximately 20% over the course of the four-year analysis period; however, the most recent fiscal year saw a decrease in the deficit from the previous fiscal year of more than $900,000. Between the first year of the review and the third, the deficit for the fixed route system grew by approximately 39%. The decrease in the deficit in the most recent fiscal year is attributable to the increase in “Other” revenues.
The operating funding for the services operated by BARTA is provided primarily from state and federal sources, as shown in Table 15. Funding from local sources has remained steady at approximately 5% of the total amount. The funding received by BARTA has increased by approximately 20%, with the state government, through Act 44, providing more of the additional funding than the local or federal governments. In fact, the federal government has decreased their funding to BARTA by approximately 5% over the four year period.
______Final Report Page 62
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 15 - Operating Funding by Source Item FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Change Amount Local $268,643 $277,248 $299,047 $322,274 19.96% State $2,849,961 $3,999,554 $5,185,631 $3,885,438 36.33% Federal $1,849,916 $1,834,844 $1,398,418 $1,756,617 (5.04%) Total $4,968,520 $6,111,646 $6,883,096 $5,964,329 20.04% Percent Local 5.41% 4.54% 4.34% 5.40% (0.07%) State 57.36% 65.44% 75.34% 65.14% 13.57% Federal 37.23% 30.02% 20.32% 29.45% (20.90%) Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% --
When considering each funding source by the percent of the total funding to BARTA, the local funding has remained the same, while the state government has increased its share of the total funding by 13%. Conversely, the federal government has decreased its share of the funding by approximately 21%.
During the past four years, BARTA has made capital investments for the fixed route system that total approximately $11.5 million. Table 16 defines the capital items that have been purchased for the fixed route system over the past four years. It is important to note that the data presented in this table was acquired from the National Transit Database information that BARTA prepared for the Federal Transit Administration since the Legacy Reports do not present capital expenditures.
A majority of the capital expenditures has been spent on revenue vehicles (i.e., buses). About five of every six dollars of all of the capital outlays went towards the purchase of new vehicles. The only other item that received more than 3% of capital moneys was passenger stations, which was approximately 6% of all capital outlays over the four year period.
Table 16 - Capital Expenditures by Category Percent Service FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Total of Total Passenger Stations $15,657 $6,509 $0 $673,239 $695,405 6.05 Administrative Buildings $46,502 $0 $0 $0 $46,502 0.40 Maintenance Buildings $322,055 $0 $0 $0 $322,055 2.80 Revenue Vehicles $2,083,011 $0 $5,141,289 $2,848,462 $10,072,762 87.58 Service Vehicles (Non-Revenue) $0 $19,695 $0 $0 $19,695 0.17 Fare Collection Equipment $0 $0 $0 $68,578 $68,578 0.60 Communication/Information $63,909 $29,312 $0 $8,918 $102,139 0.89 Other $0 $0 $147,890 $25,681 $173,571 1.51 Total $2,531,134 $55,516 $5,289,179 $3,624,878 $11,500,707 100.00
______Final Report Page 63
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
For capital investment, BARTA has relied on a mixture of local, state and federal funding in amounts that differ greatly each year since they are based on specific purchases (Table 17). The data presented in this table was gathered from NTD reports. Since the funding source is not broken down by mode (i.e., fixed route versus demand responsive), the capital expenditures for the demand responsive system have also been included in the table. The federal government has been the major contributor to BARTA for its capital expenditures, accounting for at least 53% of the funding in each of the four years, and in the most recent fiscal year providing approximately 85% of the funding. With the exception of FY07-08, a year when only a relatively minimal amount was spent on capital improvements, a majority of the available capital funding has been spent on the fixed route system.
Table 17 - Capital Funding by Source Item FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Expenditures Fixed Route $2,531,134 $55,516 $5,289,179 $3,624,878 Demand Responsive $511,316 $457,951 $158,900 $284,735 Total $3,042,450 $513,467 $5,448,079 $3,909,613 Amount Local $30,792 $57,227 $689,252 $33,828 State $1,304,050 $105,153 $1,835,723 $561,000 Federal $1,624,492 $351,087 $2,923,103 $3,314,785 Directly Generated $83,116 $0 $0 $0 Total $3,042,450 $513,467 $5,448,078 $3,909,613 Percent Local 1.01 11.15 12.65 0.87 State 42.86 20.48 33.69 14.35 Federal 53.39 68.38 53.65 84.79 Directly Generated 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Summary
The discussion on the previous pages has documented the BARTA fixed route, and to a lesser extent, the intercity service operated by Bieber Trailways. The service levels were examined in terms of coverage, frequency and span of service. Also presented was a description of BARTA’s fare structure and the physical plant and assets owned and maintained by BARTA. Recent trends were presented for the fixed route system in terms of key operating, ridership and financial statistics, as well as performance measures. The concluding topic was the source of funds used to cover the operating deficit and permit capital investments. Taken together, these statistics provide an indication of the scale and financial dimensions of BARTA. This information provides a baseline and context for future planning activities.
______Final Report Page 64
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
PEER AND TREND ANALYSIS
As part of the Transit Development Plan process, a peer review and trend analysis was conducted to compare and contrast BARTA’s fixed route and demand response operating statistics and performance with other similarly sized fixed route transit operators. While some caution should be exercised in comparing one transit system to another, this practice does provide a valuable diagnostic tool that may identify issues to address as part of the planning process. The results of both the peer and trend analysis provide useful information to transit system management on past and current performance and identifies opportunities for the future.
The value of this process is underscored in that it is used by the Bureau of Public Transportation as part of its Transit Performance Review of the 44 fixed route transit operators in the Commonwealth. This examination of transit agencies is mandated with passage of Act 44 and regulations have been promulgated on the analysis procedures. The current analysis of BARTA has followed these procedures since they are logical and have proved useful in similar assignments in other parts of the United States. On difference is that Act 44 calls for the review of four transit measures while the current analysis includes about three dozen measures.
Peer Selection
The first step in the peer group analysis was to identify a group of peer transit systems. As part of its work for Act 44, the Bureau of Public Transportation established peer groups for all 44 bus systems, including BARTA. The peer selection process considered four measures: revenue hours, revenue miles, peak vehicles and service area population. In addition, other criteria were considered such as service area population density, network design and special generators. The process was applied to BARTA using information from the National Transit Database for 2008. At the time, this represented the last year for which data was readily available for all transit systems in the United States. A total of fourteen transit systems were identified as similar to BARTA.
With the current analysis, NTD information was obtained for 2009 and the Act 44 peer selection procedures were applied to this more recent data. The result of this analysis was that the peer systems selected previously for BARTA were still an appropriate group for comparison. The more recent information did not reveal changes that would suggest inclusion of other systems in the peer group. The final peer group includes:
Brockton Area Transit Authority (Brockton, MA) Broome County Department of Transportation (Binghamton, NY) Escambia County Area Transit (Pensacola, FL) Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation (Fort Wayne, IN) ______Final Report Page 65
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Gold Coast Transit (Oxnard, CA) Greater Peoria Mass Transit District (Peoria, IL) Lowell Regional Transit Authority (Lowell, MA) Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (Haverhill, MA) Modesto Area Express (Modesto, CA) Red Rose Transit Authority (Lancaster, PA) Sonoma County Transit (Santa Rosa, CA) Wichita Transit (Wichita, KS) Worcester Regional Transit Authority (Worcester, MA) York County Transportation Authority (York, PA)
These 14 systems share similar characteristics to BARTA in terms of population served and key operating statistics. The peer systems have many characteristics that are similar to the BARTA bus system. Using the 14 peer systems, this report develops performance measures for BARTA and the 14 peer systems and compares BARTA’s performance with the overall peer average for each measure; BARTA is then ranked against the peer systems for comparison purposes. Consideration was given to using the most recent data (i.e., 2010) for BARTA and the peer transit systems. Since there is no readily available source of this information, each agency would have to be contacted and the necessary information sought. This would be a time consuming process with no guarantee that all agencies would respond.
To avoid this situation, transit statistics were obtained from the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS). This is a web-based system that compiles National Transit Database (NTD) through FY2009 in a user friendly format. The use of FTIS ensures that the data included has been compiled in a consistent manner by all transit agencies. All transit agencies that receive funds from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are required to complete the National Transit Database (formerly Section 15) reports on an annual basis. There are manuals that describe how the forms are to be completed and there is a validation process to facilitate reasonable accuracy in reporting. In the current analysis, data was assembled for FY2004 and FY2009, which supported both the peer and trend analysis.
Two points are worth noting regarding data collection for the peer and trend analysis. First, the NTD reports for the 14 peer systems and BARTA was the source of information for this review. The prior section which described the existing conditions relied upon Legacy Reports for FY06-07 through FY09-10. There are differences in certain data items between the Legacy Reports and NTD and BARTA staff has indicated that they believe the Legacy Reports provide a more accurate picture of the transit agency. For this reason, the Legacy Reports have been used in the description of the existing system.
______Final Report Page 66
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The use of NTD information was mandated because the peers include systems outside Pennsylvania. Further, NTD will permit the trend review to span five years which has been the process used in the Act 44 Transit Performance Reviews. In contrast, the Legacy Reports have only been submitted during the past four years. In any event, the differences in certain statistics between the two reporting systems may account for differences in certain performance measures.
A second point to note is that NTD reporting is somewhat different for systems that directly operate service or purchase transportation from vendors. The latter do not report the number of employees by functional area. Five of the systems do not report employment levels to FTA and various ratios could not be completed for these agencies. The five systems are as follows: the Brockton Area Transit Authority, Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority, Modesto Area Express, Sonoma County Transit, and York County Transportation Authority. The York County Transportation Authority purchased transportation in FY2009 but directly operated all service in FY2004.
The remaining systems comprise a sufficiently large group of peer transit agencies to permit comparisons on the basis of employment levels. One concluding point regarding employment levels is to establish the number of full-time equivalent employees. In the current review, all part-time employees have been counted as a one-half full-time employee.
Overview of Analysis Techniques
The peer group analysis is based on the results for the BARTA fixed route bus systems using three different analysis techniques - peer group, trend line, and combination. The methodology used in each is described below.
Peer Group Analysis – This technique compares BARTA’s performance at a single point in time (FY2009) with a group of transit systems exhibiting similar characteristics. Selection of the peer group takes into consideration a number of factors which influence the population’s tendency to use transit. As the objective of a peer group analysis is to comment on BARTA’s performance relative to comparable systems, the presentation of the findings focuses on only the group average and range of performance. Therefore, the tables which appear in the subsequent section follow a standard format as follows:
Peer Group Performance o Minimum value recorded o Maximum value recorded o Average of all peer systems (An unweighted value that also includes BARTA which is the computational process utilized by BPT)
______Final Report Page 67
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA Performance o Value recorded o Percent difference from peer group average o Rank within the group (With “1” always the best performer and “15” recognizing that with some measures higher values are indicative of better performance while for other measures lower values represent better performance)
Trend Line Analysis – This second technique reviews BARTA’s performance over time and also includes a comparison with the peer group average. For this analysis, data was obtained from FTIS for the two end years - 2004 and 2009 which was used in the peer comparison. The analysis emphasizes the full five-year trend; not interim or year-to-year changes in key indicators. For each of the measures, the change in value is computed in terms of the average annual percent change for BARTA and the peer group. The evaluation process is similar to that described above for the peer review.
For measures, such as passengers per hour, higher values are preferred. For these types of measures, a desirable result would be that BARTA’s productivity increases at a faster rate than the peer systems. For cost per hour where lower values are indicative of better performance, the preferred results would be where BARTA’s cost does not increase as fast as the peer systems. As noted above the peer average includes the 14 systems and BARTA.
Combination Analysis – The previous two techniques are synthesized in this third step. The combination analysis enables the reviewer to determine whether BARTA is better or worse than the peer group average and whether BARTA has improved or declined during the five year period. The combination analysis results in the grouping of performance into four different categories:
Better/improving - better than peer group average and improving over time. Better/declining - better than peer group average but declining over time. Worse/improving - worse than peer group average but improving over time. Worse/declining - worse than peer group average and declining over time.
At the conclusion of all three analyses, it is then possible to suggest areas where BARTA performs well and areas where improvement opportunities should be explored. The current analysis focuses on the fixed route system, but a similar analysis will be performed for the demand responsive service later in the study.
The current analysis follows the procedures used for peer selection by BPT and gauging performance. One difference is that the Transit Performance Review process mandated by Act 44 focuses on four measures. Further, it compares performance of the transit system under review based on whether it falls within the peer average plus or minus the standard deviation. Since BARTA is not being reviewed by PennDOT, the actual assessment will take place in ______Final Report Page 68
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
future years. To provide a preview of BARTA’s performance, the Act 44 evaluation was undertaken for the period 2004 through 2009. These results are presented in the Appendix.
Performance Indicators - Performance indicators can be used to determine how the entire agency is performing by mode with respect to stated objectives. They reflect the relationship among key statistics for the transit system which can be aggregated into three characteristics.
Input - The resources available to provide transit resources, typically personnel and the financial resources provided through the operating budget;
Output - The product that results from the use of these resources, typically measured as miles and hours of service; and
Consumption – The public’s response to the level of service operated, measured as ridership and the revenue generated from passengers.
The relationship discussed above can be graphically depicted as shown in Figure 33.
Figure 33 - Performance Indicators
InputInput
Cost Cost Efficiency Effectiveness
Output Consumption
Service Effectiveness
The approach to performance evaluation recognizes that these indicators are made up of statistics which reflect key factors in transit service delivery. The primary performance measurements used to compare and contrast BARTA with the peer group transit systems are grouped into five categories and include:
______Final Report Page 69
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Social Effectiveness - Explores system supply and demand characteristics relative to demographic information such as revenue hours per capita, revenue miles per capita, peak vehicles per 100,000 people, passengers per capita, and cost per capita.
Revenue Generation – Various measures of patron fares and other revenue streams are considered and include total revenue per revenue hour, farebox revenue per revenue hour, per revenue mile, per peak vehicle, passenger and passenger-mile.
Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness - Efficiency typically measures the cost relative to the system output while effectiveness gauges the cost per passenger carried. Typical terms include cost per revenue hour, cost per revenue mile, cost per peak vehicle, cost per passenger, cost per passenger mile, subsidy per passenger, and farebox recovery.
Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness - A host of measures have been identified which looks specifically at the transportation function. Benchmarks include revenue hours per vehicle hours, vehicle miles per vehicle hours, operations costs per total costs, vehicle hours per operations employees, revenue miles per peak vehicle, spares ratio and passenger productivity for the year and each service day or a per revenue hour basis.
Maintenance and General Administration Measures - Several measures have been identified which examine the maintenance and administrative functions of BARTA. Maintenance measures include spares ratio, vehicle failures (road calls), vehicle miles per maintenance employees, maintenance employees per total employees, maintenance costs per vehicle mile and maintenance costs as a percentage of total costs. Administrative measures include G&A costs per vehicle hour, per passenger, and as a percentage of total costs, as well as G&A employees as a percentage of total employees.
These five categories are used in the current analysis of the BARTA bus system and indicate the comprehensive nature of the analysis.
Peer Group Analysis
This section compares BARTA’s 2009 operating performance to that of the peer transit systems. The results of the peer analysis are presented in the aggregate for the peers. No specific references are made to the individual systems. Rather, the information in this report presents the range of peer group performance and its unweighted group average which includes the data for BARTA in the calculation. Then, BARTA’s performance is shown as the numerical value, percent above or below the peer group average and rank within the peer group, which is generally 1 to 15 for this analysis. Employment statistics include only ten peer systems with these measures ranked from 1 to 10. With this ranking scheme, the system ranked first is always ______Final Report Page 70
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
the highest or best performer.
Service Area and Operating Characteristics - As seen in Table 18, the overall size and dimensions of BARTA is generally in the middle of the peer group with an average ranking of 7th among its peers. Highlights of the peer group are presented below:
The population of the BARTA service area is approximately 14% larger than the peer average and is ranked 6th. However, the population density of the BARTA service area (population/square mile) is over three-quarters lower than the peer average at 432 persons per square mile and is ranked 13th compared with the peer average of 1,898 persons per square mile. It should be recognized that BARTA’s service area population includes the entire portion of Berks County even though the vast majority of BARTA’s service is operated in the City of Reading and surrounding municipalities that comprise the Reading Urbanized Area;
BARTA is above the peer average in terms of vehicle hours and vehicle revenue hours, with a ranking of six in both measures and is about 6% higher compared with its peers. Conversely, BARTA operates approximately 5% fewer vehicle miles and vehicle revenue miles compared with the peer average and is ranked in the middle of the peer group (ranking of 8 and 9) in these two measures;
______Final Report Page 71
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 18 - Comparison of Peer Group with BARTA Peer Trend Comparison Measure Min Max Average BARTA Difference Rank Service Area Characteristics Population 165,000 524,725 327,607 373,638 14.1% 6 Density(pop./sq. mile) 232 4,951 1,898 432 -77.2% 13 Dimensions - Operations Vehicle Hours 79,712 146,541 120,670 125,586 4.1% 6 Vehicle Miles 1,196,439 2,078,762 1,625,353 1,506,549 -7.3% 9 Revenue Hours 76,820 140,701 114,193 123,040 7.8% 6 Revenue Miles 1,146,645 1,817,912 1,520,611 1,471,377 -3.2% 8 Dimensions - Vehicles Peak Vehicles 31 47 39 42 7.0% 5 Midday 17 46 29 31 7.9% 4 Dimensions - Staff Size* Total Employees 85 154 107.3 93.6 -12.8% 7 Operations Employees 65 105 78.3 72.0 -8.0% 6 Maintenance Employees 13 36 20.5 13.4 -34.8% 10 G&A Employees 4 17 8.6 8.3 -4.1% 5 Ridership Annual Passengers 1,131,853 3,568,028 2,376,299 2,916,928 22.8% 5 Average Trip Length 2.62 8.65 4.34 2.93 -32.6% 14 Financial Operating Revenue $980,611 $2,822,378 $1,934,878 $2,439,952 26.1% 5 Operations Cost $3,831,189 $8,518,251 $6,190,381 $6,556,042 5.9% 6 Vehicle Main. Costs $1,010,830 $4,020,454 $1,939,854 $1,010,830 -47.9% 15 G&A Costs $912,799 $2,948,899 $1,657,936 $1,343,019 -19.0% 9 Total Operating Costs $6,712,909 $15,016,642 $10,114,190 $9,309,206 -8.0% 10 Operating Deficit $4,710,496 $12,691,337 $7,902,814 $6,669,136 -15.6% 11 Rank of 1 is highest, 15 is lowest unless stated otherwise * Peer group average and ranking reflects a total of 10 peer systems Source: 2009 FTIS
BARTA has the fifth highest peak vehicle requirement and the fourth largest midday fleet compared with the peer average;
BARTA ranked fifth in terms of ridership and carried almost 23% more riders than the peer average. The average trip length taken by BARTA riders was 2.93 miles compared with the peer average of 4.34 miles;
BARTA has a smaller total workforce compared with the peer average and is below the peer average in all facets of its organizational structure including operations, vehicle maintenance, and administration. Overall, BARTA falls towards the bottom of the peer group with an average ranking of 7, as the peer average for these statistics is comprised of 10 systems. BARTA’s smaller workforce is somewhat surprising considering that the system operates slightly more revenue service and operates a larger vehicle fleet in the ______Final Report Page 72
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
peak periods and in the midday. In addition, BARTA has the smallest vehicle maintenance workforce among the peer group; and
BARTA’s operating revenue generated from passenger fares was the fifth highest among the peer group and approximately one-quarter greater than the peer average. BARTA’s total operating costs was 8% lower than the peer average and was ranked towards the bottom of the peer group (rank of 10). BARTA’s operations cost was about 6% higher than the peer average and was ranked 6th. However, BARTA’s G&A costs were almost 20% lower than the peer average and ranked 9th while vehicle maintenance costs was almost 50% lower than the peer average and was ranked last among the peers. These statistics reflect the fact that BARTA spends more resources in placing service on the street compared with the peer average. The statistics also reveal that BARTA spends much less on vehicle maintenance compared with the peer group. This may be a favorable in that it indicates efficiency, or could be an indicator that maintenance expenditures are too low. Lastly, BARTA’s operating deficit was about 16% lower than the peer average and was ranked 11th.
In summary, BARTA serves a larger population that is spread over a much larger area compared with the peer group average. Although BARTA generally provides a higher level of service than the peers, the level of service is not significantly greater than the peer average. However, it is worth noting that BARTA carried significantly more riders than the peer average. What stands out about BARTA is that the system operates more service and carries more passengers using less resources (i.e., lower costs and fewer employees) compared with the peer average.
Social Effectiveness Measures – This section analyzes the intensity or prevalence of transit service in the BARTA service area to that of the service areas included in the peer group. In this analysis, the ranking represents performance in terms of best (1) to worst (15). As seen in Table 19, the level of transit service available to the residents of BARTA’s service area, on a per capita basis, is generally lower than the peer group average. Highlights of the comparison are:
Table 19 - Peer Analysis - Social Effectiveness Measures Peer Trend Comparison Measure Min Max Average BARTA Difference Rank Revenue Hours per Capita 0.20 0.71 0.39 0.33 -16.2% 9 Revenue Miles per Capita 2.98 8.96 5.16 3.94 -23.7% 10 Peak Vehicles per Capita (000,000's) 6.67 23.03 13.55 11.24 -17.0% 8 Trips per Capita 2.88 18.20 8.38 7.81 -6.9% 7 Total Operating Cost per Capita $19.44 $72.27 $34.57 $24.92 -27.9% 9 Rank of 1 is best, 15 is worst unless stated otherwise Source: 2009 FTIS
______Final Report Page 73
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA is ranked 9th and 10th in terms of revenue hours and revenue miles on a per capita basis, respectively, with the system’s hourly performance being approximately 16% lower than the peer average and its performance on a mileage basis being almost 24% below the peer average. Additionally, the number of peak vehicles provided by BARTA per 100,000 people is 17% lower than the peer average and was ranked 8th; and
With a lower level of service than the peer group, it is not surprising that the system exhibits a lower cost per capita compared to the peer group ($24.92 for BARTA vs. $34.57 for the peer average). Although BARTA is ranked closer to the bottom of the peer group in terms of the level of service it provides to the public, the utilization rate in the BARTA service area is in the middle of the peer group and was only about 7% below the peer average.
In summary, BARTA provides less service and a lower rate of utilization compared with the peer average. However, this performance may be attributed to the service characteristics of the BARTA system, in that the service area population includes the entire portion of Berks County even though the vast majority of the service operated by BARTA is located in the City of Reading and the surrounding municipalities that comprise the Reading Urbanized Area. As a result, it would be expected that BARTA would exhibit lower utilization rates compared to the peer group, especially considering that a fairly significant portion of BARTA’s service area population is not served by the transit system.
Revenue Generation Measures - Table 20 presents a number of revenue performance measures. In this analysis, the ranking represents performance in terms of best (1) to worst (15).
Table 20 - Peer Analysis - Revenue Generation Measures Peer Trend Comparison Measure Min Max Average BARTA Difference Rank Total Revenue/Revenue Hour $11.26 $31.22 $19.44 $21.46 10.37% 6 Farebox Revenue/Revenue Hour $10.49 $24.13 $16.68 $19.83 18.86% 4 Farebox Revenue/Revenue Mile $0.80 $2.01 $1.27 $1.66 31.04% 3 Farebox Revenue/Peak Vehicle $24,515 $74,273 $49,438 $58,094 17.51% 5 Farebox Revenue/Passenger $0.49 $1.42 $0.84 $0.84 -0.66% 7 Farebox Revenue/Passenger Miles $0.12 $0.31 $0.20 $0.29 39.37% 2 Rank of 1 is best, 15 is worst unless stated otherwise Source: 2009 FTIS
______Final Report Page 74
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA ranked 6th in terms of total revenue per revenue hour - total revenue includes farebox revenue as well as other revenue sources such as parking revenue and advertising. In terms of farebox revenue on a per revenue hour, per revenue mile, per peak vehicle, and per passenger mile basis, BARTA exceeded the peer average and was ranked in the top five in each category. As shown below, BARTA’s high ridership (see Table 15) rather than a high average fare contributed to this above average performance; and
BARTA’s revenue per passenger in FY2009 was $0.84, which was the same number as the peer average and placed BARTA in the middle of the peer group (rank of 7). Having above average ridership while at the same time having the same average fare as the peer group average is attributed to policy choice to make the BARTA bus system attractive by offering relatively low fares. BARTA offers several discounted fare programs, such as 1- Day and 31-Day passes, a 10-trip and 20-trip ticket, a reduced fare for students and persons with disabilities and a free fare for senior citizens. These programs offer free or deeply discounted rides, which lower the average fare that is paid by the riders. As noted above, this is a local policy choice to encourage ridership by providing free or discounted fares.
In summary, BARTA generates more revenue than the peer group despite the fact that the average fare of BARTA and the peer average are the same. The high volume of passengers offsets some of the potential revenue that is lost by BARTA charging a lower than average fare.
Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures - Table 21 on the following page presents a number of key financial performance measures. In this analysis, the ranking represents performance in terms of best (1) to worst (15).
Table 21 - Peer Analysis - Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures Peer Trend Comparison Measure Min Max Average BARTA Difference Rank Cost Efficiency Cost/Revenue Hour $64.30 $119.72 $88.66 $75.66 -14.7% 4 Cost/Revenue Mile $4.93 $9.06 $6.62 $6.33 -4.4% 7 Cost /Peak Vehicle $177,716 $404,481 $259,001 $221,648 -14.4% 4 Cost Effectiveness Cost/Passenger $3.04 $8.05 $4.58 $3.19 -30.3% 2 Cost/Passenger Mile $0.54 $1.70 $1.11 $1.09 -1.4% 8 Subsidy/Passenger $2.27 $6.63 $3.73 $2.35 -36.9% 3 Farebox Recovery (%) 11.7% 29.3% 19.3% 26.2% 36.0% 2 Rank of 1 is best, 15 is worst unless stated otherwise Source: 2009 FTIS
______Final Report Page 75
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA’s costs on a revenue hour basis was less than the peer average and was ranked 4th, while the system’s costs per revenue mile was higher than the peer average and ranked 7th; BARTA’s cost per peak vehicle was also lower than the peer average and was ranked 4th best. Cost on a per hour basis is very important because the hourly expenses (i.e., operator wages and fringe benefit payments) are the main cost factor for transit systems. This could be the result of cost efficiencies on the part of BARTA and/or a lower cost environment in Berks County and the Reading area when compared to the peers;
The cost per passenger at BARTA was $3.19 during FY2009, which was the second lowest (best) among the peer group and was approximately 30% lower than the peer average. This figure can be attributed to the fact that BARTA’s operating costs were about 8% lower than the peer average while its ridership was almost 23% higher. BARTA’s cost per passenger mile was very similar to the peer average ($1.09 for BARTA vs. $1.11 for the peer average) and was ranked 8th;
BARTA’s low cost per passenger figure enabled the system to exhibit the third lowest subsidy per passenger of $2.35 in FY2009. This performance was approximately one- third lower than the peer average of $3.73; and
BARTA’s low revenue per passenger performance coincided with a farebox recovery ratio that was better than the peer average. In FY2009, BARTA’s farebox recovery was 26.2% compared to the peer average of 19.3%. This above average performance can be attributed to the fact that BARTA had a much higher ridership level than the peer group, which in turn helped to offset some of the effects of providing discounted fares to BARTA riders.
BARTA’s performance in the above cost efficiency and cost effectiveness measures is favorable. BARTA performs better than the peer group in key performance measures such as cost per revenue hour, cost per passenger and farebox recovery. Further, because BARTA operates bus service in a more cost effective manner compared with the peer group, the system requires a much lower subsidy per passenger compared with the peer average.
Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures - Table 22 shows the performance measures related to transportation activities at BARTA. These performance measures relate to the efficiency of day to day operations including scheduling, street supervision, dispatching, and training. In this analysis, the ranking represents performance in terms of best (1) to worst (15); performance measures derived from employment statistics include only ten peer systems and are ranked from best (1) to worst (10). Several different categories of transportation performance are presented below:
______Final Report Page 76
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 22 - Peer Analysis - Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures Peer Trend Comparison Measure Min Max Average BARTA Difference Rank Transportation Efficiency Deadhead Hours/Vehicle Hour 1.32% 15.47% 5.37% 2.03% -62.3% 2 Deadhead Miles/Vehicle Miles 2.07% 16.99% 6.10% 2.33% -61.7% 2 Vehicle Miles/Vehicle Hours 10.91 18.36 13.58 12.00 -11.6% 13 Operations Cost/Total Cost 49.20% 70.43% 61.54% 70.43% 14.4% 1 Operations Cost/Vehicle Hour $36.21 $62.74 $51.18 $52.20 2.0% 7 Operations Cost/Passenger $1.76 $4.63 $2.79 $2.25 -19.5% 5 Vehicle Hours/Operations Employees* 1,208 1,838 1,535 1,744 13.6% 3 Vehicle Hours/Total Employees* 853 1,352 1,126 1,342 19.2% 2 Operations Employees/Total Employees* 67.19% 81.66% 73.29% 76.92% 5.0% 2 Cost Effectiveness Measures Revenue Hours/Peak Vehicle 1,921 3,748 2,942 2,930 -0.42% 9 Revenue Miles/Peak Vehicle 28,530 45,481 39,237 35,033 -10.7% 12 Annual Trips/Revenue Hours 10.84 25.68 20.37 23.71 16.4% 5 Annual Trips/Revenue Mile 0.81 2.14 1.56 1.98 27.5% 5 Annual Trips/Peak Vehicles 34,220 91,488 60,256 69,451 15.3% 5 Peak/Base Ratio 1.00 2.04 1.42 1.35 -4.8% 8 Rank of 1 is best, 15 is worst unless stated otherwise * Peer group average and ranking reflects a total of 10 peer systems Source: 2009 FTIS
Only 2% of the total hours operated by BARTA were related to non-revenue (i.e., deadhead) movements. This was the second lowest (best) performance compared with the peer group and was almost two-thirds lower than the peer average of 5.37%. BARTA’s deadhead miles to total miles was 2.3%, which is also the second lowest (best) performance compared with the peer average of 6.10%. The average speed of BARTA’s vehicles was 12.0 MPH, which was the third slowest speed among the peer group and almost 12% lower than the peer average. BARTA’s below average speed may be partially attributed to the fact that most of the service operated by BARTA occurs in urban areas with higher densities and more traffic congestion;
The transportation function accounted for about 70% of the total cost of the BARTA system in FY2009. This is the highest relative cost of the peer comparison and demonstrates that BARTA spends most of its funds on placing bus service on-the-street and little on administrative activities. At the same time, BARTA’s operations cost per passenger was 5th lowest among the peer group and was 19.5% lower than the peer average. Operating employees at BARTA comprise approximately three-quarters of the work force, which is the second highest rate among the peer group. The number of operating employees appears to be an efficient use of resources at BARTA since the system has the third highest number of vehicle hours per operating employee in FY2009 (1,744), and was 13.6% higher than the peer average of 1,535. Lastly, BARTA exhibited the second highest number of vehicle hours per total employees (1,126), which was 19.2% higher than the peer average of 1,342;
______Final Report Page 77
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA performs better than the peer average in all measures related to transportation effectiveness, including passengers per revenue hour, passengers per revenue mile, and passengers per peak vehicle. BARTA was ranked 5th among the peer group in each of these measures. This performance indicates that the service provided by BARTA is being utilized at a higher rate compared to the overall peer average;
The number of revenue hours and revenue miles per peak vehicle operated by BARTA were below the peer average by a rate of 16.4% and 27.5%, respectively, with revenue hours per peak vehicle ranked 9th and revenue miles per peak vehicle ranked 12th. This performance is consistent with BARTA operating 42 peak vehicles compared with the peer average of 39 peak vehicles; and
BARTA’s peak to base ratio of 1.35 was about 5% lower than the peer average and indicates that a lower share of the system’s weekday service is operated during the morning and afternoon peak periods. A lower peak to base ratio generally indicates more efficient service since peak service is more costly than midday service due to more costly labor arrangements, higher percentage of non-revenue travel time to and from garages, and lower vehicle utilization.
In summary, BARTA spends a higher share of its expenses compared with its peers on operations. This, along with the fact that total operating costs are 8% lower the peer average, but revenue hours are about 7.8% above average, and the lower cost per hour indicates that BARTA is more efficient and effective than its peers at using its resources for actual service provision. This focus on providing the greatest amount of bus service possible could contribute to BARTA performing better than the peers in terms of passenger effectiveness. It may also suggest that BARTA is more effective than its peers in directing service to those areas where the ridership potential is the greateSt.
Maintenance and General and Administrative (G&A) Performance Measures - Table 23 shows the performance measures related to the maintenance and administrative efficiency with which BARTA delivers its services. The ranking represents performance in terms of best (1) to worst (15); performance measures derived from employment statistics include only ten peer systems and are ranked from best (1) to worst (10).
______Final Report Page 78
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 23 - Peer Analysis - Maintenance and General and Administration Measures Peer Trend Comparison Measure Min Max Average BARTA Difference Rank* Maintenance Measures Spares Ratio 8.51% 74.29% 34.63% 26.19% -24.4% 6 Vehicle Miles/Maintenance Emp.* 53,175 121,423 84,965 112,850 32.82% 3 Vehicle Miles/Vehicle Failures (road calls) 1,411 21,270 7,447 2,482 -66.67% 11 Maintenance Cost/Vehicle Mile $0.94 $2.23 $1.39 $0.94 -32.70% 1 Maintenance Cost/Total Operating Costs 15.15% 28.23% 22.26% 15.15% -31.96% 15 Maintenance Employees/Total Employees* 13.30% 26.04% 18.98% 14.26% -24.84% 9 General Administration Measures G&A Cost/Vehicle Hour $7.41 $21.56 $13.55 $10.69 -21.08% 5 G&A Cost/ Passenger $0.30 $1.40 $0.74 $0.46 -38.18% 3 G&A Cost/Total Costs 9.47% 24.30% 16.20% 14.43% -10.94% 7 G&A Employees/Total Employees * 3.89% 11.79% 7.73% 8.81% 13.98% 7 Rank of 1 is best, 15 is worst unless stated otherwise * Peer group average and ranking reflects a total of 10 peer systems Source: 2009 FTIS
BARTA’s spares ratio of 26.2% was almost 25% lower than the peer average and was ranked 6th among the peers. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a spare ratio of 20% or higher may indicate an inefficient use of resources, since more vehicles have been purchased than are needed for normal operations. However, a small spare ratio of 10% or less may indicate potential service reliability problems due to the fact that not enough vehicles are available to substitute for other vehicles in the fleet undergoing regular maintenance or for vehicles that have broken down during the day;
The BARTA maintenance workforce is above the peer average in terms of vehicle miles per maintenance employee (112,850 for BARTA vs. 84,965 for the peer average) and below average in terms of maintenance employees per total employees (14.26% for BARTA vs. 18.98% for the peer average);
The next category measures the number of vehicle miles operated for each maintenance road call performed for mechanical reasons. It is an indicator both of maintenance quality and the age and condition of the bus fleet. Higher values generally indicate better performance. BARTA’s road call rate was two-thirds lower than the peer average, with 2,482 miles between road calls compared with 7,251 miles for the peer group. This performance places BARTA near the bottom with a ranking of 11. This lower performance could be could be an indication of understaffing since a lower percentage of BARTA’s workforce is dedicated to vehicle maintenance;
BARTA’s maintenance costs per vehicle mile and as a percentage of total costs are the lowest of the peer group and are approximately one-third lower than the peer average. With an above average number of road calls, this measure may be an indication that BARTA is not allocating sufficient resources to vehicle maintenance; ______Final Report Page 79
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA ranked near the top of the peer group in terms of G&A costs per vehicle hour and per passenger, with the former being approximately 21% lower than the peer average (rank of 5), while the latter was more than one-third lower than the peer average (rank of 3);
BARTA’s G&A costs represented 14.43% of total operating costs, which was about 11% lower than the peer average of 16.20% and placed BARTA in the middle of the peer group (rank of 7); and
BARTA’s G&A staff comprised almost 9% of the total BARTA workforce, which was approximately 14% higher than the peer average of 7.73% and placed BARTA towards the bottom of the peer group (rank of 7) due to the fact that this measure comprises only ten peer systems.
In summary, BARTA’s vehicle maintenance costs and maintenance workforce efficiency measures are better than the peer average; however, at the same time, maintenance expenditures may be too low since BARTA performs well below the peer average in terms of road calls. In terms of administrative performance, BARTA dedicates a lower proportion of total costs to administrative activities when compared to its peers. This is considered favorable performance since it is assumed that the system is more focused on placing service on-the-street.
Trend Analysis
The second analysis technique reviews BARTA’s performance over time rather than a single “snapshot” as in the preceding peer group analysis and also includes a comparison with the peer group average. Many of the same indicators are used as those used in the peer group analysis. The results of the two analyses are combined in the next section.
Data for the trend analysis were derived from the Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) for two end years – 2004 and 2009. The analysis emphasizes the full five-year trend; not interim or year-to-year changes in key indicators. For each of the measures, the BARTA information for both 2004 and 2009 is reported along with the average annual percent change for BARTA and the peer group and how BARTA compares with the peer group over the review period. It is recognized that cost will increase in response to inflation.
In performing the peer analysis, the results of the general peer group data (Table 18), social effectiveness measures (Table 19), revenue generation measures (Table 20), cost efficiency and effectiveness measures (Table 21), transportation efficiency and effectiveness measures (Table 22), and maintenance and general administrative performance measures (Table 23) are compared with 2004 data.
______Final Report Page 80
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operating Characteristics - Table 24 shows the change in BARTA operating statistics between 2004 and 2009. Highlights of the peer group trend analysis are presented below:
Table 24 - Trend Analysis - Comparison of Peer Group with BARTA Peer Group Average BARTA Avg. Avg. Measure 2004 2009 Annual Chg 2004 2009 Annual Chg Rank Dimensions - Operations Vehicle Hours 112,409 120,670 1.4% 132,341 125,586 -1.0% 14 Vehicle Miles 1,529,449 1,625,353 1.3% 1,593,964 1,506,549 -1.1% 14 Revenue Hours 104,977 114,193 1.7% 129,694 123,040 -1.1% 15 Revenue Miles 1,418,456 1,520,611 1.5% 1,536,289 1,471,377 -0.9% 14 Dimensions - Vehicles Peak Vehicles 37 39 1.1% 43 42 -0.5% 12 Midday 28 29 0.2% 28 31 2.1% 4 Dimensions - Staff Size* Total Employees 101.1 107.3 0.6% 93.9 93.6 -0.1% 7 Operations Employees 72.5 78.3 1.1% 69.6 72.0 0.7% 5 Maintenance Employees 19.2 20.5 0.3% 14.3 13.4 -1.4% 8 G&A Employees 9.4 8.6 -2.2% 10.0 8.3 -3.7% 7 Ridership Annual Unlinked Trips 2,159,978 2,376,299 1.9% 2,568,989 2,916,928 2.6% 4 Average Trip Length 4.20 4.34 0.9% 2.30 2.93 5.0% 2 Financial Operating Revenue $1,533,108 $1,934,878 5.3% $1,910,409 $2,439,952 5.0% 9 Operations Cost $4,570,322 $6,190,381 6.24% $4,857,825 $6,556,042 6.18% 9 Vehicle Main. Costs $1,443,926 $1,939,854 6.2% $869,990 $1,010,830 3.1% 12 G&A Costs $1,307,440 $1,657,936 5.0% $1,100,560 $1,343,019 4.1% 9 Total Operating Costs $7,550,716 $10,114,190 6.1% $7,040,637 $9,309,206 5.8% 9 Operating Deficit $5,775,790 $7,902,814 6.5% $4,987,073 $6,669,136 6.0% 9 Rank of 1 is highest, 15 is lowest unless stated otherwise * Peer group average and ranking reflects a total of 10 peer systems Source: 2004-2009 FTIS
The level of service provided by BARTA declined relative to the peer average during the review period. The four measures - vehicle hours, revenue hours, vehicle miles and revenue miles - declined by average rate of approximately 1% per year, while the peer average for these measures increased by about 1.5% per year during the review period. BARTA ranked last or next to last in these measures;
BARTA’s peak vehicle requirement declined by less than 1% during the review period while the peer average increased at an annual rate of approximately 1%. In this measure BARTA ranked towards the bottom (rank of 12). However, BARTA’s midday fleet increased by an annual rate of approximately 2% compared to the peer average increase of 0.2% per year. In this measure BARTA ranked near the top of the peer group (rank of 4);
______Final Report Page 81
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA’s ridership increased at an annual rate of 2.6% during the review period, while the peer average increased at a rate of about 2% per year. BARTA ranked 4th in this measure and indicates an increase in productivity since BARTA operated fewer revenue hours during the review period. At the same time, the average trip length taken by BARTA riders increased 5% per year and was ranked 2nd among its peers. The peer average increased at a rate of about 1% per year during the review period;
BARTA’s total workforce as well as its vehicle maintenance and administrative departments declined by an average of about 1.7% per year during the review period and ranked towards the bottom of the peer group (rank of 7 or 8). The peer average for these measures either exhibited a slight annual increase or a lower rate of decline compared to BARTA. BARTA’s operations workforce increased during the review period, but at a rate of less than 1% per year. The peer average increased by a slightly higher rate of approximately 1% per year. In this measure, BARTA ranked in the middle of the peer group (rank of 5); and
BARTA’s operating revenue generated from passenger fares increased by an annual rate of 5% per year during the review period. This was slightly lower than the peer average increase of 5.3 per year. BARTA’s costs increased during the review period, but at a lower rate than the peer average. The annual cost increases ranged from a low of approximately 3% for vehicle maintenance to a high of about 6.2% for operations. BARTA’s operating deficit increased 6% per year during the review period, but was lower than the peer average increase of 6.5% per year. BARTA ranked 9th in every financial measure except for vehicle maintenance costs, which was ranked 12th among the peers.
In summary, BARTA provided slightly less service during the review period, but still achieved increasing ridership and an accompanying increase in passenger revenue. In addition, BARTA’s overall operating costs and deficit increased, but at a lower rate than the peer average.
Social Effectiveness Measures – Table 25 presents trends between 2004 and 2009 for a number of key social effectiveness measures, including;
Table 25 - Trend Analysis - Social Effectiveness Measures BARTA Annual Average Change Comparison Measure 2004 2009 BARTA Average Difference Rank Revenue Hours per Capita 0.35 0.33 -1.05% 0.57% -285.3% 13 Revenue Miles per Capita 4.11 3.94 -0.86% 0.35% -343.9% 11 Peak Vehicles per Capita (000,000's) 11.51 11.24 -0.47% -0.07% 580.9% 10 Trips per Capita 6.88 7.81 2.57% 0.67% 286.5% 3 Total Operating Cost per Capita $18.84 $24.92 5.75% 4.87% 18.0% 7 Source: 2004 & 2009 FTIS
______Final Report Page 82
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA operated slightly fewer revenue hours and revenue miles per capita in 2009 compared with 2004, as well as exhibited a slight decrease in the number of peak vehicle per 100,000 people; however, the decline among the three measures averaged less than 1% per year. BARTA’s cost per capita increased by an annual rate of about 5.8% over the review period. All four of these measures performed below the peer average and were ranked as high as 7 in terms of cost per capita and as low as 13 in terms of revenue hours per capita. However, BARTA did outperform the peer average and exhibit an improving trend in terms of the utilization of BARTA service. The number of transit rides per capita in the BARTA service area increased by about 2.6% per year and was the third highest rate of growth among the peer group during the review period.
In summary, BARTA experienced a fairly significant increase in costs between FY2004 and FY2009 even with the system providing less service during the review period. However, the reduction in service levels did not negatively impact ridership; in fact, utilization among the service area population increased about 2.6% per year, or 13.5% per year.
Revenue Generation Measures – Table 26 presents trends between FY2004 and FY2009 for a number of revenue performance measures, including;
Table 26 - Trend Analysis - Revenue Generation Measures BARTA Annual Average Change Comparison Measure 2004 2009 BARTA Average Difference Rank Total Revenue/Revenue Hour $15.83 $21.46 6.27% 2.89% 116.8% 3 Farebox Revenue/Revenue Hour $14.73 $19.83 6.13% 3.58% 71.2% 4 Farebox Revenue/Revenue Mile $1.24 $1.66 5.93% 3.82% 55.1% 5 Farebox Revenue/Peak Vehicle $44,428 $58,094 5.51% 4.20% 31.2% 5 Farebox Revenue/Passenger $0.74 $0.84 2.38% 3.49% -31.7% 11 Farebox Revenue/Passenger Miles $0.32 $0.29 -2.44% 2.68% -191.2% 12 Source: 2004 & 2009 FTIS
BARTA was above the peer average and exhibiting improving performance in four of the five revenue generation measures (total revenue per revenue hour and farebox revenue on a per revenue hour, per revenue mile and per peak vehicle basis), which increased by an average rate of about 4.5% per year and were ranked in the top five among the peers. BARTA’s revenue generation on a per passenger mile basis declined about 2.4% per year over the review period; the peer average exhibited opposite performance and increased about 2.7% per year. BARTA ranked towards the bottom of the peer group in this measure (rank of 12). In general, this performance reflects BARTA’s increase in ridership over the review period. In addition, the overall increase in revenue can be attributed to BARTA’s average fare increasing from $0.74 in FY2004 to $0.84 in FY2009, an increase of about 2.4% per year. However, the average fare of the peer average increased at an annual rate of about 3.5% per year, which was almost one-third higher than BARTA during the review period. As a result, BARTA ranked towards the bottom of the peer group (rank of 11). ______Final Report Page 83
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
In summary, with growing ridership and an increase in the average fare, BARTA has generally increased its revenue generation between FY2004 and FY2009.
Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures - Table 27 presents trends between FY2004 and FY2009 for a number of key financial performance measures, including;
The cost of operating BARTA service increased during the review period, with the total cost per revenue hour and revenue mile and cost per peak vehicle increasing by an average of about 6.6% per year. The peer average also exhibited increasing costs but at a lower rate compared with BARTA. This resulted in BARTA ranked towards the bottom of the peer group (rank of 10, 11 and 13) in terms of cost efficiency over the review period;
Table 27 - Trend Analysis - Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures BARTA Annual Average Change Comparison Measure 2004 2009 BARTA Average Difference Rank Cost Efficiency Cost/Revenue Hour $54.29 $75.66 6.86% 4.31% 59.3% 13 Cost/Revenue Mile $4.58 $6.33 6.66% 4.54% 46.8% 11 Cost /Peak Vehicle $163,736 $221,648 6.24% 4.94% 26.5% 10 Cost Effectiveness Cost/Passenger $2.74 $3.19 3.09% 4.22% -26.8% 4 Cost/Passenger Mile $1.19 $1.09 -1.77% 3.43% -151.5% 3 Subsidy/Passenger $2.00 $2.35 3.35% 4.61% -27.3% 6 Farebox Recovery (%) 27.13% 26.21% -0.69% -0.68% 1.6% 8 Source: 2004 & 2009 FTIS
BARTA’s cost per passenger increased by an annual rate of about 3% over the review period, which was lower than the peer average increase of about 4% per year. In this measure, BARTA was ranked 4th. BARTA’s cost per passenger mile declined by a rate of about 1.8% per year. This was in contrast to 3.4% annual increase exhibited by the peer group during the review period. In this measure, BARTA was ranked 3rd;
BARTA’s subsidy per passenger increased from $2.00 in FY2004 to $2.35 in FY2009, an increase of 17.5% over the five year period, or an increase of about 3.4% per year. BARTA’s increasing subsidy was lower than the subsidy per passenger among the peer group, which exhibited an increase of about 4.6 per year. This performance placed BARTA near the middle of the peer group (rank of 6); and
BARTA and the peer group exhibited modest and very similar declines in farebox recovery during the review period (BARTA declined -0.69% per year vs. the peer average decline of -0.68% per year). Over the review period, BARTA’s farebox recovery
______Final Report Page 84
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
ratio declined at a slightly higher rate of 1.6%. In this measure, BARTA was ranked 8th.
In summary, BARTA was less cost efficient in FY2009 compared to FY2004 and is largely attributed to the system’s operating costs increasing by nearly one-third, which more than offset the growth in ridership and passenger revenue over the five year period. At the same time, the magnitude of the operating cost increase contributed to declining farebox recovery ratio and an increasing subsidy per passenger.
Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures – Table 28 presents trends between FY2004 and FY2009 for a number of transportation performance measures, including;
Table 28 - Trend Analysis - Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures BARTA Annual Average Change Comparison Measure 2004 2009 BARTA Avg. Difference Rank Transportation Efficiency Deadhead Hours/Vehicle Hours 2.00% 2.03% 0.27% -1.39% -119.4% 9 Deadhead Miles/Vehicle Miles 3.62% 2.33% -8.39% 0.89% -1,040.8% 4 Vehicle Miles/Vehicle Hours 12.04 12.00 -0.08% -0.07% 15.1% 6 Operations Cost/Total Cost 69.00% 70.43% 0.41% 0.16% 156.0% 8 Operations Cost/Vehicle Hour $36.71 $52.20 7.30% 4.79% 52.3% 12 Operations Cost/Passenger $1.89 $2.25 3.52% 4.39% -19.9% 6 Vehicle Hours/Operations Emp.* 1,901 1,744 -1.71% -0.49% 251.9% 9 Vehicle Hours/Total Emp.* 1,410 1,342 -0.99% 0.02% -6,509.6% 8 Operations Emp./Total Emp.* 74.16% 76.92% 0.73% 0.50% 45.4% 5 Cost Effectiveness Measures Revenue Hours/Peak Vehicle 3,016 2,930 -0.58% 0.64% -191.2% 11 Revenue Miles/Peak Vehicle 35,728 35,033 -0.39% 0.42% -193.8% 10 Annual Trips/Revenue Hour 19.81 23.71 3.66% 0.16% 2,216.5% 2 Annual Trips/Revenue Mile 1.67 1.98 3.46% 0.38% 809.49% 4 Annual Trips/Peak Vehicles 59,744 69,451 3.06% 0.75% 310.1% 4 Peak/Base Ratio 1.54 1.35 -2.48% 1.02% -341.9% 3 Source: 2004 & 2009 FTIS * Peer group average and ranking reflects a total of 10 peer systems
BARTA’s ratio of deadhead hours to vehicle hours increased 0.27% per year and was ranked 9th among the peers. Conversely, deadhead miles per vehicle miles declined by an annual rate of about 8.4% and was ranked 4th. Overall, BARTA is generally doing a good job ensuring that buses operate minimal deadhead or non-revenue service;
In terms of transportation efficiency, operations cost as a percent of total costs at BARTA increased 0.41% per year, while the peer average increased at a lower annual rate of 0.16%. Operations cost per vehicle hour also exceeded the peer average during the review period (7.30% for BARTA per year vs. 4.79% for the peer average per year), while operations costs per passenger increased at a lower rate compared with the peer group (3.52% for BARTA per year vs. 4.39% for the peer average per year). The percentage of BARTA’s total workforce employed in operations increased by about 0.7% ______Final Report Page 85
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
per year, which was a slightly higher increase compared to the 0.5% increase in the number of peer group employees who were employed in operations;
BARTA’s modest increase in the size of its operations workforce resulted in the number of vehicle hours per operating employees to decline by about 1.7% per year and the number vehicle hours per total employees to decline by an annual rate of about 1% during the review period. In these two measures, the peer average declined at a lower rate of 0.5% per year for vehicle hours per operations employees and exhibited a very minimal increase of 0.02% per year for vehicle hours per total employees.
Of the nine transportation efficiency measures, BARTA was generally ranked in the middle of the peer group, with its highest ranking of 4 occurring in the area of deadhead miles per vehicle miles and its lowest ranking of 12 occurring in the area of operations cost per vehicle hour;
The level of service per peak period (revenue hours and revenue miles) operated by BARTA between FY2004 and FY2009 declined by a combined rate of less than 1% per year, and is mostly attributed to the overall level of service also declining by approximately 1% per year. Conversely, the number of revenue hours and revenue miles per peak vehicle for the peer average increased by a combined rate of about 0.5% over the six year period. For these two measures, BARTA ranked near the bottom of the peer group (rank of 10 or 11);
BARTA’s peak-to-base ratio declined by a rate of about 2.5% per year, and is attributed to the system’s peak vehicle fleet dropping from 43 vehicles in FY2004 to 42 vehicles in FY2009 while the size of its midday fleet increased from 28 vehicles to 31 vehicles. This is considered favorable performance and was better than the peak-to-base ratio of the peer average, which increased by about 1% during the review period. In this measure, BARTA was ranked 3rd; and
In the three measures related to passengers, BARTA exhibited an improving trend and outperformed the peer average, as annual trips per revenue hour, annual trips per revenue mile, and annual trips per peak vehicle increased by a combined average of about 3.4% per year between FY2004 and FY2009. In these three measures, BARTA was ranked near the top of the peer group (rank of 2 or 4). This favorable performance is attributed to BARTA’s ridership increasing at an annual rate of 2.6% during the review period.
In summary, BARTA continues spending a larger portion of its total costs on placing service on the street which has resulted in a generally positive trend in ridership and effectiveness during the review period.
______Final Report Page 86
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Maintenance and General and Administrative (G&A) Performance Measures – Table 29 presents trends between FY2004 and FY2009 for a number of maintenance and administrative performance measures, including:
Table 29 - Trend Analysis - Maintenance and General and Administration Measures BARTA Annual Average Change Comparison Measure 2004 2009 BARTA Avg. Difference Rank Maintenance Spares Ratio 20.93% 26.19% 4.59% -14.76% -131.1% 10 Vehicle Miles/Maintenance Emp.* 111,466 112,850 0.25% 0.41% -39.9% 5 Vehicle Miles/Road Calls 1,534 2,482 10.10% -6.86% -247.28% 2 Maintenance Cost/Vehicle Mile $0.68 $0.94 6.6% 5.1% 29.2% 10 Maintenance Cost/Operating Costs 15.37% 15.15% -0.29% 0.39% -174.8% 10 Maintenance Emp./Total Emp.* 15.24% 14.26% -1.3% -0.33% 302.4% 8 General Administration G&A Cost/Vehicle Hour $8.32 $10.69 5.1% 3.6% 43.6% 9 G&A Cost/ Passenger $0.43 $0.46 1.5% 3.2% -54.9% 7 G&A Cost/Total Costs 15.63% 14.43% -1.6% -1.1% 52.3% 7 G&A Emp./Total Employees * 10.60% 8.81% -3.6% -2.7% 32.2% 5 Rank of 1 is best, 15 is worst unless stated otherwise * Peer group average and ranking reflects a total of 10 peer systems Source: 2004 & 2009 FTIS
The spares ratio at BARTA increased about 4.6% per year during the review period while the peer average showed a declining trend of about 14.8% per year. With a spares ratio of 26.19%, BARTA slightly exceeds the 20% ratio recommended by the Federal Transportation Administration. In this measure, BARTA is ranked 10th;
The number of vehicle miles per maintenance employee at BARTA increased by an annual rate of one-quarter of 1% over the review period, which was lower than the peer average increase of 0.41% per year. Out of ten peer systems, BARTA was ranked 5th. The number of maintenance employees per total employees at BARTA declined 1.3% per year and was in contrast to the 0.33% annual rate of decline exhibited by the peer group. This performance placed BARTA among the bottom of the peer group (rank of 8);
The proportion of BARTA’s total operating costs dedicated to vehicle maintenance exhibited a slight decline of about 0.3% per year, with the peer average showing an upward trend of about 0.4% per year. BARTA was ranked towards the bottom of the peer group (rank of 10) in this measure since it is generally better to have a higher proportion of operating costs dedicated to vehicle maintenance;
BARTA exhibited a declining trend in the area of road call performance, as the number of mechanical failures between FY2004 and FY2009 increased by approximately 10% per year. This was the second worst performance among the peer group. At the same time, the peer group showed an improving trend as the number of road calls declined by
______Final Report Page 87
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
almost 7% per year. There may be a correlation between BARTA’s below average road call performance and the fact that the system has a smaller vehicle maintenance staff compared to the peer average;
BARTA’s maintenance costs per vehicle mile increased by an annual rate of 6.6% per year during the review period, which was higher than the peer average increase of 5.1%. This measure indicates BARTA’s maintenance efficiency declined over the review period and resulted in the system being ranked towards the bottom of the peer group (rank of 10); and
In the four general administrative measures, BARTA outperformed the peer average and exhibited improving performance in the areas of G&A costs as a percentage of total costs and G&A employees and a percentage of total employees. In both measures, BARTA allocated fewer resources to administrative activities during the five year period while also reducing G&A resources at a greater rate than the peer average. Although BARTA’s G&A costs per passenger increased 1.5% per year during the review period, this performance was better than the peer average increase of 3.2% per year. The only measure where BARTA performed below average as well as exhibited a declining trend was G&A costs per vehicle mile, which increased from $8.32 in FY2004 to $10.69 in FY2009. This represented an annual increase of approximately 5% per year which was greater than the peer average increase of 3.6% per year.
In summary, BARTA’s maintenance performance generally exhibited a downward trend between FY2004 and FY2009. BARTA’s spares ratio and the number of road calls increased during the review period while resources allocated to vehicle maintenance declined. The only area where BARTA improved was in the area of maintenance staff productivity - vehicle miles per maintenance employees - which increased at a slightly higher rate than the peer average. BARTA also exhibited mixed performance in measures related to administrative functions. General administrative costs per vehicle hour and per passenger increased during the review period; however, BARTA’s G&A cost per passenger did increase at a lower rate than the peer average. At the same time, BARTA dedicated fewer resources to administrative activities, with the rate of decline exceeding the peer average. This is favorable performance as it indicates that BARTA is allocating a higher share of expenditures towards placing service on-the-street.
Combination Analysis
This final technique combines the results of the peer group analysis and the trend analysis. Placing these results side by side enables each indicator to be assigned to one of four categories:
1-Better than the peer group average and improving over time. For any performance in this category, BARTA should be commended. ______Final Report Page 88
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
2-Better than the peer group average and declining over time. This performance indicates that symptoms of future problems may be evident.
3-Worse than the peer group average but improving over time. This performance indicates a positive trend but where additional work is needed.
4-Worse than the peer group average and declining over time. This performance indicates a problem that may require attention.
The results of this combination approach are presented below.
Social Effectiveness Measures - As seen in Table 30, BARTA exhibited below average and declining performance in four of the five per capita measures that were related to service provision and cost. In terms of utilization, BARTA was below average but showing an improving trend.
Table 30 - Combination Analysis - Social Effectiveness Measures BARTA Performance BARTA Performance Relative to Peer From FY2004 to Characteristic Average for FY2009 FY2009 Rating Revenue Hours per Capita Worse Declining 4 Revenue Miles per Capita Worse Declining 4 Peak Vehicles per Capita (000,000's) Worse Declining 4 Trips per Capita Worse Improving 3 Total Operating Cost per Capita Worse Declining 4
Revenue Generation Measures - As seen in Table 31, BARTA was above average and exhibited improving performance in four of the six revenue generation measures. In terms of revenue per passenger miles, BARTA was above the peer average but showing a downward trend. Although the table shows BARTA being below average and declining in terms of the average fare, the system exhibited almost the exact same average fare in FY2009 and actually improved over the five year period but at a lower rate than the peer average. Further, it is a policy choice on the part of BARTA to charge a lower average fare in order to make the system more attractive to riders.
______Final Report Page 89
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 31 - Combination Analysis - Revenue Generation Measures BARTA Performance BARTA Performance Relative to Peer From FY2004 to Characteristic Average for FY2009 FY2009 Rating Total Revenue/Revenue Hour Better Improving 1 Farebox Revenue/Revenue Hour Better Improving 1 Farebox Revenue/Revenue Mile Better Improving 1 Farebox Revenue/Peak Vehicle Better Improving 1 Farebox Revenue/Passenger Worse Declining 4 Farebox Revenue/Passenger Miles Better Declining 2
Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures - As seen in Table 32, BARTA exhibited above average performance in six of the seven cost related measures. The exception was cost per revenue mile which was less than 1% higher than the peer average. BARTA did not perform as well in terms of performance over time, as the system declined relative to the peer average in all three cost efficiency measures and in the area of farebox recovery. However, the decline in farebox recovery was very similar to the peer average (BARTA declined 0.69% per year vs. the peer average decline of 0.68% per year). BARTA did exhibit improving performance in the areas of cost per passenger, cost per passenger mile and subsidy per passenger.
Table 32 - Combination Analysis - Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures BARTA Performance Relative to Peer Average BARTA Performance Characteristic for FY2009 From FY2004 to FY2009 Rating Cost Efficiency Cost/Revenue Hour Better Declining 2 Cost/Revenue Mile Worse Declining 4 Cost /Peak Vehicle Better Declining 2 Cost Effectiveness Cost/Passenger Better Improving 1 Cost/Passenger Mile Better Improving 1 Subsidy/Passenger Better Improving 1 Farebox Recovery (%) Better Declining 2
Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures - As seen in Table 33, BARTA performed above the peer average and exhibited improving performance in four of the nine transportation efficiency measures and four of the six transportation effectiveness measures. In the area of transportation efficiency, BARTA was above the peer average but declining in terms of deadhead hours per vehicle hours, vehicle hours per operations employees, and vehicle hours per total hours; BARTA was below average but improving in terms of system speed; and was below average and declining in operations cost per vehicle hour. For the two measures in transportation effectiveness that were not above average and improving - revenue hours and revenue miles per peak vehicle - BARTA exhibited contrasting performance that was below the peer average and declining.
______Final Report Page 90
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 33 - Combination Analysis - Transportation Efficiency and Effectiveness Measures BARTA Performance BARTA Performance Relative to Peer Average From FY2004 to Characteristic for FY2009 FY2009 Rating Transportation Efficiency Deadhead Hours/Vehicle Hours Better Declining 2 Deadhead Miles/Vehicle Miles Better Improving 1 Vehicle Miles/Vehicle Hours Worse Improving 3 Operations Cost/Total Cost Better Improving 1 Operations Cost/Vehicle Hour Worse Declining 4 Operations Cost/Passenger Better Improving 1 Vehicle Hours/Operations Emp. Better Declining 2 Vehicle Hours/Total Emp. Better Declining 2 Operations Emp./Total Emp. Better Improving 1 Cost Effectiveness Measures Revenue Hours/Peak Vehicle Worse Declining 4 Revenue Miles/Peak Vehicle Worse Declining 4 Annual Trips/Revenue Hour Better Improving 1 Annual Trips/Revenue Mile Better Improving 1 Annual Trips/Peak Vehicles Better Improving 1 Peak/Base Ratio Better Improving 1
Maintenance and General and Administrative (G&A) Performance Measures – As seen in Table 34, BARTA was above the peer average in three of the six maintenance measures, including spares ratio, vehicle miles per maintenance employee and maintenance cost per vehicle mile, and below average in terms of road calls, maintenance costs per total costs, and maintenance employees per total employees.
______Final Report Page 91
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 34 - Combination Analysis - Maintenance and G&A Performance Measures BARTA Performance BARTA Performance Relative to Peer Average From FY2004 to Characteristic for FY2009 FY2009 Rating Maintenance Spares Ratio Better Declining 2 Vehicle Miles/Maintenance Emp. Better Declining 2 Vehicle Miles/Road Calls Worse Declining 4 Maintenance Cost/Vehicle Mile Better Declining 2 Maintenance Cost/Total Costs Worse Declining 4 Maintenance Emp./Total Emp. Worse Declining 4 General Administration G&A Cost/Vehicle Hour Better Declining 2 G&A Cost/ Passenger Better Improving 1 G&A Cost/Total Costs Better Improving 1 G&A Emp./Total Employees Worse Improving 3
However, every maintenance measure exhibited declining performance during the review period. Overall, BARTA may be understaffed and allocating too few resources to the vehicle maintenance function, especially considering the system’s above average and declining road call rate. In terms of general and administrative performance, BARTA was above average and improving in two of the four measures including G&A costs per passenger and G&A costs per total costs. BARTA was above average but declining in the area of G&A costs per vehicle hour and below average but improving in the area of G&A employees per total employees.
Summary – The combination analysis results support the findings of the peer and trend analysis. As seen in Table 35, BARTA was above average and improving in 21 of the 43 categories. Of these areas, eight were transportation efficiency and effectiveness; four were social effectiveness; another four were revenue generation; three in cost efficiency and effectiveness; and two in maintenance and G&A performance. BARTA was above average and declining in 11 measures, below average and improving in three measures and below average and declining in the eight remaining measures. Overall, BARTA’s performance is generally favorable, in that even where BARTA is below average or declining, the system’s performance is comparable to the peers.
Table 35 - Summary Performance Rating Cost Transportation Maintenance Social Revenue Efficiency & Efficiency & & G&A Category Effectiveness Generation Effectiveness Effectiveness Performance Total Better & Improving 4 4 3 8 2 21 Better & Declining 0 1 3 3 4 11 Worse & Improving 1 0 0 1 1 3 Worse & Declining 0 1 1 3 3 8 Total 5 6 7 15 10 43
______Final Report Page 92
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The results indicate that BARTA provides a slightly higher level of service compared to the peer group, but is well above average in terms of ridership and revenue generation. Further, BARTA is generally a more efficient and effective system compared to the peer group. The one area of concern for BARTA is the fact that the system may be allocating too few resources to vehicle maintenance, as the system has a growing road call rate that far exceeds the peer average, while at the same time, having below average maintenance staffing levels and maintenance expenditures.
Act 44 Metrics
The analysis presented in this report compares BARTA’s performance relative to its peers in two ways: (1) FY2009 and (2) average annual change between 2004 and 2009. The approach followed is conventional and has been used my many transit agencies, state DOTs and other funding agencies. Act 44 is consistent with this methodology, but differs in two key aspects. First, the current analysis reviews approximately three dozen measures while Act 44 examines four metrics as follows:
Total revenue per revenue hour Cost per revenue hour Trips per revenue hour Cost per passenger
Second, in the current analysis, the review is focused on values that are not consistent with the peer group in terms of both 2009 results and trends between 2004 and 2009. Measures include percent better or worse than the peer average and rank among all transit systems.
With the PennDOT approach, acceptable or unacceptable performance is defined relative to the peer group average and standard deviation. For those metrics (e.g., passengers per revenue hour) where higher values are indicative of better performance, the transit agency under evaluation value has to exceed the average minus the standard deviation. When lower values are preferred (e.g., cost per revenue hour), the transit system needs to exceed the average plus the standard deviation. In those situations where the transit agency does not fall within this range, the agency is denoted as not in compliance for that measure. For all four Act 44 measures, BARTA is in compliance.
When BARTA is evaluated using the Transit Performance Review (TPR) process, a peer group will be selected and values computed using the most recent transit system data. The results presented here are informative on BARTA’s current performance. They can be used to indicate the relative strengths and opportunities for improvement in anticipation of the conduct of the TPR.
______Final Report Page 93
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
RIDER SURVEY
The rider survey provides a recent and comprehensive data base on current BARTA and riders and their travel patterns. It provides a wealth of information on whom currently uses public transportation, how they use the system as well as an assessment of existing transit service and suggestions for the future. This chapter initially presents an overview of the survey methodology which is then followed by the key findings from the survey.
The rider survey was a cooperative effort between Gannett Fleming and ClearView Strategies with the active assistance of BARTA staff. Gannett Fleming completed the design of the survey method and survey form with assistance from ClearView Strategies. The actual conduct of the surveys including completion of logistical control forms, training of field staff and survey administration, and the primary coding of survey results was performed by ClearView Strategies.
Survey Methodology
To provide a context for the survey results, this section describes the procedures along with key statistics regarding the sample size and population. The survey was conducted during spring of 2011 with survey cards issued to riders on both weekdays and Saturdays. Typically, fall and spring are preferred time for transit data collection because it includes students who are in session, there are no significant reductions in work travel because of vacations, and the likelihood of inclement weather (e.g., snow storms) is low. These three factors all contribute to conditions when ridership is somewhat above average conditions. Another point to note is that ridership may be somewhat higher because of ridership gains attributable to high fuel prices.
Survey Parameters - Prior to the conduct of the survey, discussions were held with the study participants to discuss prior survey efforts at BARTA and approaches used by other transit systems trying to develop a ridership database. The discussions of these are highlighted below:
Survey Days – Because of differences in the composition of riders and their motivation, it was decided that the survey effort should capture information on both weekday and weekend conditions.
Survey Coordination – Another data collection activity was the conduct of ride checks on all weekday and Saturday bus trips. Accordingly, the same survey personnel that were counting ons, offs, and times at time points would also issue and collect the rider survey forms. One of the benefits of survey personnel is that they can assist riders in completing the survey forms and encouraging a higher response rate. Also, one cadre of survey personnel can support both survey efforts (i.e., rider ______Final Report Page 94
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
survey and ride checks) simultaneously which results in cost savings.
Direction – The ride check surveys were conducted in both the inbound and outbound directions. The rider survey was only conducted in a single direction since most trips exhibit travel symmetry. For example, a work trip in the morning from home to a job location is followed by a trip later that day in the reverse direction from work to home. BARTA staff requested that the rider survey be conducted in the outbound direction. The objective of the survey was to issue one survey card per round trip.
Language – Reflecting the relatively large Hispanic population in Berks County and among BARTA riders, the survey cards were bilingual (i.e., English and Spanish).
Survey Instrument – An early activity associated with the survey effort was the design of the survey form. This included the specific questions and the answers that were available to riders. First, a list of more than two dozen questions was prepared based on previous surveys at BARTA and at other transit systems. In some cases, they requested different types of information, while in others, similar queries were asked in a different way.
Discussions were held among the study participants to prioritize the list of questions. Some questions were essential, while others were deemed acceptable if there was sufficient space. In some instances, questions were eliminated since the information could be gained elsewhere or was not of interest in the planning process. There was recognition by the study participants that the questions must be stated simply and be easy to understand. Further, the number of questions must be limited since there is an inverse relationship between the length of the questionnaire and the response rate.
The English and Spanish survey cards are shown in Appendix A and solicited information in three basic areas:
Trip Itinerary – These questions described the trip from their origin through to their final destination. It included access modes to and from the transit system, blocks walked and routes ridden, number of transfers, trip purpose and boarding, and alighting stops.
Rider Characteristics – A number of variables can describe the transit rider in terms of their demographic characteristics such as age, gender, availability of a vehicle, income, and ethnicity.
Rider Attitudes – Questions were directed to how the rider views the BARTA bus system and the trip that they are making for several customer satisfaction attributes.
______Final Report Page 95
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Riders were asked to rate different service attributes. Customers were also asked to indicate suggestions to improve service.
For the most part, riders merely had to check off a box or fill in a limited response to each question. With the exception of the last query requesting a suggestion to improve service, none of the questions were open-ended. Because many of the questions had been used in other survey efforts, a pre-test of riders was not conducted. As noted previously, the survey cards were printed on both sides (i.e., English and Spanish). Copies of the survey instrument in both languages are presented on the following pages. Riders were also offered a pencil to use to complete the survey form when issued the survey card. The survey cards had a serial number which was used later for identification and factoring purposes.
Survey Conduct – The previous section described the key parameters of the survey process and the need to survey all weekday and Saturday bus trips. The survey effort spanned several days until each bus trip was surveyed at least once with the rider survey conducted only in the outbound direction. The next steps were to select the bus trips to be surveyed on a specific day. Several bus trips were combined into a daily assignment for a single survey worker. Typically, a survey worked was paired with a BARTA operator for their daily assignment. A daily assignment form was completed which indicated the bus trips to be surveyed. Each line of the form listed the BARTA route, terminal leave time, the from and to locations for the bus trip. This information was all completed by supervisory personnel and was prepared in advance of the survey.
The survey worker was required to record the serial numbers of the survey cards issued. This enabled all cards returned to be identified by route and time of day since some riders returned the survey card, but not on the bus trip on which the survey card was issued. The daily assignments also listed the report time for the survey worker and when the bus would leave the BTC. Typically, an allowance of 20 to 30 minutes was made, which provided sufficient time for the survey worker to receive their materials and any further instructions as well as to be sure that drivers did not depart without a survey worker. Arrangements were made each day with BARTA dispatchers to facilitate survey workers meeting their drivers prior to the bus departure from the BTC later that day.
The survey team established an office at the BTC which served as a base of operations to issue and distribute survey materials. This space was also used at the outset for training of survey personnel as well as storage of survey materials which proved very convenient. The survey materials were issued in a survey “kits” which contained the daily assignment form, ride check forms, survey cards, and pencils to give passengers. The survey workers were also issued badges that clearly identified them as survey personnel. Instructions were also prepared and issued to BARTA drivers to acquaint them with the survey process and solicit their cooperation.
______Final Report Page 96
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
During the conduct of the survey on the bus, the survey worker issued survey cards and pencils to all boarding passengers on outbound bus trips and conducted the ride check survey on both inbound and outbound bus trips. They were also instructed to assist passengers in completing the survey form. The survey cards were serially numbered and the survey workers were instructed to issue the survey cards in numerical order.
Survey workers also collected completed survey cards from BARTA patrons. Drivers were requested to accept survey cards from riders. Provisions were made at the BTC to collect survey cards since some riders completed the survey form later that day.
Survey Card Processing – The steps required to process the completed daily assignment forms and the survey cards were relatively straightforward. The challenge is the volume of materials and the need to accurately translate riders’ responses to codes for subsequent processing. One of the initial steps after the conduct of the survey was the preparation of a serial number master list. The survey workers recorded the serial numbers of the cards issued. A database was constructed which indicated the range of serial numbers of survey cards issued on each bus trip. This enabled each returned survey card to be identified by survey day, route, and time period.
A coding dictionary was created which provided instructions on how the responses to all fields would be converted to an electronic format that would permit subsequent analysis of the survey returns. A spreadsheet was created with each row representing a survey card and each column the answer for a particular question. For analysis purposes, the coding was divided into three parts as follows:
Trip Itinerary – The first six questions describe the trip that the survey respondent was making in terms of origin, destination, bus stop on and off as well as the modes used to reach the bus on which the survey card was issued and the modes and route used to complete their trip. Other information relates to the purpose at the origin and destination end of the trip. The origin and destination questions are most important since they indicate travel desires and this data can be used to assess how well the current transit network satisfies these travel patterns. The boarding and alighting bus stops utilized the existing BARTA numbering scheme which consists of the route number and the sequence of the stop on that route. This numbering system is used by BARTA for National Transit Database (NTD) reporting; however, consideration should be given to creating a unique numbering system which is assigned to each bus stop, possibly with the geo-coding position. The trip origin and destination was coded to include all the information that the rider provider. In some cases, the survey coder made adjustments to the input to reflect more accurately what the rider intended. Additional origin and destination fields were provided to reflect the geo- coding position or xy coordinates of each bus trip end.
______Final Report Page 97
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Rider Characteristics/Attitudes – The remaining questions on the survey card (i.e., Questions 7 through 22) describe the characteristics of the rider or their attitudes toward BARTA and suggested improvements. For these questions a single code was provided with no supplemental information. The last question solicited information on suggested improvements. Although only a single answer was requested, some riders provided more than one response and up to two responses were coded.
Identification/Factoring – A number of identifying fields, some of which are derived from the serial number, were coded. This included serial number, bus route along with time period and survey day. Additional fields were established for factoring purposes: expansion factor and rider factor. The expansion factor is merely the ratio of outbound boardings to returned survey cards. In the BARTA survey, the expansion factor was computed for each day by route and time period. The expansion factor is designed to eliminate non response bias. It is logical to expect that the survey participation rate would vary by route and time period. For example, if two routes each had 100 outbound riders, but one route had 50 survey cards returned and the other had 25, the expansion factor would be two and four, respectively.
Another, factor was rider factor which attempts to eliminate bias associated with the number of buses ridden. Persons who ride more than a single bus to complete their trip might be over represented in the sample in comparison to those customers that have a one seat ride. To account for this situation, the rider factor is the expansion factor divided by buses ridden. In essence, this is converting unlinked trips to linked trips.
Approximately 1,660 survey cards were coded, which indicates the dimensions of the survey and the effort required to convert riders’ responses to numerical fields. The format of the data is a spreadsheet where each row represents a survey card and each column a particular query. It can be tabulated utilizing either spreadsheet or database software to support the current assignment or future BARTA planning efforts.
Sample Size – The boardings from the outbound ride checks was used as the estimate of the rider survey population. It provided a reasonable match with the GFI fare box data compiled by BARTA. It should be recognized that ridership varies daily by season and there is no single estimate of weekday and Saturday ridership. The valid returned cards that were coded represent the sample as shown below. Approximately one in every five weekday outbound riders completed a useable survey card. The participation rate declined somewhat for the Saturday bus patrons.
______Final Report Page 98
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Outbound Boardings Cards Returned Response Rate Day (Population) (Sample) (Percent) Weekday 5,922 1,076 18.2 Saturday 3,887 584 15.0
Survey Results
The previous sections provided an overview of the survey methods and procedures along with information on the survey sample size and population. The actual data sets from the weekday and Saturday survey have been provided in a spreadsheet format to both PennDOT and BARTA. These data will support more comprehensive and detailed information queries as the need arises for both this analysis as well as subsequent routine planning activities in the future. This section summarizes the responses to all questions on the survey form. As noted previously, the value of the survey is the data base which can be used on a continuing and on-going basis. This is particularly the case with geographical information such as trip origins and destinations.
The remainder of this report presents the survey results on a percentage basis for weekdays and Saturday based on the rider factors (i.e., unlinked trips). No responses and extraneous answers have been eliminated from the summaries presented here.
The place I have come from (origin)/The place I am going to (destination) – The survey form solicited information on boarding and alighting bus stops as well as trip origins and destinations. The bus stop information is helpful in understanding the trip itinerary since riders often have problem responding properly to the origin and destination questions and this data is helpful in coding the location where the trip started and ended. However, the best source of bus stop information is from the ride check survey since it is a complete summary and does not rely on riders’ responses, but rather survey worker observations of all riders.
The trip origin and destination can only be obtained by a rider survey which indicated the benefits of this type of data collection activity. By combining the rider survey and the ride check survey, all the necessary data can be gathered in a cost effective manner. As noted previously, riders’ responses to trip origin and destination were coded exactly as they were provided by the respondent. These results were then converted to xy coordinates using ArcGIS10 software. For the weekday survey, about 54.6% of all responses had valid origin and destination responses that could be converted to the GIS database. The corresponding value for the Saturday survey was somewhat lower at 49.3%.
The origins and destinations of the weekday survey respondents and the trip ends of the Saturday respondents are depicted graphically and shown in Appendix A. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of weekday and Saturday origins and destinations occur in the City of Reading, which is the primary service area for the BARTA fixed route bus system and where the system provides the greatest service coverage. Also, this is the service territory where demographic
______Final Report Page 99
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
characteristics, such as income and auto ownership, are most conducive to transit riding. As noted previously, both exhibits are illustrative of the information and the benefit of the survey results and that the GIS information can be examined in greater detail for different strata (e.g., route, time period, etc.)
How did you get to this bus? – The survey solicited information on how riders reached the BARTA system. As seen in the table below, about 84% of weekday riders and almost 87% of Saturday riders walk to the bus stop to access the bus on which they received the survey card.
Percent Mode To Bus Weekday Saturday Walked 83.8 86.5 Bike 0.4 0.2 Another Bus 12.0 11.1 Drove car 0.6 0.0 Dropped off by car 2.0 1.3 Other 1.2 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0
In terms of coverage, the rule of thumb is that transit service should be within a five minute walk or about three blocks although density and auto ownership rates influence walking distances as noted in the service guidelines. The results above would suggest that approximately two thirds of the weekday and Saturday riders are within this standard. At the same time, a significant number of riders have a longer walk to reach their bus with approximately one-third of the riders indicating they have to walk more than three blocks to reach a BARTA bus.
Mode To Bus Percent Blocks Walked Weekday Saturday Less than one block 8.6 9.5 One block 29.5 28.4 Two blocks 17.4 16.5 Three blocks 13.7 12.3 Four or more blocks 30.8 33.3 Total 100.0 100.0
Approximately 12% of weekday riders and 11% of Saturday riders indicated that they accessed the bus they were on by transferring from another BARTA bus. Those riders who transferred from another BARTA bus were asked to identify the route from which they transferred. The table below shows the weekday and Saturday bus routes on which more than 5% of the survey respondents who indicated they had transferred from another BARTA bus. On weekdays, routes 16 and 19 exhibited the highest rates of passengers who had transferred from another BARTA bus, while the highest transfer rates among Saturday riders occurred on Routes 16 and 18.
______Final Report Page 100
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Mode To Bus Percent Route Transferred From Weekday Saturday 1 6.4 9.6 3 -- 8.1 4 10.9 -- 7 -- 9.6 8 5.5 6.6 9 8.7 -- 10 -- 9.1 12 5.1 -- 15 5.5 -- 16 13.5 11.7 17 7.4 -- 18 9.6 12.2 19 12.9 8.1
How will you complete your trip – Riders were asked to identify how they would complete their trip after leaving the bus. They were given several choices from which to select their response. As in the previous question, one possible response was walk, which if selected, the rider was asked to list the number of blocks. Approximately 83% of weekday and 80% of Saturday riders walk to their final destination after they leave the BARTA bus. This is slightly lower than the percent of riders who walked to access the bus. However, the distances that weekday and Saturday riders walk to complete their trip is shorter than the distances walked to access the bus. Over three-quarters of the survey respondents, who walked from the bus, had to walk two blocks or less to complete their trip. This represents a short walking distance for most BARTA riders. Accordingly, the number of riders who walk more than four blocks is lower than that noted at the start of the trip.
Percent Mode From Bus Weekday Saturday Walked 82.6 80.0 Bike 0.4 0.2 Another Bus 12.9 15.2 Drove car 0.8 0.2 Picked up in a car 1.4 2.4 Other 1.9 2.0 Total 100.0 100.0
Approximately 13% of the weekday and 15% of Saturday survey respondents indicated that they will use another BARTA bus to complete their trip. This is higher than the percentage of riders on weekday (12.0%) and Saturday (11.1%), who transferred from another bus to the bus where they were handed a survey from a survey worker.
______Final Report Page 101
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Mode From Bus Percent Blocks Walked Weekday Saturday Less than one block 18.3 10.3 One block 39.5 34.8 Two blocks 19.1 25.4 Three blocks 8.6 8.4 Four or more blocks 14.5 21.1 Total 100.0 100.0
Those riders who transferred to another BARTA bus were asked to identify the route that they transferred to. The table below shows the weekday and Saturday bus routes on which more than 5% of survey respondents indicated they would transfer to another BARTA bus to complete their trip. On weekdays, Routes 4 and 16 exhibited the highest rates of riders who indicated they would transfer to another BARTA bus, while the highest rates among Saturday riders occurred on Routes 15 and 19.
Mode From Bus Percent Route Transferred To Weekday Saturday 1 7.8 12.0 4 18.5 -- 8 5.2 10.9 9 8.6 -- 14 5.2 13.1 15 -- 13.7 16 12.5 10.9 18 6.9 6.6 19 -- 15.3
How long have you been riding BARTA service – The next question asked how long the passenger has been riding BARTA buses. As can be seen in the table, more than half of the weekday and Saturday riders have been riding for five years or more. In addition, approximately 17% of weekday and Saturday riders have been riding for less than one year. This indicates that transit ridership in the BARTA service area experiences considerable turnover, that is, each year some people stop riding while others become new riders. This emphasizes the need to continually provide public information on transit services and perform marketing activities to attract new riders and retain current riders.
Percent Years Riding BARTA Weekday Saturday Less than a year 17.2 15.9 1-2 years 17.6 13.7 3-4 years 14.5 14.7 5 or more years 50.7 55.7 Total 100.0 100.0
______Final Report Page 102
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
How did you pay your fare on this bus – The next question asked the survey respondent what type of fare payment method was used to ride BARTA. As shown in the table below, approximately one-third of the weekday and Saturday riders indicated that they pay an Adult Cash fare when riding BARTA, while about one quarter of the riders use the 31-Day Pass.
Percent Fare Payment Weekday Saturday Adult Cash 36.2 35.5 Student Cash 2.2 3.1 Transfer 2.2 2.1 Senior Citizen (free) 9.4 9.9 Persons w/ Disabilities (half-fare) 1.8 3.5 Park-Ride Pass 1.2 0.0 1 Day Anywhere Pass 11.5 18.8 10-Trip Ticket (adult) 2.2 1.4 10-Trip Ticket (student) 0.2 0.4 31-Day Pass (adult) 28.6 21.9 31-Day Pass (student) 3.4 2.1 20-Trip Ticket (MATP) 1.1 1.3 Total 100.0 100.0
What is the purpose of your trip today – Riders were asked to identify the purpose of the trip they were making the day they received a survey card from a survey worker. The table shows that work is the most common trip purpose among the survey respondents and comprises nearly 50% of weekday riders and 35% of the Saturday riders. Shopping is the second most common trip purpose among weekday and Saturday riders representing about 14% and 32% of the trips, respectively. Personal business was the third most common trip purpose among the survey respondents (13.7% for weekday and 13.8% for Saturday). As might be expected school travel is primarily limited to weekday riders and comprises another significant trip purpose.
Percent Trip Purpose Weekday Saturday School 8.2 0.9 Work 48.4 35.0 Shopping 14.4 32.2 Personal Business 13.7 13.8 Medical/Dental 6.4 2.1 Social/Recreation 2.6 6.4 Other 6.3 9.6 Total 100.0 100.0
How would you rate BARTA for each of the following – Most of the questions on the survey form were quantitative in that they requested specific information on the trip being made and the tripmaker. This query calls for a subjective rating of BARTA’s performance in eleven categories and presents a broad assessment of the overall system. It should be recognized that ______Final Report Page 103
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
people’s travel is shaped by their views and perceptions of the BARTA bus system. The table below provides a breakdown of the responses for weekday survey responses. For this type of survey, a response is considered favorable if the combined total of responses in the excellent, very good, or good categories is greater than or equal to 85% of all responses.
The table below shows that the weekday riders did not give BARTA a 90% or better favorable rating for any of the eleven categories. The closest any category came to attaining the 90% threshold was overall quality of service, which received a total score in the excellent, very good, and good categories of 88.8%. The category that received the lowest score was vehicle cleanliness with 70.1%. The cleanliness of the BTC was also an area of concern of BARTA patrons. Generally, any category with a favorable rating below 85% should be an area where BARTA should consider improvement. Overall, the transit agency received a favorable review for most attributes.
Weekday Rating - Percent Very Total Category Excellent Good Good Favorable Fair Poor Buses running on time 28.1 29.0 25.0 82.1 14.2 3.7 Vehicle cleanliness 20.5 23.0 26.6 70.1 21.2 8.7 Value received for fare charged 30.1 24.4 27.7 82.2 16.1 1.7 Driver courtesy 42.9 25.6 18.1 86.6 11.7 1.7 System safety 35.7 28.9 24.0 88.6 10.2 1.2 Overall quality of service 32.6 30.1 26.1 88.8 10.2 1.0 Printed information 33.6 29.0 25.9 88.5 10.5 1.0 Website information 31.8 28.9 27.7 88.4 9.9 1.7 Telephone customer service 30.8 28.1 26.1 85.0 12.1 2.9 BTC* customer service 31.5 26.4 28.1 86.0 12.0 2.0 BTC* cleanliness 24.3 19.7 26.8 70.8 19.3 9.9 *BARTA Transportation Center
The next table shows the service evaluation results for the Saturday surveys. This ridership group gave BARTA lower favorable ratings compared to the ratings provided by the weekday riders. None of the eleven categories attained a 90% favorable rating with system safety receiving the highest score of 89.2%. BTC Cleanliness received the lowest favorable rating of 61.8% with the corresponding statistic for bus cleanliness is only 69.7%. The survey results from the weekday and Saturday riders suggest that issues of cleanliness warrant attention by BARTA because cleanliness of vehicles and the BTC received the lowest favorable ratings among the riders.
______Final Report Page 104
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Saturday Rating - Percent Very Total Category Excellent Good Good Favorable Fair Poor Buses running on time 30.2 23.1 23.1 76.4 18.6 5.0 Vehicle cleanliness 21.5 21.9 26.3 69.7 21.0 9.3 Value received for fare charged 29.1 23.7 27.1 79.9 15.6 4.5 Driver courtesy 38.8 26.1 20.5 85.4 11.1 3.5 System safety 35.6 26.3 27.3 89.2 9.0 1.8 Overall quality of service 28.3 28.7 29.2 86.2 10.9 2.9 Printed information 32.8 22.6 29.1 84.5 12.4 3.1 Website information 32.3 20.0 28.5 80.8 15.6 3.6 Telephone customer service 27.1 21.7 27.0 75.8 17.7 6.5 BTC* customer service 27.4 22.3 30.0 79.7 16.5 3.8 BTC* cleanliness 22.3 15.1 24.4 61.8 23.5 14.7 *BARTA Transportation Center
The results of this question convey some dissatisfaction with BARTA services among its Saturday riders. None of the categories attained a 90% favorable rating, and only three categories (i.e., driver courtesy, system safety, and overall quality of service) attained a favorable rating of at least 85% from both groups of riders. All of these service attributes could be improved through BARTA policy and operating changes or service improvement recommendations to be developed as part of this study process.
How many one-way bus trips do you make each week – The next question asked how many trips the survey respondent makes on the BARTA bus system in a week (i.e., their “riding habit”). The results of the survey indicate that on any given weekday or Saturday, approximately one-third of the riders are considered frequent riders. That is, they make at least 10 one-way trips using BARTA each week.
Frequency of Use Percent (One-way trips per week) Weekday Saturday 1 or less 15.3 12.1 2-5 times/week 33.7 35.8 6-9 times/week 20.0 20.8 10 or more/week 31.0 31.3 Total 100.0 100.0
The highest response rate for both the weekday and Saturday surveys was a frequency of use of between two and five trips each week. These results are consistent with the responses for the trip purpose question since workers and students are more likely to make several trips during the course of a week. The results also suggest that there are a considerable number of occasional riders. They might comprise a market that could increase ridership by more frequent use of BARTA. Research has suggested that it is easier to get existing customers to ride more frequently than to get drivers to switch mode to transit. Another point of these results is that the bus system serves a larger pool of residents than would be apparent from daily ridership counts. ______Final Report Page 105
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
For example, a person surveyed on Monday who rides once a week represents five other individuals who use BARTA on other days.
Which sources of information about BARTA service do you use most often – To assist BARTA in their efforts to market new or existing services, the survey asked riders to indicate the best way for BARTA to reach them with information. The riders were given several options to choose from and were asked to identify as many as three choices. As seen in the accompanying table, bus schedules, drivers, and BARTA telephone customer service were the three most common sources of information cited by the weekday survey respondents; bus schedules and drivers were also the top two choices of the Saturday survey responses, with BTC customer service being the third most frequently cited response.
The fact that the riders indicated BARTA bus schedules as their primary information source for information, coupled with the fact that BARTA’s website elicited a relatively low response rate (6.0% for weekday and 5.4% for Saturday), shows how important it is for BARTA to distribute their schedules throughout the community as well as to ensure that schedules are available on the buses and at the BTC in downtown Reading. Moreover, these materials must readily convey how to use the system for infrequent and new riders.
Percent Information Source Weekday Saturday Bus schedules 50.2 50.0 System map 6.3 5.8 Drivers 9.9 8.4 Telephone information 7.4 7.5 BTC* 5.8 7.6 BARTA website 6.0 5.4 Notices in bus 5.0 4.9 Newspapers 1.1 1.4 Radio/TV 1.3 0.2 Word of mouth 4.3 6.0 Phone book 1.4 1.0 Other 1.3 1.8 Total 100.0 100.0 * BARTA Transportation Center
Compared to last year are you riding more – Riders were asked how the frequency at which they are currently riding BARTA compares with the previous year. The table on the following page indicates that almost one-half of the weekday and Saturday riders are riding more compared to the same time last year, while about 7.5% of the riders answered less. In addition, approximately one-third of the riders are riding about the same amount as last year. New riders comprised approximately 7% of the survey respondents.
______Final Report Page 106
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Riding Trend Percent (This year vs. last year) Weekday Saturday More 49.5 49.6 Less 7.0 7.9 About the same 35.8 35.5 I am a new rider 7.7 7.0 Total 100.0 100.0
Could you have made this trip if this service were not available – The next series of questions relate to the dependency of BARTA riders on transit service. This helps to determine the level at which BARTA’s ridership base is comprised of choice or captive riders. A ridership base that is heavily transit dependent indicates that only certain population groups are using the service rather than a broad cross-section of the population in the service area. For the captive riders, BARTA provides mobility and enhanced opportunities.
The first of these questions asked riders to indicate whether or not they could have made their trip if transit service were not available. The table below shows that about 13% of the weekday and Saturday riders indicated that they could have made the trip without BARTA bus service, with well over one-half of the riders stating that they could not have made the trip without BARTA. Approximately 30% of the weekday and Saturday riders said that they could have made the trip without BARTA service, but it would be inconvenient. These respondents would include individuals that would typically rely on family and friends for a ride.
Able to Make Trip Without Percent BARTA Service Weekday Saturday No (Captive) 56.4 57.9 Yes (Choice) 12.8 12.5 Yes, but with inconvenience 30.8 29.6 Total 100.0 100.0
Do you have a valid driver’s license – The next question designed to further gauge the level of transit dependency among BARTA riders asked whether or not the rider has a valid driver’s license. The below indicates that approximately two-thirds of the weekday and Saturday riders do not have a valid driver’s license. This is consistent with the response to the prior question regarding the ability to make a trip without using BARTA bus service.
Percent Driver’s License Weekday Saturday Yes 31.3 32.0 No 68.7 68.0 Total 100.0 100.0
______Final Report Page 107
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Was a car available for this trip – The table below shows that the overwhelming majority of weekday and Saturday survey respondents do not have a vehicle to make their trip, which further demonstrates the high level of transit dependency among BARTA survey respondents. The extent of transit dependency is greater on Saturday than on weekday.
Percent Automobile Availability Weekday Saturday Yes 15.9 12.0 No 84.1 88.0 Total 100.0 100.0
How many vehicles does your household own – The final question in the transit dependency queries requested information on the number of automobiles owned by the rider’s household. As shown in the table, a substantial majority of riders do not have a vehicle in their household. For these individuals, the bus provides the only convenient mobility option. About one in five riders are from a household with only one vehicle. In this situation, if there are two breadwinners, one person drives to work while the other uses BARTA bus service. This auto ownership rates are in marked contrast to the general population where most households have one or more cars.
Percent Automobiles in Household Weekday Saturday Zero 61.6 69.8 One 22.0 19.8 Two 11.3 7.5 Three or more 5.1 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0
The final series of questions concerned the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the rider.
Gender – Riders were asked to identify their gender. According to the survey results, females comprise the clear majority of weekday riders, while the composition of Saturday riders is much more evenly divided. The female population typically accounts for the majority of ridership at many transit systems.
Percent Gender Weekday Saturday Female 57.9 52.4 Male 42.1 47.6 Total 100.0 100.0
______Final Report Page 108
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Age – The next question asked the rider to identify their age, which was grouped into a series of five categories. The highest single age group among the weekday and Saturday riders is the 18 to 29 years old range with 38.1% and 30.7% of the riders, respectively. These rates are considerably different from the resident survey age cohorts where 18 to 29 year olds comprised a smaller portion of the survey responses. This response rate is consistent with the fact that most of BARTA’s service is concentrated in the City of Reading which has a much younger population compared to Berks County as a whole.
It is somewhat surprising that senior citizens (65 and older) comprised a relatively small percentage of survey respondents. However, senior citizens are able to ride the BARTA Shared Ride demand responsive program. In addition, the low ridership rate among seniors also reflects the increasing independence of senior citizens when it comes to personal mobility, as people are driving well past the traditional retirement age.
Percent Age Group Weekday Saturday Under 18 4.1 5.9 18-29 38.1 30.7 30-44 25.4 31.4 44-64 23.2 23.4 65 and older 9.2 8.6 Total 100.0 100.0
What is your total family income in a year – Riders were also asked to note their family income. The survey provided a series of income ranges and riders were asked to mark the most appropriate box. Vehicle availability and ownership rates are an important determinant of the need and likely use of public transportation. Typically, there is a strong correlation between these two measures and family income. For this reason, the survey also solicited information on income levels of bus riders. About 45% of weekday and Saturday riders have family incomes less than $15,000, which is consistent with the auto ownership rates and the proportion of captive and choice riders. When combined with the riders in the next income category, this results in approximately three-quarters of all riders with family incomes less than $25,000. It is reasonable to expect that a significant number of BARTA riders are at or below the poverty levels for their family size. Higher income levels comprise a relatively small percentage of BARTA riders.
______Final Report Page 109
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Percent Family Income Weekday Saturday Under $15,000 46.0 43.5 $15,000-$24,999 27.5 35.1 $25,000-$39,999 15.8 14.7 $40,000-$54,999 5.4 3.8 $55,000-$69,999 2.9 1.2 $70,000 and greater 2.4 1.7 Total 100.0 100.0
What is your ethnicity – Riders were also asked to indicate their ethnicity as part of the survey effort. On weekdays, survey respondents who indicated they were Caucasian represented the largest ridership group with almost 40% of the responses. Hispanic/Latino riders comprised the second largest ridership group with 33.8% of the responses. On Saturday, the top two positions were reversed with the Hispanic/Latino population comprising a slightly larger ridership group compared to Caucasian riders. As noted previously, the survey was bilingual with one side of the survey form printed in English and the other side printed in Spanish. African Americans accounted for the third largest ridership group among the survey respondents with a rate of 18% on weekdays and 17.1% on Saturday.
Percent Ethnicity Weekday Saturday Caucasian 38.2 35.8 African American 18.0 17.1 Asian American 0.8 0.5 Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 33.8 37.2 Native American & other 0.3 0.1 Pacific Islander Some other race 1.8 1.5 Two or more races 7.1 7.8 Total 100.0 100.0
What is the single most important improvement that you would suggest for BARTA – The final question was an open-ended query that asked riders to provide comments and suggestions that would improve BARTA service. The majority of weekday and Saturday riders wrote an improvement suggestion on the survey card, with only about one quarter of the respondents not answering the question. Although the survey card only requested a single response, several riders provided two responses. In total, there were 951 comments provided by the weekday riders and 554 provided by the Saturday riders. The responses were grouped into similar categories for both the weekday and Saturday surveys and include non-specific responses (other) as well as responses indicating satisfaction with existing BARTA service. In addition, certain suggestions such as the operation of additional service encompasses multiple issues, including more frequent service, longer service hours and expanding the service area. The results for this last survey question are presented below.
______Final Report Page 110
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Weekday Improvement Suggestions Percent Operate additional service 18.7% No changes needed/satisfied with service 17.5% Sunday/holiday service 15.3% Improve cleanliness (vehicles & BTC) 11.7% Buses need to be on time 9.3% Better service provided by drivers 8.6% Other 7.9% Lower fares 3.6% Improve bus routing and scheduling 2.4% Improve rider amenities 2.4% Additional weekend service 0.9% ADA service issues 0.7% Fare card machine should give change 0.5% Vehicle maintenance 0.3% Improve customer service 0.2% Total 100.0
The most frequently cited improvement suggestion from the weekday riders was the need to operate additional service (18.7%), followed by operating service on Sunday and on holidays (15.3%). The need for BARTA to improve the cleanliness of the buses and the BARTA Transportation Center (BTC) was cited by 11.7% of weekday riders. These results are consistent with the customer satisfaction queries presented previously. In addition, improving the on-time performance of the buses and the need for drivers to demonstrate better customer service and safety skills garnered nearly 10% of the responses. Conversely, 17.5% of weekday riders were satisfied with existing BARTA services and felt that no changes were necessary.
The top two service improvement suggestions among the Saturday survey respondents also included the operation of additional service (21.8%) and operating service on Sunday and holidays (21.3%), while improving on-time performance was the third most requested improvement (12.5%). Cleanliness of the buses and the BTC (9.0%) and improving driver customer service and safety skills also were among the top improvements suggested by the Saturday riders. At the same time, a high number of riders indicated their overall satisfaction with BARTA services which was cited by 14.7% of all Saturday riders.
______Final Report Page 111
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Saturday Improvement Suggestions Percent Operate additional service 21.8% Sunday/holiday service 21.3% No changes needed/satisfied with service 14.7% Buses need to be on time 12.5% Improve cleanliness (vehicles & BTC) 9.0% Other 7.9% Better service provided by drivers 6.1% Lower fares 2.8% Improve bus routing and scheduling 1.0% Improve rider amenities 1.0% Additional weekend service 0.8% ADA service issues 0.5% Improve customer service 0.3% Vehicle maintenance 0.3% Total 100.0
______Final Report Page 112
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
RESIDENT SURVEY
Another key data collection element of the BARTA Transportation Development Plan is to quantify the attitudes of the general public. For the most part, these are people who do not ride the bus system or only ride infrequently. It was determined that a mail-out/mail-back survey would be the most appropriate method to gather this data from residents. This technique allows residents to complete the survey questionnaire at their convenience without facing an interruption associated with a telephone survey. This survey technique has been used successfully in Berks County in the past. The process involved several steps that were performed both prior to and after the conduct of the mailout/mail-back survey. Each of these topics, including questionnaire development, sample selection, and the coding of the results are discussed below. DHF Associates, a professional direct mail communications firm located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was used to select the survey sample, as well as package and mail out the surveys.
Survey Methodology
The initial step in survey preparation was drafting survey questions. For some questions, all possible responses were identified, while other questions were open-ended. The amount of information to be gathered was weighed against the length of the survey form. Typically, longer questionnaires result in a reduced response rate. The questions were developed in cooperation with BARTA staff. The development of the survey instrument considered the screening to include only adult residents, the topics to be covered, and the questions to obtain the necessary information. The form used in the mail-out/mail-back survey is presented in Appendix B.
Sample Selection – The object of the survey was to obtain a sufficient sample size of residents to obtain an acceptable accuracy. The goal for the survey was to obtain enough valid survey returns to allow for a 5% allowable error rate at a 95% confidence interval, which would require approximately 384 valid returns. The survey actually obtained 367 valid survey forms, which was somewhat less than the target; however, the sample is still adequate for purposes of the analysis. Based upon the relationship between sample size and error, the survey has an allowable rate of about 5.1 at a 95% confidence interval. The implication of this relationship is that the survey measure of an attribute (e.g., personal use of public transportation service), plus or minus 5.1%, will include the actual measure of the attribute in the study area 95% of the time. In essence, this defines how close the survey results from a sample of adult residents are to those that would have been obtained if all adults in Berks County had been surveyed.
The next important step in the conduct of the survey was the selection of a random sample. The requirement of randomness is that the probability of selecting a particular household be equal for all households in the Berks County. Households to be sampled were ______Final Report Page 113
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
drawn by a professional direct mail communications firm from a database of all addresses located within Berks County. The actual mail-out/mail-back questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 1,800 residents during early summer of 2011. The response rate was about 20% which is less than what has been experienced in the past. Moreover, the number of randomly selected households was increased in anticipation of a lower response rate. People’s willingness to participate in surveys has declined over time as evidenced by the participation rates in the U.S. Census which is mandated by law.
Survey forms included a letter requesting assistance from an adult member of the household which was signed by the BARTA Executive Director. Completed survey forms were returned by mail to BARTA’s administrative offices in a prepaid envelope.
Coding - The number of surveys judged to be valid was determined by carefully examining each survey form for accuracy and consistency. Those deemed invalid were discarded with a resulting sample size of 367 adult residents of Berks County. The next step was to convert all responses to codes for subsequent computer processing. The survey form included in the appendix was used to identify appropriate codes for each question. The coded data were then processed for each question.
Survey Results
This section presents the results for the 29 questions that were asked in the resident mail- out/mail-back survey. All results are presented on a percentage basis that excludes no responses and extraneous answers. Responses to most questions total 100% although some differences are noted because of rounding. An analysis of the results of each question is provided along with a discussion of the significance of the findings.
Personal use of public transportation - The first question of the survey asked if the survey respondents have used BARTA bus services within the past year. As shown in the table below, about 15% of the survey respondents have used BARTA in the past year. The sample of residents that responded to the survey includes mostly individuals who do not ride BARTA (i.e., latent demand).
Have You Used BARTA Within Past Year Percent Yes 14.8 No 85.2 Total 100.0
Household use of public transportation - The second question asked if a member of the respondent’s household uses BARTA services once a month or more. As shown in the following table, a little over 9% of the respondents have a member of their household who does use the
______Final Report Page 114
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
service at least once a month. The responses to this question and the prior one indicate that the vast majority of survey respondents are non-users. Therefore, the results of this mail-out/mail- back survey provide input from residents who generally are not BARTA users, which was an objective of the survey effort.
Anyone in Household Used BARTA Within Past Month Percent Yes 9.4 No 90.6 Total 100.0
Use of other public transportation services - This question asked if the survey respondent used any other public transportation services in Berks County in the past year. The results shown in the table are consistent with the previous two responses in that approximately nine out of ten survey respondents do not utilize any form of public transportation.
Used Other Public Transit in Berks County in Past Year Percent Yes 8.4 No 91.6 Total 100.0
Of the small percentage of respondents who have used other public transportation services, the most often cited response was taxi service, followed by Bieber Trailways (a private inter-city bus operator that stops in the City of Reading and Kutztown Borough and serves regional destinations including Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York City, Washington D.C., and Scranton). About one-quarter of this group of respondents indicated that they have used BARTA’s demand responsive system which provides complimentary ADA service as well as serves a variety of human service programs. The other modes of “public transit” used by the respondents are shown in the table below.
Other Public Transit Used in Berks County in Past Year Percent Taxi 36.4 Bieber Trailways 27.3 BARTA Demand Responsive 22.7 Ambulance 4.5 Multiple providers 4.5 School bus 4.5 Total 100.0
Proximity to a BARTA bus route - The next question asked how close the respondent lives to one of BARTA’s bus routes. This question is important in determining how much of the service area’s population is within reasonable walking distance of BARTA’s fixed route ______Final Report Page 115
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
services. As shown in the table below, approximately 40% of the respondents do not know where the nearest BARTA bus stop is in relation to their home, while nearly one-quarter of the respondents indicated that they live more than a ten minute walk from the nearest BARTA bus stop. Approximately 19% of the respondents live within a five minute walk of a BARTA bus stop while almost 8% living along a BARTA route; together, these two responses equal 27%. Another 7.2% of the respondents live within a ten minute walk of a BARTA bus stop. These results are not surprising considering that the majority of BARTA’s fixed route bus service is concentrated in the City of Reading and the adjacent municipalities that comprise the core of the Reading urbanized area. The service that is provided outside of the core area is more limited and is typically operated along major corridors rather than through residential areas.
Proximity to a BARTA Bus Route Percent Don’t know 42.5 More than a 10 minute walk 23.3 Within a 5 minute walk 19.2 Right on the route 7.8 Within a 10 minute walk 7.2 Total 100.0
Perception of BARTA bus service - The survey then asked for the respondents overall perception of the BARTA system regardless of whether or not they use the service. As can be seen in the table below, almost three-quarters of the respondents did not feel that they had enough knowledge of BARTA’s service to answer the question.
Perception of the BARTA Bus System Percent Answered 25.9 Don’t know 74.1 Total 100.0
Of those people who did respond to the question, nine out of every ten people perceived BARTA in a positive light (i.e., excellent, very good and good) with 6.6% rating BARTA service as fair and the remaining 3.3% giving the bus system a poor rating.
Perception of the BARTA Bus System (responses) Percent Excellent 27.5 Very good 28.6 Good 34.1 Fair 6.6 Poor 3.3 Total 100.0
______Final Report Page 116
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
How and where do Berks County residents travel - This question was designed to reveal the travel habits of the respondents by asking them to indicate the means in which they travel to common trip destinations. The respondents were provided seven possible trip purpose categories to select from and could provide multiple responses in terms of how these trips are made. The results are presented in the table that follows.
Drive Ride with Don’t Trip Purpose Yourself Someone Bus Walk Other Make Trip Work 56.3 3.3 2.7 2.4 0.3 34.9 Shopping 75.5 11.1 5.3 2.9 0.0 5.3 Medical/dental 77.2 8.9 5.1 1.9 1.6 5.4 Social/Recreational 84.9 0.3 2.8 3.2 0.9 7.9 Personal business 76.8 8.5 4.3 2.7 0.5 7.2 School 31.9 2.6 3.6 1.6 0.7 59.6 Other 62.2 7.5 2.6 3.0 0.4 24.3
Based on the fact that most Berks County residents do not ride BARTA, it is not surprising that residents primarily use a personal automobile to make their trip; the use of an automobile would be even higher if the percentage of respondents who ride in an automobile with another person were also factored into automobile usage. On average, 3.7% of Berks County residents use BARTA to make their trip. When BARTA is used, utilization is highest for shopping and medical/dental trips. Notably, approximately one-third of the respondents do not make trips to work with almost 60% not making trips to school. This response rate is mostly attributed to the demographic characteristics of the respondents and will be discussed further in the latter portion of this section.
The survey respondents were then asked to indicate where they travel to when making their trip. Again, respondents could provide multiple responses in terms of where they travel to when making their trip. The results are presented in the table below.
Other Downtown City of Parts of Outside Don’t Trip Purpose Reading Reading Berks Co. Berks Co. Make Trip Work 5.7 10.2 32.0 16.5 35.6 Shopping 3.7 12.2 61.8 16.8 5.5 Medical/dental 4.7 10.9 63.8 14.5 6.2 Social/recreational 7.9 11.8 50.6 22.9 6.8 Personal business 6.1 12.2 52.8 20.9 7.9 School 1.1 3.2 19.0 3.6 73.1 Other 4.6 7.8 38.1 20.3 29.2
The travel patterns indicate that most trips are destined for locations in Berks County of which the largest share does not include the City of Reading and the downtown portion of the city which together combine to account for about 15% of the trip destinations made by the ______Final Report Page 117
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
survey respondents. The results also indicate that almost 19% of the trips are made to out-of- county destinations; this figure does not include the 3.6% of respondents that go to school outside of Berks County. Again, a significant number of respondents do not make trips to work or school.
Do you know how to get BARTA information - The next question asked the survey respondents if they know how to obtain information on BARTA services. The following table shows that even though most respondents do not ride BARTA, a clear majority know how to get information on the system.
Know How to Get BARTA Information Percent Yes 58.6 No 41.4 Total 100.0
Best way for BARTA to provide information on services and promotions - The survey residents were asked to indicate the best way BARTA could reach Berks County residents with information on services and promotions provided by the bus system. The survey did not limit the number of answers each respondent could select. The preferred choice from the respondents was newspapers, with almost one-third of the total responses. The second most popular choice was the BARTA website (21.9%), followed by schedules and brochures (16.3%) and the radio (10.2%). The least popular choice was bus drivers (1.3%), which is logical since very few of the respondents ride BARTA and interact with the system’s bus drivers. It is interesting to note that the results from the on-board bus rider survey regarding the best way to obtain BARTA information was bus drivers, which was the third highest response while the BARTA website was ranked relatively low.
Best Way to Reach Berks Co. Residents with Information Percent Newspaper 31.1 BARTA website 21.9 Schedules/brochures 16.3 Radio 10.2 TV 9.3 Friends/relatives 4.3 Other 3.3 Posters 2.4 Bus drivers 1.3 Total 100.0
What mode costs more and takes more time to make daily trips - This question asked survey respondents to indicate if it is more expensive to use an automobile or ride BARTA when making their typical daily trips. As shown in the following table, although most respondents do ______Final Report Page 118
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
not ride BARTA, almost two-thirds (61.9%) acknowledge that riding the bus costs less than driving while 13% indicated that riding BARTA cost more. Approximately one-quarter (25.1%) of the respondents said both modes cost about the same. It should be recognized that approximately one-third (32.7%) of the respondents did not answer this question with many of the no responses attributed to not having enough information to provide a response.
What Mode Costs More to Make Daily Trips Percent Automobile 61.9 Bus 13.0 About the same 25.1 Total 100.0
Survey respondents were then asked what mode takes more time to complete their typical daily trips. As shown in the table below, over three-quarters (78.5%) indicated riding BARTA would take more time to make their trips while only 7.4% answering that automobile travel would be more time consuming. Approximately 14% answered about the same. Again, a significant number of respondents did not answer this question (26.4%) with many of the no responses attributed to not having enough information to provide a response.
What Mode Takes More Time to Make Daily Trips Percent Bus 78.5 Automobile 7.4 About the same 14.1 Total 100.0
Effect of rising gasoline prices on utilization of BARTA - This question is more direct and asked the survey respondent if increasing gasoline prices and/or the price of gasoline increasing more than $4.00 per gallon would influence them to consider utilizing BARTA services. When the survey was conducted in late spring/early summer 2011, gasoline prices had been increasing but were beginning to stabilize between $3.60 and $3.70 per gallon. As seen in the table below, almost half of the respondents indicated that higher gasoline prices and/or gasoline passing $4.00 per gallon would not influence them to utilize BARTA services while about one-quarter indicated they would consider utilizing BARTA as a result of rising gas prices. At the same time, over one-quarter of the respondents were unsure if they would utilize BARTA.
Consider Utilizing BARTA Due to Rising Cost of Gasoline Percent Yes 24.1 No 47.6 Don’t know 28.4 Total 100.0
______Final Report Page 119
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
As part of this question, the respondents were asked to indicate the reason why they would not consider utilizing BARTA due to rising gas prices. The table below shows responses that were cited at least five times by the survey respondents. The most often cited response was that BARTA does not provide service where the respondent lives, which accounted for about 46% of the total responses. Inconvenient service (17.6%), the need to make multiple trips during the day (5.9%), BARTA does not fit personal schedule (5.0%), prefer to drive (5.0%), and do not work in Berks County (4.2%) were the other responses cited at least five times. These results suggest that trip time and convenience issues are more important than travel costs.
Why Would You Not Utilize BARTA With High Gas Prices Percent Not served by BARTA 46.2 Not convenient 17.6 Need to make multiple trips 5.9 BARTA does not fit schedule 5.0 Have automobile/prefer to drive 5.0 Do not work in Berks County 4.2 Other responses 16.0 Total (119 responses) 100.0
Reasons for not using BARTA - The next question asked for those people who have not used BARTA to check off the reasons why they have not used the transit system. The table below lists the responses made by at least 5% of the respondents.
Reasons For Not Using BARTA Percent Reach destination faster by driving 17.4 Prefer to drive 17.3 Not served by BARTA 14.1 Need to make multiple trips 8.7 Free parking at work/school 8.6 Don’t know location of bus stop 7.4 Would have to ride multiple buses 6.1 Other 20.4 Total (1,180 responses) 100.0
The table indicates that approximately one-third of the respondents do not use BARTA because driving is faster or they prefer to drive. Approximately 14% of the respondents don’t use BARTA because they are not served by the bus system or they need to make multiple trips during the day (8.7%); both responses were also reasons why residents will not consider riding BARTA despite rising gasoline prices. Other responses made by at least 5% of respondents include free parking at work or school (8.6%), the lack of knowledge regarding the location of the nearest bus stop (7.4%), and the need to ride multiple buses to reach their destination (6.1%).
______Final Report Page 120
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
On the positive side, safety issues (i.e., riding or waiting for the bus/don’t like travelling with strangers) and the low status of riding the bus accounted for a relatively low number of reasons why respondents don’t ride BARTA.
It is important to recognize that the significant number of respondents who are not served by BARTA or who don’t know where the nearest bus stop may be a factor in why the vast majority of residents drive rather than ride BARTA. This is important because there does not appear to be a large segment of the respondents who have a negative opinion of BARTA. This suggests that there is likely a proportion of the respondents who are not averse to riding BARTA.
Changes or events to influence the use of BARTA - This question in the survey offered a variety of changes or events that would have to occur for respondents to use BARTA. The response to these issues will give some insight into what improvements are needed for more people to use the BARTA system. The table lists the responses made by at least 5% of the respondents.
Influencing Factors For Using BARTA Percent Will likely never ride BARTA 18.8 Bus stop within 5 minutes of home 13.2 Increasing gas prices 9.7 Expand service area 8.3 More public information 7.8 Limited stop or express service 5.8 Other 36.5 Total (787 responses) 100.0
The largest response from this question was none of the above/will likely never use BARTA (18.8%). The most important factor to attract potential riders to BARTA is to have a bus stop within a five minute walk of a respondent’s home (13.2%). Increasing gas prices elicited almost 10% of responses followed by expanding BARTA’s service area (8.3%), more public information (7.8%), and limited stop/express service (5.8%).
Maximum fare to ride BARTA - The next question asked respondents to provide the highest bus fare they would be willing to pay for a one-way trip on BARTA. It should be recognized that less than one-third of the respondents answered this question. As shown in the table below, a bus fare between $1.00 and $1.99 (41.1%) was cited most often by the respondents followed by a bus fare between $2.00 and $2.99 (33.9%). Almost 18% indicated they would be willing to pay more than $3.00 for a one-way trip on BARTA. It is somewhat surprising that approximately 7% of the respondents indicated they would only be willing pay less than $1.00 to ride BARTA.
______Final Report Page 121
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Maximum Bus Fare Willing To Pay Percent Under $1.00 7.1 $1.00-$1.99 41.1 $2.00-$2.99 33.9 $3.00-$3.99 9.8 $4.00-$4.99 1.8 $5.00 or more 6.3 Total 100.0
It is important to recognize that the price of transit is not viewed as a major reason for not using transit for most of the respondents. Even with most of the respondents agreeing that riding BARTA is cheaper than driving, trip time and convenience issues are more important than travel costs. It would appear that there is a greater sensitivity to the price of gasoline than to the cost of riding BARTA.
What is the service frequency required to consider riding BARTA - The next question asked respondents how frequent service would need to be for them to consider riding BARTA. This question also elicited a relatively low response rate of less than half of the respondents (44.7%). As shown in the table below, headways (the time between one bus and the next) of 30 minutes or less elicited slightly more responses (41.5%) than headways between 30 minutes and one hour (39.6%). A relatively high number of respondents would accept larger headways of more than one hour (17.1%) with less than 2% (1.8%) of the respondents indicating they would accept headways of more than two hours. BARTA’s existing service is typically operated on a half-hour or hourly basis.
Service Frequency Required To Consider Riding BARTA Percent 0-14 minutes 11.6 15-29 minutes 29.9 30-44 minutes 37.8 45-59 minutes 1.8 60-119 minutes 17.1 More than 2 hours 1.8 Total 100.0
Farthest walking distance to reach a bus stop - The next question asked how far a survey respondent would walk to reach a BARTA bus stop. The table below shows that the majority of respondents, whether they use BARTA or not, are willing to walk three blocks or more (61.4%) to meet a bus.
______Final Report Page 122
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Farthest Walking Distance To Reach A Bus Stop Percent Less than 1 block 1.5 1 block 12.2 2 blocks 24.9 3 blocks 20.8 4 blocks or more 40.6 Total 100.0
Farthest driving distance to reach a BARTA park-ride lot - The next question asked the survey respondent to indicate the maximum distance they would drive to reach a BARTA park-ride lot if their home was not served by the bus system. Less than half of the respondents answered this question. The table on the following page shows that approximately one-third of respondents, whether they use BARTA or not, would be willing to drive one mile or less to reach a park-ride lot. Conversely, 39% of the respondents indicated they would drive at least four miles to reach a park-ride lot.
Farthest Driving Distance To Reach A Park-Ride Lot Percent Less than 1 mile 24.4 1 mile 10.4 2 miles 15.9 3 miles 10.4 4 miles or more 39.0 Total 100.0
One caution with this and other similar questions is that the results represent non commitment behavior. Typically, when persons are asked whether they would use transit under various circumstances, the positive responses far exceed the number that would actually ride public transportation. There are a number of types of factors that account for this difference between survey response and behavior. Nonetheless, these types of questions are helpful in understanding the relative attractiveness of various transit proposals.
Purpose for the use of BARTA - The next question in the survey asked respondents to indicate their most likely trip purpose(s) if they considered using BARTA services. The table below shows that shopping would be the biggest reason for using BARTA (23.3%). Medical related trips (20.9%) and social and recreational trips (19.7%) were the second and third most popular reasons for possibly using BARTA. The fact that work trips would be the fourth most popular reason for riding BARTA (18.5%) is consistent with the findings from a previous question in the survey that showed a high number of respondents do not make work trips. This response rate is mostly attributed to the demographic characteristics of the respondents and will be discussed in a forthcoming question in this survey.
______Final Report Page 123
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Trip Purpose if Used BARTA Percent Shopping 23.3 Medical/dental 20.9 Social/recreational 19.7 Work 18.5 Personal business 14.1 School 2.2 Other 1.4 Total 100.0
Places to be served and suggestions for improvements - The next two questions asked the survey respondents to indicate any places in Berks County that should be served by BARTA, as well as suggest changes and improvements they would like to see BARTA accomplish. Both questions elicited a relatively small response rate from the 367 residents who completed a survey (55 responses for places served and 65 responses for improvements). This is not surprising considering that most of the respondents do not utilize BARTA services or live where bus service is available and therefore, probably are not knowledgeable regarding where the system operates and what sort of service related issues might require BARTA’s attention. For both questions, responses cited by at least two respondents are listed in the next two tables.
Where Should BARTA Provide Service Percent Douglasville 10.9 Rural Areas in Berks County 9.1 Kutztown 7.3 Suburban areas outside Reading 7.3 Amity 5.5 Green Hills 5.5 Morgantown 3.6 Muhlenburg 3.6 Boyertown 3.6 Fleetwood 3.6 Other 40.0 Total 100.0
The most commonly suggested location where BARTA service is needed was Douglasville (10.9%) followed by a more general statement indicating service in the rural portions of Berks County (9.1%). Kutztown and suburban locations surrounding the City of Reading each received 7.3% of responses, with Amity and Green Hills each receiving 5.5% of responses. Each of the other locations with at least two responses - Morgantown, Muhlenburg, Boyertown, and Fleetwood - exhibited response rates of 3.6%.
______Final Report Page 124
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
It should be recognized that some of the locations shown in the table are broadly defined and are already served by BARTA, for example, portions of Muhlenburg Township and the suburban areas surrounding Reading.
The most commonly suggested improvement was the request for expanding the service area (10.8%), followed by the request for more frequent service (9.2%). Improvement suggestions receiving at least 5% of the responses included Sunday service (6.2%), connect with other transit systems in the surrounding counties (6.2%), and that BARTA should operate service using smaller buses (6.2%).
Suggested Changes and Improvements Percent Expand service area 10.8 More frequent service 9.2 Sunday service 6.2 Connect with other transit systems 6.2 Operate smaller buses 6.2 Operate out-of-county service 4.6 Lower fares 4.6 Later evening service 3.1 Improve security on buses/ bus stops 3.1 More park-ride facilities 3.1 Other 43.1 Total 100.0
In the next three questions, the survey respondents were asked if they have a driver’s license and the availability and number of automobiles in their household. Although the survey results indicate that the clear majority of respondents use an automobile for mobility rather than ride the BARTA bus system, it is still useful to know how many of the residents not using BARTA may be unable to drive or have limited availability to an automobile. These questions help to discern if a potential market for some type of transit service exists among this population group.
Do you have a valid driver’s license - Many of the respondents who do not ride BARTA live in areas of Berks County where bus service is very limited or not available, because of low population density, roadway network, terrain features, and other issues that prevent the use of regularly scheduled fixed route bus service. However, there may be opportunities for BARTA’s demand responsive service or other types of alternative transit options to ensure that all county residents have a certain level of mobility to access essential “lifeline” services. The table below shows that nine out of ten survey respondents have a driver’s license, which is consistent with the survey findings among Berks County residents.
______Final Report Page 125
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Driver’s License Percent Yes 91.5 No 8.5 Total 100.0
How many vehicles does your household own - The next question determining potential transit need asked the respondents to indicate the number of automobiles owned in their household. As shown in the table below, 8.3% of the respondents do not have a vehicle in their household, while approximately one-quarter of respondents are from a household with only one automobile. Overall, approximately two-thirds of the residents live in a household with at least two cars.
Automobiles in Household Percent Zero 8.3 One 25.9 Two 41.9 Three or more 24.0 Total 100.0
Was a car available for this trip - The table below shows that that more than nine out of every ten survey respondents has an automobile to make their trip. This is a good indication that the need for public transportation service is low among the residents who completed this survey.
Automobile Availability Percent Yes 92.5 No 7.5 Total 100.0
The final series of questions concerned the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the resident.
Gender - As shown in the table below, women completed the survey at a much higher rate than men (62.7% female and 37.3% male). This proportion of women is higher than the population of Berks County as a whole in terms of gender.
Gender Percent Female 62.7 Male 37.3 Total 100.0
Age - The respondents were asked to identify the age group in which they belong. As shown in the table below, the ages of the survey respondents were skewed towards the higher age groups. Over three-quarters of the residents indicated that they were 45 years of age or ______Final Report Page 126
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
older, with the largest grouping being the 45 to 64 year olds, which comprised approximately 43% of the respondents. The lowest participation rate among the respondents was the 18 to 29 year old group with less than 5% of the responses. The higher representation among older age groups is common in these types of surveys. Residents in these groups tend to be less transient, more settled, and more apt to participate in civic matters such as this survey.
Age Group Percent 18-29 4.4 30-44 18.1 45-64 43.1 65 and older 34.4 Total 100.0
Occupation - The survey respondents were asked to identify their occupation. The general occupation categories and the response rates are listed in the following. Due to the high percentage of the respondents who were over 65, it is not surprising that the single largest occupation category was retired (36.7%). This is consistent with the findings from earlier in the survey that showed that a large percentage of respondents did not make work trips. Manager/professional was the second highest selected occupation with 23.8% of all respondents. The lowest responding group was students, with 0.8%. This is also not surprising as students are usually younger adults, and younger adults accounted for less than five percent of the survey population.
Occupation Percent Manager/professional 23.8 Technical/skilled 12.6 Student 0.8 Homemaker 7.1 Clerical 4.1 Retired 36.7 Service industry 8.5 Unemployed 2.2 Other 4.1 Total 100.0
Family Income - Survey respondents were also asked to indicate their annual family income. The question is included to determine whether or not the sample compares well with the overall population in a socioeconomic manner. As shown in the table below, approximately 47% of the respondents have a total family income of above $55,000. This is in stark contrast to the rider survey which showed that approximately two percent of BARTA’s ridership had family incomes above $55,000, and approximately three-quarters of the riders with family incomes less than $25,000. Conversely, less than one-quarter (23.1%) of the residents indicated family
______Final Report Page 127
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
incomes below $25,000. This comparison demonstrates that BARTA is disproportionately utilized by residents belonging to families on the lower end of the pay scale.
Family Income Percent Under $15,000 11.2 $15,000-$24,999 11.9 $25,000-$39,999 15.0 $40,000-$54,999 15.3 $55,000-$69,999 11.6 $70,000 and greater 35.0 Total 100.0
Residence Location - The final question asked the respondents to indicate the zip code of their residence. The sample composition reflects the number of households and the response rate. The zip codes with the highest number of respondents are in Reading and the adjacent municipalities. Large portions of these zip codes are served by BARTA bus routes. With increasing distance from Reading, the population density declines and the number of residents surveyed also is lower. Much of these areas do not have bus service within walking distance. The composition of the survey sample is shown in Figure 33.
Figure 33 - Respondent Locations
______Final Report Page 128
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
COMMUNITY LEADER INTERVIEWS
To provide a valuable qualitative view of the existing conditions and opportunities for the future, interviews were conducted with individuals drawn from a broad cross-section of public, non-profit, and private organizations to seek their perceptions and views on the BARTA bus system. The stakeholder interview process consisted of three basic steps: (1) identification of the stakeholders, (2) preparation of a list of topics to be discussed and (3) the actual conduct of the interviews. Each of these steps and the results are presented in this chapter.
Community Leaders
The list of community leaders or stakeholders was selected in consultation with BARTA staff and the consultant team. They included representatives of organizations that are directly impacted by transportation and its impact on economic development in the City of Reading and throughout Berks County. They provide a broad cross-section of views of both appointed and elected officials as well as representatives from public, private and non-profit organizations as follows:
Government Transportation/Planning Education Human Service Economic Development/Tourism Commerce Hospitals Hispanic/Latino Community
A total of 26 individuals were invited to attend the stakeholder interview process, and of this group, 16 individuals participated in the interviews. The complete list of the stakeholder interview participants is presented in Table 37 which indicates the range of interests and perspectives that the stakeholders brought to the effort.
Findings and Results
While the stakeholder interview process provides a flexible format for soliciting views, ten topics were prepared prior to the conduct of the interviews. It provided an outline of issues to be discussed and in some cases led to the discussion of other topics. The topics ranged from the assessment of current services through suggested improvements. At the end of the interviews, time was allowed for participants to make any comments that they felt were not covered. ______Final Report Page 129
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 36 - Community Leader Interview Participants Name Agency Lenin Agudo Kutztown University Small Business Development Center Helen Amole PA Careerlink Kevin S. Barnhardt Berks County Commissioner Marge Bligh The Reading Hospital and Medical Center Auria Bradley Reading Area Community College Jayne Dieruff BARTA Board of Director’s Chairman Brian Evans Viwinco Bob Harrop East Penn Manufacturing Mike Jupina St. Joseph Medical Center Marieda Jurado Centro Hispano Brian Maletto Carpenter Technology Corporation John Moser Berks County Workforce Investment Board Alan Piper Berks County Planning Commission Crystal Seitz Greater Reading Convention & Visitors Bureau Dennis Scalese Berks County Office of Aging George Tomaszewski PennDOT District 5-0
It should be noted that some comments were isolated and reflected the view of a single individual, while others represented a widely held view. Another point to note is that the views are subjective and reflect attitudes and perceptions. Many of the stakeholders are not regular riders of the BARTA bus system and in fact, the majority of participants have never ridden BARTA. There was one participant who did use BARTA on a regular basis until she could afford an automobile. Another participant rides BARTA on an occasional basis to determine if the bus route is meeting the needs of his employees. However, there were a few participants who rode public transportation when they lived or worked outside of Berks County, with these participants riding transit systems serving major metropolitan areas in the Mid-Atlantic region, such as SEPTA, the MTA in New York City, NJ Transit, and the light rail service in Baltimore. On a side note, some of the participants indicated they often rode the train that operated between Reading and Philadelphia until 1981, while a few participants mentioned riding the bus service that preceded BARTA (i.e., the Reading Bus Company) when they were growing up in the area. Although the stakeholder participants generally do not ride the BARTA system at this time, the comments still provide a useful and timely input to the planning process. The remainder of this interim report presents the comments of the study participants.
______Final Report Page 130
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Knowledge and awareness of the BARTA bus system in terms of what services are available, where and when service operates. Although the majority of stakeholder participants do not ride BARTA, the participants had a general knowledge of the BARTA bus system, in that they see buses around the community or know someone personally (i.e., employee, client, patient, student or relative) who rides BARTA or has ridden the bus system in the past. A few notable comments provided by individual participants indicated that senior citizens look for housing near BARTA bus routes when they are no longer able to drive, while another participant indicated they know people who ride BARTA instead of driving during poor weather conditions in the winter.
At the same time, the stakeholder participants generally did not know when, where or how often the BARTA buses operate and only a few participants indicated they have looked at the BARTA web site; one participant mentioned the web site is confusing and not “user-friendly.” A number of participants did not know where bus stops were located and were not aware that BARTA published a Ride Guide. Some of the participants did not know that senior citizens could ride BARTA for free and that fare discounts were available to other population groups such as persons with disabilities. One participant was not aware of the BARTA Transportation Center (BTC) located in downtown Reading. In addition, it was noted by one participant that visitors will occasionally inquire if there is a public transportation system in Reading. However, in most instances, visitors don’t inquire about transit service and use their automobile to travel around the Reading area. Further, visitors attending an event or convention in the area are typically transported by a private bus operator.
An overall perspective that was gathered during the stakeholder interview process was the opinion that BARTA is oriented to the City of Reading and primarily used by city residents to get to work or to access other services such as day care or shopping. In the suburban and outlying communities where BARTA provides a lower level of service (i.e., frequency and span) or no service at all, a small percentage of the population rides BARTA. As a result, BARTA is not relevant to most of the population living outside of the city since the transit system does not impact their daily mobility activities and travel patterns.
______Final Report Page 131
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Further, most of the population living in the suburban communities and outlying areas in Berks County don’t work in Reading and in fact might only visit the city occasionally for a specific reason such as attending an event at the Sovereign Center. Several community leader participants did indicate that Penn Avenue in West Reading is a popular retail and entertainment attraction that is just across the river from downtown Reading. The consultant team was also made aware that a number of efforts are underway to revitalize the downtown area of the city. One of the revitalization strategies included restoring trolley service along the Penn Avenue corridor.
One participant indicated that temporary service agencies operate their own shuttle services to transport employees who are unable to ride BARTA, either because they work in areas where no bus service is available or because they work at certain time periods when BARTA is not in service.
View of system performance in terms of service, vehicles, operations and marketing. Even though the majority of stakeholders do not ride the BARTA bus system, the stakeholders were able to provide several comments both positive and negative about BARTA service, based upon their own observations as well as observations from people they know who ride the transit system (i.e., employees, clients, relatives, etc). Overall, positive themes included the maintenance and appearance of BARTA’s buses and facilities, with one comment noting the modern look and design of the buses. There were several participants who expressed the opinion that BARTA is a professional and well managed organization that likely serves the areas with the greatest need for transit and provides an important service for people who have no other travel options. Some notable individual comments included the professionalism of the BARTA drivers, especially when dealing with riders who are older and/or have a disability getting on or off the bus, and how the BTC has been a significant asset for the City of Reading.
Overall, there was a consensus from the participants that BARTA does not need to focus on branding the system but rather focus on promoting the services that are available. One participant commented that the use of modern, hybrid buses was a positive form of marketing and that BARTA should highlight the environmental benefits of riding transit. Other marketing comments included targeting senior citizens and students attending local colleges and universities, as well as advertising BARTA services in outlying areas of routes where service is more limited and area residents may not be aware that bus service is available. In addition, to the call for greater marketing comments, some participants indicated that the web page was not widely known and was not user friendly.
______Final Report Page 132
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
In terms of negative themes, the major issue appeared to be the lack of public information, with many of the participants indicating that information about BARTA is not widely available in the community, especially places frequented by a high number of transit riders. A few participants wondered why BARTA does not have a system map to provide an easy to understand visual depiction of the service area and connectivity of the BARTA route network. It was also mentioned that the Ride Guide might provide too much information and overwhelm people who have trouble reading or who may only want information about a particular route. One participant was hesitant to ride BARTA because they were afraid of missing their bus and not knowing how they would get home. This comment can reflect the lack of awareness of BARTA services, as well as service availability. Safety concerns about waiting for the bus in the City of Reading and the negative perception of riding BARTA were also cited on a few occasions. Other comments expressed by one or two participants included limited service hours and the lack of cross-town bus routes.
The stakeholder participants also provided negative comments to the consultant team that were obtained from people they know (i.e., employees, clients, relatives, etc.) who currently ride or have ridden BARTA. The most prevailing comments included improving on-time performance and customer service. Customer service issues included being over-charged by drivers when boarding the bus and the fact that the ticket window at the BTC does not open until 9:00 AM. Another frequently cited complaint was the lack of bus stop signs with riders having to flag down buses because they did not know the location of the bus stop. Current BARTA plans include the installation of bus stop signs throughout the system which will likely begin in the next few months.
One stakeholder with significant exposure to the public rarely hears complaints about BARTA service and assumes “no news is good news”.
BARTA’s image in the community. Similar to the prior question, BARTA was viewed favorably by the stakeholder participants who expressed the opinion that BARTA is a well managed organization that provides an important service for people who have no other means of transportation. A number of participants also mentioned that BARTA is responsive to community needs particularly when it involves providing access to employment sites. A number of stakeholders indicated BARTA works well with local employers and is an active participant in terms of economic development initiatives in the community.
However, many of the participants reiterated that BARTA can do a better job advertising its services to the public and become more user-friendly in terms of improving the distribution and availability of public information, as well as having bus stop signs and other passenger amenities (i.e., shelters and benches) placed ______Final Report Page 133
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
throughout the system, to not only make riding the bus more convenient but also convey the location of BARTA bus routes. A few participants suggested that more people living outside of Reading might try BARTA if the service was better advertised and certain routes were more direct and not always oriented towards Reading. However, a recurring theme throughout the community leader interview process was that BARTA is not competitive with the automobile in terms of convenience, speed and versatility.
Although the stakeholders understand the importance of BARTA in meeting the needs of people who have no other travel options and expressed the widely shared opinion that the system is well managed, it was also apparent that BARTA has a negative image in the community as a service for poor people who cannot afford an automobile. This is especially prevalent in the outlying suburban communities and in Berks County as a whole where very few people ride the BARTA system. The negative perception of BARTA is heightened by the fact that the bus system is closely aligned with the City of Reading which is often associated with crime and various social problems that give the city a negative reputation.
Primary beneficiaries and users of the current system and benefits to the community of having a public transportation system. Overall, there was consensus among the stakeholder participants that BARTA provides an important service for certain segments of the population. This included people who don’t have a car or are unable to drive, such as low income residents, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities. Single mothers - some of which might fall into the low income category - were singled out on a few occasions as a population group that relies on BARTA to access employment and daycare. Local employers were also listed as beneficiaries of BARTA service since many workers employed in lower paying service related occupations rely on BARTA to get to and from work.
An overall perception among the stakeholders is that BARTA is oriented to the City of Reading more so than the surrounding suburban communities. This was not viewed as necessarily negative because most of the stakeholder participants share the opinion that Reading residents have the greatest need for transit. In fact, when the consultant team inquired about the possibility of creating a transfer point in the outlying suburban areas to offer more service in the suburbs, many of the stakeholder participants could not think of an appropriate location, or did not think a transfer point is necessary or effective.
______Final Report Page 134
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
One population group that was often mentioned as a potential market for BARTA is students attending the local colleges and universities. Reasons that were cited included increasing enrollment at RACC, the greater number of students living on the Penn State Berks campus; the Penn Avenue corridor in West Reading which is a popular meeting place for students and younger adults on evenings and weekends, and the revitalization efforts in downtown Reading that include elements designed to attract students and young professionals to live in the city.
With environmental awareness increasing among the general public and especially among younger people, some of the participants commented that BARTA provides an example of sustainable transportation that can help limit the emission of greenhouse gases if more people utilize transit on a regular basis. A few participants suggested that BARTA should use its hybrid-electric buses and the environmental benefits of riding transit as a selling point to induce ridership. In addition, many participants indicated that higher gasoline prices may encourage non-riders to ride BARTA for certain trips to reduce the amount of money spent on gasoline.
Some of the participants also indicated that BARTA is an important community service in terms of its role in offering transit dependent population groups a better quality of life by providing mobility options and access employment opportunities and other essential services that are available to the general population. One comment related to BARTA users was the reliance of some people on the bus system during snow storms or when driving conditions are hazardous.
Roles of public transportation in meeting mobility needs, particularly in relation to choice and captive markets. The commonly held view is that BARTA riders are comprised primarily of captive riders who either don’t have a car or are unable to drive and that it will be very difficult and require a behavior change to convince choice riders to switch to BARTA. The reasons that were cited included the convenience, speed and versatility of driving relative to using the bus, with the need to make multiple stops throughout the day being a major reason why people drive rather than ride transit; BARTA does not directly serve the areas where choice riders live and/or work; and with the exception of Reading and the surrounding communities, Berks County is a rural area without the density of development and transit friendly design to support public transportation.
However, some participants did indicate that choice ridership could be generated through more frequent service (i.e., every 20 minutes), more direct and/or express service, longer service hours, and links to other transit systems in the region. One participant commented that a major contributor to attracting choice riders is to provide more advanced public information via the internet and real-time travel information. This participant indicated that the population, especially the younger ______Final Report Page 135
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
generation, is becoming increasingly accustomed to having instant access to information and will not spend time looking at schedules or searching a website for bus schedules.
Other participants suggested gradually introducing choice riders to transit by offering promotions and providing special services during major events, festivals, etc. However, one participant expressed the importance of ensuring that resources are not taken away from maintaining and improving existing services for BARTA’s core ridership base (i.e., captive riders). To attract choice riders to the system may require finding new funding sources or developing partnerships with local businesses and organizations for financial support.
The stakeholder interview process did provide a few recurring themes that could work in the favor of attracting choice riders onto the BARTA system: the limited and relatively high cost of parking in downtown Reading, the increasing cost of gasoline, and the growing student population at local colleges and universities.
Is the BARTA bus system responsive to community needs? A common response from the stakeholder participants was that the BARTA bus system is serving the areas where the need or demand for transit is greatest, such as the City of Reading and the major activity centers located in the suburban portion of the BARTA service area. A few participants also indicated that BARTA is doing a good job providing the ADA and human service transportation. BARTA also received favorable comments from some of the participants by printing the BARTA Ride Guide in both English and Spanish. As noted previously, many participants expressed the opinion that BARTA is responsive to the community in terms of providing service to employment locations and working well with local employers and supporting economic development initiatives.
At the same time, there were stakeholder participants who thought the BARTA service area could possibly be expanded and that certain areas - such as Sinking Springs, Shoemakersville, and Bethel Township - could be potential candidates for increased service or new service. There was also some interest for a shuttle route designed to serve the local colleges and universities, as well as for BARTA to begin operating Sunday service from approximately 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
The consultant team mentioned to the stakeholders that Boyertown Borough and Kutztown Borough are the only areas in Berks County that exhibit transit supportive characteristics that are not served by the BARTA bus system. The consultant team explained a few contributing factors as to why these areas are not served, such as the distance from the Reading area and travel patterns in these communities being more oriented to neighboring counties rather than Berks County. The stakeholder ______Final Report Page 136
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
participants seemed to agree with this assessment and a few participants even acknowledged the high costs that would be incurred to operate bus service between the Reading area and the Boroughs of Boyertown and Kutztown. However, when presented with alternative transportation options that could be used to serve these communities - such as local community circulators that would serve the two boroughs on a rotating basis certain days of the week - a number of the participants expressed the opinion that alternative types of transit service could be feasible in these areas. It was often mentioned that BARTA does travel a significant distance to serve Cabela’s and Hamburg Borough.
What changes are anticipated in Berks County during the next five years and how should the bus system respond. Consistent with the horizon period of the analysis, stakeholders were asked to indicate what changes would occur in the service area that would influence service decisions. Stakeholder participants indicated the aging population throughout Berks County, which is in contrast to the City of Reading where the growing Latino population is significantly younger compared to the county as a whole.
There were a few participants who indicated that Berks County is becoming a popular bedroom community due to lower housing costs while still being within commuting distance of better paying jobs in the Philadelphia, New York, and the Baltimore metropolitan areas. One participant indicated that more people will leave the City of Reading for better schools in the nearby suburbs which will influence travel patterns.
A few of the participants indicated the increasing revitalization efforts occurring in Reading that will hopefully attract businesses and young professionals to move into the city. Also, some participants expected business growth to expand or occur in Bethel Township, Oley Township and near the airport in Bern Township. One participant noted that a sports complex and motor raceway are planned for Derry Township and Birdsboro Borough, respectively, sometime in the next five or six years.
Another participant predicted that population and employment growth is going to move farther out from the Reading area to the peripheries of Berks County, where travel patterns will be more oriented towards regional destinations in neighboring counties rather than the Reading area. An example was pockets of development near certain interchanges of I-78 in the northern portion of the county.
One participant expects low density development to continue to be the preferred land use form in the suburban portions of the Reading area and throughout Berks County, despite the goals of the long range plan prepared by the Berks County Planning Commission that recommended more compact development patterns in and around ______Final Report Page 137
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
areas with existing development and infrastructure. Several participants are still hoping that passenger rail service will be restored between Reading and Norristown in the US 422 corridor.
Many of these observations, if proven to be correct, will likely become more pronounced past the five-year planning period, especially considering the current economic downturn. However, these comments do indicate that BARTA could be faced with considerable challenges to provide cost effective service in the coming years, as a result of disbursed development and travel patterns and the orientation of growth moving farther from Reading and BARTA’s core service area. The aging population will also present a unique challenge that will most likely affect BARTA’s human service transportation division. One of the participants indicated that many of the senior citizen facilities (nursing homes, retirement communities, etc.) located in
Berks County offer transportation service for their customers/residents, which may help alleviate some of the burden of serving the county’s aging population.
What needs or markets that BARTA should be met or met better. A number of comments were made during the discussion of this topic with BARTA’s involvement in economic development being a common theme among the stakeholder participants. As noted previously, BARTA received favorable comments relating to serving employment sites, having good relationships with local employers and supporting economic development initiatives. The participants stressed these issues again suggesting that BARTA continue to work closely with employers to provide access to employment.
A few participants mentioned the need to serve early morning and late night work shifts. If funding is unable to meet this need, BARTA should pursue additional funding or develop partnerships with local employers to provide demonstration projects. BARTA has used demonstration grants to provide service, for example obtaining a Federal Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant to operate service to Cabela’s in Hamburg Borough. There were several participants that suggested BARTA should work more closely with the city of Reading’s efforts to improve the downtown area. One idea that was identified by several participants was for BARTA to operate a shuttle service designed to serve the local colleges and universities that would operate through downtown Reading along the Penn Avenue corridor and tie-in with revitalization efforts that are underway along the corridor.
One participant expressed the opinion that the Transit Development Plan being prepared by the consultant team should reflect the needs of Berks County as whole and not focus solely on the Reading area. This is in contrast to many of the responses that have been provided by the stakeholder participants during the interview process. ______Final Report Page 138
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
What desired improvements should be made to the BARTA bus system in terms of services and facilities? A number of proposals were suggested, some of which have been mentioned previously. These transit improvements related to where and when bus service is operated are listed below:
o More frequent service o Express bus routes o Sunday service during daytime hours to serve shopping centers o Later evening service o Bus service to Lancaster and Montgomery Counties o More cross-town bus routes o Local circulator routes in outlying communities, such as Hamburg, Kutztown, and Boyertown
Stakeholder participants also suggested capital improvements and other measures to increase the attractiveness of bus service. Comments included:
o Bus stop signs and bus stop shelters o Park and Ridefacility in Sinking Springs o Improving the distribution and availability of public information o Increasing awareness of BARTA through marketing (i.e., radio, billboards, newspapers) o Travel training o Providing individual route timetables and a system map in addition to the Ride Guide o Using smaller buses when operating service through neighborhoods
The discussion above provides considerable information on public transportation from a diverse cross-section of people in the community. Their comments, while subjective in nature, provide useful information that will aid in the formulation of proposals to improve public transportation.
______Final Report Page 139
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
STAFF INPUT
To provide another source of input to the planning process, input was sought from both BARTA’s administrative staff and from bus route operators of the bus routes. Input from the administrative staff has been ongoing through the study process, and will be a continuing process. The other portion of the staff input process was to interview bus operators to obtain their comments. Similar to the stakeholder interviews the comments of staff are subjective, but experience in similar projects have found them to be helpful in better understanding the current bus system and potential changes.
Process
On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, the consultant team was present in the driver ready room at the BARTA facility on North 11th Street during the AM driver pull-out period, and also at the driver break room in the BARTA Transportation Center (BTC) during the midday period. During these periods, the members of the team approached drivers as they reported for their shift, or as they were taking a break, and asked them to identify any improvements that they feel should be made to the current BARTA system. The question was open-ended and the drivers were free to provide input regarding any issue. A total of 28 drivers participated in the sessions, providing a wealth of information regarding their views on the current system and necessary improvements. These comments, along with the comments from BARTA’s administrative staff, are listed below.
Findings and Results
A wide range of comments were made and they have been organized into five categories as follows: frequency/span, alignment, scheduling, BTC and other. Any comment that was cited more than once is noted in parenthesis.
Frequency/Span More frequent service, particularly on Routes 1 and 16 in evening hours Few riders at Penn State Berks on Route 16 Reduction of service 9th Street from last study should be restored to prior headways Buses subject delays because of congestion on 5th Street (Route 1) which indicates the need for more service Service is not frequent enough and headways should be reduced There is a long wait in Birdsboro, and other rural areas, because of wide headways service is not dependable enough (2) Need night time service to Walmart on Route 8
______Final Report Page 140
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Sunday service is needed (4) Need night time service in Sinking Springs (2) Later evening service will help many reach jobs Midday service to Hamburg Later evening service to Mohton, Stony Creek and Reiffton (Route 11) Add more crosstown trips on Route 6 More service on Route 20 to Cabella’s Mores service on Route 21 to Morgantown
Alignment Cotton Street should get two-way service Cotton Street/Perkiomen Loop is not good, go back to serving 18th and Fairmount Use Kutztown Road on Route 1 – outbound on 5th Street, inbound on Kutztown (6) Traffic on Lancaster Avenue is heavy and delays buses; service should be on other streets Lincoln Park is not a popular destination Service should be extended to Mount Penn There should be two stops at the Giant on Route 11, so that people do not have to ride around Service should be operated to Kutztown which will provide connections to Lancaster, Lebanon and Harrisburg There should be service to Laurel Street Route 1 should operate on Kutztown Road Kutztown Road should be an alternate alignment to 5th, 9th and 10th Streets Operate a circulator route in the vicinity of Berkshire Mall and Broadcast Square Additional service to Reading Hospital (3) Extend service to Reading Hospital service by extending Route 11 across Penn Street (3) Too many routes on Perkiomen Avenue, utilize another street
Scheduling Overall observation of insufficient running time (5) Particular running time comments for Routes 1, 8, 16 and 20 Because buses cannot maintain schedules, some riders miss connections Schedules should show layover at route terminals, including BTC Need more short turns on longer routes More straight and fewer split runs
BTC Parking at the BTC for drivers Bike racks at the BTC (2) BTC staff should be more knowledgeable of BARTA routes and policies ______Final Report Page 141
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BTC Should open earlier (before 9AM) for tickets and pass sales
Other Zone fares are difficult to administer and police proper fare payment (2) Passes should be easier to buy Buses need to be cleaner, both inside and out (6) Route 16’s head sign should say “Broadcasting Square” not “Berkshire Mall” Bus stop signs need to be improved/installed The public information needs to be improved Sunday service would require more administrative and driving staff Saturday service should be rotated between drivers There should be more safety training for drivers Extra-board is difficult assignment since driver needs to know all routes
______Final Report Page 142
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
ROUTE DIAGNOSTICS ANALYSIS
The focus of this chapter is to delineate the characteristics of the BARTA bus routes utilizing several analytical techniques. With these approaches, each bus route is treated as an individual operating entity. The performance characteristics of each bus route are compared to the other bus routes as well as the overall system averages. The route level analysis is quantitative and focuses on financial and productivity measures. The examination also ranks the bus routes, thus reflecting the competitive nature of allocating limited transit resources. The analysis was performed for a one year period ending June 30, 2010 (i.e., Fiscal Year 2010).
Analysis Overview
An initial decision regarding the analysis was the time period for which data would be assembled, manipulated, analyzed and results reported. It was felt that the analysis should be based on recent conditions at current service levels. Accordingly, data were gathered for the last fiscal year since it is a useful and recent benchmark to assess performance by individual bus route. Utilizing this information, the results presented in this report are for the last complete fiscal year and cover all 21 regular bus routes. While the bus system provides other service (i.e., shuttle), it is a specialized services and not part of this analysis.
Data Assembly
The route level analysis requires considerable information on operating, financial and patronage statistics. Five statistics were input to the process and included revenue hours, revenue miles, peak vehicles assigned, farebox revenue and passenger boardings. Detailed information is readily available or can be obtained by route since BARTA compiles considerable information. These data are recorded on a daily basis which are then aggregated by month, quarter and year. Moreover, the current exercise may suggest new areas or procedures for data gathering. The five data items are presented in a summary fashion in the Legacy Reports and National Transit Database (NTD) which BARTA is required to provide PennDOT and the federal government. Some manipulation was required to establish a route level data base for the recent one year period. Presented below is a brief description of each data item.
Revenue Hours - Information on revenue hours by individual route is routinely reported monthly as part of the productivity reporting system. These data were accumulated for the 12 months comprising the analysis period. The resulting annual values by route were summed and then adjusted to assure that system revenue hours were compatible with the system annual revenue hours reported in the Legacy Reports.
______Final Report Page 143
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Revenue Miles - While total system revenue miles are recorded based on hubometer readings and deadhead movements, no information is available at the route level. To remedy this situation, individual bus trips information (i.e., round trip distance and cycle time) was used to compute daily estimates (i.e., weekday and Saturday) of revenue hours and revenue miles. Based on the number of service days in a year, annual estimates were prepared and speeds were determined for each bus route. By multiplying the revenue hours by speed, revenue miles were computed. Similar to revenue hours, adjustments were made to ensure that the system total matched the value reported in the Legacy Report.
Peak Vehicles - As the name implies, this statistic reflects the maximum number of buses in service during a typical day. It is derived from the number of vehicles operated during the peak service period on weekdays. The route level data for peak vehicles was computed based on the cycle time and headways and a review of trippers from schedule information (i.e., run guides).
Passengers - Registering fareboxes record passenger boardings as part of the routine monitoring of the bus system. Part of the drivers’ normal responsibilities is to press the appropriate buttons on the registering farebox which indicates the type of fare and identifies specific bus trips by route. Farebox data by route for the 12-month period month were summarized. As noted previously, BARTA routinely compiles ridership data at the route level to measure productivity.
Revenue - As noted above, drivers record ridership by fare category which includes cash and prepaid media. Each fare category represents an average fare which is then used to compute revenue generated by each route for that fare category. The revenue for all fare categories is summed to estimate the revenue by route. One point to note is that no revenue (subsidy) was assigned to senior citizen or MATP riders, although they are computed in the ridership estimates.
The five data items were compiled for each route and represent a recent one year period that is representative of current BARTA bus operations. Since it was generated from BARTA’s existing data sources and matched with the Legacy Report values for the system, it provides a reasonable basis to assess the performance of individual bus routes.
Diagnostic Techniques
The discussion above provides an overview of the necessary data assembly and manipulation. Five procedures were utilized to assess current route performance and provide different perspectives of gauging route level efficiency and effectiveness, as summarized below:
Cost Centers - This technique establishes the revenue, cost and resulting deficit of ______Final Report Page 144
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
each bus route. Emphasis is placed on farebox recovery, which is the percentage of operating costs that is covered from fares. A major element of this effort is the development of a financial model that relates operating costs to service levels. In the current analysis, a three-variable cost model was utilized in which the cost of a bus route was related to revenue hours, revenue miles and peak vehicles.
Contribution Analysis - This procedure also places emphasis on the financial results of each bus route. The deficit is examined in terms of both relative amounts (i.e., farebox recovery) and absolute amounts (i.e., each route’s contribution to the system deficit). This method allows each route to be assigned to one of four categories which reflect the route’s performance in each measure and whether it is better or worse than the system average.
Strategic Planning - This analysis procedure gauges route performance for two criteria. The first measure is deficit per passenger, which indicates the extent of route subsidy for each boarding passenger. The second factor is the market share of each route, which has been defined as the ratio of each route’s passengers to the average for the system. Values greater than one denote routes with relatively large market shares, while values lower than one indicate routes with relatively small market shares.
Ordinal Ranking - This bus route evaluation procedure numerically ranks all bus routes from best to worst for five performance indices. Two measures relate to productivity while another three present deficit relative to operating and passenger statistics. In turn, these results are combined for each group of criteria to arrive at a combined score and overall rank.
Supply and Demand Review - The concluding analytical technique is a review of the relative balance between each route’s supply of service and the resulting performance. The number of weekly bus trips operated is compared to the passengers per hour and farebox recovery. There should be a directly proportional relationship in that routes with better performance have more service while routes that have low performance operate less service.
The discussion above provides a brief summary of each technique that was utilized in the current analysis. As noted previously, the results are for a recent one year period that are consistent with the current route structure and service levels. Several points are worth noting at the outset. First, the techniques are diagnostic in that they indicate the need for more detailed analysis (e.g., a review of the ride check data) to remedy deficiencies and exploit opportunities. Second, they examine route level performance from a variety of perspectives to assure a comprehensive review of efficiency and effectiveness. Finally, the diagnostics review is only one input to the service development process, since issues such as need and equity must also be ______Final Report Page 145
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
considered. Nonetheless, the current analysis provides a timely input to the preparation of service proposals.
Cost Centers
The primary objective of the cost centers analysis approach is that bus system operating, patronage, revenue and cost statistics can be disaggregated by individual route. Utilizing these statistics, deficit and various measures (e.g., farebox recovery) can be computed. With the exception of cost, all necessary data items were obtained directly from BARTA’s records and the calculations noted previously.
On the other hand, route-by-route costs are more difficult to ascertain. Transit expenditures are recorded by expense accounts that “track” costs for the entire public transportation system. Since, BARTA directly operates both fixed route and demand responsive services, all costs are assigned to each mode with only the bus costs used in the current analysis. BARTA utilizes the Legacy Reports cost structure in which costs are recorded by function (e.g., transportation and maintenance) and object (e.g., wages/salaries and materials).
To convert systemwide expenses to individual routes, a two-step process is required. First, a cost allocation model is quantified based on operating and financial experience. This results in a three-variable formula that relates the cost of providing bus service to revenue hours, revenue miles and peak vehicles. Second, each operating statistic for each bus route is multiplied by the appropriate unit cost to determine route operating costs.
Cost Allocation Model - The basic concept underlying the cost allocation model is that each operating expense is influenced or driven by one or more operating statistics or resource levels. Consideration of the nature of various operating expenses identified three major resources that “drive” each particular expense item. These resources are: (1) revenue hours; (2) revenue miles; and (3) peak vehicles. The “three-variable” model is preferred over a more complex formula including numerous other variables since it is easier to develop and apply while still maintaining a high degree of accuracy. Also, the three-variable model is superior to a single unit cost factor since it provides more accurate results and is sensitive to the different characteristics of each route. This is a more accurate approach since BARTA bus lines have operating speeds and vehicle utilization which vary by route.
The model proposed for analyzing the bus system is termed a fully allocated cost formula. The method receives its name since all costs for bus service are included in the model’s development. No distinction is made between fixed and variable expenditures. This is consistent with the objective of the analysis, which is to compare financial performance by route. Most costs allocated to peak vehicles are typically fixed expenses which do not vary by the amount of service provided.
______Final Report Page 146
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The fully allocated formula for the bus system could be readily converted to variable costs by eliminating those expenses allocated to peak vehicles. In turn, this would then result in a cost model with only two resource levels - revenue hours and revenue miles. This formula can be used to estimate the incremental costs of service changes.
Model Calibration - The primary source of data for the cost allocation model was the Legacy Report submission to PennDOT for FY2009-2010 for the year ended June 30, 2010. The cost formula is calibrated by performing the following three tasks:
Assign each individual expense in the system financial statement to one of the three selected resources that influence costs.
Sum the costs assigned to each resource to obtain the overall cost allocated to the resource.
Divide the overall resource cost by the quantity of the resource used by the system. These calculations produce the unit cost of each resource, which are the coefficients of the cost model.
The allocation of each expense item is made on the basis of judgment, although the relationship between the expense item and variable is typically quite evident. It should be noted that some statistical analyses have been performed on the data from other transit systems that confirm the allocation process. This cost allocation process also reflects the prevailing practice within the industry where it is applied.
For example, operators’ wages are allocated to revenue hours since bus operators are hourly employees. The operating expense of their fringe benefits was also assigned to revenue hours. Some costs, such as mechanics’ compensation, fuel and replacement parts are a direct function of revenue miles operated. In addition, vehicle insurance costs are a function of accident exposure in terms of miles of service. Many of the expense accounts do not vary as a function of either revenue hours or revenue miles. For example, the cost resulting from providing an operating base and vehicle storage is determined by the number of peak vehicles in service. Also, administrative expenses vary based on the bus system scale as measured by the number of vehicles required to operate the bus system. The results of this allocation process for the BARTA bus system are presented in Table 38.
______Final Report Page 147
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 37 - Fully Allocated Cost Model Operating Unit Variable Amount Statistic Cost Revenue Hours $4,901,760 127,990 $38.30 Revenue Miles $1,880,360 1,484,340 $1.27 Peak Vehicles $1,985,710 44 $45,129.77 Total $8,767,830 --
About 56% of all bus system expenses were assigned to revenue hours. This is logical since drivers’ wages and fringe benefits account for a substantial portion of bus system costs. About three of every four dollars is attributable to all employee wages and fringe benefits which clearly underscores the labor intensive nature of public transportation. Revenue miles account for about 22% of all of the bus system expenses, with peak vehicles assigned about 23% of all costs. The three-variable analysis for BARTA results in the following cost allocation formula:
C = (38.30 * H) + (1.27 * M) + (45,129.77 * V) where: C = Cost H = Revenue Hours M = Revenue Miles V = Peak Vehicles
The calibrated three-variable cost formula differs substantially from the traditional transit industry yardstick for measuring cost. This traditional approach is to compute a simple cost per hour or mile statistic. For the fiscal year, average unit costs for BARTA was approximately $68.50 per revenue hour or $5.91 per revenue mile for a single variable cost model. In a similar manner, BARTA has an overall unit cost of nearly $200,000 per peak vehicle.
The deficiency of this approach can best be illustrated by two routes that each operate one hour and one route operates 10 miles while the other route has a higher speed and travel 15 miles. With the single hourly unit cost, both routes would have the same cost. With the single mileage unit cost, the faster route would have one and a half times the cost. The results with either single unit costs are not logical. Accordingly a model that incorporates more than a single variable is more accurate and logical. The use of both revenue hours and revenue miles permits the cost allocation model to be sensitive to operating speed. Similarly, the cost model should include peak vehicles since the hours per peak vehicle (i.e., vehicle utilization) vary by BARTA route. As shown in Figure 34, there is a range of operating speeds on BARTA bus routes which would suggest the need for the three-variable approach.
______Final Report Page 148
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 34 - Distribution of Operating Speed
Figure 1 Distribution Of Operating Speed
40 100
Percent 80 Cumulative 30 Percent
60
20 Percent of Routes of Percent Cumulative Percent Cumulative 40
10
20
0 0 Under 8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-20 20-25 Over 25
Operating Speed (Miles per Hour)
Route Financial Performance - The previous sections described the data collection procedures for establishing a database of route information and the calibration of a three-variable cost model. The next step was to apply the cost model to the route level operating statistics to establish the cost of each bus route. ______Final Report Page 149
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The results of the cost centers analysis by individual route are presented in Table 39, which indicates the revenue, cost and necessary subsidy for the one year analysis period. The first method utilized to rate bus routes and to categorize their financial performance is to examine their farebox recovery. Overall, the regular routes achieve a farebox recovery of 27.71%, which implies a subsidy of about $2.61 for each dollar paid in fares.
As with many of the analyses presented here there is a wide disparity between the individual BARTA bus lines. Route 1: Temple via Fifth as the highest farebox recovery of 58.11% while Route 21: Morgantown has the lowest with a farebox recovery of only 3.30%. Six routes exceed the system average, with 21 routes below the average. One concluding point is that the comparison of individual route performance relative to the system average is a common feature of the diagnostic techniques, although the criteria and measures differ.
Table 40 - Financial Results by Route Percent Farebox Better than Recovery Average Route Cost Revenue Deficit (%) Rank (Worse) 1 - Temple via 5th Street $695,940 $404,440 $291,500 58.11 1 109.72 2 - Fairgrounds Square Market $22,160 $5,050 $17,110 22.79 11 (17.76) 3 - Temple via Kutztown Road $422,820 $83,480 $339,340 19.74 15 (28.75) 4 - 10th / 11th Streets $538,640 $279,590 $259,050 51.91 2 87.32 5 - Albright College $304,100 $83,070 $221,030 27.32 7 (1.42) 6 - Crosstown $120,870 $28,190 $92,680 23.32 10 (15.83) 7 - Pennside $368,120 $73,730 $294,390 20.03 14 (27.72) 8 - Reiffton/Shelbourne Square $309,700 $69,620 $240,080 22.48 12 (18.88) 9 - Grill via Kenhorst $267,160 $37,370 $229,790 13.99 17 (49.52) 10 - Brookline $309,990 $126,520 $183,470 40.81 3 47.29 11 - Mohnton via Shillington $432,380 $84,980 $347,400 19.65 16 (29.07) 12 - Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital $435,080 $47,650 $387,430 10.95 18 (60.48) 14 - Wernersville via Sinking Springs $948,270 $210,190 $738,080 22.17 13 (20.01) 15 - Berkshire Mall $492,810 $190,180 $302,630 38.59 5 39.26 16 - Broadcasting Square $911,830 $245,400 $666,430 26.91 8 (2.88) 17 - Glenside $364,990 $107,580 $257,410 29.47 6 6.37 18 - Schuykill Avenue $426,050 $164,690 $261,360 38.66 4 39.50 19 - Riverside/Cotton Street $469,930 $120,890 $349,040 25.73 9 (7.16) 20 - RT. 61 /Hamburg $485,090 $49,800 $435,290 10.27 19 (62.95) 21 - Morgantown $107,720 $3,560 $104,160 3.30 21 (88.07) 22 - East Penn Manufacturing $334,210 $13,640 $320,570 4.08 20 (85.27) Total $8,767,860 $2,429,620 $6,338,240 27.71 -- --
______Final Report Page 150
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Contribution Analysis
The next method utilized to rate the system’s bus routes and to categorize their financial performance is to examine both their farebox recovery rates and deficit amounts in combination. As can be seen in Figure 35, the system deficit grows larger as each bus route’s operating cost and revenue are accounted for. By considering the bus routes in descending order of farebox recovery, the system’s operating cost continues to increase but aggregate revenue begins to “flatten out”, thus contributing to a mounting deficit. Each bus route was rated relative to the system average. For example, as shown in Table 39, the farebox recovery rates of the 21 bus routes were indicated as being either “better” or “worse” than the system average.
In a similar manner, the 21 bus routes were rated with respect to their contribution to the deficit. For ease of presentation, the deficit amounts have been calculated relative to each route contributing 1/21st of the deficit. On average, each bus route should contribute about 4.76% of the system deficit, or about $301,821. For example, Route 14: Wernersville via Sinking Spring had a deficit of $730,080 which is 2.45 times greater than the average. However, whether a route actually contributes more or less to the cumulative deficit is reflected in Table 40. The 21 bus routes have been rated relative to their deficit contribution and farebox recovery.
______Final Report Page 151
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 35 - Cumulative Effect of Farebox Recovery on Deficit
Figure 2 Cumulative Effect Of Farebox Recovery On Deficit
10 60
Operating Cost Revenue
Farebox Recovery 50 8
40
6
30 Millions Amount (Dollars) Amount 4 Farebox Recovery (Percent) Recovery Farebox
20
2 10
0 0
1 10 15 5 19 2 14 3 9 20 21 4 18 17 16 6 8 7 11 12 22
Routes in Descending Order of Farebox Recovery
______Final Report Page 152
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 41 - Farebox Recovery and Contribution to Deficit Farebox Recovery (%) Contribution To Deficit Route Value Rating Value Rating Category 1 - Temple via 5th Street 58.11 Better 0.97 Better 1 2 - Fairgrounds Square Market 22.79 Worse 0.06 Better 2 3 - Temple via Kutztown Road 19.74 Worse 1.12 Worse 4 4 - 10th / 11th Streets 51.91 Better 0.86 Better 1 5 - Albright College 27.32 Worse 0.73 Better 2 6 - Crosstown 23.32 Worse 0.31 Better 2 7 - Pennside 20.03 Worse 0.98 Better 2 8 - Reiffton/Shelbourne Square 22.48 Worse 0.80 Better 2 9 - Grill via Kenhorst 13.99 Worse 0.76 Better 2 10 - Brookline 40.81 Better 0.61 Better 1 11 - Mohnton via Shillington 19.65 Worse 1.15 Worse 4 12 - Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital 10.95 Worse 1.28 Worse 4 14 - Wernersville via Sinking Springs 22.17 Worse 2.45 Worse 4 15 - Berkshire Mall 38.59 Better 1.00 Worse 3 16 - Broadcasting Square 26.91 Worse 2.21 Worse 4 17 - Glenside 29.47 Better 0.85 Better 1 18 - Schuykill Avenue 38.66 Better 0.87 Better 1 19 - Riverside/Cotton Street 25.73 Worse 1.16 Worse 4 20 - RT. 61 /Hamburg 10.27 Worse 1.44 Worse 4 21 - Morgantown 3.30 Worse 0.35 Better 2 22 - East Penn Manufacturing 4.08 Worse 1.06 Worse 4 Total 27.71 -- 21.00 -- --
By utilizing this two-way stratification, four route categories were determined as follows:
Stratification System Farebox Contribution Recovery To Deficit Category Better Better 1 Worse Better 2 Better Worse 3 Worse Worse 4
Placed in the first category are those bus routes that have a superior rating in terms of both relative and absolute measures of deficit. Five BARTA bus routes fall in this category which includes Route 1: Temple via 5th Street, Route 4: 10th/11th Streets, Route 10: Brookline, Route 17: Glenside and Route 18: Schuykill Avenue. These routes typically score well using the other diagnostic techniques. On the other hand, eight bus lines fall in the fourth category which attained poor ratings for both measures. For these bus routes, consideration should be given to changes which can more closely balance the supply and demand characteristics of the service.
______Final Report Page 153
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The other two categories reflect mixed results. For example, Category 2 routes have relatively low farebox recovery values, but only contribute a modest amount to the deficit. This would suggest limited service for these seven routes. The results for the third category are reversed from those for the second group. While the farebox recovery is favorable, the deficit contribution is relatively high, with only one bus lines (i.e., Route 15: Berkshire Mall) falling in this category, although its rating with a few dollars less in deficit would be rated in Category 1. These routes exhibit superior performance on a rate basis, but are larger routes which contribute significantly to the system deficit in comparison to the other bus routes. The results, as graphically depicted in Figure 36, would seem to suggest a wide disparity in performance for both financial measures and the need to examine financial performance in terms of both rate (i.e., farebox recovery) and aggregate (i.e., contribution) measures.
Strategic Planning
This diagnostic tool examines each route on the basis of its deficit per passenger and each route’s share of the system ridership. This is a transit adaptation of strategic planning in the private sector. As noted above, one criterion used in the analysis is route deficit on a per passenger basis. The importance of this statistic is that it represents the subsidy provided each boarding passenger. It reflects the level of service and the resulting costs as well as patronage and the present fare structure.
Similar to the previous analysis, routes have been classified for two performance criteria (i.e., deficit and ridership levels) relative to the system average. The former uses deficit per passenger relative to the systemwide average deficit per passenger. This ratio indicates how well a route is performing in comparison to other routes. For example, Route 12: Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital has a deficit per passenger of $6.85 while the system average was $2.18, or a ratio of 3.14. Routes with ratios less than one have a low deficit per passenger rating, while routes with values in excess of one have a higher deficit per passenger rating (Table 41).
To define a relative measure of ridership, market share has been used. It represents the ratio of each route’s ridership to the average route ridership for the system. A value greater than one indicate high relative ridership while values less than one denote low ridership. Ridership levels vary between routes and would suggest the use of this measure to assess route performance. It would suggest that portions of the bus system reflect the desire to provide service where the demand alone would not warrant these levels of service. This analytical technique attempts to classify routes in terms of ridership levels and the subsidy attributed to each patron. As shown in Table 41, all routes have been rated relative to deficit per passenger and market share. Based on this two-way stratification system, four route categories were determined as follows:
______Final Report Page 154
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Stratification System Deficit Per Market Passenger Share Category High High 1 Low High 2 High Low 3 Low Low 4
______Final Report Page 155
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 36 - Relationship Between Farebox Recovery and Contribution to Deficit
Figure 3 Relationship Between Farebox Recovery And Contribution To Deficit
60.0 1
4 50.0
10 40.0 18 15
30.0 17
5 16 19
6 2 8
Farebox Recovery (Percent) Recovery Farebox 14
20.0 7 311
9
12 10.0 20
22 21
0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Contribution To Deficit
______Final Report Page 156
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 40 - Deficit per Passenger and Market Share Deficit Per Passenger Market Share Route Value Rating Value Rating Category 1 - Temple via 5th Street $0.62 0.28 471,780 3.41 2 2 - Fairgrounds Square Market $1.88 0.86 9,110 0.07 4 3 - Temple via Kutztown Road $3.20 1.47 105,970 0.77 3 4 - 10th / 11th Streets $0.81 0.37 319,250 2.31 2 5 - Albright College $2.33 1.07 94,900 0.69 3 6 - Crosstown $3.39 1.55 27,380 0.20 3 7 - Pennside $3.29 1.50 89,600 0.65 3 8 - Reiffton / Shelbourne Square $2.23 1.02 107,520 0.78 3 9 - Grill via Kenhorst $4.50 2.06 51,090 0.37 3 10 - Brookline $1.35 0.62 135,880 0.98 4 11 - Mohnton via Shillington $3.37 1.54 102,940 0.75 3 12 - Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital $6.85 3.14 56,540 0.41 3 14 - Wernersville via Sinking Springs $2.80 1.28 263,760 1.91 1 15 - Berkshire Mall $1.32 0.60 229,340 1.66 2 16 - Broadcasting Square $2.44 1.12 273,080 1.98 1 17 - Glenside $1.97 0.90 130,530 0.94 4 18 - Schuykill Avenue $1.32 0.60 197,740 1.43 2 19 - Riverside/ Cotton Street $2.43 1.11 143,710 1.04 2 20 - RT. 61 / Hamburg $6.24 2.86 69,750 0.50 3 21 - Morgantown $22.48 10.29 4,630 0.03 3 22 - East Penn Manufacturing $19.20 8.79 16,700 0.12 3 Total $2.18 1.00 2,901,200 21.00 --
Category 1 bus routes are those which have high relative ridership levels and yet incur a large deficit for each passenger carried which is not a desirable situation. Only two bus lines (i.e., Route 14: Wernersville via Sinking Springs and Route 16: Broadcasting Square). Category 4 bus routes have low deficit per passenger and low market share and therefore do not place as significant financial burden on the transit system. Only three BARTA bus routes (i.e., Route 2: Fairgrounds Square Market, Route 10: Brookline and Route 17: Glenside) fall in this category.
A preferred situation is Category 2, where route ridership is high, but the deficit per passenger is low. Five BARTA bus lines fall into this category. The third category exhibits high deficit per passenger, but the level of service and number of passengers is low. These different performance levels offset one another. This situation may not necessarily place a significant financial burden on the transit system. Eleven or nearly half of all bus routes exhibit the third category results.
The route classification is graphically depicted in Figure 37. As with the other classification system, the two-way stratification provides a framework for gauging performance. The results show a desirable inverse relationship between market share and deficit per passenger. Service is concentrated on those routes where deficit per passenger is relatively low.
______Final Report Page 157
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 37 - Relationship Between Deficit per Passenger and Market Share
Figure 4 Relationship Between Deficit Per Passenger And Market Share
25.0
21
20.0 22
15.0
10.0 Derficit Per Passenger ($) Passenger Per Derficit
12 20
5.0 9
6 7 113 14 19 16 5 8 2 17 10 18 15 4 1 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Market Share
Ordinal Ranking
Another type of evaluation procedure is termed ordinal ranking since all 21 bus routes are ranked from best to worst for several performance indices. In turn, these results are combined to ______Final Report Page 158
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
provide an overall assessment of route performance. The application of this route evaluation technique consists of three sequential steps. The first is the selection of measures or criteria to gauge each bus route’s performance. In the current analysis, these indices have been grouped into two broad categories to assess productivity and deficit.
In all cases, the criteria are specified as rates in that they compare ridership and deficit relative to various operating statistics. This definition of each evaluation yardstick permits routes with different service levels and requirements to be readily compared. As with other evaluation measures, these results are informative and useful inputs to the planning process.
The next step in the route diagnostic process is to rank the routes from best to worst performance for each of the five evaluation criteria. In the case of the productivity (passenger) measures, higher route values indicate favorable performance, with these routes assigned low rankings. The route with the highest productivity value and exhibiting the best performance would be assigned a rank of one.
Conversely, routes that exhibit relatively low productivity results would denote deficient performance. For example, the route with the lowest productivity value would exhibit the worst performance and therefore would be ranked 21St. In a similar fashion, each of the routes comprising the bus system was ranked for deficit measures. One difference is that for these measures, low values indicate better relative performance and high values denote relatively poor performance.
The concluding step in the ordinal ranking process is to combine results for the individual criteria into aggregate ratings for productivity and deficit requirements. For the two productivity measures, the ranks for each route were summed to determine a score. In turn, this score was used to establish an overall ranking for each route for both productivity measures. Similarly, scores and ranks were computed for the three deficit indices.
Productivity Results - Three distinct measures were specified which relate the ability of each route to attract patrons relative to the resources necessary to provide bus service. Consistent with factors that influence costs, productivity measures utilized were passengers per revenue hour, revenue mile and peak vehicle (Table 42).
Both measures were calculated and each bus route was ranked. The table illustrates the range of results, which vary substantially by route. Table 42 also illustrates how the rankings were then combined to generate an overall score, which itself was ranked. In terms of passenger productivity, the most productive route appears to be Route 4: 10th / 11th Street with Route 21: Morgantown and Route 22: East Penn Manufacturing tied for last place. The results show a consistent pattern in route level productivity regardless of the performance measure.
______Final Report Page 159
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 41 - Passenger Productivity Score and Rank Per Revenue Hour Per Revenue Mile Combined Route Value Rank Value Rank Score Rank 1 - Temple via 5th Street 41.91 1 3.42 3 4 2 2 - Fairgrounds Square Market 20.15 11 2.38 7 18 10 3 - Temple via Kutztown Road 19.36 13 1.72 12 25 11* 4 - 10th / 11th Streets 33.87 2 4.63 1 3 1 5 - Albright College 22.20 8 2.40 6 14 6* 6 - Crosstown 19.40 12 1.60 14 26 13* 7 - Pennside 16.37 16 1.66 13 29 15 8 - Reiffton / Shelbourne Square 25.93 5 2.25 10 15 8 9 - Grill via Kenhorst 11.76 17 1.16 17 34 17 10 - Brookline 27.06 4 2.37 8 12 5 11 - Mohnton via Shillington 18.81 15 1.49 15 30 16 12 - Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital 9.69 19 0.94 18 37 18* 14 - Wernersville via Sinking Springs 21.05 10 1.38 16 26 13* 15 - Berkshire Mall 27.46 3 3.51 2 5 3 16 - Broadcasting Square 19.09 14 1.88 11 25 11* 17 - Glenside 24.50 7 2.34 9 16 9 18 - Schuykill Avenue 25.38 6 3.03 4 10 4 19 - Riverside / Cotton Street 21.16 9 2.44 5 14 6* 20 - RT. 61 / Hamburg 11.45 18 0.55 19 37 18* 21 - Morgantown 5.04 21 0.21 20 41 20* 22 - East Penn Manufacturing 5.06 20 0.18 21 41 20* Total 22.67 -- 1.95 ------* Denotes tie.
Deficit Results - In a similar fashion, three subsidy measures were specified (Table 43). The first two record the deficit - or amount of tax subsidy - by operating statistic in which performance is related to revenue hour and revenue mile. The third criterion is the ratio of subsidy (or deficit) per passenger. It should be recognized that the subsidy per passenger not only relates to route performance but also measures the equity in distributing funds to support the bus system. Consistent with the previous analyses, each route is ranked relative to each other and the results summed to attain a score which is subsequently the basis for an overall deficit ranking.
As shown in the accompanying table, and similar to the results exhibited for productivity, route performance varies substantially. Typically, routes receive similar results for many deficit measures; although some differences are noted.
______Final Report Page 160
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 42 - Deficit Score and Rank Per Revenue Hour Per Revenue Mile Per Passenger Combined Route Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Score Rank 1 - Temple via 5th Street $25.89 1 $2.12 1 $0.62 1 3 1 2 - Fairgrounds Square Market $37.85 6 $4.47 8 $1.88 6 20 6 3 - Temple via Kutztown Road $62.00 15 $5.52 18 $3.20 13 46 18 4 - 10th / 11th Streets $27.48 2 $3.76 5 $0.81 2 9 2 5 - Albright College $51.70 10 $5.59 19 $2.33 9 38 11 6 - Crosstown $65.68 17 $5.41 16 $3.39 16 49 19 7 - Pennside $53.79 12 $5.46 17 $3.29 14 43 14* 8 - Reiffton / Shelbourne Square $57.91 13 $5.01 13 $2.23 8 34 10 9 - Grill via Kenhorst $52.89 11 $5.23 15 $4.50 17 43 14* 10 - Brookline $36.54 5 $3.20 2 $1.35 5 12 3 11 - Mohnton via Shillington $63.48 16 $5.04 14 $3.37 15 45 17 12 - Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital $66.39 18 $6.44 21 $6.85 19 58 21 14 - Wernersville via Sinking Springs $58.91 14 $3.85 6 $2.80 12 32 9 15 - Berkshire Mall $36.24 4 $4.63 11 $1.32 3 18 5 16 - Broadcasting Square $46.60 7 $4.60 9 $2.44 11 27 8 17 - Glenside $48.32 8 $4.61 10 $1.97 7 25 7 18 - Schuykill Avenue $33.55 3 $4.01 7 $1.32 4 14 4 19 - Riverside / Cotton Street $51.40 9 $5.94 20 $2.43 10 39 12 20 - RT. 61 / Hamburg $71.45 19 $3.41 3 $6.24 18 40 13 21 - Morgantown $113.22 21 $4.82 12 $22.48 21 54 20 22 - East Penn Manufacturing $97.08 20 $3.46 4 $19.20 20 44 16 Total $49.52 -- $4.27 -- $2.18 ------* Denotes tie.
Supply and Demand Review
The concluding analytical technique is a review of the relative balance between the bus service provided on each route relative to its performance for certain key measures. The analysis compares the number of weekly bus trips to two performance measures - passengers per revenue hour and farebox recovery. A ratio is computed which is merely the quotient of weekly trips and either productivity or farebox recovery. This ratio or rating is shown in Table 44 for both measures. In addition, each route was assigned to one of three categories depending on the system average. Routes with ratios less than two-thirds of the system average are rated low while routes that are one-third greater than the average are rated high. Routes with ratios that are within one-third of the system average are rated medium.
______Final Report Page 161
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 43 - Service Supply Characteristics Passengers Per Hour Farebox Recovery Route Ratio Rating Ratio Rating 1 - Temple via 5th Street 4.82 Medium 3.48 Low 2 - Fairgrounds Square Market 0.40 Low 0.35 Low 3 - Temple via Kutztown Road 5.01 Medium 4.91 Medium 4 - 10th / 11th Streets 7.50 High 4.89 Medium 5 - Albright College 4.55 Low 3.70 Low 6 - Crosstown 1.29 Low 1.07 Low 7 - Pennside 5.92 Medium 4.84 Medium 8 - Reiffton / Shelbourne Square 3.12 Low 3.60 Low 9 - Grill via Kenhorst 6.55 Medium 5.50 Medium 10 - Brookline 6.21 Medium 4.12 Medium 11 - Mohnton via Shillington 5.16 Medium 4.94 Medium 12 - Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital 7.12 High 6.30 High 14 - Wernersville via Sinking Springs 7.50 High 7.13 High 15 - Berkshire Mall 5.39 Medium 3.84 Low 16 - Broadcasting Square 9.64 High 6.84 High 17 - Glenside 3.63 Low 3.02 Low 18 - Schuykill Avenue 8.39 High 5.51 Medium 19 - Riverside / Cotton Street 6.43 Medium 5.29 Medium 20 - RT. 61 / Hamburg 4.72 Medium 5.26 Medium 21 - Morgantown 1.99 Low 3.03 Low 22 - East Penn Manufacturing 5.93 Medium 7.35 High
As shown in Figure 38, the weekly trips are reviewed in relation to passenger productivity in a graphical fashion. The most desirable pattern would be weekly trips directly proportional to passengers per hour. In essence, bus routes with high passengers per hour should have a relatively high number of weekly trips. Conversely, low passengers per hour should result in fewer numbers of weekly trips.
The routes exhibit a somewhat linear pattern, which indicates a relationship between the supply of service and the passenger productivity. Moreover, a regression analysis was performed which quantitatively established to some extent a directly proportional relationship between bus system supply and demand. This suggests that system supply and demand characteristics are balanced to a considerable extent. It is recognized that service levels are established not only in response to demand, but also with consideration of policy levels which indicate the need for service in numerous neighborhoods.
In a similar manner, the relationship between weekly trips and farebox recovery were plotted (Figure 39). This exhibit also confirms the relative balance between transit supply and demand. The regression analysis indicates that there was also a linear relationship for farebox recovery similar to that observed for productivity.
______Final Report Page 162
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 38 - Service Supply Characteristics (Passengers per Hour)
Figure 5 Ser vice Supply Characteristics -- Passengers Per Hour
4 250
18
200 1
16
10
14
150 15
19 Weekly Bus Trips 5 100 7 113 17 8 9 12
20 50
22 6
21 2 0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Passengers Per Hour
______Final Report Page 163
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 39 - Service Supply Characteristics (Farebox Recovery)
Figure 6 Service Supply Characteristics -- Farebox Recovery
4 250
18
200 1
16
10
14
150 15
19 Weekly Bus Trips 100 5 3117 17 8 9 12
20 50
22 6
21 2 0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Farebox Recovery (Percent)
______Final Report Page 164
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
SERVICE GUIDELINES AND ADEQUACY
An important step in the formulation of improvement proposals is to establish a set of transit service and performance guidelines which can then be used to assess the adequacy of the existing BARTA fixed route services. This chapter presents the BARTA service and performance guidelines, as well as the evaluation of the BARTA transit routes with respect to these guidelines. The guidelines have been used as minimum criteria in assessing present fixed route services. The term “guidelines” is used since they are not absolutes that should be adhered to, but rather considerations that should shape service decisions.
In the current analysis, several factors were considered in developing the service and performance guidelines and included:
Suitability to the characteristics of the BARTA service territory and requirements; Consideration of the cost implications of each guideline; Ease of use in that the parameters defined in each guideline permit a straightforward evaluation of actual performance and set forth clear criteria for evaluating service alternatives; Recognition of the tradeoffs between the various guidelines; Prior guidelines developed as part of the last Transit Development Plan; Prevailing practice in the transit industry; and Guidelines that can be applied at both the route and system level.
Several points should be made with respect to the development and subsequent application of the service guidelines. First, reasonable judgment must be utilized in applying the service guidelines to assess the current BARTA network. While the guidelines are quantitative for the most part, unusual situations may arise, which warrant special consideration. Further, issues related to public policy and funding cannot always be addressed fully by numerical guidelines. Second, the service guidelines may conflict with one another since some yardsticks relate to the benefits to be derived from transit service, while others relate to their costs. Nonetheless, the guidelines permit the tradeoffs to be delineated and an informed decision made to resolve differences. Third, the comparison of actual performance with the guidelines should not be made on a “pass-fail” basis. Instead, results should be viewed in terms of the proportion of time the guideline is met or the level of attainment. Finally, the guidelines have been set at reasonable values that can be achieved or that can serve as useful targets.
The proposed set of service and performance guidelines area appropriate for public transportation services in the BARTA service area and are divided into four primary categories - service availability, service design, service quality, fiscal condition of the individual routes and
______Final Report Page 165
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
of the fixed route system as a whole. For many of the guidelines, separate guidelines have been proposed for the different route types in recognition of the different service areas and their markets. A description of each of the individual guidelines within the four broad categories is presented in the following sections, along with the adequacy of the current bus system. The latter is in italics printing to distinguish it from the proposed guideline.
Service Availability
This service guidelines category deals with all aspects of the placement of bus routes and the accessibility of the service. This broad category includes four different guidelines: service coverage, bus stop spacing, service span and service frequency.
Service Coverage - A transit operator inevitably receives many requests for service from citizens who are not within walking distance of any route, or who desire that buses operatie in their neighborhoods and serve different destinations. Since transit resources are limited, it is unlikely that everyone will be accommodated to the same degree. Therefore, it is necessary to determine how to allocate the available resources to provide the best possible service in a cost effective manner.
In developing coverage measures to gauge services, this guideline has been divided into two separate components that reflect travel concentrations, trip purpose and the need for public transportation service. Coverage guidelines are developed for the residential trip end that produces travel and for the destinations that attract passengers. A description of each of these two is presented below:
Production End - Determination of which residential neighborhoods should be candidates for service is a function of reasonable walking distance. Numerous studies have indicated that the maximum distance an average person can reside from a bus route and still be considered to “have service” is approximately 1/4 mile, which is roughly equivalent to a five-minute walk. However, the five minute walk is a “rule of thumb” and must be applied in conjunction with data regarding automobile ownership and the population density of an area in order to determine optimum spacing of bus routes. Table 45 provides the suggested route availability guidelines for BARTA.
______Final Report Page 166
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 44 - Route Spacing Guide Percent of Population Density Households without an 4,500 and 2,500 1,000 Under automobile Above to 4,499 to 2,499 1,000 1/4 Mile 1/4 Mile 3/8 Mile 1/2 Mile Over 20.0 (1,300 Feet) (1,300 Feet) (2,000 Feet) (2,600 Feet) 1/4 Mile 3/8 Mile 1/2 Mile 1 Mile 10.0 to 20.0 (1,300 Feet) (2,000 Feet) (2,600 Feet) (5,280 Feet) 3/8 Mile 1/2 Mile 1 Mile 5.0 to 9.9 (2,000 Feet) (2,600 Feet) (5,280 Feet) *** 1/2 Mile 1 Mile Under 5.0 (2,600 Feet) (5,280 Feet) *** ***
As seen in the table, these guidelines are based on the automobile ownership rates and population density of an area. The former criterion reflects the need for public transportation service, while the latter measures the concentration of development necessary to support reasonable utilization levels. The suggested guideline would mandate 1/4 mile walking distance between home and the closest bus route in high density and low automobile ownership areas. In contrast, for those areas where residential density is relatively low and auto ownership is relatively high, walking distance to a bus route can be as much as a mile and still meet the guideline. In areas that do not exhibit characteristics associated with need or propensity to use transit, the guideline calls for service as needed. Patrons in such areas must rely on other means to reach the bus system.
The route coverage guide and its applications is just that, a guide. It is not an exact measurement. In some areas, the street pattern is not uniform or major generators are further apart than the guide indicates. BARTA bus service may not and should probably not conform to the guide in all areas. Further, local policy makers may decide that it would be of benefit to extend services to residents of additional areas for various reasons, such as quality of life or access to employment opportunities. However, service should meet the intent of the guide which recognizes that more densely populated areas - especially those with low rates of automobile ownership - need more transit service than those areas that are sparsely populated.
Another element of the standard relates to the extension of service to outlying areas. Some portions of Berks County may be several miles from the outer terminal of an existing route. For this reason, the length of an extension must be related to the population of the area that the extension would serve. For planning purposes, an extension to a community with 9,000 persons would justify an increased cycle time of one hour. This would result in likely productivity values consistent with the current bus system. For communities closer to the existing route network, the added cycle time would be proportion to the population (e.g., 30 minute extension serving 4,500 persons). ______Final Report Page 167
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
It should be noted that this concept should be considered when examining extensions to non residential land uses.
Attraction End - Activity centers deserve transit service if they are large enough to attract an adequate number of transit trips. To assist in this determination, threshold levels have been established for different categories of activity centers. These threshold levels, which are based on past experience and judgment, should serve as guidelines in determining which centers in each category should be given consideration for service. It should also be noted that other factors, such as the proximity of the center to existing bus routes, should be considered before providing new service to a major activity center. The following generators should be considered for service:
Major Employers - Employers with 300 or more employees at one location are large enough to warrant consideration for service. This guideline applies to both individual employers and groups of employers in a concentrated area (e.g., an industrial or office park);
Shopping Centers - Shopping trips constitute a major reason for transit travel. Shopping centers with more than 100,000 square feet of leased retail space are large enough to warrant consideration for public transportation service. Mixed-use retail and office complexes can also be included within this category;
K-12 Schools - School students often comprise a major segment of the transportation dependent population in a community because they don’t drive. In many areas, high school students have access to school buses to travel between home and school. To the extent possible, service should be available to take students to and from school; however, tripper service designed specifically for students is not suggested since it violates federal transit regulations.
Colleges and Universities - Post secondary schools are good locations to provide service since students are often left to their own devices to arrange for their own transportation. Additionally, colleges and universities often represent major employment sites. Institutions with an enrollment of at least 1,000 full-time students warrant consideration for service;
Hospitals/Nursing Homes - In many instances, transit is the most reliable way for elderly and low income residents of an area to access local medical offices and facilities. Also, hospitals and nursing homes often employ many individuals in the entry level staff positions. Therefore, medical facilities with 150 beds or more should be candidates for transit service; and
______Final Report Page 168
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Social Service/Government Centers - Public agencies, government centers and community facilities attract many different groups of people. While the nature and size of these facilities varies greatly, it can be generally stated that those serving at least 100 clients daily warrant public transit service.
The categories of generators listed above represent the destinations end of the transit trip. Combined with the availability guidelines for the residential trip end (production), they provide a comprehensive view of service requirements for the BARTA system. It should be noted that application of the availability guideline will provide a major input to subsequent service planning activities.
Figure 40 shows how BARTA’s current routes spacing relates to the suggested guidelines for the production end of service coverage. The illustration presents the suggested route spacing based on auto ownership and residential density. The exhibit also shows the alignment of BARTA bus routes and a buffer that detail the four walking distances (i.e., 1/4 mile, 3/8 mile, 1/2 mile and 1 mile) from these routes. With the exception of the Boroughs of Kutztown and Boyertown, all of the area’s that require service within 1/4 mile, 3/8 mile and 1/2 mile have service either as suggested in the guideline or exceeding the guideline. The guideline suggests that the Borough of Boyertown should have service within 1/4 mile, while the Borough o Kutztown should have service within 3/8 mile. However, the increased cycle time would exceed that allowed for communities of their population size. Additionally, there are portions of the Townships of Lower Heidelberg, Cumru, Muhlenberg and Maxatawny, and the Borough of Topton that should receive service within a mile, but are not afforded such service.
While there are clearly some areas that should be considered for additional service, the guideline is not an absolute threshold for where service should be. There are other factors that weigh into deciding where a route should and should not operate beyond automobile ownership and population density. BARTA does provide adequate service coverage in the areas in and around the City of Reading and throughout Berks County. Further evaluation of the current routes could determine that one or several routes should be revised to serve these areas.
______Final Report Page 169
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 40 - Service Coverage (Production End)
Figure 41 illustrates how close the BARTA routes are to the major generators within the City of Reading and throughout Berks County. A majority of the generators have bus service within 1/2 mile of their location. Attraction generators, such as Albright College, the Vanity Fair Outlets, the Berkshire Mall and Reading Hospital are all served by a BARTA route.
______Final Report Page 170
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 41 - Service Coverage (Attraction End)
The BARTA bus system attains favorable results in terms of the system coverage guideline. BARTA provides good coverage from the standpoint of the production end of transit demand. Most areas of Berks County are afforded bus service that is appropriate based on the demographic and socioeconomic conditions of the area. In terms of the attraction end of demand, BARTA provides bus service to most of the major generators in the county. While some of the generators are not within walking distance from a BARTA route, BARTA must balance transit resources with the intent of the guideline, which is to meet travel desires at both the production and attraction ends of passenger trips.
Bus Stop Spacing - While route alignments are the primary determinants of transit availability, a second influence on the proximity of transit service is the bus stop spacing along those routes. The bus stop spacing guideline must consider the density of the service area and the characteristics of the land uses served. In downtown Reading or other densely developed areas, bus stops should be placed every block or about nine to ten per mile. In other urban areas, ______Final Report Page 171
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
bus stops could be placed every block or every other block or approximately seven to eight per mile, depending on development patterns and street geometry. In suburban and outlying areas, bus stops should be more spread out, with four to six stops per mile, and should be located at major generators and cross streets. In more rural areas, two to three stops per mile would sufficiently meet the needs of persons seeking public transportation. These values are consistent with the information presented in the Transit Cooperative Research Program report Guidelines for the Location of Design of Bus Stops, regarding typical bus stop spacing. A summary of the suggested guideline for BARTA is shown in Table 46.
Table 45 - Bus Stop Spacing Guide Service Area Stops Per Mile CBD 9 to 10 Urban 7 to 8 Suburban 4 to 6 Rural 2 to 3
For the sake of simplicity in terms of compliance and analysis, the guideline has provided recommended bus stop spacing based on broad development categories. The guide, however, should not be considered absolute. There may be areas of municipalities designated as suburban or rural which are characterized by higher densities than the communities designated as urban. In these instances, the transit systems should locate additional stops in that area to address need.
The exact placement of a bus stop in the area of signalized intersections is also a matter of concern. Some transit agencies prefer a “near-side” bus stop, where the bus stop is located just prior to an intersection. Other transit agencies prefer a “far-side” bus stop, which is located just after an intersection. In some cases, a “mid-block” bus stop is utilized. Site specific traffic and street conditions should ultimately determine bus stop locations, and the exact placement of a bus stop should always be a matter for individual traffic engineering analysis. Overall, the intent of this aspect of the bus stop placement guideline is that a consistent policy should be pursued with respect to location.
There are a number of streets where there are no bus stop signs which would indicate the need for improvement in this area. The current practice is not in accordance with the suggested guideline. BARTA is moving forward with a formal bus stop signage program which should remedy this situation. Bus stop signs have been ordered and awaiting installation. It is recommended that BARTA adopt a policy regarding the placement of bus stops in terms of “near-side,” “far-side” or “mid-block.” Many existing bus stops were placed where the bus could easily and safely pull over. A uniform program regarding bus stop signage and their placement is recommended.
______Final Report Page 172
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Service Provision - The two previous sections identified the residential areas and destinations where BARTA service should be made available and provides certain guidelines for the design of the bus routes. This section prescribes guidelines for the hours during which these routes should operate and how often they should be operated. To implement consistent and appropriate levels of service throughout BARTA’s service area, bus routes should be organized around a defined service provision system which classifies all routes within a service type and prescribes schedule attributes (i.e., service span and frequency of service) for each service type. This section describes a service provision system which will be used to analyze the adequacy of existing BARTA services. The route classifications, span of service and service frequency are presented below.
Bus Route Classification - Under the proposed service provision system, each BARTA route is assigned to a route category in the bus route classification system presented in Table 47. The three classification types are urban, suburban and rural as described in the table. Urban would refer to route that serve areas in and around downtown Reading. Suburban refers to the routes that operate from downtown Reading and into the surrounding communities throughout Berks County. Rural routes operate in outlying portions of Berks County.
Table 46 - Bus Route Classification Guide Service Type Description Routes operating primarily within the City of Reading, Urban although they may extend into neighboring communities. Routes that operate between the City of Reading and its Suburban neighboring communities with most of the service area in the suburbs. Routes that operate between the City of Reading and outlying Rural portion of Berks County.
The guideline above provides a reasonable way to distinguish the nature of the BARTA bus routes; however, some routes fall in more than a single category. Table 48 details the category for each route which can then be the basis for assessing other guidelines.
______Final Report Page 173
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 47 - BARTA Route Classifications Route Service Type 1 - Temple via 5th Street Urban 2 - Fairgrounds Square Market Urban 3 - Temple via Kutztown Road Urban 4 - 10th/11th Streets Urban 5 - Albright College Urban 6 - Crosstown Suburban 7 - Pennside Suburban 8 - Reiffton/Shelbourne Square Suburban 9 - Grill via Kenhorst Suburban 10 - Brookline Urban 11 - Mohnton via Shillington Suburban 12 - Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital Suburban 14- Wernersville via Sinking Springs Suburban/Rural 15 - Berkshire Mall Suburban 16 - Broadcasting Square Suburban 17 - Glenside Urban/Suburban 18 - Schuykill Avenue Urban/Suburban 19 - Riverside/Cotton Street Urban 20 - RT. 61 /Hamburg Rural 21 - Morgantown Rural 22 - East Penn Manufacturing Rural
Span of Service - This measure is the duration of time each bus route is operated during the day (i.e., the hours during which service is provided). Desires of the transit constituency and financial capability of the operator are the key considerations in setting service spans. Bus services that are oriented to commuter travel should provide service that begins early enough to permit workers and students to make their morning start times and should end late enough to provide for their return trip home. Service oriented to non-work or school travel can start later and end sooner. Table 49 outlines the suggested span of service for the BARTA bus routes.
Table 48 - Span Guide Period Urban Suburban Rural Weekday 6:00 AM - 8:00 PM 6:00 AM - 6:00 PM Peak Period Saturday 8:00AM - 8:00PM 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM -- Sunday As Needed -- --
These guidelines reflect the minimum span of service which should be operated; individual services may operate longer, on additional days, or in additional areas than the suggested span of service guidelines if market considerations (e.g., access to jobs, ______Final Report Page 174
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
needs of college students, specific demand, etc.) or the wishes of local officials warrant that they do so.
Frequency of Service - This guideline is one of the most commonly applied measures of transit adequacy, particularly from the patron’s point of view. Consequently, it is one service characteristic that is typically the source of patron dissatisfaction. In general, frequencies, or headways (i.e., the time from one bus to the next at the same location), are established to provide enough vehicles past the maximum load point (or points) on a bus route to accommodate the passenger volume and stay within the recommended loading guidelines, which are discussed later. If passenger loads are so light that lengthy time is needed between vehicles before loading guidelines are exceeded, then headways should be set on the basis of policy considerations. For periods when policy considerations govern, Table 50 lists the headways that are suggested for BARTA urban, suburban and rural routes.
Table 49 - Frequency Guide Period Weekday Saturday Sunday Urban 30 60 As Needed Suburban 60 90 -- Rural 90 -- --
The suggested weekday frequency of service guideline for the urban routes is every 30 minutes, the suburban routes should operate with 60 minute frequency, while the rural routes should operate at a minimum of 90 minutes and possibly individual bus trips designed to serve a particular generator. Additionally, the guidelines permit turnback service where the headway could differ between the urban and suburban portions of the bus route.
Again it should be noted that the suggested guidelines reflect the minimum frequency of service that should be operated. The guideline does not preclude more frequency service if warranted. Also, consideration should be given to user friendly, clock-face headways (e.g., buses depart on the hour). Similar to the span of service guideline, service may be offered at a higher frequency, on additional days, or in additional areas than the suggested guideline if market considerations or policies of elected officials.
Most of the routes follow the suggested guidelines for span of service. The guideline suggests that the urban routes operate between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays, between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturday and as needed on Sunday. Route 2 does not meet the guideline because it offers a few midday trips on Friday’s only. Route 3 begins its weekday and Saturday service day within the suggested guideline; however, service does not extend to the
______Final Report Page 175
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
suggested weekday and Saturday end time. Route 5 is similar to Route3; however, only for the weekday period. Route 5’s Saturday service does fall within the suggested guideline.
The suburban routes are suggested to operate between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday. There is no requirement for Sunday service on the suburban routes. Of the ten suburban routes, only Route 6 does not match the suggested guideline. Service begins at an acceptable time, but the route stops its weekday service prior to the suggested guideline. Additionally, Route 6 does not offer Saturday service.
Rural service is suggested to operate only on weekdays, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Three of the four rural routes meet this suggestion, with Route 21 being the only service to not meet the guideline. The route begins prior to the guideline, but it ends earlier than suggested; however, these times are consistent with work schedules of the businesses served.
Only three routes do not meet or exceed the suggested guideline for frequency of service. Route 2, which is an urban route and is suggested to operate with 30 minute frequency on weekdays, only operates on Fridays and offers a few midday trips with 60 minute frequency. Suburban Route 6 meets the guideline for frequency of service on weekdays; however, Saturday service is not offered. Suburban routes should offer 90 minute service on Saturday. Finally, Route 21 does not meet the suggested guideline for weekday rural service, which calls for 90 minute frequencies. This route only operates two round trips per weekday. Differences with the span and frequency criteria are to be expected since other consideration, such as productivity, influences the amount of service provided. Overall, the BARTA bus network is in compliance with the intent of both the span and frequency guidelines.
Service Design
Directness - This guideline addresses the need for system coordination, coherence and accessibility. Complicated circuitous routes and inordinately long trip travel times discourage transit use. It must be recognized that BARTA cannot provide door-to-door bus service or even a single ride trip (i.e., a trip with no transfers) for every passenger. Two components are involved in measuring the directness of current and future fixed routes:
Directness Ratio - The ratio of the actual route path distance to the straight-line mileage between route terminals should be no more than 1.40 for the routes that operate in urban areas (Table 51). That is, the distance from one terminal to the other should be no more than 40% greater than the straight (i.e., air line) distance between the two terminals. This allows for deviation caused by both road alignment and route circulation. Routes with ratios that exceed 1.40 should be subjected to examination for cause, and modified if practical. For those BARTA routes that operate to the suburban locations, the directness ratio should not exceed 1.50, while rural routes should not exceed 1.55. ______Final Report Page 176
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 50 - Directness Guide Route / Straight Route Type Line Distance Urban 1.40 Suburban 1.50 Rural 1.55
As mentioned previously, service guidelines permit tradeoffs regarding service attributes. For example, if a particular route exhibits a directness ratio of 2.00, perhaps the route is being used to serve too many places. In order to straighten out the alignment, deletion of service to certain locations may be necessary. If those locations should continue to be served, development of a new route or a realignment of another existing route should be options for consideration. The tradeoff appears when weighing the costs of the new route or route alignments versus the expected ridership gain from offering a more direct and swift route.
Transfer Rate - The second component of the directness guideline states that no more than 25% of the system’s patrons should need to transfer between vehicles in order to complete their trips. The intent of this guideline is that, when possible, common origin-destination pairs should be served by a direct service and passengers should not be required to transfer. Also, when transfer connections are necessary, the connections should be scheduled to minimize waiting times. Passengers should be required to wait no longer than 15 minutes and preferably ten minutes or less.
Speed - Buses face certain unavoidable constraints that all vehicles on public streets experience. For this reason the speed of transit vehicles, in the absence of any preferential treatments, will not exceed the speed of traffic in general. Passenger boarding and alighting volumes, route alignments, stop spacing, layover policies and fare collection methods are factors under the operator's control which influence operating speed.
While there are several measures of speed which may be employed in the evaluation of this criterion, the most meaningful to the patron is running speed, which is route miles divided by the running time (excluding layover). As might be expected, traffic and safety conditions will influence running speed. Appropriate running speeds for BARTA routes are categorized by service type (Table 52).
Table 51 - Speed Guide Route Type Speed (MPH) Urban 8-12 Suburban 10-14 Rural 16-22 ______Final Report Page 177
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
This group of service guidelines addresses the structure or design of the bus routes used to serve and connect various locations. The guidelines for service design relate to the directness of the bus route in terms of how the vehicle operates, how simple it is for passengers to get from their origin to their destination, and how difficult it is to understand a route’s operating pattern.
The guideline for the directness ratio suggests that all urban routes should be no more than 1.40 times the straight line distance between terminal points. Suburban routes are suggested to have a directness ratio of 1.50 or less, and rural routes are suggested to have a directness ratio of 1.55 or less. Some allowances have to be made in areas where suitable roadways or topographical restrictions require BARTA to operate a less direct alignment. With that in mind, the directness by route is displayed in Table 53.
There are several routes that do not meet the suggested guideline for route directness. One urban route did not meet the guideline, Route 10, which achieved a directness ratio of 1.65, exceeding the suggested guideline of 1.40. The other routes that did not meet the guideline were all suburban routes: 6, 7, 9, and 16. Route 6 achieved a directness ratio of 1.70. Route 7’s directness ratio is 1.62. Route 9 has a directness ratio of 1.63 and Route 16’s directness ratio is 1.73. All four of these routes exceed the suggested directness ratio for suburban routes of 1.50, although the difference is within about ten percent. The rural routes all fell within the suggested guideline for directness.
Based on preliminary results from the recently conducted rider survey, about 20% of all patrons ride more than one bus to complete their journey. These initial findings indicate that BARTA complies with the transfer guideline.
______Final Report Page 178
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 52 - Route Directness Route Straight Line Route Distance Distance Route Variation Type (Miles) (Miles) Ratio 1 Urban 13.3 11.1 1.20 2 Urban 9.2 7.4 1.24 3 Urban 12.1 11.1 1.09 4 Urban 5.1 4.4 1.16 5 Urban 7.2 5.4 1.33 6 Suburban 14.1 8.3 1.70 7 Suburban 9.9 6.1 1.62 8 Suburban 21.2 16.3 1.30 9 Suburban 10.1 6.2 1.63 10 Urban 6.1 3.7 1.65 11 Suburban 11.8 9.5 1.24 12 Suburban 13.6 10.1 1.35 Wernersville Suburban 22 18.7 1.18 14 State Hospital Womelsdorf Rural 32.3 28.2 1.15 15 Suburban 7.8 6.3 1.24 16 Suburban 14.5 8.4 1.73 St. Joseph's Urban 9.7 8.2 1.18 17 Medical Center Berks Heim Suburban 16.2 11.8 1.37 Windor & Urban 4.0 3.0 1.33 Schuylkill 18 St. Joseph's Suburban 9.7 8.1 1.20 Medical Center 19 Urban 8.8 6.4 1.38 20 Rural 38.9 32.0 1.22 21 Rural 39.7 27.2 1.46 22 Rural 31.6 25.6 1.23
To promote the convenience of the transit system, BARTA should maintain an average operating speed of at least 8-12 miles per hour for the urban routes, 10-14 miles per hour for the suburban routes, and 16-22 miles per hour on the rural routes. Table 54 provides the round trip miles and hours for each of the BARTA bus routes and the calculated speed based on the current schedule.
______Final Report Page 179
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 53 - Route Speed Round Trip Round Trip Route Distance Time Speed Route Variation Type (Miles) (Minutes) (MPH) 1 Urban 13.3 60 13.3 2 Urban 9.2 60 9.2 3 Urban 12.1 60 12.1 4 Urban 5.1 40 7.7 5 Urban 7.2 45 9.6 6 Suburban 14.1 60 14.1
7 Suburban 9.9 60 9.9 8 Suburban 21.2 120 10.6 9 Suburban 10.1 60 10.1 10 Urban 6.1 30 12.2 11 Suburban 11.8 60 11.8 12 Suburban 13.6 90 9.1 Wernersville Suburban 22 60 22.0 14 State Hospital Womelsdorf Rural 32.3 120 16.2 15 Suburban 7.8 60 7.8 16 Suburban 14.5 90 9.7 St. Joseph's Medical Urban 9.7 60 9.7 17 Center Berks Heim Suburban 16.2 87 11.2 Windor & Urban 4.0 30 8.0 Schuylkill 18 St. Joseph's Medical Suburban 9.7 60 9.7 Center 19 Urban 8.8 60 8.8 20 Rural 38.9 115 20.3 21 Rural 39.7 95 25.1 22 Rural 31.6 110 17.2
Of the urban routes, four of the nine routes and route variations failed to meet the suggested guideline for speed, including Routes 1, 3, 4 and 10. However, Routes 3, 4 and 10 just narrowly missed the cut off for the urban routes speed guideline. Three of the eleven suburban routes and route variations did not meet the guideline, including Routes 6, the Wernersville State Hospital variation on Route 14 and Route 15. Finally only Route 21 of the rural routes failed to meet the guideline. One point that should be kept in mind is that BARTA’s timetable does not show layover at each terminal, although drivers are allowed a few minutes for each bus trip.
______Final Report Page 180
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
For this reason, the results presented above may be worse than is the actual running speed experienced by the rider.
Complexity - This service guideline concerns the complexity of the route structure in terms of route variations, that is, the number of branches off of the main route. A route structure, which is too complex or has several variations for each bus route, is confusing to existing riders and serve as a deterrent to attract new riders. The stop patterns on a route should remain the same throughout the service day with little or no variation. The suggested guideline for BARTA should be to limit route variations to no more than two for each route and preferably no variations. This guideline will reinforce for passengers the impression that the bus service is simple and easy to understand and use.
A review of the BARTA timetables was used to determine the number of route variations for each bus line. No route exceeds the guideline and the BARTA route structure is relatively straightforward and simple to understand and use.
Service Quality
The previous two sections discussed where service should be provided and how those services should be designed. This section addresses the quality and manner in which those services are operated. These guidelines are particularly important because the aspect of BARTA service discussed below greatly affects how the system is perceived by passengers and the general public. This section describes five separate guidelines, including: dependability, vehicles, bus stop signage, shelters and benches, loading and public information.
Dependability - Published timetables must provide the transit patron with a reasonable guarantee that the scheduled service will operate and will operate on time. The dependability of BARTA is important to people who typically plan trips around the availability of bus service. Moreover, riders associate a time penalty with unreliable bus service, which reduces the attractiveness of public transportation. There are three measures proposed to assess the dependability of BARTA service:
Schedule Adherence - The first measure of dependability is schedule adherence, which measures the difference between scheduled time and the time the bus actually passes a particular location. The schedule adherence guideline consists of two parts: the definition of on-time and the proportion of buses that operate within the on-time range. For purposes of assessing dependability, on-time is established as zero minutes early and up to five minutes later than the scheduled arrival time. This guideline allows the bus reasonable latitude for encountering general delays, without unduly inconveniencing waiting patrons. For most passengers, a wait of up to five additional minutes is not regarded as excessive. Buses should never be early, as this would cause patrons to miss the bus entirely, subjecting them to an even longer wait ______Final Report Page 181
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
for the next scheduled bus. Table 55 presents the guideline for on-time performance for the peak and off-peak periods.
Table 54 - On-Time Performance Guide Headway Peak Off-Peak 30 85% 90% 60 90% 95% More than 60 95% 95%
The guideline for schedule adherence is 85, 90 and 95% for services during the peak and off-peak periods, respectively. The guide is established at 95% when service is relatively infrequent. Therefore, either 17 of 20, 18 of 20 peak buses and 19 of 20 off peak bus trips should be on-time according to the guideline. The higher value for bus service during off-peak hours is established since buses are less likely to be delayed because of traffic congestion at these times of the day.
Missed Trips/Pull-Outs - The next group of measures indicate the level of dependability of buses and whether the service is actually operated. Measures of actual versus scheduled service are expressed as the percentage of scheduled trips, percentage of scheduled pull-outs which are actually made and the miles between road calls. The missed trip guideline is established at 99.6%. Therefore, only two in five hundred bus trips can be missed and still meet the guideline. Buses are subject to service disruption because of a variety of factors such as traffic delays due to accidents, bus breakdowns and passenger illnesses.
Since it is easier to recover from service disruptions at a garage than out in the field, an even more stringent guideline of 99.9% is appropriate for missed pull-outs. This permits one pull-out in a thousand to be missed and still meet the guideline. There should be sufficient spare vehicles and extra-board operators that permit the missed trips and pull-out guidelines to be met.
Road Calls - The final measure of dependability is the number of miles operated between service disruption road calls. A general guide for BARTA should be greater than 4,000 to 6,000 miles between road calls for mechanical reasons.
Data accumulated during the ride check survey effort, which took place in the spring of 2011, was analyzed to evaluate the on-time performance of the BARTA system. While every trip was surveyed in terms of the on-time performance, this portion of the analysis only looked at a few select, random routes to determine the on-time performance of the system. Further, the sample examined the system performance at the route terminal and the individual intermediate time points. A more in-depth analysis of the on-time performance will be undertaken as part of the individual route planning process.
______Final Report Page 182
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
In terms of the vehicles running on or close to the published scheduled times, late trips are not a problem. In fact, buses running early are a much larger issue than those that are running late. On Route 1, there are 35 daily outbound and 35 daily inbound trips. Of the 35 outbound trips, 11 trips had at least one instance of the bus leaving a stop early. When looking at the outbound trips, 19 of the 35 trips had at least one instance of the bus leaving early. In fact, the trip leaving Walmart at 11:30 AM was passed by the vehicle leaving Walmart at 11:50 AM. The other randomly looked at routes experienced similar situations. On Routes 5, 14 of 18 outbound trips and all 19 of 19 inbound trips had instances where the bus left a stop early. Route 8 had six of 14 outbound trips and nine of 13 inbound trips were a stop was left early. Route 14 had 14 of 27 outbound trips and 18 of 27 inbound trips with an instance where an intermediate time point was left early. This situation of early departures was noted on both weekdays and Saturdays.
These results would suggest that the running time data from the recently completed ride checks should be the basis for adjusting schedule times. Also, consideration should be given to identifying layover as a separate item rather than incorporating into the running time. For example, the timetables shows that a bus arrives and departs the BTC at the same time when it is known that the driver takes a short break at this and other terminal locations. Finally, once running times are calibrated with the survey results and other BARTA activities, additional driver training should be undertaken to encourage on-time operations.
The guideline for missed trips and missed pull-outs states that 99.8% of all of the trips should be operated, and 99.9% of all pull-outs should be met. Observations of the AM pull-outs as well as discussions with BARTA staff indicate that missed pull-outs and missed trips do not appear to be a problem for BARTA. BARTA has sufficient numbers of extra-board drivers and spare vehicle to insure the integrity of the published timetables.
The road call guideline suggests that there should be between 4,000 and 6,000 miles operated between each road call. In 2010, BARTA operated approximately 1,484,340 revenue miles and had 516 road calls. This results in one road call per 2,877 miles operated, which falls below the suggested guideline for road calls.
Vehicles - To maximize the comfort of the bus rider, BARTA should provide attractive and comfortable vehicles. Guidelines are primarily a matter of cleanliness, condition, accessibility, fleet age, size and signage. These vehicle guidelines are described below:
Cleanliness - The overall interior and exterior of the vehicle should be clean. Exteriors of vehicles should be washed at least every other day and the interiors swept out daily. A detailed interior cleaning, including wiping seats and washing windows, should be performed monthly.
______Final Report Page 183
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Condition - Seats should not be loose or ripped, floor covering should be in good repair, glass should not be broken or cracked, lighting should be operational and the overall interior should be free of graffiti. Any body damage should be scheduled for immediate repair. Of particular importance to the patron in extreme weather is a functioning heating and air conditioning system. Buses should also be attractive for the community in general, with noise, smoke and odor being kept at a minimum through the use of proper equipment and strict maintenance procedures. Also, vehicles should be maintained per the manufacturers’ recommended Preventive Maintenance Inspection program.
Accessibility - Vehicles should be maintained so that the wheelchair lift or ramp is operable and easily used by the driver. Moreover, federal ADA regulations require that this equipment be deployed prior to each bus pull-out from the garage.
Fleet Age - Vehicles should be replaced when they reach their suggested replacement age. Vehicles older than the replacement age tend to be less reliable and more costly to maintain. This suggests that the average age of the fleet should be equal to one half the average economic useful life of the vehicles in the fleet. For example, if all the vehicles in the fleet have a useful life of 12 years, the average fleet age should equal six years. However, it is recognized that bus purchases are periodic and typically not made annually.
Vehicle Size - The size of the vehicle should be consistent with the maximum load volumes and the nature of the roadway network. For example, if a service has a maximum load of 20 riders on one particular trip and five riders on all others, a vehicle designed to accommodate at least 20 riders should be used.
Vehicle Signage - Vehicles should be clearly marked as to which route it is operating. Traditionally, buses have a route destination sign overhead in front and also one on the side. This signage should display route number/name and destination information that is easily understood by existing transit patron and potential new riders.
The suggested guidelines calls for vehicles that are clean, in good condition - both outside and inside - accessible for passengers with disabilities, within their economic life, of proper size in terms of both passenger need and the ability to navigate the topography of Berks County, and to be properly marked so that passengers can easily identify the BARTA vehicles. On-site inspections of the vehicles indicated that while the vehicles are generally kept clean, greater detail could be paid to making sure that all litter is removed from the vehicles during the cleaning process. Additionally, the exterior back of some of the vehicles were not clean during pull-out, which suggests that the vehicles should be run through the bus wash more slowly. All
______Final Report Page 184
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
BARTA vehicles used for the fixed route system are handicap accessible and the equipment operable.
The average age for the BARTA vehicles is approximately five years, which adequately meets the suggested guideline of six years. None of the BARTA vehicles is older than eight years. BARTA employs six different types of vehicles: nine Optima Opus 34LF’s (four from 2003 and five from 2004), three 2003 New Flyer D40LF’s, two 2004 Gillig G20D102N4’s, 30 Gillig BRT35LF’s (17 from 2005, seven from 2007 and six from 2008), four Gillig G27D102N4’s (two from 2008 and two from 2009), and nine Gillig G30D102N4’s (five from 2009 and four from 2010). The vehicles range in size from 34 to 40 feet in length, with all of the newer vehicles (i.e., 2008 and newer) being 40 feet long. Smaller vehicles should be considered for use on some of the routes that do not require large vehicles because of their loads. Some of the rural routes that operate over longer distances and carry fewer passengers could employ smaller vehicles which would better meet the capacity needs of these routes. Large vehicles with few, if any passengers, is a public relations problem for many bus systems.
Finally, the guideline for vehicle signage calls for all of the BARTA vehicles to display the route number/name and destination. One thing that was noticed during the consultants field work is that all of the inbound vehicles (i.e., those heading towards the BTC) only have “BARTA TRANSPORTATION CENTER” listed on each overhead destination sign. While all inbound vehicles do end at the BTC (with the exception of Route 6, which does not serve the BTC, and the through-routed bus line (Route 14), the overhead signs should indicate the route number as well as its destination.
Bus Stop Signs - All bus stops in the system should be identified by a bus stop sign bearing the BARTA logo, telephone information number, website address and route numbers of buses that stop at that location.
As noted previously with the bus stop spacing review, BARTA does not comply with the bus stop placement guideline and few stops have any signs. Current plans are underway to install bus stop signs at all locations. The new bus stop signs will provide the necessary information with the exception of route number. Consideration should be given to applying decals on the signs which indicate the route numbers of buses that utilize that stop.
______Final Report Page 185
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Bus Shelters and Benches - A major concern of transit riders is the amount of time spent on the street exposed to the elements. Bus shelters should be installed where daily passenger boardings exceed 15 passengers. Typically, BARTA should not expend resources to install shelters at bus stops with fewer than 30 boardings per day. All park-ride locations would also be candidate sites for bus shelter also. Table 56 provides a guide for the bus shelter priority that should be assigned to each bus stop. This will allow BARTA to prioritize necessary locations since resources are limited. The priorities listed below are a function of the number of boardings and service frequency (headway) at the bus stop. It is recognized that municipalities have control over shelters in some areas and that shelters provided by advertising companies may have different considerations. Nonetheless, the guideline presented here provides a means to prioritize the shelter program.
Table 55 - Bus Shelter Priority Guide Headway in Minutes Daily Boardings 60 Over 60 Over 50 1st 1st 41-50 1st 2nd 30-40 2nd 3rd
Bus shelters should display bus service information similar to that called for bus stop sign including route numbers, system map and schedules for those routes which serve that bus stop.
Benches are another amenity that should be provided to riders. A priority scheme based on daily boardings should be used to determine which bus stops should be furnished with a bench (Table 57). Table 56 - Bench Priority Guide Daily Boardings Priority Over 25 1st 15-25 2nd
Overall, the most heavily utilized bus stop in the BARTA system was the BTC, which is served by all of the routes except Route 6. A sample of the ride check data was examined for this report, with a more depth critique taking place during the capital planning effort. Other high use stops include those along Penn Street, stops at big box retailers, such as Walmart, and other shopping centers, such as the Fairgrounds Mall. Other than these locations, a limited number of bus stops reach the threshold for installation of a bus shelter or a bench.
Loading - To ensure that most of the passengers will be able to obtain a seat on a BARTA vehicle for at least a major portion of their trip, loading guidelines must be established and schedules devised that reflect passenger volumes. This guideline is measured as the ratio of passengers on board to the seated bus capacity expressed as a percentage. Values of 100% or less indicate all riders are provided a seated ride while values of more than 100% denote
______Final Report Page 186
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
standees. Loading guidelines indicate the degree of crowding (number of standees) which is acceptable, with consideration given to both the type of service and the operating period.
The recommended loading guideline requires that a seat is available for every rider's entire trip during off-peak periods (i.e., 100%) and a load factor of 125% during peak periods. Standees can be permitted during peak periods, provided that no one is compelled to remain standing for longer than ten minutes.
A review of the ride check data indicates that overcrowding is not a problem. Moreover, on some routes the concern is regarding underutilization.
Public Information - BARTA should continue to maintain a public information program which not only provides information to those who requesting it, but aggressively educates the public about the system and how to use it.
Route timetables and system map should be available which describe each service. The timetables and system map should include a map of the routes, times and days service is operated, telephone information number, website address, fare information and a description on how to use the service. The system map and individual route timetables should be available. These materials should be available at no cost and be prominently displayed on all vehicles and at major activity centers.
A telephone information service should be made available during all service hours. A complaint handling and processing procedure should also be in place. It should include the mechanism to take action to assure that the complaint is satisfactorily resolved.
BARTA should also maintain a website that is regularly updated with service changes and other transit related notices. The website should be linked from other City of Reading and Berks County area services, such as the web sites for the City, the Chamber of Commerce, and Albright College, just to name a few.
Finally, a description of services provided should be described in local media outlets, such as local telephone books. This guideline just addresses the minimum effort that should be made to educate the community about the area’s public transportation system BARTA could choose to undertake a more ambitious public awareness campaigns.
The guidelines state that BARTA should make available a route timetable and/or a system map that accurately and simply describes the fixed route services. While BARTA does produce and distribute a ride guide that contains all of the bus routes, schedules, maps and other general information, there are no individual time tables for each route. The ride guide is not easy to carry around and pull out for simple use. No guideline was used to set up how the schedule is displayed, as sometimes Saturday service is provided on the same page, while other times it is ______Final Report Page 187
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
displayed on a separate page. Additionally, the maps - while good at detailing the roads utilized by the route - flip the north direction from one map to the next, which can become confusing. The route should be a single map that uses arrows to indicate route direction. One map should show both the inbound and outbound alignment rather than each on a separate map.
The ride guide is informative for telling passengers how to use the system, the fares are clearly displayed and information is also provided in Spanish, so it does serve an important purpose. However, individual route timetables should also be explored to help simplify each passengers search for the bus information that they require.
While a system map does exist, it can only be found on the BARTA’s website. This map should be printed and distributed through the BTC and other stop locations.
BARTA maintains a telephone information service for passengers and potential passengers to use to gain information or to lodge complaints or compliments. Any complaints or compliments are recorded and passed along to the appropriate administrative manager to follow up.
BARTA does own and maintain its own webpage, which appears to be somewhat outdated in terms of design and ease of use, but does provide good information for the general public to access. The ride guide has been reproduced in PDFPDF files for downloading the route schedules, and a system map is also available. Contact information is provided, along with information on the Park and Ride lots, and BARTA’s special services, along with various other BARTA and transit related information.
Overall, the current public information available from BARTA meets most of the suggested guidelines, but there could be improvements in a few areas. The use of individual time tables should be further explored and the ride guide simplified. The system map, which is available on the website, should be printed and available for distribution. The website could also be simplified in order to maximize the user’s experience. Further, BARTA should install a trip planner to help both existing and potential riders.
Fiscal Condition
The financial situation of BARTA can be defined, both for the system and individual routes, in terms of three service guidelines: fare structure, farebox recovery and productivity.
Fare Structure - A transit fare structure should be easy to understand, easy to remember and easy to administer. There is a tradeoff, however, between simplicity and equity. For example, a zone structure charges people more equitably by having those who ride farther pay more, but the zones add another dimension to the fare structure. On the other hand, a flat fare is simple to understand and administer, but those who ride short distances pay just as much as long ______Final Report Page 188
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
distance travelers. Another facet of fares to consider is special fares for certain ridership groups, such as senior citizens or the disabled.
Fare structure is a subjective element for which no quantitative guideline is established for BARTA. Rather, judgment and/or local policy must be used to establish or change the fare structure. Several qualitative criteria should guide that process:
Equity - The first component of this measure is to establish a base fare. Equity implies that those taking longer trips should pay more than those taking short ones. Equity also means that there should be discounts for certain rider groups, such as senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Some type of multi-rider discount fare media should also be made available.
Administrative Ease - The necessary resources associated with collecting and processing the fare should not be burdensome.
Patron Comprehension - First time users of the service should be able to readily and easily understand what they should pay for their ride.
Revenue Generation - The fare structure should be able to encourage new ridership.
Fiscal Integrity - The fare structure should provide a reasonable level of revenue.
Social Policy - The fare structure should reflect broader societal needs.
As part of the current analysis, a separate fare review will be undertaken. For this reason, this document lists criteria which will be examined in detail later in the study.
Farebox Recovery - An objective of BARTA is to provide City of Reading and Berks County residents with attractive service within a reasonable budget constraint. To achieve this, the farebox recovery (i.e., the ratio of patron fares to operating costs expressed as a percent) guideline should be different for the three type of service which BARTA offers. Each route should be examined individually to determine if any bus line is placing an inordinate financial burden on the entire system. Routes should be periodically compared to system-wide averages as was performed as part of the route diagnostics analysis, which is presented previously in this report.
To assure that operating deficits are consistent with available funding levels, three farebox recovery levels have been suggested (Table 58). The first value is the suggested farebox recovery rate for the urban type routes, with the suggested farebox recovery rate set at 25%. The
______Final Report Page 189
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
suburban routes are suggested to have a farebox recovery rate of 18% while the rural routes should attain a recovery rate of 7%.
Table 57 - Farebox Recovery Guide Farebox Route Type Recovery (%) Urban 25 Suburban 18 Rural 7
The farebox recovery values by route were calculated through the route diagnostic analysis for FY09-10. These values are presented in Table 59. It is important to note that the revenue used in this analysis is derived from fixed route passenger fares only, and does not include senior citizen ridership payments from PennDOT. Another point is that some routes fall into two categories while the farebox recovery values are for the entire bus route.
Of the urban and urban/suburban routes, two did not meet the suggested standard for farebox recovery, Routes 2 (22.79%) and Route 3 (13.99%). There are two suburban routes that did not reach the guideline for farebox recovery, Routes 9 (13.99%) and 12 (10.95%). The one suburban/rural bus line (i.e., Route 14) met the criterion. Finally, two of the three rural routes did not meet the suggested guideline, routes 21 (3.30%) and 22 (4.08%). In accordance with the guidelines, service modifications designed to either reduce costs or increase the farebox revenue on all of the routes that did not meet the suggested guideline should be explored.
______Final Report Page 190
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 58 - Route Farebox Recovery Farebox Route Service Type Recovery (%) 1 Urban 58.11 2 Urban 22.79 3 Urban 19.74 4 Urban 51.91 5 Urban 27.32 6 Suburban 23.32 7 Suburban 20.03 8 Suburban 22.48 9 Suburban 13.99 10 Urban 40.81 11 Suburban 19.65 12 Suburban 10.95 14 Suburban/Rural 22.17 15 Suburban 38.59 16 Suburban 26.91 17 Urban/Suburban 29.47 18 Urban/Suburban 38.66 19 Urban 25.73 20 Rural 10.27 21 Rural 3.30 22 Rural 4.08
Productivity - Passengers per revenue hour is a useful performance measure to supplement the farebox recovery results. Moreover, it is one of the four metrics used by PennDOT as part of its Transit Performance Review. Similar to the farebox recovery ratio, a minimum threshold value is established for productivity. A value of 20 passengers per hour should serve as the productivity attainment target for BARTA’s urban routes (Table 60). The suburban routes, which operate through less dense neighborhoods, should expect to see fewer passengers per hour, which is why the value is set at 16. Finally, the rural routes, which operate in many areas with limited ridership potential should achieve a productivity seven passengers per hour.
Table 59 - Productivity Guide Passengers Route Type Per Hour Urban 20 Suburban 16 Rural 7
Neither farebox recovery, nor the passengers per hour guideline should be immediately applied to a new route or route extension. Any new service takes time to build its ridership base.
______Final Report Page 191
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
In many cases, new services are not fully productive for several months. New services should be monitored closely during the first few weeks of operation. A trial period extending approximately six months should be adequate to help determine whether or not the service change should be made permanent.
As Table 61 indicates, only one of the urban routes failed to meet the suggested guideline for productivity (Route 3 with 9.74 passengers per hour). Route 3’s score just narrowly missed the guideline. Of the suburban routes, two routes did not meet the guideline, Routes 9 (13.99 passengers per hour) and 12 (10.95 passengers per hour). Both urban/suburban routes meet the suggested productivity guideline. Two of the rural routes did not meet the suggested productivity guideline, Routes 21 (3.30 passengers per hour) and 22 (4.08 passengers per hour). Service modifications designed to increase ridership for these routes should be explored.
Table 60 - Route Productivity Passengers Route Service Type Per Hour 1 Urban 58.11 2 Urban 22.79 3 Urban 19.74 4 Urban 51.91 5 Urban 27.32 6 Suburban 23.32 7 Suburban 20.03 8 Suburban 22.48 9 Suburban 13.99 10 Urban 40.81 11 Suburban 19.65 12 Suburban 10.95 14 Suburban/Rural 22.17 15 Suburban 38.59 16 Suburban 26.91 17 Urban/Suburban 29.47 18 Urban/Suburban 38.66 19 Urban 25.73 20 Rural 10.27 21 Rural 3.30 22 Rural 4.08
______Final Report Page 192
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
FARE STRUCTURE REVIEW
While much of the current analysis is focused on the existing route network and levels of service, another important factor influencing ridership is the fare charged customers. This chapter reviews BARTA’s current fare structure in terms of the different ways riders can pay and the amount charged. As part of this review, changes in fare were examined during the past several years. Another element of the fare analysis was an assessment of the BARTA fare structure in terms of a half dozen important criteria. Based on consideration of these aspects of the current review and the previous analysis conducted several years ago, a series of recommendations have been formulated.
Existing Fare Structure
BARTA provides a number of fare media that are available to riders that include cash payments when boarding, passes (daily and 31 day) and 10 Trip Ticket. In addition, different cash fare charges are established for adults, students, and handicapped patrons. Discounts are available for students (with student identification) and the Handicapped. Students receive a $0.50 savings (approximately 29%), while the handicapped receive a 50% savings. Handicapped passengers must have proper identification. Senior citizens and children under the age of five are able to ride BARTA services at all times at no cost. Seniors must register with BARTA and obtain the Pennsylvania Commonwealth ID card. Passengers are assessed a $0.25 zone charge for longer trips with seven routes having a zone boundary. There is a fee of $0.25 for passengers who wish to transfer from one BARTA route to another. Table 62 details BARTA’s current fare structure which became effective January 1, 2011.
______Final Report Page 193
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 61 - Existing Fare Structure Fare Media Amount Single Ride Base Cash Fare $1.70 Student $1.20 Handicapped $0.85 Seniors Free Children (5 and under) Free Transfers $0.25 Zone Fare $0.25 Anywhere One Day Pass Customer Service $3.00 On-Board Bus $4.00 31 Day Pass Adult Anywhere $47.00 Student Anywhere $29.00 Park-N-Ride $31.00 10 Trip Ticket Adult Anywhere $17.30 Student Anywhere $11.00
In addition to the single ride cash fare, BARTA offers several different options for passengers willing to purchase bus passes. BARTA has a One Day Pass that costs either $3.00 or $4.00 depending on where the pass is purchased and can be used continuously throughout one service day. When the One Day Pass is purchased at BARTA’s offices or the BTC, the pass is priced at $3.00. These passes can be purchased in advance and are not activated for the day until used as fare payment when boarding the bus. When the One Day Pass is bought on the bus, the cost is $4.00 which is intended to discourage on-board purchase and reduce boarding times.
Similar to BARTA’s multi-ride fare media, the One Day Pass is more convenient since riders do not have to pay with exact fare. Also, the pass provides a discount to riders who typically make a round trip. For example, an adult rider making a daily round trip to work could pay two adult cash fares of $3.40 or purchase a One Day Pass of $3.00 with a discount of about 12%. For trips requiring a transfer or zone charge, the discount is even greater.
BARTA also offers an Anywhere 31 Day Pass which allows a passenger to travel to any destination within the BARTA system without having to pay a zone fare or transfer fee between routes. This pass is available for adults at $47.00 and for students at $29.00 or at a savings of approximately 38%. The Anywhere 31 Day Pass is activated when first used, rather than a monthly pass which only covers a specific month. The BARTA 31 Day Pass, similar to the One Day Pass, affords a convenience to riders since they aren’t required to have exact change when boarding the bus. Also, the pass provides a substantial discount to riders. For example, a person who uses the bus to commute to and from work would make approximately 42 one-way trips (i.e., 21 work days) in a month. Paying an adult cash fare would result in a monthly bus cost of ______Final Report Page 194
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
$71.40, while the Adult Anywhere One Day Pass would only cost $47.00 or a savings of about 34%. For persons who ride more frequently or make trips requiring a transfer or zone charge, the discount is even greater.
Using this pass would result in an average cost per trip of $1.12, versus the base cash fare of $1.70. Another way to examine the discount is the break-even point which is merely the Adult Anywhere 31 Day Pass cost (i.e., $47.00) divided by the adult cash fare ($1.70). The Adult Anywhere 31 Day Pass has a break-even point of about 28 one-way rides or 14 round trips. Persons making more trips in a month would achieve savings by using the Adult Anywhere 31 Day Pass.
BARTA also offers a 31 Day Pass for students and riders who utilize the Park and Ride service. While they have different charges, they also offer patrons a convenience and discount. At a charge of $29.00, the Student 31 Day pass offers a discount of about 42%, while the Park- N-Ride 31 Day Pass at a price of $31.00 has a more substantial discount of 57%. In terms of a pricing strategy, BARTA has opted to provide a greater discount to these two groups of riders. Further, the low price of the Park-N-Ride 31 Day Pass, in comparison to the Adult Anywhere 31 Day Pass, is attributable to an incentive to encourage choice riders to use the express service. One concluding point is that BARTA previously offered a Base 31 Day Pass which was less costly than the Anywhere 31 Day Pass. The Base 31 Day Pass was eliminated with the most recent round of fare increases on January 1, 2011.
BARTA also has a 10 Trip Ticket for adults for $17.30 and for students for $11.00 which allows an individual the opportunity to take ten trips from one destination to another. Transfers between different routes would have to be paid, as the ten trip ticket counts each trip taken on an individual bus as one trip. Similar to the other multi-ride fare media, the 10 Trip Ticket affords a convenience and discount to BARTA customers.
Revenue and ridership information from farebox readings for the last fiscal year (FY2010-2011) were examined to better understand how the different fare media were used (Table 63). For the first six months of the year, there was a Base category for the 31 Day Pass and 10 Trip Ticket, which was subsequently eliminated with the fare change that was implemented January 1, 2011. Another point to note is that seniors account for approximately one in every six riders, but no fares are paid by these patrons. Instead, PennDOT’s operating funding formula allocates ten percent of its subsidy based on the number of senior citizens carried. In the last fiscal year, BARTA received $3.9 million in state subsidy and an imputed value of $392,530 for senior citizens. This results in an average payment of about $0.87 which is consistent with a system wide average fare of $0.83.
______Final Report Page 195
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 62 - Ridership and Revenue Composition (FY2010-2011) Riders Riders Fare Media Revenue With Seniors Without Seniors Single Ride Base Cash Fare 38.10 20.26 24.53 Student 4.02 2.96 3.59 Handicapped 1.11 1.16 1.41 Seniors -- 15.24 -- Other 2.62 2.17 0.22 Transfers 1.32 4.57 5.53 Zone Fare 1.35 4.65 5.63 Anywhere One Day Pass Customer Service and On-Board 25.62 21.83 26.43 31 Day Pass Adult Base and Anywhere 21.58 23.69 28.68 Student Anywhere 1.88 1.98 2.40 Park-N-Ride 0.23 0.21 0.25 10 Trip Ticket Adult Base and Anywhere 1.95 1.08 1.08 Student Anywhere 0.22 0.20 0.25 Total All Fare Categories 100.00 100.00 100.00
The adult single ride fare accounts for 38.10% of all revenue, but either 20.26% or 24.53% of all riders, depending on whether senior citizens are included in the total, respectively. Somewhat similar results are noted for the student cash fare. The reverse is observed for the pass and ticket fare media since they are discounted. Transfer and zone charges account for a relatively small portion of revenue since the One Day Pass is a less costly option than paying the adult cash fare plus these additional charges.
Another striking feature of how the BARTA fare structure is used by its customers is that more than half of all riders (excluding senior citizens) are attributable to the One Day Pass and Adult Base and Anywhere 31 Day Passes. Use of the student multi-ride fare media is relatively small as reflected in the composition of the revenue and ridership. Also, the Park-N-Ride fare program is not used by many riders. The fare structure has been established not to respond to a large ridership group, but to provide riding incentives and support public policies towards students.
Another issue related to the BARTA fare policy is that some patrons cannot take advantage of multi-ride fare categories because of the initial outlay for the pass or ticket. BARTA responds to this situation by offering three discounted fares - One Day Pass, 10 Trip Ticket and 31 Day Pass. Some riders cannot afford to make a single upfront payment of either $17.30 (Ten Trip Ticket) or $47.00 (31 Day Pass), notwithstanding the discount. By providing a
______Final Report Page 196
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
heavily discounted One Day Pass, many low income riders can still take advantage of a discounted fare.
In some systems, the 10 Trip Ticket and 31 Day Pass fare media are comprised of a weekly and monthly pass. The nice feature of the BARTA fare structure is that the period is not initiated until the passenger boards for the first time. Also, the BARTA approach eliminates the need to print new fare cards for each time period.
Fare History
With the exception of the Base 31 Day Pass and the Base 10 Trip Ticket, which was eliminated in the last fare increase, BARTA has maintained the same fare elements. Also, the number of zones has been reduced, which simplifies the current fare structure. Provisions are made for cash and multi-ride fare media with discounts associated with the latter. Discounts are offered for student and handicapped riders, with senior citizens riding free at all times of the day. The Park-N-Ride 31 Day Pass has been priced to encourage ridership by its low charge. Additional charges are assessed for transfers and persons traversing a zone boundary. The changes to the BARTA fare structure since 2003 are shown in Table 64.
In addition to maintaining the same fare structure, BARTA has opted for a fare policy which calls for regular fare increases to respond to escalating costs. This is in contrast to the policy of other agencies which raise fares infrequently, but when fares change the increase is significant. In view of the response of riders to fare increases, the BARTA approach is a preferred strategy. There is research to support the notion that elasticity values increase significantly when large percentage changes in fares are implemented. Additional funding from local, state, and federal sources can be used to expand transit coverage and service levels, rather than prevent fare increases which are consistent with inflation.
______Final Report Page 197
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 63 - Fare History Fare Media 2003 2005 2007 2011 Single Ride Base Cash Fare $1.35 $1.45 $1.60 $1.70 Student $1.00 $1.05 $1.15 $1.20 Handicapped $0.65 $0.70 $0.80 $0.85 Seniors $0.65 Free Free Free Children (5 and under) Free Free Free Free Transfers $0.30 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 Zone Fare $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 Anywhere One Day Pass Customer Service $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 On-Board Bus $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 31 Day Pass Adult Base $38.00 $39.00 $43.00 Discontinued Adult Anywhere $40.00 $41.00 $45.00 $47.00 Student Anywhere $24.00 $25.00 $27.00 $29.00 Park-N-Ride Pass $25.00 $26.00 $29.00 $31.00 10 Trip Ticket Adult Base $12.15 $13.05 $14.35 Discontinued Adult Anywhere $14.00 $14.40 $16.80 $17.30 Student Anywhere $9.00 $9.00 $10.40 $11.00
BARTA fare increases are consistent with the Consumer Price Index between the period between 2003 and 2011. Another feature of the fare changes are that the percentage change is typically less for the 31 Day Passes and 10 Trip Tickets than the adult base fare. BARTA continues to provide increased incentives for frequent use with greater discounts (Table 65).
For certain fare categories, no increase have occurred during the eight year analysis period. With the exception of 2003, the costs of transfers and zone charges have remained at $0.25. This is an easy amount to pay with a single quarter and may account for both fares category being unchanged. A twenty percent increase would results in an additional five cents which is a relatively minor amount and require use of another coin. Further, the system encourages transfer with coordinated schedule times at the BTC and the fare structure is consistent with the nature of the BARTA service.
______Final Report Page 198
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 64 - Percent Changes in Fares (FY2002-2003 to FY2010-2011) Percent Fare Media Change Consumer Price Index 21.19 Single Ride Base Cash Fare 25.93 Student 20.00 Handicapped 30.77 Seniors 0.00 Children (5 and under) 0.00 Transfers -16.67 Zone Fare 0.00 Anywhere One Day Pass Customer Service 0.00 On-Board Bus 0.00 31 Day Pass Adult Anywhere 17.50 Student Anywhere 20.83 Park-N-Ride Pass 24.00 10 Trip Ticket Adult Anywhere 20.14 Student Anywhere 22.22
One striking feature of the BARTA fare structure during the last eight years is that the charge for the One Day Pass has not increased. In 2003, a rider would have to transfer between buses, incur a zone charge, or make more than one round trip to receive a discount. In 2011 with the base fare at $1.70, the financial incentive for the One Day Pass is substantially greater.
Fare Structure Evaluation
As part of the service standards policy related to fiscal condition of BARTA, six guidelines were specified as a basis for evaluating the current fare structure. These criteria are all subjective and no quantitative measures are specified. Rather, judgment and local policy must be used to establish or change the fare structure. In some cases, there are tradeoffs between the six yardsticks which are as follows:
Equity - This implies that there should be some correlation between the cost of a trip and the fare charged customers. Typically, this implies that person travelling greater distances are charged more. Equity also suggests that there should be discounts for frequent users of the system. The BARTA fare structure does conform to the equity guideline in that discounts are provided to frequent users. Further, some riders are assessed a zone charge for longer trips. The number of zones have been compressed to include two zones which correspond to the base and seven locations on Routes 8 (Reading Mall), 11 (Pennwyn), 14 (Woodside), ______Final Report Page 199
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
17 (Airport), 18 (Airport), 20 (Bellvue) and 22 (Bellvue). While the zone boundaries for each of these routes are not all the same distance to the BTC, they do approximate a concentric ring from downtown.
A case could be made for additional zones, but this would complicate the fare payment process and administration. One concern is that Route 21, which terminates in Morgantown, is the only long route without a zone charge. Arrangements with employers are the explanation for this situation and should there be a change, it would be reasonable to impose a zone boundary.
Another point to note is that many of the longer routes have lower farebox recovery values and higher subsidies per passenger. This is offset by the desire to provide access to jobs in outlying areas to low income residents of Reading. Also, the availability of bus service can be used as selling point to encourage employers to Berks County. BARTA has been supportive of these economic development efforts to bring new jobs to the region. In a similar fashion, substantial discounts are provided to riders using the Park-N-Ride fare media, which can be explained by environmental concerns and the reduction of traffic volumes in downtown Reading.
Administrative Ease - The necessary resources associated with collecting and processing fares should not be burdensome. The current BARTA structure is relatively straightforward since there are only two zones and a limited number of fare media. The recent elimination of the Base 31 Day Pass and Base 10 Trip Ticket with only the Anywhere fare category has simplified the fare structure.
Patron Comprehension - First time users of the bus system should be able to readily and easily understand what they should pay. Also, the fare structure should be simple to avoid confusion by drivers and passengers as to the proper charge. The current fare structure clearly satisfies this guideline. There are only a limited number of fare media and depending on the ridership group (e.g., adult or student); the new rider can know what fare should be paid. The simplicity of the fare structure contributes to fewer disputes between customers and drivers as to the proper fare.
Revenue Generation - The fare structure should be able to encourage new ridership. BARTA offers incentives to gain ridership by the discounts offered to different customer groups. For example, by having a single zone boundary, many persons making a long bus trip (e.g., Cabella’s) have a relatively low fare for the distance travelled. The Park-N-Ride fares are also established relatively low which can induce new riders. It should be recognized that this is accomplished at the expense of equity and recovering only a small portion of the cost of the trip. ______Final Report Page 200
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Fiscal Integrity - The fare structure should provide a reasonable level of revenue. BARTA satisfies this criterion since current revenue is compatible with available subsidies. As noted in the peer and trend analysis, BARTA maintains a relatively high farebox recovery. Further, BARTA has an incremental approach to fare increases with fares rising to keep pace with inflation. As noted previously, this is a preferred approach to a policy where fares are only changed at wide intervals and the amount of change is substantial.
Social Policy - The fare structure should reflect broader social goals and societal needs. For purposes of this analysis, goals related to mobility, economic development and environmental goals were considered. BARTA provides mobility to groups without access to autos that rely on public transportation. Discounted fares are provided on a daily basis which does not require substantial initial outlays. Certain groups which are typically viewed as transit dependent (e.g., seniors, disabled, and students) are provided discounted fares. Since transit access to outlying job sites can support economic development, the limited number of zones and relatively small incremental indicates a fare policy that encourages economic development. To the extent that people are diverted from autos to the bus system, road congestion and the associated environmental impacts are lessened. The fare policy offers a low cost option to driving.
Overall, the current BARTA fare structure is consistent with the six evaluation criteria and would suggest continuation of current policies. In some cases, the criteria illustrate trade- offs and the analysis would suggest that BARTA has struck a proper balance.
Fare Proposals
Based on the current evaluation and the results of the previous fare review conducted a few years ago, a series of proposals have been suggested and highlighted below:
Regional Fare Agreements - BARTA is actively exploring service coordination and extensions in cooperation with providers in neighboring counties. For example, BARTA and Lebanon Transit could make service changes in the US 422 corridor to close the gap between Womelsdorf and Newmanstown. Other services to Lancaster and Harrisburg have also been suggested. The fare structure should be supportive of these regional services and afford a seamless system. This could include a joint agreement to accept each system’s fare media through new fare cards that can be sued ion multiple systems.
Fare Technology - Many transit systems have implemented new technology such as “smart cards.” This proposal was made in the earlier review and with the ______Final Report Page 201
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
maturity of the technology and proven success in other parts of the nation; it is still a valid proposal. Smart cards can make fare payment faster and easier and can be used as a platform for future adjustments and modifications to the fare structure with relative ease. Another benefit of the technology is that it can support the implementation of regional bus services and the coordination of fares. Currently, the Port Authority of Allegheny County is obtaining smart card technology that will be used by numerous transit agencies in southwest Pennsylvania.
Transfer Charge - An earlier suggestion was to eliminate the transfer charge as a way to simplify the fare structure. With such a proposal, the adult base cash fare could be raised $0.10 to $0.20 to offset the revenue loss with a free transfer policy. It should be noted that in 2005 the transfer charged was reduced from $0.30 to $0.25 and has remained unchanged since reduction. With the current orientation of the system focused on the BTC and with schedule coordination between routes, some trips require patrons to transfer to complete their trip. This additional charge does not seem equitable. However, the One Day Pass provides a convenient way for riders to avoid the transfer charge. During the past several years, the economic incentive to use the One Day Pass has increased since this fare has remained unchanged while the base fare has increased. Further, the other multiple-ride fare media offer discounts, although the initial outlay may be difficult for some riders to pay. In view of the One Day Pass, no changes are proposed with the current transfer arrangements. Moreover, it provides additional funds to BARTA although the amount is small.
Fare Categories - At one time, multiple-ride fare media included four categories: base, anywhere, student, and park-n-ride. With the last fare change, the base category was eliminated which simplified the fare structure. One additional change suggested is to eventually eliminate the Park-N-Ride 31 Day Pass with these riders shifted to the Adult Anywhere 31 Day Pass. The significant discount afforded to park-ride patrons also raises issues related to equity and revenue generation. This change should be implemented gradually to avoid a significant fare increase to this ridership group. The Park-N-Ride 31 Day Pass should be increased at a greater rate than the Adult Anywhere 31 Day Pass. Also, during this interim period, a shorter duration 10 Trip Ticket should be provided to park- n-ride users.
Zone Boundaries - The current zone boundaries generally conform to a similar distance on several routes with the one exception being Route 21 Morgantown. Because of funding arrangements, this route is priced with no zone charge. It is suggested that when this arrangement ends, the zone charge should be imposed.
______Final Report Page 202
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Future routes that extend a considerable distance from the BTC should have a zone charge.
U-Pass - This is a fare arrangement where a college pays an agreed upon amount per student for a semester that allows students to ride any bus route without paying a fare when boarding. Typically, a student ID is presented to confirm the eligibility of the rider. The Port Authority of Allegheny County has such an arrangement with the University of Pittsburgh and there are numerous examples in other communities. The previous fare review called for such an arrangement with Albright College, Alvernia College, Pennsylvania State University Berks Campus, and Reading Area Community College. This is still a worthwhile recommendation and should be pursued.
Transit Chek - BARTA is an active member of the Commuter Services of Pennsylvania which provides a number of services. One of these is the Transit Chek program which enables employers to provide workers a tax free benefit to pay for their transit trip. This program should be aggressively pursued as part of the fare and marketing program.
Overall, the review of BARTA’s fare structure is positive in terms of the six key evaluation criteria. This reflects changes that have been made during the past several years as well as the current fare structure which was revised January 1, 2011. Based on this evaluation, no dramatic changes are suggested. Instead, enhancements to the current system to respond to and exploit future opportunities are recommended.
______Final Report Page 203
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
MARKETING PLAN
A review was undertaken of current marketing materials and activities. Items reviewed included printed schedules, web page, brand identification, and customer service. Many improvements have been made as part of the last major service change and continuing activities. Nonetheless, there are new opportunities that BARTA should exploit to maintain current riders and attract new customers. This chapter describes marketing proposals that should be implemented.
The goal of the marketing program should be directed to three primary objectives:
Retaining current riders Attracting new riders to the system Developing a positive image within the community
BARTA staff has recognized these important objectives and has undertaken activities to support each one. Currently one staff member is designated to lead the agency’s marketing activities, although this individual has other responsibilities and only spends a portion of her time on marketing. Many of the elements that comprise a successful marketing program are routinely performed. Accordingly, many of the proposals presented here are logical extensions of these activities.
System Identity
A system’s identity, or brand, is comprised of its name, logo, vehicle design, signage, and facilities - all of the key elements that allow customers to identify anything that is part of the BARTA public transportation system. A brand provides visual identity, but it also carries a strong image message. The brand often creates a person’s first impression of the transit system, and for many non-riders, their primary impression. As a result, the immediate image a brand conveys is very important.
Branding - As part of the last round of service changes which made the bus system much more user friendly and responsive to the needs of Berks County residents, BARTA undertook a re-branding effort which continues today. This image was enhanced by a new logo and design scheme that presents a more modern and forward thinking transit system. All BARTA promotional and public information materials display the logo and new design, as well as all buses purchased during the past few years. The older vehicles in the fleet are gradually being re- painted as funding permits to display the new BARTA design scheme. This re-branding has also been applied to the vehicles used to operate the system’s complimentary ADA and Shared-Ride services (i.e., BARTA Special Services). Since vehicles are one of the transit systems’ most ______Final Report Page 204
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
visible and pervasive communications tools, the prominent use of the revised BARTA brand will be critical. To date, BARTA has done a good job in this element of the marketing program.
Last year, BARTA became a county authority and was renamed the Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority. Prior to that time, the BARTA acronym had stood for the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority. This change occurred because the City of Reading no longer provides financial assistance to the bus system. At this time in late 2011, there is a high probability that many county residents may not be aware of the change and increased efforts should strengthen the identity of the agency as a Berks County entity.
Bus Stop Signs - Signage should be a key element of a transit agency’s brand as it serves two valuable purposes. First, signs let passengers know where to wait for the bus, which is particularly important for attracting new riders who are not familiar with the bus system and how to ride the bus. Second, and equally important, signs advertise the fact that transit service is available within a given corridor or to a specific location. Seeing bus stops signs along the route informs or reminds travelers that they have a transit alternative. The lack of bus stop signs was one area where BARTA has received negative feedback during the community stakeholder interviews.
At this time, the majority of BARTA’s bus stops do not have a bus stop sign, especially in downtown Reading where it is sometimes difficult to discern where buses stop. This situation would likely be more acute in the less densely populated portions of the service area where BARTA service is less frequent. This situation is being remedied since BARTA is in the process of a system-wide bus stop sign improvement program. BARTA will be installing new signs throughout the system in phases, as the system works out agreements with the various municipalities and PennDOT in terms of bus stop sign placement and installation. The new signs will be larger than the current signs and will include the three necessary elements: system name, bus stop designation and phone number; the signs will also have the same logo and color scheme consistent with the buses and the rest of the system to provide a visual connection. With the increased reliance on mobile technology, many transit agencies are also including their website address on bus stops signs, which is something that BARTA should consider. Some systems that have Automatic Vehicle Locators identify the bus stop number which can be used to provide real-time information on bus service.
Passenger Information and Promotional Materials
Passenger information is one of the primary elements of transit marketing. Without access to understandable passenger information, potential transit users are unable to make effective use of available services. The BARTA identity should be dominant in all ads, promotional materials, and passenger information.
______Final Report Page 205
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Ride Guide - The Ride Guide functions as both a customer service information resource and a marketing tool. It is the only printed public information source that is distributed to the public. The BARTA Ride Guide comprises 62 double-sided pages in a booklet format printed on newsprint. The cover page and back page of the guide are printed in color with the rest of the document printed in black and white. The guide serves as a comprehensive directory for all the services and programs operated by BARTA.
The Ride Guide provides information on how to ride the fixed route bus system, including details about the fare structure, BARTA Special Services, Park and Ride facilities, instructions and general customer information. Schedules are provided for each route and accompanied by a route map placed above the schedule which is divided to show the inbound and outbound route alignment separately. The guide also includes instructions on how to utilize the schedules and route maps. The Ride Guide is bilingual with information provided in both English and Spanish.
Many of the bus schedule takes up two pages (i.e., inbound and outbound); however, some routes require four pages (i.e., Routes 1, 8, 14 and 19). The schedules are easy to understand and read from origin to destination or right to left. A limited number of time point stops are shown on the schedules to maintain clarity and are numbered and referenced on the route map. This type of simple design is appropriate for mostly urban bus routes which typically operate and stop along the street. In addition to the numbered time point stops that are shown on the route maps, the names of roads that comprise the routes are listed, as are major cross streets and intersections, zone boundaries, a limited number of activity centers, and a north arrow. These simple elements help orient the rider and are well suited to potential riders who are new to the system.
The Ride Guide provides a comprehensive directory of the BARTA system and its services and is relatively easy to understand. However, there are a number of suggestions that could further improve the guide.
The Ride Guide presents two route maps with one for each direction (i.e., inbound and outbound). This may confuse the rider and increases the page size of the Ride Guide. A preferred approach, which is used by most transit systems, is to show a single map to depict the entire route. The numbered time points on the map and schedule should be sufficient to explain the service by direction.
Providing color and graphics in the Ride Guide would not only add interest, but also provide clarity. Matching the routes or possibly quadrants and schedules with the same color would provide differentiation and make the guide more appealing to current and potential riders.
______Final Report Page 206
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
There is no consistency with how information is provided for weekdays and Saturdays. For instance, Route 16 presents weekdays and Saturdays as one; Route 17 presents weekdays above Saturdays; Route 18 presents weekday information side-by- side to Saturday; and Route 19 has weekday and Saturday information on separate pages.
The individual route maps make it difficult for the rider to know how to connect to other points in the BARTA service area other than the BTC. A person planning a trip by bus would have to review each individual route schedule to plan their trip, particularly if they were transferring between routes. This could be remedied by folding a full color system map into the Ride Guide. It would be desirable that the colors of the routes on the map are consistent with the color of the individual routes shown in the guide.
Some of the route maps indicate the name of the municipalities which they travel through, while other routes do not. Displaying the names of municipalities would be a helpful navigation tool for riders.
Although most transfers occur at the BARTA Transportation Center (BTC) in downtown Reading, there are a few transfer points where riders can transfer from one bus to another. Transfer points should be detailed on each map, along with the routes at that location.
Internet and telephone contact information regarding regional transportation services, such as Commuter Services of Pennsylvania and other nearby transit agencies, should be included in the Ride Guide. The latter will be of increasing importance as regional services are added to the mix of BARTA bus routes.
There is no information about the BARTA Bike-N-Ride program in the Ride Guide.
Integrate images of people from all demographic groups enjoying the bus instead of just showing a picture of a bus on the cover page. This makes the system feel more personal and also conveys that BARTA is designed for the entire community.
Depict a bus stop sign so people know what to look for and where to wait for the bus. This is especially useful for new riders.
Individual Route Timetables - BARTA does not currently provide individual route timetable for its fixed route bus system. The only way to obtain information on the bus routes is through the Ride Guide or the BARTA website, where PDF versions of schedules and route
______Final Report Page 207
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
maps can be downloaded and printed. Since the Ride Guide is somewhat bulky, BARTA should consider producing individual schedules and route maps which would be more convenient to riders. The Ride Guide contains more information than the rider needs for most daily travel. The need for individual bus route schedules was noted frequently during the community leader interviews. Further, people without access to a computer are forced to rely solely on the Ride Guide to obtain information. The design of individual schedules and route maps should be consistent with the design in the Ride Guide and the comments made above.
System Map - BARTA also does not distribute a system map to the public although a full color professionally designed system map is available through the webpage. The map is formatted as a PDF and can be downloaded and printed. The system map shows color-coded routes overlaid on a street map background with major points of interest, landmarks, and major roadways to help orient the viewer. An inset map showing downtown Reading is supposed to be included on the system map but is not.
BARTA riders would benefit from a system-wide map of the BARTA service area which could look much like the system map on the website. In addition to showing an inset map of downtown Reading, a system map made available to the public might also focus more closely on the core area of the BARTA system (City of Reading and the adjacent municipalities) so the map would have a different scale and be easier to read. Small inset maps showing the routings in the outlying communities in the BARTA service area could be provided on the map. Other elements that should be included, as space allows, are: prominent bus stops or transfer points; any special route features; span of service; fares; BARTA’s telephone number and website address; and basic how-to-ride instructions.
The same map, but larger, should be placed in bus shelters and other high traffic areas frequented by riders. The maps on the shelters should include a “You are Here” label to indicate the location where the map is displayed. This label should be some type of decal that can be easily changeable so only one printing of the map is necessary.
Website - BARTA maintains its own website (www.bartabus.com) which provides much of the same information presented in the Ride Guide, along with additional information about new services, information about its Bike-N-Ride program, links to other transportation services, and a link where businesses can inquire about advertising on BARTA shelters and buses. The website is functional with only a few clicks needed to find pertinent bus trip information. The route schedule information is presented in a PDF format and can be downloaded and printed. In addition, a full color PDF system map is available which can also be downloaded and printed. The content on the BARTA website appears to be accurate and up-to-date. Notwithstanding these positive attributes of the webpage, there are certain improvements that could be made.
The BARTA website should be redesigned to be more visually appealing, while also providing more functionality so users can access information with ease. It should be ______Final Report Page 208
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
designed to provide the information users are most likely looking for (how to get where I am going) right up front with minimal searching. The most substantive information should be located on the home page so it is easily seen by users.
Many transit agencies have a small window on their websites home page that details any current service alerts or disruptions. This window would be updated each and every time a route is detoured or service is disrupted. BARTA’s website does have a service alerts page; however it would be more convenient to have this information on the home page.
The website should be usable for all people. This means that a text only version should be created so that persons with disabilities can access the site. For example, many visually impaired residents use text-to-speech technology to access online information. A visually rich website without a text only alternative would eliminate this community from utilizing the website. Additionally, the website should be provided in both English and Spanish.
BARTA should track the number of “hits” to gauge the level of use of the website and track changes with modifications to the webpage and transit system.
BARTA should link its webpage to other sites and these sites should be linked to BARTA. BARTA is currently linked to the Commuter Services of Pennsylvania website, an organization that offers alternative transportation modes such as carpooling, ridesharing and guaranteed ride home services. As BARTA becomes part of a regional transit network, it will need to maintain viable links to and from nearby transit agencies. BARTA website should be connected to websites of area organizations including social service agencies, colleges, businesses, visitor bureaus, planning organizations, etc.
There are a number of technology strategies to improve the BARTA website. One of these is including a trip planner which is an intuitive way for those unfamiliar with the BARTA system to get transit information. With an on-line trip planner, either a customized application or something less complex like Google Transit, prospective riders could learn how to make their trip by transit. The Trip Planner window should be included on the home page for easy access.
Another useful tool for passengers is an interactive system map which can help riders determine the route or routes that serve their origin and destination, and then provide easy access to those schedules with a single click.
______Final Report Page 209
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Real time information on the BARTA website is a recommendation that is predicated on BARTA obtaining Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL) technology. If BARTA pursues this technology in the future, the website is a logical way to make the real- time schedule information available to riders. In some instances, this capability can be expanded to permit mobile phone access to real time information by assigning a bus stop number to each stop and placing this number on each bus stop sign. The rider could then use their mobile phone to receive the “next bus” arrival information by keying in the unique bus stop number.
Many transit systems websites are now allowing riders to register to sign up for transit updates. For example, a growing number of systems allow the rider to include information about the route and trip they use so that they can be notified (via text message) if there is a delay or other disruption of service. This function would provide an excellent method for BARTA to build its relationship it has with its riders.
Consideration should be given to creating the ability to sell fare media on-line, as well as embed videos on the site that could provide instructions on how to ride the bus or load bike on the bus bike rack.
Another feature that some agencies have incorporated into their webpage is the ability to contact staff. In some cases, software such as Survey Monkey has been used to query riders about transit issues and suggested improvements.
Social Media - Social media has the ability to create interactive communication through mobile and web-based technologies. With an increased reliance on new media technologies, the days of getting transit information from only a printed schedule or advice from the driver are past. Currently, many people reference Facebook or Twitter when they discuss social media possibilities; however, there are various other social media applications and websites that could enhance the BARTA riders and non-riders experience. The following is not an exhaustive list which presents several ideas on how BARTA could increase their social media presence.
Facebook - Facebook is an online social networking service which has over 750 million active users. Individuals can create profiles, upload information, share photos and videos, add friends, exchange messages, and have the ability to “like” other pages, among other available options. Additionally, business entities create Facebook pages in an effort to connect to users by providing pertinent information on the services that they provide. For BARTA, a Facebook page should be created with a description of the agency, photos of the buses and facilities, a system map, and a link to BARTA’s website. Service updates and news items should be posted regularly. Users who “like” BARTA’s Facebook page will receive BARTA updates as they are posted. Reading’s Sovereign Center is a good example of a local Facebook page
______Final Report Page 210
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
(www.facebook.com/sovereigncenter), while SEPTA is an example of a Facebook presence for a transit agency (www.facebook.com/septaphilly).
Twitter - Twitter is a microblogging application and website which allows users to post short messages about what they are currently doing or to share links, photos, or videos. Each twitter post is limited to 140 alpha-numeric characters. Many transit organizations use their twitter accounts to notify the public of service outages and other alerts. Users who “follow” BARTA’s twitter feed will be instantly notified of any posted update. Pittsburgh’s Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) maintains a twitter feed, providing service updates and general PAAC news (twitter.com/#!/pghtransit).
YouTube - YouTube is a video-sharing website which allows people to share videos with the online community. The website would allow BARTA to share video messages with the community, as well as post how to ride videos, rider testimonials and other important announcements. Some agencies have found this as a way to dispel negative images of transit by allowing people to visualize the condition of the fleet and facilities. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority maintains a very good YouTube site, providing all sorts of transit and transit related videos (http://www.youtube.com/mtainfo).
Mobile Applications - With smart phone technology in nearly every person’s pocket, an increasingly viable way to reach people is through smart phone “apps.” These apps are small programs which can provide a wealth of information at anyone’s fingertips. All of the previously mentioned social media items have their own smart phone app which people can download and use as an extension of their online service. Many apps are universal in that they can be used on any type of smart phone, while others are limited to a specific mobile operating system (e.g., Android, Apple’s IOS, etc.).
There are various transit apps available that could enhance the BARTA riders journey or assist in getting new riders. Google Mobile allows transit agencies to share their scheduled transit information, which is then overlaid onto a Google map. Additional information on this app can be found on Google’s transit website (google.com/transit) and by following the “join the transit partner program” link.
Wikipedia - Wikipedia is an online, open source, user editable website which provides various information on anything and everything. The service relies on user submitted information, which can sometimes be incorrect. Currently, a BARTA Wikipedia page exists (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BARTA).
______Final Report Page 211
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Telephone Assistance - Even with the growth in information technology, many BARTA customers may need or prefer to use the telephone for information and trip planning assistance, even if a website is available. BARTA’s telephone number allows a person to call the system and speak to a BARTA representative during operating hours. BARTA also has a contracted employee stationed at the BTC Monday through Saturday, from 9:00 AM until 5:30 PM, to sell fare media and answer any questions about the bus system.
BARTA should consider installing an interactive voice response unit (IVR) for schedule inquires which would be available 24/7 to customers. Most calls are in reference to the time of the next bus; an IVR, in conjunction with AVL technology, would handle most of these types of calls, as well as, general information questions. BARTA’s Special Services division uses the system’s primary telephone number and accepts calls Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM. At all other times, customers can call and leave a message on voicemail.
Customer Experience
Attracting and retaining transit customers is the result of providing a positive customer experience from the beginning to the end of the trip. An important element of this experience is the quality of rider amenities such as transit centers and bus shelters. Overall, the BTC is the primary rider amenity in the system and also serves as the main transfer point in the system with all but one of the routes serving the BTC. Accordingly, the BTC is heavily utilized by BARTA riders and is an important component of the rider experience since many riders are processed through the BTC.
The BTC is an enclosed facility located in downtown Reading and staffed by a BARTA representative Monday through Saturday from 9:00 AM until 5:30 PM to sell fare media and answer any questions about the bus system. The facility is regularly cleaned and generally well maintained, although improvements in this area appear warranted. Cleanliness issues have been raised and it appears that BARTA is considering options to improve the cleanliness of the facility. The facility has restrooms and vending machines for customers, and is provides a sense of security with the presence of BARTA staff. The facility will be expanded with the rehabilitation of the train station to provide increased capacity to the BTC.
Other than the BTC, there are covered waiting shelters along Penn Avenue in downtown Reading; however, the vast majority of BARTA bus stops and boarding locations offer no amenities directly. Passengers waiting for the bus at one of the shopping centers served by BARTA can wait inside a lobby or under an entrance canopy until the bus arrives. In addition to the bus stop sign improvements that will be undertaken by BARTA in the near future a shelter expansion program should be initiated. Shelters should be installed with seating, transit information, and trash receptacles which both enhance the quality of the experience for the riders and communicate a positive message to potential users who see the stops every day as they travel through a corridor. ______Final Report Page 212
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
A bus stop inventory can be used to identify priority stops as the focus for improvement efforts. The on-board survey that was conducted for this study created a comprehensive database of on/off activity at BARTA bus stops. This database can be used to develop an improvement program regarding bus stop locations that warrant shelters and other enhancements.
Another important element of the customer experience is soliciting rider comments and responding to complaints. BARTA has a protocol for obtaining customer complaints, providing a response and taking remedial appropriate actions.
Advertising
BARTA’s advertising activities primarily focus around the introduction or change of a particular bus route, at which time the transit system will use print media, radio advertising, television screen crawl ads, and billboards, depending on the target demographic group and target market that they are trying to reach.
While the community leader interviews indicated a relatively high awareness of BARTA and most people in the Reading area are at least aware that the service exists simply by seeing buses on the street, a resident survey mailed to households throughout Berks County that was conducted as part of this study indicated much less familiarity with BARTA service. This included not knowing the location of the nearest bus stop and not being aware of what kind of services are available or fares charged. While a question in the resident survey asking respondents if higher gas prices might make them consider using BARTA elicited a fairly high response rate, the vast majority of respondents prefer to drive, or have no choice but to drive. Further, riding BARTA was seen as inconvenient compared to driving, with many survey respondents indicating the need to make multiple trips throughout the day and need to have the mobility that is provided by an automobile. At the same time, relatively few of the respondents viewed BARTA in negative terms, such as expressing a fear of riding the bus or attaching social stigma to riding public transportation.
For non-riders living in areas served by BARTA, a number of promotional strategies can be implemented without the need to expend extensive resources. For example, offering a free ride to residents living along one of BARTA’s corridors with frequent service could encourage people who would not normally ride BARTA to give the service a try. Further, a promotional campaign could use a combination of advertising media, with an emphasis on local media that allow targeted messages to be delivered to residents in specific travel corridors. The media which could provide this type of targeting include: Reading Eagle, Channel 69, and La Voz.
Direct mailings can be used to deliver very localized information, including route maps and schedules, to the residents of a specific corridor. It can also include incentives such as free ride passes. Direct mail lists can be customized based not only on geography, but also by age or
______Final Report Page 213
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
other demographic factors, allowing BARTA to mail information to homes with working age adults or senior citizens.
As noted previously, transit shelters are an excellent, high visibility marketing tool for communicating with commuters and others who travel regularly within a given corridor. Unfortunately, BARTA maintains a limited number of shelters at this time. Social media provides the ability to reach a large market quickly and cheaply to promote BARTA service.
Public Relations/Outreach
BARTA staff has indicated that it performs one-on-one outreach to certain groups. This includes being involved in the planning process for the Berks Senior Expo, where BARTA sets up a booth to provide information. BARTA also is involved with programs put on by the Berks County Intermediate Unit and the Berks County Transition Coordinating Council which provide information to disabled students who will be graduating from high school and their parents. Additional opportunities should be sought out to increase awareness of the bus system among the general public. Outreach to civic groups and fraternal organizations should be expanded.
BARTA is also a partner with Commuter Services of Pennsylvania and has also been a constructive community member by frequently getting involved and leading important civic projects (e.g., the rehabilitation of the downtown rail station). BARTA management is also engaged with elected officials, business executives, non-profit organizations, and local media members. One suggestion is to develop a newsletter (electronic and printed) that highlights agency accomplishments (e.g., hybrid electric buses, ridership growth, and introduction of new technology and service improvements).
Program Definition
Responsibility for BARTA’s marketing program is assigned to a manager who also has other responsibilities. It is estimated that this individual spends about ten percent of her time on marketing activities. This situation is not uncommon in the transit industry where economic conditions mandate that transit managers perform more than one function. The concern at BARTA is that staffing resources are not sufficient to support a pro-active marketing campaign. Consideration should be given to a full-time Marketing Manager.
Related to staff levels is the development of a marketing budget that can support current activities as well as those suggested previously in this section. Marketing typically accounts for between one and three percent of all operating expenses. Based on FY2010-2011 costs, a marketing budget for BARTA could range between $90,000 and $250,000. Since public transportation is not noted for aggressive marketing, a preferred budget would be the larger dollar amount. While BARTA does not have a marketing budget, it is clear that marketing
______Final Report Page 214
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
expenditures do not reach that level. Additional staff time and greater outlays in promoting the transit system is warranted.
The current approach is to continue with past practices in terms of promoting the system. Increased activities are associated with particular service proposals. These campaigns are focused on particular geographical areas and market strata. A more formal program is suggested and a marketing plan should be prepared annually. It should include overall goals, steps to achieve these objectives, mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, clearly identified budget, and line items of expense along with staff assignments and responsibilities.
______Final Report Page 215
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
RECOMMENDED PLAN
The BARTA Transit Development Plan has been a comprehensive process that has included many interim steps. The basis of this recommended plan was formed from a review of the existing transit services, an analysis of its overall performance trends, a service area profile in terms of Berks County’s socioeconomic setting and journey to work patterns, on-board ride checks and a passenger survey effort, a review of the system’s adequacy compared to certain service standards, a public outreach effort and the creation of service alternatives which were then analyzed through several different means. Direction and insight was sought from BARTA staff at critical points throughout the study process.
A comprehensive and detailed set of planning inputs has been gathered on the existing BARTA fixed route bus system and the transportation setting in which it operates. This data has consisted of quantitative items, as well as the views and perceptions of riders and non-riders in the Berks County. Based on these inputs and consideration of policy parameters, a series of operations and service alternatives were formulated. These initial alternatives were reviewed by BARTA staff, in order to gain their input, and were then modified accordingly. The service recommendations were then reviewed and finalized for this final iteration, which describes the recommended plan for the BARTA system. This recommended plan presents the planning inputs that helped shape the recommendations, the service design goals, the service improvement plan, the financial results, the capital program, the marketing plan, and an implementation schedule.
It must be continuously stated that the BARTA bus system provides very good service for its passengers, both in terms of service coverage and on-time performance. Previous planning efforts have produced an efficient and effective system that does what it is intended to do. It would not be out of bounds to suggest that no changes take place at all; however, there are some routes that could improve with minor changes, and several locations that are either unserved or under-served. These recommendations reflect the atmosphere that exists within the BARTA fixed route bus services and the needs of the community as a whole.
Planning Inputs
Several different inputs went into the planning process, including the information accumulated in the socioeconomic and demographic report, such as population and density, journey to work data and employment. Other information that proved useful for the planning of the route alternatives includes an inventory of Berks County major trip generators, the rider origin-destination and opinion survey, an on-board ride-check, a route diagnostic analysis, and qualitative information gathered from the survey efforts, a community outreach effort and input from the bus operators. ______Final Report Page 216
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Population Distribution and Characteristics - There are several target groups within this population which indicate a need for transit services in an area, including senior citizens, youths, the disabled and persons living in poverty. These groups were identified and their populations accounted for in terms of aggregate population, population density and percent of the total population. Other identified groups which indicate a need for transit were median household income and zero-car households. This analysis indicated a strong need for transit in and around the City of Reading, which was expected as this is the central economic, cultural and population base of the county.
Employment - High concentrations of employment within an area indicate common destinations for transit use. With this in mind, the employment level throughout the study area was analyzed to assure that, where possible, employment areas were provided the appropriate level of transit service. Employment was analyzed in terms of aggregate jobs, job densities and the rate of employment growth.
Journey to Work - The 2000 U.S. Census provides journey to work information, which provides a view of the mode split (e.g., auto, bus, rail, walk, etc.) of all commuters. Travel patterns also provided in the journey to work data, were where residents are traveling to for work trips.
Major Trip Generators - Major trip generators include major employers, multi-family housing and apartment locations, hospitals and other medical facilities, government buildings, shopping centers and malls, and colleges and universities.
Needs Assessment - This needs assessment presents an overview of the likelihood of transit use and a composite measure of transit need. An assessment of transit need was performed to identify those areas with the greatest need and potential demand for public transportation. Nearly two dozen variables were used to rate each census tract in terms of transit potential and include both rate and aggregate measures of transit need. Rates, such as percentage of seniors in total population and density of senior citizens are useful in understanding the composition of an area. Aggregate measures, such as total population, indicate the absolute potential for travel in general, and transit trip-making in particular.
Rider Origin-Destination and Opinion Survey - A rider origin-destination study and opinion survey effort was undertaken on all of the BARTA fixed route services. The information derived from this portion of the study allowed for an analysis of the persons who rely on BARTA (i.e., current riders).
Home and work locations were the most cited trip origins and destinations. A majority of the surveyed passengers mentioned that they walked to and from the bus. Passengers indicated that they regularly use transit five days per week. Most of the suggested improvements for were
______Final Report Page 217
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
to increase the frequency of service, to improve the on-time performance of the existing routes, and to improve the customer service experience.
On-Board Ride Checks - Ongoing with the rider origin-destination survey was an on- board ride check effort to collect data on passenger activity (on’s, off’s and times). The data allowed for an analysis of each route’s passenger load per trip, as well as each route’s on time performance. This provides information on the efficiency and effectiveness of each route by each trip. This information also assisted with the planning of the route proposals by showing heavily utilized segments and those areas where there was little to no ridership.
A running time analysis was also performed, comparing the average observed time versus the actual scheduled time by time period for each route variation. Differences between actual and scheduled times greater than five minutes were noted. Most of the routes experience at least one instance where a scheduled time was not met by the vehicle in service.
In addition to supporting the current transit analysis, the on-board surveys provide a wealth of information that will be used by staff on a continuing basis.
Route Diagnostic Analysis - A detailed quantitative analysis was performed, using FY2009-10 data, for all BARTA to determine which routes are placing a disproportionate financial or resource burden on the system overall given current ridership levels. The focus of this analysis was to delineate the characteristics of the BARTA bus routes utilizing several analytical techniques. With this approach, each bus route is treated as an individual operating entity. The performance characteristics of each bus route are compared to the other bus routes as well as to the overall system average. The analysis details which routes are operating effectively and efficiently, and those that are not. Conversely, the analysis allowed for the identification of routes which perform better than would be expected given the current resource investment
Resident Survey - The study process included a residential survey to analyze the knowledge of the system and potential bus service needs of the non-riding public. While these results and suggestions do not represent the needs of the systems captive riders, it does detail the thoughts of choice riders who may be encouraged to try the system, either out of necessity of on a trial basis.
Bus Operator Outreach Meetings - Designated days and times were scheduled were the consultant team approached current BARTA fixed route bus drivers in an effort to attain their thoughts and feelings towards the routes that they operate and the system as a whole. Operators were asked for their input regarding the current services and their suggestions on how service could be improved. Each bus operator’s input was important since they observe the system on a daily basis and also talk with customers.
______Final Report Page 218
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Service Standards - Approximately one dozen guidelines were formulated that were used to assess the current system and provide a basis for service changes. Criteria were specified that relate to the rider, BARTA as the service provider and the broader community. The guidelines were grouped into four categories: service coverage; patron convenience; fiscal condition; and passenger comfort.
Other Transit Studies - A number of transit analyses have been performed in the past. These studies provide a historical look at the system and at the region as a whole.
Field Reconnaissance - Field trips were conducted throughout the area to gain a first- hand understanding of existing transit operating characteristics, as well as the layout of present and future development. During the course of these investigations, land use, key generators, roadway characteristics and other noteworthy items were recorded.
Overall Planning Goals
When reviewing all of the collected quantitative and qualitative data, several broad planning goals become apparent. These goals include: rationalizing existing services; improve existing and create new connection opportunities; improving access to Reading from outlying areas; directness; coverage; support local development and redevelopment plans; supply and demand balance; and identify any potential new transit center locations.
Rationalize Existing Service - The detailed ride check and running time data collected through the study effort allows for the identification of poorly performing routes and route segments. These route segments were further examined for potential elimination or service reduction allowing the resources saved to be redirected to route segments on which overcrowding was identified. In addition, the running time data allows for the re-timing of current routes which can greatly improve the on-time performance of the route thereby enhancing the quality of service from the rider’s perspective. The primary finding is that the core bus network is on streets and corridors where it should be; however, opportunities for improvement continue to exist.
Improve Existing and Create New Connection Opportunities - Given the breadth of the transit system in the study area, service planning efforts must view these bus routes as the public transit network. That is, plans to address particular travel patterns should, to the greatest extent possible, incorporate the needs of as many travel pattern options as possible. Routes that do not operate to the BTC should be explored, such as the incorporation of additional crosstown services which will make it possible to transfer between services at more locations than just the BTC.
______Final Report Page 219
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Improve Access to Reading from Outlying Areas - Improved access to these locations not only improves the quality of life of area residents, but also promotes economic development efforts in both the urban core and outlying areas. Journey-to-work trips have to be the first focus, but that is not where the effort must end.
Directness - In some cases, a route diverts from the primary alignment to serve a specific location. While this affords transit access where walking distances are excessive, it also results in a circuitous journey for many riders. A balance needs to be achieved between attracting riders and at the same time not discouraging new riders because of lengthy travel times.
Coverage - The current bus system operates along roads and streets that provide coverage to most of the communities in Berks County that appear to warrant bus service. To the extent possible, bus routes should attempt to maximize penetration within these areas. The proposals should try and serve the same streets and corridors, although there may be changes in route alignments.
Support Local Development/Redevelopment Plans - Transit can play an important role in the success of development and redevelopment plans of the communities within the study area. The development and redevelopment possibilities of these communities were considered when developing service improvement proposals in the affected areas. In addition, participating in these identified development and redevelopment priorities earlier rather than later presents opportunities for partnering with local communities or private sector entities to improve or add new access via public transit.
Supply and Demand Balance - Transit resources are limited, and decisions to provide service in one area implies less service somewhere else in the system. For this reason, transit resources should be allocated to where there are current riders or the potential to attract new riders. The route diagnostics analysis indicated wide variations in individual route performance.
Identify any Potential New Transit Center Locations - The BTC is identifiable with BARTA and the fixed route bus system. Most residents know of its existence, and it serves as a vital transfer location for nearly every BARTA fixed route service. Most trips either begin or end at the BTC out of necessity to transfer to and from another route to finish a specific transit trip. If an additional transit hub was created that could support new transfer movements at a location outside of the central business district, not every passenger will have to travel into the City to complete their trip.
Recommendations – Current Routes
The following recommendations are intended to offer potential efficiency and effectiveness improvements the currently operated BARTA fixed route services. Recommendations include suggested frequency and span of service changes, route realignments, ______Final Report Page 220
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
segment extensions or subtractions, and the introduction of new routes that would compliment currently operated services.
These recommendations include the rational for the changes, the directions for any new or differing alignments, the route map for each route, the suggested span and frequency of service, as well as the relevant operating statistics per route.
The timing of the recommended bus routes were estimated based on the running times of the existing routes and input from BARTA staff. Test runs using BARTA buses should be performed on any new routes and for any major revisions. Trip time and frequencies vary by route and sometimes by time of day. The span of service for each route was determined based on the existing route’s span, the demand for additional service, or to make certain trips to specific destinations in order to meet the needs of shift workers.
Route 1 - BARTA’s Route 1 bus service is the best service that the agency operates. As seen in the Route Diagnostic Analysis, this route has the best farebox recovery rate and the highest ridership. The route is also the highest ranked route in terms of productivity score per revenue hour and per revenue mile, and in terms of deficit score per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger. The service provides a direct link between two important Reading area generators (i.e., Downtown Reading and the North Reading Plaza), along a heavily traveled corridor (i.e., 5th Street) and provides service to the Fairgrounds Square Mall.
Due to its exceptional ratings, Route 1 would continue to operate as it currently does, originating at the BARTA Transit Center (BTC) and offering service to the North Reading Plaza/Walmart via 5th Street. The route will continue to divert from 5th Street in order to serve the Fairgrounds Square Mall. Route 1 should continue to offer the same span and frequency of service. Route 1 is depicted in Figure 42
Operates Between BTC and North Reading Plaza/Walmart Fairgrounds Square Mall, CareerLink, Penn Plaza, Generators Served Plaza 222, Muhlenberg Shopping Center, North Reading Plaza/Walmart Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:30A-10:40P 6:30A-10:40P Frequencies (min) 20, 30, 60 30, 60 Annual Revenue Miles 120,384 18,954 139,338 Annual Revenue Hours 8,925 1,456 10,381 Estimated Ridership 441,646 52,229 493,875
______Final Report Page 221
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 42 - Route 1
Route 2 - Route 2 is, in terms of farebox recovery, is in the middle of the pack, placing 11th among the BARTA routes, with a recovery rate of approximately 23%. On the surface, this does not appear to be an astounding number, although for many other transit agencies, a route that receives a farebox recovery rate of 23% is cause for a celebration. With that being said, it is a significant fact that this route only operates on Fridays and Saturday yet still achieves the eleventh best recovery rate among BARTA routes. The routes combined deficit rank (considering three variables: Revenue Hour, Revenue Mile and Passenger) was sixth, meaning ______Final Report Page 222
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
that the route does not place much of a burden on the system as it is a low cost service. In terms of productivity per Revenue Hour and Revenue Mile, the route achieved a ranking of eleven and seven, respectively. Route 2 is depicted in Figure 43
Figure 43 - Route 2
Route 2 will continue to function as it currently does, offering service between the BTC and the Fairgrounds Square Mall via the 9th and 10th Street coupling, Kutztown Road, Madison Avenue and the 5th Street Highway to access the Mall on Friday’s and Saturdays only. Return trips divert to 11th Street between Rockland Street and Exeter Street. One option for this route would be to add additional morning and afternoon trips, thus providing a richer service to and ______Final Report Page 223
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
from the Fairgrounds Square Mall through the 9th and 10th Street corridors. Most stores open at 10:00 AM; however, the first trip to the Fairgrounds Square Mall leaves the BTC at 10:30 AM. Adding trips that arrive at the Fairgrounds Square Mall prior to 10:00 AM will allow first shift workers to ride the bus to work. Similarly, the last trip leaves the Mall at 1:55 PM, meaning anyone who works at the Mall and lives to the east of the rail tracks that bisect the city would have to arrange for alternative transportation to return home. Additionally, this service could be operated on additional weekdays should future demand warrant it.
Operates Between BTC and Fairgrounds Square Mall
Generators Served Fairgrounds Square Mall, Fairgrounds Square Market
Friday Saturday Total Span of Service 10:30A-2:30P 10:30A-2:30P Frequencies (min) 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 1,935 1,935 3,870 Annual Revenue Hours 208 208 416 Estimated Ridership 7,351 5,803 13,154
Route 3 - BARTA’s Route 3 service, which operates between the BTC in Downtown Reading to the North Reading Plaza/Walmart, operates with 30 or 60 minute frequency of service, depending on the time of day. The route has the 15th ranked farebox recovery rate (19.7%), yet offers far more hours of service than Route 2, which has a similar alignment between the BTC and Exeter Street. This suggests that the Fairgrounds Square Mall is a bigger generator for the people living in this section of the city than the North Reading Plaza. Across most of the performance measures that help gauge the successfulness of a route, Route 3 is in the middle of the pack, ranking 12th in passenger productivity per revenue mile, 13th in both passenger productivity per revenue hour and deficit per passenger and 15th in deficit per revenue hour. When considering deficit per revenue mile, however, Route 3’s ranking is 18th.
The recommendation for Route 3 would be to have service from the BTC to both the Fairgrounds Square Mall and the North Reading Plaza/Walmart. The route would utilize the 8th and 9th Street coupling and then operate to the Fairgrounds Square Mall via Kutztown Road, Jefferson Street, Madison Avenue and the North 5th Street Highway. From the mall, the route would return to Kutztown Road via Bellevue Avenue and where it would operate to the North Reading Plaza/Walmart. Route 3 is depicted in Figure 44
______Final Report Page 224
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and North Reading Plaza/Walmart Fairgrounds Square Mall, North Reading Generators Served Plaza/Walmart, Kutztown Road Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:15A-6:45P 6:15A-6:45P Frequencies (min) 30, 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 57,656 8,300 65,956 Annual Revenue Hours 4,590 624 5,214 Estimated Ridership 118,703 14,109 132,812
______Final Report Page 225
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 44 - Route 3
The route would continue to operate during the same hours of service and offer the same frequencies as the route currently operates. Route 3 will provide 30 minute service between the hours of 5:15 AM and 7:15 AM, and also between 4:15 PM and 6:45 PM, when the route terminates at the BTC. Service will be provide at 60 minute intervals between 7:15 AM and 4:15 PM on weekdays, and for its entire Saturday span of service, between 6:15 AM and 6:15 PM.
______Final Report Page 226
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Route 4 - The Route 4 service is another route that is very successful for BARTA. The route achieves the second highest farebox recovery rate, of approximately 52%. The route, which operates between the BTC and 10th and Exeter Streets via the 10th and 11th Street coupling, also has a low deficit per passenger rate and a high market share, creating a favorable transit situation. The passenger productivities per revenue hour and revenue mile are ranked second and first, respectively. The deficits per revenue hour, per revenue mile and per passenger are ranked second, fifth and second, respectively. All of the measurable for this service are positive, and as such, there are no proposals to change the routing in any form.
Route 4 will continue to offer service as it does, Monday through Friday between the hours of 5:40 AM and 6:20 PM with 20 minute frequencies; between 6:20 PM and 9:40 PM with 40 minute frequencies, and hourly service after 9:40 PM. This route provides 40 minute frequencies on Saturday, between the hours of 6:40 AM and 10:40 PM. Route 4 is depicted in Figure 45.
Operates Between BTC and 10th Street at Exeter Street Generators Served BARTA, Rockland Plaza Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:40A-11:00P 6:40A-10:40P Frequencies (min) 20, 40, 60 40 Annual Revenue Miles 61,121 6,362 67,483 Annual Revenue Hours 8,024 832 8,856 Estimated Ridership 314,061 31,808 345,869
______Final Report Page 227
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 45 - Route 4
Route 5 - The Route 5 service, which currently operates between the BTC and Albright College, is one of the better BARTA routes in terms of farebox recovery, having a 27.3% recovery rate, which ranks it seventh in the system. The routes contribution to the system deficit is low and the deficit per passenger and market share ratings are both around the system average. The routes rankings for passenger productivity per revenue hour and per revenue mile are eighth and sixth, respectively.
Since the route operates fairly well as it is currently structured, no major revisions are suggested for Route 5. As shown in Figure 46, there are two slight changes that could ______Final Report Page 228
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
potentially increase the ridership and help streamline the service a bit. First, there is very little ridership, in terms of boarding’s and alighting’s, on Hampden Boulevard, so instead of operating the length of Hampden Boulevard between Spring Street and Reservoir Road, the route will remain on 13th Street until Union Street, where it will turn right. Service on 13th Street and Union is currently provided by Route 6. The route would then turn left onto Hampden Boulevard, followed by a left onto College Avenue. Route 5 will no longer serve Reservoir Road, as this stop location will now be part of Route 6. After turning left onto College Avenue the route would turn right onto Bern Street, followed by a right back onto 15th Street. The route would then turn left onto Rockland Street and operate back towards the BTC using its current alignment. This minor realignment will provide better service to and around Albright College.
Figure 46 - Route 5
______Final Report Page 229
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Another recommendation for this route would be to operate the service with later evening hours. College students tend to make their trips off of campus later in the day after classes are over; offering later evening hours would provide a greater opportunity for students to ride BARTA services to generators around the BARTA service area. An effort should be made to introduce a new marketing campaign, in conjunction with Albright College, to highlight the extended hours and detail how students can use BARTA to conveniently get around the City of Reading.
Initially, the route will continue to offer service at it is currently operated, Monday through Friday with 45 minute frequencies between the hours of 5:30 AM and 6:15 PM. Special trips to Reading High School and Elite Sportswear will continue to be offered as currently scheduled. Saturday service also provides 45 minute frequencies between the hours of 6:15 AM and 6:15 PM. If demand for the service increases, or input from Albright College suggests that there is a likelihood of increased student, administration or staff usage, later evening hours should be added to the service on both weekdays and Saturdays. Service with the same 45 minute frequency would be extended from the BTC between 5:30 PM, with the last trip leaving the BTC at 8:30 PM and offering service to Albright College before returning to the BARTA garage to end its service day.
Operates Between BTC and Albright College Reading High School, Albright College, Weis Generators Served Market, Elite Sportswear Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:30A-6:15P 6:15A-6:15P Frequencies (min) 45 45 Annual Revenue Miles 29,261 5,616 34,877 Annual Revenue 3,251 624 3,875 Hours Estimated Ridership 76,079 13,479 89,558
Route 6 - The Route 6 service is the only current route that offers a crosstown alignment through the City of Reading, and as such, is the lone route that does not offer service to the BTC. The route currently operates between the Berkshire Mall and Hampden Boulevard at Reservoir Road, using Spring Street during its crosstown movement. The route offers only five round trips daily, and only operates Monday through Friday. The route achieved the tenth best farebox recovery rate (23.3%) among the BARTA routes, and its contribution to the overall deficit is relatively low. The other measurable data items, including passenger productivity per revenue hour (ranked 12th) and revenue mile (ranked 14th), and deficit per revenue hour (ranked 17th), revenue mile (ranked 16th) and passenger (ranked 16th), are all average or below average for the system, which suggests that some changes should be made to increase ridership and productivity.
______Final Report Page 230
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The recommended change for Route 6 would be to increase the span and frequency of service. When considering the farebox recovery rate in conjunction with the other measurable items, it appears that more service would be warranted. Offering hourly service between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM would provide a regular and dependable crosstown service. This service is important to the BARTA system, as it allows persons traveling from north of the City of Reading a potentially more convenient connection to the Berkshire Mall area. Utilizing a transfer to Route 6 means that patrons do not have to travel all the way in to the BTC in order to continue their trip to Berkshire Mall. In the outlying years, service would be extended into the evening hours in an effort to attract Albright College students who would benefit from a direct service to the Berkshire Mall area.
One minor route alignment change is proposed for the Route 6 (Figure 47). Since Route 5 would not travel via 13th Street and Union Street, Route 6 would instead remain on Hampden Boulevard between Spring Street and Reservoir Road. Union Street and 13th Street would now be served by Route 5.
Figure 47 - Route 6
______Final Report Page 231
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Berkshire Mall and Hampden Boulevard at Reservoir Operates Between Road - Spring Street Crosstown Generators Served Berkshire Mall, Vanity Fair Outlets, Spring Street Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 6:30A-6:30P Frequencies (min) 60 Annual Revenue Miles 17,850 17,850 Annual Revenue Hours 3,060 3,060 Estimated Ridership 30,345 30,345
Route 7 - BARTA’s Route 7 bus provides service between the BTC and Pennside, a community to the east of the City of Reading. Service is provided between the hours of 5:30 AM and 6:30 PM, with 60 minute headways through most of the day, and 30 minute headways early in the morning and through the AM and PM peak periods. Route 7 has the 14th ranked farebox recovery rate, which falls in the bottom third of BARTA’s bus services. Passenger productivity per revenue hour and per revenue mile are ranked 16th and 13th, respectively. The deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger had similar results, ranking 12th, 17th and 14th, respectively. These results suggest that the route should be revised in order to realize improvements on the route.
The ride checks, which were performed as a part of the on-board survey effort, provide passenger boarding and alighting information per trip. The ride check results for the Route 7 show that the ridership during the peak period, when the frequency of service is 30 minutes, is approximately half of what it is when the frequency is 60 minutes. While it is preferable to provide higher frequencies during peak periods, this should only be done on services that warrant increased service. Route 7 should operate with 60 minutes continually through the routes service day, Monday through Friday.
Additionally, it is recommended that the route operate bi-directionally on Cotton Street, between 10th Street and 19th Street, as opposed to its current alignment using Perkiomen Avenue on its way to and from Pennside. Currently, Cotton Street has service in the outbound direction on Route 19, and according to the ride checks, has a decent amount of passengers boarding along this corridor. However, these passengers are not afforded return service on Cotton Street, and the ride checks in the inbound direction show that there is not an equal number of passengers alighting on Perkiomen Avenue that boarded on Cotton Street. Route 7 is depicted in Figure 48.
______Final Report Page 232
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 48 - Route 7
The route would leave the BTC and travel via Franklin Street to 10th Street, where the route would turn right. Upon reaching Cotton Street, the route would turn left and remain on this roadway until it turns left at 19th Street. The route would then turn right onto Perkiomen Avenue and return to its currently operated alignment, including the recently implemented change using Harvey Avenue instead of Park Street in Pennside. The return trip would turn left off of Perkiomen Avenue onto 19th Street, followed by a right onto Cotton Street, a right onto 9th Street and a left onto Cherry Street to return to the BTC.
This route would offer service to Pennside between the hours of 5:30 AM and 6:30 PM with 60 minute frequencies. The route would then operate bi-directionally on Cotton Street to 19th Street until 9:30 PM with 45 minute frequencies. The additional hours on this service would meet the level of service currently offered on the Route 19 service that operates on Perkiomen Avenue and Cotton Street.
______Final Report Page 233
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and Pennside via Cotton Street Stoney Creek Town Homes, Hollywood Court Generators Served Apartments, Cotton Street Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:40A-9:45P 6:30A-9:45P Frequencies (min) 45,60 45, 60 Annual Revenue Miles 39,155 7,434 46,589 Annual Revenue Hours 4,144 793 7,937 Estimated Ridership 84,937 14,457 99,394
Route 8 - The Route 8 service, which operates between the BTC and Reiffton and Birdsboro (all but one midday trip end at the Walmart in Exeter Square and do not serve Birdsboro) is another middle of the pack route that has the 12th ranked farebox recovery rate. The other quantitative data results in similar rankings, with the passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile ranking 5th and 10th, respectively, and the deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger ranking 13th, 13th and 8th among BARTA routes. Route 8 is depicted in Figure 49
This route, when compared with some of the other BARTA routes, is still relatively new, and should be given a chance to grow its market share. With that being said, numerous drivers have suggested that the timing of the route is incorrect, in that more time is needed to complete each round trip - especially when the route serves Birdsboro (not all trips serve Birdsboro, only the AM and PM peak trips, and one midday trip offer service to Birdsboro). Additionally, both drivers and passengers noted that there are very long wait times between buses in Birdsboro, creating a situation where some passengers miss the bus and become stranded in Birdsboro for long periods of time, forced to seek alternative transportation home.
Due to the newness of the route, no alignment changes are being proposed at this time. Later evening service to Birdsboro is not feasible at this time, but should the route improve its ridership and demand for more service also increase, later evening hours should be further explored.
______Final Report Page 234
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 49 - Route 8
______Final Report Page 235
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and Reiffton & Birdsboro Reading Mall, Exeter Commons Shopping Center, Generators Served Shelbourne Square, Exeter Square/Walmart, Redner's Park and Ridelot Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:00A-8:00P 7:00A-6:00P Frequencies (min) 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 59,887 6,921 66,808 Annual Revenue Hours 7,395 572 7,967 Estimated Ridership 116,436 14,535 130,971
Route 9 - Route 9 provides service between the BTC and Grill via Kenhorst, with 60 minute headways between the hours of 5:45 AM and 6:45 PM. The farebox recovery of this route is ranked 17th in the system (approximately 14%). The deficit per passenger the 5th worst in the system and the market share is equally as low. This situation suggests that the level of service meets the demand for service along this corridor; however, neither are beneficial to the system. Additionally, the passenger productivity per revenue hour and per revenue mile are both ranked 17th, while the deficit per revenue hour, per revenue mile and per passenger are ranked 11th, 15th and 17th, respectively.
Since most of the quantifiable data points towards a route that is in need of changes, the recommendation for Route 9 would be to realign several of the sections of the route to offer better service for those who are using it, and to potentially realize some cost and time savings. Route 9 is depicted in Figure 50.
The route would continue to operate out of the BTC and across the Bingaman Street Bridge as it currently does, but instead of turning onto Morgantown Road, the route would remain on East Lancaster Avenue and turn left onto Crestmont Street, followed by a right onto Belvedere Avenue. From Belvedere Avenue, the route would veer left onto Summit Avenue, followed by a left onto Noble Street. The route would then turn right onto Upland Avenue, followed by a left onto Jackson Street and a right onto Greenway Terrace, providing service to Alvernia University. The route would then turn right onto Muncy Avenue, followed by another right onto Broadway Boulevard before turning left back onto Upland Avenue, followed by another left onto New Holland Road. The route will remain on New Holland Road until it reaches Kenhorst Plaza/Redners, which it will turn right into. The route will exit the shopping plaza by turning left onto Philadelphia Avenue, followed by a left onto Corbit Drive, a left onto Belair Avenue and a left onto Davis Drive. The route would then return to Philadelphia Avenue and operate back towards the BTC in the opposite direction. Service to the KVP Factory would continue, with one AM outbound trip and one PM inbound trip. This route would continue to
______Final Report Page 236
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
operate during the same hours as the current route, and also offer 60 minute service throughout its service day.
Figure 50 - Route 9
______Final Report Page 237
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and Grill via Kenhorst Generators Served KVP Factory, Alvernia College, Kenhorst Plaza Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:45A-6:45P 6:45A-6:46P Frequencies (min) 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 33,482 6,302 39,784 Annual Revenue Hours 3,315 624 3,939 Estimated Ridership 60,267 9,454 69,721
According to the ride check results, the disenfranchised stops provide little to no ridership. With the exceptions of Community Drive in proximity to Lancaster Avenue and the section of Philadelphia Avenue between Mifflin Boulevard and New Holland Road - two areas that would be served by a new route - none of the disenfranchised stops would continue to receive BARTA fixed route service.
Route 10 - Route 10 (Figure 51), which provides service to Brookline from the BTC with 30 minute headways through much of the service day, is one of BARTA’s best routes, with a farebox recovery ranking of 3rd (approximately 41%). The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile are both highly ranked, achieving 4th and 8th place, respectively. The deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger are ranked 5th, 2nd and 5th, respectively. These metrics suggest that the route is operating efficiently and effectively and should not be changed much at all.
When reviewing the ride check data, one item that sticks out is that there is very little early morning ridership, which suggests that 30 minute for most of the service day may not be necessary. However, since the route is so short in terms of round trip length, it makes sense to continue operating 30 minute service, otherwise the vehicle will just sit at the BTC not in service for a half hour. It is recommended that this route remain as it is currently operated, with 30 minute service between 5:30 AM and 3:00 PM, 45 minute service between 3:00 PM and 6:30 PM, and 60 minute service between 6:40 PM and 10:10 PM. Saturday service should also remain as currently schedule, with 30 minute frequencies between 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM, and hourly service between 6:40 PM and 10:10 PM.
______Final Report Page 238
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 51 - Route 10
Operates Between BTC and Brookline Generators Served Brookline Plaza, Lancaster Avenue, Oakbrook Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:30A-10:10P 6:30A-10:10P Frequencies (min) 30, 45, 60 30, 60 Annual Revenue Miles 43,554 8,882 52,436 Annual Revenue Hours 4,208 832 5,040 Estimated Ridership 125,996 23,219 149,215
______Final Report Page 239
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Route 11 - Route 11 offers service to Mohnton and Shillington from the BTC with 30 minute headways during much of the AM and PM peak periods, and 60 minute service through the off-peak periods. Service is offered between the hours of 5:30 AM and 6:30 PM. The route has a low farebox recovery rate (approximately 20%), which ranked 16th among BARTA routes. The contribution to the deficit is high, when compared with the other routes. Low farebox recovery mixed with a high contribution to the deficit means that consideration should be given to adjusting the route in order to more closely balance the supply and demand characteristics of the service. The route ranked 15th in both passenger productivity scores, and 16th, 14th and 15th for deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger, respectively.
When reviewing the ride check data, it is notable that during the time period when the route provides 30 minute frequencies - regardless of period or direction - the ridership divides nearly in half. Because of this, it is recommended that the route operate with 60 minute frequencies throughout its service day. The cost savings realized from not offering 30 minute peak service will help offset some of the other recommendations. Should demand for service increase along this corridor, 30 minute frequency during the peak periods can be restored.
Additionally, it is recommended that the route serve the Kmart off of Revere Boulevard via the entrance off of Lancaster Pike. It is also recommended that the route have a larger footprint in Mohnton in order to offer service to more people. The route would enter Mohnton via Wyomissing Avenue, turn left onto Main Street followed by a right onto Church Street. The route would remain on Church Street until Walnut Street, where it would turn right, followed by a left onto Wyomissing Avenue, to return towards Mohnton and the BTC. Route 11 is depicted in Figure 52
______Final Report Page 240
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 52 - Route 11
______Final Report Page 241
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and Mohnton Generators Served Shillington Shopping Center, Ollies, Kmart Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:30A-6:30P 6:30A-6:30P Frequencies (min) 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 50,057 9,422 59,479 Annual Revenue Hours 3,315 624 3,939 Estimated Ridership 70,079 11,307 81,386
While the metrics may call for more drastic changes to the route, there is something to be said about a route that provides decent service along one of the more heavily traveled corridors within the study area. Adding another generator and a larger capture area in Mohnton to the route, along with decreasing the frequency of service in the peak periods should result in a more efficient route.
Route 12 & Penn Street Crosstown
BARTA’s Route 12 offers service between the BTC and Lincoln Park via Reading Hospital. The route has the 18th ranked farebox recovery rate (approximately 11%), while the contribution to the deficit is high, which suggests that the supply and demand characteristics of the route do not match properly. The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile are also poor, ranking 19th and 18th, respectively. The rankings for deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger are 18th, 21st and 19th. Several of the BARTA drivers suggest that Lincoln Park is not a popular destination, comments that are verified by the ride check data, which shows that a majority of the passengers disembark at Reading Hospital with few passengers utilizing the service to and from Lincoln Park.
In order to improve this route, it should be split into two: one route, Route 12, that serves Lincoln Park on a limited basis; and another that serves Penn Street, the BTC, Reading Hospital, Berkshire Heights and the Berkshire Mall. The route serving Lincoln Park will follow the same alignment as the current route, but offer only 180 minute frequencies between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM, offering four round trips per day Monday through Friday, with service beginning at 10:00 AM on Saturdays, offering 3 trips between the BTC and Lincoln Park. Route 12 is depicted in Figure 53.
______Final Report Page 242
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 53 - Route 12
Operates Between BTC and Lincoln Park Reading Hospital, Lincoln Plaza, Spring Towne Generators Served Center, Berkshire Hills Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 7:00A-5:30P 10:00A-5:30P Frequencies (min) 180 180 Annual Revenue Miles 14,382 2,200 16,582 Annual Revenue Hours 1,530 234 1,764 Estimated Ridership 15,820 1,760 17,580
The new route would operate between the Berkshire Mall/Berkshire Heights area and 18th Street at Perkiomen Avenue, via Penn Street and serves the Reading Hospital and the BTC (Figure 54). The route would offer bi-directional and complete service on Penn Street, the main thoroughfare through the City of Reading and a movement that is not offered today. The new route would operate Monday through Friday between the hours of 5:30 AM and 6:30 PM, offering 60 minute frequencies, and on Saturday between 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM, also offering 60 minute frequencies. This new service creates another crosstown route, similar to the service offered by Route 6 on Spring Street. This new route would also supplement service on Perkiomen Avenue between 11th Street and 18th Street, where service was removed on two current BARTA Routes: Route 7 will now operate bi-directionally on Cotton Street; and Route 19, which currently operates a loop routing using Perkiomen Avenue and Cotton Street, but would now terminate at the BTC.
______Final Report Page 243
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Originating at the Berkshire Mall, the route would travel to Berkshire Heights via Woodland Road and Crossing Drive, and would then travel via Spring Street and Park Road to Penn Avenue, where the vehicle would turn left to head towards Reading Hospital. The vehicle would then turn right onto 6th Street and left onto Spruce Street to serve the Hospital, and then use 5th Street to return to Penn Avenue. The route would continue to the BTC via Penn Avenue and Penn Street. After serving the BTC, the vehicle would return to Penn Street and then continue operating eastward towards Perkiomen Avenue. At Perkiomen Avenue, the route would turn right, followed by a left onto Mineral Springs Road. The route would then turn left onto 18th Street and right onto Perkiomen Avenue to offer service in the opposite direction.
Figure 54 - New Route (Penn Street Crosstown)
Berkshire Mall and Perkiomen Avenue Operates Between at 19th Street Berkshire Mall, Berkshire Heights, Reading Hospital, Generators Served BTC, Perkiomen Avenue Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 6:30A-6:30P 6:30A-6:30P Frequencies (min) 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 36,108 7,363 43,471 Annual Revenue Hours 3,060 324 3,684 Estimated Ridership 64,994 11,782 76,776
______Final Report Page 244
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Route 14 - BARTA’s Route 14 offers service between the BTC and Wernersville and the Womelsdorf Park and Ridelot. The route operates between the hours of 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM, offering 30 minute frequencies to Wernersville throughout its service day. Service is afforded to and from Womelsdorf with 30 minute frequencies in the AM and PM peak periods, and with three other round trips in the midday period. The farebox recovery rate for this route is ranked 13th in the system, and the contribution to the deficit is high; however, the deficit per passenger is average while the market share of this route is high. Passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile is ranked 10th and 16, respectively, while the deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and per passenger is ranked 14th, 6th, and 12th, respectively. These metrics suggest that the service is currently underperforming against expectations. In other words, the service has not quite reached its potential.
The ride checks show that very few people are currently using the service to and from the Womelsdorf Park and Ridelot; however, Womelsdorf is a growing area that deserves public transportation options. With that said, service to Womelsdorf should be given the opportunity to grow its service and should continue to operate as it currently does Saturday service to both destinations should continue as it is currently operated. Route 14 is depicted in Figure 55.
Figure 55 - Route 14
Operates Between BTC and Wernersville & Womelsdorf Vanity Fair Outlets, Sinking Spring Plaza, Redner's Generators Served Phoebe Berks Village, Wernersville Hospital, Womelsdorf Park and Ridelot
Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:00A-8:00P 6:30A-7:00P Frequencies (min) 30 30 Annual Revenue Miles 208,769 30,742 239,511 Annual Revenue Hours 14,663 2,106 16,769 Estimated Ridership 269,089 31,693 300,782
______Final Report Page 245
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Additional consideration should be given to operating an express service between the City of Reading and the City of Lebanon (Figure 56). In public transportation, it is important to create and facilitate connections to various different areas and generators. In today’s economic situation, people are willing to travel much further for employment possibilities. Creating a limited stop express route which operates between these two cities would open up new opportunities for persons residing in both communities. At this point, further market analysis would be needed to flesh out this express bus service, and coordination between BARTA and Lebanon County’s fixed route service provider, Lebanon Transit (LT), would also need to occur.
Figure 56 - New Route (Reading-Lebanon Express)
Route 15, Route 16 & the Berkshire Shuttle - Routes 15 and 16 are two of BARTA’s more successful routes, both offering service between the BTC and the Berkshire Mall and Broadcasting Square. Route 15 offers service to the Berkshire Mall from the BTC, between the hours of 5:30 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturdays, with 30 minute headways throughout the day. Route 16 operates between the BTC and Berkshire Mall and Broadcasting Square, six days per week, with 30 minute headways between 5:45 AM and 7:15 PM, and with 60 minute headways between 7:15PM and 11:15 PM. These routes are being presented together because the recommendations for both are intertwined with each other.
Route 15 has the 5th ranked farebox recovery rate (approximately 38.6%), while its contribution to the deficit is average when compared with the rest of the system, creating a nearly favorable situation. The deficit per passenger is low, while the market share for Route 15 is high, meaning that the service is operating in the proper locations and attracting very decent ridership. The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile are ranked 3rd and 2nd, respectively, while the deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger are ranked 4th, 11th, and 3rd, respectively. These metrics suggest that the route is not only very successful, but also run efficiently.
Route 16 has the 8th ranked farebox recovery rate (approximately 26.9%), while its contribution to the deficit is high. Both of these values are due to the relatively high level of service, in terms of both frequency and span of service, that this route affords its patrons. The deficit per passenger is average (ranked 11th), while the market share is very high. Passenger ______Final Report Page 246
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile are ranked 14th and 11th, respectively, while deficit per revenue hour and revenue mile are ranked 7th and 9th, respectively. The passenger productivity rankings are due to the routes long service day - there are fewer passengers in the later hours of service - however, the deficit per passenger rankings per revenue hour and revenue mile detail that the route is successful. Some of the drivers suggested that there are very few riders to and from the Penn State University Berks Campus; however, there are over 3,200 students and 100 academic staff at this location, which suggests that public transportation service is validated.
The recommendation for Route 15 is to create an express service to the Broadcasting Square and Berkshire Mall area (Figure 57). Within Downtown Reading, the route would operate via the Penn Street Cherry Street coupling to and from the BTC. The route would then operate to Broadcasting Square via US 422 and US 222, and exit at Broadcasting Road. From Broadcasting Square the route would operate to Berkshire Mall via Papermill Road, Meridian Boulevard, Berkshire Boulevard, State Hill Road and Woodland Road. From the mall, the route would return to the BTC via Woodland Road, Crossing Drive, US 422 and Penn Street.
Figure 57 - Route 15
Express service on the Route 15 would be offered Monday through Friday between the hours of 5:30 AM and 6:30 PM, and Saturday between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM, offering 30 ______Final Report Page 247
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
minute frequencies throughout the day, Monday through Saturday. Early morning service on Saturday, as currently offered, is not needed since many of the businesses that would generate usage are either closed or not open yet. There will still be 12 hours of service offered on the Route 15 on Saturday, but service will instead be extended later into the evening hours to attract shoppers.
BTC and Broadcasting Square Operates Between & Berkshire Mall Express
Broadcasting Square, Meridian Boulevard, State Hill Generators Served Road, Berkshire Mall Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:30A-6:30P 8:00A-8:00P Frequencies (min) 30 30 Annual Revenue Miles 73,950 13,874 87,824 Annual Revenue Hours 6,630 1,248 7,878 Estimated Ridership 221,850 34,684 256,534
The recommendation for the Route 16 is create the local route option to the Berkshire Mall and Broadcasting Square area (Figure 58). The route would operate using its current alignment in Downtown Reading and then operate to Berkshire Mall via Penn Street, Penn Avenue and State Hill Road. The route would then operate via Woodland Road, Ridgewood Road and Berkshire Boulevard to Berkshire Square/Walmart. From there, the route would operate to Broadcasting Square via State Hill Road, Westview Drive, Broadcasting Road and Meridian Drive. Service to Penn State University Berks Campus would continue to be offered on Route 16.
______Final Report Page 248
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 58 - Route 16
Route 16 would operate using the current span of service and frequencies, Monday through Saturday with 30 minute frequencies between the hours of 5:45 AM and 6:15 PM and with hourly service between 6:15 PM and 11:15 PM. Service to Penn State University Berks Campus would not be offered after the 5:15 PM trip from the BTC, as currently scheduled; however, if demand increase for service from this campus, later evening service could be added to the service on a trial basis.
BTC and Berkshire Mall & Broadcasting Operates Between Square Local Berkshire Mall, Berkshire Square/Walmart, Westview Generators Served Drive, Broadcasting Square, PSU Berks Campus Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:45A-11:15P 5:45A-11:15P Frequencies (min) 30, 60 30, 60 Annual Revenue Miles 131,580 26,385 157,965 Annual Revenue Hours 12,113 2,470 14,583 Estimated Ridership 267,546 43,021 310,567
______Final Report Page 249
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Also recommended for the Berkshire Mall and Broadcasting Square area is a new shuttle route that would provide continual service to most of the area’s commercial establishments (Figure 59). The route would begin service from the Berkshire Mall and operate towards the Berkshire Square/Walmart via Woodland Road, State Hill Road and Berkshire Boulevard. From there, the route would return to State Hill Road and turn left into the Giant at the State Hill Road entrance. The route would then turn right onto Van Reed Road and then right onto Rocky Drive, left on Quarry Road, left on Snyder Road and left on Van Reed Road. The shuttle would then turn right onto State Hill Road, left onto Broadcasting Road and left onto Meridian Boulevard to offer service to Broadcasting Square. From Broadcasting Square, the route would return to Broadcasting Road via Meridian Boulevard and then turn left onto Papermill Road, left onto Berkshire Boulevard, right onto Crossing Drive, and right on Woodland Road to return to Berkshire Mall.
Figure 59 - New Route (Berkshire Shuttle)
The Berkshire Shuttle will operate Monday through Saturday, from 10:00 AM until 8:00 PM utilizing one shuttle vehicle initially, which would provide 40 minute frequencies. The route would provide service to the Berkshire Mall, Berkshire Square/Walmart, Giant, Quarry Road, and Broadcasting Square, among other commercial generators within the shuttles service area. The shuttle should be marketed to encourage shoppers to park their car at the proposed Berkshire Mall Transit Center and Park and RideLot, where the service would be scheduled to meet other BARTA routes in order to facilitate quick transfer movements.
______Final Report Page 250
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between Berkshire Mall and Broadcasting Square Loop Berkshire Mall, Berkshire Square/Walmart, Giant, Generators Served Quarry Road, Broadcasting Square, Best Buy Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 10:00A-8:00P 10:00A-8:00P Frequencies (min) 40 40 Annual Revenue Miles 29835 6084 35919 Annual Revenue Hours 2550 520 3070 Estimated Ridership 44,753 6,692 51,445
These three routes will provide comprehensive service to or within reasonable proximity to all of the generators within the Berkshire Mall and Broadcasting Square area. The Berkshire Shuttle will help establish the Berkshire Mall Transit Center as a viable transfer facility.
Figure 60 - Berkshire Mall Local, Express and Shuttle Routes
Route 17 - Route 17 is another service that performs well. The route has the 6th ranked farebox recovery rate (29.5%) and has a low contribution to the deficit. The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile was ranked 7th and 9th, respectively. The deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger also performed well, ranking 8th, 10th and 7th, respectively. The ride check data verifies these rankings, detailing that supply meets the demand.
______Final Report Page 251
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
It is recommended that the Route 17 remain unchanged, continuing to offer service to Glenside, St. Joseph’s Medical Center and the Berks Heim area with the current frequency and span of service, including service to Hensler Homes on selected trips. Development in the Berks Heim area should be monitored. As businesses increase, additional trips to the area should be considered. Route 17 is depicted in Figure 60.
Figure 61 - Route 17
______Final Report Page 252
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and St. Joseph Medical Center/Berks Heim Jamestown Village Apartments, Airport Generators Served Industrial park, St. Joseph Medical Center, Berks Heim, Berks County Prison Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:45A-6:45P 6:15A-6:45P Frequencies (min) 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 40,647 7,779 48,426 Annual Revenue 4,080 780 4,860 Hours Estimated Ridership 96,722 13,337 110,058
Route 18 - BARTA’s Route 18 is another well performing service, producing the 4th ranked farebox recovery rate (38.7%) and a low contribution to the deficit, creating a favorable transit operating situation. The route provides 30 minute, or better, frequencies between the hours of 5:40 AM and 6:10 PM, and 60 minute frequencies until 11:10 PM Monday through Friday. On Saturday, 30 minute frequencies are provided between the hours of 6:40 AM and 6:10 PM, and hourly service until 11:10 PM. Service is extended to St. Joseph’s Medical Center in the evening hours, service that is provided by Route 17 during the daytime hours. The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile were ranked 6th and 4th, respectively, while the deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger were ranked 3rd, 7th and 4th, respectively, all detailing the successful service provided by this route.
It is recommended that the Route 18 remains unchanged, continuing to offer service along the Schuylkill Avenue corridor as it currently does. Route 18 is depicted in Figure 61
______Final Report Page 253
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 62 - Route 18
Operates Between BTC & Schuylkill Avenue Front Street, Schuylkill Avenue, evening service to St. Generators Served Joseph Medical Center Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:40A-11:10P 6:40A-11:10P Frequencies (min) 20, 30, 60 30, 60 Annual Revenue Miles 45,352 7,353 52,705 Annual Revenue Hours 6,248 858 7,106 Estimated Ridership 171,794 26,488 198,282
______Final Report Page 254
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Route 19 - Route 19 is an average performing route, ranking 9th in terms of farebox recovery rate (25.7%) and contributing to the overall deficit slightly more than the average BARTA route. The route has an average deficit per passenger rating and a high market share, creating a nearly favorable transit operating condition. The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile are ranked 9th and 5th, respectively, while the deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger were ranked 9th, 20th and 10th.
In order for this route to perform more efficiently, it is recommended that it no longer function through the BTC, but instead operated between the BTC and Tuckerton. Route 7 and the new Penn Street crosstown route will sufficiently provide service to the eastern portion of the current Route 19 service, allowing the route 19 to extend service to the Tuckerton area. The route would begin at the BTC and operate to the FirstEnergy Stadium Park and Ridelot as it currently does and then operate to the Muhlenberg and Tuckerton areas via PA 61. The route would loop through Muhlenberg and Tuckerton using Reading Crest Avenue, Tuckerton Road, Stoudts Ferry Bridge Road, Hain Avenue, Harrison Avenue, and Bellevue Avenue before returning to PA 61 to operate back towards the BTC. Route 19 is depicted in Figure 62.
______Final Report Page 255
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 63 - Route 19
The route would operate on weekdays between the hours of 5:30 AM and 7:00 PM, offering 30 minute frequencies in the early morning, and AM and PM peak periods, while offering 60 minute service in the midday period. Saturday service would be provided hourly between 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM. The later evening hour service to Perkiomen Avenue and Cotton Street will be provided by the new alignment of Route 7.
______Final Report Page 256
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and Tuckertown Price-Rite Market, FirstEnergy Stadium Park and Generators Served Ridelot, Berks County Intermediate Unit Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:30A-7:00P 6:30A-6:30P Frequencies (min) 30, 60 60 Annual Revenue Miles 48,093 5,884 53,977 Annual Revenue Hours 5,610 624 6,234 Estimated Ridership 89,934 8,826 98,760
Route 20 - Route 20 offers service between the BTC and the Cabela’s, with service recently extended to the Walmart in the same shopping complex as the Cabela’s, with service through Hamburg (Figure 63). The route operates Monday through Saturday between the hours of 5:05AM and midnight, departing hourly from the BTC between 5:05 AM and 8:05 AM, and also between the hours of 2:05 PM and 6:05 PM. Two additional round trips are offered on this route, one at 10:05 AM and the other at 10:05 PM. The route has the 19th ranked farebox recovery rate (10.3%) and its contribution to the deficit is relatively high. The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile are ranked 18th and 19th, while the deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger are ranked 19th, 3rd and 18th, respectively.
While the route does not perform all that well, it is important to note that Hamburg is a developing area, and that the shopping complex in Tilden Township, which includes the Cabela’s and Walmart will continue to attract additional passengers. For these reasons, the route should continue to operate along the same alignment as currently offered; however, the frequency of service should be adjusted slightly in order to better meet potential demand. The recommendation for Route 20 is to operate hourly service from the BTC, Monday through Saturday, between the hours of 5:05 AM and 8:05 AM, and again from 2:05 PM and 6:05 PM. Additional trips would also depart from the BTC and operate towards the Hamburg area at 10:05 AM, 12:05 PM, 8:05 PM and 10:05 PM.
______Final Report Page 257
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 64 - Route 20
______Final Report Page 258
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and Hamburg & Cabela's Leesport Redner's Park and Ridelot, Hamburg Generators Served Redner's Park and Ridelot, Hamburg, Cabela's, Walmart Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 5:05A-12:00A 5:05A-12:00A Frequencies (min) 60 & select trips 61 & select trips Annual Revenue Miles 94,554 49,282 113,836 Annual Revenue Hours 5,610 1,144 6,754 Estimated Ridership 67,238 12,662 79,900
Route 21 - Route 21 offers service between the BTC and Morgantown with on early morning round trip and one mid-afternoon round trip (Figure 64). While the route has the lowest ranking farebox recovery rate, it hardly places much of a burden on the overall deficit of the BARTA system. The other metric values are similarly ranked; however, Morgantown is an area with a lot of growth potential, which has been identified by various different developers who are hoping to open new commercial destinations in the area.
For now, the recommendation is to continue operating the service as it is currently aligned, with the same two round trips offered per day, Monday through Friday. As development potential turns into actual development, the route’s alignment should be reconsidered to operate to the generators in and around Morgantown, and additional round trips should also be considered, to properly meet the demand.
______Final Report Page 259
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 65 - Route 21
______Final Report Page 260
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and Morgantown Express Generators Served Morgantown Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 2 Daily Frequencies (min) Round Trips Annual Revenue Miles 20,604 20,604 Annual Revenue Hours 832 832 Estimated Ridership 4,739 4,739
Route 22 - Route 22 offers service between the BTC and East Penn-Deka (Figure 65), with two early morning round trips, two midday round trips, and two late evening round trips. The farebox recovery rate ranks 20th in the system, while the contribution to the deficit is approximately average for the system. The passenger productivity per revenue hour and revenue mile are ranked 20th and 21st, while the deficit per revenue hour, revenue mile and passenger are ranked 20th, 4th and 20th, respectively. The current schedule is set to meet the needs shift time needs of the East Penn Manufacturing Company. No changes are specifically being proposed for this route; however, ongoing coordination with the East Penn Manufacturing Company should be maintained in order to provide service at the best times in order to capture the largest number of passengers.
______Final Report Page 261
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 66 - Route 22
______Final Report Page 262
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Operates Between BTC and East Penn Manufacturing Company Generators Served Blandon, Fleetwood, East Penn Manufacturing Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 6 Daily Frequencies (min) Round Trips Annual Revenue Miles 47,889 47,889 Annual Revenue 1,887 1,887 Hours Estimated Ridership 16,761 16,761
Recommendations – New Services
Up to this point, the recommendations have related to the current routes, either revisions to current alignments, or the introduction of new routes that enhance existing services. The following route recommendations are proposals for new services that would either offer service to areas currently not offered fixed route bus service or introduce new movements between varying generators not currently operated by any BARTA route, thus augmenting the systems ridership potential.
Berkshire Mall-Kenhorst Plaza & Berkshire Mall-Fairgrounds Square Mall - The first two recommended routes would offer new service from the Berkshire Mall Transit Center. Both routes would create many new connections between the currently offered and other newly recommended routes. The first route would operate between Berkshire Mall and the Kenhorst Plaza (Figure 66). From the Berkshire Mall the route would operate via State Hill Road westwards towards Van Reed Road. The route would enter the Giant via the entrance on State Hill Road, and then turn right onto Van Reed Road, right onto Rocky Drive, left onto Quarry Road, left onto Snyder Road and right onto Van Reed Road. Van Reed Road becomes Mull Avenue. The route would turn left onto Penn Avenue, followed by a quick right onto Shillington Road. The route would turn into the Giant off of Shillington Road, and then return to Shillington Road, which then becomes Revere Boulevard after crossing over US 222. The route would turn left onto Lancaster Avenue and stay straight onto Philadelphia Avenue. The route would operate through the Kenhorst Plaza and then return to Philadelphia Avenue, followed by a left onto New Holland Road, left onto Harding Avenue, right onto Community Drive, left onto Summit Avenue followed by a left back onto Harding Avenue, where the route would operate in the opposite direction back towards the Berkshire Mall.
______Final Report Page 263
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 67 - New Route (Berkshire Mall to Kenhorst Plaza via Sinking Springs)
This route would operate Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM, offering uniform 60 minute frequencies throughout the service day, and operating on Saturdays between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM, also with 60 minute frequencies.
______Final Report Page 264
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Berkshire Mall and Kenhorst Plaza Operates Between via Sinking Spring
Berkshire Mall, State Hill Road Giant, Quarry Road, Generators Served Sinking Spring, Shillington Giant, Kenhorst Plaza, Community Drive Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 6:00A-8:00P 8:00A-8:00P Frequencies (min) 45 45 Annual Revenue Miles 65,331 13,322 78,653 Annual Revenue Hours 3,570 728 4,298 Estimated Ridership 71,864 13,322 85,187
This new route would provide new connections to 11 current or newly proposed BARTA routes, creating many new transfer points, and creating a situation where passengers would not have to travel into the BTC in order to make their transfer movements. Transfers could be made at the Berkshire Mall to Routes 6, 15 and 16, as well as the new Penn Street Crosstown Route, the Berkshire Shuttle and the new Berkshire Mall to Fairgrounds Square Mall Route. Another transfer could be made to the Route 14 service and the proposed Reading to Lebanon Express service in Sinking Springs along US 422. Connections to Route 12 can be made along Shillington Road and Revere Road, while a transfer could be made to Route 11 along Lancaster Avenue. Lastly, a transfer could be made to Route 9 at the Kenhorst Plaza or along New Holland Road. Any future transit amenities in Sinking Springs would be served by this route, including a potential Park and Ridelot and/or transfer center.
The second new route would operate between the Berkshire Mall and the Fairgrounds Square Mall (Figure 67), and would create a third crosstown route - the current Route 6 on Spring Street and the recommended Penn Street Crosstown route. This route would begin at the Berkshire Mall and travel to US 222/Ben Franklin Highway via Woodland Road and Crossing Drive. The route would then enter PA 12/Warren Street Bypass, where it would remain until the PA 61/Pottsville Pike/Centre Avenue Exit. The route would then operate to the Fairgrounds Square Mall via PA 61/Pottsville Pike/Centre Avenue, George Street and Fairgrounds Square Drive. After operating through the Fairgrounds Square Mall, the route would turn right onto Bellevue Avenue, a right onto Kutztown Road, a left onto Elizabeth Avenue, left onto Monclair Street, and a left to return to Bellevue Avenue in order to operate in the opposite direction back to the Berkshire Mall.
______Final Report Page 265
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 87 - New Route (Berkshire Mall to Fairgrounds Square Mall)
This new service would operate during the same hours of service and with the same frequency of service as the other new Berkshire Mall route, Monday through Friday between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM with hourly frequencies. Saturday service will be offered between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM, also with 60 minute frequencies. Since this route is shorter in terms of
______Final Report Page 266
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
mileage and time necessary to complete each round trip, this route will layover at the proposed Berkshire Mall Transit Center in order to coordinate its departure with the other new recommended Berkshire Mall route. To the greatest extent possible, these routes should also be coordinated with the Berkshire Shuttle and the other routes that operate to and through this potential transit facility.
Operates Between Berkshire Mall and Fairgrounds Square Mall Berkshire Mall, PA 61, Fairgrounds Square Mall, Generators Served Laureldale Weekday Saturday Total Span of Service 6:00A-8:00P 8:00A-8:00P Frequencies (min) 45 45 Annual Revenue Miles 43,911 8,954 52,865 Annual Revenue Hours 3,570 728 4,298 Estimated Ridership 74,649 13,432 88,080
This route would provide connections to 12 current or newly proposed BARTA routes along the recommended alignment. Transfers can be made at the Berkshire Mall to Routes 6, 15 and 16, and the proposed Berkshire Shuttle, the proposed Penn Street Crosstown route, and the Berkshire Mall to Kenhorst Plaza. Transfers would be made to Routes 19 and 20 along PA 61/Pottsville Pike/Centre Avenue. Transfers would be possible to Routes 1, 2 and 3 at the Fairgrounds Square Mall. Lastly, transfers would be made on Kutztown Road to Route 22.
The transit needs score identified Kutztown and Boyertown as two areas within Berks County that could support fixed route transit service, but which do not currently have such service. Kutztown University does provide transit service for its students that is also available for use by the community; however, this service differs from normal fixed route transit service that is available for use by the general public in that residents must pay $35.00 per semester to ride the service, and when classes are not in session, service is not provided.
Kutztown and Boyertown - The recommendation for the Kutztown Route would be to operate the service via the Route 3 alignment between the BTC and the North Reading Plaza, and then operate to Kutztown via Allentown Pike, US 222 and Kutztown Road. In Kutztown, Kutztown Road becomes Main Street. The route would turn around via Railroad Street, Peach Street and Greenwich Street. Service to Kutztown could also lead to possible connections with the LANta bus system, which offers service in the Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton areas, as well as to the bus service offered by Kutztown University. The Kutztown to Boyertown route is depicted in Figure 68.
______Final Report Page 267
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Figure 69 - New Route (BTC to Kutztown)
Consideration was given to offering service to Kutztown via Park Road, Fleetwood Lyons Road and Noble Street; however, much of this movement is already done by the Route 22 service, and the US 222 alignment would provide quicker times between Reading and Kutztown. Tangentially, service to Kutztown could be provided by an extension of the Route 22 service. This route would function as a “local” service between Reading and Kutztown, providing service to several points between the two destinations, including Blandon, Fleetwood and Lyons.
______Final Report Page 268
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
As mentioned, the other area within Berks County which deserves fixed route transit service is Boyertown. Consideration was given to adding a connection to Boyertown via an extension to the Route 8 service to Birdsboro, and as a new route that would operate between the City of Reading and the City of Pottstown via US 422, with service extending to Boyertown via North Hanover Street, Wilson Street, PA 100 and PA 73. Neither of these options represented a viable solution to serving Boyertown decent transit service. A final option for Boyertown would be to have the Pottstown Area Rapid Transit (PART) system extend service to Boyertown from one of its existing routes. Further market analysis should be extended in order to determine the best way to serve Boyertown with fixed route bus service.
Recommendations – Other
There are other markets and service provisions that have discussed and considered that could provide additional service in future years. These recommendations include the monitoring of large land use and commercial developments, and the offering of service on Sunday. These recommendations may have significant impacts on the BARTA system in future years, but have no direct bearing on the recommended plan at this time.
Potential Transit Markets - Future growth in Berks County includes development potential along Interstate 78, PA 183 and PA 501, among other corridors in the county. BARTA must be an active partner in any large scale developments in the county, especially those that are seen as major economic development possibilities. Analysis of each new development should be made to determine the transit worthiness of the site. Additional consideration should be made for services that will facilitate transfers to other fixed route service providers, such as the Schuylkill Transportation System in Schuylkill County.
Sunday Service - The potential to extend transit service to Sunday’s was examined. The data used for this portion of the analysis was the GFI data collected for an average weekday and an average Saturday, each routes farebox recovery rate, and each routes average passengers per revenue hour value. A ratio of weekday ridership versus Saturday ridership was calculated and a ranking determined for each route. Rankings were also given to each route based on their farebox recovery rate and their passengers per hour value. The rankings for each metric were then added up to create a sum of the rankings. These sums were then ranked to determine if Sunday service is warranted by route. Determining the transit worthiness of each route for Sunday service using this multi-variable method eliminates the potential for error that could happen by just using a single variable. Tables 62 through 64 detail the data for this analysis.
______Final Report Page 269
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 65 - Weekday Ridership versus Saturday Ridership GFI Ridership Saturday/ Monday, Saturday, Weekday Route April 9, 2011 April 23, 2011 Percent Rank 1 1,453 1,266 87.13 2 2 74 32 43.24 13 3 335 236 70.45 4 4 1,134 568 50.09 9 5 298 126 42.28 14 6 76 0 0 19 7 314 143 45.54 12 8 425 285 67.06 5 9 194 115 59.28 6 10 463 263 56.80 7 11 364 175 48.08 10 12 236 53 22.46 18 14 872 413 47.36 11 15 718 558 77.72 3 16 942 867 92.04 1 17 463 184 39.74 15 18 762 402 52.76 8 19 678 240 35.40 17 20 299 117 39.13 16 21 23 0 0 19 22 94 0 0 19
______Final Report Page 270
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 66 - Farebox Recovery Rate and Passenger per Hour Rankings Farebox Passenger Recovery Rate per Hour Route Rank Value Rank 1 58.11 1 41.91 1 2 22.79 11 20.15 11 3 19.74 15 19.36 13 4 51.91 2 33.87 2 5 27.32 7 22.20 8 6 23.32 10 19.40 12 7 20.03 14 16.37 16 8 22.48 12 25.93 5 9 13.99 17 11.76 17 10 40.81 3 27.06 4 11 19.65 16 18.81 5 12 10.95 18 9.69 19 14 22.17 13 21.05 10 15 38.59 5 27.46 3 16 26.91 8 19.09 14 17 29.47 6 24.50 7 18 38.66 4 25.38 6 19 25.73 9 21.16 9 20 10.27 19 11.45 18 21 3.30 21 5.04 21 22 4.08 20 5.06 20
______Final Report Page 271
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 67 - Sunday Transit Worthiness Score Saturday/ Farebox Passenger Weekday Recovery per Hour Sum of Combine Sunday Route Rank Rank Rank Ranks Rank Service? 1 2 1 1 4 1 Yes 2 13 11 11 35 12 Maybe 3 4 15 13 32 10 Maybe 4 9 2 2 13 3 Yes 5 14 7 8 29 9 Maybe 6 19 10 12 41 15 No 7 12 14 16 42 17 No 8 5 12 5 22 6 Yes 9 6 17 17 40 14 No 10 7 3 4 14 4 Yes 11 10 16 5 41 15 No 12 18 18 19 55 19 No 14 11 13 10 34 11 Maybe 15 3 5 3 11 2 Yes 16 1 8 14 23 7 Yes 17 15 6 7 28 8 Maybe 18 8 4 6 18 5 Yes 19 17 9 9 35 12 Maybe 20 16 19 18 53 18 No 21 19 21 21 61 21 No 22 19 20 20 59 20 No
As Table 64 details, there are seven routes that should be operated on Sunday, if Sunday service were to be offered, and another 5 routes where further analysis would be needed to determine if Sunday service should be provided along their alignment. However, since Sunday service is not currently offered by BARTA, implementing Sunday service would not be as easy as assigning drivers additional days of service. Administrative and maintenance staffs would be needed in order to prepare and maintain the buses for service, to dispatch buses and to answer phone inquiries. Additionally, complimentary ADA service would need to be offered along the routes that would operate on Sunday. The cost of implementing Sunday service would be large and money could be better spent expanding the service area and exploring new transit markets.
Implementation Schedule
It is expected that recommended changes would be implemented when fiscally possible; however, a suggested implementation schedule has been included in an effort to describe how and when the recommendations should be put into service. This schedule was created based on need, as well as other determining factors. For example, the Berkshire Mall Transit Center should be constructed and opened prior to any major changes to the routes in the Berkshire Mall ______Final Report Page 272
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
area. Several route changes have been grouped together in order to minimize disenfranchised riders, as well as to maximize the benefits that the grouped routes can provide in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Table 65 shows which of the recommended changes should occur by year, including span and frequency recommendations, alignment changes and recommended new routes. The Table also details a comprehensive capital improvements program. The capital support items include the installation of bus stop signs, passenger waiting shelters and benches. The capital improvement items include the construction of information kiosks at various generators and destinations, as well as the construction of the recommended transit facility at the Berkshire Mall.
Table 68 - Implementation Schedule Recommendation Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Span/Frequency Route 6 Route 20 Route 3 Route 7 Route 5 Route 15 Alignment Route 9 Route 12 Route 6 Route 16 Route 11 Route 19 Berkshire Shuttle, New Route Berkshire- Penn Street Implementation Kenhorst, Berkshire- Fairgrounds Route 15 Route 2 Route 1 Route 16 Route 3 Route 4 Route 7 Berkshire Route 9 Route 8 Route 5 Route 12 Shuttle Capital Support Items Route 10 Route 14 Route 6 Route 19 Berkshire- Route 11 Route 21 Penn Street Kenhorst Route 17 Route 22 Berkshire- Route 18 Fairgrounds Transit Capital Information Information Center (1), Information Information Improvements Kiosks (4) Kiosks (1) Information Kiosks (2) Kiosks (1) Kiosks (2)
Capital Program
The capital plan is concerned primarily with major expenditures during the planning period that support the recommended changes. Capital outlays are for buses and other transit facilities. Other amounts have been estimated for information kiosks, shelters, benches and bus stop signs. It is recognized that BARTA will incur other capital expenditures (e.g., support ______Final Report Page 273
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
vehicles), which will be treated as part of the annual budget cycle, but which are not presented in this analysis.
The single largest outlay for most capital programs is for the purchase of new and replacement buses. BARTA currently has a 57 bus fleet which is dedicated to the fixed route system; 46 are used for daily service, while the remaining 11 vehicles serve as the spare fleet. Table 66 details the fleet requirement for the recommended plan as suggested by the implementation schedule. Currently, the spare ratio is 23.9%, which approximate enough to the industry held suggested spare ratio of 20%. The number of peak vehicle buses initially declines by one vehicle in the second year of the recommended plan, and then climbs to 50 buses by year five. Current vehicle stock will sufficiently cover the total vehicle need of the recommended plan, as outlined in the implantation schedule, through the year three, FY2014-2015. One new vehicle will need to be purchased in year four, FY2015-2016, while three new vehicles will need to be purchased in year 5, FY2016-2017. The three new vehicles needed in year 5 should be body-on-chassis buses, which will be used on the new Berkshire Shuttle route.
Table 69 - Fleet Requirement Fiscal Spare Ratio Year Peak Spares (Percent) Total 2011-12 46 11 23.9 57 2012-13 46 11 23.9 57 2013-14 45 10 22.2 55 2014-15 45 10 22.2 55 2015-16 47 11 23.4 58 2016-17 50 11 22.0 61
Additionally, a bus acquisition program would replace buses as they reach their useful economic life. BARTA’s current fleet is relatively young, and no vehicles will need to be replaced until year 4, FY2015-2016. The average age of BARTA fixed route vehicles is approximately 6 years old. Generally, a bus system should strive to have a bus fleet with an approximate average age that equates to half of the economic life of its vehicles. All of BARTA’s fixed route vehicles have an economic life of 12 years, meaning that BARTA’s fleet meets this ideal situation. Table 67 details the current vehicle stock by the year of their acquisition and notes when new vehicles will need to be purchased. As noted by the previous table, the peak vehicle requirement will decrease in FY2013-2014, and remain at that level through FY2014-2015.
______Final Report Page 274
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 70 - Bus Purchase Program Year of Fiscal Year Manufacture 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2003 7 7 5 5 2004 7 7 7 7 7 2005 17 17 17 17 17 17 2007 7 7 7 7 7 7 2008 8 8 8 8 8 8 2009 7 7 7 7 7 7 2010 4 4 4 4 4 4 2015 8 (new) 8 2016 10 (new) Total 57 57 55 55 58 61
In FY2015-2016, the five remaining 2003 vehicles, which are a mix of 34 foot Optima’s and 40 foot New Flyers, would need to be disposed of in order for eight new vehicles to be introduced to the fleet. In FY2016-2017, the seven 2004 vehicles, which include five 34 foot Optima’s and two 40 foot Gilligs, should be disposed of, while ten new vehicles would be purchased
BARTA should purchase vehicles that are similar to their recent procurements of 35 foot and 40 foot Gillig low floor buses. Other bus manufactures produce similar type buses. A 35 foot vehicle which seats 32 passengers and meets ADA requirements costs approximately $330,000, while a 40 foot bus that seats 39 people that meets ADA requirements costs approximately $420,000. Hybrid-electric buses are popular due to their ability to provide a “green” transit trip, but the additional cost for a conversion to a hybrid-electric engine is often expensive. BARTA’s most recently bought four 40 foot 2010 hybrid Gilligs, each costing approximately $540,000.
The other elements of the capital plan consist of bus stop signs, bus shelters, benches, information kiosks and a new transit hub at the Berkshire Mall. BARTA currently has very few bus stop signs installed around its service area. Bus stop signs not only help passengers identify where a bus stop is located and identify which buses serve a specific location, but they also play an important role in the branding and marketing of the bus system. As mentioned in the marketing plan, BARTA’s bus stop signs should match the BARTA brand and contain specific information about the system, as well as route identifying information. Each bus stop sign costs approximately $120 to manufacture and install. One option that could reduce the unit cost per bus stop sign would be to use existing poles to hang bus stop signs, as opposed to installing a new pole. Table 68 details the bus stop sign need by vehicle, as well as the year which the signs should be installed. Where possible, bus stop signs will be shared between routes. ______Final Report Page 275
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 71 - Recommended Bus Stop Signs by Route Bus Bus Stop Year of Stop Year of Route Signs Installation Route Signs Installation 1 80 1 15 30 5 2 0 - 16 20 5 3 30 2 Berkshire 20 5 4 50 1 Shuttle 5 50 3 17 50 2 6 40 3 18 20 2 7 40 4 19 60 4 8 20 1 20 60 5 9 40 2 21 20 1 10 40 2 22 60 1 11 70 2 Berkshire- 80 5 12 40 4 Kenhorst Penn Street 20 4 Berkshire- 40 5 14 120 1 FSM
Bus shelters and benches should be installed along popular routes, as they provide attractive amenities for passenger waiting areas. Each shelter costs approximately $7,500, while a bench can be manufactured and installed for approximately $750. Table 69 details the routes that should have benches and shelters installed, and the year in which they should be constructed. The location of the benches and shelters should be at the discretion of BARTA administration; however, the stops with the highest numbers of passenger boarding’s, outside of the BTC, should be considered for shelters, while other popular stop locations should have benches. Figure 69 shows examples of bus shelters.
______Final Report Page 276
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 72 - Recommended Shelters and Benches by Route Year of Route Benches Shelters Installation 1 6 6 1 4 4 4 1 5 4 2 3 8 2 2 1 10 0 2 2 11 0 1 2 Penn Street 0 2 4 14 0 4 1 15 2 2 5 16 6 6 5 17 6 4 2 19 4 0 4 Total 34 35
Figure 70 - Shelter Examples
Kiosks are able to provide a wealth of transit and transit related information in a relatively small area. Kiosks can range from brochure holders to interactive computer terminals with access to limited transit related websites and that can provide real-time bus information. Kiosks can be installed at a location, or can be mobilized so that it can be easily set up at different locations. The information kiosks should be used to promote the entire BARTA system, not just the routes that are in proximity to the kiosks location. Information kiosks can range in price from several hundred dollars to upwards of $10,000, depending on the level of technology put into the kiosk. BARTA should spend no more than $7,500 per kiosk.
______Final Report Page 277
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The information kiosks should carry the overall BARTA brand and be installed at several locations throughout the system. The kiosks should be completely stocked with every BARTA route’s individual time table, the ride guide, system maps, and brochures from other regional carries. Other slots can be filled with brochures to other local attractions and generators, specifically those that can be reached by BARTA transit routes. It would be preferable for each kiosk to have a computer terminal or touch screen technology that would access the redesigned BARTA website, where users can plan their trips, seek trip time information, or discover real- time bus information. The kiosk should also have an LED display, which is programmable to deliver real-time transit information and specific messages from BARTA. Table 70 details the recommended locations for information kiosks and the year in which each kiosk should be installed. Figure 70 shows examples of information kiosks.
Table 73 - Information Kiosk Locations Year of Location Installation Fairgrounds Square Mall 1 Broadcasting Square 1 Wernersville 1 North Reading Plaza 2 5th Street (2) 3 Albright College 3 Alvernia University 4 PSU Berks 4 Sinking Springs 5 Birdsboro 5 Mohnton 5
Figure 71 - Information Kiosk Examples
______Final Report Page 278
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The most significant capital recommendation is for the design and construction of a transit hub at the Berkshire Mall, or within its vicinity. With the rerouting of Route’s 15 and 16, and the implementation of three new routes that focus the Berkshire Mall area as one of the region’s main generators, a transit hub will provide a safe, clean and dry waiting area for BARTA passengers. The facility should be fully enclosed, with an information wall that contains touch screen technology that will allow access to BARTA’s website and route information, route brochures, system maps - both available for distribution and a large wall map for passenger use - real-time route information utilizing “Next Bus”-like technology, and other area information. The facility should also have a separate driver break room with bathrooms, as well as vending machines or a small snack shop for passengers. Further marker research should be performed to investigate if the Berkshire Mall area could support a transit Hub. The transit hub should be begin construction in year 4, with the facility opening its doors to passengers in year 5, when Routes 15 and 16 would be realigned, and three new Berkshire area routes would be initiated: the Berkshire Shuttle; the Berkshire to Fairgrounds Square Mall Crosstown route; and the Berkshire to Kenhorst Plaza route.
Table 71 indicates the quantities and amounts associated with the items comprising the capital plan. All capital items have been escalated at three percent annually to reflect the impact of inflation. Accordingly, all costs are presented in current year dollars. By far, the largest expenditure is for the replacement vehicles in 2011 and 2012.
Table 74 - Capital Improvement Program (Current Year Dollars) Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Bus 8 10 18
Amount $4,862,000 $6,260,000 $11,122,000 Bus Stop Signs 174 128 44 90 110 546 Amount $21,500 $16,300 $5,800 $12,200 $15,300 $71,100 Benches 12 6 4 4 8 34 Amount $9,300 $4,800 $3,300 $3,400 $7,000 $27,800 Shelters 16 7 2 2 8 35 Amount $103,000 $46,400 $13,700 $14,100 $58,000 $235,200 Information 3 1 2 2 3 11 Kiosks $20,100 $6,900 $14,200 $14,600 $22,600 $71,60 Amount Transit Hub 1 1
Amount $850000 $850000 Total $153,900 $74,400 $37,000 $5,756,400 $6,362,900 $12,384,600
The concluding step in the forecasting process was to estimate the funding by federal, state and local governments for the capital plan. As shown in Table 72, the federal funding
______Final Report Page 279
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
formula is far more generous for capital items than for operating assistance. In the current analysis, it has been assumed that the federal government will underwrite 80% of the capital outlay, with PennDOT and Berks County sharing the remainder on a five to one basis.
Table 75 - Capital Funding Forecasts Year Federal PennDOT Berks County Total 1 $123,120 $23,085 $7,695 $153,900 2 $59,520 $11,160 $3,720 $74,400 3 $29,600 $5,550 $1,850 $37,000 4 $4,605,120 $863,460 $287,820 $5,756,400 5 $5,090,320 $954,435 $318,145 $6,362,900 Total $9,907,680 $1,857,690 $619,230 $12,384,600
Operating Forecasts
The next step in the analysis was to develop estimates of key operating statistics, such as vehicle revenue hours and vehicle revenue miles. In turn, these results can be converted to operating costs by employing a three-variable cost allocation model, which utilizes the measures of annual vehicle service hours and vehicle service miles. Another element of this work is to estimate the ridership associated with the service improvement plan. The ridership estimates were then combined with fare assumptions to estimate the revenue associated with the implementation of the proposed system. Next, the operating deficit is calculated as the difference between the annual operating costs and the total revenue generated through fares paid by passengers.
Operating Statistics - Under the recommended plan, the routes would begin their daily service at various times throughout the morning and continue operating into the evening hours. Service would also be provided on Saturdays for most routes. The service improvement plan does not call for Sunday service at this time, which is consistent with existing service levels, although this option could be explored in the future if demand is warranted, as mentioned previously. The recommended plan’s annual vehicle service hours, vehicle service miles and vehicle requirements are presented in Table 73, and are increased as called for in the implementation schedule.
Table 76 - Operating Forecasts Operating Statistic 2011/12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue Miles 1,590,396 1,615,059 1,614,123 1,608,442.7 1,657,053.7 1,824,491.7 Revenue Hours 133,346 135,131 133,856 133,856 134,456 146,022 Peak Vehicles 46 46 45 45 47 50
______Final Report Page 280
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Ridership Estimates - Forecasts were prepared for each route comprising the service improvement plan for a typical weekday and Saturday. To estimate ridership associated with each route proposal two separate techniques were applied as follows:
Similar Routes - With this approach, the productivity levels (i.e., passengers per revenue hour) of the existing routes were examined and used as a basis for estimating ridership with proposed service changes. Route productivity values were borrowed from current routes that had similar service area characteristics and service levels. Specified Value - In some cases, passengers per hour values were assumed based on professional judgment and experience in other areas.
Additionally, the values for Saturday service were adjusted to reflect the reality that fewer people use transit on weekends. Table 74 details the estimated ridership of the recommended plan over the next five year period. Ridership values have been increased a rate commiserate with the increase in service provided. For comparison, the FY2011-2012 values are also shown in the table.
Table 77 - Ridership Estimates Item 2011/12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Ridership 3,233,840 3,330,855 3,414,127 3,482,409 3,534,645 3,569,992 Passengers/Revenue Mile 2.03 2.06 2.12 2.17 2.13 1.96 Passengers/Revenue Hour 24.25 24.65 25.51 26.02 26.29 24.45
Financial Forecasts - The next step in the forecasting process was to prepare estimates for both operating costs and farebox revenue. These estimates were prepared in a two-step process. First, a three-variable cost model calculation was performed using FY2011-2012 data, which represents the most recently available transit data from the BARTA system. Table 75 details the results of this cost model, and show the unit cost per vehicle revenue mile, per vehicle revenue hour, and per peak vehicle.
The operating stats in Table 76 were multiplied by the unit cost. Next, these estimates were escalated to reflect inflation and to present the amounts in current year dollars of expenditure. Operating cost forecasts were prepared using a three-variable cost allocation model, which relates the cost of the bus service to vehicle revenue hours, vehicle revenue miles, and peak vehicles.
The existing operating cost of bus service was calculated at $1.96 per vehicle revenue mile and $40.18 per vehicle revenue hour, and $30,313.35 per peak vehicle. Calculating these values with the estimated operating statistics of the service improvement plan resulted in a total cost, in constant dollars, of $9,869,430. The estimated operating variables are presented in Table 77.
______Final Report Page 281
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 78 - Three-Variable Cost Model (FY2011-2012) Operating Variable Statistic Unit Cost ($) Amount ($) Vehicle Revenue Mile 1,590,396 1.96 3,117,180 Vehicle Revenue Hour 133,346 40.18 5,357,850 Peak Vehicles 46 30,313.35 1,394,400 Total -- -- 9,869,430
These unit cost values were then used to calculate the operating cost per year, utilizing the estimations for vehicle revenue miles, vehicle revenue hours, and peak vehicles derived from the recommended plan. The operating cost values were then escalated to reflect the impact of inflation, with the resulting amounts presented in current year dollars. It was assumed that costs would escalate about three percent annually, which reflects a limited inflation rate. The estimated revenue associated with the proposed routes was then determined by calculating the average fare of the current system, $0.91 per passenger, and multiplying that value with the estimated ridership, (Table 74). The estimates reflect no fare increase during the horizon period. The resulting estimates, over a five year period, are expressed in Table 77, detailing the expected costs, revenues and deficits in current year dollars, along with the expected deficit. The farebox recovery rate was also calculated and is displayed in the table.
Table 79 - Financial Forecasts (Current Year Dollars) Change 2011-12 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 (%) Operating Cost ($) 9,869,433 10,289,178 10,509,398 10,812,515 11,339,495 12,704,294 28.7% Revenue ($) 2,942,794 3,031,078 3,106,855 3,168,992 3,216,527 3,248,692 10.4% Deficit ($) 6,926,638 7,258,100 7,402,543 7,643,522 8,122,968 9,455,601 36.5% Farebox Recovery (%) 29.8% 29.5% 29.6% 29.3% 28.4% 25.6% -14.2%
With costs rising faster than revenue, the resulting deficit increases from approximately $6.9 million to $9.5 million through year 5 of the recommended plan, an approximate 37% increase. The next step in the process was to develop forecasts of operating assistance from the federal, state and local governments. This is a challenging process, since there is considerable uncertainty regarding transit funding at both the federal and state level. Federal Transit funding is identified in a multi-year transportation authorization. The current legislation, the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), was to expire in 2009, but was reauthorized multiple times for an additional time periods. Congress continues to discuss a new transportation bill; however, politics have gotten in the way of progress. It is assumed that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) would continue to provide operating assistance at higher funding levels. Historically, federal transit funding has increased and this trend is expected to continue.
______Final Report Page 282
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
The level of state transit funding was increased with the passage of Act 44, which greatly increased the level of operating assistance given to service providers. The source of this higher level of funding was to be from an increase in the Pennsylvania Turnpike tolls and the imposition of tolls on Interstate 80. While the former has taken place, the tolling of Interstate 80 was denied by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). For this reason, transit agencies were informed that no further increases in transit funding would be expected. That being said, it is assumed that the funding issues would be resolved within the next few years and prior to the culmination of the five years comprising these recommendations.
In terms of computing the values for the state and federal funding, consideration was given to past trends and the proposed changes to the service levels, which should equate to an increase in ridership. Act 44 funding is based on a formula that considers revenue hours, revenue miles, passengers and senior citizen ridership. The forecasting process provided information on future service levels and ridership, which was then used to estimate the increase in funding from one year to the next.
In addition, assumptions had to be made about the consequences and impacts of how much money would be provided for all transit systems in the Commonwealth and a growth in overall funding was also input to the process. The result of this process is shown in Table 78 and details a moderate increase in state funding over the five year period, with lesser increases in both federal and local funding.
Table 80 - Operating Assistance (Current Year Dollars) Year Federal ($) State ($) Local ($) Total ($) 2011-12 $2,181,891 $4,408,805 $335,942 $6,926,638 1 $2,250,011 $4,672,765 $335,324 $7,258,100 2 $1,883,947 $5,178,079 $340,517 $7,402,543 3 $1,945,276 $5,346,644 $351,602 $7,643,522 4 $2,047,800 $5,694,201 $380,967 $8,122,968 5 $2,373,356 $6,628,376 $453,869 $9,455,601
The level of funding was based on past observed trends. This assumption may prove conservative, in light of the possibility of possible new federal legislation increasing overall transit funding. The percentage of the funding by funding type is presented in Table 79, which illustrates that the percentage of federal funding will decrease slightly as the state funding increases. State funding is expected to increase due to the Act 44 funding formula and increases in BARTA ridership.
______Final Report Page 283
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 81 - Operating Assistance (Percent) Year Federal (%) State (%) Local (%) 2011-12 31.5% 63.7% 4.9% 1 31.0% 64.4% 4.6% 2 25.5% 70.0% 4.6% 3 25.5% 70.0% 4.6% 4 25.2% 70.1% 4.7% 5 25.1% 70.1% 4.8%
Monitoring Program
The previous sections have presented a series of recommendations for the BARTA bus system. It is reasonable to expect that changes will occur during the implementation phases of the recommendations which would suggest that the bus system be monitored to assess its performance and make any mid-course adjustments as may be appropriate. Moreover, the bus system performance should be assessed on an ongoing basis. This section presents a series of suggestions to accomplish the monitoring of BARTA’s performance.
Service Guidelines - The keystone to the monitoring program is a complete set of service guidelines, which can gauge the transit performance from the standpoint of the rider, the transit agency and the broader community. Guidelines were specified as part of this analysis in more than a dozen criteria that measure the coverage, convenience, comfort and fiscal conditions of BARTA. Some criteria can be applied at the system level, while others can be used to evaluate individual route performance, as shown in Table 80.
______Final Report Page 284
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Table 82 - Service Standards Standard System-wide Route Service Coverage Availability X Frequency X Span X Directness X X Patron Convenience Speed X Loading X Bus Stop Spacing X Dependability X X Fiscal Condition Fare Structure X Farebox Recovery X X Passenger Comfort Waiting Shelters/Benches X Bus Stop Signs X Revenue Equipment X Public Information X
Data Collection - The objective of developing a set of service standards is that they can be used in a two-step planning process. First, they can be used to evaluate the current bus system and identify deficiencies and opportunities. Second, proposals can be formulated to remedy current problems and exploit future opportunities. Needless to say, considerable data will have to be assembled from a variety of sources that include existing records as well as specific surveys. In some cases, information will need to be obtained from other departments and agencies, while much of the data will have BARTA as the source. Another aspect of the data collection is that BARTA should take advantage of three primary technologies to gather necessary information. These technologies are:
Registering Fareboxes - Currently, BARTA has installed this equipment on all buses which provides the capability to count the number of boarding’s for each bus trip. These results can be aggregated by route, time period, direction and fare type. Because of the electronic nature of the information, it can be readily captured and displayed with little human intervention. Considerable use is made of these data by transit agencies in analyzing route productivity.
Automated Vehicle Locators - This system tracks the location of each bus as it traverses its route. Information is provided on the geographical location and time for each vehicle block. Information can be compiled on running times and schedule adherence. As with the registering fareboxes, software is available that captures the data and presents it in a readily useable format. Since manual techniques would require checkers at various time points and/or on-board, this type of information ______Final Report Page 285
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
required costly labor and intensive means to gather. With AVL, the entire system can be monitored in a comprehensive fashion with much of the data archived for subsequent analysis.
Automatic Passenger Counter - Another automated technique is this technology which can identify all boarding’s and alighting’s by bus stop. In addition to identifying passenger activity, APCs can also be used to quantify the number of passengers, or load, on the bus at any given location and time. BARTA has this equipment on all buses thus allowing information to be obtained on the entire system without the need for costly survey procedures. The system includes software which permits the data to be assembled and reviewed for a variety of geographical and temporal strata.
The technologies described above are being more widely used in the transit industry since it avoids manual techniques where the use of checkers and survey personnel would be prohibitive. Moreover, many agencies do not gather this information and conduct a robust monitoring program on an ongoing basis. Further, the technologies provide data during all operations, rather than a relatively limited sample. In this way, it is possible to get information by time of day, day of the week, and season. Because of the decreasing cost of the technology, transit systems are installing these capabilities on all buses. With this capability, BARTA could continuously gather data on all bus routes and retrieve it for analysis on an as needed basis.
Other information will also need to be gathered from existing BARTA records. This would include revenue and vehicle hours and miles, assigned buses by route and time period aggregated on a daily, monthly, year to date and annual basis. Usually, these data are compiled from the scheduling records where the information is maintained by service day and updated to reflect missed trips or extra sections.
BARTA also compiles financial and other statistics as part of its National Transit Database (NTD) reporting to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and PennDOT’s Bureau of Public Transportation’s Legacy Reports. This would include costs by mode, function and object class. Other data items are the road calls, fuel consumption and staff hours. Combined with other information, the monitoring program consists of a wealth of information on the current bus system.
Data are also needed which describes the City of Reading, Berks County and the BARTA service area in terms of key demographic and economic indices, as well as major generators. The most detailed data is from the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey (which has taken the place of the long form U.S. Census from previous counts), since they compile information on population by age, income, auto ownership, gender, and countless other variables. Journey to work data, in terms of trip origins and destinations, along with travel time
______Final Report Page 286
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
for each mode, can also be identified. BARTA should be able to extract a wealth of information on the region and commuting patterns.
In addition to record keeping by BARTA and others, there will be a need for survey efforts, although the frequency would be limited with the reliance placed on the automated technologies discussed previously. A summary of these surveys is presented below:
Rider Survey - There is certain information that can only be obtained by soliciting information directly from riders. Typically, survey cards are issued to riders and they are asked to provide information on the trip that they are making. This would include origin, destination, boarding and alighting stop, trip purpose and access mode. Other information would be the characteristics of the rider in terms of age, gender, income and auto availability. Queries can also solicit information on attitudes and perceptions regarding the current bus system and future changes. Because of the costs associated with this effort, a system-wide rider survey is usually done no more frequently than once every five years.
Resident Survey - To address the potential or latent demand for BARTA service, surveys should be conducted of residents through either a telephone interview or mail-out/mail-back survey form. The survey instrument solicits information on perception of public transportation, factors in mode choice, willingness to ride and attitudes on transportation and funding issues. Similar to the rider survey, the expense of this survey effort would suggest that it be administered about every five years.
Ride/Trail Checks - While the automated techniques will provide a wealth of information on ridership patterns and running times, there is sometimes a need for staff to observe the current situation. With the ride check, this observation takes place with a staff person on the bus. Another approach is to follow the bus and make notes on the bus and its operation. These approaches would be used where problems have occurred and there is a need for first hand observations.
The discussion above has described the process that should be followed by BARTA to monitor current route and system performance. These are useful tools and should be continued in the future. In addition, it is suggested that a monitoring program based on service standards also be employed. Each standard establishes the necessary data items which need to be obtained to indicate whether BARTA is in compliance with the service guideline policy. These data items are obtained either through system records, ongoing data collection and new procedures with the installation of the use of the three technologies discussed. This evaluation process should be oriented to a quarterly reporting process.
______Final Report Page 287
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
Summary
This report has presented an improvement program for the BARTA bus system. It included a series of proposals in terms of alignments, frequency and span of service. It calls for changes to existing bus routes, as well as proposals for entirely new services. The plan reflects extensive technical analysis, surveys of riders and staff input.
It presents a positive vision for public transportation, which can be implemented during the next several years. It is recognized that the pace of implementation will be greatly influenced by federal and state funding, and the resulting demands on local funding. Given the nature of the plan, it has been staged over a five year period. The phasing reflects the priority assigned to each service change. If funding is less than anticipated, the implementation period would be extended. Conversely, if funding exceeds estimates, the complete plan could be in place sooner, rather than later.
By its very nature, bus service is flexible in that route alignments can be changed to respond to changing conditions (e.g., development and funding). In this way, the plan should be viewed in the context of delineating the proposed system dimensions. Regardless of the funding scenario and pace of implementation, the recommended plan should guide public transportation for the BARTA system during the next several years.
______Final Report Page 288
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
APPENDIX A:
Bus Rider Survey Forms
&
Weekday & Saturday Origin/Destination Maps
______A-1
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______A-2
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______A-3
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______A-4
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______A-5
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
APPENDIX B:
RESIDENT SURVEY FORM
______B-1
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______B-2
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______B-3
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______B-4
Transit Development Plan for Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority
______B-5