Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Final Report August 2018
Prepared for
Greater Roanoke Transit Company
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction ...... 1-1 COA Goals and Recommendations...... 1-2 COA Draft Report and Methodology ...... 1-2
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Introduction ...... 2-1 Strategy #1 - Change the Route Network from Pulse to Direct...... 2-2 Strategy #2 - Reduce the Number of Vehicles that Meet at the Same Time ... 2-5 Strategy #3 - Move the Transfer Facility ...... 2-11 Strategy #4 - A Combined Approach ...... 2-19
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Introduction ...... 3-1 Detailed Operating Statistics and Analysis ...... 3-1 Boarding/Alighting Data by Route and Stop and Proposed Route Changes ... 3-6 Potential New Routes ...... 3-57
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Introduction ...... 4-1 Ridership by Run ...... 4-1 Ridership by Time of Day ...... 4-2 30-Minute Frequency Recommendations ...... 4-4 Change in Pulse Transfer ...... 4-6
Chapter 5: Passenger Facilities and Other Recommendations Introduction ...... 5-1 Passenger Facilities ...... 5-1 Marketing and Advertising ...... 5-4 Service Planning ...... 5-5
Appendix A: Ridership by Time of Day for Each Route
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis i
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction
INTRODUCTION
The Greater Roanoke Transit Company, doing business as Valley Metro, provides fixed route public transit services within the cities of Roanoke and Salem and parts of Roanoke County, including the Town of Vinton. Complementary ADA paratransit, termed Specialized Transit – Arranged Rides (STAR) is provided by Unified Human Services Transportation Systems, Inc., Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride (RADAR), under a contractual arrangement. Valley Metro also operates intercity bus service between the New River Valley and Roanoke (the Smart Way Commuter and the Smart Way Express).
This report documents the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that has been conducted for Valley Metro. The COA was initiated in November 2017, with the draft recommendations provided in May 2018. The COA work was completed mid-way through the development of a Transit Development Plan (TDP), which is a six to ten-year transit plan required by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). KFH Group was under contract to DRPT to complete the TDP.
During the TDP process, Valley Metro determined that a more comprehensive examination of the routes and schedules for the fixed route system than is typically conducted for a TDP was needed, and requested that the TDP study team also conduct a COA. Valley Metro and the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO) provided funding for the COA tasks that were above and beyond the task work being completed for the TDP.
These transit planning projects follow the comprehensive Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan (TVP), which was completed over a three-year period and led by the RVTPO. The TVP included a significant outreach effort and developed short-term, mid-term, and long- term recommendations for improving public transportation in the region. While the process provided a detailed vision for the future of public transportation in the Roanoke Valley, an in-depth analysis of the functioning of each route was not conducted.
The TVP recommendations include significant expansion and improvement of transit services for the entire Roanoke Valley region. The plan was completed in the fall of 2016.
One of the recommendations within the TVP was “to evaluate individual routes for efficiencies and enhancements to save or maximize time and investment.” The COA recommendations serve to accomplish this task.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 1-1
Chapter 1: Introduction COA GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary goals of the COA are to:
1. Improve and strengthen the operational foundation of Valley Metro’s existing service delivery network focusing on the adjustments needed to implement all three phases of the TVP.
2. Reduce transit vehicle and passenger congestion by reducing to the most practical level possible the number of buses currently terminating in downtown Roanoke at the Campbell Court Bus Station, thereby identifying plausible transfer opportunities outside of the downtown area.
While the basic COA service recommendations are generally cost-neutral, there are a few system recommendations that will require additional investment. Because the COA recommendations are meant to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current routes, they do include reductions in the number of routes that offer 30-minute service. This is not in keeping with the recommendations contained within the TVP that serve to improve frequencies, but reflects the current ridership trends and the need to re-deploy the existing resources for higher ridership potential.
The COA recommendations are short-term in nature and focus on improving the current transit network. The intent of the COA is to make the existing system as efficient as possible prior to starting the process of implementing the series of expansions called for in the TVP. The recommended expansions outlined in the TVP include a higher level of service for the current routes, including Sunday service, service later in the evenings, and an increase in service frequency. Geographic expansion of the transit network and connecting routes are also featured in the TVP.
The second important goal of the COA, to reduce the number of vehicles that terminate in downtown Roanoke, was problematic to achieve given the road network, natural and man-made travel barriers, and size of the transit network. The recommendations do include significantly fewer vehicles meeting at one time, which partially achieves the goal and solves the short-term problem of limited capacity at the Campbell Court Station.
COA REPORT AND METHODOLOGY
The COA report is organized into the following sections:
Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Chapter 3 – Route Analysis and Recommendations Chapter 4 – Schedule Analysis and Recommendations
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 1-2
Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 5 – Passenger Facilities and Other Recommendations
Data used for the route and schedule analysis were derived from boarding/alighting counts and time checks conducted by the Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) staff during FY2017 for the purposes of National Transit Database reporting. Data used for the transfer analysis and the ridership by run and time of day were provided by Valley Metro, as recorded through the GFI Genfare fareboxes. A ten-day sample from October 2017 was used for the transfer analysis and a ten-day sample from November 2017 was used for the ridership by run and time of day.
All of the Valley Metro regular fixed routes that meet at Campbell Court were examined for the COA. Most of the recommended route changes are minor and serve to either improve running time or reduce the probability of vehicular conflicts or roadway safety hazards. There are more significant changes recommended for the 30 series, the 41/42, the 81/82, and the 91/92 to reflect ridership patterns. Two new routes are recommended for the short-term using existing resources and another two are proposed if expansion funds for services outside the City of Roanoke are available.
There are also significant changes recommended for the pulse transfer so that fewer buses meet at the same time in downtown Roanoke. This change is necessary as Campbell Court is at capacity and the most recent buses purchased by Valley Metro are longer and wider than the buses that they are replacing. There are also recommendations with regard to the time of day that 30-minute service is provided, as well as which routes are served with 30-minute service.
The final chapter addresses recommendations with regard to passenger facilities, marketing and advertising, and service planning.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 1-3
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities
Chapter 2
Transfer Analysis and Opportunities
INTRODUCTION
One of the important goals for the Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) is to develop a plan to reduce the bus and pedestrian congestion that occurs each hour in and around the Campbell Court Bus Station, located at 21 Campbell Avenue in downtown Roanoke. The station is staffed, provides an indoor waiting area and restrooms, and serves local fixed route buses, Greyhound, and Smart Way buses. Figure 2-1 provides a map of the Campbell Court location.
Figure 2-1: Location of Campbell Court Bus Station
Currently up to 16 local buses meet at the Campbell Court Bus Station so that passengers can transfer from one route to another to access most of the fixed route bus network. This transfer function is integral to the way in which the local bus network currently operates, but
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-1
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities results in too many vehicles and pedestrians sharing too small a space. The following observations have been made regarding the bus and pedestrian congestion at Campbell Court:
There is often passenger congestion on the waiting platforms of Campbell Court when passengers transfer from one route to another, which causes passengers to walk in the bus lanes.
There is bus congestion within the station when multiple buses use Lane 7.
There is no ability to add more routes to the bus network while still operating as a single hub and spoke system due to the space constraints within Campbell Court.
Reducing bus and pedestrian congestion in and around Campbell Court could be accomplished by implementing one or more of the following strategies:
Strategy 1: Change the route network from pulse to direct;
Strategy 2: Maintain a pulse system, but reduce the number of vehicles that meet at the same time for transfers;
Strategy 3: Maintain a pulse system, and move the facility to a location that can better accommodate the hub’s level of activity; or
Strategy 4: A combined strategy that includes a reduction in the number of vehicles that meet at the same time, and a move to a different location that could provide more space.
This chapter explores these strategies.
STRATEGY #1 - CHANGE THE ROUTE NETWORK FROM PULSE TO DIRECT
One way to reduce the bus and pedestrian congestion in and around Campbell Court would be to change the route network in such a way that direct routes are provided between major origins and destinations without the need for the “pulse” transfer at a central location. Pulse and direct networks are described below.
Pulse System
The current system, known as a pulse system, a hub and spoke system, or a timed transfer system, is one in which each route starts and ends at Campbell Court to allow passengers to transfer from one route to another. This type of system is typically used by small and medium
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-2
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities size transit systems in order to provide convenient connections from one part of the service area to another. It is usually the most favorable alternative when vehicle headways are 30 minutes or more and the service area does not feature a grid system of streets. The transit programs in Virginia of similar size to Valley Metro all use some form of a pulse system.
The positive features of a pulse system are:
Provides direct connections between routes that serve different geographic areas, with short wait times from one route to another;
Allows greater geographic coverage through the service area than would be possible using the same resources and a direct routing system;
Provides access to the full route network from each route; and
Focuses a system’s infrastructure through the use of a single hub.
Some negative features associated with a pulse system are:
Typically requires that a large percentage of riders make a transfer, which some riders find inconvenient;
Requires that the running times for the routes be coordinated so that they can meet; and
Can be hard to manage when a service area is experiencing growth that affects the running times of individual routes and the physical constraints of the hub.
Direct Network System
The alternative to a pulse system is a direct network system, where routes travel from origin to destination, without a timed transfer opportunity. This type of system is commonly employed in large transit programs that operate in service areas with a strong street grid so that routes can operate on parallel/perpendicular streets that are up to ½ mile apart. Riders can walk between routes to connect from one to another. This type of system needs to have relatively frequent headways to provide connectivity. An example of this type of system is shown in Exhibit 2-1, which is a map of a section of Portland, Oregon’s transit system (TriMet).
The positive features of a direct network system are:
Provides direct connections between major origins and destinations;
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-3
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Does not require that buses wait for one another, thus allowing for more flexible routing options (i.e., routes can have significantly different lengths); and
Does not require investment in a major transfer hub.
Some negative features associated with a direct network system are:
Typically requires the development of more routes than a pulse system to provide the same level of geographic coverage;
May require investment in many transit “super-stops” (i.e., those stops where a large shelter and some passenger amenities may be needed);
Higher frequency of service is needed to allow for reasonable wait times; and
Functions best in a service area that features a grid street network.
Exhibit 2-1: Tri-Met Transit Network
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-4
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Mixed System
Some transit programs operate using a blend of pulse and direct networks, where there may be a core hub with routes that serve the hub and extend to various parts of the service area, with additional direct routes that do not serve the hub, but rather connect key origins and destinations.
Transit programs also employ the use of secondary hubs where two or more routes meet for improved system connectivity, typically at the outer edges of the service area. These locations can be found at suburban mall, office park, community college, or hospital locations. Within Valley Metro’s current system, there are secondary hubs at a number of locations, including the Valley View Mall, Crossroads Shopping Center, Lewis Gale Medical Center, Salem VA Medical Center, and Towers Shopping Center.
Roanoke Valley Vision Plan Recommendation
The Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan included an analysis of a pulse system versus a direct network and concluded that a centralized hub in downtown Roanoke continues to be the most appropriate approach for the transit system in the Roanoke Valley.1 This conclusion was reached by conducting an analysis of the travel flows from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Regional Travel Demand Model and acknowledging the natural and built features that divide the Roanoke Valley. The travel demand analysis showed that over 50% of trips go to or through downtown Roanoke. The Roanoke River and the railroad tracks each form barriers since there are limited locations where they can be crossed, dividing the region into north and south.2 Downtown Roanoke provides infrastructure that crosses these barriers, making it a logical location for a primary bus transfer hub. In addition, downtown Roanoke is the primary activity center for the region.
STRATEGY #2 - REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT MEET AT THE SAME TIME
Another strategy that could be employed to reduce bus congestion in Downtown Roanoke would be to keep a pulse system, but split the pulse network so that half (or as close to half as is feasible, given the ridership patterns) of the routes meet on the 0:15 and the other half meet on the 0:45. This option does not reduce the total number of buses that converge downtown, but splits the function so that fewer buses meet at the same time. This strategy also entails fewer vehicles converging more frequently at Campbell Court (i.e. twice an hour). Splitting the pulse will inevitably result in some passengers having to wait up to 30 minutes at Campbell Court for their connections, even if travel patterns are scrutinized to minimize the number of riders affected.
1 Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan, Final Draft, Part 4: Preferences and Demand, page 22. 2 Ibid.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-5
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities This strategy is used by a number of medium-sized transit programs that have outgrown the physical space available at the hub, but are not large enough or do not have the appropriate street network for a direct route system.
An example of a pulse system where selected routes meet at the same time at the transit hub can be found in Asheville, North Carolina (Asheville Redefines Transit – ART). The system map is provided as Exhibit 2-2. Within this system, some of the routes meet on the hour, while others meet on the half-hour. There are also some regional routes that use the hub, but do not pulse with the other routes.
Prior to developing a different pattern for the hub system, it will be necessary to gain a good understanding of the transfer patterns of current riders to ensure that routes with strong connections from one to another continue to meet for a timed transfer opportunity to minimize the number of passengers who need wait 30 minutes for their connections. Inconveniencing a subset of passengers is a negative consequence of splitting the pulse.
Exhibit 2-2: Asheville Redefines Transit – System Map
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-6
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Analysis of Valley Metro Transfer Patterns
In order to see which routes have the strongest relationships, as well as how many transfers occur throughout the network, the study team analyzed a ten-day sample of transfers (October 2-12, 2017), as recorded through Valley Metro’s GFI fare collection system. The analysis focused on the routes that meet at Campbell Court for transfer opportunities each hour. Smart Way, the Trolley, and Route 31x were excluded from this analysis.
Linked/Unlinked Trips and Ridership
For the sample period, average daily passenger trips were about 6,600 for these routes (total). With an estimated transfer rate of 55%, this represents 2,950 linked trips. If a rider typically takes two trips per day, these trips represent about 1,500 people per day.
Transfer Analysis
The transfer analysis was based on a sample of riders, as the available data from GFI is associated with riders who need to request a transfer to complete the bus trip. These riders do not have unlimited ride passes and use cash fares, limited ride tickets, or multi-ride cards. For the sample period, 37% of the ridership is included in the sample, representing 24,389 passenger trips. Estimates with regard to total transfer activity were made based on this sample, as is described as follows.For each of the loops or paired routes, an analysis was conducted to determine the paired routes that have the strongest and weakest relationships. The purpose of this analysis is to see which route pairs are strongly associated and need to continue to provide a timed transfer opportunity for riders. This analysis was conducted using actual numbers rather than the percentage so that the study team could see how many riders would potentially be affected by changes. Table 2-1 shows the raw data for each pair for the sample period.
Table 2-1: Transfer Data for Sample Period- Raw Data
61_62 65_66 71_72 75_76 Transfers # 11_16 12_15 31_36 32_35 51_56 52_55 (Southe (Northe (Southe (Northe 81_82 85_86 Issued Issued From issued (CW) (CCW) 21-22 25_26 (CW) (CCW) 41_42 (CW) (CCW) rn) rn) rn) rn) (Direct) (Local) 91_92 and used % used 11_16 (CW) 1364 46 60 78 67 60 46 39 59 9 30 57 66 120 6 35 152 930 68.2% 12_15 (CCW) 1359 46 23 110 80 46 70 65 22 47 47 67 73 115 8 28 140 987 72.6% 21_22 1737 110 125 29 61 39 99 85 89 85 16 83 76 163 21 69 164 1314 75.6% 25_26 931 68 84 48 10 27 31 63 50 14 19 23 52 85 13 30 65 682 73.3% 31_36 (CW) 836 53 92 65 39 1 19 24 40 52 38 41 30 64 2 33 88 681 81.5% 32_35 (CCW) 698 52 60 50 23 6 13 32 34 53 22 28 13 57 1 17 63 524 75.1% 41_42 980 70 115 57 29 25 26 4 49 78 56 37 29 35 1 28 93 732 74.7% 51_56 (CW) 923 40 11 71 52 41 67 33 5 15 17 59 39 110 4 29 94 687 74.4% 52_55 (CCW) 932 11 61 82 39 27 55 46 6 16 10 47 49 87 16 45 123 720 77.3% 61_62 (Southern) 860 45 75 17 32 19 53 63 31 27 8 43 56 71 3 33 73 649 75.5% 65_66 (Northern) 1009 69 119 90 11 39 58 29 69 81 24 5 16 42 2 21 111 786 77.9% 71_72 (Southern) 745 50 80 72 48 12 39 13 50 42 36 23 2 56 2 19 60 604 81.1% 75_76 (Northern) 1737 146 183 177 96 36 75 44 89 143 63 93 77 12 12 49 86 1381 79.5% 81_82 (Direct) 233 24 11 26 11 0 1 4 21 25 2 24 3 2 4 16 3 177 76.0% 85_86 (Local) 1003 42 104 86 60 28 51 35 72 67 21 48 44 39 13 8 55 773 77.1% 91_92 2131 113 256 202 66 83 125 79 121 157 71 99 97 111 0 49 54 1683 79.0%
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-7
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities In order to use these data to estimate the total transfer activity (i.e., all trips, including those completed by passengers who use passes that do not require a transfer), the data for each route pair were analyzed to calculate an estimate for the total transfer activity between each route pair. To determine the ratio of pass users versus non-pass users, these data were compiled by route pair and a factor was developed for each pair, based on the pass/non-pass behavior during the sample period. The data used to develop this factor for each route pair is shown in Table 2-2.
The transfer factors developed in Table 2-2 were then applied to the transfer data by route pair (Table 2-1) to develop an estimate of the total transfer activity between route pairs. The formula used to develop these estimates is as follows:
Total Transfer Activity = (# 0f known transfers* transfer factor) + # of known transfers
These estimates are provided in Table 2-3.
Table 2-2: Development of Transfer Estimate by Route Pair
Total 10-day period Factor to % Trans. Account Non- Transfers of Non- % Non- for Riders Pass Pass Issued & Transfers % Pass Pass Pass Who Use Route Ridership Users Users Used Accepted Users Riders Riders Passes
11/16 (CW) 5,413 3,307 2,106 953 989 61% 47% 39% 1.56 12/15 (CCW) 6,355 4,119 2,236 995 1,465 65% 66% 35% 1.86 21/22 6,356 4,164 2,192 1,331 1,327 66% 61% 34% 1.90 25/25 3,554 2,219 1,335 705 771 62% 58% 38% 1.66 31/36 (CW) 2,892 1,857 1,035 685 491 64% 47% 36% 1.79 32/25 (CCW) 3,556 2,564 992 534 827 72% 83% 28% 2.58 41/42 3,154 1,952 1,202 830 656 62% 55% 38% 1.62 51/56 (CW) 3,479 2,084 1,395 693 803 60% 58% 40% 1.49 52/55 (CCW) 3,653 2,319 1,334 720 970 63% 73% 37% 1.74 61/62 (Southern) 3,188 1,970 1,218 655 480 62% 39% 38% 1.62 65/66 (Northern) 3,742 2,265 1,477 792 764 61% 52% 39% 1.53 71/72 (Southern) 3,311 2,255 1,056 605 721 68% 68% 32% 2.14 75/76 (Northern) 5,341 3,184 2,157 1,410 1,162 60% 54% 40% 1.48 81/82 (Direct) 873 522 351 182 106 60% 30% 40% 1.49 85/86 (Local) 2,829 1,673 1,156 784 517 59% 45% 41% 1.45 91/92 8,270 5,123 3,147 1,698 1,426 62% 45% 38% 1.63 Total 65,966 41,577 24,389 13,572 13,475 63% 55% 37% 1.70
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-8
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Table 2-3: Estimate of Total Transfer Activity for Sample Period Transfer to 61_62 65_66 71_72 75_76 11_16 12_15 31_36 32_35 51_56 52_55 (Southe (Northe (Southe (Northe 81_82 85_86 Average Transfer from (CW) (CCW) 21_22 25_26 (CW) (CCW) 41_42 (CW) (CCW) rn) rn) rn) rn) (Direct) (Local) 91_92 Totals Daily 11_16 (CW) 118 154 200 172 154 118 100 151 23 77 146 103 307 15 90 389 2,315 231 12_15 (CCW) 132 66 315 229 132 200 186 63 134 134 192 136 329 23 80 400 2,750 275 21_22 319 363 84 177 113 287 247 258 247 46 241 144 473 61 200 476 3,735 373 25_26 181 223 128 27 72 82 168 133 37 51 61 86 226 35 80 173 1,762 176 31_36 (CW) 148 257 181 109 3 53 67 112 145 106 114 54 179 6 92 246 1,870 187 32_35 (CCW) 186 215 179 82 21 47 115 122 190 79 100 34 204 4 61 226 1,863 186 41_42 183 301 149 76 66 68 10 128 204 147 97 47 92 3 73 244 1,889 189 51_56 (CW) 100 27 177 129 102 167 82 12 37 42 147 58 274 10 72 234 1,672 167 52_55 (CCW) 30 167 225 107 74 151 126 16 44 27 129 85 238 44 123 337 1,924 192 61_62 (Southern) 118 197 45 84 50 139 165 81 71 21 113 91 186 8 86 191 1,644 164 65_66 (Northern) 175 301 228 28 99 147 73 175 205 61 13 24 106 5 53 281 1,973 197 71_72 (Southern) 157 251 226 151 38 122 41 157 132 113 72 4 176 6 60 188 1,895 189 75_76 (Northern) 362 454 439 238 89 186 109 221 355 156 231 114 30 30 122 213 3,348 335 81_82 (Direct) 60 27 65 27 0 2 10 52 62 5 60 4 5 10 40 7 438 44 85_86 (Local) 103 255 211 147 69 125 86 176 164 51 118 64 96 32 20 135 1,850 185 91_92 297 673 531 174 218 329 208 318 413 187 260 158 292 0 129 142 4,329 433 Total 2,668 3,931 3,381 1,956 1,298 2,223 1,792 2,176 2,463 1,304 2,093 1,207 3,212 290 1,380 3,882 35,255 3,525 Average Daily 267 393 338 196 130 222 179 218 246 130 209 121 321 29 138 388 3,525
Note: 400 or more transfers 300 or more transfers 200 or more transfers 100 or more transfers Less than 100 transfers
These data show the strongest connections among the f0llowing routes in the network (400 or more transfers or an average of 40 per day):
12/15 and 91/92 75/76 and 12/15; 21/22 91/92 and 12/15; 21/22; and 52/55
The following additional route pairs show 300 or more transfers (300 or more transfers or an average of 30 per day):
11/16 and 75/76; 91/92 12/15 and 21/22 and 75/76 21/22 and 11/16; 12/15; 41/42 and 12/15 52/55 and 91/92 65/66 and 12/15 75/76 and 52/55 91/92 and 32/35; 51/56
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-9
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities The only route pair that has fewer than 100 connections to other routes in the network is the Route 81/82 pair, though it should be noted that it has significantly lower total ridership, as it is a peak-hour only route.
Summary
The transfer data shows that riders make use of the pulse system fairly extensively, with five of the route pairs showing 400 or more transfers between them and another 13 route pairs showing 300 or more transfers between them. The in-bound/outbound flows are also interesting, showing connections from housing areas to shopping and employment areas and back again. These patterns will be used to help determine which routes could potentially be moved to a secondary pulse time, as well as which ones could make use of secondary hubs.
Patterns Outlined in the Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan
The Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan identified three geographic travel zones within the region based on natural and railroad barriers. These zones and the corresponding transit routes are listed below:
North-west: Routes 11/12; 15/16; 21/22; 25/26; 75/76; 81/82; and 85/86 (91/92 should be included in this list but was not yet in service during this phase of the Vision Plan).
North-east: Routes 31/32; 35/36; 41/42; and
South: Routes 51/52; 55/56; 61/62; 65/66; and 71/72
The Vision Plan noted that routes within each zone have a moderately high volume of travel within the group, but had limited interaction with the routes that were outside of their zone.
The transfer data does not fully support this conclusion, with current activity showing significant interactions between some of the north-east and south routes with the north-west routes. The following route pairs showed more than 300 transfers during the ten-day period between route pairs that travel from one of these zones to another:
41/42 (NE) and 12/15 (NW) 52/55 (S) and 91/92 (NW) 65/66 (S) and 12/15 (NW) 75/76 (NW) and 52/55 (S) 91/92 (NW) and 32/35 (NE); 51/56 (S)
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-10
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities STRATEGY #3 - MOVE THE TRANSFER FACILITY
Given that the data suggest a hub system continues to be the most appropriate for Valley Metro, it may be necessary to move forward with the concept of re-locating the transfer facility to overcome some of the challenges posed by the current facility. A move was considered during the planning stages for the new passenger rail service, in conjunction with the development of an intermodal transportation center, which would serve local bus, intercity bus, and rail. The downtown Roanoke Intermodal Transportation Study (2015) recommended that a new transfer center be constructed on a site across Salem Avenue from the current location, and adjacent to the passenger rail platform. The City of Roanoke has not yet taken action on this recommendation. To accommodate the new rail service, improvements were made adjacent to the railroad tracks to build a passenger platform.
Challenges Associated with Campbell Court
The following challenges have been cited regarding the current operation at Campbell Court:
The center is at capacity, which makes it challenging for the bus drivers to maneuver the vehicles into their assigned lanes. The vehicle stacking is so close together that it is not possible for a passenger to load a bicycle onto the vehicle’s bicycle rack if the vehicle is not first in the line-up. In addition, supervisors have had to assign particular vehicles to particular lanes to ensure that vehicle mirrors do not hit one another. This situation will become even more challenging as the fleet is upgraded from vehicles that are 96” wide to vehicles that are 102” wide. There is no ability to add more routes to the pulse due to the facility’s space constraints.
There is often passenger congestion on the waiting platforms of Campbell Court when passengers transfer from one route to another, which causes passengers to walk in the bus lanes. Figure 2-2 shows an example of the mix of vehicles and pedestrians that occurs each hour.
The center is difficult to navigate for people with disabilities. As documented in the Bus Stop Accessibility Study conducted in 2013 by the Regional Commission, people with disabilities face the following challenges transferring between routes at Campbell Court:
o Landing areas are crowded, making it a challenge for someone with a disability to move from one bus to another; o Signs indicating the drive aisle for buses are not easy to see or understand; o Tactile warning surfaces are not present on curb ramps; and o Several of the pedestrian walkways around the station are too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs, which forces people to use the drive aisles instead.3
3 Bus Stop Accessibility Study, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, September, 2013, page 15.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-11
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Figure 2-2: Passengers and Buses at Campbell Court
When the buses are all leaving the center at 0:15 after the hour, vehicular and pedestrian traffic are compromised on both Campbell and Salem Avenues. Neither of the entrances to Campbell Court is protected by traffic signals, which makes it difficult and sometimes time-consuming for the buses to exit, particularly when making left turns out of the center. This can result in wasted time for the bus routes, as well as for other users of Campbell and Salem Avenues. Figure 2-3 shows a vehicle exiting the station onto Campbell Avenue.
The center is partially enclosed, on the ground floor of a parking garage, with openings on Salem and Campbell Avenues. While this allows for protection from the weather, it also creates a dark and somewhat claustrophobic atmosphere. In addition, there is a significant amount of second-hand smoke exposure, as passengers and drivers smoke in the center while making their transfers. The smoking issue is something that Valley Metro could potentially address.
Two of Valley Metro’s four new vehicles (in-service in April 2018) are longer (40 feet as compared to 35 feet) and all four are wider (102 inches as compared to 96 inches) than the ones they replaced, which will make it even more difficult for the vehicles to maneuver through Campbell Court. Ten additional new vehicles (also 102” wide) are due to arrive in January 2019.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-12
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Figure 2-3: Bus Exiting Campbell Court onto Campbell Avenue
The Transit Vision Plan also cited challenges with using Campbell Court when there are special events and street closures that force the re-organization of buses in the center, which compromises the accessibility of some buses for passengers with mobility impairments.
Staff also noted that flash flooding sometimes occurs at the Campbell Court location during intense summer storms, causing temporary service shut-downs and delaying passengers until the water recedes.
A Potential Alternative Site
While the COA is not a facility siting study, the study team did notice another potential alternative site for the development of a new transfer center, in addition to the ones reviewed and the one ultimately recommended in the downtown Roanoke Intermodal Study. A transfer facility at this alternative site could be constructed in such a way to mitigate several of the challenges of the existing Campbell Court location.
The proposed alternative site is the paved surface lot adjacent to the Virginia Museum of Transportation. Figure 2-4 shows the location of this proposed site, which is bordered by Salem Avenue SW, Third Street SW, and Norfolk Avenue SW.
The study team noted this as a good alternative site for the following reasons:
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-13
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities The site is located in relatively close proximity to the current site (about ¼ mile away) and is within walking distance to the Amtrak passenger platform.
The site is still downtown, although a little farther from the center of downtown, which would mean that most downtown Roanoke special events would not affect the functioning of the transit center.
The site is adjacent to the Transportation Museum of Virginia, which would be a good fit, tying current and historic transportation features together.
The site appears to have significantly more square feet available than the Campbell Court site, allowing for a continued pulse system to function well, while reducing the vehicle and pedestrian congestion currently experienced at Campbell Court.
There is street access on three sides of the site, allowing for a number of different potential site configurations and ease of ingress/egress.
Depending upon the site configuration, exiting the site could be controlled by the traffic signal at the corner of Salem Avenue and Third Street (SW). This would help facilitate buses leaving the center.
The site is already paved, so the development of a bus transfer center at the location would not result in additional impervious surface for the city.
A more detailed analysis would be needed to fully vet the site as required by the Federal Transit Administration, and to determine if it is available for such a use.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-14
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Figure 2-4: Potential Alternative Location for Valley Metro Downtown Hub
Potential Site for Hub
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-15
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Examples of Other Transit Hubs
Transit hubs can take on many forms. Some are part of a multi-use strategy that pairs the hub with another land use (similar to the current Campbell Court), while others serve only the transfer function. There are also a large range of amenities available, depending upon the needs of the transit program. Exhibits 2-3 through 2-7 provide photos of a variety of types of transit hubs.
Exhibit 2-3: Clark Campbell Transportation Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-16
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Exhibit 2-4: The Wave Transfer Facility, Wilmington, North Carolina
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-17
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Exhibit 2-5: Chatham Area Transit Facility, Savannah, Georgia
Exhibit 2-6: Germantown, Maryland Transit Center (Montgomery County Ride-On)
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-18
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Exhibit 2-7: Greater Lynchburg Transit Company Transfer Facility
STRATEGY #4 - A COMBINED APPROACH
It is likely that the most feasible way to reduce the bus and pedestrian congestion that is associated with the Campbell Court Bus Station will be to combine a number of the strategies discussed within this chapter.
A combined approach could be a phased schedule that includes:
Phase 1 – Short Term - Schedule Adjustments and Route Changes. Add a second pulse to the schedule so that not all of the routes meet at the same time, using the transfer analysis conducted for Strategy #2. As the data show, the travel patterns are “many to many,” which means that a significant number of routes will likely still need to pulse at a transfer center located near the downtown area. Chapter 4 includes specific recommendations with regard to these adjustments.
Phase 2 – Mid-Term – Connecting Routes and Secondary Hubs. Initiate connecting routes to the current network, where feasible, so that not all passengers need to travel into the center on one route and back out on another route, making use of secondary hubs where feasible. The Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan included some specific recommendations for these connectors and hubs. It will be possible to free up some bus hours from the existing network to help implement these routes if the schedule recommendations included in Chapter 4 are implemented. Proposals for two additional routes to be implemented in the short term are included in Chapter 3.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-19
Chapter 2: Transfer Analysis and Opportunities Phase 3 – Long Term – New Transfer Center. Move the transfer center to a location that is not quite as central as Campbell Court, which could add more space and eliminate some of the challenges currently experienced at the Campbell Court location. This phase will likely take several years, as site selection, real estate purchase, site design, funding agreements, and construction are accomplished.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2-20
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations
Chapter 3 Route Analysis and Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
Valley Metro’s fixed routes provide a significant level of public transportation service within the system’s service area, providing about 100,000 hours and almost 1.4 million miles of revenue service each year. Trend data collected for the Transit Development Plan (TDP) show that ridership on the fixed route system has declined each year over the past several years, which is a troubling statistic shared by the majority of bus transit systems in the United States.1 In FY2017, Valley Metro fixed routes provided 2,068,429 passenger trips, down from 2,159,005 passenger trips in FY2016.
Given that ridership has decreased within the Valley Metro fixed route system, an important part of the COA has been to examine each route to see how each one performs relative to the fixed route system as a whole. In addition to the annual productivity data, the following characteristics of each route were studied:
Geographic path of travel, including the ridership data for each stop; On-time performance; Ridership by run; and Ridership by time of day.
With this information, it will be possible to make route and schedule recommendations that serve to maximize the ridership potential of the system and improve system productivity. This chapter focuses on the geographic path of travel and on-time performance of the routes and Chapter 4 focuses on the schedule analysis.
DETAILED OPERATING STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS
To better understand current performance trends among the Valley Metro fixed routes, annual data for each route were obtained from Valley Metro for FY2016 and FY2017. The ridership data were obtained from Valley Metro’s GFI system and the hours and miles were constructed based on the published schedules, together with the geographic route lengths. Table 3-1 provides these route level statistics. These data provided the study team with an initial picture of each route through each route’s overall statistical performance, which provided direction for focus
1“Trends in Public Transportation Ridership: Implications for Federal Policy.” William J. Mallet, Congressional Research Service, March 26, 2018. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45144.pdf
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-1
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations when looking at ways to improve the system’s overall productivity. The total ridership shown in Table 3-1 is slightly lower than the total fixed route ridership reported by Valley Metro for the two years, likely due to GFI reporting anomalies.
Analysis of Fixed Routes - Productivity
An analysis of these data shows that the average productivity among all fixed routes was 20.3 trips per revenue hour in FY2016 and 19.7 trips per passenger hour in FY2017. These averages are down from the FY2015 National Transit Database (NTD) reported productivity of 20.9 trips per revenue hour.
Routes that Performed Above the System Average
During FY2016 and FY2017, there were three routes that provided over 30 passenger trips per revenue hour. These were Route 15, Route 21, and Route 91. The following routes provided between 25 and 30 passenger trips per revenue hour: Route 11, Route 22, and Route 35. Another eight routes also performed at or above the system average, providing between 20 and 25 passenger trips per revenue hour. These were: Route 12, Route 16, Route 41, Route 61, Route 71, Route 75, Route 76, and Route 92. Route 66 performed above average in FY2016 (22.1 passenger trips per revenue hour), and just above average again in FY2017 (19.9 passenger trips per revenue hour).
Routes that Performed Below the System Average
Nine routes provided between 15 and 19.7 passenger trips per revenue hour in FY2017, which is just below the system average of 19.7 trips per hour. These were Routes 25, 31, 32, 36, 42, 51, 52, 55, and 65. Routes 26, 56, 72, 81, 82, 85, and 86 provided between 10 and 15 passenger trips per revenue hour, as did the Star Line Trolley.
The only fixed route that recorded productivity of below 10 passenger trips per revenue hour was Route 31x, which was a new route in FY2016.
Operating Speed- Fixed Routes
The average scheduled operating speed was 13.7 miles per hour, with a range of between 19.5 miles per hour (Route 91) and 6.4 miles per hour (Star Line Trolley). Operating speed is not a performance indicator, but rather a valuable metric to use when planning routes and diagnosing service issues. Routes that require above average operating speeds may have trouble with on-time performance if there are not some segments of the route that have higher operating speeds or no passenger activity.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-2
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations
Table 3-1: Valley Metro Fixed Route Services: FY2016 and FY2017 Route Statistics
Change in Estimated Estimated Trips Per Trips Per Ridership Estimated Annual Annual Revenue Revenue Scheduled Passenger Passenger FY16 to Cost Per Revenue Revenue Hour Hour Miles/ Route Trips FY2017 Trips FY2016 FY17 Trip FY2017 Hours Miles FY 2017 FY 2016 Hour Route 11 79,685 82,877 -3.9% $2.74 3,120 48,714 25.5 26.6 15.6 Route 12 77,636 68,447 13.4% $2.81 3,120 48,714 24.9 21.9 15.6 Route 15 104,523 108,912 -4.0% $2.09 3,120 52,346 33.5 34.9 16.8 Route 16 68,163 74,497 -8.5% $3.20 3,120 52,346 21.8 23.9 16.8 Route 21 95,321 99,046 -3.8% $2.29 3,120 32,621 30.6 31.7 10.5 Route 22 82,584 87,441 -5.6% $2.64 3,120 32,621 26.5 28.0 10.5 Route 25 48,784 52,692 -7.4% $4.48 3,120 49,661 15.6 16.9 15.9 Route 26 45,655 48,154 -5.2% $4.78 3,120 55,121 14.6 15.4 17.7 Route 31 42,070 38,276 9.9% $3.87 2,325 36,642 18.1 16.5 15.8 31x (1) 8,398 2,331 260.3% $12.75 1,530 14,321 5.5 2.8 17.3 Route 32 42,693 37,049 15.2% $3.81 2,325 26,847 18.4 15.8 11.5 Route 35 58,777 67,534 -13.0% $2.77 2,325 33,340 25.3 28.9 14.2 Route 36 41,303 44,511 -7.2% $3.94 2,325 26,525 17.8 19.0 11.3 Route 41 53,975 56,059 -3.7% $3.02 2,325 32,783 23.2 24.0 14.0 Route 42 35,543 34,857 2.0% $4.58 2,325 32,783 15.3 14.9 14.0 Route 51 60,236 67,140 -10.3% $3.63 3,120 35,500 19.3 21.5 11.4 Route 52 53,082 55,264 -3.9% $4.11 3,120 35,500 17.0 17.7 11.4 Route 55 55,560 57,476 -3.3% $3.93 3,120 40,492 17.8 18.4 13.0 Route 56 40,207 46,035 -12.7% $5.43 3,120 40,492 12.9 14.8 13.0 Route 61 52,183 53,375 -2.2% $3.12 2,325 30,062 22.4 23.0 12.9 Route 62 51,524 55,013 -6.3% $3.16 2,325 30,062 22.2 23.7 12.9 Route 65 51,923 56,640 -8.3% $4.21 3,120 44,063 16.6 18.2 14.1 Route 66 62,074 69,023 -10.1% $3.52 3,120 37,265 19.9 22.1 11.9 Route 71 66,123 65,874 0.4% $3.30 3,120 38,296 21.2 21.1 12.3 Route 72 46,135 53,551 -13.8% $4.73 3,120 37,797 14.8 17.2 12.1 Route 75 72,343 71,305 1.5% $3.02 3,120 36,956 23.2 22.9 11.8 Route 76 72,514 74,300 -2.4% $3.01 3,120 39,676 23.2 23.8 12.7 Route 81 11,166 11,014 1.4% $4.80 765 9,348 14.6 14.4 12.2 Route 82 10,046 10,884 -7.7% $5.33 765 9,348 13.1 14.2 12.2 Route 85 45,918 37,659 21.9% $4.76 3,120 58,710 14.7 12.1 18.8 Route 86 41,057 44,642 -8.0% $5.32 3,120 58,710 13.2 14.3 18.8 Route 91 139,522 143,115 -2.5% $2.28 4,554 88,956 30.6 31.4 19.5 Route 92 97,570 111,618 -12.6% $3.27 4,554 77,837 21.4 24.5 17.1 Star Line 103,371 106,818 -3.2% $5.20 7,672 48,960 13.5 13.9 6.4
Totals 1,937,979 2,093,429 -7.4% $3.64 100,840 1,373,414 19.7 20.3 13.7 (1) 31x data for FY2016 are for six months only Source: Valley Metro
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-3
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Operating Cost per Passenger Trip- Fixed Routes
In FY2017, the estimated average total operating cost per passenger trip for the fixed routes was $3.64, with a low of $2.09 for Route 15 and a high of $12.75 for Route 31X. Funding arrangements to cover this cost are generally as follows: 27% revenue (farebox, advertising, building rental, parking rental, and investment income); 30% federal; 18% state; and 24% local.
On-Time Performance
Boarding/alighting surveys and time checks were conducted by the Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) during FY2017 using a sampling approach. The time checks collected by the RVARC were entered into a spreadsheet and compared against the scheduled time points. The number of times the route was sampled is listed in the first column of the time check spreadsheet. The remaining columns indicated the percentage of times the sampled route was on-time (defined as being 0-5 minutes late); early (two categories: 1-2 minutes early and 4 or more minutes early); and late (three categories: 6-10 minutes late; 11-19 minutes late; and 20 or more minutes late). These results are provided in Table 3-2.
These data show that the system wide on-time performance for the regular fixed routes was 69.4%, with 14.6% of sampled runs operating 6-10 minutes late and just over 2% operating 11 minutes late or more. Just over 14% of the time points showed that the routes were early, though the largest category was that of just 1-3 minutes early.
The following routes showed 100% on-time performance for the runs sampled: Routes 26, 85, and 31X. Routes with 80% or better on-time performance were: Routes 25, 61, 66, 72, 76, and 86. Routes with on-time performance of 60% or less were: Routes 11, 15, 35, 41, 71, and 92. Time checks were not performed on Routes 81/82.
These data were used where possible to make routing changes that serve to improve travel time.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-4
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Table 3-2: Valley Metro On-Time Performance FY2017
Early On-Time Late Sample early 4+ early 1-3 11-19 Route Size min min 0-5 min 6-10 min min 20+ min 11 26 4% 4% 58% 35% 4% 0% 12 20 20% 10% 60% 5% 0% 0% 15 21 29% 24% 48% 0% 0% 0% 16 16 0% 6% 75% 19% 0% 0% 21 30 7% 7% 73% 10% 3% 0% 22 32 3% 16% 66% 16% 0% 0% 25 13 0% 0% 92% 8% 0% 0% 26 11 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 31 3 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 32 12 0% 8% 67% 25% 0% 0% 35 16 13% 6% 44% 19% 19% 19% 36 10 0% 30% 70% 0% 0% 0% 41 9 11% 44% 44% 0% 0% 0% 42 9 0% 0% 78% 22% 0% 0% 51 8 13% 13% 75% 0% 0% 0% 52 29 3% 7% 69% 21% 0% 0% 55 35 0% 14% 69% 9% 9% 0% 56 15 0% 7% 67% 27% 0% 0% 61 34 0% 6% 82% 12% 0% 0% 62 34 0% 26% 62% 12% 0% 0% 65 13 8% 0% 77% 15% 0% 0% 66 22 0% 5% 91% 5% 0% 0% 71 31 3% 16% 39% 39% 3% 0% 72 16 0% 6% 81% 13% 0% 0% 75 16 0% 19% 75% 6% 0% 0% 76 16 0% 6% 94% 0% 0% 0% 85 8 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 86 10 0% 0% 80% 20% 0% 0% 91 12 0% 0% 75% 17% 8% 0% 92 7 0% 57% 43% 0% 0% 0% 31X 3 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% System Average 17.3 3.6% 10.9% 69.4% 14.6% 1.5% 0.6%
Source: Time check data provided by the Roanoke-Alleghany Regional Commission and compiled by KFH Group.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-5
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations BOARDING/ALIGHTING DATA BY ROUTE AND STOP AND PROPOSED ROUTE CHANGES
The next step conducted for the route analysis was to analyze the performance of each route by looking at the total number of boardings and alightings for each stop along the route. To complete this analysis, stop activity maps were created for each route pair using GRTC's on-off count data, as collected by the RVARC as part of their National Transit Database (NTD) reporting. These data were collected during FY2017 (July 2016 through June 2017), using a sampling approach.
The purpose of compiling and mapping these data was to provide a visual depiction of the stop activity for each of the Valley Metro fixed routes. This analysis helped the study team determine which stops had high activity, as well as which ones showed low activity. One of the outcomes of this analysis are recommendations by route for changes that could potentially be implemented to improve the travel time, on-time performance, and route productivity by eliminating segments where there is little or no ridership. Safety concerns brought up by Valley Metro operations staff are also addressed within this section, as applicable, as are opportunities to streamline each route’s path of travel to accommodate Valley Metro’s new larger vehicles.
Methodology
The data set provided for analysis includes a variable number of data points for each route and stop. Because of this variance in sample size, daily stop activity values as depicted in the maps are imputed. First, all boardings and alightings were summed for each route/stop. Next, mean boardings and alightings for each sampled run were calculated. This per-run value was then multiplied by the total number of scheduled runs to impute an average measure of daily stop activity, or the mean sum of all boardings and alightings per stop per day.
Routes 11, 12, 15, 16
Routes 11, 12, 15, and 16 operate as two bi-directional loops that connect downtown Roanoke with the Valley View area, serving the corridors to the west and east of I-581. Figure 3-1 provides a map showing the mean daily stop activity for the four routes using the data collected through the NTD effort.
The activity map indicates that the most stop activity is seen at Campbell Court, Walmart, and the Valley View Mall. These routes each experience productivity that is higher than the system average, with Route 15 segment (northbound, north side of I-581) experiencing the highest productivity of the four. While there are a few stops with little or no activity, none are on segments that could be eliminated from the path of travel. Each of these routes currently has peak-hour 30-minute service Monday through Friday, in addition to the regular Monday through Saturday hourly service.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-6
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-1: Valley Metro Routes 11, 12, 15, 16 – Mean Daily Stop Activity
Focus of Route Research
The focus of the route research for Routes 11/12 was on the segment through the neighborhood near the Burrell Center. The roads in this area are narrow and there are some areas where the bus must travel very slowly to ensure that it does not “bottom-out.” The Burrell Center is a very active stop and transit service is needed at the center, so it is not feasible to eliminate this area.
For Route 15, the path of travel through the Valley View shopping area was examined to see if it could divert to also serve some new shopping destinations and the newly extended Lick Run Greenway. There have been requests for service to these major shopping destinations.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-7
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Another area of concern with service in the Valley View shopping area are the two primary stops. These are the Valley View Mall stop, which is in the parking lot adjacent to Belk and Sears, and the Walmart stop, which is on Ring Road. The Walmart stop does not have any stop amenities currently.
Proposed Route Recommendations
Routes 11/12
Minor change to reduce the risk of the vehicle bottoming out – after serving the Burrell Center, turn right onto Seventh Street and left onto McDowell Street to continue to Tenth Street. This minor change eliminates the dip in the road that is located on Madison as it crosses Eighth Street. This path of travel will then be reversed for the inbound Route 12.
Valley Mall Circulation (Route 11)
o Delete the left turn into the Belk/Sears Lot. o Bus to remain on the Ring Road. Investigate potential for transfer location at the pull-off located along Ring Road. This option is discussed within the passenger facility section of the COA. . This proposed change reduces opportunities for parking lot conflicts and improves travel time through the mall area. . This proposed change does increase the walk distance to the stop from the shopping mall, but is not significantly different than the walk a patron would experience if they arrived via private auto. . There are safety concerns about having riders cross Ring Road, but these could potentially be ameliorated with pedestrian crossing improvements.
These changes are ridership and cost neutral.
These changes are shown in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-8
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-2: Valley Metro Route 11 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-9
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-3: Valley Metro Route 12 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-10
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Route 15
The current path of travel for Route 15 travels west from the mall area to the end of the line on Hoback Drive. Given this direction of travel, this route was chosen for modification to accommodate the additional development in the mall area. The proposed change to the path of travel is highlighted below.
From Valley View Stop on Ring Road – Exit Ring Road onto Valley View Boulevard at Chick-Fil-A. Right onto Valley View Boulevard to serve the additional shopping areas of Valley View Boulevard (Cinemas, Target), and the Lick Run Greenway trail head.
Right onto 581 north – stay in right protected lane.
Exit onto Hershberger Road to resume current routing.
This change will extend the route length by about 0.41 miles, but the extension will be at a higher travel speed than is currently experienced back through the mall area traffic. The new route length is 8.42 miles, up from 8.01 miles currently.
This change will result in a minor incremental cost increase associated with the additional 0.41 miles and will likely result in some additional riders traveling to and from the extension along Valley View Boulevard.
This proposed change is shown in Figure 3-4.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-11
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-4: Valley Metro Route 15 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-12
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Route 16
No changes are proposed for Route 16. The route map for Route 16 is provided in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5: Valley Metro Route 16
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-13
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 21, 22, 25, 26
The 20-series routes operate as two bi-directional routes connecting downtown Roanoke and the Crossroads and Towne Square shopping areas via Williamson Road (21/22) and Hollins Road/Plantation Road corridors (25/26). Figure 3-6 presents the mean daily stop activity for the four routes.
The stops with the highest activity are Campbell Court, the Towne Square Kroger, Williamson Road at Compton (Human Services Center), and Plantation Road at Frontier (Frontier Apartments). As the map indicates, there is significantly more activity along the Williamson Road corridor (Routes 21/22) than the Hollins Road/Plantation Road corridor (Routed 25/26). The ridership and productivity reflect this, with Routes 21 and 22 experiencing almost twice the ridership of Routes 25 and 26.
Focus of Route Research
An area of concern for all four of these routes is the potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflict that occurs as the routes enter the Kroger grocery parking lot at the end of the line (EOL).
These routes travel very close to the Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport, which does not currently have regular fixed route bus service. The airport does have a bus stop and shelter and is served by the Smart Way bus.
These routes travel close to the Virginia Career Works Center, an important transit destination. Representatives from the Center have requested additional bus service.
There is a deviation along the Route 26 segment that occurs five times per day, deviating from Plantation Road to serve Preston, Oliver, and Huntington Streets. This deviation showed low activity for the NTD survey period. In addition, Valley Metro operations staff conducted specific boarding/alighting counts for this deviation for a two-week period, starting on August 24, 2017 and finishing on September 7, 2017. This effort showed that there was only one rider who boarded the route on the deviated segment, and they boarded on Huntington at Plantation, which is adjacent to the regular route.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-14
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-6: Routes 21, 22, 25, 26 – Mean Daily Stop Activity
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-15
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Proposed Route Recommendations
Routes 21/22
Change the end of the line from the Kroger to the Virginia Career Works Center and the Virginia Employment Commission, co-located at 3601 Thirlane Road. This will eliminate the parking lot conflicts within the Kroger lot and add an important transit destination that has been requested. The proposed routing will also provide a stop for the Roanoke- Blacksburg Airport at the edge of the airport property. The Kroger will still have transit service, but the stop will be on the street.
The routing for this change is:
o From Hershberger, continue on Hershberger to a right on Thirlane Road and a right into the Virginia Career Works Center. o From the Virginia Career Works Center – Left onto Thirlane and right onto Towne Square Boulevard. A bus stop can also be added at Thirlane and Aviation to serve the Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport. o Resume the current routing along Hershberger without entering the Kroger lot.
This change result in a minor incremental cost increase due to the additional mileage and will likely result in additional ridership as a result of the two additional major destinations.
This change is shown in Figure 3-7.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-16
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-7: Valley Metro Routes 21/22 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-17
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations
Routes 25/26
Change the end of the line (EOL) from Kroger to the airport. This will eliminate parking lot conflicts and add a major destination where service has been requested. The Kroger will still have transit service, but the stop will be on the street.
Adds 0.80 miles, but removes the route from the Towne Square Kroger parking lot. The new route length is 7.5 miles.
From Towne Square Boulevard, do not turn into the Kroger parking lot.
Continue to Airport Loop to EOL at Roanoke- Blacksburg Airport.
Eliminate the Oliver loop from all trips on Route 26. This will eliminate 0.90 miles for each trip where the Oliver loop had been served before.
This change will result in a very minor increase in total miles and the associated fuel. With the addition of the airport, the route should attract additional riders.
The changes are shown in Figure 3-8.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-18
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-8: Valley Metro Routes 25/26 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-19
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 31, 32, 35, 36
The 30-series routes provide service between downtown Roanoke and Vinton. Of these four routes, Route 35, which provides outbound service to Vinton via the Dale Avenue corridor, experiences the highest ridership and productivity. Routes 31, 32, and 36 experience productivities that are below the mean for the system. Figure 3-9 provides the mean daily stop activity for the four routes.
The activity map indicates that Campbell Court, Tazewell at Fourth Street, the Kroger in Vinton, and the Walmart Neighborhood Store in Vinton (now closed) are the highest activity stops. The map also shows that there is very little activity along King Street NE (served by the 31 and 32), as well as along E. Washington Avenue. There was also no activity on the Dale and Dunkirk segments that are served by Routes 31 and 32. In addition, Route 31, 32, and 35 operated late on a significant number of the trips sampled for the time checks.
There are also some destinations along Orange Avenue past the intersection of Orange and King that may warrant service, including a Kroger grocery store and an industrial park, access to which is located at the intersection of Valley Gateway Boulevard and Route 460.
The Town of Vinton has been discussing possible changes to these routes in recognition of the segments that have low activity.
Focus of Route Research
Look at ways to address the low-use segments on the route.
Address the below average on-time performance for Routes 31, 32, and 35.
Address the changes requested by the Town of Vinton.
Should Route 31 come back as Route 32, thus eliminating the bi-directional figure eight loop that is currently traveled via the interlined routing of the 31, 32, 35, and 36?
Should Route 35 be interlined with Route 36 instead, providing service within the corridor to terminate at River Park, eliminating the E. Washington Street corridor and the loop concept? This would shorten the routes significantly, which would serve to improve the on-time performance.
Could Route 35/36 deviate a block off of Jamison Street to provide service to Morningside Manor? This would allow Route 41/42 to eliminate a segment and would provide more direct service from both downtown Roanoke and Vinton for residents and employees of Morningside Manor.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-20
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Is there an opportunity to extend the routes to the Kroger and the industrial area adjacent to the intersection of Valley Gateway Boulevard and Route 460?
Figure 3-9: Routes 31, 32, 35, 36 – Mean Stop Activity
Proposed Route Recommendations
Route 31/32
Eliminate King Street and E. Washington Street from Route 31. This change will reduce the travel time and allow the route to operate on time.
Change the interline pattern to combine Routes 31 and 32, rather than the current pattern that also includes the 35/36.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-21
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Combine Route 31/32 with Route 31x so that the EOL is the Blue Hills Industrial Park. This will save the operating expenses associated with Route 31X.
The route would then come back as Route 32, following the same path of travel in reverse.
This change will save approximately $116,000 annually. Ridership will likely remain similar, with a loss of a few trips from the eliminated segments, but additional riders will likely take advantage of more daily trips to the Blue Hills Industrial Park and the added segment of Orange Avenue.
Figure 3-10 shows these proposed changes.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-22
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-10: Valley Metro Routes 31/32 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-23
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 35/36
Change the interline pattern so that Route 35 comes back as Route 36. This change will reduce travel time and improve on-time performance.
Add Morningside Manor to the route. This will allow this destination to be eliminated from Route 41/42 and will provide direct service for Morningside Manor to and from both Roanoke and Vinton.
The Town of Vinton has proposed a new path of travel for Route 35/36, which will provide bi-directional travel along Washington Avenue. There is some concern about the suggested new alignment, as it will eliminate Virginia Avenue, which has relatively strong ridership. The Town’s preferred alignment is shown in Figure 3-11.
Given the loss of the Virginia Avenue segment, this route may see lower ridership. It will be interesting to see if ridership on the Washington Avenue segment improves with bi- directional service.
This change is cost neutral.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-24
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-11: Valley Metro Routes 35/36 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-25
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Route 31 X
Route 31X provides peak hour service from Campbell Court to the Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology (RCIT). There are three runs in the morning and four runs in the afternoon.
The FY2016 data collected for the TDP showed very low ridership for this route, however, the route was new in 2016 and the ridership data were for just six months of the year. More recent data collected for the COA do show a higher level of ridership for calendar year 2017, with daily ridership of between 61 and 73 for the October and November samples, which would equate to annual ridership of about 17,500 annual passenger trips, which is significantly higher than the FY2016 ridership of 2,331 for six months and the 8,398 trips provided during FY2017. The route activity map is shown as Figure 3-12.
Figure 3-12: Route 31X – Mean Stop Activity
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-26
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Focus of Route Research
The inbound route travels the same path as Route 32 and provides very little ridership along the shared segments. A different path of travel back to downtown Roanoke may provide an opportunity for additional ridership.
Proposed Route Recommendations
Route 31X is proposed to be combined with Route 31/32, as discussed above in association with the 31/32.
Routes 41/42
Valley Metro’s Route 41/42 functions as one bi-directional route, providing service from downtown Roanoke to the southeastern quadrant of the city, forming a “U” shape. The outbound segment of the route exhibits significantly higher ridership than the inbound segment. The route productivity for the outbound Route 41 was above the system average, at 23.2 passenger trips per revenue hour. The productivity of the inbound Route 42 was below the system average, at 15.3 passenger trips per revenue hour (FY2017). The time checks showed that Route 41 tends to run early, and Route 42 runs late 22% of the time.
There is a deviation on Route 41/42 that provides service to Garden City Boulevard. This segment is served inbound at 5:45 a.m. and outbound at 12:15 p.m., 2:15 p.m., 4:15 p.m., 6:15 p.m., and at 8:15 p.m. (upon request). The route activity map is shown as Figure 3-13.
Focus of Route Research
The boarding/alighting data show that the Kenwood Loop segment of this route pair is not well used.
Would the 30 series routes on Jamison be sufficient to serve Morningside Manor? This change would allow Routes 41/42 to eliminate a route segment with low ridership.
The Garden City Boulevard extension also has relatively low ridership, but this could be a function of the number of trips that are provided. Comments received via the Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan (TVP) requested additional service to Garden City.
Proposed Route Recommendations
Eliminate the Kenwood Loop.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-27
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Use the street grid adjacent to Golden Park to turn around, after serving Jamestown and a few additional stops north of Jamestown along Bennington Street. This will eliminate Morningside Manor from this route. It will be served by Routes 35/36.
Use the time savings to serve Garden City on every trip. This additional service will need to be monitored to determine if sufficient demand exists.
The new route mileage for both routes combined is 11 miles, down from 17.5 miles. This should help Route 42 with on-time performance.
There should be a minor incremental cost savings in fuel by reducing the combined route mileage.
Figure 3-14 shows these proposed changes.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-28
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-13: Routes 41/42 – Mean Stop Activity
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-29
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-14: Valley Metro Routes 41/42 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-30
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 51,52,55,56
The 50 series provides service from Campbell Court to the southwest quadrant of the city and into Roanoke County at the Tanglewood Mall. The 51/52 serves the travel corridor to the east of I-581 and the 55/56 serves the corridor to the west of I-581. Of the four routes, Route 51 shows the highest ridership and productivity. The Route 51 is the outbound segment, providing service from downtown along S. Jefferson Street, Broadway Street, and Franklin Road.
The boarding/alighting data, shown in Figure 3-15 indicate that there are several high activity stops among these four routes, including Campbell Court, the Towers Shopping Center, Virginia Western Community College (VWCC), and Tanglewood Mall. The only segment where there is low ridership is found along Colonial Avenue SW and Ogden Road, from the VWCC to the series of apartments on Ogden Road. There does not appear to be a more favorable routing that would eliminate this segment, as it is the most logical path of travel to get to the apartments and then on to Tanglewood Mall.
Focus of Route Research
Look at changing the routing in the area southwest of Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital. Suggestions include eliminating the turn onto Broadway and eliminating the diversion on Avenham Avenue.
The Tanglewood Mall area is slated for re-development, as well as additional development. This may provide an opportunity for Valley Metro to request a passenger transfer location on the mall property that is out of the path of travel of other vehicles and pedestrians. This concept is discussed within the context of passenger facilities.
Consider extending the route to the Roanoke County Administration Center on Bernard Drive during peak periods. Service to this destination has been requested.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-31
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-15: Routes 51, 52, 55, 56 – Mean Stop Activity
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-32
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Route Recommendations
Routes 51/52
Eliminate peak route diversion to Avenham Avenue.
Adjust routing to stay on McClanahan to a left onto Franklin Road, rather than turning left on to Broadway Street.
Extend Route 51 to serve the Roanoke County Administration Center. After leaving Tanglewood Mall, travel straight on Starkey Road, right on Electric Road, and left on Bernard Drive. At this point Route 51 becomes Route 56, taking a left on Penn Forest, left on Starkey, and left onto Ogden Road. Bernard Drive would serve as the EOL for Route 51 for these trips.
The route will need to be checked to ensure the route has enough time to accomplish this extension. The time checks conducted on Route 51 did not show late performance, however, Route 52 (the inbound route) was late on 21% of the trips sampled. The extension is 0.80 miles each way.
If there is insufficient time, there could be a consideration of having Route 51/52 stay on Electric Road and not enter Tanglewood Mall until the mall is re-developed, including a designated bus transfer location
There will be a minor increase in fuel cost with the extension to the County Administration building. There should also be an increase in ridership.
These changes are shown in Figure 3-16.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-33
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-16: Valley Metro Routes 51/52 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-34
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 55/56
Change the end of the line for Route 55 to the front of the County Administration building, similar to Route 51. At this point, Route 55 would become Route 52 turning left onto Penn Forest Road, left on Starkey Road, and right on Electric Road.
This change will result in vehicles not having to idle in a busy shopping center parking lot.
There will be a minor increase in fuel cost with the extension to the County Administration building. There should also be an increase in ridership.
This change is shown in Figure 3-17.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-35
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-17: Valley Metro Routes 55/56 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-36
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 61, 62, 65, 66
The 60 series routes provide service from downtown Roanoke to the southwest quadrant of the city. The 61/62 serves the Brambleton Road corridor to the city line and Route 65/66 serves the Grandin Road corridor. While Route 66 has the highest ridership among these four routes, Route 61 and Route 62 show higher productivity, as they do not have added peak hour service, so they operate fewer revenue service hours. The stop activity map for these four routes is shown in Figure 3-18.
Routes 61/62
On Route 61/62, the most active stops are Campbell Court, the Towers Shopping Center, and the end of the line at Red Rock. There are also stops along Elm Avenue that have relatively high activity. The segment along Brambleton Avenue between Brandon Avenue and the heavily- used end of the line stop shows low ridership.
In addition, this route serves the Towers Shopping Center, including entering the lot. This parking lot is very congested and poses hazards and delays for the route. However, this is a major activity center for the route.
Focus of Route Research
Do the routes need to serve the Towers Shopping Center? Can this route serve the Towers Shopping Center on-street, rather than entering the lot? This is a major trip generator, but is a diversion from the route.
Is there a better travel path that would generate more riders than the current Brambleton Avenue routing? Is it worth looking at a way for Route 61/62 to divert off of Brambleton for the area with little activity?
Can the route be extended to Cave Spring, as recommended in the TVP?
What about a sub-hub at VWCC? If the 61/62 and the 55/56 met here, it may eliminate some trips to the downtown hub.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-37
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-18: Routes 61, 62, 65, 66 – Mean Stop Activity
Proposed Route Recommendations
Following the concepts that were included within the TVP, it is recommended that the route be extended to Cave Spring using the following routing: from Brambleton, continue past the current terminus and through the intersection with Electric Road. Turn right onto Old Cave Spring Road and follow it around back to Brambleton Avenue. Turn left onto Brambleton Avenue and continue north, joining the current route at the city line.
This will add 1.12 miles to the route, necessitating that the Towers Shopping Center be removed from the route. With the addition of Cave Spring and the elimination of Towers, the new route length will be 6.25 miles. This is an increase of 0.75 miles from the current mileage. This change should be feasible, as the eliminated segment (Towers) experiences significant congestion.
This concept is shown in Figure 3-19.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-38
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-19: Valley Metro Routes 61/62 Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-39
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 65/66
The Routes 65/66 serve the Salem Avenue corridor to the west of downtown Roanoke, then travel southwest to serve the Terrace Apartments and the Grandin Road corridor. The highest activity stops are Campbell Court, the Terrace Apartments, and Patrick Henry High School. The stops along Salem Avenue and Patterson Avenue also show relatively high activity.
Focus of Route Research
There is a diversion on Route 65, termed the Roanoke Avenue Loop. This loop is served five times per day. There were not any riders during the NTD sample counts. In addition, Valley Metro staff conducted a ridership survey for a two week period in 2017, during which no passenger trips were recorded. In addition, Route 65 was operating late during 15% of the trips sampled.
Proposed Route Recommendations
Eliminate the Roanoke Avenue Loop to streamline the route and improve on-time performance. This will eliminate about 0.90 miles from the route.
This change will result in an incremental decrease in fuel expenses and will not likely have an impact on ridership.
This change is shown in Figure 3-20.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-40
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-20: Valley Metro Routes 65/66 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-41
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 71, 72, 75, 76
The 70 series provides service from downtown Roanoke through the west side of the city to major medical centers in Salem. Route 71/72 uses an east-west route on the south side of the railroad tracks and Route 75/76 uses an east-west route on the north side of the railroad tracks. With the exception of Route 72 (inbound, south of the tracks), the 70 series routes perform above the system average. The stop activity map for these routes is shown in Figure 3-21.
Figure 3-21: Routes 71, 72, 75, 76 – Mean Stop Activity
Routes 71/72
The stops with the highest activity on the 71/72 are Campbell Court, Lewis Gale Medical Center, the apartments along Mountain View Terrace, Patterson and 8th Street, and Brandon Oaks. There is relatively strong ridership along most of the route, with the exception of the Carlton/Fareham/Derwent/Malvern segment.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-42
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Focus of Route Research
Is there a way to serve the apartments on Brandon Avenue without using the awkward routing through Carlton/Fareham/Derwent/Malvern? Streamlining the route to use Edgewood would eliminate this segment, but would also remove the stop at the Brandon Ridge Apartments, which does have ridership.
Route 71 was late 42% of the time during the time checks, so any effort to streamline the route will be helpful.
Proposed Route Recommendations
To streamline travel on the outbound segment downtown (Route 71), it is recommended that the route remain on Campbell Avenue rather than traveling to Church Street. This change will eliminate four turning movements.
When a Brandon Avenue route is implemented (see section on page 3-57 that discusses new routes), it is recommended that the route be streamlined to use Edgewood Street to Brandon Avenue to serve the area just west of Grandin Village, instead of traveling through the neighborhood. This change should allow for a modest improvement in travel time and is cost neutral.
These proposed changes are shown in Figure 3-22.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-43
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-22: Valley Metro Routes 71/72 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-44
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 75/76
The most active stops on the 75/76 are Campbell Court, Salem VA Medical Center, Food Lion at Peters Creek and Shenandoah, and several stops along Salem Turnpike. There is relatively strong ridership along most of the route.
Focus of Route Research
There is a diversion into a neighborhood (Westside/Troutland/Old Stevens) that is used by a few riders, but seems arbitrary. The walk distance to Shenandoah Avenue from anywhere along the loop is less than ½ mile.
Proposed Route Recommendations
Eliminate the diversion into the Westside/Troutland/Old Stevens neighborhood that is used by a few riders, but seems arbitrary. The walk distance to Shenandoah Avenue from anywhere along the loop is less than ½ mile.
Eliminate the diversion into the Food Lion parking lot, located off of Shenandoah Avenue, just prior to Peters Creek Road.
These changes will result in an incremental decrease in fuel expenses and will not likely have an impact on ridership.
These proposed changes are shown in Figure 3-23.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-45
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-23: Valley Metro Routes 75/76 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-46
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 81, 82, 85, 86
The 80 series provides service from Campbell Court to the western edge of the City of Roanoke, providing service to the northwest quadrant of the city. All of these routes exhibit productivity that is below the system mean. The Route pair 81/82 operates during peak hours only. Figure 3- 24 provides the stop activity map for the four routes.
Figure 3-24: Routes 81, 82, 85, 86 – Mean Stop Activity
Routes 81/82
The Route pair 81/82 serves the Melrose Avenue corridor during peak hours only, providing a connection from Campbell Court to Salem, terminating at Goodwill Industries, across from Lakeside Plaza. The most active stops for the route were Campbell Court, Goodwill Industries (across from Lakeside Plaza), Melrose/18th (WB), and Melrose and Lafayette.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-47
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations It should be noted that the sample size for Route 81/82 was very small--only two runs were surveyed. As a result, most of the stops on this route have an imputed daily activity of zero. These stops are symbolized on the stop activity map as "No Data." Time checks were not conducted on the route.
This corridor is also served by Route 91/92 which has very high ridership, particularly from the Melrose Avenue segments of the route.
Focus of Route Research
This route serves the busy Melrose Avenue corridor during traditional peak hours. The ridership patterns for this corridor tend to skew later in the day than traditional commuter peak hours.
Proposed Route Recommendations
Change the timing of this route so that it adds capacity and frequency in the Melrose Avenue Corridor for most of the service day. The proposed hours of service for this route pair is: 8:45 a.m. to 7:45 p.m., leaving downtown Roanoke on the 0:45, serving as a complement to Route 91 that leaves downtown Roanoke on the 0:15.
This recommendation was also included in the Transit Vision Plan.
Change the turnaround from Lakeside Plaza to an around-the-block configuration. Drivers have reported difficulties turning left out of Lakeside Plaza to begin the inbound trip. The suggested movement is to travel just west of Lakeside Plaza on East Main Street, right onto Parkdale, then right onto Forest Lawn, right onto Kessler Mill and then left at the light back onto East Main Street.
This change will increase the cost of the 81/82 by about $118,000 annually and should increase ridership on the route by an estimated 30,000 passenger trips per year. Some of these trips will likely come from current trips being taken on Route 91/92.
This change is shown in Figure 3-25.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-48
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-25: Valley Metro Routes 81/82 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-49
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 85/86
Routes 85/86 provide service from downtown Roanoke to Peters Creek Road using the Staunton Avenue and Cove Road corridors. Other than Campbell Court, there are no other stops along the route of the 85/86 that have high activity levels.
Focus of Route Research
Route 85/86 has a circuitous routing through a neighborhood (Aspen/Florida/Fresno) that has few riders and was identified by staff as including a segment where buses can bottom out, and an unprotected left turn from Golfside onto Cove Road.
The time checks showed that Route 85 (outbound) is able to stay on schedule, but Route 86 (inbound) runs late about 20% of the time.
Proposed Route Recommendations
Change the routing pattern, eliminating the circuitous neighborhood routing by traveling Lafayette Boulevard to Cove Road, eliminating Florida, Aspen, Forest Park, Fresno, and Golfside. From Cove Road, left turn onto Hershberger Road. Follow Hershberger Road to Peter’s Creek Road. Right turn onto Peter’s Creek Road. Right turn onto Cove Road at Food Lion EOL.
This change should allow the route to operate on-time and will make the route easier to navigate with Valley Metro’s new larger vehicles. The total route mileage for the routes together will be 10.75 miles, down from the current 14.9 miles.
These changes will result in an incremental decrease in fuel expenses and will not likely have a significant impact on ridership.
This proposed change is shown in Figure 3-26.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-50
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-26: Valley Metro Routes 85/86 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-51
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Routes 91/92
The Route 91/92 pair exhibits the highest ridership among the Valley Metro fixed routes, with the Route 91 segment (outbound) exhibiting the higher ridership of the two. Route 92 is often at capacity on the Melrose Avenue corridor inbound. Comments found in the Vision Plan indicated that a more direct route from Salem back to Roanoke on this corridor is desired, as the current route travels south to the Salem VA Medical Center and the Lewis Gale Medical Center before returning Roanoke. The stop activity map for the route pair is provided as Figure 3-27.
Route 91 operated late 25% of the time during the sampled runs, while Route 92 tended to run slightly early. Route 91 also has the highest scheduled miles per hour in the system at 19.5, which would explain its difficulty with on-time performance.
Focus of Route Research
Examine the concept of splitting the route and adding another bus to accommodate the time constraints and capacity.
The Valley Metro operations staff pointed out an unprotected left turn from Seventh Street to Colorado Street that should be evaluated for an alternative routing.
Recommended Changes
Split the route into two, with the 91/92 serving the Melrose/Main Street corridor with two vehicles and a new Route 93 providing service from the Main Street Corridor to the Lewis Gale Medical Center and the Salem VA Medical Center.
Given the significant reduction in route mileage for the 91/92, this change should allow the 91/92 to be extended to the west in the direction of Glenvar. It is estimated that the route could handle about 2 additional miles each direction, which would bring it about to Richfield Living, just west of Salem.
Increasing the capacity and streamlining the route will result in an increase in ridership.
The cost for this change will be about $331,360 per year. A vehicle will also be required, but is likely available from Valley Metro’s existing fleet. The funding to implement this route change is suggested to come from savings realized by reducing the number of routes that have 30-minute service.
This change is shown in Figure 3-28 and in Figure 3-29.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-52
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-27: Routes 91/92 – Mean Stop Activity
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-53
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-28: Valley Metro Routes 91/92 and Proposed Changes
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-54
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-29: Valley Metro Proposed Route 93 - Salem
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-55
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Star Line Trolley
The Star Line trolley route provides service from downtown Roanoke to the Carilion Medical Facilities located in the Jefferson Street corridor. In FY2017 the Star Line provided 103,371 passenger trips, which was down 3.2% from the 106,818 passenger trips provided in FY2016. Productivity on the route is 13.5 trips per revenue hour, which is below the fixed route system average. The stop activity for the route is shown in Figure 3-30.
Figure 3-30: Star Line Trolley – Mean Stop Activity
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-56
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations There are no current recommendations with regard to the Star Line Trolley. The TVP included a medium-term recommendation to extend the route to the Towers Shopping Center, which would necessitate adding another vehicle. This extension would add a link to a major destination.
POTENTIAL NEW ROUTES
Short- Term – Using Existing Resources
The short-term route and schedule recommendations for the COA are generally cost-neutral, recognizing that Valley Metro’s fixed route ridership has gone down over the past several years, similar to the national trend; however, there are two new routes that could be implemented using the revenue hours saved by combining Routes 31X and Routes 31/32 and reducing the number of revenue hours used for 30-minute service (discussed in Chapter 4). Neither of the proposed new routes would serve downtown Roanoke directly.
Route 93
This route was discussed as it relates to Routes 91/92. It is proposed that a Route 93 be implemented to provide service from Main Street in Salem to the Salem VA Medical Center and Lewis Gale Medical Center. It is proposed that this route operate 14 hours per day, six days per week, with transfer opportunities to Routes 91/92, 71/72, and Route 75/76. These revenue hours total 84 per week. Given that this route is proposed to be implemented using savings from a reduction in the number of routes that have peak service, a bus will not need to be purchased.
The routing was shown in conjunction with the discussion of splitting Route 91/92. This recommendation is slightly different than the one contained within the TVP, which proposed a Route 93 that would connect the medical centers to downtown Salem and to the Park and Ride Lot adjacent to Exit 140 of I-81, serving the Electric Road corridor and Lakeside Plaza. For an hourly headway, it is likely that more than one vehicle would be needed to accomplish these areas and the Civic Center area of Salem and areas west of College Avenue.
It is proposed that a future new Salem Circulator handle local service to connect Salem-area destinations and the Exit 140 Park and Ride Lot.
Brandon Avenue Connector – Routes 1 and 2
The Brandon Avenue Connector is a proposed new route that would serve as a cross-town connector, originating at the Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital and terminating at the Lewis Gale Medical Center. The TVP suggested that the route be numbered Route 1 (outbound) and Route 2 (inbound). The route would travel as follows:
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-57
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Outbound (Route 1) Carilion complex Right on McClanahan Street to Brandon Avenue Left on Colonial Avenue, serving the Towers Shopping Center stop Right on 23rd Street Left on Brandon Avenue to Apperson Drive Left on Keagy Road Right on Braeburn Drive to EOL at Lewis Gale
Inbound (Route 2) Lewis Gale Medical Center Right on Braeburn Drive Left on Keagy Road Right on Brandon Avenue Right on Colonial Avenue Left on Wonju Street Left on Franklin Road Right on McClanahan Street Left on Jefferson Street to Carilion Complex
The concept of this route was discussed within the Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan, though it was included as a medium-term recommendation, rather than a short-term recommendation. The route would connect the following current routes:
Star Line Trolley Routes 51/52 Routes 55/56 Routes 61/62 Routes 65/66 Routes 71/72 Route 91/92 (or possibly the future 93)
The route is 6.1 miles each way. The implementation of this route would support Route 61/62 discontinuing service to the Towers Shopping Center and would also allow Route 71/72 to eliminate the circuitous Carlton/Fareham/Derwent/Malvern segment to stay on Edgewood Street. The Brandon Avenue Connector would serve the Brandon Ridge Apartments, allowing Route 71/72 to remain on Edgewood Street. For these reasons, the COA proposed recommendation is to implement this route in the short-term, rather than the medium-term.
The timing of the route will need detailed study to determine the best approach to reduce duplication on the shared segments, while promoting connectivity. This route could be implemented on a 14 hour service day, six days per week, which would total 84 revenue service hours per week. Given that this route is proposed to be implemented using savings from
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-58
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations reducing the number of routes that have peak service, a bus will not need to be purchased. A route map is provided as Figure 3-31.
Figure 3-31: Proposed Brandon Avenue Connector (Routes 1 and 2)
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-59
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Near-Term Expansionary
If funds are available for expansion there are city/county corridors where development has occurred or is occurring that could likely support fixed route transit service in the near-term. Service to these areas would also serve to connect the existing transit network outside of downtown Roanoke. Routes in two of these corridors are discussed below.
Electric Road Corridor – Routes 4 and 5
The Electric Road corridor (Route 4) is proposed to originate at Tanglewood Mall and travel north along Electric Road (Virginia Route 419) and terminate at Salem VA Medical Center. This route would connect with Routes 51/52; 55/56; 61/62; 71/72; 75/76; and 91/92 (or new 93), and would also serve a number of existing and new transit origins and destinations. This route would provide connecting service for riders so that they would not have to travel to downtown Roanoke to connect to several travel corridors west of downtown Roanoke. Route 5 would be the return trip, originating at the Salem VA Medical Center and terminating at Tanglewood Mall.
Routes 4/5 together would be about 16 miles round trip, which is close to the maximum feasible for one bus to accomplish in one hour. It would likely be feasible given that there are many segments along the route that do not have origins and destinations and would likely have higher operating speeds. The proposed route is provided as Figure 3-32. This route is inter- jurisdictional, serving parts of the cities of Roanoke and Salem, as well as Roanoke County. This corridor was discussed within the TVP.
Cost
If the Electric Road Corridor route operated on an hourly schedule similar to the rest of the route network (i.e., 14 hours per day, six days per week), this would result in about 4,360 annual revenue hours. Using an estimated fully-allocated cost of $76 per hour, the annual operating costs would be about $331,000 per year. A vehicle would also be needed at a cost of about $450,000.
Ridership
Ridership is estimated to be 65,400 per year, based a productivity of 15 passenger trips per revenue hour.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-60
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-32: Proposed Electric Road Corridor Route (Routes 4 and 5)
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-61
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Towne Square / Williamson / Plantation / Peters Creek / DMV
There are a number of important destinations north of the City of Roanoke, including the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on Valleypointe Parkway, Green Ridge Recreation Center on Wood Haven Road, Hollins Library on Peters Creek Road, many large businesses on Plantation Road, Williamson Road, and Waldron Drive, as well as Hollins University. These destinations are not currently served by Valley Metro. A route to serve these areas could originate at the Towne Square area, connecting to the Route 20 series, then travel north on Williamson Road to Hollins University, west on Peters Creek Road to Plantation, Hitech Road, Enon Drive, Walrond Drive, then back to Plantation, Peters Creek, Wood Haven and Valleypointe to terminate at the DMV. This routing is about 9 miles in each direction, or 18 miles round trip, which is the maximum route length feasible for one bus to accomplish in one hour. It would likely be feasible given that there are a few segments along the route that do not have origins and destinations and would likely have higher operating speeds. The proposed route is provided as Figure 3-33. This route is inter-jurisdictional, serving both Roanoke City and Roanoke County.
Cost
If the Towne Square – Williamson – Plantation-Peters Creek-DMV route operated on an hourly schedule similar to the rest of the route network (i.e., 14 hours per day, six days per week), this would result in about 4,360 annual revenue hours. Using an estimated fully-allocated cost of $76 per hour, the annual operating costs would be about $331,000 per year. A vehicle would also be needed at a cost of about $450,000. Given that some of the destinations on this route are only open Monday through Friday during business hours, it may be feasible to operate this route on a reduced schedule, which would cost less and result in better productivity.
Ridership
Ridership on this route is likely to be lower than the system average, as the population density in this area is not as high as some of the other parts of the Valley Metro service area. There are also some segments of the route with few opportunities for boarding/alighting. Annual ridership is estimated to be about 52,000 passenger trips based on 4,360 annual revenue hours.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-62
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Figure 3-33: Towne Square – Williamson-Plantation-Peters Creek- DMV
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-63
Chapter 3: Route Analysis and Recommendations Salem Circulator
The changes under consideration for Salem include splitting Route 91/92 so that the portion of the route that travels to the medical centers is independent of the main line that operates on Main Street (Salem) and the Melrose Corridor (Roanoke). The new 93 will connect to Route 91/92 in Salem. Late in the study process, it was brought up that the City of Salem may be interested in a circulator route, perhaps using a specialty vehicle. The concept of a second Salem-based route, in addition to the new Route 93, was not studied in detail, but could provide a viable option to connect downtown Salem with the park and ride at Exit 140 of I-81. For planning purposes, we are including this potential project as an option for more detailed study.
Medium-Term Expansionary
The following additional connecting and corridor routes were recommended for the medium- term time frame within the TVP:
Connectors and Circulators
Salem to Crossroads area Extension of the Star Line Trolley to the Towers Shopping Center Vinton and Eastern Roanoke County Circulator Clearbrook, Tanglewood and South Roanoke County Circulator
Corridors
Bonsack – Eastern Roanoke County, Botetourt County and downtown Roanoke Greenfield/Daleville, Bonsack and downtown Roanoke Crossroads, Valley View, downtown Roanoke, and Tanglewood
Given that the focus of the COA is on short-term improvements to the current network, these potential routes were not studied in detail.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 3-64
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations
Chapter 4 Schedule Analysis and Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
An important focus of the COA is to reduce the number of vehicles that meet at one time to transfer passengers in downtown Roanoke. The Transfer Analysis, presented as Chapter 2, indicated that a timed transfer pattern is likely to continue to be the most feasible way to manage the bus route network, but that reducing the number of vehicles that meet at the same time will be possible through the following approaches:
Short Term – Schedule Adjustments and Route Changes. This approach eliminates 30- minute service at all times for routes that have ridership below the system average, shifts the 30-minute service to the afternoon for the high ridership routes, and adds a second pulse to the system, so that some routes will meet for transfer opportunities at 0:15 and others will meet at 0:45.
Short to Medium-Term – Connecting Routes and Secondary Hubs. This approach implements additional routes, so that not all passengers need to travel into downtown Roanoke on one route and back out on another route, making use of secondary hubs where feasible. The Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan included some specific recommendations for these connectors and hubs. The current COA schedule recommendations have identified some bus hours to eliminate through the reduction in 30-minute peak service that can potentially be re-deployed as connecting routes without incurring additional operating or capital costs.
The detailed schedule analysis and specific recommendations are highlighted below.
RIDERSHIP BY RUN
Using a ten-day ridership sample from November 2017 provided by Valley Metro through its GFI farebox data system, the study team developed a ridership by run comparison for the hourly runs versus the “peak” runs for the routes that offer “peak” service. “Peak” service is defined as the added vehicles that operate on the 0:45 to provide 30-minute service on selected routes, Monday through Friday, from 6:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. and again from 3:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. (7:45 p.m. on Fridays). The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of the “peak” service to see if it is feasible to eliminate it for routes with productivity below the system average and shift it to busier time periods for routes with higher productivity. These data are provided in Table 4-1.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-1
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Table 4-1: Valley Metro Fixed Routes – Ridership by Run- Hourly versus Peak
Ridership by Run
Hourly Run Peak Run Average Average Route Ridership Ridership Route 11 13.8 5.3 Route 12 10.8 4.6 Route 15 16.1 5.7 Route 16 6.9 6.4 Route 21 15.0 4.7 Route 22 10.7 6.3 Route 25 10.7 3.5 Route 26 5.4 5.3 Route 51 10.6 5.0 Route 52 5.7 5.0 Route 55 10.5 4.6 Route 56 9.4 4.0 Route 65 10.9 3.5 Route 66 7.2 7.1 Route 71 11.6 3.5 Route 72 5.9 5.2 Route 75 13.8 5.6 Route 76 10.2 7.5 Route 85 8.8 6.2 Route 86 10.5 5.4 Average 10.2 5.2 Note: Each run is 30 minutes
These data show that the average ridership per run for the hourly routes is almost twice that of the “peak” runs. This finding supports the observations of Valley Metro operations staff who noted this trend.
RIDERSHIP BY TIME OF DAY
Another trend that was noted by Valley Metro operations staff is that ridership by time of day on the fixed route system does not follow a traditional morning and evening peak pattern and that ridership typically rises significantly between the hours of noon and 5:00 p.m. The current
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-2
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations peak period services operate from 6:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. and again from 3:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. (7:45 p.m. on Fridays). The added capacity in the morning hours is typically unnecessary to meet ridership demands. To see if the ridership data supported these observations, the same GFI farebox dataset from November 2017 was analyzed to generate ridership by time of day graphs for each route and for the system as a whole. Figure 4-1 presents the ridership by time of day for the fixed route system.
Figure 4-1: All Valley Metro Fixed Routes – 10 Day Sample of Ridership by Time of Day
These data show that while there is a morning ridership peak, ridership begins to rise higher than this peak about 3 p.m., reaching peak daily ridership about 5:00 p.m. For the routes that do not offer peak service, there is not a morning peak. The peak ridership for the day for these routes is a little earlier in the afternoon, as shown in Figure 4-2.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-3
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-2: Valley Metro Fixed Routes – 10 Day Sample of Ridership by Time of Day for Routes without Peak Hour Service
Ridership by time of day for each route for the ten-day sample period is provided in Appendix A.
30-MINUTE FREQUENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
From the ridership data presented in Chapter 3, we learned that there are routes within the fixed route network that currently have peak hour service, but experience productivity that is below the system average. Re-deployment of these hours would likely improve the efficiency of the fixed route network.
The ridership by run and by hour presented above indicated that capacity is needed more in the afternoon than it is the morning, though there will likely continue to be a need for the tripper bus in the morning that currently assists Route 91. Proposed changes to the daily revenue hours for each route are shown in Table 4-2. This table shows the proposed reductions in 30-minute service for several routes, as well as an addition of service hours for Route 81/82 to assist with capacity on the Melrose Avenue corridor. It is proposed that the Melrose Avenue corridor have 30-minute service from 8:15 a.m. until 8:15 p.m. through a combination of Routes 81/82 and 91/92. This table also shows the reduction in hours realized through the combination of Route 31X and Route 31/32, which was discussed in Chapter 3.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-4
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Table 4-2: Proposed Changes in Daily Service Hours by Route
Daily Regular Daily Peak Route Revenue Hours Revenue Eliminate Add (M-S) Hours (M-F) Peak Service 11 7.5 3 12 7.5 3 15 7.5 3 16 7.5 3 21 7.5 3 22 7.5 3 25 7.5 3 -3 26 7.5 3 -3 31 7.5 0 32 7.5 0 35 7.5 0 36 7.5 0 41 7.5 0 42 7.5 0 51 7.5 3 -3 52 7.5 3 -3 55 7.5 3 -3 56 7.5 3 -3 61 7.5 0 62 7.5 0 65 7.5 3 -3 66 7.5 3 -3 71 7.5 3 -3 72 7.5 3 -3 75 7.5 3 76 7.5 3 81 0 3 2 82 0 3 3 85 7.5 3 -3 86 7.5 3 -3 91 15 0 92 (Includes a.m. tripper) 14 2.25 31X 0 6.5 -6.5 Daily Hours 239 74.75 -42.5 5 Days of the Week 6 5 5 6 Total Weekly Hours 1,434 373.75 -212.5 30 Current Weekly Total 1,808 Proposed Weekly Total 1,625 Weekly Savings 182.5
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-5
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Implementing these changes will save 182.5 revenue service hours per week, or 9,490 revenue service hours per year. These hours will then be available for savings or for re-deployment to provide the proposed Route 93 and the Brandon Avenue Connector. If both of these proposed routes operate on a 14-hour service day, six days per week, the weekly revenue hours will be 84 for each route. This will total more than 168 hours, which will leave some hours available for additional tripper service if needed.
CHANGE IN PULSE TRANSFER
In order to reduce the number of vehicles that meet in downtown Roanoke at the same time, it will be necessary to implement a second pulse. The new proposed pattern reduces the number of fixed route buses that pulse at one time from 16 to between 7 and 10, depending upon the time of day. The total number of buses serving downtown Roanoke is not changed by the pulse shift.
The schedule developed for this change is based on the transfer data collected and analyzed in Chapter 2. This change may be inconvenient for some passengers, but keeps the heaviest transfer pairs and highest ridership routes together. This change also provides more frequent service for the end of the line locations that are currently served via the bi-directional paired loops (i.e. Valley View Mall area; Tanglewood Mall area).
This proposed change in the pulse transfer pattern should be thoroughly vetted through Valley Metro staff, adjusted as needed, and then vetted through a public hearing process so that riders can weigh in on this fairly significant proposed change.
The proposed new pattern is shown in Table 4-3. Following Table 4-3, there are a series of maps (Figures 4-3 through 4-9) that portray what the proposed route network will look like for each service pattern throughout the day. The current routes were used for these maps, as route changes have not yet been implemented.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-6
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Table 4-3: Proposed Revised Downtown Pulse Transfer Pattern
# Time Vehicles Routes Leaving Downtown Roanoke a.m. 6:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 6:45 6 11 25 31 51 65 71 7:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 7:45 6 11 25 31 51 65 71 8:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 8:45 7 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 9:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 9:45 7 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 10:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 10:45 7 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 11:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 11:45 7 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 p.m. 12:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 12:45 10 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 15 21 75 1:15 10 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 11 1:45 10 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 15 21 75 2:15 10 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 11 2:45 10 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 15 21 75 3:15 10 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 11 3:45 10 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 15 21 75 4:15 10 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 11 4:45 10 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 15 21 75 5:15 10 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 11 5:45 10 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 15 21 75 6:15 10 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 11 6:45 10 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 15 21 75
Peak Hour Service on Select Routes 7:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91 7:45 7 11 25 31 51 65 71 81 8:15 9 15 21 35 41 55 61 75 85 91
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-7
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-3: Routes Leaving Campbell Court at 6:15; 7:15; 8:15; 9:15; 10:15; 11:15 a.m. and 12:15 p.m.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-8
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-4: Routes Leaving Campbell Court at 6:45 a.m. and 7:45 a.m.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-9
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-5: Routes Leaving Campbell Court at 8:45; 9:45; 10:45; and 11:45 a.m.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-10
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-6: Routes Leaving Campbell Court at 1:15; 2:15; 3:15; 4:15; 5:15; and 6:15 p.m.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-11
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-7: Routes Leaving Campbell Court at 12:45; 1:45; 2:45; 3:45; 4:45; 5:45; and 6:45 p.m.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-12
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-8: Routes Leaving Campbell Court at 7:15 and 8:15 p.m.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-13
Chapter 4: Schedule Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-9: Routes Leaving Campbell Court at 7:45 p.m.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 4-14
Chapter 5: Passenger Facility and Other Recommendations
Chapter 5 Passenger Facilities and Other Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
While the focus of the COA has been on the routes and schedules, there are additional recommendations that are integral to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Valley Metro fixed route network. These recommendations are in the following areas:
Passenger Facilities Marketing and Advertising Service Planning
PASSENGER FACILITIES
Downtown Transfer Facility
Campbell Court is nearing the end of its useful life as a passenger facility and will need to be renovated or replaced in the near term. Reducing the number of vehicles that meet at the same time will help the facility to continue to function while another option is pursued. As discussed within Chapter 2, a facility study has been conducted but the resulting recommendations have not yet been pursued. The full discussion concerning the need to replace Campbell Court and a potential alternative site are provided in Chapter 2. The recommendations with regard to changing the pulse pattern suggest that space will be needed for at least ten vehicles at one time (down from the current 16).
Valley View Area
The Valley View area Walmart stop is one of the busiest in the fixed route network and does not have a shelter and is not accessible for people with disabilities. The stop was identified in the 2013 Bus Stop Accessibility Study as needing significant improvements, but the stop is on private land and a solution has not yet been agreed upon. The Valley View Mall stop does have a shelter, but it is not in an ideal location with regard to minimizing vehicle conflicts (i.e., it is in a parking lot). In addition to the issues with current stops, this area is also a transfer location for some of the busiest bus routes in the network (Routes 11, 12, 15, 16).
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 5-1
Chapter 5: Passenger Facility and Other Recommendations A site visit with Valley Metro operations staff was made to look at potential alternative concepts. There is a pull-off area along Ring Road that is recommended for study to see if it would be available for the construction of a Valley View area bus transfer location. Pedestrian improvements would be needed to connect the location across the mall parking lot, as well as to Walmart. This location and a conceptual idea for a transfer center are shown in Figure 5-1.
Outreach to the mall ownership will be needed to determine if this concept is feasible and what the terms might be for Valley Metro to be able to make improvements to the site so that it can function as an accessible bus transfer location for up to about four vehicles, with a large passenger shelter. Once this outreach takes place, a preliminary cost estimate can be developed.
Figure 5-1: Valley View Area Conceptual Transfer Center
Valley View Mall
Walmart
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 5-2
Chapter 5: Passenger Facility and Other Recommendations Towne Square
The Towne Square area, currently served by Routes 21, 22, 25, and 26, is a busy retail and employment center. As Valley Metro considers additional routes north of the City of Roanoke toward Hollins and the DMV, the Towne Square area makes sense for the construction of a satellite passenger transfer location. A parcel of land at the intersection of Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard that would be well-located for such a facility is shown in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2: Potential Location for Passenger Transfer Facility – Towne Square Area
Tanglewood Mall
The Tanglewood Mall is a significant transit stop for the 50 series routes, and there are plans for re-development of the site and additional development along the Electric Road corridor of Roanoke County. Currently the Valley Metro vehicles circle around the existing mall buildings, stopping in the Kroger lot and in front of AC Moore.
These stops are convenient from a passenger perspective as they are close to the shops, but they require that the vehicles circle through the parking lot. It is recommended that Valley Metro work with the development team and the county when the mall makes improvements so that there is an opportunity to develop a sheltered passenger transfer facility for Valley Metro that is closer to Electric Road, with a safe pedestrian pathway to the shops.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 5-3
Chapter 5: Passenger Facility and Other Recommendations Improvements Cited in the 2013 Bus Stop Accessibility Study
There are a number of bus stop improvements cited in the 2013 Bus Stop Accessibility Study conducted under the leadership of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC). Some of the recommendations have been implemented, some may no longer be relevant, and others have yet to be addressed. While the focus of the COA is primarily on routes and schedules, improving Valley Metro’s bus stops would also serve to make the system more attractive to riders and system stakeholders.
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING
Route Maps and Schedules
Valley Metro’s route and schedule information needs to be updated. Most of the route maps that are available on the system’s website were prepared by the Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional Commission in March of 2000. Several are no longer completely accurate. The system also uses time points in ten-minute increments that tie the schedule to five interim points along each route. These time points are numbered one through five and are printed on the route maps. The issue with this approach is that it is difficult to see on the maps which exact location is depicted by each number.
An alternate approach would be to list the location of each of these time points on a schedule that is unique to each route. This method is standard in the industry and is less confusing to new riders who may not understand how to use the system.
Given the need to have these maps and schedules as user-friendly and as graphically-pleasing as possible, it is recommended that Valley Metro conduct a procurement process to hire a company that specializes in creating these materials.
Once completed, these maps and schedules should be made available in print form for riders, as well as uploaded to Valley Metro’s website. Valley Metro may also want to budget each year for updates to the maps and schedules so that they can remain current.
Cost
A preliminary cost estimate for this project is $35,000.
Real-Time Transit Information
Valley Metro is working on a technology project to provide real-time transit information for customers. The initial phase of the project will be implemented in FY2019 and will focus on the
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 5-4
Chapter 5: Passenger Facility and Other Recommendations Star Line Trolley and the Smart Way services. These vehicles will be outfitted with flat screen monitors that can be used for rider information as well as advertising. This project will be of great value for riders, allowing them to access real time transit information via a computer, tablet, or smart phone. The second phase of the project will outfit the rest of the fixed route fleet and add a number of information kiosks around the service area to display real-time transit information. The final phase of the project will include the purchase and installation of automatic passenger counters.
Cost
The first phase of the project was included in DRPT’s FY2016 SYIP, with a budget of $300,000. The cost to include the full fixed route network is about $1.7 million and will be part of a Smart Scale grant application to VDOT in the next round (August 2018 submission date).
SERVICE PLANNING
Valley Metro’s operations staff performs the day-to-day service planning tasks that are required in response to road closures, events, and customer requests and complaints. In addition, the Roanoke Valley –Alleghany Regional Commission conducts planning tasks for Valley Metro as well as leading the data collection required for reporting to the National Transit Database. The missing link for Valley Metro is an in-house service planner who could take the recommendations made within local planning documents such as the TDP and the Transit Vision Plan and develop specific routes and schedules that could then be tested by the operations staff. An in-house planner could also keep the route and schedule information up to date, as well as staying abreast of new development and land use changes that may affect Valley Metro.
Cost
The salary for this position would likely be in the range of $50,000 annually, plus fringe benefits.
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis 5-5
Appendix A Appendix A: Ridership by Time of Day For Each Route
Valley Metro Comprehensive Operational Analysis
Ridership by Route and Time of Day – November, 2017, 10-Day Sample Total
A-1
Note – data for this route was missing some values
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
Note: Route 81 operates peak hour only
A-14
Note: Route 82 operates peak hour only
A-15
Note: A tripper is added at 6:15 a.m. to allow the 91/92 to bring people to a major manufacturing company in Salem.
A-16
A-17