Fredericton on the Move Transit Strategic Plan 2018 Council Presentation November 29, 2018 Agenda To provide a strategic action plan to improve transit and mobility in Fredericton

1. Background & Project Plan

2. On the Move Highlights

3. Recommendations & Phasing

4. Discussion 1 Background & Project Plan Why this plan? Why now?

• Provide strategic direction for transit over the next 10 years • Translate transit investment into transit ridership Ridership and revenue hour trends 1,800,000 70,000

• Be responsible to riders and non-riding taxpayers 1,600,000 60,000 • Align with new Municipal Plan and Imagine 1,400,000 50,000 Fredericton focused on growing Fredericton in a 1,200,000 1,000,000 40,000 sustainable way Fare increase - 800,000 Cash $2.25 to $2.75 Monthly $70 to $80 30,000 • To improve quality of life that attracts new residents Ridership Ridership

600,000 hours hours Revenue Revenue and retains current ones 20,000 400,000 10,000 200,000 Every $1 invested in transit results in approx. $4 of - - 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 economic benefits. Ridership Revenue hours Some current challenges

• Stagnating ridership • Fare affordability in tension with generous concessions • Limited visibility of transit in the community • Lack of data and information for informed decision making • No Sunday service despite ‘business as usual’ in the community Our approach

• Continuous engagement and dialogue with stakeholders and the community • Thorough review and analysis of various aspects of and the community • Review of peer and best practices to bring fresh ideas 2 On the Move Highlights Stakeholder activities

• Stakeholder meetings in January • 2,500 flyers distributed • Online survey  2,312 completed responses  Approx. 50% non-riders • Service ride -alongs • Bus operator workshops • One-on-one meetings • Idea Bus • Facilitated workshops, roundtables, and steering committee updates in March Emergent Themes • Affordability There is the sense that $80 is too expensive for an adult monthly pass.

• Accessibility Especially during winter months when snow makes it difficult to access bus stops.

• Scheduling The lack of Sunday service is an example of an issue for adults, students, and seniors.

• Travel Time Limited frequency often makes walking more convenient. Is it necessary to have all buses converging at Kings Place? Service Planning

• Provided two network concepts to modify routing to university campus and pilot on- demand service in Silverwood • Kings Place requires detailed feasibility study to optimize space for all uses and ensure transit is at the heart of downtown • Short -term —move buses on both sides of York St • Developed concepts for North Side hub • Medium-term—recommended park-and-ride at SmartCentre • Park-and-ride feasibility revealed the need to coordinate and develop agreements with existing lots at city periphery • Sunday service could be piloted in the medium term dependent on resources

Example of a network concept with continuous service along Regent St Technology

• To ensure customer and operator safety, provide better customer information and gather data for decision making • Immediate recommendations: • Issue tenders for cameras and AVL -APC From UTA • Revamp website • Provide real-time info to all apps (not just ReadyPass) • Other recommendations: • Invest in on-demand/dynamic scheduling software • New fare collection tech

Transit App From Android Central Fares • To ensure that fares reflect ability to pay and fund a sufficient amount of service

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 • Simplify fare table Cash fare; 10-tickets; monthly pass (regular and reduced or ‘geared-to-income’) Cash $3.00 $3.00 $3.25 $3.25 $3.50

• Keep fare increases consistent and predictable 10-ride tickets $27.00 $27.00 $29.25 $29.25 $31.50 Enables small increases rather than large increases all at once Adult Monthly Pass $84.00 $87.00 $91.00 $95.00 $98.00 • Implement reduced (low-income fare) based on ability to pay Low-Income Pass $42.00 $43.50 $45.50 $47.50 $49.00 Eliminate senior annual pass and monthly student fare U-Pass $150.00 $160.00 $170.00 $180.00 $190.00 • Investigate EcoPass opportunities (employers), UPass, and non-fare revenues

• Curb fare evasion Marketing • To improve transit visibility and community awareness

• Retain marketing agency to assist with developing a marketing plan and undertaking a brand review

• Use bus stops and shelters as brand advertisements as well as opportunities to generate revenue

• Establish “Transit is Cool” culture in Fredericton

• Leverage grassroots and guerrilla marketing

• Facilitated by community partnerships such as with local businesses, cultural amenities, etc. offering discounts to customers with transit passes 3 Recommendations & Phasing Immediate and Short-Term recommendations • Use network concepts to develop detailed service plans and resourcing • Issue tenders for onboard technologies • Develop park-and-rides leveraging existing parking lots • Develop taxi-delivered on-demand shared-ride service for Silverwood • Reconfigure bus stops at Kings Place – begin an feasibility design study • Update fare table – begin discussions for low-income fares • Simplify route naming • Retain marketing agency • Develop performance criteria and service standards Mid- and Long-Term recommendations • Pilot Sunday service • Explore potential for North Side transfer hub • Invest in dynamic scheduling software • Modernize fare collection system • Work to develop EcoPass agreements with major employers, like municipal and provincial goverments • Develop new bus stop signage • Remove two-way radios and replace with integrated CAD/AVL/MDT • Launch transit asset management plan Thank you to all participants who provided valuable feedback and input to this plan. Discussion Back pocket slides Route Characteristics

Route # Peak Frequency Off-Peak Frequency Saturday Frequency 10N 15 min 30 min 60 min 11S 15-30 min 30 min 60 min 12N, 13S, 14N, 15S, 30 min 60 min 60 min 16N, 17S, 116, 216 18,20 75 min - -

Average daily boardings Average boardings per revenue hour 1,600 35.0 1,400 30.0 1,200 25.0 1,000 20.0 800 Weekday Weekday

hour 15.0 600 Saturday Saturday 400 10.0 200 5.0 Avg. daily boardings daily Avg.

- rev. per boardings Avg. 0.0 10N/11S 12N/13S 14N/15S 16N/17S 116/216 18 20 10N/11S 12N/13S 14N/15S 16N/17S 116/216 18 20 Population Density

Observations: • Densest neighbourhoods are in neighbourhoods south of the city centre as well as the Town Plat and Forest Hill • Densest neighbourhood on the north side is Nashwaaksis North • Lowest density areas are Lincoln and Silverwood (with the exception of Lincoln Heights) Household Income

Observations: • Median household income in 2016 was $60,592 • Large portions of below- median income areas distributed across the city • Low income areas are a proxy for low car ownership areas in which the residents tend to have high dependency on transit Transit Mode Share

Observations: • 4.4% transit mode share • Highest mode share (>15%) in East Downtown and in neighbourhoods adjacent to UNB and STU • Low transit usage along Woodstock Rd. (route 18) Selected Peer Comparisons Rides per revenue hour, 2016 Revenue hours per capita, 2016

Kingston Transit Fredericton Transit

Red Deer Transit

North Bay Transit Moncton Transit

Lethbridge Transit

Fredericton Transit

Moncton Transit

Brandon Transit

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Cost recovery ratio, 2016 Avg. fare revenue per rider, 2016

North Bay Transit Lethbridge Transit North Bay Transit Fredericton Transit Red Deer Transit Moncton Transit

Moncton Transit Kingston Transit

Kingston Transit Red Deer Transit Fredericton Transit Brandon Transit Brandon Transit Lethbridge Transit $- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Marketing Opportunities Fredericton Transit has conscientiously increased its marketing investment in recent years. However, there is still room for improvement:

bus stop signage grassroots efforts guerrilla marketing

Step 1 is to develop a formal marketing plan for Fredericton Transit. 4 Next Steps Next Steps

• Additional stakeholder information gathering session to identify potential solutions • Continue moving forward with the analysis and develop recommendations • Projecting completion date end of April 2018 5 Discussion Discussion Points • Would an alternate service delivery method be more appropriate for Silverwood if we can reallocate fixed route resources to areas which need it more and still provide a coverage solution? • Would a Sunday service pilot of only routes 10N/11S and 12N/13S be an appropriate means of balancing service needs with financial restrictions? • Are there any north side locations that would be suitable as a transfer hub, recognizing that the area would need to serve a purpose beyond transit during all hours of the day, including after the malls are closed? • Should we reconsider the unsustainable $50 annual pass for seniors if we offer a low- income monthly pass in lieu at a 50% discount? (ex. $40 for adults, or $27.50 for students/seniors) • For a hypothetical service running to/from the airport, what percentage of the costs should be shared with other parties (i.e. Lincoln/Regional Service Commission, YFC, Moncton Flight College, etc.)