Petersburg Area Transit (PAT), Which Is Operated by the City of Petersburg

KFH GROUP, INC.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan

Final Report

October, 2010

Prepared for:

The Crater Planning District Commission

4920 Elm Street, Suite 350 —Bethesda, MD 20814 —(301) 951-8660 — FAX (301) 951-0026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Chapter 1 – Overview of Transit in the Tri-Cities...... 1-1

History ...... 1-3 Governance and Organizational Structure ...... 1-5 Transit Services Provided and Areas Served...... 1-5 Fare Structure...... 1-21 Vehicle Fleet...... 1-21 Facilities...... 1-22 Transit Security Program...... 1-25 Public Outreach...... 1-27 Stimulus Projects...... 1-27

Chapter 2 – Goals, Objectives, and Standards ...... 2-1

PAT Mission and Goals...... 2-1 TDP Goals and Issues...... 2-2 Service Standards...... 2-5

Chapter 3 – Service and System Evaluation and Transit Needs Analysis...... 3-1

Service and System Evaluation...... 3-1 Paratransit Analysis...... 3-45 Transit Needs Analysis ...... 3-54 Summary ...... 3-74

Chapter 4 – Service and Organizational Alternatives ...... 4-1

Introduction ...... 4-1 Service Alternatives...... 4-1 Organizational Alternatives...... 4-18 Funding Programs to Support Potential Expansions ...... 4-25

Table of Contents (continued)

Page

Chapter 5 – Operations Plan...... 5-1

Introduction ...... 5-1 Recommendations Concerning the Existing Public Transit Services...... 5-1 Recommendations for New Services ...... 5-4 Organizational Recommendations...... 5-13

Chapter 6 – Capital Improvement Plan ...... 6-1

Introduction ...... 6-1 Vehicle Replacement and Expansion Program...... 6-1 Other Capital Equipment...... 6-2 Facilities ...... 6-4

Chapter 7 – Financial Plan ...... 7-1

Introduction ...... 7-1 Proposed Cost Allocation ...... 7-1 Operating Expenses and Funding Sources ...... 7-3 Vehicle Purchase Expenses and Funding Sources ...... 7-8 Facility Improvement Expenses and Funding Sources ...... 7-8

Chapter 8 – TDP Monitoring and Evaluation...... 8-1

Introduction ...... 8-1 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs...... 8-2 Service Performance Monitoring...... 8-3 Annual TDP Monitoring...... 8-3

Appendix A: General Comments Appendix B: Title VI Report Appendix C: FTA Triennial Review Appendix D: Survey Comments Final Report

Chapter 1

Overview of Transit in the Tri-Cities

The Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) provides multi- modal transportation planning services for the Cities of Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and Petersburg, and portions of the Counties of Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and Prince George. The MPO area is located in southeastern Virginia and was included in the Richmond Urbanized Area after the 2000 Census. The MPO area encompasses 308 square miles and has an estimated population (2007/2008) of 80,960.1 Table 1-1 provides the basic demographic and geography data for each of the MPO-member jurisdictions. Figure 1-1 provides a base map of the MPO area, which is the study area for the 2010 Tri-Cities Area Transit Development Plan Update.

Table 1-1: Tri-Cities MPO: Basic Demographics and Geography Jurisdiction Estimated Population 2007/2008 Square Density Population Miles (ppl/sq.mi.) City of Colonial Heights (1) 17,693 8.1 2,184 City of Hopewell (1) 23,263 11 2,115 City of Petersburg (1) 30,489 22 1,386 Chesterfield County (portion) (2,3) 57,469 117.4 490 Dinwiddie County (portion) (2,3) 16,615 39.2 424 Prince George County (portion) (2,3) 35,431 110.3 321 Total MPO Area 180,960 308 588

Sources: (1) Weldon-Cooper Center (2) ESRI 2007 Data (3) Tri-Cities MPO

1 Weldon-Cooper Center; ESRI Data CD (2007)

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-1

Figure 1-1: Base Map of Tri-Cities MPO Area

¤£360

¤£1 Chesterfield

Hopewell ¨¦§295

Colonial Heights 1 - 2 ¨¦§95 Petersburg 85 ¨¦§85

Prince George 460 ¤£ 295 Legend ¨¦§ 460 301 ¤£ 1 ¤£ Tri-Cities MPO Boundary ¤£ Fort Lee Military Reservation Dinwiddie

James River National Wildlife Refuge

Petersburg Federal Correctional Institution

Petersburg National Battlefield

Presquile National Wildlife Refuge

Outlying Counties 0 2.5 5 10 Miles ¯ Final Report

Public transportation in the MPO area is primarily provided by Petersburg Area Transit (PAT), which is operated by the City of Petersburg. PAT offers ten fixed routes and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit. There is also a public transit route operated by the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) that provides service between Petersburg and Richmond, and a route operated by the Blackstone Area Bus System (BABS) that provides service from Blackstone to Petersburg. Chesterfield County also operates “Access Chesterfield,” a demand- response transportation service for Chesterfield County residents who are disabled, aged 60 or older, or who meet federal income guidelines. Limited senior transportation programs are offered by the Cities of Colonial Heights and Hopewell. Petersburg is served by intercity bus service (Carolina Trailways/Greyhound) and there is an Amtrak station located in Ettrick.

HISTORY

Public transportation of some variety has been operating in the Tri-Cities region since 1882, beginning with horse-drawn street railways, then electric trolleys, and then buses. Private bus operators provided public transportation from 1927 until 1977.

The City of Petersburg began operating public transportation service in 1977, taking over from Tri-City Coaches, a private transportation provider that could no longer afford to operate the service. At the time the City took over the service, other institutional options were also considered, including a transportation district. In 1977 nine routes were operated, providing services in the Cities of Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, and parts of Chesterfield and Prince George Counties, including Fort Lee.

The 1977 “Short Range Transit Development Plan” recommended that the existing bus services, including the regional services, be continued under contractual agreements with the City. The 1977 Transit Development Plan also recommended service expansions to Central State Hospital, northern Dinwiddie County, and later to the City of Hopewell.

Public transit ridership declined considerably in the early 1970’s to 712,351 passenger trips in 1975. The decline in ridership was due to a number of reasons, including reductions in Fort Lee following the Vietnam buildup, an increase in personal income and auto ownership, continued suburbanization and the associated decline of the central business district, and the decreased level of service provided by the transit system.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-3

Final Report

By the 1993 Transit Development Plan, ridership had risen and began to decline again, with 960,354 passenger trips reported in 1992 (down from over one million in 1991). At the time of the 1993 Plan, public transit services in the region were provided only in the City of Petersburg and the Ettrick area of Chesterfield County. The fixed- route network consisted of eight routes, seven of which operated on 30-minute headways. PAT operated within a compact service area with highly productive routes, averaging 38 passenger trips per revenue hour on the fixed routes.

The 1993 TDP recommended a Regional Authority, and also recommended regional services to Hopewell, Southpark Mall, Fort Lee, Colonial Heights, as well as vanpool services to outlying employers. These regional routes were not implemented at that time.

By the 1999 TDP, ridership had fallen to 630,977 passenger trips per year (1998) and productivity had also dropped to 21 passenger trips per hour. The need for regional services was also discussed during the 1999 planning process. One of the other recommendations from the 1999 plan that has recently come to fruition is a downtown transit center for the City of Petersburg.

Since that time some regional services have been implemented, so that four of the ten PAT routes currently travel outside the City. These routes are:

• Ettrick • Southpark Mall • Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee, and • Washington/Central State Hospital

Ridership also began a downward trend from the late 1990’s to a low point in 2004. Transit ridership has begun to increase again in each of the years since 2004, with 615,478 passenger trips provided in FY 2009.

Given the long history of recognizing the need to provide regional services, one of the original goals of this TDP was to grapple with the organizational structure and governance needed to support regional services and develop a methodology for cost allocation and service that is fair and sustainable for the Tri-Cities MPO region; however, with the serious economic constraints that each jurisdiction currently faces, it was not possible to meet this goal. This issue of financial equity is of particular interest to the City of Petersburg, as it was re-classified for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding purposes after the 2000 Census when the Tri-Cities MPO area was merged into the Richmond Urbanized Area. The change in FTA funding category meant that PAT is now restricted in the use of its FTA Section 5307 funds. Prior to the change,

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-4

Final Report

PAT could use these funds for either operating (up to 50% of the net deficit) or capital (up to 80% of the net deficit). PAT is now restricted to using these funds for capital purposes only.2

This funding change has meant that the City is spending more of its general fund revenue to subsidize PAT, rather than using the Federal S.5307 funds. The City is also paying a subsidy to GRTC for the Petersburg-Richmond route, and the new multi- modal center will result in increased operating costs for the City. It is in this context that the need for a regional structure is particularly important at this time.

GOVERNANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

PAT is operated as a City Division under the Department of Public Works. The Director of Public Works reports to the City Manager, who reports to the Mayor and City Council of the City of Petersburg. The Assistant Director of Public Works (currently vacant) has been historically tasked with the position of Transit Manager. These duties are currently being split among the Director of Public Works, the Transit Operations Manager, and the Transit Administrative Manager. Figure 1-2 provides the organizational chart for PAT.

TRANSIT SERVICES PROVIDED AND AREAS SERVED

The City of Petersburg directly operates PAT. Ten fixed routes serve the Petersburg Area, as well as complementary ADA paratransit services. Eight vehicles are used to operate the ten routes. The routes are operated on a timed hub transfer system, whereby the routes come together in downtown Petersburg for transfer opportunities. The timed transfer location has recently been consolidated to the new Petersburg Station.

The City also helps support a route operated by GRTC that provides service between Petersburg and Richmond. For FY 2010 Petersburg contributed $150,000 for this route. Five northbound morning trips are offered, one mid-day trip is offered, and five southbound late afternoon trips are offered. The Blackstone Area Bus System (BABS) operates the Dinwiddie Express, which offers one trip into Petersburg from Dinwiddie County in the morning, and two trips from Petersburg to Dinwiddie County in the afternoon. Petersburg does not contribute financially to the Dinwiddie County

2 There are three operational expense categories that can be “capitalized” under FTA regulations and funded with S.5307 funds. These are preventive maintenance expenses, planning expenses, and ADA paratransit (up to 10% of the total FTA S.5307 allocation).

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-5

Final Report

service. Figure 1-3 shows the existing PAT, GRTC, and BABS services in the Tri-Cities MPO region.

Directly Operated Fixed-Route Service

PAT service generally operates Monday-Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 p.m., with service ending one hour later (8:15 p.m.) on Fridays. Saturday service is generally offered from 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. Some of the routes are operated on 30-minute headways and some are operated on hourly headways. The specifics for each route are described below.

Chapter 3 of this TDP provides a more in-depth service and system evaluation.

Washington Street/Central State

The Washington Street/Central State route provides east-west transit service through Petersburg’s downtown, originating at the Transportation Center, traveling around a downtown block, then heading west on Washington Street to travel through the Kennelworth and Pembroke neighborhoods. The route returns downtown via Rome and Wythe Streets. On three of the morning runs (6:15 a.m., 7:15 a.m., and 8:15 a.m.) and two of the afternoon runs (1:15 p.m., and either 5:15 p.m. M-Th, or 6:15 p.m. Fr.) the route extends to serve Central State Hospital. The Washington Street and Central State routes were previously operated separately, but recent budget constraints have resulted in the combination of these two routes. Service is provided Monday-Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with service ending at 7:45 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service operates from 7:15 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. (no service to Central State on Saturdays). Thirty-minute headways are offered when the route does not serve Central State (9:15 a.m.-1:15 p.m.; and 2:15-5:15 p.m.) and hourly service is provided when the route does serve Central State. Figure 1-4 provides a map of this route. In FY 2009, this route provided 106,927 annual passenger trips (combined Washington Street and Central State). This route is the highest ridership route in the PAT network.

Halifax Street

The Halifax Street route provides service from downtown to Patterson St./Augusta Avenue via Halifax Road. Service is provided Monday-Friday from 6:25 a.m. to 6:50 p.m., with service ending at 7:50 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service operates from 8:15 a.m. to 7:50 p.m. Hourly service is operated on this route, which is interlined with Route 5, Plaza. Figure 1-5 provides a map of this route. In FY 2009 there were 92,007 passenger trips taken on the combination of the Halifax and Plaza routes.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-7

Figure 1-3: Existing Transit Services in Tri-Cities MPO

Legend

PAT Blandford Hopewell

PAT Central State Hospital

PAT Ettrick Colonial Heights PAT Ft. Lee / Hopewell 1

PAT Halifax St. Chesterfield PAT Lee Ave. Fort Lee Military Reservation

PAT Plaza Prince George PAT South Crater Rd.

PAT Southpark Mall Petersburg National Battlefield PAT Virginia Ave. 301

PAT Walnut Hill 1 460 1

- PAT Washington St. 8 95 BABS Dinwiddie Express 95

GRTC 95 Petersburg

85 85 460

295 1

301 Dinwiddie

295 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Figure 1-4: PAT Washington Street/Central State Hospital

y um a abb r Pl h T o en t ig r r n H VEC Workfok rce Satellite Center Riv t H D er e r r u o J a o F t

H e v e

a f i i s f

l l s el e

o r W ie s U

s n

y z n n e so

B e n o g m e yrd ri k n

l C

c H n i n a r to o A M igh o ing e a h n J J s d M Chesterfield H a 301

v z W o a

e e x o n m tt l e

B a D m s o s pp e u the A rc n Wy rth r e l P No pe m o e ege p m n p c e oll U o to n P C ral C in re r ent H w i r C La n wn y B 1 e Bro a e PetersburgH DSS t m y S o rt a t R ibe e t L r e i or r l r llm e r le i Fi s C W e ap s e s m M k h ar o a e oc 460 a F n D s S p Regal B S I t Petersburg Health Departmenrst o a n p M A x y y orth o u N y d e lc a t l H r c i t w l i l n d h a i a a l r M W Joh M o n F K a e P e m h n n nne c dy r n c k t a d e M A c k i a W o c illi i l b am r e T n r h i n Ja t a i L rr e l m F a ett l B n t P g w a s La a S e Ne

s n m h a e e e h i t lp e r y g L y e g f l

r o r d g e i Ea e a n y L e W n a r Hill o r J i R o a

l l

d a r d o y r

N d u m k v n c w n tu 301 a e n h e e to e a c d tle K o ur n is h rt r s s M

R b C w i e t a as x tu a a e s E o a E r F e C o S d t o

e A s Sh e t

r e L l n e m r u e d l t n a a g to a l S d h s x e P u ad S rn A l a e G f ew G o P i th W p FS C l at p nt M l i r u la a a e S e i G l nia x n m a r Y rgi o s a k oun H Vi C g r e g B t r B P M g m i s rk g ncy Ma e e r o a Reg r int a e i e a i g e v n S r l t n J a l t u C H c l c i e v t n H e n 1 h s i p a i

l e i g ina m l l - r l ro t e a n o t C 9 kli i r an Blossum l n u r n F ill to o

H o C ill n Luke H b int l Petersburg Sa e r m k a O h k e irk S t K a H n k s h r tar a oa B a S d a O u w B k Central State Hospital a l Valor P n e r k n n C e a h r P a S o g k k Delmar oln y Y t a n e Ja nc l e m i t o es L e o O H l y r e t M r le N e i s ng y d G s l l Ta l l o y o o s r a Dinwiddie r n a n i o Lin T d t da t h B g n e y t y Darb o h d D Y m t an l S B l u o r 7 u e e e u F N s k v P S b r ea ur b e n ry o y y a W o r p g w n A C t lb s

e a S ma rle c m c h L r h o e o od e o l a o ew a e a gl

n n l n l a c lcu T t e r C W a f i a

H C e Hiram W Davis Medical Center D C e n 1 d a s V e die t k wid f a r in a a D r a l i r l n t e a R ter a tt es C Southside Virginia Training Center tche L l m a 5 Grim H 8 e es h v u Lep gend k Plan e oydton c B L k D l a 85 u P e ar 85 t p kv r n u ie r che Human Service Agencies F w i ut u ort K c p y Le u k e q m d Defense er a S yl

d T R Medical Facilities u Simpson B Dodson n

o x

a r Educational Facilities f

i n T e yn l D

B e t s h a

s a e o

H i H y l W J

l n n a e PAT yWashington St./ Central State Hosp. 0 0.25 0.5 1 a e kle z ll

a s B We e Miles l Figure 1-5: PAT Halifax Street C r G h e r n e Virginia State University k ill i o O s P o l e s o M l iv r k te r l lia h e R s e c r River gb d Am k a 2

y o k e a J tt fi lin C B o t e n l c h e T h l d o h u S g d d B a i Colonial Heights n x

L d a u rc R se l k i S S s O 5 r a x c h m u c p S q C t 4 h

h o e M u v t P r ro C e o G h h M k in a C Ban F t a a a y M s r r o w a W t d o l s a y l l d r Henr y t e l th i a i r a e O 6 c s T y w k r k n o o L e L C a h n h Chesterfield M t g t m i b it e 7 h y C Plu H ab t t r T o l n 8 n t e e r t H VECn Workforce Satellite Cen ter e u C t R n r r o D lin o r F o nk h r H e Fra a L a e C u m m a U s a v r C ill s f la c W i n l a p h s l s y rk e e s n i y i so a z o m t B W n e e Cri n o M yrd e t n n k n o c H t 301 tt e A M h o a a ig a P e lle H J J d g e z n h o a M i c e o x n M o m J c R tt l k T a D e e e e m s e o s f r u M v p e the f r p e e A rc n Wy rth r a e o e er l N e r c m o P g s e pp m n ce lle r p c o e o l o U to en P C tra C n n e i r r e n n i C W H w n r to a n r g L w y B hin e Bro e R a s H b a e Petersburg DSS e a m t m Peterysburg Health Dreparts ment m W o rt a o a t be lm i l t e e R L i r F p h g e a r r d P le i r 9 s C r 460 W e ap s in e m M C 5 h 1 ar o W xas k a e e c F n l T o a s i S r D s a n p Regal B M I t o t n p o A x y o u d e y lc n a t l H r ce 95 i t w l i l n y ru d h a l i a W J c p M r M ohn ar S Gre o F Ke a e D y ens n ch n nned cur ville n c y r er t k A a d M M c A p k i a S B c b i r e n i a in L y d m Petersburg National Battlefield l a m F a P Lee n l a n t e g ew c a o a y L a S N s n e r M R e a m fe a ir f R o L e g f J rly m e n a r g a J i E s G t m 1 r o i e d e y r e r b l a o a e a a o l n h l p - d d y l m r a o v n u e ck

1 r x n tu e m p e e s oe n t W o ch F d let Ke s 4 infi 0 t r n is e m 6 eld C hu rt r s M r 0 C w a i o a t 460 u a e s F h E t a or o S d t h R A s S e S l t m r u Laurel R t p g a a h u m r P Petersburg AS i ew G p o P h M n S att h M g p nt M l i y u a o rick e i S l ia Toll Gate K G e n m a Y x rgi n a o Vi u i r l n t a B g n r B d M s f k p m i cy i ar g n M g s e e l o t a Reg in e e a i g e P a S l l t n J l u H l i c i e a H v t n H n h s i r p t a i

l e t i g ina r e m l l rol e d e t t Ca 301 n

r y o r M r i i lo o

Blossum s F g l n u t

l n t l o o l

i o a o a i H l o v n C ke u

Dinwiddie n Lu y n b a int B

l t Sa v W S I V e l r m k ee a d e O St e irkh r S t K a a H s h e n r a oa o Claremont a d O w B o Valor u k nna lm n n C e m a Sh e e g lmar n k y B r De ol a M e Ja nc l B me Li o o O s y O H ld B n F r N t M le u r i a e i s ng o c o G l l Ta w a e k l l o t l r o a s s n lo la t r r e y n i r d M a t n u Lin T d P da t h o d Legenp d n e a g u F W n e h arby o t o F D o a D h a o ll Y sabe D m e a ir I l n r k f l a B o c t u r s x e u e e u

e u T N s k v t HumanL Service Agenciebs r ea S o y b e n e y a W h v p e g e n C P i y s a S r r o c m c l r h r o e o od o e e o l a o w n a gle n n l n w y Shopping Destinations c lcu l Ta A le W r C W f i a h G

H C e r a D C e J a c k d o e h a s t e e a k E e die t s h o f k wid f n n a ie r in a n n a a D a Medical Facilities e y s l l f s e d t r l t e t u o W e 85 D V M C ln n a o 5 a Walnut Hilal Mall 8 ster r g W ett Le i t B g atch 5Educational Facilities Grimes n o i H 8 a a e outh W n x r S D nk k B la x i n P n u ydto e

o a u h B d g f i p l i e r le

l s a d k u PAT Halifax St. 0 0.25 0.5 1 R s P y o Gr l a a s ee d n y rk en woo A vi tch r d

u e u w H K Miles

B Final Report

Lee Avenue

The Lee Avenue route provides service through a downtown loop starting at the Transportation Center, and then heads west on Farmer Road, serving Pecan Acres and Western Hills on alternating runs. Service is provided Monday-Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with service until 7:30 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is provided from 7:15 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Thirty-minute headways are provided. Figure 1-6 provides a map of this route. There were 60,704 passenger trips provided on this route in FY 2009.

Virginia Avenue

The Virginia Avenue route provides north-south service from downtown to Petersburg High School via Halifax, Harding, High, Pearl, and Johnson Roads. Service is provided Monday through Friday from 5:55 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., with service until 7:45 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is provided from 7:45 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. Hourly service is offered on this route, which is interlined with the Ettrick Route. Figure 1-7 provides a map of this route. In FY 2009 there were 59,857 annual passenger trips provided on the Virginia Avenue and Ettrick Routes combined.

Plaza

The Plaza route originates downtown, travels around the block, and then travels south on Sycamore Street to the Walnut Hill Plaza shopping area. Service is provided Monday through Friday from 6:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with service until 7:40 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is offered from 7:45 a.m. to 7:40 p.m. The Plaza route operates on hourly headways and is interlined with the Halifax Street route. Figure 1-8 provides a map of this route. Ridership for this route is included with the Halifax Street route.

Ettrick

The Ettrick route provides service from downtown to Virginia State University and Ettrick in Chesterfield County, including the Amtrak Station. The Pocahontas neighborhood on Pocahontas Island is also served three times per day on this route. Service is offered Monday-Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with service extended until 7:45 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is provided from 7:15 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. The Ettrick route offers hourly service and is interlined with Route 4, Virginia Avenue. Figure 1-9 provides a map of the Ettrick route. Ridership for this route is included with the Virginia Avenue route.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-11

Figure 1-6: PAT Lee Avenue

y m b M r lu b 5 n P gh Ta o e i 9 R H H VEC Wn orkforce Satella ite Center t t r r d a o r F o lin p m D nk i u ra s e F

m p a o H L

a a v n i ls f s R el a n s y U so W e rim B e C y ie t n r z n t d n e i 95 e o 301 R Chesterfield k o H J c A n h J a M ig a e d m H J f z f a p o e e M m x n l r c to s k t e a s e o e om s v p e M n Ap ce Wyth er r er a orth ip pe G r N ul p m P k ge T U m e u lle o on c e e Co l rew C t n P a n tra d in re r ow t en An r r Br C nt H w i a ai on La n n y S W t w n B ng 1 e ro i B t e B sh S e y ty b a r er a Petersbue rg DSS W D o n ib H PetersLburg Health Deparretment s t o u e t S u a illm t e t F e t n h r r il l r A r s e o i s d e C s p le p o e a Va a C a h m n Buren M ck o n m o R s l a r i D x a n s M y p er co a p ll t w rm i o id e a W M F n le l W e 460 a l B y c d I rc ru A a y k n H p a r e D arc S r O i D o d h M t t s ar a ry c l t pl rcu n a i t A o t o r u Me a P n c d l M n n G a n W k i t n S r e r m i i a ha l a c ra Le e g g G l m L e n y a n ew orli on L P e s N C c s n er e s a llo ff B e e po e e y g f rl m A J a y i Ea L e t r t e y le a o a ld J a a d m o r n ky e v r r n c d e tu x e F W oe en o ch Fairg e esley tlet K r n ro s is C hu t unds M B C w r ir a l u a i

t P s o S d c ore

E e h d

r A c k S e 1 t

l t a n S m h n e

n a 5 - to o e ta ds 8 1 la

s G G m a P u ew n 301

2 S th x a b o g Petersburg at o u t M i S h a

o n s

B p A C f Sai

r i D a u l i l ia e a e l in

g e r m G a Yo a Vir u f d e r l P n g f d r r c H k P B m S k M r i e g l cy s a h e egen e A r t M M

o R n J a i i g in a e S t a r l S P H c i o l l n s l i i J e v n p u a n n a a t

n H i t g r ip t m l g i n J B l c i e t t ina n e r i e ol e l o a r e l t a r o i t C g s l a r d e o n l y t m m lo o l e Blossum s F g o n ourt o l b o k n C il Al a e H n e v ill s uke H r a aint L y S S Iv el r am nut k Ste e irkh Wal Dinwiddie O t K a rk s H ah r ta a d O S u do a w a a Valor rk C k B nn e n ta he S a S m g k l Delmar ln y e e co a Ja in l B mes L O o H r ld y s e u ngl N o le i Ta in M G l l 85 tw d l o s ne a s e o r r u r T i y D n a d t P u Linda h p t n e g u r y t W B F b o D a Dar r m P a t o k B un e c Y al o s n s r a u H l o e t s l r w t d a e o D b r u v L e o y a E Legend N y e h v n n e C b W a e a D e g ir p t r

n c a s le u

m n a S c k c C e r h a e o M o od Human Service Agencies e o wo h a le o l ng B P l a a C T k in i n c e t T J e C u e V c f i a o T r k e ll e h k o arro D w C n h a n d d e a e u y Medical Facilities a g n l e e die l m M e k l r wid ll l s W r in a e e y a f D o a t D B a s w r e n t t W e o e o f V a e o Educational Facilities n a x 85 s d r ter e i hett Les n Hatc 85 Grimes a PAT Lee Ave. Plank 0 0.25 0.5 1 th Boydton Miles Sou Figure 1-7: PAT Virginia Avenue

l M C P a

M o a a n w l th t o d L C r a q Chesterfield L a C 7 h M i i i u c r t e m g b s C lu i b t r th P k a i k T o l a n 8 t H o e t

e t r t n t VEC Workforce San tellite Cente r e e t C u R n r in r o r D o kl h r H an e Fr a e u L a C am a m r C lls ls v l c i l e f i a W e i p h s z a s y rk n s n W y U o ke ims t a c e e r o M n C M t n n 301 h H t i g e o R Hi o A a e n a e l J a l J d m g e z n h o a M i c e p M o n m c R e l J k T e rc e e s e e s e m f v r e M th f e r om on Wy rth e r a o e C t P N r c in ge s e e e r H 460 c e ll n o o c o n P C al t r tr R g e n n e n r r e o i w1 i C W u sh a n n y r ndt a L e ow o W Br e R p e H b a m m Petertrysburg Health Doerpe artms ent m S o be a lm a R Li Fil t p h e t r e ag il r d e i r P e r l 9 n W e ap s i s m M C 5 C r o s e a W exa F n l T h rs i s D PeS tersburg DSS a n a Regal M t B o t p u o y p n u B x r ce n 95 l t e o o H n ru c h cy p l r ill John ar S Gre l i p F K a e D y en t W enned cur sville t y r t er o k G u M c d aln n a W S b r i n n Petersburg National Battlefield i L L e y ta ee g w n P s e c o S e N o rs R s a ll e e e y po eff G a g f e arl m A J ra ie E h m r t a a l J t o m p d o m ky r c d n e ntu e t Fai e to e o W rgrounds tle K s l 4 inf isB e ield s o 6 M r e 0 o r l th 460 i s F w ta c hore u e S e s k

5 a t u ne 8 s g L to a R u s x o A lad a

G a G m S ew R f tth M p li Ma h int M a Sa o yrick i ia Toll Gate K e in You H Virg n l ng t i d B n P M ark p s M 301 g ri o int e e a P n S H l li l c l e i a H v e n e H r t a i m t l g na i l li e m o h l e r t

t a n d e o t C r

l r

o r oy i r o

i M o s Fl g l n u

t t

c o N l

o a o o a i k v n C e u l n Luk y n a int B Sa v t W S I V teel r ham d e S teH Kirk a rn s a ah e o u w do o n Claremont B na lm C k en m r n a h e ol H S e e c y B r Lin M Maycox t i l B s ll o o s B n O e y i r ti M e d s r c a h G l a e k l e l c o 85 n lo l t r a a n a T d n s o d e t n Petersburg g n t W e o ho Fa W m a ir e ck fax e r s u ve t T r ea o y W v e r y a Sc P o r h r oo wood o n a l ngle M l Ta w le W T A W a h a G C t rc a e n a o h k s g t a e e V a k E t l x o f f e n n ie a a ya a l ll w r e s d t in W t u o C ln o a o Walnut Haill Mall d g W n g G C o rimes s B in uth W h w So a e u B C i r n c k u h k d ig e r le a l s k a e G R t o s reen en u y woo utch e r d K c sid k k Defense oo d Tyler Br oo w et rk ad ok ns a te son ro Su P es Dod erb om Amherst Ov H r on R e pt ak Hill t am O x d H o

s n i a a l f l l

n d i o d n i l o o n a o t a w o p g le F B b m W w H am ha o t o r R r R o e W o e s N N e s d t e e t i

g d v n l H l o a P r s B a a e y i a t alle l g V l m r s s k Legend e M B m i r o d

e l H a

r n Human Service Agencies w d

d ke Shopping Destinations Ho

Petersburg High School n o F d Medical Facilities r i e o

n l d G o

Educational Facilities n

h Tudor o Kings J k PAT Virginia Ave. 0 0.25 0.5 1 n la Camelot F Dinwiddie Miles 1-13 Figure 1-8: PAT Plaza

M R L

t i a R a t r D lin t on d VEC Worknkforce Satellite Cem nter le r u L a Fra a e a i m h s m e v p C C i H a s z ig f ill i o C n H a s l h W e p a s k n c y n y u rk M s e U so r a im to c M h e t Cr g n i te n h H n i H n o o ngto 301 R a i n J a e a ash e ll W J m g e z in h e e M c rc e rry p M Ro e l u f c S f k T m l e m hal e e o s r e n M ar v r C to 460 e M s n yth M e r C i W a o r a H orth p c r i e r N ul n a P k ge T e t e lle r e c 1 e e Co l c r n P n ra re r ow t nt e r r Ce J B w i r a n y W L o wn e ro n B e R e b Petersburg DSS H a s Peterrtsy burg Health Depoarertmens t m m D e a m a Lib ill t e e F e p h g m u r a r d o n r P R le i n l p s i Petersburg National Battlefield o Ma S Van Buren o C W s p i n exa r T e e s l r i a g n arm S M F B t e x o o W o A c u y ill n B r d e W t n h H y J rc a r s oh e a S i n F K D d Gre e t t enn a m oo ens ed y vi t y w lle e o r len k c c G d s G n a G b i a C n r n i m B a L Le e t e g w on A S P e s e s N o o r s ll fe R e e r po ef G f e rly e A J r 95 a g i Ea a m r e t h a t a ld J m p m o ky n uc e nt d e Wes eto e t l l K o ey ist s l 4 s M B e 6 Win or e o 0 field ounty r C l th i F w

s R a c re u t ho d e S e a

s k a 0 t n 6 u s m ne L 4

g a o o 460 u st o p

A lad G G w m R S x the at a t M i h a C f ain Myrick 1 S i S i a D Toll Gat l i e E K e l in a Y irg 95 - ou a a V 5 l n l i r g 8 d l n 1

i P B i k H M k n ar o s e r t M g 4 o n A i t ai Petersburg t n e S t R l a P c J r l m l

i l e v p a H i n a H n d i

m t a g l g e l a t i lin r e m l t e aro d t e C 301 o n n r yd e o t A o i r u r

l l s o s F g t n n u H M v i o o o t

o l a o a

e i n C l n v ke D u n k Lu y W c a int r n B o a v W S S I u t c e V e n t l a A el r am nu F e s Ste e irkh Wal d r H n t K a n t rk s H h e o c d ta a a nt h e S u w ado m o n Claremo B n l e r oln C k en e m s c h s Lin a S B e o r t k y F n a B M Maycox e l B o W 9 O o on r r B r 5 H r ld O i y u B t F a u t a s gle N o ic a r c R l le i Tan r e o t G l l tw a l k B k o o A M l 85 s lo l r V i a s e n a t i a n c n r r r s n T i n e e o a d t P d M h n d h o d r n n e a o D e t t n h p r g e W o s W ho Fa o r o o a i n n e k rf a n m c ax e r er s Tu 301 r e v t S e ea o n r W h y v e n e r C to ll

Legend r w y o or e a S c P o o Walnut Hill Plaza l k r h V r s M s oo wood o o n t a a l ngle a o l Ta M d e H r w l n T i A W

C h a G k a n r Human Services Agencies a t c a c n a o o t e h k S L g a a k e o E f e l J n x n i e a a e d o y g w e s ld Shopping Destinations h W t t w o u n ic G o C ln s k ll n l d o a i e e o H d g W y in n n g ll L on o y d GrimeMsedical Facilities s in H rr a C h w B out be a S ry l le h e t u C B n Walnut Hill Mall M u r x k u u h c o g a e r ei f Educational Facilities k k C l i l a

l R a e s Gree a y nw Deerfi en t ood eld utch u H K e B c id eaureg efPeAnTs ePlaza k ks ard D oo 0 0.25 0.5 Bla1ckwater Tyler Br Miles Figure 1-9: PAT Ettrick

t i t S n u s ple r h a Ma i e d t u e B l t B n f d e r h f i e is e i r e n t o r L e M r o e a y o l L to l n Iv u d e a l C n x e y a f i o y i a a a t Ramp r t M 1 m n s P L l t o L li River in uy a o il n p r u H e J rt L R D a a n L B m tu yn os w u o a c S l l a t n s w yn l h B u C k o o ie th l s ls R u e G a e i rv C t v o W o r o t a e S e n iv Petersburg Amtrak Station (PTB) K u a r m ry d R i l p n d b m r g t r M k a ke uth n id ar a R c So e g vi l O e n sc e Marvin n ya dp o e Colonial Heights o o ts 4 r R o a t C r W r W h e s v e O o e

g H r n i n ss ck m U c a d o a h l a r a H r n y 2 a ie B J i f n 3 v r r G l e d r e d e l azin d r t o Mag R s s rr iv it e a e y h R rt C C olfe er u y Wi ra ea n tten A c o e s n t is p t r a u o e a h g c Chesterfield B c r S k A o s e n L R e e de e u L d si g t ay ill Truth le H id d C H r g h B 95 e e k s oo te Virginia State University br rf ng Sa ie lli er sh P o ll a ld e B i h M ty g t o e iver o l R

T t k P l e C h

g c o a i n

o L e n ik o m J P lha i C r Pe 5 ea x u n ld B

a O R C t

1 r i c l 2 h t S r k n a

- d

q 4 r t

s F d 5 1 ve e u o t o l r 3 e C G nk h 9 r 5 a M a B n n ai e M w r o M t a r D s o d l a enry y s H i a o r s T

a p w o

e L n o L n m i t t s h t ig bb a le m H a M lu b T R ry P Tab C o n t h e r n H R u rt u r r o l F o n a c H li R a VEC Workforce Satellite Center nk h D e Fra m n L a a U p a a m v n C C f a i p s s i l ll y o a y e e n on W s t s t h t rim o e C By ie ig e ton n n H n g 301 rd nz shin tto T e o a e B k W a c J W J P r M A r lu a e o e d c s n f a e i t e M e Petersburg m s ry l c ea ld ur hal k g S s ars e in x M ev M tto ythe er ma ce W th po er Nor ulip p m G T r A om e P w e c u th J re p C on n e n u al nd x o e Legend p t a H tr t A n e P r w S n n U i r ro a Ce ai H w r r B f f S a i a y i a f L n l e 460 1 n n r e w a r ro B r B t i s e H s y o re Human Service AgenciesB S o oW e r llm Petersburg DSS 301 n Fi a o n n D e t u e t S u b e t t n h s r i S n l l t Medical Facilities s e o A to Peterpsleburg Health Department al e e y k s p a d D c M r o c C a C e D Van Buren a om a h H m l R m rs i p ay a Ma n w r a s d Educational Facilities Regal t i p e o m M m o p r r a d r a x n A e F o e c i ll n R t le l i l l e a W g c a y r kd 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Darc cy Spru PAT Ettrick n r cho Oa Da ury n t r rc od A i la Me wo c Pop Miles Glen Final Report

Walnut Hill

The Walnut Hill Route provides service from downtown to several neighborhoods in the southeast portion of the City, including Walnut Hill, Oakhurst, Battlefield Park, and Overbrook Hills. Shopping areas along S. Crater Road are also served. Service is offered Monday-Friday from 5:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m., with service extended until 6:45 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is offered from 7:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Hourly headways are offered on the route. Figure 1-10 provides a map of the Walnut Hill route. There were 69,579 passenger trips provided on this route in FY 2009.

South Crater Road

The South Crater Road route provides north-south service along South Crater Road, with the Wal-Mart store serving as the southern terminus. Service is provided Monday-Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with service extended to 7:45 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is provided from 7:15 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. Hourly service is offered on this route. Figure 1-11 provides a map of the South Crater Route. Ridership on the South Crater Road route is very similar to ridership on the Walnut Hill route, at 69,651 annual passenger trips (FY 2009).

Southpark Mall

The Southpark Mall route links downtown Petersburg with the Southpark Mall Shopping area in Colonial Heights. The route originates at the Transportation Center, makes a downtown loop, and then uses I-95 to the Southpark Mall exit. Service is provided Monday through Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 p.m., with service extended until 8:00 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is offered from 7:15 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Hourly service is offered on this route. Figure 1-12 provides a map of the Southpark Mall route. In FY2009 there were 47,548 annual passenger trips provided on the route.

Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee

The Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee route travels from downtown Petersburg to Fort Lee and the Crossings Shopping area in Hopewell via Wythe Street and E. Washington Street (State Route 36). The Hopewell/Fort Lee route was recently combined with the Blandford route, adding several residential neighborhoods off of E. Washington Street to the route. Service is provided Monday through Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 7:10 p.m., with service extended until 8:10 p.m. on Fridays. Saturday service is offered from 7:15 a.m. to 8:10 p.m. Hourly service is provided on the Blandford/Fort Lee/Hopewell route. Figure 1-13 provides a map of the route. In FY 2009, the Blandford Route was separate from the Ft. Lee/ Hopewell Route, with 63,830 trips provided on the Blandford Route and 34,933 trips provided on the Ft. Lee/Hopewell Route, for a combined total of 98,763 annual passenger trips.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-16

Figure 1-10: PAT Walnut Hill

w M L th n o a i 6 w L h b tt Chesterfield ig b b d h o H ab Ta le 8t t i t T VEC Workforce Satellite Cennter k s r o L D in C r A r kl o e o u n a a Fra h m e n a s e Y i f v u ll z H C i n n a M e i U r W o B ck y s c h a h M e n the R h a t t r y 7 i W 301 h t k o a 4t n e A m M 3 3 e to e n T rc in d t p h e H 460 P e t m a r e r 0 om P m a h n r t 4 C o S i r e c t n eg s Petersburg National Battlefield 8 y l J g o ol e in e C 3 h u e s 1 B a f W A H S t f D W h r e e m r S Petera sburg Healthe Department i e Fort Lee Military Reservation m a e m o r e r c t s b h g i R r r a g l d k i e i o s e P s s e W m n e r t i n E s t a D o e F B n e t e p W u Regal n s r s r r a s H y a n M i Prince George 1 t Petersburg DSS r m d d l a n 4 y a o ur Gre g S rc en G r e e sv k p M il e c d R le ll F a y i b P r i P n n c C H i Le e e a e e A R y n t g a G r S s r a d g m a o e J s m k r h c r o a d e i h a o m p t n H m t o r 0 e t 4 J e o 6 W 0 infi a 4 s s t eld re w h m H ta ho e 0 o

S t 5 e b s n 8 M 46 e b

u o a s y g t o s M o t u g G 95 A ia o n Myrick o R in M irgin H t w Stedma l V C u p n P You r ng i n n e g e B h R a A t l a l en H h i ll m e lton A v V Wi t o e p t t i e i s l

e P r r P l l l n

t i d l r B t e y o i r o e n o l n n l e u s F a a 460 n o F d l e n i o d g u a y n r o Bo M i s s B B se t a r e a u n r Iv t r xter l t e

e n t t s R s e k

e a s lcr o Claremont i C il h a ln u H H m c c o o M m u O e L Linc C il e o t B W nt l r a s u d y y s N B n e V a

t k e G id le i a c e ng c l l t x ll e 85 Ta o B e a W n k to r a l n e r l n S a if a r o n d t W l T a d B D e a e n a B h n F r i r e a i o r t t H a d i s 95 rf r T e

1 s er y o a h n v l t x o n a o o i - e n p W r v y ll 1 s e W P a o e ro e r d h k 7 lewoo a r n Petersburg a s a ang k A e a

l T l uc r rr H ck T e c G h n e o C k E L e o h ic rto n P s V n a r G u a s Walnut Hilld Plazt a o in a ey u M o d t C o n ll l e h r W o l Walnut Hill Miall e rt o in o a H n h P B g y u o G W ll d u 5 Grim a h g o F o 8 es o e out a r w S i H s r C w r n l e k e t o h g e n a l t d e Deerfield a i t t y a e ard g nse R reg Defe n s au e M n Be

r u a e S s t t s n o erst o Dodso s Amh 301 r i a B n x rt a Oak Hill o x d n F B o p o t F a o p Fort Dravis Shopping Center f ie o l i w m m R a l le a v r b R a a a h e t o C R am r N e e a R o s H R d l Ramp m s y N i W e a t v t p n g a N o e H r e a r t a ley o B B l R l Va t s i l m g s l r l r e a s m i r e m ne m er ag R gn a Legend r o W Po a Wa p p w d H lar m Ol n p d o Pa F rk n y o e r 5 k o R n a 9 d o d o n n a 2 Human Service Agencies H r Poplar Springs Hospital yn s l c o m tt r F F k Sco i r e s i n G e p e l y b la e l S o 295 d y Shopping Destinations F tt e R n P t

s n o l s n 9

g o e n 5 t o

Medical Facilities t c i h Southside Regional Medical Center a t V e n o e s F a c Prince George a J

a S C r u n s d L o i

H e g r r o Educational Facilities a n y

h o P t t a e a a Wal-Mart Supercw enter Petersburg (S Crater Rd) r g n H d h o e t o c r w PAT Walnut Hill 0 0.25 0.5 1 e e o k Rives a e Miles F L Dinwiddie B Figure 1-11: PAT South Crater

S t 5 e b s n 8 M 46 e b

u o a s y g t o s M o t u g G 95 A ia o n Myrick o R in M irgin H t w Stedma l V C u p n P You r ng i n n e g e B h R a A t l a l en H h i ll m e lton A v V Wi t o e p t t i e i s l

e P r r P l l l n

t i d l r B t e y o i r o e n o l n n l e u s F a a 460 n o F d l e n i o d g u a y n r o Bo M i s s B B se t a r e a u n r Iv t r xter l t e

e n t t s R s e k

e a s lcr o Claremont i C il h a ln u H H m c c o o M m u O e L Linc C il e o t B W nt l r a s u d y y s N B n e V a

t k e G id le i a c e ng c l l t x ll e 85 Ta o B e a W n k to r a l n e r l n S a if a r o n d t W l T a d B D e a e n a B h n F r i r e a i o r t t H a d i s 95 rf r T e

1 s er y o a h n v l t x o n a o o i - e n p W r v y ll 1 s e W P a o e ro e r d h k 8 lewoo a r n Petersburg a s a ang k A e a

s n o l s n 9

g o e n 5 t o

Medical Facilities t c i h Southside Regional Medical Center a t V e n o e s F a c Prince George a J

a S C r u n s d L o i

H e g r r o Educational Facilities a n y

h o P t t a e a a Wal-Mart Supercw enter Petersburg (S Crater Rd) r g n H d h o e t o c r w PAT South Crater Rd. 0 0.25 0.5 1 e e o k Rives a e Miles F L Dinwiddie B Figure 1-12: PAT Southpark Mall

Br M an W au d e a re r C B r s k Albert o ce B e Prin Tem Southpark Crossing Shopping Center r u i f pl d i r e l u R e S rth ge B e Maca a l E n v d m

a e l p Sou alnut k thpark a r W A o

d d F Helen k ine K R oc ent o m Colonial Heights Healsth Department im p Yo es ly D rk Jam Southpark Mall n e to nd n l w la Town Hall Shopping Cennter High o u Ma e x J p e le C k Lyons La l e le F r O p

F d m a a irf T e 1 a l T x Coloa nial Heinghts Emergency Medical Services 4 A a ma 4 lle or u p o n k M r J s s o s t Cha e s t rlo P k t i k te t ic n o t nn c F g Je Prince George P o P i d s d lu Shufor estover E t h W e m l l n k tr e d o e o r Parksouth Shopping Center e d m n l d u d t mon o O h l Ric P ie c e e n a nok Dimmock Square Shopping Center P i v Roa H L e k M i s l Ingram l Colonial Heights a l o e 1 F n H o r

i l d C R d Wright a o

i rg m o r a u Wal-Mart Supercenter Colonial Hts (Dimmock Ctr) F nchb a R o sor Ly l y s n ind t te W i o l i a r l P n t i e n u n Pickawnivcillk Sho opping Center eh D i d u n a rs n t ruce l B o S C ou aple e e th Chesterfield M e tt B D L e ri u y J sto Iv M p a a l ey L u f c Ramp o a River y a k n y t L R s rt y a th o ua n l l B o n t n y w s e V y S o sl e 95 o W w r a a ls o i R h 1 e t ir i R rv ee s h te g l W e ler - s C O v s J d r in i 1 y a N e ra a ia n R p m k o m 9 f C B t a I a fe b R n a g d n r r r u s t id in s s o t e 4 e in g r h r n r ia t e m h v e s l G r v ld a a o Chesterfield o U n ie G W f W n n M a r i o e l b d iv H t l b e o s o ine C H d r az o ond e g e m r a o Ah r M n Ric 3 s s N h a u n i s s r t o r d y C C R r a n y ol t h fe h i c s n o o h 2 r o n u n e p a C s h g ll d rc a e Whitehi A o u S e e S l e sid e L E p la L n ill g a e g C e H id s p l G h d r t e e y kO r i e a 2 o s H B ro ille r b n l b e b d te g M o g d P n rf lli C C lia n i e e e l h o r h B Am s l B a l o

d e er u u k t o Riv t a e e r r gh d c c O C i M n r x L a h h Pelham 5 se in

d i l k a s O x t P in S E u h

c S a F d q 4 a

M o l i e 5 e u C s s rov 301 t e P

h C G 9 t h e a nk o t M a o r B Petersburg y a t o w n v W t a F r l s y e d Henr l th i s r o r O 6 c

Legend a p w k l k n o e e

L m L y a h C h Petersburg National Battlefield t t g M i a it e 7 C um bb h y Pl H Ta tl 8t r o n Shoppning Destinat tions R e e r R t H VEC nWorkforce Satellite Center C e t u r D r a n o n R o r F o kli J m h r H a an e r a u e F e v p r am ie f m C s i U c C l s Medzical Facilities s f il ll n e l h W e p a s e D n W ck r y rk s n u to i s a M n o on t i o o M e s n H S im n r n C n n W h l n A 301 to T e Eigducatoional Facilities H n y t o o H gt 460 d a e g e p in c a e J h P r l J a s a e l e s Wa a r g e i e o z a n h t c S m m M i c r e c o S e o n x c M R m l o s k e u e a e PAT Somuthpark Mall f r 0 0.25 0.5 1 o s i e C t the 1 l e v h Wy e a lip r H Tu Miles Figure 1-13: PAT Blandford/Fort Lee/Hopewell

N p e K DElulenrslop Village Shopping Center Hopewell Convalescent Center m w e C lie d a

c s h y o Y R n a l ach w a t o l o B s r asin i l o s t c e w i le k s H t n n d e Elm a Hopewell a O e wo s o M l r d d a T t o i w G le Oaklawn Plaza Shopping Center n u P d e t g n Rid n o u n P w C o R la r k M Ra a i a mp d T k m O e em oc R ple led The Crospsings Shopping Center E a d m Southpark Crossing Shopping Center ud r t l P Walnu k R p d ste o o a F R o a s C ine lr rm l i i e p es y h v a rt Sho Jam n e a a n R Southpark Mall Fort Leer Post Exchange/Cou mmisary Complex r o Q l x e e s l 1

s J F 6 H r t e Colonial Heights e 14 t th 4 t s 2 D t a n i d m p 3 d m a r s o 5 o e s h t r er r t e S h 4 d v H c o m l West ark i r c t PE a a A h a Parksouth Shopping Center u o R 7 l 8 m F k Q t c t h l o h k o s L i e l s t s r e e gram o In n u c a o c 1 B e o n l s h A 0 k e 8 c r th P Dimmock Square Shopping Center a a A th ine J W 1 ville hu 1 2 1 C e Dan rs t H 3 th 1 e So Wal-Mart Supercenter Colonial Hts (Dimmock Ctr) i t t L uth ll h h 1 Iv R W 6 ey a t R m n h h t it p o ar w p ly eh Prince George y tu n e s W il 1 S o i o h l m a s e R 1 7 B l v e a l i r p R le 2 9 1 t o O W e r a 8 h u v s R 2 t 1 i m h l a R m n th e k a L d - v R Chesterfield p e 2 a e H rd G 0 o i on Fort Lee Military Reservation b hingt 24th m 1 b C Was zine o o nd Kenner Army Health Clinic e aga n u ichmo 25th M s r R R t s B olfe h a r rp tt he o vajo o le c u Na a r S hitehill C A e 95 s W g E l e 27t g a h o a g t d k s i o l a r o t e r r O B b a M ng l ia e r li d el S t Rive l B Am a e y z o C is g B u u ie d wa 5 h o S n a ld Pelham rc L in O t u P a S k h 4 h O e r a h d m a 5 C c t M t e n r in n k h h h t 0

n 9 Ba r F yt r 3 2 d o t g a a o i t r L o t W c s 3 N o t r 3 M e le ld k s k 1 r y O 3 a e 3 a bb h B t Ta d e 8t VEC Workfori ce Satelliteth Centenr s o Petersburg National Battlefield lin y er th k o Fran W m 4 n a lls 3 C Wi e U n n C o Y ims h n r o t h C o A R a h t i 301 e 7 9 r 460 o d a g a 3 m in Petersburg Legend 3 k n a J M T M t h o 1 m e p e s t r w f r 0 s f e e r a rt 4 n x ge r c 301 a Human Service Agencies le s a ol e u f C o h i t l n R Q C W B A 9 D a H a lu m r 3 m r HPetersa burg Health De epartment e b a m Shopping Destinations r e p e or b h g c r lm a l d i i k le i F s P ap s n s E t M t i e t Petersbuo rg DSS s e s r C e B S a W n h n M r t 1 A r a l Medical Facilities y y i i 8 4 d n d d r c 3 H n a a t G g o reen a e m sv e F G m ille ll n l P i r il W lk d s e al y r k o C H n er Educatihounal Facilities e i M A R d c n r G ry S s e o e g r n a o r s a k h h tib m c t e a e i m l p 0 0.25 0.5 H 1 0 t lo t 5 85 4 4 PAT Blandford/Ft. Lee/Hopewell 8 6 Winf ty Shore 0th ield Coun Miles Final Report

Paratransit Service

PAT offers complementary door-to-door ADA paratransit service for senior citizens and people with disabilities who either live within the City limits or within ¾ mile of a PAT route. In addition, trips to medical facilities located within the City of Colonial Heights, Dunlop Farms and the City of Hopewell along the Route 36 corridor in the area of the Crossings Shopping Center are honored. Shopping trips are permitted in Colonial Heights along Charles Dimmock Parkway and in the Westgate Shopping Center area of Dinwiddie County. ADA paratransit service operates during the same hours as the fixed routes. Riders can schedule their trips for the next day, up to 14 days in advance. Same day service is provided if there is time in the schedule. The ADA fare is the same as the fixed-route fare at $1.00 per trip.

FARE STRUCTURE

The one-way base fare for PAT is $1.00 per trip. Senior citizens and people with disabilities pay a fare of $0.50 per trip. A discount ticket book of 10 tickets is $8.00 and a School Ticket Book of 20 tickets is also $8.00. There is a 10 cent charge to transfer from one route to another. The fare structure is highlighted in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2: PAT Fare Structure

$1.00 Regular Base Fare* Senior Citizens/Persons with Disabilities .50¢ Discount Book of 10 Tickets $8.00 School Ticket Book of 20 Tickets $8.00

* One adult may carry a child under the age of six and one infant at no additional cost.

The City’s 2010 Budget Message from the City Manager suggested a fare increase of $0.25 (to $1.25 per trip) and also suggested a $1.00 transfer for people transferring from the GRTC bus. The proposed fare increase has not been implemented.

VEHICLE FLEET

PAT owns 27 vehicles, 16 of which are heavy-duty transit buses (Gilligs), six of which are paratransit vehicles, and five of which are service and supervisory vehicles.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-21

Final Report

All of the revenue service vehicles are ADA accessible. Of the 16 heavy-duty transit vehicles, eight are needed for peak service, resulting in a spare ratio of 50%, which is higher than the FTA’s spare allowance of 20%. It should be noted that the fleet includes six 1997 vehicles, which are nearing the end of their useful life. When these vehicles are retired, the spare ratio will be 20%.

The newer vehicles are wired for security cameras, but PAT has PAT Gillig in service on Sycamore Street not been able to secure funding to purchase security cameras for the vehicles. One of the Gilligs is equipped with a bicycle rack. Five of the six paratransit vans are used on a daily basis, resulting in a paratransit spare ratio of 16.6%. Table 1-3 provides the PAT vehicle inventory as of September, 2009.

FACILITIES

PAT’s administrative, operating, maintenance, and vehicle storage facility is currently located at 309 Fairgrounds Road, adjacent to the West End Park Fairgrounds and the Pecan Acres neighborhood. PAT conducts maintenance and fueling in- house at this facility. The office location for the Director of Public Works is located at the City Annex Building in downtown Petersburg (103 W. Tabb Street). The PAT administrative staff recently moved to offices within the Petersburg Station, while the vehicle operations and maintenance staff remain at the Fairgrounds Road facility.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-22

Table 1-3: PAT Vehicle Inventory September 2009

PAT Vehicle Year Type VIN # Use ID #

Jimmy 1995 GMC 1GKDT13W5SK535764 Service Vehicle Explorer 1996 Ford 1FMDU34X1TUA57427 Service Vehicle Service Truck 1997 GMC 1GDJ7H1J1VJ501806 Service Vehicle 90 1997 Gillig Bus 15GCB2016V1088641 Fixed-Route 91 1997 Gillig Bus 15GCB2018V1088642 Fixed-Route 92 2001 Gillig Bus 15GGE181811090568 Fixed-Route Pick-up 2002 Dodge 1D7HA16K12J183054 Service Vehicle Mini-bus 2002 Ford 1FDXE45S22HA86459 ADA paratransit Explorer 2005 Ford 1FMDU72K15UA72785 Service Vehicle 403 1997 Gillig Bus 15GCB1813V1088241 Waiting Disposal 404 1997 Gillig Bus 15GCB1815V1088242 Waiting Disposal 406 1997 Gillig Bus 15GCB1817V1088243 Fixed-Route 416 1997 Gillig Bus 15GCB1811V1088254 Waiting Disposal 1003 2000 Ford Van 1FDXE45F5YHB62963 ADA paratransit 68 2000 Ford Van 1FDXE45F6YHB55200 ADA paratransit 72 2000 Ford Van 1FDXE45F21HA38638 ADA paratransit 53 2000 Ford Van 1FDXE45F51HA38634 ADA paratransit 73 2000 Ford Van 1FDXE45F1YHB55203 ADA paratransit 95 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291371091267 Fixed-Route 99 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291571091271 Fixed-Route 93 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291X71091265 Fixed-Route 97 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291771091269 Fixed-Route 100 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291771061272 Fixed-Route 101 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291971091273 Fixed-Route 98 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291371091270 Fixed-Route 96 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291571091268 Fixed-Route 94 2007 Gillig Bus 15GGE291171091266 Fixed-Route

1-23 Final Report

Administrative, Operations, and Maintenance Facility

The Petersburg Station is the City’s new multi-modal transportation center and offers off-street bus staging and passenger waiting for PAT, GRTC, BABS, Greyhound/Carolina Trailways, and taxicabs. The Station, bordered by Washington, Market, Wythe, and Union Streets in downtown Petersburg, is staffed, offering transit information, tourist information, and transit ticket sales. In addition to transportation functions, the station will also have office and retail space available for rent. The new facility will be ADA-accessible. Petersburg Station has bike racks and new pedestrian crossings, with signals, for each intersection that the site borders. The project serves both as a solution for PAT’s transfer hub and a downtown revitalization opportunity.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-24

Final Report

Petersburg Station Nearing Completion- September 2009

Downtown Petersburg is the only PAT transfer hub, though there are other places in the City where more than one route is available.

Passenger Shelters

There are 33 passenger waiting shelters positioned throughout the PAT service area. Table 1-4 provides the shelter inventory by route.

Parking Lots

Commuter parking for the GRTC (Route 95) bus to Richmond is currently provided at a City-owned lot at Union and Tabb Streets (adjacent to the City Annex building). The City has proposed to charge $25 a month for commuters to use City- owned lots.

TRANSIT SECURITY PROGRAM

PAT has a “Safety/Security/Emergency Program Plan,” dated February 2007 and revised in August 2008. The Plan describes the policies, procedures, and requirements that are in place in order to provide a secure environment for employees and contractors, and to support community emergency response.

The goals of the Plan are to:

“1. Ensure that safety and emergency preparedness are addressed during all phases of system operation, including the hiring and training of personnel; the

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-25

Table 1-4 : PAT Passenger Shelter Inventory

Route Location No. of Shelters

Washington St./Central State Dupuy Road @ Summit St. 2 W. Washington St. @ West St. 1 Elm St. @ Church St. 1

Lee Avenue Farmer St. @ Guarantee St. 1 J.E.B. Elementary School 2

Halifax Street Halifax St. @ Harding St. 1 Halifax St. @ Tabernacle Church 1 Custer St. @ Hawk St. 1 Custer St. @ Halifax St. 1

Virginia Ave/Ettrick None 0

Blandford/Hopewell/Ft. Lee Banks @ Virginia Linen 2 Pin Oaks Housing Development 2 Fort Lee PX 1

Plaza Street Sycamore St. @ Apollo 1 Sycamore St. @ Lafayette House 1 Sycamore St. @ Glenroy 1

South Crater Road S. Crater @ Morton 1 321 Poplar St.- Health/Wellness Ctr. 1 2007 S. Crater- Blockbuster 1

Walnut Hill Tanglewood Apts 1 Johnson Rd @ Lieutentant Run Apts 2

South Park Mall Theater/north side 2

(pending route change) Medical Park Boulevard 1

Downtown Franklin Street 2 Union Street 2 Tabb Street 1

TOTAL SHELTERS 33

1-26 Final Report

procurement and maintenance of agency equipment; the development of policies, rules, and procedures; and coordination with local public safety and community emergency action planning agencies.

2. Promote analysis tools and methodologies to encourage safe system operation through the identification, evaluation and resolution of threats and vulnerabilities, and the on-going assessment of agency capabilities and readiness.

3. Create a culture that supports employee safety (during normal and emergency conditions) through motivated compliance with agency rules and procedures and the appropriate use and operation of equipment.”

The Plan includes the identification of staff responsibilities and actions for the various aspects of the Plan including management, training, incident response, planning, and implementation.

Fare Collection

At the end of the service day the maintenance team pulls the fareboxes from the buses and puts them in a secure vault. The maintenance team then places empty fareboxes in the vehicles to prepare for service on the following day. The account manager pulls the fares from the boxes the following morning, counts, records and secures the funds with oversight by the administrative manager.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

As a City Department the primary means of public outreach is conducted through the City Council’s public meeting process. Service and policy changes are discussed at regularly scheduled, open, City Council meetings. Public comment is afforded at these meetings that are generally held twice a month. Public notices are also posted on the City’s website.

STIMULUS PROJECTS

Funding from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) was awarded to Petersburg Area Transit for the following projects:

• Two replacement paratransit vehicles ($110,000)

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-27

Final Report

• Construction of the multi-modal center- project change orders resulted in the need for an additional $500,000

• Furnishings for the multi-modal center ($69,000)

• ADP Software ($10,000)

• ADP Hardware- three computers, copiers, scanners, and printers for the multi-modal center ($10,750)

• Shop equipment- the replacement of existing floor jack lifts ($120,000)

• Purchase and installation of a generator to support the multi-modal center ($150,000)

• Vehicle locator system ($63,927)

• New communications system ($145,000)

• Signage -- bus stop signs and poles ($5,000)

• Rehabilitation/renovation of some bus stop locations to enhance ADA accessibility, including concrete repairs and curb cuts ($200,000)

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 1-28

Final Report

Chapter 2

Goals, Objectives, and Standards

This chapter presents the Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) mission, presents a set of goals for the system, articulates the goals and issues for the Transit Development Plan (TDP), and presents a set of performance standards for the system.

PAT MISSION AND GOALS

The mission of PAT is to provide safe, secure, and reliable service for its passengers and employees. PAT has had various goals over the years, but does not have an adopted set of goals for the program. It is important that PAT have specific goals, objectives, and service standards to help guide the system and objectively measure if the system is accomplishing its mission.

Goals

Goals are broad and general, providing policy guidance as to how the mission of PAT should be accomplished. The following goals have been drafted during this TDP process for PAT. It should be noted that these goals will need to be adjusted if a more regional transit structure emerges in the Tri-Cities.

1. Provide access to employment opportunities for area residents.

2. Help ensure that the area’s senior citizens can continue to participate fully in the community without driving.

3. Provide transportation options for city residents with disabilities.

4. Offer safe, dependable, and convenient access to medical facilities, employment areas, shopping centers, schools, and community agencies. 5. Strengthen coordination and explore partnerships between the City of Petersburg and the Cities of Hopewell and Colonial Heights, the Counties of

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 2-1 Final Report

Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and Prince George, Fort Lee, major employers, educational facilities, and other private entities to ensure effective service delivery in the community.

6. Manage, maintain, and enhance the existing public transportation system.

TDP GOALS AND ISSUES

The Technical Committee for the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization served as the Steering Committee for the TDP. At the initial meeting for the project, the following goals and issues were established and discussed.

Goal 1: Develop a vision for public transportation in the Tri-Cities.

Issues:

• What level of public transportation services are desired by the communities? • What level of public transportation is affordable? • What is the constrained and unconstrained vision for transit in the region?

Goal 2: Develop a good understanding of the jurisdictional origins of the current riders by route.

Issues:

• Jurisdictional leaders need to know if their citizens are using particular services before they can make decisions regarding funding assistance. • Developing a good understanding of ridership patterns is necessary for effective service planning.

Goal 3: Develop agreements with local jurisdictions to help pay an equitable portion of the local funding required to operate the level of services desired for the region.

Issues:

• Prior to the expansion of the Richmond Urbanized Area, PAT was able to use Federal Transit Administration (FTA) S.5307 funds to help fund operating expenses for transit and could afford to extend service to other jurisdictions without financial contributions from the jurisdictions served. PAT is no longer eligible to use S.5307 funds for operating expenses and needs local

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 2-2 Final Report

funding partners if services are to be operated outside of the City of Petersburg.

• The other local jurisdictions have not been asked to fund transit in the past and need to be educated as to how much would be an equitable share and how their residents and businesses would benefit.

Goal 4: Continue to meet the needs of the existing PAT riders while expanding where feasible.

Issues:

• PAT is a division of City Government and its priority is to meet the needs of City residents.

• There are regional opportunities, including those that would potentially help Petersburg City residents, but additional local/regional funding streams are needed for expansion to occur.

• There are regional public transportation needs.

Goal 5: Study existing routes to see if there are opportunities to make changes that would better serve the riders and increase ridership.

Issues:

• There are areas that need service, but are not yet served (hotels near Fort Lee, new apartment complexes).

• There may be under-performing portions of some routes that could be eliminated.

Goal 6: Help Fort Lee devise an appropriate mobility solution for its student- soldiers and other members of the Fort Lee community.

Issues:

• Soldiers come to Fort Lee from other areas of the U.S. for training for limited periods of time. They typically do not have cars available and they are not familiar with the area.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 2-3 Final Report

• The soldiers have limited free time and would like to get to the South Park Mall area from Fort Lee in the shortest time possible, with service available on weekends, and possibly evening trips.

• The current bus route is geared to getting workers from Petersburg to Fort Lee. The trip from Fort Lee to the South Park Mall requires a transfer and is time-consuming.

• Fort Lee is expanding due to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and there is substantial new development on the Fort and near the Fort. There may be additional transit needs for employment or dependents.

Goal 7: Develop a public transportation service between Petersburg and Hopewell along the Route 36 Corridor

Issues:

• There are several major employers in Hopewell.

• Hopewell is interested in looking at this opportunity.

• This could also address Fort Lee needs.

Goal 8: Continue to partner with Virginia State University (VSU) to help meet student, faculty, and staff mobility needs while helping PAT’s revenue and ridership.

Issues:

• VSU currently pays a monthly fee to PAT based on ridership that is tracked by PAT. Students ride fare-free by showing their student identification cards.

• VSU is expanding and there may be additional opportunities.

Goal 9: Develop a good understanding of how the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) Richmond route and the Blackstone Area Bus System (BABS) Blackstone Bus route can be better integrated with the PAT network.

Issues:

• GRTC operates a bus route between Richmond and Petersburg.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 2-4 Final Report

• The Blackstone Bus operates from rural Dinwiddie County to Petersburg.

• The jurisdictional origins of these riders are not known, and it is not currently known if riders transfer among these services.

• The new Petersburg intermodal terminal provides an improved connection location for these regional services.

These goals were considered throughout the development of the TDP.

SERVICE STANDARDS

Service standards are benchmarks by which service performance is evaluated. Service standards are typically developed in several categories of service, such as service coverage, passenger convenience, fiscal condition, and passenger comfort. The most effective service standards are straightforward and relatively easy to calculate and understand.

While PAT does use ridership data to make service planning decisions, PAT does not currently have defined service standards. It is recommended that PAT implement several basic service standards to help evaluate service on a regular basis to ensure that PAT is carrying out its mission in the most effective manner possible.

Table 2-1 presents service standards suggested for PAT. Some of the standards are policy-oriented and other measures are data-driven and were calculated as part of the detailed analyses of routes and services.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 2-5 Final Report

Table 2-1: Service Standards

Category Standard

Availability Service Coverage:

Service availability is a direct • Residential areas: reflection of the level of financial o Areas with population densities of 2,000 people + resources available for the transit • Major activity centers: program. Service coverage, o Employers or employment concentrations of 200+ frequency, and span of service are considered under the category of o Health centers “availability.” o Middle and high schools o Colleges/ universities o Shopping centers of over 25 stores or 100,000 sf o Social service/government centers

Span: 6:00 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. Monday through Thursday 6:00 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on Fridays 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on Saturdays

Patron Convenience

Loading 25% standees for short periods acceptable

Bus Stop Spacing 5 to 7 stops per mile in core Fringe: 4 to 5 per mile, as needed based on land uses

Dependability No missed trips -- 95% on-time service (0 to 5 minutes late)-- No trips leaving early

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 2-6 Final Report

Fiscal Condition

Farebox Recovery Review and modify, if possible, services that exhibit less than 60% of average Review and modify, if warranted, services between 60% and 80% of average Average is currently 16%

Productivity Review and modify, if possible, services that exhibit less (Pass./rev. hour) than 60% of average Review and modify, if warranted, routes between 60% and 80% of average Fixed-route average is currently 15.75 trips per revenue hour. ADA paratransit is currently 2.5 trips per revenue hour

Cost Effectiveness Review and modify, if possible, services that exhibit less (Cost per trip) than 60% of average Review and modify, if warranted, routes between 60% and 80% of average Fixed-route average is currently $3.23 per trip ADA paratransit is currently $20.18 per trip

Passenger Comfort

Waiting Shelters 25 or more boardings per day

Bus Stop Signs Should have the system name, contact information, and route

Public Information Timetable, maps, and website current and accurate

Revenue Equipment Clean and good condition

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 2-7

Final Report

Chapter 3

Service and System Evaluation and Transit Needs Analysis

SERVICE AND SYSTEM EVALUATION

Overall System Data

The operating statistics and performance measures for the PAT system were collected from the National Transit Database (NTD) for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2007. For FY 2009, these data were collected directly from PAT, on a route level basis. These data are shown in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2a and 3-2b. Tables 3-2a and 3-2b provide the same data, with Table 3-2b ranked by cost per passenger trip.

Ridership has grown steadily from its low point in 2004, from 470,683 (FY 2004) to 615,478 (FY 2009). These data represent a ridership increase of 31% over the five-year period. It should be noted that revenue service hours also increased over this time period, from a total of 36,951 (FY 2004) to 42,522 (FY 2009), an increase of 15%. When taken together, these two data points show an increase in service effectiveness, from 14.24 trips per revenue hour (fixed-route) to 15.75 trips per revenue hour. It should be noted that the data from the boarding/alighting surveys indicate a fixed-route weekday productivity of 22.1 trips/hour.

The operating expenses have increased over time, from $ 1,592,333 in FY 2004 to $ 2,168,830 in FY 2009. The FY 2010 operating budget is $2,680,000, reflecting the higher operating expenses for the Petersburg Station and the $150,000 payment to GRTC to help support the Petersburg-Richmond route. The transit operating budget is funded through fare revenue, federal aid, state aid, and local general fund revenue.

Peer Review

Peer data were gathered from five other transit programs for the peer review analysis. The peers were chosen primarily based on the number of vehicles in

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-1 Table 3-1: Petersburg Area Transit- Operating Statistics and Performance Measures 2003-2007

Passenger Trips Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Trips/Rev.Hour Trips/Rev.Mile Miles Per Hour Year Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Route Response Route Response Route Response Route Response Route Response Route Response

2003 475,672 17,875 31,997 4,444 450,562 43,316 14.87 4.02 1.06 0.41 14.08 9.75 2004 463,023 7,660 32,507 4,444 441,560 48,156 14.24 1.72 1.05 0.16 13.58 10.84 2005 464,797 8,003 32,591 4,719 445,378 44,484 14.26 1.70 1.04 0.18 13.67 9.43 2006 491,404 8,968 38,532 4,716 411,616 44,072 12.75 1.90 1.19 0.20 10.68 9.35 2007 558,481 8,150 42,179 4,689 431,704 31,789 13.24 1.74 1.29 0.26 10.24 6.78

Operating Expenses Fare Revenue Cost Per Trip Cost Per Hour Cost Per Mile Farebox Recovery Year Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Route Response Route Response Route Response Route Response Route Response Route Response

2003$ 1,387,797 $ 88,495 $ 337,912 $ 7,439 $ 2.92 $ 4.95 $ 43.37 $ 19.91 $ 3.08 $ 2.04 24% 8% 2004$ 1,471,511 $ 120,822 $ 339,199 $ 7,658 $ 3.18 $ 15.77 $ 45.27 $ 27.19 $ 3.33 $ 2.51 23% 6% 2005$ 1,606,890 $ 133,405 $ 342,322 $ 8,239 $ 3.46 $ 16.67 $ 49.30 $ 28.27 $ 3.61 $ 3.00 21% 6% 2006$ 2,103,542 $ 147,704 $ 413,795 $ 8,901 $ 4.28 $ 16.47 $ 54.59 $ 31.32 $ 5.11 $ 3.35 20% 6% 2007$ 2,450,335 $ 158,448 $ 428,768 $ 7,242 $ 4.39 $ 19.44 $ 58.09 $ 33.79 $ 5.68 $ 4.98 17% 5%

Source: National Transit Database. 3-2 Table 3-2a: Petersburg Area Transit- Operating Statistics and Performance Measures FY 2009 Passenger Revenue Revenue Fare Annual Trips/ Trips/ Miles Cost Route Trips Hours Miles Revenue Operating Rev. Rev. Per Per (1) Cost Hour Mile Hour Trip Washington Street 98,018 3,789 45,232 $ 55,032 $ 193,258 25.87 2.17 11.94 $ 1.97 Halifax Street/Plaza 92,007 3,932 43,181 $ 50,740 $ 200,552 23.40 2.13 10.98 $ 2.18 Lee Avenue 60,704 3,932 44,740 $ 32,811 $ 200,552 15.44 1.36 11.38 $ 3.30 Virginia Ave/Ettrick 59,857 4,023 44,778 $ 27,600 $ 205,193 14.88 1.34 11.13 $ 3.43 Blandford 63,830 3,958 39,850 $ 32,150 $ 201,878 16.13 1.60 10.07 $ 3.16 Walnut Hill 69,579 3,802 41,390 $ 42,620 $ 193,921 18.30 1.68 10.89 $ 2.79 South Crater Road 69,651 3,854 58,879 $ 43,055 $ 196,573 18.07 1.18 15.28 $ 2.82 CS/SVTC 8,909 3,198 24,504 $ 5,013 $ 163,114 2.79 0.36 7.66 $ 18.31 Hopewell/Fort Lee 34,933 3,854 47,971 $ 24,263 $ 196,573 9.06 0.73 12.45 $ 5.63 South Park Mall 47,648 4,088 23,981 $ 26,880 $ 208,508 11.66 1.99 5.87 $ 4.38 Total Fixed Route 605,136 38,430 414,506 $340,164$ 1,960,122 15.75 1.46 10.79 $ 3.24 ADA Paratransit (2) 10,342 4,092 27,744 $ 10,436 $ 208,714 2.527 0.37 6.78 $ 20.18 Total 615,478 42,522 442,250 $350,600 $2,168,836

Operating Expenses $2,168,830 Cost Per Hour$ 51.005 Cost Per Trip$ 3.52 Farebox Recovery 16%

Source: Petersburg Area Transit.

(1) Hours by route are estimated based on the printed schedules, verified by actual total. (2) Hours and farebox revenue for ADA are estimated, based on previous NTD data. 3-3 Table 3-2b: Petersburg Area Transit- Operating Statistics and Performance Measures- FY 2009 Sorted by Cost Per Trip

Passenger Revenue Revenue Fare Annual Trips/ Trips/ Miles Cost Route Trips Hours Miles Revenue Operating Rev. Rev. Per Per (1) Cost Hour Mile Hour Trip

Washington Street 98,018 3,789 45,232 $ 55,032 $ 193,258 25.87 2.17 11.94 $ 1.97 Halifax Street/Plaza 92,007 3,932 43,181 $ 50,740 $ 200,552 23.40 2.13 10.98 $ 2.18 Walnut Hill 69,579 3,802 41,390 $ 42,620 $ 193,921 18.30 1.68 10.89 $ 2.79 South Crater Road 69,651 3,854 58,879 $ 43,055 $ 196,573 18.07 1.18 15.28 $ 2.82 Blandford 63,830 3,958 39,850 $ 32,150 $ 201,878 16.13 1.60 10.07 $ 3.16 Lee Avenue 60,704 3,932 44,740 $ 32,811 $ 200,552 15.44 1.36 11.38 $ 3.30 Virginia Ave/Ettrick 59,857 4,023 44,778 $ 27,600 $ 205,193 14.88 1.34 11.13 $ 3.43 South Park Mall 47,648 4,088 23,981 $ 26,880 $ 208,508 11.66 1.99 5.87 $ 4.38 Hopewell/Fort Lee 34,933 3,854 47,971 $ 24,263 $ 196,573 9.06 0.73 12.45 $ 5.63 CS/SVTC 8,909 3,198 24,504 $ 5,013 $ 163,114 2.79 0.36 7.66 $ 18.31

Total Fixed Route 605,136 38,430 414,506 $340,164$ 1,960,122 15.75 1.46 10.79 $ 3.24 ADA Paratransit (2) 10,342 4,092 27,744 $ - $ 208,714 2.527 0.37 6.78 $ 20.18

Total 615,478 42,522 442,250 $340,164 $2,168,836 3-4 Final Report

maximum service, the number of annual vehicle revenue hours, the geographic location (i.e., generally the southeast), and secondarily the service area size.

The peer data were gathered from the NTD, using FY 2007 data. These data are the most recent that are widely available. The following transit programs were chosen as peers: The City of Monroe, Louisiana; the City of Harrisonburg, Virginia; Fredericksburg Regional Transit; the City of High Point, North Carolina; and the City of Fairfax, Virginia. The basic operating and performance data are provided in Table 3-3.

As these data show, PAT falls just about in the middle of the group in terms of annual revenue hours. Compared to the peer systems, PAT serves an area that is smaller in size, both geographically and in terms of population. PAT’s total annual ridership is significantly lower than most of the peer systems, reflecting the relatively small service area.

PAT’s cost per trip is higher than the mean, the operating cost per revenue hour is lower than the mean, and the trips per hour are lower than the mean.

It should be noted that there are two unique circumstances about PAT that make it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons to peer agencies. These circumstances include the following:

• PAT is a relatively small transit system, but is classified under the large urban program, as the Tri-Cities urbanized area blended with the Richmond urbanized area as a result of the 2000 Census. There are other programs that also fall into this category, but many of these have other anomalies that are different from Petersburg (i.e., Williamsburg with its tourism industry).

• The actual service area is very small geographically, even though it is technically a “large urban program.” Again, there are others that meet this criteria (the City of Fairfax), but often the other types of systems like this are in much larger urbanized areas than Richmond. It should be noted that the Fairfax Cue system provides feeder service to Metrorail, and it serves a large university (George Mason).

As with any peer comparison, it is most significant to review these data with the intent to see if PAT is generally within the expected ranges of performance when compared to other transit programs, rather than a mechanism to judge PAT against other programs. Given these peer data, we can say that PAT does fall within expected ranges of performance.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-5 Table 3-3: FY 2007 Peer Data

Vehicles in Service Service Annual Annual Annual Transit Program Maximum Area Area Revenue Revenue Unlinked Operating Fare Farebox Service Size (sq.mi) Population Hours Miles Trips Expenses Revenue Recovery

City of Monroe, LA 16 31 55,000 52,285 721,829 1,147,860 $ 3,194,562 $ 551,656 17% City of Harrisonburg, VA 23 17 45,261 52,048 500,908 1,492,318 $ 2,592,747 $ 1,069,788 41% Fredericksburg Regional Transit, VA 17 242 113,716 51,186 889,839 361,838 $ 2,491,330 $ 54,963 2% City of Petersburg 17 7 31,300 46,868 463,493 566,631 $ 2,608,783 $ 436,010 17% City of High Point, NC 14 52 94,973 42,503 521,299 752,497 $ 2,278,501 $ 476,531 21% City of Fairfax, VA 8 6 21,000 33,994 432,595 1,135,758 $ 2,869,535 $ 581,435 20%

Mean 15.8 59.2 60,208 46,481 588,327 909,484 $ 2,672,576 $ 528,397 20%

Transit Program Trips/ Cost/ Trips/ Cost/ Hour Trip Capita Hour

City of Harrisonburg, VA 28.7$ 1.74 32.97$ 49.81 City of Fairfax, VA 33.4$ 2.53 54.08$ 84.41 City of Monroe, LA 22.0$ 2.78 20.87$ 61.10 City of High Point, NC 17.7$ 3.03 7.92$ 53.61 City of Petersburg 12.1$ 4.60 18.10$ 55.66 Fredericksburg Regional Transit, VA 7.1$ 6.89 3.18$ 48.67

Mean 20.15$ 3.59 22.86$ 58.88

Source: National Transit Database. 3-6 Final Report

Route Evaluation

This section of the report provides the detailed analysis of each fixed-route, using both historical data (FY 2009) and primary data (collected via boarding/alighting counts and passenger surveys.) Table 3-4 provides the boarding and productivity data for all of the routes, as collected in October, 2009.

Washington Street/Central State Hospital

For FY 2009, the Washington Street route exhibited the highest productivity in the PAT fixed-route network, providing 25.9 passenger trips per revenue hour. The operating cost per passenger trip for the Washington Street Route was also the lowest at $1.97. Early in the current fiscal year, the Washington Street route was combined with the Central State route. This combination makes sense, given the low ridership and productivity seen in FY 2009 on the Central State route. The total FY 2009 ridership on the Washington Street route was 98,018 passenger trips and the FY 2009 ridership on the Central State route was 8,909 passenger trips.

The most heavily used stops on the Washington Street/Central State route include: Downtown Petersburg; Elm St./Church Street; Elm St./Farmer Street; and Summit St./Farmer Road. There is consistent activity along the entire route. The Central State portion of the route exhibited the lowest activity, but also has the lowest level of service. There were only five weekday boardings outside of the City of Petersburg on this route. Figure 3-1 provides a map portraying the Washington Street/Central State bus stop activity.

Weekday ridership by time of day is shown in Figure 3-2. On the day of the boarding/alighting counts, the highest ridership run was at 12:15 p.m. with almost 30 passengers riding. The first three runs of the day also exhibited ridership of between 25 and 30 passengers per vehicle trip. It should be noted that the runs should not all be considered equal in evaluating ridership, as the route offers two vehicle trips per hour when it does not serve Central State, rather than one. The result is that each of the 30- minute runs generally has lower ridership than the hourly runs, with the exception of the 12:15 p.m. run. As the boarding data indicate, the Saturday ridership is only 34% of the weekday ridership

There were some comments received via the on-board survey that expressed the desire to separate the Central State and Washington Street routes so that more trips are provided to Central State and the Washington Street headways are 30 minutes throughout the service day.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-7 Table 3-4: Boarding Data and Productivity by Route

Thursday Percent Saturday Percent Rev. Rev. Trips/Hr. Trips/Hr. Route Ridership Total Ridership Total Hours Hours Thurs. Sat. Thurs. Sat.

Washington Ave/Central State 317 14% 108 8% 12.75 12.50 24.9 8.6 Lee Avenue- Pecan Route 104 5% 56 4% 6.25 6.13 16.6 9.1 Lee Avenue- Young Route 88 4% 70 5% 6.25 6.13 14.1 11.4 Halifax 154 7% 146 11% 6.25 5.75 24.6 25.4 Virginia Avenue 59 3% 54 4% 6.125 6.00 9.6 9.0 Plaza 134 6% 94 7% 6 6.00 22.3 15.7 Ettrick 220 10% 109 8% 6.25 6.25 35.2 17.4 Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee 356 16% 133 10% 13 13.00 27.4 10.2 Walnut Hill 251 11% 154 11% 12 11.00 20.9 14.0 South Crater 321 14% 219 16% 12.5 12.50 25.7 17.5 Southpark Mall 219 10% 219 16% 13 12.75 16.8 17.2

Totals 2,223 1,362 100 98 22.1 13.9 3-8 Figure 3-1: Washington Street Route Bus Stop Activity

A t t s T u R n P r ki 2 ocah u c u p n e onta th k tl o d e g s s e H e d C L n id g h h e r e G e lp d s o e ay B r i B d s o W l r n t H H l s ick a e k ho R r Colonial Heights n i us f e n c e ie e S g d f a S l r a d o p S sh e 2 o e a l l a a n e er W o iv n r ty d R e t t l o C a

er T k t d e T hak P S C h r g c H r a i

o L e 3 o n Pik o J Bear 5 j u n ld

a a O R i t r l k h n o c bro t g S Bollin k

q 4 s F e W G v o u o t l r r C G h e a R e n i a v in nk l i a e Ba w r r B M D R o r o M i t r t P r b c e s e i D d a nry e e e s H h o n

l o r

r r e i d k e t d a w C s o P o e u n L e o r t a s a e h n n t h ig b t l m H ab r Chesterfield u T M Pl b e a b ry Ta n n t o H

e r H a n i rt u l lin r l k o U C an F o r H F

n e D i o a L v n

a a i

i s l ls f l a

o e y n s

n n W o e ims e r o g B t C

y y ie t n s a r z e

e d n h d o

l e ig

M k r c J u B H H M J e l A H u o a v P d J e n z

e e f e a e i e B e l r m f s r y f ld x y urr e to S s at r R m s oa po the o ne Ap e Wy n er rc orth ip pp me N e Tul U m G eg o n e Coll C to nc u uth al n e a n o ntr i r P ow S H Ce H w r Br a i a n L n a o n r t e n w r g ro B in B t i h e s s y a e o B W r n n a D 301 e t 1 ty t S u er e ib t n L ore r il l illm s e o le F e p s p Ma a C e Van k om Buren oc h R D a p Regal er S ay p m ars w r o M Mid e Fa x th u Nor l o le l llc i t e A a c d W h rcy ru k B Da y Sp t a I arc A 460 l n D S r O r H o a i r ch d t la y d n n t p a e o c A i o P ut a l P t a W r ln i a a n m a c d M n W e e Wi m d M lliam G i a n s South l Hill s T Ja i h r k rre tt o n l a c g r l m c a t e r g a G n a b e rli r L k e w o e in L e C e m N r e ta ld s F P B a S ie s

h n t e lf t y lo l e s a i ly l

s n r o r g a R p s G t E A g y M

e e o o r t a

3 Hill a n y a

i L a n n N

l W r m J e d i s n o y - w a ck o h e n tu a c n m 9 r v e u F e We oe K h e ai sle et l W R rg y t C rou s is n nds M B

t w i r l r i a l s e st t t a i a o r d a x s c E o

d s e o a re C r u u o t A o h k e S

E n e

L t S g

t h o d l u H m

A a

e n e w n r S l to

a s o d G n a a d l

e rn G o m Gr d e M an a P t t F w n

t e h a e b tt

x a i o a M o o o int

C a a p r S s

f D a r B l C Petersburg s i l r a e nia

i e d e a irg

x f o G r Yo i V l e un l f C oo g l H

h r c P e e c P S i rk h J g ncy n r s B a e M M W l eg i t R n S in g e r o a ve lt A c o S i e a r a e S W a r e l R C l m l e l i S s s s J i i v n u tga u P a n n t o t p S a n e i n H t i g w g p a l c n r u e B H l J s i r t t e k o t o n m t o i e a e s e l o d g rl t n a nC t o li m a r d o m ro a a d in y l F B e C nk l m s lo k n il m F h l ra e su t F i H s g ur e e o o b l t l Bl e e Co A o e e a s k n n a r t Lu w v s ain l o z S il a P t e n H b l l e S a

r u u r y k e ve l no t n S a l H ee r am nut W a k St rkh al l e Ki W a t e P O s H rk h s O Sta Leguenad a n r w o t e d Dinwiddie a a N C n o k B lor F k k o Va rk en n v r t ta h o S S e r o e o d g B r a r n r y m Y e Delmar a k n ln H a o co e c n y Ja a Li C i o l B me l l l s k s e n Washingto n i Stro eet Stops R o d y y e r Dinw l s ngle iddi e S Ta N c e l in l p a d G a o ne M r N u T i r ot r n m t o D t wa o Total Daily Activity y a g h o Linda n n B t runswic S k t t o g r y p P arb o r a D a r W y m nb i nd k un Du 0 - 5 n Gre a lc g o en a a e sville S H Y o B r D o r d us y ve b u a h y e o S n u N W rry F C l l S l g 6 - 20 l o a o ir D c e s h n w r l b P Albe t e u ir m c arle S

p a l L k c o e e

r h e e o w C m o Ta y a ngle M l wo e a l od h o P 21 - 40 i B a

n C C i n e t ri t c s V T Si f i n to a m e e mo ll h l a n S o w s Carr o n d D e t n J 1 h a e d a l g g o l u a ie r d n k l m id i h nt d a inw ll 41 - 141 e V er Fro a D a x f n y t st w a B e e r e s o r H W L o i o n n i a l h d l t C

7 h R ester Washington St. / Central State Hospital L u t d a chet at o c m H 5 l s k 8 o e e a p p m m v ri w a G t e u R Plank e ton x d L c Boy g l a d k f uth i

85 i e So R D r l a r R 85 a m u s i p l u R p Pa H a A rk q u vie en m T d w utch y F S K p y d o R n rt u L a e ee 0 0.125 0.25 0.5

m B se p s Defen p m Tyler Miles a R Figure 3-2: Washington Ave: Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 35

15 Ridership 10

0 6:15 am 7:15 am 8:15 am 9:15 am 9:45 am 1:15 pm 2:15 pm 2:45 pm 3:15 pm 3:45 pm 4:15 pm 4:45 pm 5:15 pm 6:15 pm 10:15 am 10:45 am 11:15 am 11:45 am 12:15 pm 12:45 pm

3-10 Final Report

Halifax Route

In FY 2009 the combination of the Halifax and Plaza routes exhibited the second highest productivity in the route network (23.4 trips/hour) and the second lowest cost per passenger trip ($2.18). The total ridership on the combined routes was 92,007 passenger trips. These routes were analyzed separately for the boarding/alighting counts.

The boarding and alighting data (from October 2009) indicate that Thursday ridership (154 trips) was only slightly higher than the Saturday ridership (146). The Halifax route exhibited the highest Saturday productivity during the boarding/alighting counts (25.4 passenger trips per hour).

The most heavily used stops on the Halifax route are the downtown transfer opportunity; Patterson/Dunbar; and the Valero Gas Station. There is consistent passenger activity along the route. Figure 3-3 provides a map portraying the bus stop activity for the boarding/alighting survey days. As shown in Figure 3-4, the Halifax route exhibits the highest ridership in the afternoons.

There were comments received via the on-board survey that requested 30-minute service on the Halifax route.

Lee Avenue

The Lee Avenue route has two different routing arrangements, serving either Pecan Acres or Youngs Road on alternating trips. The trunk portion of the route offers 30-minute headways, while each of the two legs offers hourly headways. In FY 2009, the Lee Avenue route provided 60,704 passenger trips with a productivity of 15.4 passenger trips per revenue hour (slightly lower than the fixed-route mean of 15.75 trips per hour). The FY 2009 cost per trip was $3.30.

The boarding and alighting data indicated the Pecan Acres portion of the route had higher weekday ridership (104 trips) than the Youngs Ave portion of the route (88), while this pattern was reversed on Saturday, with the Pecan Acres portion of the route having ridership of 56 trips and the Youngs Road portion providing 70 trips. Productivity on the route ranged from a high of 16.6 trips per hour (Pecan Acres- weekday) to a low of 9.1 passenger trips per hour (Pecan Acres- Saturday).

The bus stops with the most passenger activity are the downtown transfer stop, Virginia Textile, Farmer/West Streets, and Pecan Acres. Figure 3-5 provides a map of the bus stop activity based on the boarding/alighting count data.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-11 Figure 3-3: Halifax Street Route Daily Bus Stop Activity

F 5 4

2 d l t C r t e h in n h a 3 h M e C Bank B e d r e th t lo u y r y r o nry W ve D He a r F r o s T y c d r M l G o o h s O

a p l h a R e t w M use 6 n o C tho d a y L ur m a o s C C

e i m a s h r n o g k i o p H bb t R O C l e r m a n q l T Plu bb e l e t a d T M u a n ry H i n C t t t en o e t a r i h t H n ll r r u u n C r o Fo r r o e H Gilliam U lin c m e nk L h a n a R Fr i C D i t B o a t m le l ia a m a Chesterfield n Pr s v C n ill s L i p C k W ll s h s e a l ll W f a u ks e a y r ar W y son t c M s e rim o h C n e tt

e n e n yrd zi 301 to B en gh o at k i J ar Mc H P d B H E J e a A ll lu o e z P n h e n d o c e G n a o f e e a n e R i l g e u r m a s M in l a r H y ry M d r s ll c x r Su ha k to a rs e at Ma e T m n v e o t e r pp e the r r A e Wy a r e c C e th M p rc or p e Up e n N uli ra m de T e m ms ge ew te o Lu olle r ndr C n ce th C c int A r o e int en n Sou ntral Sa r w e r H P ro C aw B H L i R n J o n 460 a u e n to 1 e n r 95 d g ow r W t r f o in B B i p f h s s e e a y o r R W b r n s B n a o s e m a t D n m e e t rty or p a t u e S ib llm r e L Fi h t n d r i l n s le o i e le s p p A C a 9 W a M d l 5 Van Buren i e a n k C m c o m t Do h R rs o a a Regal s M n p r e S way p rm Mid e Fa x o l u ale l co A l d il t G k a W h y ce t O arc pru r l D y S a B rc a a r I D n G n r y r r r o o y i cu d een h k r H er o svi t t a l c d l o le s c p M w o An i t a o en c o P a l o i b t u G Z a n n W i ln C n ta r a o n S d W lu r e W C m a e a illiam i bi m l s T J n a a M a arret B L d t t g rn ld ey g A c e e rtl rlin S M F i a o n k lf H ew C o l y s i G N r e e i e G c ff l e lo e l n r ol J B L a p e M n ly A G ar m o a s E r n p e R a t y s o h i M y a b m a P e a m e r ll a a n e o r e J t h d i t s R p n g o l S y o ck o nd e r n u a a t nt m R e a e F m Wes toe K P 4 h airgro s ley tle r 6 c u is k i d 0 ur nds M W n th h e e l o

3 C L B A i R e nn o l e ir r R s F i a l d a t i m a u w

- r o a d c re o g p v d o s e u e A a t k h n S r

1 S In e

e o d e E epe s

ndenc 5 L e t n C s o 8 l o

m a t A w h z 2 a w le R e o G a

r s t o t h t n t

P S n

u o w o x the k Petersburg t o h a t M c C a t

p in s l i f Sa d a G oo l e li r M Toll G h a ia n ate b c l gin e r d a r

r i f S V o o e i Yo f g l

s ung H n e g use m d t ho J p rick P a 301 d B k i P r Rege r Ma e a ncy n i B int M

l n D r o Sa li e t S o e S M l c e y d rv i A r r e a a e B l r o C a r e f a m l u a l d e s t l i t S a v n p e i i g n a n B e J s H a i p u g

u r g l S n n t c n u i l

r h p t e D o e J u t H C i r g o n s

a d l B n m u i g i l e a t a r m n o o li m A aro H d B C Iv n o n F y ll Blos e e i Ga u i i sum e rt g tes t k B u H o H r a d g C s y n lo a l h i F e a a e

o a n z n m D

r v t d P M Dover l r l

o l ll e a ke u o i r

i u B s P t L e y b n e u H y S i l e l a Sa a v t u I F n W

e t r a e l r V v l r S ano l t e H tee ham alnu rn C k S r irk W er e K o a ov t d n Han s st a O H O rk re e Sta u a oah Hillc Claremont r C w ad lm a Valor rk k enn e o n F h am C Sta S B m g i l r e l o r i a B e B Delmar n Legend W P n oln a Maycox c c H c n a J Li y a o i m k l es t l l M O t C s o r e i o a d o d r n r o d t k y e s le l ic s l Tang ou e la o e S l N w B ll n l p 85 t Halifax Street Rooute in n a s r d d r o re ne G T i P W a u n r D M n r g t e a h d Linda o s n o n E t t d o n t S g m v r y o p e Halifax Street Stops Darb o r n a a r r y m b d i F d un n n k s W a F a un D ir S lc e g f a a e a o H o o x r h r Y D y o a t B r k o d u e cTotal Daily Activity L s av h u b u e T e y W o n S

e N l g l h C l o S a l e i s w rc e D h r n le 0 - 5 w b u i c r o p S l k e a c e o

r h m e o y B d W o d a a l o P e l o e C M ew o r

P C l k s in B g w 6 - 20 e i r n e t a t is T A y V c h ie to da le r ro w h l T a Carroll n u y c n e a J t h o a rm le D t o e l n n l g B G a g h e die n k 21 - 40 i l n E k wid o Din ll x e M n a a H s V a a tf e w y r es a o a a e s L o W t D n r W l i t if o n o a e a f d a x e x 41 - 65 n s C e C o ster g Le h g l d u n in e G o 5 rimes c o 8 v s o k w e a W y a r L w C t t th i e u B n l u o n Plank S u g ton e c d u Boyd r 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 o D r d k s r e P i i k C f a o e u s n r R s kv r Miles e ie q 85 w S Figure 3‐4: Halifax Route: Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

25 20 15 10 Ridership 5 0

am am pm :15 am :15 am :15 am :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm 7 8 9 0:15 1:15 2:15 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1

3-13 Figure 3-5: Lee Avenue Via Pecan and Young Daily Bus Stop Activity

F 5 4

2 d l t C r t e h in n h a 3 h e M e C Bank B d r e th t lo u y r y r o ry e D Hen a r r W ov T y F c d r s M l G o o h O s l a p h a R e t w M use 6 n o o C y L rth d a ou m s a C C e i m

s a h r n o

g k i o p H bb t R O C l e r q m a n l u b T Pl b e l e u t a d M a T n ry H it n C t t n o e t e r a i h t H n ll r r u u n o C r ro F o r e H Gilliam U lin c m e nk L h a n a R Fr i C D i t B o a t m le l ia a n m a r Chesterfield P ls v C n il s L i p C k W ll s h s e a l ll W f a u ks e a y r ar W y son t c M s e im o h Cr n e tt

e n e n yrd zi 301 to B en gh o at k i J ar c H P d B M H E J e a A ll lu o e z P n h e n d o c e G n a o f e e a n e R i l g e u m a s r M in l a r H d y rry c M s ll x r Su ha k to a rs e at Ma e T m n v e o t e r pp e the r r A e Wy a r e h c C e rt M p rc No p e Up e n uli ra m de T e m ms ge ew te o Lu olle r ndr C n ce th C c int A r o e int en n Sou ntral Sa r w e r H P ro C aw B H L i R n J o n 460 a un to 1 e n r e 95 d w W g o r to r f in B B i p h s f s e e a y o r R W r b n s B n a o s e m a t D n m e e t rty or p a t u e S ib llm r e L Fi h t n d r i l n s le o i e p le s p A C a 9 W a M d l 5 Van Buren i e a n C m ck o m t Do h R rs o a a Regal s M n p r e S way p rm Mid e Fa x o e l u al l lco A d l t G k i a W h cy uce t O ar pr r l D y S a B c r r a a I D n G n r y r r re o o y i cu d en h k r H er o svi t t a ll d o e c s c pl M w o An i t a o en c o b P a l o i t u G Z a n n W i ln C n ta r a o n S d W lu r e W C m a e a illia i bi m l m T n a s J B a M a arret L d t t g rn ld y A c le ng Fe ie art orli S n M k lf w C o l H e y s i G N r e G fe i e c lo f l e e n r ol J l B L a p e M n y A G arl m o a s E r n p e R ah t y M s o ib y a e m a e a m P r ll a a n e o r e J t h d i t s R p n g o l S y do ck o n e r n tu Ra a t n m e a e F m Wes toe K P 4 h airgro s ley tle r 60 s d c u i k i ur nds M W n th h e e l C o 3 L B A i R e nn o l e ir r R s F i a l d a t i m a r u w o - a d c re o g p v d o s e u e A a t k h n S r

1 S In e

e o d e E epe s

ndenc 5 L e t n C s o 8 l o

m a t A w h z 4 a w le R e o G a

r s t o t h t n P t

S n

u o w o x the k Petersburg t o h a t M c C a t

p in s l i f Sa d a e i r G oo l l M Toll G r h a ia n ate b l n e c a gi e r d

r r f S i o V o t e i Y f g o l s u H n

ng a

e m g use d t r ho J p

ick P a 301 d r i B k C P Rege r ar e n M a cy n i B int M

n D l l r o Sa i e t S o e c S e M v l A y rd r i e e a a r o B l C r a f a m l u a d e s t a l l i S v n p e i i g n B e a J s H n i p u u g S g l n n t c n u i l

r h p t e D o e J u t H i r g o n s

a d l B m u i n g i l e a t a r m n o li m A o ro H d B a C Iv n o n F y ll Blos e e i Ga u i i sum e rt g tes t k B u H d g o H r a C s y n lo a l h i F e a a e

o a n z n m v D

r t d P M Dover l r l

o l ll e a ke u o i i u B r s P L e

b t y H y S in le u l a Sa a v e u I F n W t

e t er l r v l V a

S o n e r Ha eel am lnut r t kh a n C k S r ir W er e K o a ov t d n Han s Legend st a O H O rk re e Sta u a oah Hillc Claremont r C w ad lm a Valor rk k enn e o n F h am C Sta S B m g i l r e l o r i a B e B r n W Delma P n ox oln a Lee Avenue Route Mayc c c H c n a J Li i y a o l m k es t l l M O t C s o r e i o a d o d r n r o d t k y e s le l ic l s l Tang ou e a o e S l N w B ll n l p 85 t o d in n a s r d r o re Lee Avenue Route Stops ne G T i P W a u n r D M n r g t e a h d Linda o s n o n E t t d o n t m S Totv al Daily Activity g p r o e by o Dar r n r r a a y m b d i F d un n n k s W a F a un D i S lc e g rf a a e a o H o o x r h r Y D o y 0 - 5a t B r k u o e d c L s av h u b u e T e y W o n S e N l g lo h C l S e a i l s w r D c e h r n le w b u i c r 6 - 20 o p l k S e a c e o

r h e o y B d W m o d a a l o P e l o e C M ew o r

P C l k s in B g w e i r n e t a t is T A y V c h ie to da le 21 - 40 r o h l a r rroll w n T u y c Ca t n e o a J a rm h e D t l o e l n n l g B G a g h e die n k k id i l n o E inw ll x e n a D M a H s V a a tf e w y r es a o a a e s L o W D n r t W li i t 41 - 279 f o n o a e a f d a x e x n s C e C o ster g Le h g l d u i e n n G o 5 rimes c o 8 v s o k w e a W y a r L w C t t th i e u B n l u o n Plank S u g ton e c d u Boyd r 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 o r d k s r D P i i k o C e a u s fe r R n kv r Miles se ie q 85 w S Final Report

Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the ridership by time of day for both portions of the route. The 7:45 a.m. trip (Youngs Avenue) exhibited the highest ridership (14 trips).

Virginia Avenue

The Virginia Avenue route provides hourly headways and is paired with the Ettrick route. On select trips the Virginia Avenue route provides express service to Petersburg High School. The combined Virginia Avenue/Ettrick route provided 59,857 passenger trips in FY 2009, with a productivity of 14.9 trips per revenue hour. The cost per passenger trip in FY 2009 was $3.43.

According to the boarding/alighting data, the productivity on the route (both Thursday and Saturday) was among the lowest in the system at 9.6 trips per hour (weekday) and 9.0 trips per hour (Saturday). There were 59 passenger trips provided on this route on Thursday and 54 passenger trips on Saturday.

As is shown in Figure 3-8, the local portion of the route exhibits much more activity than the express portion.

The 7:45 a.m. run exhibits the highest ridership, followed by the 6:15 p.m. run. Ridership is light mid-day on this route. The ridership by time of day is shown in Figure 3- 9.

Plaza

The Plaza route is paired with the Halifax route and provides service along Sycamore Street to the shopping areas adjacent to the intersection of Sycamore Street and Crater Road. Hourly headways are provided on the Plaza route. The combined route provided 92,007 passenger trips in FY 2009, with productivity of 23.4 passenger trips per revenue hour (significantly higher than the fixed route mean of 15.75 trips per hour). The cost per trip was $2.18.

There were 134 passenger trips provided on Thursday and 94 passenger trips provided on Saturday during the boarding/alighting counts. Productivity on the route was 22.3 trips per revenue hour on Thursday (above the system mean) and 15.7 trips per hour (equal to the mean) on Saturday.

Passenger activity is geographically dispersed along the route, with the following stops exhibiting the highest activity: the downtown transfer stop, Butterworths, and Sycamore/Goodrich. These data are shown in Figure 3-10.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-15 Figure 3‐6: Lee Avenue‐Pecan Acres Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

14 12 10 8 6 4 Ridership 2 0

am am pm :15 am:15 am:15 am:15 am :15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm 6 7 8 9 0:15 1:15 2:15 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1

Figure 3‐7: Lee Avenue‐Young Ave. Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

16 14 12 10 8 6 Ridership 4 2 0

am am pm :45 am :45 am :45 am :45 am :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm 6 7 8 9 0:45 1:45 2:45 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1

3-16 Figure 3-8: Virginia Avenue Local and Express Bus Stop Activity

C D C r O F o e P ve o M o ro a n l th G s d l a M 6 w t a e h n s o t t r C y 7 r L d s R h a e a h C ic g b i r b s i M m um b Ta H u e h k Pl H k ab t ry T o p r n 8 e o n t i c l n t e r l H t n L h e t u r U r o r it n F o in t o H l R r n k l l D an e e e Fr i m a a a o C a m C n L s n C ll s a v h i ll a i W e f s p la u a ks Chesterfield W C y r r n c a s y so t e rim o h M e C d ie t n n r z n t o By en h e 301 tt g o r B k i H a a c H J d l M J A P a e E u o a P e ll d n g e e n z n h e o i c f a n e e M o i r M n R e l m a x s r ry ll c H ld to y ur ha k t S s rs e T ma Ma e e o v r pp the e r A ce Wy h M r a er er ort lip c p N u e p m G ge T e U m e lle r Co ton nc u uth Co al c a r e in re P wn So ent o C J r r r H w i B a a e n L n to n n g e ow B f f in Br t S e h e y B s re R S o i a ty r m e r er ill e a b s a W D o n Li H F m g o m t u e S u a a t 1 e e n p e n t W h g

t r p i h d a r l l r A n P s e o e i lto e in

l s m a 9 p d e s p a D b o

C M a e 5 W a ren a m Van Bu C s h n xas k o m R Te c R t o a s l e D ar i s M n p er r ay p t w rm o id e a x M F o n le l lc R A a l il ce es d B rcy ru erv I W o t k Da cy p ir n J H r S r l a r ohn Da o a O i F K d Gre e d enn ry o en ch M t edy a u o svi n n t erc nw lle e i W t le A o r u M a G t ln c d a G i n n G W c k e i C n r e a s S B a r L g m t ee e ng A La n ew orli y on n P d s N C c rs L l o e e s l f e i a ol f M e B e lf p e G l e ly A J o p y g i ar m r n a a G E a t r t h ib v t o a m ll y le a m e i J e a J ll a a d m r o H a n n o y e y r r ck R r m w d e n tu o h F P n k c e e d p ur Fair e Wesle leto K t ic e h o e gr y st s o o s C und s Mi e m 4 W H r s B 6 in c r fie t o a 0 l t ir o t d C o h y a l F h o a i R w u w u

c s R n d n e p a hor ty n E t e

k a A e u s S d 5 a 0 D t s 6 l u rel e m t n 8 Lau 4

m r e l g n a a o o

C u t x o p tu ads a

A l a G S o R R

G M f z m P tt li ew n a

h A m S o tt a o a a o a M i n int M p p h r a s M

B C H S yrick D

w s r l i ia o Toll Gate a e l e in E K e o g e G r a Y ir

o V f n

r o l u i e f n l i d e r g l P 95 l t l n l r c d k P e p i o k e B o i p s r o M S a g l h g h ncy i e M ge r s t J e c e Re i in t S A o a g a n n S l t a e i r c l e 95 S u H i l l l s P e n i i H v r p S J n n a a a t i

g e g r u m H l n i t l J a B t e n m m t i linH t o o le e i l a ar r s t C g o a l o n i m m l r d t A n m o oy e o g Ivy l o il lossum s Fl n t Ga r

B t o e g r e v i H b c n ou h s e i l o k C M o t t a l

A k a i

n e l s o l v ke P n k il r P u u

a L y B c t e H a in n W W o S u Sa Iv t c l a V n e l m ut r e a e r a n l A l s k e h H St e Kirk Wa d rn a t t n O a o rk s H est e n c d

3 r a a h O c r St u ill Claremont e N w a H m o Valor rk C k l e rs n o a e m s

- t S ohn B e o g r t J r t n n e m 1 Delmar n H i e ol Sa B Maycox F Ja inc il M B r a L mes ls o r B o W 7 r n id n O ia t a y e B tic r u e e a F c R lt ll r l k o k o in M G Petersburg a lo B i d N l r n c n ne a n a t i V e u o r T n s a e A D a o d M Lind n d h n r n a r n o a o d t r t D g t h n r e h p e rby o v e o o r a Da o F W s y m a h a n r d k n n B cun e a ir e a o a al Y k fa n a c S u H e W B u x r s o r r T D b a e y u y y S n F N n W C ll lo S h o g a e n ir e D r h e C o r s r t n c s l b s w r l t le u ir o o e c S p a l t o k L k c o l M r P e s s e h W o o e a e m M o Tan y v t a l glewoo o d o l 85 d H e a e y C e w M n i B r ro t C r T A r k s C i W C c s h a n a c t a t o r e t o arroll h l a t c l a e L e C D n t o h W n e G k r g a a e e S a t ie l n k E e a u d l l x o f k d wi ll e V n ie r r in a a a d n a D y tf w a y l g s e s d e r e r w P W o i W t t r n u i i o c a C ln k G n d n e a ll e l o W Hi d e h ter g in n u Les d g lly L n o d r Gr o o in D H ry s 5 imes C s N r a 8 o th 301 e t u W o w B So lb l h a e e w Legend g u C e nk u i B w w M n Pla e n ydto c r ry Bo g k d u nt h o p k u ig d e o s r o e o i a k l l o C a d R r t e s R t s P u r Gr l ar y eenwoo Deerfield A kvie hen c d Virginia Avenue Stops w Kutc k e For sid Bea t Le ok uregard e ense ro d Blackwater d f

De Tyler B o Total Daily Activity n

d o o u kw

t s r B e a d ns k P ea ok u c st e o S e dson r a 0 - 5 n Do rb m rst J o mhe r ve e H A O g u d o e ri

b n r k Ty t d on n y a t

e e ill s s n mp Oak H t a a O la H e R 6 - 14 er s li x d a i v D o a o C a W

n o f l i d

W l l a o n i o o n a Vesonder t B w le p g H b m T am a w F h r 15 - 40 W t o R R J o r a

e o o r o e s o r N e R l e h i d l l c g s s y n N e l o h t a e B s t

i n H v o v r d M a t e n r a i i l a L g e d y l lle s l t Va m 41 - 96 s l e a r e r n i m u d B o q H r Oak W ner P S i mon r ag op e t igh W lar r t Virginia Avenue Route w

o P k ark n d t a ke n e l o o e F H d r r t o s g G n g o in L er 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 r Ra D yle ilroa He Miles Se Dinwiddie d Grd th Figure 3‐9: Virginia Avenue‐ Weekday Ridership by Time of Day 12 10 8 6 4 2 Ridership 0

) ) p p m m am am am p) p) p) 5 a 5 a (ex (ex 45 45 45 5 pm 5 pm 5 pm m m 8:4 9:4 :4 :4 :1 10: 11: 12: 4 5 6 5 a 5 a 5 pm (ex5 pm (ex5 pm (ex :4 :4 6 7 1:4 2:4 3:4

3-18 Figure 3-10: Plaza Route Daily Bus Stop Activity

M C

M a p r p C o d h o t m O 8 s m e i n s s a n n a l ro o d r e illiam R t G U o R m e nklin n C a e a r n Fr R L C L D h i i B a t u a a o t m l l r ia m a h f v n e c r ig a n P lls i C h i H y s p C k W e h l tt a u s e e y r rk rc n n c a e to so to M m in A rim h om H C n C d n a 301 to m t n Pa ngto s H shi R J a e a W a ll o m e z n h n P o c e G p n a o e e n e R l ry a g s u r ur M H in a r S y c M r k a ll e ha e T n ars v t M e e e r the r r e Wy M a th c C r M a No lip e r en r Tu a d e ms k ge ew te Lu e olle r dr C c An r t th int Sou tral e Sa wn en r P ro C B H i R n o e a un 1 m e wn r d o ro r W to R B B i p s S ty e y o r ibe R L b i r n r e e n a m s r re g a e o m F llm t i m e F e p a r h ge R d a n P lton es i aple Da e W M rv salem Van Buren o Jeru x ir Texas o C illc rs a l W Stately M i Regal n

S t D o u o n n u l t A o h rcy a e d p D rcy ruc y John Da Sp a ercur r F G o Kenn S m M d reen e e r J o dy a H o sv l il o l e p y nw e Po s e le a ut c G Z ln f G r a a f W e d C m C ol i r um n s b o B ia g o Lee y g r A e n artl orlin e n H New C rso d G fe iel lo ef lf r ol J il e p M G J arly A G o o s E ra n p R h ti P n s a be m e a m e e llo a ll s t n i g t s R H r y J S y r a tuck o o a m t n m k m W a Ke ic esle toe e y stle r P H i k i d s M W n 4 W e e l in t o 60 field o A B n i R e n o t l h w r C s F i l d R o i a w u n g u o c re o e mp nty o s e k h a n S r R e s e L a 0 t 6 C s o m 4 a t Az e h

ton al R p G e lads e a 95

G s 3

n M

- n w u

x the t o a a t 1 a nt M M ai s yrick

r f S d i r s l M Toll Gate

ia n e 9 e a gin ir f

V o Petersburg f o t i E K Yo l s un l H n

g e

l i e m 5 l e t n s J 8 i P a p o g ark i e 95 W r M t n i B t t n ain D l to M S ie l c o i A e S R e r l llen am a A m r l a l l i p n i v n i H n i g

g l

t l

e t e H o J idg n a d R il e ter t m a r a o rolin d Cr n Ca H Iv n e y G i ate u urt g s B o s H C r

la h e i o

n D a t d P M Dover l r l ke u i u o B r int L e y le u ck Sa a v te I F n W co s r t n l V a u e H C am lnut rn Kirkh Wa o d n A H st a n aw illcre e Claremont d k Shennadoah H lm e e o rs B m o re n B B Maycox H a B il y r F C ls l M i i o o ar o W o d r n B r o e s ld ti t a y le c r l ang ou e O u R l le S T l a e c to N l l tw B o t i p s k s k c n a e F s n Legend r o r l b e T i r a a o n P o e e r c n n r B r g t a d J t h h d is M c A t h E o a n n s o d S h p V d m o e d a Plaza Roue te o p n ar n r n r W s d i e e g o n o F e D s W ah air r n g W ck fa au o o u x e rn o e T B er d s av h t Plaza Route Stops e o W o v l e S lo h W S r n w e a o h r rt w C r o Total Dll aily Activity i r r o o e M e le o n k d ls as d y t H oo P o w n F le o y 0 - 5 g e r B n w B k o ri a o r k o s T h e n A n c n to a a e o C l a d r y r l L t T u e c W a t k W h G e a r a a rm e a g a e n l n n B l k 6 - 20 W e J e t g e u C o y f S a l E i r e h h e e r y V M a t l d n w n u d a s o g e s a o r t S w r D o t 21 - 40 o in o h i e n c t c f d a a ri u k P e e x ln i or n d a n m o n G e n C C s o W l e e e o il d l h K h H n e g G y 4Li1 - 62 u u g ll n r o d s c i H M d W n n a t k o y o s o e rr l a w D e e o y o r b a N t l r d r u u C t o w m y M c W n g e e d o k u e w w a g n r i B o e o n p d a k i l u C o d o s r r d R s k r e o s t b 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 r G hen m reenwood Deerfield Miles Kutc u C Final Report

The afternoon ridership is higher than the morning ridership, with the 12:45 p.m. run exhibiting the highest ridership of the service day. Figure 3-11 shows the ridership by time of day.

Ettrick

As previously discussed, the Ettrick route is paired with the Virginia Avenue route and offers hourly headways. Select trips also serve Pocohontas Island. The combined Virginia Avenue/Ettrick pair provided 59,857 passenger trips in FY 2009. The productivity on the route pair was 14.88 trips per hour and the cost per trip was $3.43.

The boarding data showed that the Ettrick route is the most productive in the system, providing 220 trips on Thursday (35.2 trips per hour) and 109 trips on Saturday (17.4 trips per hour). The busiest stops include the two downtown stops on Sycamore Street, the Shopping Center in Ettrick, and the main VSU stop on campus (Lee/University). Of the total 220 weekday boardings, 125 of them were not in the City of Petersburg. There were 82 boardings on the VSU campus and 43 daily boardings in Chesterfield County. Figure 3-12 provides a map of the passenger activity by stop.

Ridership by time of day varied, with the highest ridership run occurring at 3:15 p.m. These data are shown in Figure 3-13.

One comment received via the on-board survey suggested that the Ettrick route should serve River Road, as there are people who do not have cars in the neighborhoods off of River Road.

Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee

The Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee route is a combination of the former Blandford and Hopewell/Fort Lee routes. In FY 2009, the routes together provided 98,763 passenger trips. The Blandford route provided 16.1 passenger trips per revenue hour and the Hopewell/Fort Lee route provided nine trips per revenue hour in FY 2009. The cost per trip was $3.16 and $5.63, respectively.

The combined route was in operation for the boarding/alighting survey. This route provided 356 passenger trips on Thursday (the highest of any of the routes) and 133 passenger trips on Saturday. The productivity was 27.4 passenger trips per hour on Thursday and 10.2 passenger trips per hour on Saturday.

The busiest stops on this route were the downtown transfer stop, Bank Street/Crater Road, Fort Lee, and the Crossings Shopping Center. Of the 356 boardings, 73 were not in the City of Petersburg. There were 37 weekday boardings in

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-20 Figure 3‐11: Plaza Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

30 25 20 15 10 Ridership 5 0

am am pm :45 am :45 am :45 am :45 am :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm 6 7 8 9 0:45 1:45 2:45 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1

3-21 Figure 3-12: Ettrick Route Daily Bus Stop Activity

Maple t u W n S t h a B s e n s r e f D B e is f a h to h i i e e u r L e i l Iv p a t e C ld d t n y L u i y x e g o r t y t y e n a o a o o n f t n o l n l t M a i is l L m ill e L r a n H ro C n u e rt aw a tua o l L m S n n th a d y u th W sl o or M C u o S N i n i l a o t R li ls a tt B i w m h a W ie C e rv s r tt h w G e e e h r 1 iv a s o s y R r u d l J a B e e l r d B o th s f u ou fe le R S r v oy s a al O r o r n ak e n t d to ck en g e c n p s li n d re in n r o o Marv i A V s o B C rv n r a o i W e n M r fe s so s g f s t k i e c n ie a C J a i W 4 J a th a r m ve b Ri r r s id e O e g g r e Colonial Heights H n m c

ic a a h

k r o J a ry r G d U ld 2 n r ie n 3 iv e f d r e v r d r o te s n s C it a e h y n H h e o s C ll e t s o in e d z r rr R a f o o ie a lfe g R o a ive ld C M r W t y err u Witt ac a n en G e e o s is r p o e a n B t r r a e S a ch g e Chesterfield r o C A in L a s P in k Poca p ee hon o L tas H e e sid g R Hill id ruth u r T t n le e B d d h yd oo g lp a e do H nw n e Ra re G e

e l l

C 3 B r e P - y m tt h 2 o o iver T R o

t e k 2 h g n

i c P e e

L Pik i

x o

a d

n a m R Pelha

n Bear k i 5 2 l Old c t n

J o h n E C i ook a a d lingbr C ol x B

c o M c k u h s S r a 4 o t F q ve n n ro t l u G h e g a d Bank e e r w t 3

C M

r o a M

ry d s Hen

a s i D s

o o k

n a w e t e n Lo rthous s Cou C h e ig n H bb t m Ta r Plu e l b J ab T H e a

M f n i ry l f n l e t e a o H r r n t C s or u F r o

H o n Gilliam e

U n klin i an o Fr D n a Legend v i s s ell lls W 301 e ie W nz on Ettrick Route ke Petersburg rims c s C M L e a d n yr f r B o a e J y igh e v

Ettrick Route Stops e H t ar t Ed e e

301 k H

S c B J a o y A l z M Total Daily Activity u n c e d e P y e a rr f l a Su S s e m ie G m o r l r o d u u s y r 0 - 5 t a e h r x a all tto n rsh a t Ma om 460 e p e 6 - 20 Ap ythe er e W pp rc th U me Nor m ton Tulip Co in sden e 21 - 40 H Lum olleg n 1 H C o a t e x uth g c o r in n a S al h e f r ntr s r wn i i Ce a w Bro l s w W a a o re 41 - 107 W L P And D i H n int e n a u S s e n B C B t n l w y a o ro l B i r n t p n t t e e er 0 0.e 1 0.2 0.4 o r m o rm n s R Fa erty e Lib Miles a ore Fillm Figure 3‐13: Ettrick Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

35 30 25 20 15 10 Ridership 5 0

am am pm :15 am:15 am:15 am:15 am :15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm 6 7 8 9 0:15 1:15 2:15 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1

3-23 Final Report

Prince George County, 25 weekday boardings in Fort Lee, and 11 boardings in Hopewell. Figure 3-14 provides a map of the ridership by stop. The busiest run of the day was the 8:15 a.m. run (46 passengers) - this run brings young people to the Blandford Academy for school. Other busy runs included the 1:15 p.m. run, the 11:15 a.m. run, and the two mid-afternoon runs (3:15 p.m. and 4:15 p.m.). The ridership by time of day is provided in Figure 3-15.

It was noted that the combined route was somewhat inconvenient for the riders who previously used the Blandford route, as they currently must travel all the way to Fort Lee and Hopewell to get to the Blandford Academy and the Bank Street portion of the Blandford route.

Comments received via the on-board survey requested that the Blandford and Ft. Lee/Hopewell route be returned to two routes, as the route is too long for the Blandford riders.

Walnut Hill

In FY 2009 the Walnut Hill route provided 69,579 passenger trips, with higher than average route productivity (18.3 trips per revenue hour). The cost per trip in FY 2009 was $2.79, lower than the fixed-route average of $3.24. Walnut Hill operates on hourly headways.

During the boarding/alighting time period, the route provided 251 passenger trips on Thursday (20.9 trips per hour) and 154 trips on Saturday (14 trips per hour). The busiest stops on the route are the downtown transfer stop and the South Crater Road Wal-Mart. Figure 3-16 provides a map of the ridership by stop. As the map indicates, there is very little ridership in the Deerfield neighborhood and no ridership in the Berkeley Manor neighborhood on this route. There are three neighborhoods that are served by both the Walnut Hill and S. Crater Road routes (Deerfield, Berkeley Manor, and Flank Road).

The 10:45 a.m. run was the busiest during the boarding/alighting counts. These data are shown in Figure 3-17.

South Crater Road

Ridership on the South Crater Road route is very similar to ridership on the Walnut Hill route, with 69,651 passenger trips provided in FY 2009. Productivity is also similar at 18 passenger trips per revenue hour. The South Crater Road route recorded the most revenue miles in FY 2009 at 58,879.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-24 Figure 3-14: Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee Route Daily Bus Stop Activity

We tson Bu llingto Wa rlin n p Ple gton s as m ant ford n m D Da San r a r uke le e 2 O t 9 R El a f Glo s 5 le F uce e r st R s f p er W F li Y r a e a lo ork a s C e R ir le n hir ovi m l J e ng v a ie n u am ton i e es p m

to R e D wn p n r Will o G iam t sbur

p g M m N K onroe

a e e k Hopewell w s C n H c w i Y y o h l ach C c a l r t Ba ous i sin ins s c i a rl o e k e d s d s H t e l a e r Oakw F ood M Elm T K Mount Pl woo ri enn O easant d C edy ld d d i T o t o o y w o a n t o i z J w la e u w P d t f l n d f f i i w e idge n r la r R o W k s D a o C O C n r o P P s a Ram s r p r i in k d g e p s Ram ock Ram d R p arthur dle Mac ud a E P m

t l Sou u k t Waln hpark Te p r o m d te ple a as elen Fin o m H ck e ilr r o a rte Shop James mm R ua Di Q Colonial Heights n 4 land R 4 High o 1 o e x s k e s a l Lyon ly L ple F n n em a T T R r Moorm ive e J u rd t 1 al 2 e s s e s a n t s t t k m d i ic r n nn d te g e a r J o a 3 r 5 r il u t d tover K a Q h 4 Wes H ark R e t P h a s C n E s 6 m k e s o c c t l h k o c 8 i e i l n A o m t 7 l o s F t h g m u t o n i h k l o l t fo o D r n i h o o N a H n r e n o r l a Ingram les s a p olk l r ck o Suff ha a W Sh rg C J s chbu s 1 8 Lyn ce 0 R c A th S ya A th Dan Pin n a ville e r le hu 1 a anvil r 2 D st Prince George t 1 t o h e 3 g 95 t e So H h a L e uth i t n ll 3 t o 2 1 e r B 0 y e r 1 5 is t t 1

- a t I f m ol ve h 6 h 1 a a y Ramp n W t t 2 L C ly h F h h s ite i art o hi n 5 R tu n R ll a 1 o S n ly w n 9 V y o s ie W c a ils o v he th ir R r el e 2 g l W e er R B i O iv s 2 1 C o n a R Chesterfield p a n 8 u i R N a k n am m d th le o p m t I a a v n p a g d n R u M L r n s e d i st e h r e e ia L ll s l m c a R H o a k o r k l a G ton o r W ing e 2 h n e 4t m a Was h m n i d m C b p b e b 1 ine C H u o az o nd 2 o n 5 N t g m r h a e ch M n o i A R g t n s u n a to s R r r s s y ol p t h fe i B m h c h p a n a r t r h o o o tle e o n ut M u ajo h Nav B C c p a o o s r S C hill A a g n e White n S o u S u 27t i L l h z e E l m a p a t g e t a g e n e C id s p l n n e o h r t e u i M k t t B o r o e 2 o a r t r n b M b g d S o n r P i ll O lia u o me a e h B r l A n r le d d e g r o l y a l o e ve i s A Ri B a i e t h e M C u r a d w o y d w c u o e C A n M h t x L d a a t n n Pelham 5 r o e n in I d i u c s n k

l k x s Locust O t N a r h u a e O h c c E S s d m 4 o h a h d r o i 5 Legeh nd t t n t s C s t n o L sa

C e P 0 u h 9 t h s P o C Bank h o t 9 3 2 N t M y a 2 1 o e n r r e v W 3 d in o a F t 3 r n n a l e r nry y t r ld h a r s g h He e r o r O C t ic 3 e r r a ig T y 6 3 S l o k p l H r e C o h k a ie t e y lq 7t Blandford / Hopewell / Ft. Lee Route g s m e S l t u a

a n b M i th A B ab t t 8 d d n T R e t o r L r n w Cassino n 2 3 o it 3 3 t r t n h n R t o kli l ro k ran e e Blandford/Hop4ewell/Fort Ler e Route Stops izerte e F a B C am 3 o m C C Y U h l ills p a u s n W n y r rk Petersburg C i o c a Total Daily Activity Bataan o ims t M Cr o h E h n n t h n t a tto v 7 Bun a a 3 9 A a J P e lle e 0 - 5c 3 d n g e u o in ch ss a M nn M o e u a m R p t c a n i h e k H T o o t h s e yt e e h s n 0 W v r a 6 -r 20 4 M e r r a M te orth p c r i e N e ul e a P g T lle r 301 u o c e n x C ral Q P t e w n J 21 - 40 h r o a e Br f C h i r e r t l i W a y l C d f 9 a f S D h e e 3 t e l R lp i r i H b h e r n 0 m H a e i r s A 4 a a t s m B ty m g C F r o e a o a l t u b r i e r 41 - 196 b L e e n p h g m r e n e or A a S r m r d h ill P c c e i F n i t l d h p s i s k o a S 8 E o M o a W e t 3 l y as e n m Tex t rs n c Ma a s r a s d 1 H i B m d 4 a y g r o e r c e d ru n y r Sp i arc e y n e r l D ercu Greens e il g vi F M lle e H ll ry P 0 0.2 0.4 ki 0.8 G Wa l B S ko en lker y ey g raham 5 elle ie ic d u Miles Lee artl ew orlin G 8 Ramp vue ge H e ch H N C r S Figure 3‐15: Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

50 40 30 20 Ridership 10 0

am am pm :15 am:15 am:15 am:15 am :15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm 6 7 8 9 0:15 1:15 2:15 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1

3-26 Figure 3-16: Walnut Hill Route Daily Bus Stop Activity

M p b M C M lum a ab d d P h T m L e h o t n r g r t i n 8 i a a t k n 3 r H t t 2 d l e 3 r e e 3 u D R n R h o n o li i r t k r t a an s C e H r e F a 4 B o m v h a m C s 3 n C l i U u il s l W p a r s rce n n n y c rk C s e o i o h a h t o s m in im to M t e m H Cr E o n n 7 h n C v 3 t n 9 o H to R a ing A a J 3 J e c a sh a e ll e Wa d m g e s u A z in h s a c a e M p M o e u m c R n p t l k i h e T o o t s e e h s n 0 J v r a r 4 e e r h M e yt r a M te W rth f r P o p f c n N li e sde ge Tu e e a e r u um lle r L o c r C l s J P n ra Q w t e r ro en o o y B C h i r t n n W D n n 9 e e w e ro S D e 3 u om B R s i R b h n r e e H a t A m e s m B l r m g o ar rty o 8 Cl e a lm t a u F b l r i i e r e b L F e p 3 p h g m r e A d a t r r P c e i n i s l d p s i s Ma k E 1 o a Van Buren C W e t 4 as e n m Tex l n s a x ar i S n r S o s M d lc i l B t d c i o o W y g h u n F u r e e t n uc h r H rcy p y Joh e a S ll l n F K D d Gre e i k enned a ury oo ensv H y t erc nw ille e i r nu M Gle y ll G d al r W G o P Walk i S B k er r n el c e L e le i n L ee g ew y on vu H d s e P e N c o ers e Prince George s l f R r e e a pol ef G f e rly m A J r a g i Ea a m r e t ha G a J t o p ld m ra m o y r n k e t n uc t d W W oe n h e es let e t t le K o y ist s l 4 s M B e 6 Win 0 e r o f o e 0 ield r 4 s l F th i w

s R t c re u

o d h a e H

e a k S

5 a 0 o t n

e 6 8 s m b

e l 4

L b n a

o o st o p y

lad a R

G z R G w m a J

x the m a t a

a A

M i M a aint Myr p m if S ick S a D o Toll Gat l ini e E K e Y irg n Sted ou a a V s man ng l i t l n

i t P H B p i M k n ar o o A r t M e g o n i t ai t w n e S r l t l i c J n l l l e

i i 95 e v n a H n r

H i

g m a l g l a t in t Lak i e l es m l o aro ide t e C P n e o n t A n

i r r s

u o g lt n u M v i o o o t

o l e a o a

i M C l v n e 85 u n k Luk y c 460 a n B int s W o Bo a i iss S S Iv t c eau

V n v r m ut e a A a n a e irkh Wal d r H n K n M r t H a o d e s h T a e n a u aw do n Claremont e do Baxte a m o r a w r C k B enn l s b C h e m r o s

a r o m S B e oo un i k r e n k y t v ox F d y B M Mayc t V s a l

B a s o W e

o o a B s t O r B r r d n O e i n y H r l B t a u t a e i T

s u i S le N r e ng o r c a h r s c R l l i Ta w e h D t l l t a l k s c k o g l o l b i s s n o l t o o n c n a e a o A o r r c s p r e T i n e r d t P d a n n d

h d J e r o P e d a n e i e W r W o F r h a s T e a i o e k rfa e c x n r 3 r s Tu t ve t ea o e n - W v i e S l P 2 h Petersburg l 95 S r e y ke ch d P r ro s 7 o o ol nglewo o w n W a Ta w M o le H A o W a C T h a G k e a r d n r c s a a t c a o C r o e u r o rt e L W o n t h k o o n n h a g a a e e t t l k E f M ls a u r l V n x o i u C e n a e t r r o a a o n y C w y s ld r e t n P e i W t i o n u G n r s C n o a l n e e a ill l d o H de e h d g W m y in n u i g ll L r o n o y d r C o in H r s o s th er a G w B ou t h a S y lb l w e r u e u C B t M e r n c k u u g h k o e r ig d k C le i a l a N e s R t Gr o R e u y en Dee wood rfield rm c e B k e a fense sid aureg n De k ard Blackw d oo d ater y Tyler Br oo w F t rk r se a ad o k n P te n e o u s t s on ro S e a s n Dods rb m herst 301 o r ve Ho Am g r r u O e e B

o e n rt r n g o b n R t to a F y e p Oak Hill R s t am W a a H

e s m o

p i

D l n p W d l o d n i r m a o o n e w n t ali a a p g B le l v F a T b d m R m a w C o o r a h R R o t o a r r

o R o W o e r p N i l R c m e s d N e s y Ra a Ramp t h e a t m i g M n v d H p Legeno d r r a B a t i i a p d e y l g t alle l m m V s s l a e a R n

d B m o R Walnr ut Hill Route O W r i H akm r a ne e o nt igh P m d Wag r t oplar p p Ol ood w m w a Oak o R n G o Pa so rk t er 5 d e e ob 9 Walnut Hill Route Stops e n R o 2 k e F o o r r H t r g d n a r s yn n e R l o g F c n a tt i G Sco s Total Daily Activity o k m F L n r p i a le e y n l e l S o F d 295 s tty 0 - 5 n e h P

t Kings o 6 - 20 n 9 l F o n 5 e t r o o c t a Came e lot n n e c t a in a S r 21 - 40 L P Drury g C e

r L a s t a e e k r d y e

a s

41 - 101 o H h

w t o

r h r o od c 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 e F o e

w e I ke Miles ndustry La B Rives Figure 3‐17: Walnut Hill Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

40 35 30 25 20 15 Ridership 10 5 0

am am pm :45 am :45 am :45 am :45 am :45 am :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm :45 pm 5 6 7 8 9 0:45 1:45 2:45 1 2 3 4 1 1 1

3-28 Final Report

During the boarding and alighting counts, the South Crater Road route was quite a bit busier than the Walnut Hill route, recording 321 passenger trips on Thursday and 219 passenger trips on Saturday. Productivity on the route was 25.7 passenger trips per hour on Thursday and 17.5 passenger trips per hour on Saturday.

The busiest stops along the route are the downtown transfer stop, Crater Square, Crater/Morton, Ukrops, and Wal-Mart. Figure 3-18 provides the bus stop activity for the route. This route duplicates some of the neighborhoods that are also served by the Walnut Hill route.

Figure 3-19 provides the ridership by time of day. These data show that the busiest run was at 2:15 p.m., followed by 10:15 a.m. and 11:15 a.m.

There was a comment from the on-board survey that requested that the buses wait on Saturdays at 6:15 p.m., an extra five minutes to allow the riders from S. Crater Road to access the other routes.

Southpark Mall

In FY 2009 there were 47,648 passenger trips provided by the Southpark Mall route. The route had a lower than average productivity (11.7 passenger trips per hour) and a higher than average cost per trip ($4.38). This route actually has very good performance, considering that it actually operates an average of 25 minutes out of every hour. The current schedule has the route leaving downtown, heading to the mall and returning. The trip is on an hour headway, but only takes about 25 minutes to perform (though this can change due to traffic conditions on I-95 and throughout the mall area).

During the boarding/alighting counts, the route provided 219 passenger trips, both on Thursday and on Saturday. The productivity was 16.8 passenger trips per hour on Thursday and 17.2 passenger trips per hour on Saturday. Of the 219 weekday boardings, 89 occurred in the City of Colonial Heights. As Figure 3-20 shows, there are very few stops along the route. The high activity stops include downtown, the first mall-area stop along Southpark Road, Wal-Mart, and two of the stops around the Southpark Mall Road.

Ridership is higher in the afternoon, with the last run of the day recording the highest number of passenger trips (25). Ridership by time of day is shown in Figure 3- 21.

The extra time in this schedule will be addressed in the development of service alternatives. This time could be used on a route, rather than sitting downtown.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-29 Figure 3-18: South Crater Route Daily Bus Stop Activity

l M P t a h a M t s n w a 6 h o p t t 1 d C a 7 r e L a i 3 B h M c n m i e m g r b h C Plu i ab s t k o d d n k T n 8 H o a t o h n r w e L r t n a 2 3 n e R i o t u t 3 3 t D r t n r M h R t o klin l ro k H e a ran e 4 r e F a m v C a 3 o m C C ls Y i U h il s l W p a u s rce n n n y r rk C s e o i o c a h t o s m in im to h M t e m H Cr E 7 o n n h n C v 3 t n 9 o H to R a ing A a J 3 J a e c a ash e ll e W d m g e s u A z in ch s e a M p M o u a m c R p t l k i h e T o t s e e s n 0 e v r r 4 yth M e ra e W rth r rt P o p c n li e sde N ge Tu e a um e lle r u L o c r C l J P n ra Q w t e r o en J o y Br C h i e r t n W n n 9 D e e w f e ro f S D m e 3 u o B e R h s i t R b r r e n e H a s A 8 m s m B l r rty m g 3 C o a o e a a l t u F b r i e r b L e e p e n p h g m r or e m A d a r ll C r P Fi c e i n i l d t p s i s a l k M i E s o a Van Buren n W e t as e 1 n m Tex t n s a 4 x ar o S r o s M d lc n i l B d Wi o g u y r e e t c n u h r J H rcy p l ohn e a S l F K D ury Gre e i enned a erc ensvi H y M lle e r ut ll d ln y i G a r W k W G o P alke l i S B k r y r n el c e Prince George F u L e le i n L ee g ew y on vu H d h s e c P e N c o ers e s l f R r S e e a pol ef G G f e rly m A J r a r g i Ea a m an r e t h t a t o a ld J m p m o y r k e n uc h t d t W W oe n e es let Ke t 0 l o ey ist s l 4 W s M B e 6 in 4 e r o f e 0 ield o r t s l F h i w

s R t c re u

o d h a H e

e a k S

5 a 0 o t n

e 6 8 s m b

e l 4

L b n a

o o y st o p

lad a R G

z R G w m a J

x the m a t a a A

M i M a aint Myr p m if S ick S l a D o Toll Gate ini E K e Y irg n Ste ou a a V s dman ng l i t l n P H i B p i t M k n ar o o A r t M e g o n i t ai t w n e S r l t l c J i n l l l e i i v e a H n n r

H i 95 g m a l g

l a t in t Lak i e l es m l o aro ide t e C P n e o n t A n

i r r s

l u o g t n u M v i o

o o t

o l e a o a

i M C l v n e 85 u n k Luk y c 460 a t n B in s a W o Bo i is S S Iv t c seau

V n v r m ut e a A a n a e irkh Wal d r H n t K n r M r H a o e d e s T ah e t n a u aw do n Claremont e do Baxt a m o s a er B n l r w C C k en m e s b o e s a h r

o m u S e h o i k B r V n ok nt y v ox c F d y B Mayc t s

a l M a B a B o W e o o s B s

n t O d n O e ri i r r

y H r l B t a s u t a e T

s u S i D r ngle N o c a r h c R l le i Ta r e W t l l tw a l k s o o k o 9 g l o l b i s s o l p r n c n a e n a o A 5 o r r c n e T i n e r d t P d a n d h d J r o d P e ia n e r

3 e W o F r h a s T e a i o e k rfa e - uc x n r ver s T t 3 t ea o e W n v S Petersburg i

0 e h ll P r y e Sc P e o k ho od r r W s ol nglewo o w n a Ta w M o le a H T A o W n r C h a G o r k e a r d t e c s a a t c a r C o W e u r n o o n L o t h k o n h a g a a e e M t t l k E f ls a u r l V n x o i u C e n a e t r r o a a o n y C w y s ld r e t n P e i W t i o n u G n r s n o a C l e e a ill n l d o H de e h d g W m y in n u i g ll L o n o d r r C y o in H r s o s th er a G w B ou t h a S y lb l w e r u e u C B t M e r n c u u g k h k o e r ig d le a k C i l a N e s R t Gr o R e u y en Dee wood rfield rm c e B k d e a fense si aureg n De k ard Blac d oo d kwater y Tyler Br oo w F t rk 301 r se a ad o k n P te n e o u s t s on ro S e a s n Dods rb m herst o r ve Ho Am g r r u O e e B p

e t

o n r m r b n n g o a t to a F R e y p Oak Hill R s t am W a H

e s o

p i

l n W d l

o d n i m a r o o n e w n t ali a a p g B le l v F T a b d m R m a w C o o r a h R a R o rt o r o R o W o e r p N i l R c m e s d N e s y Ra a amp h R t e t a m i g M n v d H p o r a B a r t Legend i i a p d e ey l g t all l m V m s l s a e a R n

B m d o R r O W r South Cri ater Route H akm a ne e o r nt igh P m d Wag r t oplar p p Ol ood w m w a Oak o R n G o Pa so rk t er 5 d e e ob 9 South Crater Route Stops e n R F o 2 k e o o r r H t r g d n a r s yn n e R l o g F c n a tt i Total Daily Activity G Sco s o k m F L n r p i a le e y n l e l S o F 0 - 5 d 295 s tty n e h P

o 6 - 20 J t Kings F o n r l o o e n t o n c t a C 21 - 40 e amelot t n a e c g a in S r C e L P Drury r a te L 41 - 239 s r a e k y e a 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 s H d h o

t o o r w e Miles r o k a e F L Figure 3‐19: South Crater Road Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

45 40 35 30 25 20

15 Ridership 10 5 0

am am pm :15 am :15 am :15 am :15 am :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm :15 pm 6 7 8 9 0:15 1:15 2:15 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1

3-31 Figure 3-20: Southpark Mall Route Daily Bus Stop Activity

B ra nd C rt Brae e ince Albe broo rs Pr k B W C ri olo dg a arthur nn e k B Mac R a e d C a e E f m S i e nut l l e Wa p So k u n thp d ark l o d T k e A a e F m o a p r r l o e r a d en F b n Hel ine d x k r o K l R o e i n n F t o c es Jam s n ly o Yo rkto n C wn d n Highlan o M x k ap e c le e l k o ns a F C yo L L le d r p e e m l a e p d O T F l e airfa d l x a p a d

u A r n a T lle o m u J n k Moor 14 Ri e J u 4 v s P erd P v e s al s e F t o t s t r tte t i rlo i k ha n C s ic o n G g n h e P J e e d g ford r a P a Shu t o lu t r e F E Prince George r m estov ark o P il W t l l r o e k a t e C r o nter R n a Ce o C l d H n on o m l ichm R l a d o o e c m i n in oke an i P o i R a l L H eachtree t P l k o fol i r l n M o N l Charles l H Dim e m O Colonial Heights oc k k e r folk i r Suf a n a i d a P k ght i l i g Cooley Wr a ur a b D e ynch Fos n L t n e L r g R d dsor e Win 1 D e yan ll an P vi e in o ll t e e i h C tree ille ur Plum Danv u st d y Bruce Pick n t d wi o n ck u a C n S G t outh Maple e s e e e L t h B t D e Br r y is C u a to Chesterfield p a l n Ive u x f y a to y Ramp t s R W o L i L River n ll hi n i o ro L a te M e rt m hi W y a ll a a m tu n p th l t S ly or i t a n s w N ll h B C o o e yn W C ia e a ils R i l he w r rv s ele h m e tt W e o rs s h e B v R a s s C r o i r J d a y u R le e ra B m le Ro R s ff b v yal am e r a Oa p r t i k N s d rd n n V In o e g a e arvin in o d n c M s i n n s rv r u k g s o e a t s s r M c r M t i i e a 4 C a n a m 3 r J 95 l e t i W h e a c v o k

- o O n n Chesterfield l e d 3 r a U c H d n h l b

2 n a e i fi l u v n r l 3 d r ine r r e e o z G d g o a r H n d r t r Mag ichmo C s s s i C R a e N b A r i d e t o o y C b n h a 2 o n u s a o o r R h C t s n o o r i lf n t e p t c d h y W m s h a u o W a a n itt o n e h e n t u s o u G n o s is p r S M o r a e e a ll B h g itehi e o h rc S W C t A o C n s r h L u in a P u k e e e oca S m Appleton s e id e ho Ir l p C n p l o t L ills g tas v E a e e H i a e g H r n id n p n h fi e r s l t lp e d g t e e G o ld ay B r nd H k ib a oo re b R br a o e g P H n g n B lli a s e o ia t r l el r e P B O l Am i y m c o r tt h l o o lle d k a e T r o C e i Riv M C k is eg

t k P h e B a ou Si C h

g c d O i n L

a L C u u x n e o o k e o n Pi am i r s i Pelh x r Bear 5 r c s P o u n ld c A O R a h R u i t h a S r m l h t c w 2 e p t c S d n r E o d

4 e q d r m F ve 5 a u t o 3

r R 9 s l G k h C a e C n a Ba r t n M o c P ai e o h w l Legend M r y v e k o e a t M h a a t T r e y t s r D y d r r h a nr y F W t i s He 6 c i d

r l o s o k k l O C o a w e p e o e us o th o n n L urth y 7 t o m l s C q Southpark Mall Route

h a ig bb C u l R i lum H Ta e t th P bb M t 8 ry a Ta Petersburg n n en t o L t r i e H a t n t r r u t o r l F C U e Gilliam o H Southpark Mall Route Stops lin k R n e ran C D F B i a h o m a u l a m a ri n r P ls L v c n il i p k W s a s h Total Daily Activity l f s el a rk y on a W s s M e Crim n h e o d e ig tt r r i H n n e By nz e 301 to m o 0 - 5 r ke at a a c J S C B M W H P d J E l y A le u o a l e P c e z d n h e n s a y o a c f e e a rr n e o i t e m Su n g R e l r m M a 6 - 20 s n l r H i d y o ll c s a k M r rsh e e a e T ox M v e tt e r a he r r m e G yt o rc W J a M 21 - 40 p e rth e c Ap m u No lip e u f r m a T e e o ge f rew e pp C n r lle r nd a o c A o 460 e h r t U t c x t C in 1 u l s a n e 301 i n n o a S e n a S ntr H r P w e o t o f B C r w e Br i l n R a i o 41 - 261 n L n e a y u to H n n r W g e w d in e ro H n to h m B a p s e o e a D R r R W S r e b u er i or a s m s R n o rm Fill a ty o m m u F er t a l ib e o L n m a S t p h ge C r t p h p d Pa h i A n le lto in a le d a s ap D W lem 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 p M a usa p Jer x Van Buren m rs exas e co Ma T Miles l ill s l W Regal Ramp Figure 3‐21: Southpark Mall Weekday Ridership by Time of Day

30 25 20 15 10 Ridership 5 0

am am pm :15 am:15 am:15 am:15 am :15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm:15 pm 6 7 8 9 0:15 1:15 2:15 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1

3-33 Final Report

Comments concerning the Southpark Mall bus requested additional service, stops closer to the mall (i.e., not across the parking lot), and a suggestion that “If the Southpark Mall bus was to go down the Boulevard, you will make more money.”

Overall Ridership by Jurisdiction

The weekday boardings from the boarding/alighting surveys were analyzed to determine ridership by jurisdiction. On the day of the surveys, 87% of the boardings were within the City of Petersburg, 6% occurred within Chesterfield County, and 4% occurred in within the City of Colonial Heights. The full results for this analysis are provided in Table 3-5. These data are consistent with the survey question that asked respondents to indicate their residential jurisdiction (next section).

Table 3-5 : Weekday Boardings by Jurisdication

Jurisdiction Number Percent

City of Petersburg 1,931 87% Chesterfield County 125 6% City of Colonial Heights 89 4% Prince George County 37 2% Fort Lee 25 1% City of Hopewell 11 0% Dinwiddie County 5 0%

TOTAL 2,223

Figure 3-22 provides a graphic representation of the total activity by stop for the two-day boarding and alighting counts. As the map indicates, the major activity centers include the transfer center, several shopping centers in the service area (both Wal- Marts, the Walnut Hill Shopping area, the Crossing), and VSU.

On-Board Rider Survey

An important task for the Tri-Cities TDP is to learn more information about the current public transportation trip patterns, characteristics of the riders, satisfaction with the service, and suggestions for improvement. In order to collect these data, an on- board rider survey was conducted. The surveys were administered on the same days as the boarding/alighting passenger counts (October 8 -10, 2009). Temporary employees rode the buses and asked passengers to complete the two-page survey during their bus trips. Participants were instructed to complete the survey just one time. The survey results are provided below.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-34 Figure 3-22: PAT System-wide Daily Bus Stop Activity

Hopewell

Colonial Heights 1

Chesterfield

Prince George 3 - 3 5 95

Petersburg 1 460 85 Legend 85 System-wide Total Daily Activity Dinwiddie 0 - 10 21915 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 80

81 - 2083

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles Final Report

Number of Surveys and Transfers

A total of 488 passenger surveys were received. The one-day ridership on Thursday was 2,233 passenger trips. Assuming each passenger took two trips, the pool of transit riders was about 1,115 people. Using these numbers, we can be 95% confident (+-4%) that the information collected is representative of the PAT bus riders.

Of the ten routes, the most surveys were collected on the Washington Street/Central State route, followed by the Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee route, the Lee Avenue route, and the South Crater Road route. Passengers were asked to indicate whether or not they had to transfer routes to complete their trips. The overall transfer rate was 66%, with the highest transfer rate recorded by riders of the Virginia Avenue route (83%), and the lowest transfer rate recorded by riders of the Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee route (53%). These data are shown in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Number of Surveys and Transfers

Route Number Percent Number ofPercent of of Reporting at Least Transfer Surveys Total 1 Transfer

Washington St/Central State 87 18% 65 75% Blandford/Hopewell/Fort Lee 77 16% 41 53% Lee Avenue 70 14% 50 71% Crater Road 66 14% 36 55% Walnut Hill 54 11% 29 54% Halifax Street 36 7% 29 81% Ettrick 36 7% 24 67% Virginia Avenue 30 6% 25 83% Southpark Mall 18 4% 13 72% Plaza 14 3% 8 57%

Totals 488 320 66%

Access to Transit

As shown in Table 3-7, the majority of the riders walked to and from the bus stops. Some riders were dropped off/picked up by others, and a very few either accessed the system by taxi, car, or bicycle.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-36 Table 3-7: Access to Transit Stop

Mode to Starting Place Number

Walked 433 Dropped off by someone 25 Other 20 Bicycled 5 Drove car and parked 1

Other: Bus 18 GRTC 1 Taxi 1

Mode to Ending Place Number

Walked 394 Other 28 Picked up by someone 26 Drove car and parked 9 Bicycled 2

Other: Bus 9 GRTC 4 Taxi 3

3-37 Final Report

Trip Purposes

Forty-five percent of the survey participants use PAT to get to work. Twenty- two percent use PAT for shopping trips, 15% use PAT for social and recreation trips, and 12% use PAT for school trips. These data are shown in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8: Trip Purposes

Trip Purposes Number Percent Total

Work 220 45% Shopping 105 22% Social/Recreation 75 15% School 59 12% Other 42 9% Medical 39 8% Government Service Agency 20 4%

Total Trip Purposes 560 Total Surveys488

Note: Participants could check more than one.

Residency of Riders

Eighty-six percent of the riders are residents of the City of Petersburg, followed by Virginia State residential students (5%), Chesterfield County (3%), Dinwiddie County (2%), the City of Hopewell (2%), and Prince George County (1%). Table 3-9 shows these data.

Satisfaction with PAT Services

Riders were given the opportunity to rate a number of the characteristics of the bus system on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 indicating “very satisfied” and 4 indicating “very unsatisfied.” The riders are most satisfied with the cost of the bus fare, the driver courtesy, and the safety and security of the system. The riders were least satisfied with the hours of service, the days of service, and the frequency of service. These scores were tallied in Table 3-10.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-38 Final Report

Table 3-9: Residency of Riders

Jurisdiction Number Percent

City of Petersburg 415 86% Chesterfield County 16 3% City of Colonial Heights 3 1% Dinwiddie County 9 2% Fort Lee 1 0% City of Hopewell 9 2% Prince George County 4 1% VSU Residential Student 23 5% Other 3 1% Richmond 2 Nottoway County 1

Total Responses 483

Table 3-10: Satisfaction with PAT Services

Very Un- Very Un- Composite Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Score 12 3 4

Cost of bus fare 215 197 11 5 1.55 Driver courtesy 216 178 19 9 1.58 Safety and security 180 217 13 9 1.64 Usefulness of PAT website 118 21 27 14 1.65 Cleanliness of the buses 178 217 22 6 1.66 On-time performance 204 197 28 16 1.68 Availability of information 166 213 28 12 1.73 Convenience of bus stop locations 170 188 53 16 1.80 Telephone customer service 136 218 25 17 1.81 Convenience of bus routes 169 193 50 20 1.82 Frequency of service 144 189 50 29 1.91 Days of service 155 174 60 35 1.94 Hours of service 125 149 92 53 2.17

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-39 Final Report

Rider Demographics

Ninety percent of PAT riders are African American and 61% are female. Sixty- three percent of the riders do not have a driver’s license and 58% live in households with no vehicles. The most frequently occurring age category was 26-55 years old (54%), followed by 18-25 years old (25%). There were few riders aged 65 or older (5%). The largest number of respondents indicated that they are employed full-time (202 people, or 41%), followed by unemployed (88 people, 18%), employed part-time (79 people, or 16%), and full-time students (59 people, 12%). Forty-six percent of the riders reported household incomes of $14,999 or less. Another 33% indicated a household income of between $15,000 and $29,999. Table 3-11 provides the demographic data collected via the on-board rider survey.

Desired Improvements

One of the questions on the survey asked respondents to indicate their top three choices with regard to service improvements or geographic expansions. The top five improvements listed were: 1) Longer hours of service; 2) Service to Hopewell/Cavalier Square; 3) Service to Colonial Heights/Boulevard; 4) More frequent service; and 5) Sunday service. The full list of requested improvements is provided in Table 3-12.

General Comments

The general comments echoed the responses provided in other portions of the survey, including the need for longer hours, more frequent service, and a reversal of the route combinations implemented in July. There were also a number of requests for bicycle racks on the vehicles and a few requests for seat belts. Several comments expressed appreciation for the system. The full comments are provided in Appendix A.

Title VI Report

PAT’s most recent Title VI report was submitted to the FTA on March 20, 2007. At that time there were no active lawsuits or complaints naming PAT of any alleged discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin with respect to service or other transit benefits. This report is attached as Appendix B.

FTA Triennial Review

PAT’s most recent FTA Triennial Review was conducted in 2007, with the desk review on January 30, 2007 and the site visit on May 1-2, 2007. Deficiencies were found in eight of the 23 areas, including legal; technical; satisfactory continuing control; disadvantaged business enterprise; half fare; ADA; safety and security; and drug and

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-40 Table 3-11: Demographics

Race Number Percent

African American 414 90% Caucasian 14 3% Hispanic/Latino 10 2% Other 10 2% Asian American 7 2% Native American 4 1%

Total Responses 459

Sex Number Percent

Female 273 61% Male 175 39%

Total Responses 448

Do you have a driver's license? Number Percent

Yes 93 37% No 161 63%

Total Responses 254

Number of Household Vehicles Number Percent

None 244 58% One 111 26% Two 43 10% Three 17 4% Four or more 8 2%

Total Responses 423

3-41 Table 3-11 (continued)

Age of Riders Number Percent

Under 12 years old 5 1% 12-17 years old 20 4% 18-25 years old 116 25% 26-55 years old 246 54% 56-64 years old 47 10% 65 years old or older 22 5%

Total Responses 456

Employment Status Number Percent

Employed full-time 202 41% Unemployed 88 18% Employed part-time 79 16% Student, full-time 59 12% Retired 34 7% Student, part-time 20 4% Other 18 4% Homemaker 8 2%

Total Responses 508 Total Surveys 488

Note: Participants could check more than one.

Annual Household Income Number Percent

$14,999 or less 182 46% $15,000 to $29,999 129 33% $30,000 to $44,999 48 12% $45,000 to $59,999 23 6% $60,000 to $74,000 7 2% $75,000 or higher 4 1%

Total Responses 393

3-42 Table 3-12 Desired Service Improvements/Expansions

Improvement Number of Requests

Longer hours of service 73 Hopewell/Cavalier Square 54 Colonial Heights/Boulevard 42 Improved frequency 31 Sunday service 24 Hospital 17 Chester/Chesterfield 12 Dinwiddie 12 Richmond 11 Better on-time performance 9 Prince George8 Fort Lee 7 Lower fares/no fares 7 Central State 6 Southpark 6 Crater Road 5 Ettrick 5 More routes 5 Improved customer service/information 4 Bus stop improvements 4 Washington Street 4 Richard Bland College3 Probation/SVTC 3 Allow cell phones 3 Halifax Street 3 Ramps 3 Northern VA/Potomac Mills 3 Walnut Hill 3 Cleanliness 2 New buses 2 Kings Dominion 2 Plaza 2 Closer to mall 2 24 hour automatic customer service 1 Bike racks 1 Better website 1 AC 1

3-43 Table 3-12 Desired Service Improvements/Expansions

Improvement Number of Requests Boln Road 1 Change Blandford back 1 Military discount 1 College discount 1 Carson 1 Bring blonde Ford bus back 1 County Drive 1 Dewitt 1 Flank Road 1 Farmer Street 1 John Tyler 1 Matoka 1 Do not go through Fort Lee 1 River Road 1 Rome Street 1 Route 301 1 Williamsburg 1 Petersburg High1 Shenandoah Valley 1 Safety and security 1 Seat belts 1 Bus passes 1 Buses need numbers 1

3-44 Final Report alcohol program. Exhibit 3-1 provides the summary of findings and corrective actions that were included in the Triennial Report. In August of 2007, PAT responded to the findings. The full report and the City’s response are provided in Appendix C.

PARATRANSIT ANALYSIS

As part of the Tri-Cities Transit Development Plan (TDP), this paratransit analysis is being conducted to assist the City in developing a more cost effective approach to providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service. This analysis looks at several facets of the program to see where further efficiencies could be achieved through either policy or operational changes.

Petersburg Area Transit (PAT) provides paratransit service to complement the fixed-route system, as required by the ADA. ADA complementary paratransit service is provided for senior citizens and people with disabilities who live within the City limits or within ¾ mile of a fixed-route. Door-to-door service is provided.

Consistent with the ADA, complementary paratransit service is available during the same hours that the fixed-route services are operated, which is 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday; 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Saturday. Reservations for next day service can be left on PAT’s answering machine, with confirmation made the same day or the next morning. Same day service is provided, if the schedule permits. Reservations are taken up to 14 days in advance of the requested trip. The ADA paratransit fare is $1.00, which is twice the fixed-route fare (50 cents).

Service Area

The ADA paratransit service area includes the City of Petersburg and areas within ¾ mile of the Ettrick bus route. In addition, as a courtesy to long-time riders, trips to medical facilities located within the City of Colonial Heights and Dunlap Farms are permitted. ADA paratransit is also provided along the Route 36 corridor to the City of Hopewell (Crossings Shopping Center), to complement the Fort Lee/Hopewell fixed- route; and to Colonial Heights along Charles Dimmock Parkway and in Dinwiddie County adjacent to the Westgate Shopping Areas.

Figure 3-23 provides a map of the legally-required service area (i.e., ¾ mile of the fixed routes), along with the origin addresses of the currently registered ADA riders. As the map indicates, there are only a few riders that fall outside of the legally-required ADA service area, as most of the City is within ¾ mile of the fixed routes. From this map it appears that there are not any ADA patrons who live in Colonial Heights,

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-45

Figure 3-23: PAT System with 3/4-mile Buffer and ADA Paratransit Origins

S A g w yr n ift s i C hi l er r Beechwood re l eek D ish ola o P F d a n l e o a n s l B P l i e t t k w y i l rn l e o m H D l a B e h r u r E l l g o s n a d a s o o 5 y e d r L o

r n v o C F 9 z o u h b e o tson i n o Wa e s

h i o l p c W a J Hopewell

e n

C M n e r oo e lo S d C S W v r e p s e n t i e a a Y B s R l t c L u or C l n r k o ke d O sh vin e a w d D ir g a r u l e ton m g ie e N l W oe n c d r B i t v r n r a e E p o p R l d e l M u S o k T ers C t w C lie pring a o o S t i V o u a L h o d e a s lle c w a o in y a r M C y g r a r s w s n le O e e e s a t F e k n

n s w t o t ood i hire d l es p e e w Ch i e R C

a e y r y r a u a B r d e W

r z a f n n a F a d G l M n a Be n a P a r rksh a d ire i a e k L B n r r G d s e R g h B C lp n r a a B f 4 a a 14 C R a C e r i m r r r e o b i f e a l ro d p ie r e o o g l e e l d d V nn k e r ld id ad Chesterfield te e k M k e Colonial Heights as ge k le o R F R rm id p r ro Ke es o T ine iv te Shop R T m e nt Jam s e 4 e r y a k b m n 4 a ile e l k x B l r u 6 T T y p o 1 a a o l Q t B a u n e ns x h W F p Lyo r c F o a s e k e H e irfa l t 1 h l x J ic s c s s k u u e k F d 3 o a i c o a r J d P n i a t y H iedm t nn o m r a t d o l r r d m nt g Je l p e a i l o e e o 5 2 r ark l a t h m r e l n P S t n Bobs i l F R a 8 O v d h M d h a o u i l d t l o s h h T c a a e Q t s L c R e u s o n n r e n i k Ingram e u c a r a P o r B n c i o r l r L s a t e d h A 8 B rig l h Chesterfield r W d k P e t od y n i i c r o r a A h o a n n a w t e y k S d h y J a 1 1 1 rr H ic n u l 6 3 1 C Su S r W H h st S s H a e ou t t t f e th o il h h h l l L f e n l 2 1 1 l e i B I R W o l e o e L o ve mp 2 9 5 r y l a r y Ra h p n w a d t it t t u a r t e ar e d h h d th l t u W h m a a or e e m t n h ill N h r a S y p ee a p y w L s y sl le o d C o m rs R m ll a R a a r r r i 4 in r G le t B R R t e h v e Fort Lee Military Reservation Co W u r v i ppe B g b rfield s a o ll b n r s 3 n o ne o L Butle a a r M a r zi ond e r 2 d B r a n chm s e n H a ag n Ri jo s p G d M to a e C er g av r a T n S g W e e h i N o r L n c e E h G G d r l 2 u e i s a 7th o W A g a C i t d ls k a t n i h y l d o s g ib l a i i o W a J a l f s r r t l b r M e r H H 2 b e k y r e t B g o e B t n y a f r o n t f T c i W e T l a n e z e i l r d S o S w g r a o V i s e r a W B o i ic o d M t e M r F t s D q J S S o i o n l j l r h o l L a o a r e a u e l a N t s g e e ov u s o r M nk l 0 d t n e in a n P n a G B r a d y B i o P M e 3 r n r a n a h i io w t w a i T t P d e t 6 3 t z i a s l n W a o e a r 3 A R o n t a b o S iv t h k b h e h a t k r g T r i r i n 8 r e e t l a r k c H h e a lin o t t z P i nk i J B o l Fra Petersburg National Battlefield 4 Y i n e

x y c o on 3 C

k o t f h e

n n A i f R h a l B t n s y t e rd H e e u r B g d a n 7 9 A t d r

e m l a 3 t a s o 3 li u h s n v h ig e m o p r M h a H t e H y e d W n t P s M r o B e i a c n n o r ow u th l e n e r w m o B Q 9 a t B re r d F r om ng x lmo 3 e e i y il e D e e C sh D a F g J s S f a i r a u R r W u l n P E o n ck o h h o n a e t t t d D A u r l H 8 s u a North P r o t 3 G t e h o r l G 3 1 l o p r e h a rm ee l F e M ns l 4 C nc r a ville i P l n F - A a H h N s i L e

t e or l y t e G Prince George t S y n g

e a h l i r 4 c r s s d y a o n e m G h k e i o e a h R l c c r t iv L m i J e r n t 8 r y 4 t x i le a H a 0

w W W s 6 f o g W es inf ro t C E e m 0 ield m H 4 s a a W r e t c Ea g t ho h o e l s e S r b m o e e in R u b d 295 s o y o G W s g P rant g r o t e l u F 0 t l ia d W e n o i s A irgi 6 Sted i Young V 4 w man t H g r M R e v R n ne a ar a l y o l a C P m t s W te n p P La ke u s d n id o e

lin t r o

k i n i u o B ra d i c N g F ll y n e x n i lo y a B i e ois o o F l sea M u d H t o n Iv l n Ba C e l xte

a B r r L h o a W r k t m rs r C e r k e m l o W a

e a o o B W d y h n W Y d Y N a i e e e s a e g d o l k a l e h t C B s c k l d id ua y t a r t r ru u a u o e q nsw t o o S a t i r n ick y T o T i r A l b p l e e ar n n n a e r a a D v a r P kings e Sur g e y T t Bic u ry E D e e k s r Q

a B Alb F B a W y n C n emarle r a o o i o y r s r rt a a t n e P l l o C r W o e h n t es rs n l c M h tfa C d G ri t F u Front L ll u h 85 r e o d r r t o s c e n o y R 7 5 V n e h 8 o d G a t m a 5 rim G a y p 8 es r D 460 a m m i g J lo a n p u e F R R a p tchen S k a u Ku M t R d m Bl e n y fense ackwater r De r i d lin tc la a s 95 g h p e t u s R 2 P t Petersburg a ie o Amhe mp Simpson rst y o

s n B Dodson a r

i o d B t x p T n t y n d ne F l r s x Oak Hil a p o m y W a R o a r o H e F a f B li l r a e i m B a m y l e a e e v R l e r R l m ak l a a a a s e z v s s C W e m o e B R p e t p H g d R N l L r H o a l i Valley p B e e a t i k r e l r e r m n r s l a k m ag s r r w P ne W i e n Wag a R p Old u o a a m l R m F q o o F p C e R r S d k 301 a H o o n Dinwiddie a H n m a Railr m c Q c oad ler is m uake G y p r n rd Se u u don n D or G F it s

n e y n r r g

o o o

o t n t n i L C a t h e t a o a e s s u Squirrel c s C m n a g e S n e r o t l i e y a k r H y r e t e C a a O P e v H r d L h li e t o v u r o L Industr w s e y r o e Rive l k r c F a d h e L o r B o r J i w i r th o d u u s o C t h r o S A R a q Legend n o n w g l a e S l r t s e p m S o g o p n h r V e a a Richland n t e u y g ke Fla h ADLAa Paratransit Origins r nk a n e n to ish al rt F W Fo 0 d 0.5 1 2 r o e mwo 3/4-mile PAT System Buffer El b

m Miles i

T Final Report

Hopewell, or on Fort Lee. If the City is specifically requiring that ADA patrons be residents of Petersburg or Ettrick, then this policy is in conflict with the ADA. Under the ADA, people with disabilities who live within ¾ mile of a fixed-route and are unable to use the fixed routes due to their disability, are eligible for ADA paratransit.

Vehicle Fleet and Drivers

The paratransit program is operated using between two and five vehicles on a daily basis. There are two full-time and three part-time paratransit drivers, with either four or five drivers working on a typical weekday, and one or two drivers working on Saturdays.

Eligibility and Trip Scheduling

In order to be certified to use ADA paratransit, patrons must complete a certification form. When PAT receives the form and reviews it, a home visit is made by PAT staff to verify that the person is eligible for ADA paratransit services. Photo identification cards are then issued to paratransit patrons who are residents of the City of Petersburg. Potential ADA riders are offered service while they are in the certification process.

A staff person who reports to the Operations Manager handles the ADA paratransit trip scheduling. When riders call to schedule their trips, the initial trip is placed in the daily log book by the PAT staff person. Return trips are not pre- scheduled, but are provided on a “will-call” basis. Riders are given a 30-minute window, meaning the van may arrive 15 minutes before or after the scheduled time.

Each afternoon the PAT staff person transfers the trips from the log book to the drivers’ manifests for the next day. The schedules are manually created.

Historical Data

In FY 2009, PAT provided 10,342 ADA paratransit passenger trips. The total mileage associated with these trips was 62,936, with 27,744 miles reported as revenue miles. These data indicate that the deadhead miles were very high (56%). In FY 2008, ridership and mileage was a little higher, with 10,827 passenger trips provided, 29,985 revenue miles recorded, and 66,640 total miles. Deadhead miles were also high in FY 2008 (55%). The internal paratransit data kept by PAT does not track revenue hours, though they are calculated for the National Transit Database (NTD).

Data gathered from the NTD for FY 2005 through FY 2007 indicate lower ridership, but higher revenue miles. Revenue hours reported to the NTD were consistent for these years, at about 4,700 annual revenue hours. The historical data are provided in Table 3-13.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-49 Table 3-13: ADA Paratransit Vehicle Productivity

FY 2009 Vehicle Passenger Revenue Deadhead Total Percent Number Trips Miles Miles Miles Deadhead

131-735L 2,584 5,761 6,124 11,885 52% 131-740 1,620 4,694 5,174 9,868 52% 131-741L 1,408 3,500 4,061 7,561 54% 131-742L 1,366 3,335 4,719 8,054 59% 131-706L 1,393 3,750 5,889 9,639 61% 112-734L 1,971 6,704 9,225 15,929 58%

10,342 27,744 35,192 62,936 56%

FY 2008

Vehicle Passenger Revenue Deadhead Total Percent NTD Revenue Number Trips Miles Miles Miles Deadhead Hours

131-735L 2,037 4,780 4,936 9,716 51% 131-740 1,729 4,913 5,621 10,534 53% 131-741L 1,684 4,503 6,238 10,741 58% 131-742L 2,028 4,786 5,620 10,406 54% 131-706L 1,299 3,912 5,441 9,353 58% 112-734L 2,050 7,091 8,799 15,890 55%

10,827 29,985 36,655 66,640 55% 4,785

MPH FY 2007 8,150 31,789 6.78 4,689 FY 2006 8,968 44,072 9.35 4,716 FY 2005 8,003 44,484 9.43 4,719

3-50 Final Report

Peer Data

Of the peers examined for the fixed-route analysis, three of them provide ADA paratransit service (one provides deviated fixed routes, and the other is in a metropolitan area with a regional ADA paratransit provider). Table 3-14 provides the ADA paratransit peer data from the NTD. As these data show, Petersburg’s program has the lowest number of revenue hours and revenue miles, but uses more vehicles than the mean. PAT’s annual ridership is about half of the mean. PAT’s cost per trip and cost per hour were also below the mean. PAT’s productivity was 2.3 trips per revenue hour in FY 2008, which was higher than two of the peer programs.

In terms of resources devoted to ADA paratransit, the peer data shows that PAT spends less on ADA paratransit as a percentage of the total operating expenses than the peer group (8% versus a mean of 13.2%). These peer data suggests that PAT’s ADA program operates in a cost-effective manner.

Analysis of Recent Data

In order to get a better understanding of how the program operates, two weeks’ worth of daily service logs and daily passenger record sheets were examined. These data include information concerning what vehicles were used, how many drivers worked, the number of trips, and the revenue/non-revenue miles. Hours are not recorded on these data-recording sheets.

Table 3-15 shows the data gathered from the two-week sample. For the 10-day period, an average of 3.3 vehicles were used on a daily basis, and 27 daily passenger trips were provided. Similar to the historic data, the deadhead mileage was high at 53%.

Potential ADA Paratransit Strategies

This analysis has revealed a few areas where PAT could potentially make adjustments to improve the productivity of the program. These strategies are described below.

1. Look at ways to improve trip scheduling, starting by recording the actual pick-up and drop-off times on the drivers’ logs. It is difficult to analyze the performance of the scheduling function without these data. The large percentage of deadhead miles suggests that the drivers leave the garage, provide a passenger trip or two, and then return to the garage quite frequently. This suggests that the schedules are loose. Another indication that the schedules could be more efficient is the number of vehicles that are used. The two-week data show that 8.1 passenger trips were provided per

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-51 Table 3-14: ADA Paratransit -- Peer Data, FY 2008

City of Harrisonburg, VA 6 17 45,261 10,434 94,577 22,691 $ 546,013 $ 70,751 13% City of High Point, NC 3 52 94,973 11,221 163,008 39,244 $ 449,411 $ 80,033 18% City of Monroe, LA 2 31 55,000 5,517 60,149 10,538 $ 298,918 $ 13,153 4% City of Petersburg 5 7 31,300 4,785 30,182 10,849 $ 219,402 $ 7,250 3%

Mean 4.0 26.8 56,634 7,989 86,979 20,831 $ 378,436 $ 42,797 10%

Transit Program Trips/ Cost/ Trips/ Cost/ Percent Total Hour Trip Capita Hour Operating Budget

City of Harrisonburg, VA 2.2$ 24.06 0.50$ 52.33 18.4% City of High Point, NC 3.5$ 11.45 0.41$ 40.05 18.3% City of Monroe, LA 1.9$ 28.37 0.19$ 54.18 8.3% City of Petersburg 2.3$ 20.22 0.35$ 45.85 8.0%

Mean 2.46$ 21.03 0.36$ 48.10 13.2%

Source: National Transit Database. 3-52 Table 3-15: 10-Day Analysis of Daily Paratransit Program

Number of Number of Number of Revenue Percent Deadhead Percent Total Vehicles Drivers Passenger Trips Miles Revenue Miles Deadhead Miles

Day 1 2 4 28 69 46% 80 54% 149

Day 2 3 4 26 99 63% 58 37% 157

Day 3 4 4 26 90 40% 136 60% 226

Day 4 3 4 20 69 45% 84 55% 153

Day 5 (snow) Did not use data

Day 6 5 5 29 94 43% 123 57% 217

Day 7 4 4 31 91 53% 82 47% 173

Day 8 2 4 22 49 44% 62 56% 111

Day 9 4 4 31 93 43% 124 57% 217

Day 10 3 4 30 98 53% 86 47% 184

10-day Total 30 37 243 752 835 1,587 Mean Daily 3.3 4.1 27 84 47% 93 53% 176

Mean Passengers Per Vehicle: 8.1 3-53 Final Report

vehicle per day. This is low, suggesting that the vehicles are not being fully utilized. The actual pick-up and drop-off times would provide the information needed to make improvements to the scheduling function.

2. Record the return trip on the drivers’ logs. Because the system operates on a will-call basis for the return trip, the return trip is recorded, but there are no details of the timing of the trip. Again, without this documentation, it is hard to make recommendations as to ways to improve the scheduling function.

3. Consider negotiating the passengers’ pick-up times to produce more shared- riding. Under the ADA, transit agencies can negotiate with passengers to offer the ride up to one-hour on either side of the requested ride time (with some caveats -- transit agencies can’t schedule trips in a manner that makes people miss appointments or be late for work.)

4. Consider implementing functional eligibility for senior citizens rather than the blanket eligibility that is currently offered. All senior citizens are not functionally disabled and some could use the fixed-route service instead. Offering ADA paratransit service to all senior citizens is beyond what is required under the ADA.

5. Limit the use of will-calls except for some medical trips where the timing of the return trip is difficult to estimate. This recommendation involves scheduling the return trip when the trip is booked, rather than waiting for the person to call and then picking them up on demand. This practice enables better planning of the afternoon trips, allowing more sharing of trips.

6. Consider discontinuing same day service, which is convenient for the riders, but is not required under the ADA.

In addition, PAT does need to ensure that it is complying with the ADA with regard to serving ADA riders who live within ¾ mile of a fixed route, not just City residents and Ettrick residents.

TRANSIT NEEDS ANALYSIS

The focus of this transit needs assessment is to analyze quantitative land use and population data, along with qualitative data provided by area stakeholders and the public, to develop a solid understanding of the travel needs of the diverse group of current and potential riders. This needs assessment incorporates information gathered from recent planning efforts, the U.S. Census, interviews with local stakeholders, and a public opinion survey.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-54 Final Report

Review of Recent Plans

Richmond/Petersburg Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan

In response to the coordinated planning requirements of the SAFETEA-LU legislation, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation sponsored the development of a Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan. The coordinated plan was designed to guide funding decisions for three specific grant programs: Section 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute, Section 5317- New Freedom, and Section 5310- Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities.

An important part of the coordinated planning process was to conduct an assessment of the transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes. The following unmet transit needs and issues were identified in the Coordinated Plan:1

• Communication o Increased marketing of existing transportation options and how to use them o Improved communication between providers and customers o Greater awareness by providers, decision-makers, and other to mobility issues o Market environmental benefits of transit as incentives for choice riders o Ensure that traffic signals have accessibility devices

• Coordination o Improved coordination between transportation providers o Customers have to rely on different providers for different types of trips o Limited number of volunteer drivers o Need to coordinate to expand access to accessible vehicles o Coordinate a one-stop location for riders to get information on available services and to request services o More regional approach in marketing and coordination of services o Bring non-profits and churches with available vans into coordination efforts.

• Cost o Additional funding to provide specialized transportation services, especially during start-up phase

1 Richmond/Petersburg Metropolitan Planning Areas Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan, April 2008, prepared by Cambridge Systematics and KFH Group for the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-55 Final Report

o Diminishing affordability for customers o Transportation for non-Medicaid funded trips o Assistance while waiting to qualify for services o Additional funding for public transportation besides the local government o Increased cost efficiency by transitioning more expensive paratransit services to fixed routes (where feasible) o Engage road engineers to include more disability and senior-friendly facilities in initial development proposals

• Service o Fixed-route service to employment areas, especially growing suburban locations o Weekend service throughout region o Access to evening and night jobs o Greater mid-day service o Door-to-door services, door-through-door services, and other assistance to enable mobility o Shorter and more frequent trips o Serve non-profit organizations that provide public services that are not along current routes

• Policy/Guidelines o Eligibility, scheduling, and other areas vary between providers o Greater flexibility to allow for additional family members o Greater flexibility for people who are borderline eligible for services o Need to establish quality standards for transit providers, including guidelines for equipment, drug testing, and defensive driving classes

• Built Environment o Greater access to stops; need sidewalks to increase access to public transportation o Additional passenger waiting shelters o Some apartment complexes and retirement communities do not accommodate buses o Landscaping along sidewalks needs to be more sensitive to disabled persons and seniors o Curb cuts need to be available on both sides of the street o Increase accessibility at major destinations including hospitals and shopping centers o Make new developments more accessible

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-56 Final Report

Fort Lee Growth Management Plan

Fort Lee is experiencing a significant expansion as a result of the military’s Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC). Chapter Seven of the Fort Lee Growth Management Plan addresses the transportation impacts of the BRAC expansion.2 The Plan estimates significant increases in traffic volumes in the area surrounding the Fort and includes recommendations for a number of specific roadway improvements. The Plan also identified the following future transit markets:

1. Trainees from local hotels to Fort Lee.

2. Commuters from off-base to Fort Lee.

3. Commuters from base to off-base (spouses of personnel residing on base seeking off-base employment).

4. Base residents seeking recreational opportunities.

5. Base visitors to the train station, airport, and bus station.

The Plan suggested that a partnership be formed between Petersburg Area Transit and Fort Lee to develop additional service to the base. In addition, the plan suggested that additional vanpooling opportunities through Ridefinders could be pursued.

Discussions with the BRAC coordinator of Fort Lee indicated that a significant segment of the Army transfers to Fort Lee will be temporary trainees housed on base for a period of weeks and months. These trainees will likely not have personal vehicles on base and will need access to additional transit options to access recreational opportunities. A direct service to the Southpark Mall area from Fort Lee has been suggested.

Tri-Cities Area Year 2031 Transportation Plan

The Tri-Cities Area Year 2031 Transportation Plan was completed in June, 2008. The goals and objectives of the Plan were:

1. “ Develop a regional transportation plan which offers alternative travel modes for the safe and efficient movement of people and freight at a reasonable cost. Objectives:

2 Fort Lee Growth Management Plan, Transportation Impacts, RKG Associates, February 29, 2008.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-57 Final Report

• Promote pedestrian and vehicular travel safety. • Reduce travel time and transportation costs. • Assure the future availability of transit service. • Participate in regional and State airport and freight movement studies. • Promote the use of low cost improvements and energy conservation measures to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system. • Promote transportation security considerations, especially at military installations located in the transportation study area.

2. Assure that transportation improvements are compatible with local comprehensive plans, regional economic development activities, and environmental regulations. • Encourage the implementation of future transportation improvements which complement current land development patterns and regional economic development activities. • Promote the reduction of mobile source air emissions.

3. Improve the urban transportation planning process by encourage citizen input and intergovernmental cooperation. • Follow the provisions of adopted public participation process regarding resource agency consultation and stakeholder involvement. • Maximize local government input into the development of area-wide transportation plans through the maintenance of a continuing transportation planning process.”3

The public transportation section of the plan does not currently include major transit expansions, other than the opening of the Petersburg Station. Maintaining current service levels and ensuring the timely replacement of vehicles and equipment are the focus of the public transportation portion of the 2031 Transportation Plan.

Summary information on transit improvements considered with this 2010 TDP update will be incorporated in the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update.

Demographic Analysis

The demographic analysis of transit needs focused on quantitative data for potentially transit dependent populations, such as older adults, individuals with disabilities, and persons living below the poverty level. U.S. Census data on such populations were collected, processed, and mapped using GIS technology to determine areas with relatively high potential transit needs. Major origins and destinations that potential transit riders may need to access were also researched and mapped to

3 Tri-Cities Area Year 2031 Transportation Plan, June 2008, prepared by the staff of the Crater Planning District Commission.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-58 Final Report

augment our understanding of areas with higher transit needs. Existing transportation services were overlaid on these needs maps to determine the extent to which the current transportation network serves potential transit riders and the places they travel to and from. Combined with input from stakeholders and the public, the analysis of gaps in existing services and the identification of relatively high need areas, including key origins and destinations, will guide the design of new transit services and changes to existing services.

Transit Dependent Populations

The first part of the demographic analysis examined those population segments that are most likely to require alternative mobility options to the personal automobile due to age, disability, income status, or simply because they reside in a household in which there are no available automobiles. The data utilized in this analysis were gathered from Census 2000 data tables, (Summary Files 1 and 3), adjusted based on 2007 ESRI data, and included several segments of the population:

• Youth — Persons between the ages of 12 and 17. These individuals are essentially old enough to make trips without an accompanying adult, but often are not old enough to drive themselves or do not have a car available.

• Elderly – Persons age 60 and above. This group may include those who either choose not to drive any longer, have previously relied on a spouse for mobility, or because of factors associated with age can no longer drive.

• Persons with Disabilities – Persons age 16 and above who have a disability lasting six months or more that makes leaving the home alone for simple trips such as shopping and medical visits difficult for them.

• Poverty Status – This segment includes those individuals living below the poverty level who may not have the economic means to either purchase or maintain a personal vehicle.

• Autoless Households – Number of households without an automobile. One, if not the most, significant factor in determining transit needs is the lack of an available automobile for members of a household to use.

In order to identify the geographic areas that have high relative transit needs, the Census 2000 data on these five populations were gathered and summarized at the block group level. All Census block groups within the Tri-Cities MPO region were ranked by each population category. For example, all block groups were ranked from high to low based on the number of youth in each block group. The block group with the highest number of youth was ranked 1; the block group with the second highest number was

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-59 Final Report ranked 2; and so on. This process was repeated for all five potentially transit dependent populations listed above. The rankings by each population category were then summed by block group to produce an overall ranking of potential transit need for each block group.

The Census block groups were divided into approximate thirds and classified— relative to each other—as having high, medium, or low potential transit needs. Representing each block group’s combined rankings for the five potentially transit dependent populations, the overall ranking was mapped to produce geographical representations of transit needs in the Tri-Cities MPO area. This ranking was generated twice, first based on the density of transit dependent persons and secondly based on the percentage. In addition, the block groups were ranked and mapped separately based on population density, which helps determine the type of transportation service that is feasible for the area, and the number of autoless households, which as mentioned previously is a key factor in determining potential transit need. Each map was overlaid with existing fixed-route public transportation services (PAT) to determine whether identified areas of transit need are served by existing routes and if there are potential gaps in the current transportation system. The analyses of these maps are summarized below.

Ranked Density of Potentially Transit Dependent Populations

In the overall ranking based on the density of transit dependent persons, the block groups were mapped to show areas within the MPO region that have concentrations of transit dependent persons. Areas with higher densities are better candidates for fixed-route transit services. The results of this ranking for the entire study area are presented in Figures 3-24 and 25. Figure 3-24 portrays the entire study area and Figure 3-25 zooms in the more urbanized portion of the region. Areas with relatively high needs based on the density of potentially transit dependent persons are concentrated in the Cities of Colonial Heights, centered around the Boulevard, the entire central portion of the City of Hopewell, and a large northwestern portion of the City of Petersburg. Of these high-need areas, public transit is only offered in the City of Petersburg.

Population Density

General population density in the Tri-Cities MPO area was also mapped to help determine the appropriate level of transit service, such as fixed-route, deviated fixed- route, scheduled, or demand-response, which may not be as obvious based on transit dependency alone. The most accepted guideline is a population density of at least 2,000 persons per square mile to support regular fixed-route transit service. However, if an area has a large transit dependent population, a lower density can sometimes support this type of service as well.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-60 Figure 3-24: Tri-Cities MPO: Ranked Density of Potentially Transit-Dependent Populations, 2007

288 360

Chesterfield

Hopewell 295

Colonial Heights 3 - 6

1 95

460 Petersburg 85 85

Prince George 460 295 460 301 1

Dinwiddie

Legend

Low

Moderate

High 0 2.5 5 10 * Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI. 2000 Census data adjusted based on 2007 ESRI data. Miles Figure 3-25: Central Tri-Cities MPO: Ranked Density of Potentially Transit-Dependent Populations, 2007

0 1 2 4 Miles

1 Hopewell

Chesterfield

Colonial Heights

Legend

Low

Moderate 3 - 6 295 High 2

95 Washington St. / Central State Hospital 1 Prince George 460 Halifax St.

Lee Ave. 95

Virginia Ave. Petersburg 85 Plaza 85 Ettrick 1 Walnut Hill

301 460 460 Dinwiddie South Crater Rd.

Southpark Mall

Blandford / Hopewell / Ft. Lee

BABS 295 GRTC * Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI. 2000 Census data adjusted based on 2007 ESRI data. Final Report

Figure 3-26 portrays the population densities of the Central Tri-Cities MPO region. This map indicates that almost all of Colonial Heights, with the exception of the commercial area surrounding Southpark Mall, exhibits population densities greater than 2,000 people per square mile. The City of Hopewell also exhibits transit-supportive population densities, with the exception of the eastern industrial portion of the City. Transit-supportive population densities are found north of I-85 in the City of Petersburg, as well as in several areas along the S. Crater Road Corridor.

The only densely populated areas of the Tri-Cities that currently have transit service are located in the City of Petersburg.

Major Trip Generators

Major trip generators are those facilities in the community to which a large number of people typically need to access for daily life activities. Major trip generators include educational facilities, grocery and pharmacy stores, human service agencies and job training centers, major employers, governmental offices, and medical facilities. Areas of trips origins such as apartment complexes, assisted living facilities, and senior housing complexes are also considered major trip generators.

For the purpose of this transit needs analysis, data concerning the locations of these facilities were collected and mapped. The purpose of this analysis is to develop a visual tool to examine the locations of important transit origins and destinations and look at the extent to which they are currently served by public transportation. In Figure 3-27, the entire study area is included. This map shows that most of the significant transit trip generators are clustered in the more urban areas of the Tri-Cities MPO region.

Figure 3-28 provides a map of the more urbanized portion of the Tri-Cities with the major trip generators indicated, along with the current transit routes. As the map indicates, most of the major trip generators in the City of Petersburg are served, with the exception of the Petersburg Interstate Industrial Park and the Petersburg Industrial Park.

In the City of Colonial Heights the only trip generators that are served on the current fixed-route network include the shopping destinations in the Southpark Mall area. High density housing is scattered in several areas of the City and there are potential medical and shopping destinations along the Boulevard, which is currently unserved.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-63 Figure 3-26: Tri-Cities MPO: Population Density, 2007

288 360

Chesterfield

Hopewell 295

Colonial Heights 3 - 6

4 95

460 Petersburg 85 85

Prince George 460 295 460 Legend 301 1 Persons per Square Mile, 2007 * Dinwiddie 0 - 500

500 - 1,000

1,000 - 2,000

2,000 - 4,000

Over 4,000 0 2.5 5 10 * Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI. 2000 Census data adjusted based on 2007 ESRI data. Miles Figure 3-27: Tri-Cities MPO: Major Trip Generators

288 360

Chesterfield

Hopewell 295

Colonial Heights 3 - 6

5 95

460 Petersburg 85 85

Legend Prince George 460 295 Tri-Cities MPO Boundary 460 301 Educational Facilities 1

High-Density Housing Dinwiddie

Human Service Agencies

Major Employers

Medical Facilities

Municipal Facilities

Shopping Destinations 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Figure 3-28: Central Tri-Cities MPO: Major Trip Generators

0 1 2 4 Miles

Petersburg Federal Correctional Institution 1 Hopewell

Legend Chesterfield Educational Facilities

High-Density Housing Colonial Heights Human Service Agencies

Major Employers Fort Lee Military Reservation Medical Facilities

Municipal Facilities 3 - 6 295 Shopping Destinations 6 Petersburg National Battlefield 95 Washington St. / Central State Hospital 1 Prince George 460 Halifax St.

95 Lee Ave.

Virginia Ave. Petersburg 85 Plaza 85 Ettrick 1 Walnut Hill 301 460 460 Dinwiddie South Crater Rd.

Southpark Mall

Blandford / Hopewell / Ft. Lee

BABS 295 GRTC Final Report

The small area of Chesterfield County that is served by PAT does include several major trip generators (Virginia State University and the Food Lion shopping center). In the City of Hopewell, the only trip generators that are currently served are those that are clustered near Oaklawn Plaza (the eastern terminus of the Blandford/Fort Lee/Hopewell PAT route). There are a significant number of high-density housing locations in the City of Hopewell and none of these are currently served by public transportation. John Randolph Medical Center, also in the City of Hopewell, is not served by public transportation either. Hopewell is also home to several major industrial employers located in the northeast quadrent of the city and none of these are served by transit.

With the exception of the Crossings Shopping Center, none of the trip generators in Prince George County are served by public transportation. Potential trip generators in Prince George County include the multi-family housing located along Jefferson Park Road, Branchester Lakes Shopping Center, and the County Courthouse and Administrative Complex.

In Didwiddie County, the Central State Hospital area is the only area served by PAT; however, other areas of Didwiddie County are served by BABS, including a high density housing location near the intersection of Routes 460 and 1.

Stakeholder Opinions Concerning Transit Needs

Representatives from each of the jurisdictions, from Fort Lee, and from the Southpark Mall were interviewed in person to discuss transit needs in the region. The following points summarize these discussions:

• A regional system is needed to address existing and future public transportation needs. The economy functions as a region, with various goods and services available in different jurisdictions in the region.

• There needs to be more interest among political leaders in order to implement regional transit services.

• There is a need to re-orient transit services in the region to reflect current land uses (i.e., the suburbanization of the region).

• Regional connections are needed among the Tri-Cities, as well as to Richmond.

• Service to Southpark Mall is needed from other areas within the region.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-67 Final Report

• The BRAC expansion of Fort Lee will result in a need for additional transit services. When the expansion is complete, there will be an additional 3,500 to 5,000 soldier/students temporarily living on base. These soldiers will not have personal vehicles and will want access to the local shopping and recreational opportunities, specifically on the weekends. Destinations include the Southpark Mall and the Crossings Shopping Center.

• There will be about 500 additional civilian jobs on Fort Lee. Many of these jobs are service oriented and employees may need additional transit options.

• There is a need for transit services in the City of Hopewell, both internal to the City and to access Fort Lee and Colonial Heights (Southpark Mall). Hopewell residents need access to job opportunities at Fort Lee and the Mall area.

• The need in Chesterfield County is primarily for people with disabilities, low income people, and elderly people. Access Chesterfield meets many of these needs.

• Additional regional cooperation is needed, both among the jurisdictions of the Tri-Cities MPO area and GRTC.

• The transit needs in Prince George County are more dispersed and may call for a demand-response type of transit service.

• There is a concern about the ability of local governments to fund additional transit services.

• The student government association president for Richard Bland College made a request for transit service, but did not follow-up in sharing the survey link with his students.

Public Opinion Survey

As part of the public outreach process for the TDP, a public opinion survey was conducted. The purpose of the survey was to solicit input from residents concerning transit needs. The survey was conducted electronically using Survey Monkey, with paper back-up copies available at area libraries. A press release was sent to local newspapers to advertise the availability of the survey. The electronic link was posted at the Crater Planning District Commission’s website as well as several of the local jurisdictional websites. The Richmond Times Dispatch also wrote a brief article that included the web link to the survey.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-68 Final Report

Survey Results

One hundred and fifty-nine people participated in the public opinion survey. The majority of the survey respondents were non-users of public transportation in the region, with 82% indicating that they typically drive themselves to daily life activities such as work, medical, social, school, and shopping trips. Nine percent of the survey respondents reported using public transportation for their primary mode of transportation. These results are shown in Table 3-16.

The most surveys were received from residents of Prince George County (50), followed by Colonial Heights (17), and the City of Petersburg (15). Over 95% of the respondents reported that they have a driver’s license and at least one available vehicle. The majority of the respondents were working adults with relatively high incomes, as shown in Table 3-17.

When asked to indicate why they did not use public transportation, the most frequently occurring answer was “no bus service is available near my home/work/school,” with almost 60% of the respondents reporting this result. Table 3-18 provides the full responses to this question.

Survey respondents were asked to indicate if they think there is a need for additional or improved public transit services in a number of specifically-identified areas. The largest number of respondents indicated Prince George County (which could be expected, as the most number of surveys were received from Prince George County), followed by “to/from Richmond,” “to/from Southpark Mall,”, the City of Hopewell, Chesterfield County, “to/from Fort Lee,” and the City of Colonial Heights. It should be noted that 22 respondents indicated that none were needed.

One of the survey questions asked the respondents if they thought regional services are needed in the Tri-Cities region. Of the 92 people who answered this question, 61 indicated that regional services are needed. The survey offered an opportunity to indicate what linkages were important and several were listed, with the overall theme indicating a desire for links among the population centers in the region, i.e., Richmond – Chesterfield – Petersburg – Hopewell - Prince George - Colonial Heights. More direct service to Southpark Mall from VSU and Fort Lee was also mentioned. Of the 108 people who answered the question, 75% indicated that they would use public transportation services in the Tri-Cities area if there was a service that met their travel needs.

Desired quality of service improvements included additional shelters, more access to transit information, and a more informative website.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-69 Table 3-16: Primary Mode of Transportation

Drive Ride w/ Public Response Answer Options Bicycle Walk Taxi Other Myself Family/Friends Transportation Count Work 120 4 17 0 2 0 1 144 Medical 132 9 11 0 0 0 0 152 Social/Recreational 116 24 7 1 1 0 0 149 School 734 15010396 Shopping/Errands 128 12 12 0 0 0 0 152 answered question 159 skipped question 1

Composite 569 53 62 1 4 0 4 693 82% 8% 9% 0% 1% 0% 1%

3-70 Table 3-17: Demographics

Do you have a driver's license? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count

No 4.6% 5 Yes 95.4% 104

answered question 109 skipped question 51

Available Vehicles

Response Response Number of Vehicles Percent Count

0 4.6% 5 1 18.5% 20 2 25.9% 28 3 31.5% 34 4 or more 19.4% 21

answered question 108 skipped question 52

Age of Survey Respondents

Response Response Age Categories Percent Count

Under 12 years old 0.0% 0 12-17 years old 0.0% 0 18-25 years old 5.5% 6 26-55 years old 67.9% 74 56-64 years old 16.5% 18 65 years old or older 10.1% 11

answered question 109 skipped question 51

3-71 Employment Status of Survey Respondents

Response Response Employment Status Percent Count

Employed, full-time 61.1% 66 Employed, part-time 14.8% 16 Retired 18.5% 20 Student, full-time 6.5% 7 Student, part-time 0.0% 0 Homemaker 8.3% 9 Unemployed 3.7% 4 Other 2.8% 3

answered question 108 skipped question 52

Household Income of Survey Respondents

Response Response Income Levels Percent Count

$14,999 or less 1.0% 1 $15,000-$29,999 9.4% 9 $30,000-$44,999 21.9% 21 $45,000-$59,999 17.7% 17 $60,000-$74,999 12.5% 12 $75,000 or higher 37.5% 36

answered question 96 skipped question 64

3-72 Table 3-18: If you do not use any form of public transportation, why not?

Response Response Answer Options Percent Count

No bus service is available near my home/work/school. 59.7% 71 Need my car for emergencies/overtime. 26.9% 32 Need my car before/after work/school. 26.1% 31 Need my car for work. 25.2% 30 It might not be safe/I don't feel safe. 17.6% 21 Trip is too long/takes too much time. 17.6% 21 Don't know if service is available and/or location of stops. 16.8% 20 The hours of operation are too limited. 14.3% 17 Have to wait too long for the bus or between buses. 11.8% 14 Other (please specify): 10.1% 12 Have to transfer/too many transfers. 7.6% 9 Buses are unreliable/late. 7.6% 9 The bus is uncomfortable. 5.9% 7 The bus is expensive. 5.9% 7 I have limited mobility and it is hard for me to use the bus. 3.4% 4 answered question 119 skipped question 41

Other (please specify):

Live five minutes from Work and fifteen from shopping My schedule it suits me to use my vehicle It is not necessary. maintain the roads Not convenient Like driving myself back and force Don't want to, I want to be in control of where and when I go places

I prefer bicycle over public transportation when it is available. It's just plain cheaper to drive Use personal vehicle Don't like to Medical reasons Drivers drive so fast in my neighborhood I dont trust them!!

3-73 Final Report

A number of general comments were offered by survey participants. Many of the comments were very thoughtful and comprehensive. Of the 50 general comments, there were 42 that either offered specific suggestions for transit services or general support for expanded service and eight that were critical or expressed a negative view toward any type of service expansions/dollar expenditures.

Specific suggestions included the need for service along the major corridors (including service to Richmond), additional service in Colonial Heights/the Boulevard, additional service in Prince George County, service to Hopewell, and rural services. The comments from the survey are provided in Appendix D.

SUMMARY

The primary public transit services operated in the Tri-Cities region are operated by PAT and focused on the travel needs of Petersburg residents. While there are PAT services that leave the City borders, they serve trip purposes needed by City residents (i.e., to access work opportunities at Southpark Mall, Fort Lee, Virginia State University, and Central State Hospital).

Ridership has been steadily increasing on PAT’s fixed routes over the past several years, as has productivity. Expenses have been rising, particularly for FY 2010 as a result of the new Petersburg Station. Current riders indicated that they would like longer hours of service, service to Hopewell and Colonial Heights, more frequency of service, and Sunday services. There were also a number of requests for service to specific places, notably the new location of the Southside Regional Medical Center. The current riders are particularly satisfied with the cost of the fare and the driver courtesy.

The transit needs analysis indicated that there are several areas within the MPO region that fall into the high relative need category with regard to transit dependent demographics and are not served by transit. There are also areas that have transit- supportive population densities and are not currently served by public transportation. These areas include the Cities of Colonial Heights and Hopewell.

Transit needs in Prince George, Chesterfield, and Dinwiddie Counties are more dispersed in nature. Prince George County currently has the lowest level of transit service, with only one area served by PAT (the Crossings shopping center) and no local County-based provider.

The planned BRAC expansion at Fort Lee will drive unmet transit demand in several areas, with the most significant being:

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-74 Final Report

• Transit services geared to temporary residents of the Fort to access local shopping and recreation destinations, primarily on the weekends.

• Transit services from the region to the Fort to access civilian service jobs.

The results of the public opinion survey indicated that the primary reason why people do not use transit is because service that would meet their travel needs is not available.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 3-75

Final Report

Chapter 4

Service and Organizational Alternatives

INTRODUCTION

The first three chapters prepared for the Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan documented transit needs in the region and outlined the services currently available. The development of these data collection and analysis reports showed that there are unmet transit needs in the study area. The purpose of this fourth chapter is to provide a series of service and organizational alternatives that could be implemented to meet these needs. Preliminary alternatives were discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee in early December, 2009 and are fully developed for consideration in this Chapter. Service alternatives are presented first, followed by the organizational alternatives.

SERVICE ALTERNATIVES

Two types of service alternatives are presented for consideration: potential improvements to the existing PAT transit network, primarily geared to the City of Petersburg, and potential new services to meet currently unmet transit needs, both regional and local. Each alternative is described, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each, and a cost estimate. The cost estimates are conservative, using PAT’s fully allocated costs (i.e., including all administrative and operating costs). The alternatives are not presented in any particular order of priority.

Potential Improvements to the Existing PAT Transit Network

PAT Alternative #1- Split Blandford Route from the Hopewell/Fort Lee Route

In order to save on operating expenses in FY 2010, PAT combined the Blandford Route with the Hopewell/Fort Lee Route. This was geographically intuitive, as the Hopewell/Fort Lee Route travels through the Blandford area on its way to

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-1 Final Report

Hopewell/Fort Lee. The issues that have arisen with this combination are that it is very crowded at particular times of day and that riders from some portions of the Blandford area end up riding all the way to Hopewell and back in to get home.

A low cost option for splitting this route would be for the Blandford Route to be paired with the Southpark Mall Route, which currently has a significant amount of down time each cycle. The bus would travel through the Blandford Road neighborhoods, come back downtown, and then travel to Southpark Mall.

Advantages

• Improves capacity on both the Blandford and Hopewell/Fort Lee portions of the route. • Improves the productivity of the Southpark Mall Route, providing significantly more running time per vehicle service hour. • Provides for a shorter trip for both the Blandford passengers and the Hopewell/Fort Lee riders.

Disadvantages

• Decreases productivity on the Hopewell/Fort Lee Route. • May be a challenge to accomplish the Southpark Mall Route within 30 minutes on Saturdays and at peak shopping times.

Cost

• Minor incremental costs associated with the mileage, though there will be some costs associated with changing the printed routes and schedules.

PAT Alternative #2: Adjust South Crater Road and Walnut Hill Routes

The South Crater Road route is long and can barely accomplish its route in one hour. It also provides service to three residential neighborhoods that are also served by the Walnut Hill Route. These neighborhoods are Berkeley Manor, Battlefield Park, and Deerfield. There is also a need for one or both of these routes to add a segment to directly serve the new location of the Southside Regional Medical Center (SRMC) on Medical Park Boulevard, east of South Crater Road.

This alternative proposes to cut the Berkeley Manor and Battlefield Park neighborhoods from the South Crater Road Route and add the SRMC to the route. The Deerfield neighborhood would continue to be served by the South Crater Road Route. As such a major destination, the SRMC could also be served by the Walnut Hill route by

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-2 Final Report

eliminating the Deerfield neighborhood, which would remain on the South Crater Road Route. Both routes would continue to serve the Wal-Mart area, as it is a major activity stop. These proposed revisions are shown in Figure 4-1.

Advantages

• Provides service to the hospital on a 30-minute frequency. • Reduces the route mileage for the South Crater Road Route. • Maintains the neighborhood service, though with 60-minute, rather than 30- minute frequency.

Disadvantages

• Reduces service to three neighborhoods, though hourly service is likely sufficient for the level of transit demand in these neighborhoods.

Costs

• This alternative is cost neutral with regard to operating costs, though there will be some costs associated with changing the printed routes and schedules.

PAT Alternative #3: Consider Later Hours of Service on a Partial Route Network

Service currently ends between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., depending upon the route and the day of the week. The most frequently requested improvement from the rider survey results was for longer hours of service. The focus of this alternative would be to offer limited evening service, offering transit services on a partial route network, based on where evening services are likely to be needed and most heavily used. The route network could be different for evening service, as it is in several cities, reflecting the lower potential demand and focusing on core ridership areas. For PAT, it would make sense to operate some kind of combined Washington Avenue/Lee Avenue Route, South Crater Road, South Park Mall, and possibly Ettrick. It is estimated that this configuration could be accomplished with three vehicles, plus an ADA complementary paratransit vehicle.

Advantages

• Allows riders to use PAT to get home from a retail job. • Allows riders to attend evening classes and conduct errands in the evening.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-3 nm

nm nm

nm nm nm nm nm nm nm ñ GF k ñ GFñGF nm nm

nm GF *# nm *# *# nm nm *# Figure 4-1: Pnmroposed Adjusted South Crater Road and Walnut Hill Routes d C ve th o Gro he h t n L n yt P 9 t s 2 w o 2 0 3 d t e Bank W a 1 r n o n M # 3 i t r n * d l th t 3 3 a k s g Petersburg Courthouse Complex O C 6 r r le r Chesterfield a ñ i 3 S o w o h c o a ie t C o r l 7t k Y s L k Legend S g h C q l r a ig e u d B um o e h r A B a l H t i t d P s n t 8 3 g t *# *# t n r s ñ t o VEC Workforce Satellite Center e 2 3 t u n r 3 A h a ro t r H e 4 L Petersburg City Hall m a *#a a 3 s S f # C ill D * a k W y a Educeational Facilities C h e ñ nm ig v n H t E h t i o t h e s # t * h v Petersburg Multimodal Transit Center 7 H a 9 U a 3 c 3 a n lle M o n e gt e u rc z in h sh i c a e *# a o e W o m R # t n * h om l High Densityi Housing t C on ñ o t Petersburg Central Library s n 0 # in r 4 * e # M H * h e yt W h t h ort T r t nm G ip e h N l a nm e Tu e 8 t P g r e u lle C r u 9 c o c Petersburg National Battlefield 3 e e r n P a n C a Q 3 e w n e R r 1 r ro ñ r B t c o J i W w r r r u k Human Service Agencies a n a a e n t o n y d L £w n l to C ¤e s GF 460 o r e p n B t 1 lu e e b S ñ £ H J 4 b ¤ A B s R m s e # i Fort Lee Military Reservation y e * e D t r a a e D e t r nm r m ib a e L f e o e h g e m u r r g R o f m a r lm e C d S # l r kGF i P c n * e i F c le n i ") h s r i k s l ap l p o o k s i Major Employers o M o E r t e Van Buren n W e l o s p GF a e n ex rm t T n a n o a S F S r # n i d * B s r c o Ma d y h u g x r e F u e t c o R H n u llc h rcy pr ry l y i Joh e a S cu l n e l D A r G i F e a r W Kenn a M eens GF Medical Facilities k e v H dy il e m l r t d e i nu y l G d l l a a r W W # G P al * W p o i S B ker n m k ") r el e e L L e y le ic n ") ee g w n vu d e s o s P e s e H N c ers R e t s r e e y a eff G Prince George f e l a g ar m J ra ie E h m r t a a l J t o m p ñ Municipal Facilities G d m o ky r ra n c e n e ntu d t e to e t o h # le K s l * t 4 s t s i B e 6 Win nm M o r f ta o e 0 ield 0 l r th s i F s w R 4 u c g ore u H e h e a k S u a 0 o t 5 m 6 b A e 8 s 4 Shopping Destinations n L b a XY o y st o p lad x R G G J a w R a he a ") if att m l t M M p C ain Myric m S k 95 a S a o Toll Gate l i E K e a gin Yo H a Vir n Stedman u l s n i r g t l i n B P M k p i t n § k ¨¦ ar o o M g Proposed Adjusted Walnut Hill Route e r t e o t in i a t w A e n S l # t l J * i r c l l e n

v i l e a nm H H in n r i 95 m a l g a g l i in t Lake nm e l s m l aro ide t t e

n P yd e o o t C n o i r r l s

i § o u

l o ¨¦ F g t n n u M

o o t l e

a o a i nm n C l Proposed Adjusted SoM uth Crater Road Route v e u k Luk y n W c 460 a int B o s B

W o Sa v t c A i isseau S I e V £ v n n ¤ el r m ut e s a te ha ln # d a a * d S e rk W r H i t t K n e M r

H a c e o n s a ah e r a T n u w do n Claremont h s d Bax l a o ter o B a m o o c k n l e B w C P in C en n b o

L m s

a h e s u r u m S o i a B e o n

k y r t c t

k v s F d y ñ e M O k

t a l B B o W s

t a o o r n e e

a r t O n # V r r

d * e i GF H r l B t k a e t a r y

N r u i a T s e # S l r B * s g o r c l r R l le i Tan e a n t l l w a s i o 9 g o l 85 o t ll n s i s s n o b D c n A 5 a o o n r re d c h e

i r T d t P d a o o n d h o J d e e ¨¦§ p r P a F G n n e i e 4 a r W e ir r r o fa s T t r h x a a o e *# e k - n s c n n er Tu i 4 t v t nm ea o P W v Petersburg Branch Library e r Walnut Hill Plaza a nm # P

r * M o A

a M GF l w r l e i Petersburg c l C s t T y W e k u c a h C a h o ñ k c o t r a n C s o e h h a XY o W t n n o k rt o a L n r e t e u g a e l e o H t a k E ls a u o l f l x o G i M C l e n n e t r # V a a o n r * y y l P # w a e s d n e * t t *# r W nm i o u G n r k in C ln o ll n l e a o a i e e h nm d g W H d ly in n u H # g * n l L G o i o ry d r ri C n H r a s a me s B th e s w Sou y b t l # l l h a * e r u e i t f C B XY Deerfield u n M a r u u c k h x o g e r i k le k C a ") N l a R e s Gree ") ") o en t y nwoo Deerfield r Kutch u d m c*# e B id eaur a e k s eg n Defens k ard Blackwate d oo d r y Tyler r oo B w F R t k r am se ar ad o p k n P te n e o u s t s on ro S e a s n Dods rb m herst 301 o r ve Ho Am g r r ") u £ e B O ¤ e t Ram o *# n r p b r n g o t to a F e p ill R Oak H t m s d Ha W p e s o

i n a l # l * n d l m W o d n i Fort Davis Shopping Center r n a wo oo to ne a e p g B l F b W m T g R a w er a o r i am h R val a a W t o C R r r

R o R o e r XY d o a l i N l R e s N c p e m y O s d a t h t e a p m i M m g d v n H Battlefield Park p o r a a r a B i t i a p e d R t lley l g R a l m V m l a s a s a m e R p n

B m d o r O W i H akm Petersburg DMV e r ont igh r P t t opla w r e o e Poplar Springs Hospital on G o Park r rs 5 t e e d ñ s b 9 e n o F o 2 k g R Berkeley Manor o o r r H n g d n a r o n n e GF R ly o L F c a tt i G co s k m S F n r i nmle p nm e a n l ey l S o F nm d 295 s tty n e h ¨¦§ P

J t Kings n o l

o n e t *# o c t Ca a e melot Southside Regional Medical Center n e c ") a in S r L P Drury C

L r GF F s a a t r k e e d o ¯ e y r o n

a s

o t a XY h H w g Wal-Mart Supercenter o t

H r h e r

0 0.25 0.5 1 o c e a d

F o e l o i

f w e a Industry ke Miles a B Rives x L

nm ") Final Report

Disadvantages

• Adds service that is not likely to be as productive as daytime service. • Adds operating expenses.

Cost

• If four vehicles were to be used (three fixed-route, one ADA) for an additional three hours of evening service, Monday through Saturday, the additional annual revenue service hours would be 3,720 at a cost of about $197,000 annually. Evening transit service has been recognized in the past as a legitimate use of Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds, so this may be a potential funding source to partially offset this expense.

PAT Alternative #4: Consider Reductions in Service on Saturdays

The Saturday ridership on the PAT system, as recorded during the boarding and alighting data collection period, is 61% of the weekday ridership; however almost the entire route network is in operation on Saturdays. This alternative considers looking closely at the Saturday ridership and reducing service where appropriate to reflect demand. For example, the Washington Avenue and the Lee Avenue routes had significantly lower ridership on Saturdays. Rather than offering 30-minute headways on these routes on Saturdays, it is suggested that these routes be interlined on Saturdays to offer hourly headways. This action would save 12.5 revenue service hours (one bus) on Saturdays, for a total of 650 annual operating hours.

Advantages

• Provides a level of service that more closely matches demand. • Saves money.

Disadvantages

• Reduces service to a high need area.

Cost

• This alternative would save PAT about $34,450 annually.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-5 Final Report

PAT Alternative #5: Update Route Maps and Improve Web Site

The public information that is currently available for PAT services is out of date, including the route maps and schedules, and the web information. This alternative focuses on updating the route maps, schedules and web information to reflect current services. This should be done after any of the proposed TDP changes are adopted for implementation.

Advantages

• Provides accurate information to the public so that riders know where and when service operates. • Serves as a marketing tool for PAT.

Disadvantages

• The only disadvantage is cost.

Cost

• A preliminary estimate for updating and printing the route and schedule brochures and updating the website is between $10,000 and $15,000.

Potential New Services

The transit needs analysis revealed that there are unmet transit needs in several areas of the region. Some of these needs are regional, i.e., connecting one jurisdiction to another, and some are local, i.e., providing public transportation options in jurisdictions that currently have little or no service.

New Service Alternative #1: Provide Additional Service in Colonial Heights

The only transit service currently provided in Colonial Heights is the PAT Southpark Mall route, which travels from downtown Petersburg via I-95 directly to the Mall area. The demographic analysis provided in Chapter 3 showed that there are areas of relatively high need in Colonial Heights, specifically in the Boulevard Corridor. Riders also requested transit service to the Boulevard area. This alternative proposes a new route, which could potentially supplant the current Southpark Mall Route. The proposed new route would originate in Petersburg at the Petersburg Station, travel on Wythe Street to Adams Street and into Colonial Heights via the Boulevard. The route would continue on the Boulevard to Temple Avenue. The route would then travel east on Temple Avenue to the Southpark Mall, making the current loop through the mall area. The route would leave the mall area via Temple and then make a right on Conduit

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-6 Final Report

Road, serve the Colonial Heights Library, then make a left on Ellerslie, back to the Boulevard and then south on the Boulevard back to Petersburg. This route is shown in Figure 4-2 and is 11.5 miles round trip, which would allow one vehicle to complete the route in one hour.

Advantages

• Provides transit service to areas of Colonial Heights that do not currently have service, including the Boulevard and the Conduit Road area. • Connects Colonial Heights residents to the mall area. • Addresses a transit need that was expressed by current PAT riders.

Disadvantages

• There has not historically been a mechanism for transit services to be operated by PAT that do not primarily serve City residents. • If this route supplants the current Southpark Mall route, the travel time from Petersburg to the Mall would be longer.

Cost

• If this service were be operated 12.5 hours per day, six days a week, using one vehicle, the total annual operating costs would be about $208,000 (assuming PAT operation). It should be noted that this route could supplant the current Southpark Mall route, which could result in a cost neutral solution, with the expectation that the City of Colonial Heights would enter into a cost-sharing arrangement with the City of Petersburg to contribute towards the annual operating costs for this route. If this new route supplants the current Southpark Mall route, an expansion vehicle would not be needed.

New Service Alternative #2: Provide a Direct Connection between Fort Lee/Hopewell and Southpark Mall

As discussed in Chapter 3, Fort Lee is expanding considerably and there will be many more soldiers living at Fort Lee temporarily while they complete different training programs. These soldiers typically do not have vehicles with them and have some time on the weekends to leave Fort Lee for shopping and recreational opportunities. The focus of this alternative is to provide a direct connection for these soldiers, as well as family members and employees of Fort Lee so they can access goods and services in a convenient manner. Figure 4-3 provides a map of the route, which is proposed to originate at the Southpark Mall, travel to Fort Lee, then to the

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-7 nm

Figu*#re 4-2: Proposed Colonial Heights Connector

D H E nma n Pe er ll or rt mi e l h hs ta l rs e hi ge l g r li n e l L e o l a e L i k ly Az l C w a e l ale o nt H a erb l s o W u C r l Pickett o ell y y a in e e # H h g z e * t on d c C Colonial Square Shopping Center b e # i d

* r a S B e # s * a u rl r o in C e V i r gt Ple on B k a

n a s san a n t

e D W XY m a C le L c

L r

o e e a

o d F V S e d *#a p nm f

r a l F o r a # a l* O a d b i e w r n Dunlop Village Shopping Center o Taswell H l l a l li e m d e n u v n pt Co r o e D v n y in w T e l gto e r l n i o n 5 v E o s w G o 9 e B se t XY k x y N p H d o a n ew n L F u c L u a m nm stl Colonial Heights Central Library r e o

l y e C e v K *# c k P GF C i i a e c R n nm h y t i Yac s l h e r r t o a l n Ba l G d w s li r e in n r l o a ñ g o ey ic e l d s v Vall s H t id e k e e A r Oa e F kw o d C o ing d i pr k s rd e S a d d E a n Moun lmwo e v t P o o edl o a O leasan d Ne e t e o d d Pin r l Brame r B n d e i o d W stwoo o Cre P o o W W

w F w a d t l f i i k k Ellis r o e

o W r D r f E e e i Ridg b e e r Br u a l ra a z n d a B t d D d M e e ph n r l B s Ra ra B Alpine a r V id C 1 R ge e Albert ob ¤£ Princ Southpark Crossing Shopping Center i n S C

n ur n h i art Co l B e Mac l e on k d n a XY ad n a alnut Fin

k e d W e a r

r A o Te

o F Colonial Heights m r ple b k x oc Prince George o Colonial Heights City Hall m F m *# Southpark Mall Di T r Colonial Heights Health Department e n e m k pl o 4 l nd e x 4 a Ma HighlaGF 1 ple ñ ke e W La l XY e F GF l p p XY m Fairf Te le ax Colonial Heights Emergency Medical Services Riv u Allen T erd J u al k J e

s B s c e t s t o nm tte t k D arlo h t i ic C o o n nn d u e e P g J l p a d u K d u m a P l H d y l lu e o e er k e m tov ar u r s n e a P l W E C R h i t tr v P e m s nm l a n Parksouth Shopping Center T e o o F i k o n a i R d o s n l l n o l m t o g m l ich o l R o y r o t n t d l r n o n c d H a e e e i Dimmock Square Shopping Center k a i n no lk n i v oa rfo l i XY R o l P O l N L e l s M

4 nm W o a e o k o lk r o l XY f - Bollinger uf a i S rg o R u Southgate Square Shopping Center Chesterfield d ynchb n L 8 d r right i W a

r d Wal-Mart Supercenter Colonial Hts (Dimmock Ctr) p Fos tt te n r a dso e r e Win Ry t r an c r

S XY k a Pickwick Shopping Center J e ty nm XY r y n t d a Bruce i 95 n S t a w u So h o XY d s u t G e R ple r § h Legend a ¨¦ M e e n ff B t B u i e t r o e M i h l r L e st L d a y o C e a a J l Ive l o # r x f a y n * n y i Ramp W nm e t t a c y a M i l o h r l n L k P s ite u a n s t W L ar o hi a tt o u n R ll h i h u n n t L rt l B S n ly n o C l t o s w W w N i e h a r o o ie Educational Facilities a w G e ils nm he a h e t R v Chesterfield e l m C t W r le th a s r o a e m e rs u u r a v o r s J K m y i th le l C R p p S u e i d n r b n N e o s f n r o m m tl S f g i t o k a e d V t a R I a a u r g O n B g n i g l d n R s Marvin i r n e l a # u M n * o y s H o r g i o Higst h Density Housing i s n e c t 4 A i h R r e k r n ia L r a t s m o h e i l c r s W a a a y e v k O d o

e o l l k g W r n e n e i e n U c m a f d n h r m a n n s a H b r e *# s a l i o t J l v o a 3 e k G u r s in HumanH Service Agencies G r e s d o z C d B n d e r ga mon r a h N r d r i c g R nm e i M R A s h a b o t

i e o n v i n b u a e 2 t C o s y C g o t r R o r s GF r n o p h t y lf t i

e e e n c d u h h

m i r a W n a r s o o a e h n S o t c e ss n to u ") M u avajo e i G r p g o s N n a # * Major Employers i o e in S o e ill r h h # a g ite * a C h nm C B c h n W r s P e h A S o a u u e t S R e r e e L W l m s e id E p la r a g e u t L ills a e e v Tru t e n H d g i th le r e C i s p l n R d fi yd r t e e t e a B k r r Br g ld H o le GF Medical Facilities ickh e # ro il e * b ous g O M e g in 2 l P l nm l d lia r e o e e l n er m h iv A s l B k R C y d R C e o o k a tt y sa g o e h a i e h C P s c t r a i T e B u h C a s

M u w S d S a nm 5 o g m e a u o n o i t t r L J r t x

n L a ham t e c r e pMunicipal Facilities a el o S u P i ld h c s ñ a x y n O k p r h N s r h u

r i 4 C c c k S l s d t # E F s * o t r nm

k r o e C h a s l e e 3 v t s

o C o r e e G t th P n ain o y M t w v W a Lo Bank # t Petersburg National Battlefield * e F ld th r Petersburg Courthouse Complex o r O 6 ic XY Shopping Destinations ñ C h l k ig e o th H y l 7 C q u e i th y Petersburg # t 8 * n r b *# t n b ñ e Ta t t H VEC WorkA force Satellite Center e U r t r Existing Southpark Mall Route o D d n F r ro n a e u a L i m m *# v o a H a C s i n # l nm * l f s k s i ls a s W l y ñ k e e ar s W t M B e e t # Proposed Colonial Heights Connector y i e * z n rd en Petersburg Multimodal Transit Center ck o H M h J on le Hig a ingt el # z sh h * a c W e Ro x l to J t e o P ñ a rc S Petersburg Central Library Proposed Fort Lee Connector * ¯ m n e*# i H J o n#o n m * o e p t e th e p u y M m in e W a T A o D nms x f r H t e e C h P r ip f 0 0.25 0.5 1 a r l e e p u u r p W e if i T r U n l s r r a r o s c e l r n a al c r e o ñ t o y w n n e s ro H Ce * See Figure 4-3, Page 4-9 p B r Miles n nmt *# GF *#kGF GF

")") nm nm ")

ñ k ") ")")

ñ Figure 4-3: Proposed Fort Lee Connector

P R *#O s l a ea XY l sa ord d m nt Sanf m r Da B le p I a ex r l o F R e kj y n n

i r #p Y W * o v F o rks C te Hopewell l e a hi ov R r e i n Ja e ing s r m ton r e a l s ie u esto t w W m D n e b Will nro ett r XY ia p o m B u sbur M Pr o E g u kj o ll Ke erslie t n M k onroe o o s r GF t k O w C l c d Y i i h y i ac 2 l c l ht Co d a l r o Ba usi 9 k r sin ns m 5 wine o e o randy T le a B d ñ o n s H w Briarwood e H

w o O r n ak t woo n F e d t p k e E n a r

m lm wood a Oaklawn Plaza Shopping Center o O G s d d a

C n o i o e o l VEC Workforce Center t P i o a P XYz w u w la t R d t h d l P f n i i n i n w r d u a o l The Crossings Shopping Center W g k D o C a e O M 144 Ram XY G p Hopewell DMV a p rf ck m ie o a ld d Ram dle R XYTem Pud t p Walnu R Southp le ñ a E rk p r R a d te l n k m a s Hele o F o a o in r m s p e il r es l a te Jam y R ar n T Qu *# Southpark Mall e 4 Fort Lee Post Exchange/Commi s mp n 4 le o 1 ke x a e T XY L l XY *# le u mp F s Te Riv r s Colonial Heights e e rd t 1 i al s 2 n e s a n g t ck m d nni er r Je d rt ove a 5 3 est o a r W lr u t d K i ark a Q h 4 e P t R s h C n s E e 6 s c o t H l c 8 h i k l A n 7 o t a F o h g t m n XY h l o p t i o o n a i r o L e h l Ingram a n s S t o l k s o n s l XY c a g e n J s cc g t ehous A re ar 1 on 1 8 R 6 ek 0 t ya e W M t h Pi n XY t th h ne Mi nville hu XY 1 1 ddle a kj r 3 2 D st 1 th th 5 So H t uth i h ll Bri J sto Iv 1 a l ey Ramp Wh 1 c i F th k t te i s ar hil n o Stu n yn w l a Prince George n o sl ie Wh n ¯ ils o v e c 1 R r el e 2 9 W e e R v Ro rs 2 t 1 n i sl 2 h y a 8 4-9 R n p n C o n Ra Chesterfield N 0 t m m d s o k p I m t h r t a n a a L h O d p e H g n e l u M R e f n a o J f i y s s o t e m e e h r e R i La f J a c f s l m e e a k r n k o o s G ngt l shi e o B W a em W n Kenner Army Health Clinic n i n*# b o d e b b P u n C H i on z d u a a o on 25t l ag chm N h r e o e i M n R A r k g u a Fort Lee Military Reservation v n t s s GF R r a o s s y lf r e t h i r h h B n n c rp a d o o at o o t t g o n o g *# u Navaj le B C p a in s hill o h C hite t a g s e W 95 a u S a o S 27 r e E W l l th L § p a ¨ a z ¦ C g a e g t d R S h i s p l o e r ok r t e e ck e B o r y M r br ille S b g M kj pr o n in lli O elia g u o Am s r er B l n g Riv d isa A o C B u rd a h u o y e aw c ld lham h r ex L d n in n O Pe 5 s I u c s n ne Ok *# t u L kjr h E s h c S a e 2 a S 4 h h h t t d m a Legend an x n 5 s r e s M e nk t C F h P t 0 s n in Pu i Ba h t t n n d 9 9 3 o t o o y a 2 1 2 L g g *# a r r W d lo a l v t 3 3 r N o o t enry d y e e ld r t o H a te y O C i 3 i T r c s io n s 3 z r o th k a n o 7 A C lq B o b n L in #ab i e u h ss *T t # t d * i a 8 d tl n t n C te e e t t kj r ñ th e Petersburg National Battlefield 2 Educational Facilitiese y iz C n r 3 33r h B klin R W ro t Fran h e 4 a m *# u a 3 C s h m r C ll a U c i oral Se la h s W C n p k e C on y ar h Bataan ñi s n t # o m t * *# ri on M E a C n o 7 High Densityn Housing n h u o h v t Y B t e 3 t a a 9 A a a g o P e lle M c 3 e r d g e A in ch i u k a M M o S a t o x m c R t h J k T i a e o t w f e e s e Petersburg s 0 ñi n r h n l v r f r 4 Human Service Agencies a f M e a te e r r H lip c ge Tu r e a le s e ol r u o P C c R Q h n ñ e ou h il W n t a r d d top 9 D e)" e l R 3 ph Major Employers b # a * H i rty re m B A C a e o s m ib a llm a lu i r L e r b F t p h g r e a e m e r d P h l c p r t a i n i s i M k s 8 E o C t W xas e t 3 Te e s n rs l n a i a 1 GF M n r Medical Facilities 4 B i d t d o y g e n r uc n y r e Darc Sp y Gre ill e ercur ensvill e H F S e l M e y il p r W k y o P alk l B G er y c e k e m lle ic n u Municipal Facilities w a n v h Ne so a ue H d c ñ m o r e H ll fe R r G S y po ef R rl o A J a r a a a l E G m n l r r r t i d e a p J h a h H i a t n m m l d 0 l g 4 XY o Shopping Destinations u 46 Winfi e o e re 85 0 ld s B Sho th R t e § w 460 o ¦¨ s a H e t w 5 0 u o u 8 Laurel m 6 b o w s 4 n b atthe C y th M o R p d r 00.51Saint 0.25 a ou o u R m nt o o ia p y ProposedW Fort Lee Connector Virgin ark Toll Gate Myrick C nt M Miles Stedman kjSai *# Final Report

Crossings Shopping Center. The route would then do the same in reverse, but would not enter Fort Lee heading westbound (this option can be discussed, but would likely take too much time to enter Fort Lee in both directions and the extra ride time to the Crossings Shopping Center is relatively short). This route could offer a transfer with the current or changed Southpark Mall route at the Southpark Mall. There could also be transfer opportunities with the proposed Hopewell Circulator at the Crossings Shopping Center, allowing residents of Hopewell to access Fort Lee and the Southpark Mall.

The round trip mileage for this route is 11.5 miles, which would allow one vehicle to complete the trip on one hour. The hours of service for this route may need to be different from weekday to weekend to reflect likely demand. It is suggested that this route provide service in a complementary manner to the current Petersburg/Fort Lee Route and not supplant it, given that the origination is at the Southpark Mall, rather than Petersburg.

Advantages

• Provides access to shopping and recreational opportunities for Fort Lee residents and their family members. • Provides access to job opportunities at Fort Lee and the Southpark Mall for Hopewell residents.

Disadvantages

• The only disadvantage is that there has not historically been a mechanism for transit services to be operated by PAT that do not primarily serve City residents.

Cost

• If service on this route were to be operated on a 14-hour span of service Monday through Saturday, with hours that vary according to demand, the annual cost of service would be $230,000. It would be expected that there would be a cost-sharing mechanism in place for this route, including contributions from Fort Lee, Hopewell, Prince George, and Colonial Heights. A vehicle would also be required to be purchased to operate this route. A heavy duty transit bus costs about $300,000 and a body-on-chassis 20- passenger vehicle costs about $60,000.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-10 Final Report

New Service Alternative #3: Provide Circulator Service in Hopewell

The transit needs analysis showed that there is a need for transit services in the City of Hopewell, both for internal City trips, and for regional trips. The concept for the Hopewell Circulator is to develop a convenient route that serves as many major origins and destinations as is feasible for one vehicle and offer a connection to the region at the Crossings Shopping Center (current terminus of PAT’s Hopewell/Fort Lee route). A proposed route is provided as Figure 4-4. This route is 10.4 miles round trip, which is a little short for hourly service, but would allow for some additions to the route. It is anticipated that as a new service, there will likely be a few alterations from the original proposed route.

Advantages

• Provides transit service for Hopewell residents so that they can access employment, shopping, medical, and other necessary destinations. • Connects Hopewell residents to the region via a transfer opportunity at the Crossing Shopping Center. • Provides access to Hopewell destinations for other residents of the region.

Disadvantages

• The only disadvantage is cost.

Cost

• This proposed circulator route, as a non-regional route, could be operated by the City of Hopewell or a contractor, rather than by PAT. This idea is suggested as an option, as Hopewell does have some experience operating service through its senior transportation program, and a local option would save on the deadhead mileage associated with traveling from Petersburg. If a 12-hour span of service were provided on this circulator Monday through Saturday, the annual operating costs would be about $197,000 annually (using PAT’s costs). The costs could potentially be lower using the existing senior transportation program. A vehicle would be required for this service ($60,000 for a 20-passenger body-on-chassis vehicle).

New Service Alternative #4: Extend the VA Avenue Route to Richard Bland College

The Virginia Avenue route is currently the lowest ridership route in the PAT fixed route network. One way of boosting ridership on this route is to extend it to serve Richard Bland College, which would add an employment and educational

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-11 ñ

") nm ") nm nm ñ nm

Figure 4-4: Proposed Hopewell Circulator

r a t n s e d id e rs e 1 e l Riv x l

2 o F C Chesterfield tt A y Chesterfield a o e e m r id o t # s s * r p m ve p W W a John Randolph M8 edical Center i A r l R R k t i i e r

a a l P h l l t s r Raymond y ia t a o a w n m n n d w o 3 s e H a t s d pes GFGF o Ep 7 w r V 9 8 o

A C 1 n S W a B t 5 p s Anne u i 1 t t C s h 3 s s /

a ce c rin h P h

o t e l m 2 e 2 P t h r o o r w m 2 h

d d d t 4 t r r h y D e i i n i o b t # t o M * a n l n i h P # d l P o

o e * n Divsion ti k c ta In s a e 1 d l a S us e e s t tr

W i n 1 a

o o n l r nm r e d GFi t k s G o n # r C k* ") r h l

d a o M l o i 1 ñ H in Vinto o y C b n e o e 0 ay 3 R 1 e oadw M n r B B B o c r t o n okne i 2 m i a h l 1 r t nm t t Warsaw g Hopewell City Hall b h o / n s 6 2 ñ e a o r M 1 t ñ t i Walnut a h C 2

n M n a Hopewell Courthouse i l O F M r M w P Hopewell DSS o o i y C a th o r a 2 a e int C o s Po e s y P l Cit C i 3 n k n r r a h ") r k ") r D e n v o li Hopewell DSS m i r i w li r Norton n o d a d

o D o d c s b i e l w o i h y o r e a c 1 a D D

i w r a c d o y n e 1 e r h r Ivo k u d n B g t nm5 Hopewell Health Department n r d B t C 1 n e 1 h 8 0 t o R nm A 4 f y t h e Lura o 3 t h 2 x t h a t 1 n l t ce h 9 o ra *# G h n d W Appomattox Regional Library-Hopewell O 4 5 t n W h nm A f t Chesterfield 2 2 o M e h 1 n i G a r 5 a a n r 1 e s t 2 1 l e d t s M g 6 e t t e h s e 7 m L h u u n S t

a a t h d e h ") Q o t r o d d r i T s r r e o J rm ") n e a s ñ a ck in R s 3 a 2 n o ic H P l e n o H t lly l o o n t a la 9 2 d t r a A h n w t o 6 i n s R n n 5 M h l n d o s B i J l M l t a a l d 2 e a h l 1 f e s L r i l r o y n l 2 i p g b c rdo 2 la r a o u ") b e r G n b m s ch y d d e r yn l L Pick m H et P t nm u W ") Petersburg Federal Correctional Institution o an e rchill H k m hu Bull Run Cling e s Winston C e h l g t 3 ld r 1 t p o P C c u 9 a v r la e i 5 ou i t b 1 d n r f e 1 t t e n h t m M t k S e a c h 8 1 l r s e l g lu t n 2 E a h y t R ") B A t s 1 2 h d L a i O e H s 0 n n r t # d t R * B u o ") i d h o d d k n e lp e S o # v a * e ") h m e R W n h h rl d le c t e y i il i u l o n nv W R o p Hopewell s o d a XY e a k s a l m e l w D o M c o g f ts lk Palm u k f r u White Oak r n o r c u o f r e e r p J e r S P C e a y o S m

k nm e r r *# s M e R b nm H N H a s iv C o i t er b l li

i Sussex u l n O S e

J l

L t e h ri r S

r n n k e e la i a f n e f e O e r r p clin a P n Farm m e Ma v ckso o Ja e r l i t e r s a s P x G o m R n g e

o n L r r r a W u e F d e Woodsi Forest Franklin la M N v S o t v e t K a n e h a e s li e E w i r b w Randall Luck t y u r C t a t W D T r v Y o e r t i l D o b rr o l Sherwood a e e r h k b c W l l a e S e a n w 4 s e l o rk l l t n a t s la p en a o e C a r m r - l T e n r H ee e a n M S r 1 y r L F h e t ig la t p ib e h C C s m S e w P 2 C a Ports t e R r i a mouth n C R u t a n r M i W n y r e o a e o t n a n li S K n a y a n r B n y

l k t m Wilmingt l e r s h a on l n o i e T g v

# N a e i * a o d e a e f w l k r l il

v r c e e a o o o F b R le

e k o b r N d M ry t s nm L r 295 h i e A t T le ale r B verd o lo e s r C

Burnham a l W n ¨¦§ rr in d i e R lm ia a use g Grovewoo e o *# c ho d t t k lfe in in e our o e C c g g C n s Legend k ti to ir lro e e e M l l ood r n V e e venw S D a e e r D d e l n d Ir n u win d H e y a a o C fi b to d n L nm n S m o n i h n n o n i l u b t

n t e o

l a

i alena i r e w y e s G t r r w C r e u n l o y b m T r s r c

o G g i t o e l t F a S e C n d y s t L n z Kippax ia n e Educati ional Facilities e C w o o nm Kippax n lm ry a

t a r i B G l e r m e P e k g B n H r n n r l o P a i e e s n i a William o w V v h sburg O t n a o la e D J F

m d d d r o y o s a o r #A w * l o o m r B e l # s * High Density Housing e h n E r e W l D D e e a S h

P s Y c n i a M i orktown h d nm n u F v w r i i l r s l d i y n k Gloucester d la S E r a a 6 d a n m t G e d Bolling 3 er i y Fort Lee Military Reservation o b e k L il Human Service AP gencies R r nm y G id y g h e d g # i i * a B H # a * d r Colonial Corner Shopping Center Watson kl ") o e O o y Major Employers w l g d n e rd *# Ki g Sanfo n XY I r B d l e r E il te xle o s y n M Prince George e W nm R W R e GF Medical Facilities a P or m a s r s m i d t n n O p e b ng i p ro ri c S on r p W n B M o S e a M t u a o o i G t n n r n t k y o i nm Mo o r o nr oe t r e o o T t r t Municipal Facilities R o l T l ñ i e o r s h

GF n e Co b g rb us m i o o nm n o s e ne e F Q a i m s r yw ñ i t d n u k H E Bra d a E c e s o a L ire s in b d e esh p rr e e M e Ch XY Shoppineg Destinations l P o P c d Oaklawn Plaza Shopping Center a l s iew d w co i V ark n t u Hyde P o ry L t o nt P u M u ¯ o o a z VEC Workforce Center s c C l n i k la P XY g B a e P r C R w Prof posed Hopewell Circulator k i t o T e r o c o le s The Crossings Shopping Center r R d y d h t a o id s u a M e d d t n r t e e t n C r 144 Ramp G o C n n d i h r t o XY a n n e n e e N 4 p Hopewell DMV s F 14 r o g to J f L g B Proposed Fort Lee Connector e b i o m e i XY m n d g e r

i x C k a a i a n f l i t R i d z t H

f i z r h e n l R R s r e i a r e c E k a ll a s h s m e la r W e n M ñ o k T s h g e p n 0 0.25 0.5 a 1 n t t o i d k e r n a 6 P a J c r Existing Blpandford-Fort Lee-Hopewelu l Route o t lr h a h ir S i Mileas H r l a Shop k B *# R *# ñ XY *# nm nm nm *# nm GF nm nm nm ñ ñ ñk nm ñ nm ñ GF ñ nm k kGF

")") nm ")

ñ k ") ")")

ñ Final Report

destination, as well as a housing origin (students). The College has an enrollment of about 1,600, with 81% commuting and 19% living on campus.

This proposal involves extending the route down Johnson Avenue from Petersburg High School to Richard Bland College. Figure 4-5 provides this alternative, which adds 4.4 miles to the route, for a total round trip of 11.4 miles.

Advantages

• Adds employment and educational destinations. • Provides a transit option for the residential students at the College. • Provides an opportunity to increase ridership on the Virginia Avenue Route.

Disadvantages

• Extending the route would mean that it could no longer be interlined with the Ettrick route. • The area served has a relatively low population density, which would mean there would be few additional riders, other than those associated with the College. • There may not be enough demand from the College to warrant this service.

Cost

• The incremental cost to extend this route would be about $100,000 annually, but would also cause additional costs for the Ettrick route, unless another pair could be found to interline with Ettrick. Because this extension is not in the City and serves a specific institution, it would be appropriate for Richard Bland College to contribute toward this cost.

New Service Alternative #5: Provide New Demand-Response Service in Prince George County

Prince George County currently has the lowest level of transit service among the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) jurisdictions. The transit needs analysis indicated that some level of transit service was needed in the County, starting with service for people with disabilities, the elderly, and people with low incomes. This proposal involves initiating a demand-response transportation program to begin to meet some of the County’s most basic public transportation needs. A “starter” program would likely include two vehicles, operating Monday-Friday, ten hours a day or so. This type of program could be contracted to a private provider or an existing non-profit so to take advantage of existing capabilities in the area of scheduling, dispatch, and

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-13 nm

nm nm nm nm ñ GF

ñGF nm GF nm nm nm nm

nm GF *# nm *# *# nm nm *# nm ñ *# Figure 4-5: Propos*#eñd Extended Virginia Avenue Route

t L a

r D lin a a nk m u a h *# Fr m f s e ig a a # n ill * p i o nm H z H v r W U k p n y e s e i k k e s ñ n m r h n o a a c ig t ims T C M Chesterfield M H t i Cr e e *#o R r r n a a m c a le p e ge el *# in ch y o Petersburg Multimodal Transit Center Surr M R J P ñ x o i M o *# n e t # * n h t yt a e W a h m nme ort Petersburg Central Library o r N p s lip p P k Tu A e e ew r rc e n dr e e w t n R p r ro ñ A p m B int ou U m on n r Sa nd o nt to y to GF C i g p B H hin a s Petersburg DSS a # m t W * t nm a e e Petersburg Health Department h g W a r # d GF * P s n C le i e e k p H D Van Bu Ma ren b W s a h GF C exa u a T a e rs s a l n S r p m r M i t e # r n o * e B I J p m l o i n R r o s t A 95 a y e r Petersburg National Battlefield o e F p u o d B x r d f l t n o n f R e i H n l l h a c a e a r ill Joh d e § e n ¨¦ G

M k i F a re K a r a n t W enne m ensv t dy s il e e m l O W r t e a o u c G n g G d al s o k n # G ie e * W p le i n C ") r e a r n S s d e B a n L Le g ") n r F t e g w rlin S on A y e P e s Ne Co s n F a y o er R s l s e e ol ff G e i y c p e ll r e l a o g g f ar A J ra i y ie E a h m H n r r t a a J t m y o ld m p r u m o y o ck o k n n tu d c y e n r i e to e t u d o # tle K e s l H * 4 p s s s i B e 6 Wi nm M o n u r f y ir o e 0 ield Count D l r th i F w

a s R d ta c ore u nm h e

e a A k S 0 s 5 a t m 6 u e 8 s 4 n L g o a u st o p A lad x G G a w R S f he ") i att M l M h C nt a ai Myric S S o k i Toll a Gate E K l i e a gin n Yo H a ir P u V l l ng t i d r l n i B i P M k p l k n ar o e y nc s M g ge e r t e e o R t i ain t A e a n S l # t R l J * P i a

J r c l l e m s

u i v H l e a nm p a n i n r a i H n p i m t a l g 301 n e a r t i g l lin nm e m e l aro t t t e d e o t C n s o £ r y

¤ r lo i r

s i Blossum s F g lt n n u M o

o o t l

o a o a i nm v n C u l k n e Luk y n W c a int B o Sa Iv t W c A S ut V e n n eel r ham aln # e s a d t W * d S e rk r H t Ki n t e H a c alor rk s ah e o r V ta a o laremont h s C n C F S u w d B a m o o rk k nn l e r C o ta e m n a h e s a S S e n B k y r t n ln Maycox F ñ e o M c nc a l B B o W c i L o o r B o O # r r d n O * k i GF H r l B t a u t a r y u F s le N i # c a r * g c R d o r l M e i Tan e o t G ll l w a k B k o 9 l 85 o t l r V i s s W lo l o a e n a t i a n c n A 5 r r s i r M e e T t d n n a d P e h n n h o d r d t n e § s a o ¨¦ D g n e y t t e h p arb o W o D o ho Fa o rs n m v r u Y a ir n a n o lc e k f l a c a e r n H o l e r u x e r T re u v e r a P y e n n S b W o D n p g w h C rto ll u s i

h r y o o e a S m nm o k k c # l l

r * h a e r s M s e a o od V l e o wo n t a a l ngle t y e o GF l Ta a a e H c k l r C W n C i r n o A G k C i n ñ c a a r e C n d y c a XY o W a u e h k S L n m W e e a t die k er E f u wid n B a ie d r Din a # g n r * y l l P *# s d w e P t # t * nm i u k n C ln ic G n r to o a k ill en l e d g W H nd e h y g lly Li n u o o y d r Grime in rr s B s Petersburg d H e a C y b t n *# l l r u e h B t XY B a n M th l u ou u u S e r o igh c r e r e k C al k ") k R P b s G ") a e r ark en eenwood Deerfield ") v t l h m ie utc e w K u # B * u Fo y eau rt c regar L C d ee Defense k d Blackwater Tyler oo w rk d 301 k M a tea £ e P ¤ o on ro a es n Dods rb t m herst r ve o on Ho Am ") u O a pt o x am # r * b Sunset H t e ill R Oak H s t

e s d o i n l *#

n a d l l W o n i r d n a wo o to alie e o p g v B l F b m T a W a w C o r W am h R a t o R r r

R o e o e r XY o i l l N l e s N l e c e s s d y t h e t a i v g d v n H o r e M a r a B t nm L i a e t ley l g i l l a l V m d s C e s r e l r a ir a B m n t u o e r O d W r q i H akm r e on ri ne S t gh ag r W t t w e o Park e o r t

d ñ s e n k g o o H n d Petersburg High School r o GF o L G k F n i nm e nm a l r l le nm d F ey R S ailroa d Grd

t Kings n o l

o n e t # o * c t Ca a e melot n e c ") a n i S r L P Drury GF s e y a XY H

t r o F Industry

B ird J so o ng h

o n Legend

V a

a l i f u a g x h Educational Facilities

a nm

*# High Density Housing

Flank k Human Service Agencies

") Major Employers F Prince George airway

n ge g GF Medical Facilities b id

R i d r

n d Bla La ils G r if ñ Municipal Facilities fin Dinwiddie ¯ XY Shopping Destinations Richard Bland College Carson 0 0.25 0.5 1 Proposed Extended Virginia Avenue Route Bethune Miles nm

4-14 Final Report oversight. It could be modeled after the program that is in operation in Chesterfield County- Access Chesterfield. If this alternative is pursued, it is recommended that the County apply for a New Freedom grant that could be used to help fund the expenses for the program. Oversight for the program could be provided by an existing County department, or through a mobility management program (see Organizational Alternative #2, page 4-19).

Advantages

• Provides basic mobility for people in Prince George County who currently have no transit service options.

Disadvantages

• The only disadvantage is cost.

Cost

• If two vehicles were in operation five days a week, ten hours a day, the total annual operating costs would be about $275,000. Two vehicles would cost about $60,000 each. It should be noted that the costs are based on PAT’s operating costs, and may be lower with a local human non-profit or private operator.

Discussion of the Relationships Among Alternatives

Several of the service alternatives cannot be considered independently, as they have implications for other routes in the PAT network. These implications are discussed below.

• If the Southpark Mall is incorporated into a Colonial Heights route alternative, then it would not be able to be interlined with the Blandford route.

• If the Virginia Avenue route is extended to Richard Bland College, then it would not be able to be interlined with the Ettrick route.

• If both of these scenarios are implemented, the Ettrick route could be interlined with the Blandford route, offering a cost-effective solution.

Summary of Service Alternatives

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the service alternatives.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-15 Table 4-1: Tri-Cities Area TDP Summary of Service Alternatives

Annual Operating Capital Capital Service Alternative Purpose Cost Needed Cost PAT Alternative #1: Split Blandford Improve rider convenience and travel Potentially low None $ - Route from Hopewell/Fort Lee time and reduce crowding at certain cost, if times. Blandford paired with a Southpark Mall PAT Alternative #2: Adjust South To provide service to the Southside Cost Neutral None $ - Crater Road and Walnut Hill Routes Regional Medical Center and reduce duplication of service in residential neighborhoods. PAT Alternative #3: Consider Later To offer limited evening service to $ 197,000 None $ - Hours of Service on a Partial Route allow PAT riders to use transit to get 4-16 Network home from retail jobs, evening classes, and errands. PAT Alternative #4: Consider To improve productivity and provide $ (34,450) None $ - Reductions in Service on Saturdays a level of service that more closely matches demand. PAT Alternative #5: Update Route To provide accurate and timely $ 15,000 None $ - Maps and Improve Web Site information to the public. New Service Alternative #1: Provide Provide transit service geared to the $ 208,000 or cost 1 vehicle or no $300,000 or Additional Service in Colonial needs of the residents of Colonial neutral if vehicles, if none, if Heights Heights, addressing transit need found supplants the supplants supplants through the demographic analysis and current route existing route existing route the surveys. Table 4-1: Tri-Cities Area TDP Summary of Service Alternatives

Annual Operating Capital Capital Service Alternative Purpose Cost Needed Cost New Service Alternative #2: Provide Provide access to shopping and $ 230,000 1 vehicle Heavy duty: a Direct Connection between Fort recreational opportunities for Fort Lee $300,000 Body- Lee/Hopewell and Southpark Mall residents and their family members on-Chassis: and provide access to job $60,000 opportunities at Fort Lee and the Southpark Mall for Hopewell residents. New Service Alternative #3: Provide To provide transit service for $ 197,000 1 vehicle $ 60,000 Circulator Service in Hopewell Hopewell residents so that they can access employment, shopping, 4-17 medical, and other necessary destinations. New Service Alternative #4: Extend To add an employment and $ 100,000 None$ - the VA Avenue Route to Richard educational destination, provide a Bland College transit option for students, and provide an opportunity to increase ridership on the route. New Service Alternative #5: Provide $ 275,000 2 vehicles$ 120,000 New Demand-Response Service in To provide basic mobility for people in Prince George County Prince George County who currently have no transit service options. Final Report

ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES

A variety of organizational alternatives can be considered to meet current and future regional transit needs, encourage more efficient coordination of transportation services, and promote more effective integration of land use and transit planning. These alternatives are:

• Maintain Current Organizational Structure -- Develop Mobility Management Program • Create a new Transportation District • Create a new Regional Transit Authority

This section reviews each option and describes the potential advantages and disadvantages of each. In addition, overriding issues that need to be considered, no matter which option is ultimately selected, are discussed at the end of this section.

Maintain Current Organizational Structure

PAT is currently the only public transportation provider in the study area that serves local transit needs. An obvious organizational option is to maintain the operation of transit services by the City of Petersburg through the current PAT structure. This alternative would be the simplest by maintaining the existing administrative and operational staff and current vehicle fleet, with expansion as needed based on the service improvements chosen.

The existing structure could serve as the foundation for a regional transit system, with system expansions taking place through contractual agreements with other jurisdictions within the MPO area. The City would remain the operator, with additional funds provided by neighboring jurisdictions to serve areas outside of the City. This strategy would provide customers with seamless regional services, and offer access to the many destinations and needed services in the area.

Advantages

• Easy to implement, requiring only contractual agreements to expand the base of service to meet the transit needs of the residents of neighboring jurisdictions. • Allows for seamless connectivity from regional services to the City’s route network.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-18 Final Report

Disadvantages

• Does not create “ownership” for the other jurisdictions. Control over the system would remain with the City. • This structure has not yet been a successful model in the region for extending transit services to other jurisdictions in the region. • The City continues to have the major responsibility for transit, even with an expanded service area. • May not be an effective structure to address the rural public transportation needs in the region. • Does not create a transit-specific entity that could be quasi-independent and potentially raise revenue.

It should be noted that if the current organizational structure is to remain in place, the City should work to re-engage a transit manager to allow for management focus on transit and to help ease the workload of the Director of Public Works and the PAT Administrative Manager. It would be difficult for PAT to expand without filling this role.

Develop Mobility Management Program

One mechanism that could be implemented in the short term, under the existing organizational structure, to help facilitate incremental transit improvements in the region is the development of a mobility management program. A Mobility Manager could be hired to help develop transit services geared to low income people and people with disabilities. The Mobility Manager could help implement a New Freedom-based mobility program in Prince George County, as well as help with the implementation of the Hopewell Circulator. The Mobility Manager could also help identify opportunities for coordination among existing human service transportation providers, including the senior programs currently operated by Colonial Heights and Hopewell. The Mobility Manager could be housed at the MPO, with Ridefinders, with PAT, or at one of the other participating jurisdictions.

Advantages

• Provides a focus on providing basic mobility service for people who are currently un-served. • Provides a mechanism to look at coordinating existing human-service based transportation programs. • Could be funded in part by either JARC or New Freedom and there is a locally-developed coordinated plan in place in the region, as required by these funding programs.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-19 Final Report

Disadvantages

• It would take some effort to establish such a program and none of the existing organizational structures have historically indicated a desire to put forth this effort. • There are expenses associated with the development of a Mobility Management program, but these can be funded by a JARC or New Freedom grant, which has a funding split of 80% federal and 20% local.

Cost

• The cost to establish a program involves the salary and fringe for a staff person, as well as the associated costs involved with hosting an employee (telephone, computer, desk). The salary and fringe is estimated to be about $52,000 annually and the hosting expenses are estimated to be about $3,000.

Create a New Transportation District

In Virginia, local governments have a number of different ways to come together to create joint enterprises to perform public functions, including the provision of public transportation. The Transportation District Act of 1964 and the Virginia Code Chapters 15.2-4504-4526 provide the authority for jurisdictions to create a Transportation District.

This statute is summarized as follows:

Chapter 15.2-4504 to 4526 Chapter 15.2-4504. Procedure for creation of districts; single jurisdictional districts; application of chapter to port authorities and airport commissions. “Any two or more counties or cities, or combinations thereof, may, in conformance with the procedure set forth herein, or as otherwise may be provided by law, constitute a transportation district… A transportation district may be created by ordinance adopted by the governing body of each participating county and city…Such ordinances shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Chapter 15.2-4506. Creation of Commission to Control Corporation. Chapter 15.2-4507. Members of transportation district commissions. This would appear to state that the commission members must be appointed by the governing bodies of the members, but need not be members of the governing bodies (if the commission is one with powers set forth in subsection A of 15.2- 4515).

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-20 Final Report

Chapter 15.2-4515. Powers and functions generally. This includes preparation of a transportation plan, construction and acquisition of facilities, power to enter into agreements or leases with private companies for operation of facilities, and the ability to contract or agreement within the district (or with adjoining governments) regarding operation of services or facilities.

An example of a regional Transportation District in Virginia is the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC). PRTC is comprised of five jurisdictions: Prince William and Stafford Counties and the Cities of Manassas, Manassas Park, and Fredericksburg. PRTC was established in 1986 to help create and oversee the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail service and also to assume responsibility for bus service implementation. Currently, PRTC offers a comprehensive network of commuter and local bus services in Prince William County and the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, as well as a free ridematching service.

A Transportation District would be a new legally recognized agency comprised of the Tri-Cities MPO members, and have all of the powers necessary to operate a regional transit system. These responsibilities include the power to prepare transportation plans, construct and acquire the transportation facilities included in the transportation plan, operate or contract for the operation of transportation services, enter into contracts and agreements, and administer public transit funds. A Transportation District would be governed by a Commission, with the composition determined by the participating jurisdictions. This governing Commission would determine an equitable funding allocation among the participating jurisdictions.

A new Transportation District could negotiate with the City to assume ownership of the existing Petersburg Area Transit system and oversight of the existing personnel.

Advantages

• With the existing Virginia Code already in place, enabling legislation is not required. • Seamless transit services could be provided. • Would create an entity completely focused on public transportation, with regional ownership. • Would raise the profile of transit services and needs throughout the region. • Would be able to effectively address both urban and non-urban public transportation needs.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-21 Final Report

Disadvantages

• Creates a new entity that will have a variety of administrative and financial needs that are currently provided by the City (i.e., accounting, legal, cash flow management, human resources, risk management, insurance, etc.) • The creation of a Transportation District does not provide any new revenue opportunities. • There would be a considerable amount of time and effort involved in creating a Transportation District.

Create a New Service District

Virginia Code Chapters 15.2-2400-2403 also provides local governments in Virginia with the authority to establish a regional entity, in this case a Service District. Similar to a Transportation District, it would be comprised of the MPO jurisdictions. A major difference, however, is that a Service District could generate additional revenue through the ability to levy higher property taxes within the service district. The development of a Service District would not require enabling legislation.

This statute is summarized as follows:

Chapter 15.2-2400 to 2403 Chapter 15.2-2400. Creation of Service Districts: Provides authority for “any two or more localities” to form a service district by ordinance; requires public hearing. Chapter 15.2-2401. Creation of Service Districts by Court Order in Consolidated Cities: Courts can order the creation of service districts in any city which results from the consolidation of two or more localities.

Chapter 15.2-2402. Description of Proposed Service District: Lists elements required in the ordinance or petition to create a service district—name, boundaries, purpose, facilities, plan for providing, and benefits.

Chapter 15.2-2403. Powers of Service Districts: Lists 13 powers of a service district. Subdivision 2 states that “in addition to services authorized by subdivision 1, transportation and transportation services within a service district, including, but not limited to: public transportation systems serving the district;” are authorized. Subdivision 3 provides authority to own facilities, equipment, property, etc. to provide such services. Subdivision 4 authorizes the district “To contract with any person, municipality or state agency to provide the governmental services authorized by subdivisions 1 and 2.” Subdivision 6 authorizes districts to levy and collect property taxes to pay for the services authorized.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-22 Final Report

Service Districts can be created by a single city or county, or by combinations of cities and/or counties. Service Districts are governed by a development board or other body, with responsibilities agreed upon by the participating jurisdictions. Service Districts can construct, maintain, and operate the facilities and equipment that are necessary to provide a wide range of services, including public transportation systems. However, according to Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (DRPT) no jurisdictions in Virginia have used this organizational approach for the delivery of public transit services. Similar to a Transportation District, a Service District could operate transportation services or enter into contracts and agreements and administer public transit funds.

Advantages

Disadvantages

• Creates a new entity that will have a variety of administrative and financial needs that are currently provided by the City (i.e., accounting, legal, cash flow management, human resources, risk management, insurance, etc.) • The mechanism outlined in the statute for raising revenue (property taxes) may not be politically palatable. • There are no other examples in Virginia that are using this approach for delivery of public transit services. • There would be a considerable amount of time and effort involved in creating a Transportation Service District.

Create Regional Transit Authority (RTA)

An RTA would provide for the widest range of options and would have the fewest limitations. It would be a true regional entity that could include any or all of the MPO jurisdictions, and be a legal entity that would have all of the powers necessary to operate and expand transit service and facilities and provide for the development of new dedicated transportation funding source. The responsibilities of an RTA can be

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-23 Final Report limited to transit, or they could be expanded to other transportation services and facilities.

There is precedent in Virginia for establishment of a RTA. The Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads areas have established authorities, and recently in Williamsburg, James City County, the City of Williamsburg, the College of William and Mary, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation partnered to form a regional authority. A chief consideration in this decision to was the involvement of private institutions. Regional transit authorities are also under consideration in the Charlottesville and Fredericksburg areas.

However, the creation of an RTA would require a strong regional consensus, a local champion to facilitate the process, and subsequent enabling legislation. Many aspects related to formation of an RTA would need to be considered and determined, including the role and structure of a governing board.

Advantages

• Provides the ability to develop a dedicated funding source. • Seamless transit services could be provided. • Would create an entity completely focused on public transportation, with regional ownership. • Would be able to effectively address both urban and non-urban public transportation needs.

Disadvantages

• Requires legislation to be enacted by the Virginia General Assembly. • Creates a new entity that will have a variety of administrative and financial needs that are currently provided by the City (i.e., accounting, legal, cash flow management, human resources, risk management, insurance, etc.). • Jurisdictions may feel loss of local autonomy. • There would be a considerable amount of time and effort involved in creating a Transportation Authority.

Summary of Organizational Alternatives

Table 4-2 provides a summary of the organizational alternatives, allowing comparison with regard to important considerations.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-24 Final Report

Table 4-2: Summary of Organizational Alternatives

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Maintain Create a new Create a new Create a new Current Transportation Service Regional Organizational District District Transit Structure Authority

Process to Inter- Form Establish Legislation Establish Entity to governmental Commission service enacted by Support Regional agreement with district by the Virginia Transit Services between composition ordinance General affected determined by and Assembly jurisdictions participating governed by jurisdictions development board or other body Transit City of New New Service New regional Operation Petersburg Transportation District entity Responsibility District comprised of comprised of interested interested jurisdictions jurisdictions within the within the MPO region. MPO region. Administrative Use current Creates new Creates new Creates new Structure PAT structure entity entity entity Ability to Raise No No Yes Yes New Revenues

FUNDING PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT POTENTIAL EXPANSIONS

In recognition of the importance of financing public transit in the region, this section reviews the typical funding strategies used for urban and rural general public transportation. Public transit is generally funded in the United States through a partnership arrangement between the federal government, state governments, local governmental or quasi-governmental entities (i.e., authorities), and riders. Federal

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-25 Final Report transit funding programs are categorized by the type of service area (i.e., rural, small urban, or large urban). There are also federal funding programs that target specific user groups such as people with disabilities and low income people.

For both urban and rural programs, the total program expenses are calculated. Fare revenue and advertising revenue (if applicable) is then applied to the expenses. The net deficit is then used as a basis for federal, state, and local funding.

Federal Financial Assistance

Section 5307

Prior to the 2000 Census, the Tri-Cities area was considered to be an urbanized area of between 50,000 people and 200,000 people. This status meant that the transit program operated by PAT was provided a specific allocation of federal funds (Section 5307 funds) each year and funds could be used for operating or capital purposes, with certain limitations.

With the regional growth in population and changes in commuting patterns, the Tri-Cities urbanized area was folded into the Richmond Urbanized area, which re- classified the transit program operating in Petersburg as “large urban.” This change has meant that Petersburg is more restricted in the way in which it can use its federal funds (capital and specific capitalized items including ADA paratransit, preventive maintenance, and planning), and these funds come out of the larger pool of federal transit funds available for the Richmond Urbanized Area. This change has been difficult for Petersburg, as well as for a number of other transit programs that experienced a similar shift.

Section 5309

In addition to the annual S.5307 funding program, capital funding is also available through the Federal S.5309 program, which is the bus and bus-related facilities program. This program provides capital assistance for new and replacement buses and related equipment and facilities. Eligible capital projects include the purchase of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park-and-ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment. Funds for the Section 5309 program are distributed on a discretionary basis by each State. Earmarks also flow through this program.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-26 Final Report

Section 5303

Federal planning assistance is also available in urbanized areas under the S.5303 program and these funds generally flow through the MPO.

Section 5311

In rural areas, federal financial assistance is provided through the S.5311 program. The State is the recipient of S.5311 funds, with local governments and non- profit agencies serving as the subrecipients. S.5311 funds can be used for operating and for capital. When used as an operating subsidy, the matching ratio for S.5311 is 50% federal and 50% local. When used as a capital subsidy, the matching ratio is 80% Federal and 20% local.

There is also a component of the S.5311 program (5311(f)), which provides assistance to support intercity bus service in rural areas where there is demand, but not enough fare revenue to be self-sustaining.

Sections 5310, 5316, and 5317

There are also three federal programs geared to specific user groups. These are the Sections 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs.

The S.5310 program provides financial assistance for purchasing capital equipment to be used to transport the elderly and persons with disabilities. S.5310 funds are apportioned annually by a formula that is based on the number of elderly persons and persons with disabilities in each State.

VDRPT is the designated recipient for S.5310 funds in Virginia, and private non- profit operators of services for the elderly and persons with disabilities are eligible subrecipients through an annual competitive selection process. The S.5310 program provides 80% of the cost of the equipment purchased, with the remaining 20% provided by the applicant organization.

The S.5316 (JARC) program provides funding for developing new or expanded transportation services that connect welfare recipients and other low income persons to jobs and other employment related services. JARC program funds are allocated to states through a formula based on the number of low-income individuals in each state.

In the Richmond Urbanized Area, Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) is the designated recipient of these funds. GRTC, in consultation with the MPOs in the region, conduct the application process for these funds in the Tri-Cities region.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-27 Final Report

Projects are eligible for both capital (80/20 match) and operating (50/50 match). The JARC program could be a consideration for several of the proposed service alternatives, including later hours of service on the PAT network, the new service in Colonial Heights, and the Hopewell Circulator.

The S.5317 (New Freedom) program provides funding for capital and operating expenses designed to assist individuals with disabilities with accessing transportation services, including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services. Projects funded through the New Freedom program must be both new and go beyond the requirements of the ADA of 1990. Similar to the JARC Program, GRTC is the designated recipient of these funds and conducts the application process, in consultation with the two regional MPOs. The New Freedom program is a potential funding source for the Mobility Management program and for the development of a demand response transportation program in Prince George County.

Any project funded through the S 5310, JARC, or New Freedom programs must be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan, and in Virginia specifically through a Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan (CHSM). Therefore, any services funded through these three programs must meet one of the identified strategies included in the Richmond/Petersburg Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)

These funds originate at the federal level, jointly administered by the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration and are administered locally by the Tri-Cities MPO. Among the many types of projects eligible for funding under the CMAQ program are those that reduce single occupant automobile use, which can help reduce air pollution. These funds can be used to help initiate transit services, including both operating and capital at 100% for a three-year demonstration period.

State Financial Assistance

The State of Virginia provides support for transit programs through a variety of programs, including the following:

• Formula Assistance: Supports costs borne by eligible recipients for operating related public transportation expenses. Up to 95% of eligible expenses.

• Capital Assistance: Supports costs borne by eligible recipients for public transportation capital projects. Up to 95% of eligible expenses.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-28 Final Report

• Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Commuter Assistance: Supports administration of existing or new local and regional TDM or Commuter Assistance programs. Up to 80% of eligible expenses

• Demonstration Project Assistance: Assists communities in preserving and revitalizing public or private public transportation service by implementing innovative projects for one year of operation. Up to 95% of eligible expenses. The proposed Hopewell Circulator could potentially be funded through this program, though it is not clear if the State has demonstration funds currently available.

• Technical Assistance: Supports planning or technical assistance to help improve or initiate public transportation related services. Up to 50% of eligible expenses.

• Intern Program: Supports increased awareness of public transportation as a career choice for aspiring managers. Up to 95% of eligible expenses.

• Transportation Efficiency Improvement Funds (TEIF): Supports reduction in demand for new/expanded transportation facilities that serve single occupant vehicles and initiatives at the state, regional, and community level that demonstrate innovative approaches to reducing traffic congestion up to 80% of eligible expenses.

Local Funding Options

The mechanisms used to match federal and state funds can be derived from a number of sources including city/county general revenues, particular taxes or fees locally authorized to support transit, and human service agency contractual revenue.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 4-29

Final Report

Chapter 5

Operations Plan

INTRODUCTION

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan has included four technical memoranda that provided an overview and analysis of public transit services in the Tri- Cities, discussed goals, objectives, and standards, analyzed the need for transit services, and developed potential organizational and service alternatives for improving public transportation in the region. The process has been guided by the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Technical Committee.

This operations plan is organized in three sections, and each section includes constrained and unconstrained projects. The major sections are: 1) recommendations concerning changes to the existing public transit services; 2) recommendations for new transit services; and 3) organizational recommendations. Chapters 6 and 7 provide the companion capital and financial plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES

Constrained Plan

Given the economic climate during which this plan is being prepared, most of the constrained recommendations concerning the existing public transit network include ways in which service can be provided more effectively. The original TDP goals were more visionary than the current fiscal realities will allow.

The following recommendations for the existing PAT transit service network have been endorsed by the Technical Committee:

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 5-1 Final Report

• Modify the South Crater Road and Walnut Hill Routes to provide service to the Southside Regional Medical Center (SRMC), reduce service duplication, and improve on-time performance. Berkeley Manor and Battlefield Park neighborhoods will be cut from the South Crater Road Route and the SRMC will be added to the route. The Deerfield neighborhood will continue to be served by the South Crater Road Route. As such a major destination, the SRMC will also be served by the Walnut Hill Route by eliminating the Deerfield neighborhood, which will remain on the South Crater Road Route. Both routes would continue to serve the Wal-Mart area, as it is a major activity stop. The map for this recommendation is presented as Figure 5-1. This recommendation is cost neutral with regard to operating costs, though there will be some costs associated with changing the printed routes and schedules.

• Reduce Saturday Service to Reflect Demand. The Saturday ridership on the PAT system, as recorded during the boarding and alighting data collection period, is 61% of the weekday ridership; however almost the entire route network is in operation on Saturdays. This recommendation considers looking closely at the Saturday ridership and reducing service where appropriate to reflect demand. For example, the Washington Avenue and the Lee Avenue Routes had significantly lower ridership on Saturdays. Rather than offering 30-minute headways on these routes on Saturdays, it is suggested that these routes be interlined on Saturdays to offer hourly headways. This action would save 12.5 revenue service hours (one bus) on Saturdays, for a total of 650 annual operating hours.

o Cost. Reducing Saturday service for Lee Avenue and Washington Avenue would save PAT about $34,450 annually.

• Update Route Maps and Improve Website. The public information that is currently available for PAT services is out of date, including the route maps and schedules and the web information. This alternative focuses on updating the route maps, schedules, and website information to reflect current services. This should be done after the proposed TDP changes are adopted for implementation.

o Cost. A preliminary estimate for updating and printing the route and schedule brochures and updating the website is between $10,000 and $15,000.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 5-2 144

Tem ple

gton shin Wa

Figure 5-1: Proposed Adjusted South Crater Road and Walnut Hill Routes

d C ve th o Gro he t n L n yt P 9 th s 2 w o 2 0 3 d t e Bank W a 1 r n o n n M d 3 i t r l th t 3 3 a k s g Petersburg Courthouse Complex O C 6 r r le r Chesterfield a i 3 S o w o h c o a ie t C o r l 7t k Y s L k Legend S g h C q l r a ig e u d B um o e h r A B a l H t i t d P s n t 8 3 g t t n s r t o VEC Workforce Satellite Center e 2 3 t u n r 3 A h a ro t r H L e 4 a a Petersburg City Hall am 3 f C ills S a D W y a Educational Facilities C gh e e i t v n H t i o E h e s t h Petersburg Multimodal Transit Center h v 7 t H a 9 U a 3 3 a n lle M c o n e gt e u rc z in h e sh i c a o a m e W Ro n t om l High Densityi Housing th C on o nt Petersburg Central Library n 0 i e h 4 H th M Wy t h orth T Petersburg National Battlefield 8 t G N lip e e Tu e 3 9 P g r e u lle C r 3 c o c e r n P a n C e a e w n e R r 1 r ro r B t c o J i W w r r r u Human Service Agencies a n a a e nd t L o wn y l t C 460 e o n o s r e p S Fort Lee Military Reservation n B t 1 lu b e e i H J e 4 b B A s e s R m e D ty e r a a g D e t r m ib a e r L f e o m r re h g e e R u o f m a r lm e C d S l r i P c n i F c le n i h s r s E p i k l ap l o o s i Major Employers o M o r t Van Buren n W e l e e p o s n exa rm t T n a n o a F S r B rs n i d d o Ma y u g x r e e t c o R H n u llc h rcy pr ry l i Joh e a S cu l n e D A r G i F K e a re W enne a M ensv H Medical Facilities dy il e t d m le l r nu y il G d l a a r W k G Prince George W P a l W p o l i S B ker m k y r n el c e F u e L Le e y le i n e g w n vu d h e s o H s P e s N c rs e e c t e s a fe R r S e y ef G G g f e rl m J r a ra i Ea ah m n r e t a t a J t o p Municipal Facilities ld m m o r ky th n c e u d e nt 0 e to e t stle K s l o 4 4 s i B e 6 Win M o a or e 0 field t r s l th i F s w R

gu c ore u H h e e a k S u a 0 o t 5 m 6 b A e 8 s Shopping Destinations n L 4 b to a y s o p lad x R G G J a w R a f he m a i att M l t M p m C ain Myric S S k 95 a a o Toll Gate l ni E K e a gi Y a r n S ou H Vi s tedman n l i r g t l n i B P M p i t k n rk a o o M g Proposed Adjusted Walnut Hill Route e r t e o t in i a t w A e S n l t l J i

r c l l e n

v i H l e a i n r H n i 95 m a l g

g l a i in t Lake m l e arol side t t e

n P yd e o o t C n i r r lo s i o u F g lt n n u M o o o t

l e

a o a i

C l v n e u k Proposed Adjusted SoM uth Crater Road Route Luk y n W c 460 a int B o s B Sa v t W c A i oisseau S I e V n n v el r m ut e s a Ste e rkha Waln d r H d a i t t K n e M r H a c e s ah e o r n a T n u a do n Claremont h s d Bax ol w a m o a o ter c k B n l e B o w C P in C en b L m n o s

a h e s u r i S m o u a B e o n k y r t c

k t v F d M O e k s y

t a l B B o

s W a t o o r e

e n r O d n a ri V r t H r l B a e t a e r y t k

u a T N s i r 85 gle o r c l r B r R l S s le i Tan e a n t l w a s i o 9 g o l l o t ll n s i s s n o b D c 5 a o h n A o n r re d c e T i d r d t P a o o n d h o J e p r d P e F n a G n e i e 5 a r W e ir r r o fa s T t r h x a a o e - e ck n s n n er Tu i 3 t v t ea o P W Petersburg v Petersburg Branch Library e r Walnut Hill Plaza

a P r M wood o A a ngle M l Ta w r l e i c l s t T y W e k C u c a h C h o k c o a t r a n C s o e h a n o W th n o k rt o a L n r e t e u g a e l e o H a k E ls a tu o l V x o G f M C l l n i e n a e t r r a ya l o n y w r e s d n P e i t t n W u i r o C n G n o a l l e o a il en le d g W H d h ly in n u H n g l L d C o y r 5 Gr o in H rr a s a im s 8 es B uth e h w So y lb l t l a r u e i u e t f C B n DMeerfield a r c k u u h x k o ig e r le a k C a N le R t s Gre o u en Deer tchen y wood field rm Ku c e Be a k a sid ureg n Defense k ard Blackwater d oo d y Tyler r oo B w F R t k r am se ar ad o p k n P te n e o u s t s on ro S e a s n Dods rb m herst 301 o r ve Ho Am g r r u O e e B R o n rt amp

r g b n o t to a F e ill p R Oak H

t m s d Ha W

e s n o p i la l W n d l m o d n i Fort Davis Shopping Center r n a wo oo to ne a e p g B l F g R b W m T w er a a o m r li a h R ava a W t o C R r r R R o o e r d o a l i R N l e s c N d e p m O s y a t h p t e a m M i m g v n d H Battlefield Park p o r a a r a B i t i a p e d R g R t lley l a l m V m a l s a s a m e R p n

B m d o r O W i H akm Petersburg DMV e r ont igh r t Popl w t ar e

o e Poplar Springs Hospital on G o Park r rs 5 t e e d s b 9 e n o F o 2 k g R Berkeley Manor o o r r H n g d n a r o yn n e R l o L F c a tt i G co s k m S F n r p i le e a n l ey l S o F d 295 s tty n e h P

t Kings n o l o n e t o c t C a e amelot Southside Regional Medical Center n e c a n S ri L P Drury C

L r F s a a t r k e e d o y e r o n

a s

o t a H h

w g Wal-Mart Supercenter o t

H r h e r

0 0.25 0.5 1 o c e a d

F o e l o i w e f e a Industry k Miles a B Rives x L Final Report

Unconstrained Plan

The City of Petersburg does not currently have transit expansion funds available. If funds were to become available, for example through the reauthorization of the federal transportation legislation, the following project could be implemented.

• Provide Limited Evening Service. Transit service currently ends between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., depending upon the route and the day of the week. The most frequently requested improvement from the rider survey results was for longer hours of service. The focus of this project is to provide limited evening service, offering transit services on a partial route network, based on where evening services are likely to be needed and most heavily used. The route network could be different for evening service, as it is in several cities, reflecting the lower potential demand and focusing on core ridership areas. For PAT, it would make sense to operate some kind of combined Washington Avenue/Lee Avenue Route, South Crater Road, South Park Mall, and possibly Ettrick. It is estimated that this configuration could be accomplished with three vehicles, plus an ADA complementary paratransit vehicle. This project will likely need to wait until funds become available.

o Cost. If four vehicles are used (three fixed-route, one ADA) for an additional three hours of evening service, Monday through Saturday, the additional annual revenue service hours would be 3,720 at a cost of about $197,000 annually. Evening transit service has been recognized in the past as a legitimate use of Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) funds, so this may be a potential funding source to partially offset this expense. JARC funds provide a 50% match for operating projects, which would bring the local cost to $98,500 annually, if PAT were to be awarded a JARC grant.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW SERVICES

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 5-4 Final Report

Constrained Plan

• Provide Circulator Service in Hopewell. The transit needs analysis showed that there is a need for transit services in the City of Hopewell, both for internal City trips, and for regional trips. The concept for the Hopewell Circulator is to develop a convenient route that serves as many major origins and destinations as is feasible for one vehicle and offer a connection to the region at the Crossings Shopping Center (current terminus of PAT’s Hopewell/Fort Lee Route). A proposed route is provided as Figure 5-2. This route is 10.4 miles round trip, which is a little short for hourly service, but would allow for some additions to the route or allow for a deviated fixed- route, which would eliminate the need for separate ADA complementary paratransit. It is anticipated that as a new service, there will likely be a few alterations from the original proposed route. The City of Hopewell has sponsored a 2010 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) candidate project for this service and the project rated high. FY 2011 funds through the CMAQ program are likely to be available for this project. If CMAQ funds are awarded, the grant would be for a three-year demonstration project. After the demonstration period, the City would consider a service contract with PAT for regular fixed-route service. This concept was originally developed with the thought that PAT would be the operator of the service; however, as the sponsor of the CMAQ grant, the City of Hopewell was considering operating the service itself, as they do already operate a senior transportation program. Subsequent guidance from VDRPT indicated that PAT, as the region’s designated recipient for Federal S.5307 funds, would need to take the lead on providing service funded under a CMAQ grant. It may be possible for PAT to subcontract the actual operation back to the City of Hopewell.

o Cost. If a 12-hour span of service were provided on this circulator, Monday through Saturday, the annual operating costs would be about $197,000 annually (using PAT’s costs). The costs could potentially be lower using the existing senior transportation program. A vehicle would be required for this service ($60,000 for a 20-passenger body-on-chassis vehicle).

Unconstrained Plan

There are three recommended projects that were conceptually endorsed, but are not currently funded. These projects are outlined below.

• Provide Additional Service in Colonial Heights. The only transit service currently provided in Colonial Heights is the PAT Southpark Mall Route, which travels from downtown Petersburg via I-95 directly to the Mall area.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 5-5

Figure 5-2: Proposed Hopewell Circulator

r a t n s e d id e

rs e 1 e l Riv x l 2

o F C Chesterfield tt A y Chesterfield a o e de m r si o t s er p m iv p W W a John Randolph M8 edical Center A r l R R

rk t i i e a a l P h l l t s r Raymond y ia t a o a w n m n n d w 3 o s e H a t s d ppes o E 7 w r 8 o V 9

A C 1 n S W a B 5 s t p 1 e u t Ann i t C s / 3 s s h a nce c ri h P h m o t e 2

l e 2 P t r o o h r w m 2 h

d d t d 4 t r r h y D e i n i i o t b t o M a n l n i h P d l P o o e n ivsion ti k c D ta In s a e 1 d l a S us e s t t e r

W i n 1 a o o n l r

r e d i k s t G o r C n l r h

d a o M Ho i l 1 n o y bi C Vinton e o e 0 ay 3 R 1 e adw M n ro B B B o c r t n ookn i 2 m e h i a l r 1 t t t Warsaw g Hopewell City Hall b h o / n s

6 2 e a o r M 1 t i t Walnut a h C 2

n M n a l Hopewell Courthouse i O F M r M w P Hopewell DSS o o i y C a th o r t2 a e n a i C o ss Po e y P l Cit C i 3 n n r k r a h r r e k D n v o li Hopewell DSS m i l r i w i r Norton n o d a

d o D o d c s b i e l w o i h r e ay c o 1 a D D

i w r a c d o y n e 1 e r k r Ivo h u d n B g t 5 Hopewell Health Department n d B t r C n 1 e 1 h 8 0 t A o R 4 f ay t h ur o 3 L t e 2 h x t h a t 1 n l h t ce 9 o Gra h Appomattox Regional Library-Hopewell O n d W 4 5 t n W A h f t Chesterfield 2 2 o M h e 1 i G n a r 5 a a n r 1 2 e s t 1 l e d t s M g 6 t e t e h e 7 s h m L u n u S t

a h a t d e Q h o t r o d d r i s r T r e o J rm e n a a ck in s n s 2 R 3 o ic al H P e n olly H t l o t o n a la 9 2 d t r a A w t h on n s i 6 R n n 5 M h l n s d o B J l i M t l a a e l d 2 a h l 1 f e s L l r i r o y 2 i p n l b c do 2 la rg a or u b e r G n b m y s d ch d e r yn l L Pick m H et P t u Petersburg Federal Correctional Institution o an W rchill H Bull Ru k Clingm Winston Chu n e H e h g 3 ld r 1 t i s P C c u 9 g to r la e i 5 ou i t b 1 d n rt f h 1 e t n h t m v t k S e a c h 8 1 l l u a e s e l g n 2 E a l t t n r R h B A y 1 2 h t d s L d a i O e H s 0 n n r t t d R B u i o d h o d d k n e lp e S o v a e m e h R W n h h rl d le c t y i il i u o n nv W R o P s o d k a e a l l l s D a m m Hopewell w o s o g f t lk u k f r White Oak r n o c u o f r e e r J S P C e a

y e r o m

k e r M re s R

b H N H

a s iv C o i t er b l li

i Sussex u l n O S e J l L e h tr r

n i r S n k e e a i a f n l e f r e r O e p clin a P n Farm m Ma v kso e o Jac e r l i t e r s a s P x G o R n m g e

o n r L r r a W e F u id e Woods Forest Franklin la M N v S o t v e h t K a n e a e s li E w i r b w e Randall Luck t y u r C t a D T t r W v Y e r t i o l D o b rr o l Sherwood a e e r h k b c W l l a e S e a n w 5 s le l o rk l t n a t s la p en a o e C a r m r - l T n r H ee e e n M S r 6 a y r F h L t ig la te p ib e h C C C s am S e w P Portsm t e R r i a outh n C R u t a n r M i W n y r e o a e o n t n a li S K n a y a n r k B n y l Wilmingto l e tr s m h a n l n a o i e T g v

N i e o f a w d e a e l k r l il v r e a c e F b l o o o R e k e o M y b r N d r

t s L r

295 h i l e A t T e ale r B loverd o e s r C

Burnham a l W n rr in d i e R lm ia a use g Grovewood e o c tho t k lfe in in e our o e C c g g C n s k ti to ir lro

e e e V M l l ood r n e e venw S D a e e r D d e l n d Irwin y n a u d H e a C fi b to d n L o

n S m o n i h n n o n i l u b t

n t e o

l a i alena i r e w y s e w G r r t C r e u n l o y s b m T r r c

o G g i t o e l t F a S d y e C n s t L n z Kippax ia n e i e w C o o Kippax n m ry a t a l r i B G l e r m e e P H k g B r n n r l n P a i e e so n i a William o w V v h sburg O t n a o a D J F l e d m d r od y a Legend o s o

r A w o o l r B s e lm e h n E e W l D D er e a S h

P M s Yor c n i a i ktown n u F h d v w i r i l r s l d i y n k Gloucester d la S E r a a 6 d a n m t G e d B 3 r i y Fort Lee Military Reservation olling o e e ilb EdP ucational RFacilities L r y G id y h g e d g i i a B H a Colonial Corner Shopping Center d on rk o Wats le o y O High Density How using l g d in e ford K g San n r B I d l e r E il te xle o s y n M e W R W R e Human Service Agencies Prince George a P or m a s r s m i d t n n O p e b ng i p ro ri c S on r p W n B M o S e t a M u a o G o i t r n n n t y k o i Monr o e r o o r e t o o T t r t Major Employers R o l T l i o e r s h

n e Co b g rb us m i o o ns o e e ne F Q a i m s r yw i t d n u k H E ra B a d E c e o a s s L ire in b d e esh p rr e e M e Ch e Medical Facilities l P o P c d Oaklawn Plaza Shopping Center a l s iew d w co i V ark n t u Hyde P o o ry L t nt P u M u a o o z VEC Workforce Center s c C a il n l k P g B P a C e R r w f Municipal Facilities t i o T e r o c o le s The Crossings Shopping Center r d y R d h a o id t s u a M e d d t n r t e e t n C r R n n 144 amp G do C h i t o a n n r e n e e N 44 p Hopewell DMV r o s F 1 to J f L g B Shopping Destinations g e b i o

i m n m g e e r d a i x i C k a a in f l i t R d z t H h f n li z r R R s e r e i a e c E k a ll a r h s m s e la r W o e n M 0 k 0.25T 0.5 1 h g e p n a s t k t o in d e J r n a 6 P a o c r p Proposed Hopewell Ciru culator lr t a h ir Miles S i h H a r la R Shop k B Tem ple

gton shin Wa Final Report

The demographic analysis provided in Chapter 3 showed that there are areas of relatively high need in Colonial Heights, specifically in the Boulevard Corridor. Riders also requested transit service to the Boulevard area. This recommendation proposes a new route, which could potentially supplant the current Southpark Mall Route. The proposed new route would originate in Petersburg at the Petersburg Station, travel on Wythe Street to Adams Street and into Colonial Heights via the Boulevard. The route would continue on the Boulevard to Ellerslie, and then travel east to make a right onto Conduit to the Southpark Mall, and then making the current loop through the mall area and would return via the same path. This route is shown in Figure 5-3 and is 12.7 miles round trip, which would allow one vehicle to complete the route in one hour.

o Cost. If this service were be operated 12.5 hours per day, six days a week, using one vehicle, the total annual operating costs would be about $208,000 annually (assuming PAT operation). It should be noted that this route could supplant the current Southpark Mall route, which could result in a cost neutral solution, with the expectation that the City of Colonial Heights would enter into a cost-sharing arrangement with the City of Petersburg to contribute towards the annual operating costs for this route. If this new route supplants the current Southpark Mall Route, an expansion vehicle would not be needed. If an expansion vehicle is needed, the capital cost for that vehicle would be about $300,000.

• Provide a Direct Connection between Fort Lee/Hopewell and Southpark Mall. As discussed in Chapter 3, Fort Lee is expanding considerably and there will be many more soldiers living at Fort Lee temporarily while they complete different training programs. These soldiers typically do not have vehicles with them and have some time on the weekends to leave Fort Lee for shopping and recreational opportunities. The focus of this project is to provide a direct connection for these soldiers, as well as for family members and employees of Fort Lee, so that they can access goods and services in a convenient manner. Figure 5-4 provides a map of the route, which is proposed to originate at the Southpark Mall, travel to Fort Lee, then to the Crossings Shopping Center. The route would then do the same in reverse, but would not enter Fort Lee heading westbound (this option can be discussed, but would likely take too much time to enter Fort Lee in both directions and the extra ride time to the Crossings Shopping Center is relatively short). This route could offer a transfer with the current or changed Southpark Mall route at the Southpark Mall. There could also be transfer opportunities with the proposed Hopewell Circulator at the Crossings Shopping Center, allowing residents of Hopewell to access Fort Lee and the Southpark Mall. The round trip mileage for this route is 11.5 miles, which would allow one vehicle to

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 5-7 Figure 5-3: Proposed Colonial Heights Connector

D H

a P e Ell orn ert rmi e l hs ta l h rs e h ge l g ir li n e l L e o l a e L i k ly Az l C w a e l ale o nt H a erb l s o W u C r l Pickett o el y y a lin e e H h g z e ton d C Colonial Square Shopping Center c b e i d

a r S B e s a u r r o lin

C V e i r gt Ple on B k

a n a s san a n t e D W m a C le L c L r

e o e a

o d F V S e d a f p a r l r F o a O a a l d b i e n w r Dunlop Village Shopping Center o Taswell H l l a l li u e v m d e n n pt Co r o e D v n y in w T e l gto e r l n i o n 5 v E o s w G o 9 ke B sex t y N p H a nd o ew n L F u c L u astl m Colonial Heights Central Library r e o l y e C e v K c k P C i a e c R in t i Y s h ly ach e r r t o a l n Ba l d w s li G e in n r rl o a g o ey ic e l d s v Vall s H t id e k e e A r Oa e F kw o d C o ring d i p k s rd e S a d d E a n Moun lmwo e v t P o o dl o a O leasan d Nee e t e o d d Pin r l Brame r n d B i e o stwood W o Cre P o o W W

w F w a d t l f i k k i Ellis r o e

o W D r r f E e e i Ridg b e e r Br u a l ra a z n d a B t d D d M e e ph n rs al B 144 R Alp ra B ine a rid R V g C 1 ert o e rince Alb Southpark Crossing Shopping Center bi P n S C

n ur n h i art Co l B e Mac

e l k on d n a ad n a alnut Fin k e d W e

a r

r A o Te o F Colonial Heights m r ple b k x oc Prince George o Colonial Heights City Hall m F m Southpark Mall Di Te r Colonial Heights Health Department n e m k pl o 4 l nd e x 4 a Ma Highla 1 ple ke e W La l ple F p Fairfa Tem le x Colonial Heights Emergency Medical Services Riv u Allen T erd J u al k J e

B s c s e t s t o e t D arlott k h t i ic C o d o n nn u e e g J P l a u p d K d u m a P l l l H d y u e o e er k e r m stov ar u e a n P l W E C R h i t tr m P e v s a n l Parksouth Shopping Center e o T o k F i n o a i R d o s n l l n o l o l m t g m ich o l R o y o t r n d l r t n n o c H e e d i a Dimmock Square Shopping Center i n oke k a n ol n i v oa rf l R i o l P O L l N e l s M

5 W o a

e o k o lk r o l - Bollinger uff a R i S rg o Chesterfield bu Southgate Square Shopping Center d ynch n L 8 d

i r Wright a d r Wal-Mart Supercenter Colonial Hts (Dimmock Ctr) p Fos tt te n r a r dso e e Win Ry t r an c r

S k a Pickwick Shopping Center J e ty r n y t d a Bruce i 95 n S w u t S a h o s o d ut G e R aple r h f M e e n u f B t B e t o ie M ri h l r L e st d a y o C e L a J l Ive l o x a a n y r f y i Ramp n W t t e a M i a c y o l h r l n L k P s ite u W a n s t o h L o ar i a tt tu n R ll L th i h u n n S y n or ll t B o n l w N C i e h r o s e W w a G a ls o i h a h w e t e i R v Chesterfield ee l m C t W r le th a s r o a e m e rs u u a v o r s J K m ry i th le l C R p p S u e i d b n r n n N e o s f o m m tl S f g r t o k a e i t a R I a a u d g V O n r g g d n B n s Marvin in i l u R e l r a M H o n y s o r g i o st i s n r e c t 4 A i h R e k r n ia L r a t s m o h e i l c

r s W a a a e v y Legend k O d o

e o l k g W l r n e n e i e n U c m a f d n h r m a n n s a H b s r i a te l J o l a 3 v e G u o r s in H G e s o z B r d C nd n d e r ga mo r a h N r r i c g R d e i M R A s h a b o t

i e o n v i n b u a e 2 t C o s y C g o t o r R r s r n o p h t y lfe t i n h e e d u h c

m Educational Facilities i r a W n a r s o o a e h n t S c e ss o n to u M u avajo e G N n i r p a g o s i o he in S o e hill r a g te a C B rc h C n Whi P e s h A S o u u e t a S R e r e e L W l m s e id E p la r a g e u t L ills a e e Tru t e n H d g High Density Housing iv th l e C i s p n e rf d r le R d ie y t e t B g l a B ok er r rickh e d H ro ill e b ous g O M e g in 2 l P l ld lia r e o e e l n er m h iv A s l B k R C y d R C e o o k a tt y Humasan Service Aggencies h o P e h a i e C c t r s T e a B u i h C a s S M u w S

d o a 5 g m a u o n e o i t t L J r t x r

n L a ham t e c r e p a el o S P i u d l h c s x y a n O p k r h N s r h u r C

c i 4 c k S l s d E t F s o t

k r r o e C h a s l e e 3 v t s

o C o r e e G t th P Major Employers n ain o y M t w v W a Lo Bank t Petersburg National Battlefield F e ld r r O th i Petersburg Courthouse Complex o C 6 c h l k ig e o th H y l 7 C q u e i th y Petersburg t 8 Medical Facilities r bb n t en Ta t t H VEC WorkA force Satellite Center e U r t r o D d n F r ro n a e u a i L m m v o a H a C s i n ll s i s fa s W Municipal Facilities ll y ks e e ar s W t M B e y ie te

z n rd en Petersburg Multimodal Transit Center ck o H M h J on le Hig a ingt el z ash ch Shopping Destinations e W Ro x l tto e J a rc S o P Petersburg Central Library m e o n i H J o m n n e p to e th e p m u y a M A o in e W x T r H D t s f e e C h P r ip f 0 0.25 0.5 1 a r l e e r p u u p W e if i T r U n l s r r a Proposed Colonial Heights Connector r o s c e l r n a al c r e o t o y w n n e s ro H Ce B r Miles p n t Figure 5-4: Proposed Fort Lee Connector

P R *#O s l a ea XY l sa ord d m nt Sanf m r Da B le p I a ex r l o F R e kj y n n

w o O r n ak t woo n F e d t p k e E n a r

m lm wood a Oaklawn Plaza Shopping Center o O G s d d a

C n o i o e o l VEC Workforce Center t P i o a P XYz w u w la t R d t h d l P f n i i n i n w r d u a o l The Crossings Shopping Center W g k D o C a e O M 144 Ram XY G p Hopewell DMV a p rf ck m ie o a ld d Ram dle R XYTem Pud t p Walnu R Southp le ñ a E rk p r R a d te l n k m a s Hele o F o a o in r m s p e il r es l a te Jam y R ar n T Qu *# Southpark Mall e 4 Fort Lee Post Exchange/Commi s mp n 4 le o 1 ke x a e T XY L l XY *# le u mp F s Te Riv r s Colonial Heights e e rd t 1 i al s 2 n e s a n g t ck m d nni er r Je d rt ove a 5 3 est o a r W lr u t d K i ark a Q h 4 e P t R s h C n s E e 6 s c o t H l c 8 h i k l A n 7 o t a F o h g t m n XY h l o p t i o o n a i r o L e h l Ingram a n s S t o l k s o n s l XY c a g e n J s cc g t ehous A re ar 1 on 1 8 R 6 ek 0 t ya e W M t h Pi n XY t th h ne Mi nville hu XY 1 1 ddle a kj r 3 2 D st 1 th th 5 So H t uth i h ll Bri J sto Iv 1 a l ey Ramp Wh 1 c i F th k t te i s ar hil n o Stu n yn w l a Prince George n o sl ie Wh n ¯ ils o v e c 1 R r el e 2 9 W e e R v Ro rs 2 t 1 n i sl 2 h y a 8 5-9 R n p n C o n Ra Chesterfield N 0 t m m d s o k p I m t h r t a n a a L h O d p e H g n e l u M R e f n a o J f i y s s o t e m e e h r e R i La f J a c f s l m e e a k r n k o o s G ngt l shi e o B W a em W n Kenner Army Health Clinic n i n*# b o d e b b P u n C H i on z d u a a o on 25t l ag chm N h r e o e i M n R A r k g u a Fort Lee Military Reservation v n t s s GF R r a o s s y lf r e t h i r h h B n n c rp a d o o at o o t t g o n o g *# u Navaj le B C p a in s hill o h C hite t a g s e W 95 a u S a o S 27 r e E W l l th L § p a ¨ a z ¦ C g a e g t d R S h i s p l o e r ok r t e e ck e B o r y M r br ille S b g M kj pr o n in lli O elia g u o Am s r er B l n g Riv d isa A o C B u rd a h u o y e aw c ld lham h r ex L d n in n O Pe 5 s I u c s n ne Ok *# t u L kjr h E s h c S a e 2 a S 4 h h h t t d m a Legend an x n 5 s r e s M e nk t C F h P t 0 s n in Pu i Ba h t t n n d 9 9 3 o t o o y a 2 1 2 L g g *# a r r W d lo a l v t 3 3 r N o o t enry d y e e ld r t o H a te y O C i 3 i T r c s io n s 3 z r o th k a n o 7 A C lq B o b n L in #ab i e u h ss *T t # t d * i a t n t 8 d C e le e t n kj rt t ñ th e Petersburg National Battlefield 2 Educational Facilitiese y iz C n r 3 33r h B klin R W ro t Fran h e 4 a m *# u a 3 C s h m r C ll a U c i oral Se la h s W C n p k e C on y ar h Bataan ñi s n t # o m t * *# ri on M E a C n o 7 High Densityn Housing n h u o h v t Y B t e 3 t a a 9 A a a g o P e lle M c 3 e r d g e A in ch i u k a M M o S a t o x m c R t h J k T i a e o t w f e e s e Petersburg s 0 ñi n r h n l v r f r 4 Human Service Agencies a f M e a te e r r H lip c ge Tu r e a le s e ol r u o P C c R Q h n ñ e ou h il W n t a r d d top 9 D e)" e l R 3 ph Major Employers b # a * H i rty re m B A C a e o s m ib a llm a lu i r L e r b F t p h g r e a e m e r d P h l c p r t a i n i s i M k s 8 E o C t W xas e t 3 Te e s n rs l n a i a 1 GF M n r Medical Facilities 4 B i d t d o y g e n r uc n y r e Darc Sp y Gre ill e ercur ensvill e H F S e l M e y il p r W k y o P alk l B G er y c e k e m lle ic n u Municipal Facilities w a n v h Ne so a ue H d c ñ m o r e H ll fe R r G S y po ef R rl o A J a r a a a l E G m n l r r r t i d e a p J h a h H i a t n m m l d 0 l g 4 XY o Shopping Destinations u 46 Winfi e o e re 85 0 ld s B Sho th R t e § w 460 o ¦¨ s a H e t w 5 0 u o u 8 Laurel m 6 b o w s 4 n b atthe C y th M o R p d r 00.51Saint 0.25 a ou o u R m nt o o ia p y ProposedW Fort Lee Connector Virgin ark Toll Gate Myrick C nt M Miles Stedman kjSai *# Final Report

complete the trip in one hour. The hours of service for this route may need to be different from weekday to weekend to reflect likely demand. It is suggested that this route provide service in a complementary manner to the current Petersburg/Fort Lee Route and not supplant it, given that the origination is at the Southpark Mall, rather than Petersburg.

o Cost. If service on this route were to be operated on a 14-hour span of service Monday through Saturday, with hours that vary according to demand, the annual cost of service would be $230,000. It would be expected that Fort Lee would help fund this route. A vehicle would also be required to be purchased to operate this route. A heavy duty transit bus costs about $300,000 and a body-on-chassis 20-passenger vehicle costs about $60,000. It should be noted that during the alternatives deliberation, representatives from Fort Lee indicated that they would likely be interested in the weekend portion of the route only.

• Provide New Demand-Response Service in Prince George County. Prince George County currently has the lowest level of transit service among the MPO jurisdictions. The transit needs analysis indicated that some level of transit service was needed in the County, starting with service for people with disabilities, the elderly, and people with low incomes. This proposal involves initiating a demand-response transportation program to begin to meet some of the County’s most basic public transportation needs. A “starter” program would likely include two vehicles, operating Monday- Friday, ten hours a day or so. This type of program could be contracted to a private provider or an existing non-profit, in order to take advantage of existing capabilities in the area of scheduling, dispatch, and oversight. It could be modeled after the program that is in operation in Chesterfield County -- Access Chesterfield. If and when this project is pursued, it is recommended that the County apply for a New Freedom grant that could be used to help fund the expenses for the program. Oversight for the program could be provided by an existing County department, or through a regional mobility management program.

o Cost. If two vehicles were in operation five days a week, ten hours a day, the total annual operating costs would be about $275,000. Two vehicles would cost about $60,000 each. It should be noted that the costs are based on PAT’s operating costs, and may be lower with a local human non- profit or private operator.

Table 5-1 provides a summary of the projects included in the six-year TDP.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 5-10 Table 5-1: TDP Projects Recommended for Implementation

Annual Capital Operating or Planning Capital Project Purpose Cost Needed Cost Constrained Projects for PAT: Adjust South Crater Road and Walnut To provide service to the Southside Cost Neutral None $ - Hill Routes Regional Medical Center and reduce duplication of service in residential neighborhoods. To improve productivity and provide ($34,450) None $ - Reduce Saturday Service to Reflect a level of service that more closely Demand matches demand. Update Route Maps and Improve To provide accurate and timely $15,000 None $ - Website information to the public.

Unconstrained Projects for PAT: Consider Later Hours of Service on a To offer limited evening service to $197,000 None $ - Partial Route Network allow PAT riders to use transit to get home from retail jobs, evening classes, and errands. Constrained Projects, Regional: Provide Circulator Service in To provide transit service for $197,000 1 vehicle $60,000 Hopewell Hopewell residents so that they can access employment, shopping, medical, and other necessary destinations. The City of Hopewell has applied for CMAQ funding for this project. 5-11 Table 5-1: TDP Projects Recommended for Implementation

Annual Capital Operating or Planning Capital Project Purpose Cost Needed Cost Unconstrained Projects, Regional: Provide Additional Service in Colonial Provide transit service geared to the $208,000 or cost 1 vehicle or no $300,000 or Heights needs of the residents of Colonial neutral if vehicles, if none, if Heights, addressing transit need found supplants the supplants supplants through the demographic analysis and current route existing route existing route the surveys. Provide a Direct Connection between Provide access to shopping and $230,000 1 vehicle Heavy duty: Fort Lee/Hopewell and Southpark recreational opportunities for Fort Lee $300,000 Body- Mall residents and their family members on-Chassis: and provide access to job $60,000 opportunities at Fort Lee and the Southpark Mall for Hopewell residents. Provide New Demand-Response $275,000 2 vehicles $120,000 Service in Prince George County To provide basic mobility for people in Prince George County who currently have no transit service options. 5-12 Final Report

ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

While the transit needs analysis indicated that regional services are desired, and several previous TDPs in the region have recommended a regional structure for overseeing public transportation in the Tri-Cities, no interest has been expressed by any of the local governments or Fort Lee to change the current organizational structure for the delivery of public transportation in the Tri-Cities.

PAT Management Structure

Although not specifically discussed during the alternatives analysis, there was an alternative that suggested that the City fill the vacant position of Assistant Director of Public Works. This position is still listed on the City’s “Listing of Authorized Personnel.” It is recommended that this position be filled, particularly if funds become available for service expansions.

Cost Sharing

One of the more visionary goals for the TDP was to develop a regional structure for providing public transportation in the Tri-Cities. If a regional structure had been agreed upon, then a cost-sharing strategy would have been a component of that model. Since a regional structure was not recommended by the TAC, the issue of cost-sharing among jurisdictions for the existing route structure is still unresolved. This section of the plan offers a potential cost-sharing plan which can be used if there is agreement among the jurisdictions to support regional routes.

A potentially equitable manner to share the costs among jurisdictions would be to develop a model that includes both services offered by the City (i.e., total annual vehicle mileage per jurisdiction); and services consumed by area residents (i.e., residency/ridership by jurisdiction). This model would account for the nature of the regional services that are primarily designed for the benefit of City residents, while considering that there is also a benefit to the neighboring jurisdictions. Upon further review, it was decided that vehicle mileage per jurisdiction would be a simpler model to implement. At this time there have been no agreements regarding cost sharing.

As regional services are developed in the future, some sort of cost allocation agreement will likely need to be implemented.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 5-13

Final Report

Chapter 6

Capital Improvement Plan

INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the TDP describes the major capital projects (vehicles, facilities, and equipment) needed to support the provision of public transportation in the Tri- Cities for the six-year period covered by this TDP.

VEHICLE REPLACEMENT AND EXPANSION PROGRAM

As described in Chapter 1, PAT owns 27 vehicles; 16 of which are heavy duty transit buses (Gilligs); six of which are paratransit vehicles; and five of which are service or supervisory vehicles. The revenue service vehicles range in model years from 1997 to 2007.

PAT was able to secure American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding to replace two of the paratransit vehicles. These vehicles should arrive in FY 2011. Replacing the four other 2000 model paratransit vehicles is a priority for the vehicle replacement program, as the recommended useful life for paratransit vans is four to five years. These vehicles are recommended for replacement as soon as is possible. It should be noted that the State’s current five-year capital budget calls for one paratransit replacement van in FY 2012 and one in FY 2016, and this TDP calls for four to be replaced in FY 2012.

The supervisory vehicles and the service truck have also exceeded the recommended useful life and are recommended for replacement as soon as is feasible (FY2012, if possible).

PAT’s six 1997 Gilligs have also reached their useful life, though the current route network is such that only three of them need to be replaced, while the remaining

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 6-1 Final Report

three can be retired when they are no longer useful to PAT. The 2007 Gilligs will need to be replaced in 2019, which is beyond the range of this TDP. PAT also has a 2001 Gillig, which will need to be replaced in 2013. The VDRPT Five Year Capital Budget calls for four buses to be replaced in FY 2013, consistent with replacing three of the 1997 Gilligs and the 2001 Gillig.

While it is unclear when funds will be available for expansion of service, the VDRPT Five Year Capital Budget calls for an expansion bus in 2012 and four in 2014. Table 6-1 provides the six-year vehicle replacement and expansion schedule, based on this TDP and the State’s Five Year Capital Budget.

OTHER CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

Stimulus Projects

In addition to the two paratransit vans (included for FY 2011 on the vehicle replacement plan), PAT was also awarded the following capital equipment through the ARRA:

• Construction of the multi-modal center -- project change orders resulted in the need for an additional $500,000

• Furnishings for the multi-modal center ($69,000)

• ADP Software ($10,000)

• ADP Hardware -- three computers, copiers, scanners, and printers for the multi-modal center ($10,750)

• Shop equipment -- the replacement of existing floor jack lifts ($120,000)

• Purchase and installation of a generator to support the multi-modal center ($150,000)

• Vehicle locator system ($63,927)

• New communications system ($145,000)

• Signage -- bus stop signs and poles ($5,000)

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 6-2 Table 6-1 Petersburg Area Transit Vehicle Replacement Program

Vehicle Type Useful Current Vehicle Procurements Life Fleet FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Paratransit Vans 5624 2 Heavy Duty Transit Buses 12 16 4 Support Vehicles 5523

Total Vehicles 27 474002 6-3 Unconstrained Vehicle Expansion Plan

Vehicle Type Useful Vehicle Procurements Life FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Paratransit Vans 5 Heavy Duty Transit Buses 12 2 2 Body on Chassis 5 1 3 Support Vehicles 5

Total Vehicles 125000

Note: The unconstrained plan includes vehicles for the Colonial Heights, Fort Lee, and Prince George services. Final Report

• Rehabilitation/renovation of some bus stop locations to enhance ADA accessibility, including concrete repairs and curb cuts ($200,000)

Bike Racks for Vehicles

Currently only one of PAT’s vehicles is equipped with a bike rack. Equipping the entire fleet would allow transit riders additional flexibility and would serve to expand the reach of transit in the community. Retrofitting the Gilligs is estimated to cost about $1,200 per vehicle, while buying them at the time of bus purchase is about $700 per vehicle. If bike racks were to be purchased for the eight 2007 Gilligs that are not already equipped, the cost is estimated to be $ 9,600. This project is not currently included in VDRPT’s Five Year Capital Budget.

FACILITIES

PAT’s operating, maintenance, and vehicle storage facility is currently located at 309 Fairgrounds Road, adjacent to the West End Park Fairgrounds. There is space at this facility for expansion and PAT has a need for two additional maintenance bays and a wash bay. The office portion of the facility also needs to be updated, as the administrative staff recently moved from this facility to the new Petersburg Station facility in downtown.

VDPRT’s Five Year Capital Budget included $5 million in FY 2012 for maintenance facility renovation.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 6-4 Final Report

Chapter 7

Financial Plan

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a financial plan for funding existing and proposed transit services in the Tri-Cities for the six-year planning period. The first section proposes a methodology to share some of the transit operating expenses incurred by the City of Petersburg for routes that travel outside the City. The development of some sort of equitable model for assigning costs was an important objective for this TDP. This model is presented, but consensus regarding cost sharing has not yet been established.

The cost allocation model is followed by the proposed operating, vehicle, and capital budgets. It should be noted that there are currently a number of unknown factors that will likely affect transit finance in the Tri-Cities over the course of this planning period, including the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU, the ability of the region to secure competitive grants, and the future economic condition of the local jurisdictions and the State of Virginia. The budgets were constructed with the information that is currently available, including the VDRPT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, the VDRPT FY 2011 Five Year Capital Plan, and the City of Petersburg’s FY 2011 budget message. Two versions of these budgets have been prepared to reflect both constrained and unconstrained projects.

PROPOSED COST ALLOCATION

As discussed in Chapter 5, a potentially equitable manner to share the costs among jurisdictions would be to calculate the vehicle mileages per jurisdiction, rather than the straight route mileage and allocate the expenses for the regional routes in that manner.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 7-1 Final Report

Vehicle Mileage by Jurisdiction

Table 7-1 provides the total annual vehicle mileage per jurisdiction for the current route map and schedule. These totals take into account the number of annual vehicle trips made into particular jurisdictions, rather than simply the route mileage per jurisdiction. The total number of vehicle trips reflects the frequency of service more accurately than route mileage, as there are areas outside the City that are only served by a few trips (i.e., Dinwiddie County).

Table 7-1: Total Annual Vehicle Miles by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction Annual Vehicle % of Total Miles

Chesterfield 12,896 3.5% Colonial Heights 16,296 4.4% Dinwiddie 4,284 1.2% Fort Lee 28,210 7.7% Hopewell - 0% Petersburg & Battlefield 297,352 & 5,642 82.2% Prince George 4,030 1.1%

Total 368,710

This model suggests that the local share for operating transit services in the Tri- Cities, assuming the current routes, schedules, and ridership patterns could be split as described in Table 7-1, if each jurisdiction agrees to this type of arrangement. Using the FY 2010 contribution from the City of Petersburg General Fund ($507,407), the model described above would have resulted in the following contributions:

City of Petersburg $417,089

Chesterfield County/VSU $ 17,759 City of Colonial Heights $ 22,326 Dinwiddie County $ 6,089 Fort Lee $ 39,070

City of Hopewell $ 0

Prince George County $ 5,581

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 7-2 Final Report

Implementing a model for sharing transit operating costs among jurisdictions served could provide a basis for providing and financing additional regional services in the future. As previously mentioned, there has not yet been agreement on this issue among potential regional partners.

OPERATING EXPENSES AND FUNDING SOURCES

Table 7-2 provides the constrained financial plan for transit operations in the Tri- Cities, including operating, maintenance, and administrative expenses. The six-year plan includes the current base service and adds the Hopewell Circulator, as it has been funded. This financial plan adds half a year of service for the Hopewell Circulator in FY 2011, then a full year of service from FY 2012 through FY 2016. The first three years of service are anticipated to be funded through CMAQ, with the remaining three years funded by the City of Hopewell. It is possible that additional Federal S.5307 funds or State Formula Assistance funds could support this service when the CMAQ funding period is finished, but the amount of S.5307 and Formula Assistance available for the out-years of the plan is currently unknown. Table 7-3 provides a financial plan that includes the unconstrained projects as well.

The service for Fort Lee is included as an unconstrained FY 2012 project, with a proposed 50-50 funding split between the State’s New Transit Service Starts program and Fort Lee. The Colonial Heights service is proposed for FY 2013 and CMAQ funding is suggested as a source for this project. If CMAQ funding is available for this project, the grant period is proposed to be 2013-2015. The City of Colonial Heights would then need to fund the route in FY 2016. As with the Hopewell service, there may be additional Federal S.5307 or State Formula Assistance funds available to help fund the service when the CMAQ grant is spent, but these figures are currently unknown.

JARC funding is suggested as the funding source for PAT’s evening transit service, which is planned for FY 2013 (unconstrained plan). JARC operating funds are a 50-50 split between federal and local funds. The Prince George demand-response program, programmed for FY 2013, is proposed to be funded in part by a New Freedom grant, which is also a 50-50 split between federal and local funds.

Local funds, as a percentage of the total revenues, appear to rise over the course of the planning period, largely because this plan has not assumed that federal funds will increase and has only assumed inflationary increases for State funds. Pending the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU, we do not know what the level of federal transit funds will be, though it should be noted that they have generally risen with each transportation funding reauthorization, so the local funding estimates are most likely higher than what will be required.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 7-3 Table 7-2: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Operations- Constrained Plan

Projects FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Annual Service Hours

Constrained Projects: PAT Fixed-Route 37,780 37,780 37,780 37,780 37,780 37,780 PAT ADA Paratransit 4,092 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 City of Hopewell Circulator 1,860 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720

Total Transit Service Hours 43,732 45,500 45,500 45,500 45,500 45,500

Projected Operating Expenses

Constrained Projects: PAT Operations Expenses-Base Current Service $ 3,475,170 $ 3,544,673 $ 3,615,567 $ 3,687,878 $ 3,761,636 $ 3,836,868 City of Hopewell Circulator$ 98,500 $ 197,000 $ 200,940 $ 204,959 $ 209,058 $ 213,239

Total Projected Operating Expenses- Constrained Only$ 3,573,670 $ 3,741,673 $ 3,816,507 $ 3,892,837 $ 3,970,694 $ 4,050,108 7-4 Table 7-2: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Operations- Constrained Plan (continued)

Anticipated Funding Sources FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Federal Constrained: FTA S. 5307$ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 CMAQ-Hopewell Circulator$ 98,500 $ 197,000 $ 200,940 $ 98,500 $ - $ - State Formula Assistance $ 381,369 $ 388,996 $ 396,776 $ 404,712 $ 412,806 $ 421,062

Farebox and other Local Revenues (PAT)$ 848,539 $ 890,966 $ 935,514 $ 982,290 $ 1,031,404 $ 1,082,975

Local Contributions

City of Petersburg$ 507,407 $ 527,126 $ 545,691 $ 563,291 $ 579,840 $ 595,247 City of Hopewell$ - $ - $ - $ 106,459 $ 209,058 $ 213,239

Total Local$ 507,407 $ 527,126 $ 545,691 $ 669,750 $ 788,898 $ 808,486

Total Projected Operating Revenues- Constrained$ 3,573,400 $ 3,741,673 $ 3,816,507 $ 3,892,837 $ 3,970,694 $ 4,050,108 Notes:

(1) Does not escalate Federal 5307 funds, as reauthorization is pending. This is why the local match increases over the six-year period. (2) Includes 2% inflation each year. 7-5 Table 7-3: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Operations-Unconstrained Plan

Projects FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Annual Service Hours- Unconstrained

PAT Fixed-Route 37,780 37,780 41,500 41,500 41,500 41,500 PAT ADA Paratransit 4,092 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 City of Hopewell Circulator 1,860 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 Fort Lee Connection - 4,340 4,340 4,340 4,340 4,340 Colonial Heights Service - - 3,875 3,875 3,875 3,875 Demand-Response Service-Prince George County - - 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,100

Total Transit Service Hours 43,732 49,840 63,535 63,535 63,535 63,535

Projected Operating Expenses- Unconstrained

PAT Operations Expenses-Base Current Service $ 3,475,170 $ 3,544,673 $ 3,615,567 $ 3,687,878 $ 3,761,636 $ 3,836,868 City of Hopewell Circulator$ 98,500 $ 197,000 $ 200,940 $ 204,959 $ 209,058 $ 213,239 Transit Manager Salary and Fringe$ 84,500 $ 87,035 $ 89,646 $ 92,335 $ 95,105 Limited Evening Service for PAT$ - $ - $ 197,000 $ 200,940 $ 204,959 $ 209,058

Additional ADA Paratransit to Support Colonial Heights Service $ - $ - $ 53,000 $ 54,060 $ 55,141 $ 56,244 Fort Lee Connection$ - $ 230,000 $ 234,600 $ 239,292 $ 244,078 $ 248,959 Colonial Heights Service$ - $ - $ 209,250 $ 213,435 $ 217,704 $ 222,058 Demand-Response Service-Prince George County $ - $ - $ 275,400 $ 280,908 $ 286,526 $ 292,257

Total Projected Operating Expenses $ 3,573,670 $ 4,056,173 $ 4,872,792 $ 4,971,118 $ 5,071,437 $ 5,173,789

Notes: Proposed implementation years are estimated. Actual implementation is dependent upon funding availability. 7-6 Table 7-3: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Operations-Unconstrained (continued)

Anticipated Funding Sources FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Federal

FTA S. 5307$ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 $ 1,737,585 CMAQ-Hopewell Circulator$ 98,500 $ 197,000 $ 200,940 $ 98,500 $ - $ - CMAQ- Colonial Heights$ - $ - $ 209,250 $ 213,435 $ 217,704 $ - JARC-Evening Service$ - $ - $ 98,500 $ 100,470 $ 102,479 $ 104,529 New Freedom-Prince George Service$ 137,700 $ 140,454 $ 143,263 $ 146,128

State Formula Assistance $ 381,369 $ 388,996 $ 396,776 $ 404,712 $ 412,806 $ 421,062 New Transit Service Starts-Fort Lee$ - $ 115,000 $ 117,300 $ 119,646 $ - $ -

Farebox and other Local Revenues (PAT)$ 848,539 $ 890,966 $ 935,514 $ 982,290 $ 1,031,404 $ 1,082,975

Local Contributions

City of Petersburg$ 507,407 $ 611,626 $ 784,226 $ 807,467 $ 829,796 $ 851,126 City of Hopewell$ - $ - $ - $ 106,459 $ 209,058 $ 213,239 City of Colonial Heights$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 222,058 Prince George County$ - $ - $ 137,700 $ 140,454 $ 143,263 $ 146,128 Chesterfield County$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Dinwiddie County$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Fort Lee$ - $ 115,000 $ 117,300 $ 119,646 $ 244,078 $ 248,959

Total Local$ 507,407 $ 726,626 $ 1,039,226 $ 1,174,026 $ 1,426,195 $ 1,681,510

Total Projected Operating Revenues-Unconstrained$ 3,573,400 $ 4,056,173 $ 4,872,792 $ 4,971,118 $ 5,071,437 $ 5,173,789

Notes: (1) Proposes using CMAQ , the State's New Transit Service Starts Program, JARC, and New Freedom to initiate new services. (2) Assigns local match expenses to the jurisdiction where service is proposed to be provided. (3) Does not escalate Federal 5307 funds, as reauthorization is pending. This is why the local match increases over the six-year period. (4) Includes 2% inflation each year. 7-7 Final Report

VEHICLE PURCHASE EXPENSES AND FUNDING SOURCES

Table 7-4 offers the constrained financial plan for vehicle replacement and expansion over the six-year period. The funding split is generally assumed to be 80% federal, 10% state, and 10% local. The only exceptions to these are the two ARRA vehicles (FY 2011, 100% federal) and the proposed CMAQ vehicles (FY 2011 and FY 2013, 100% federal). The plan includes a total of 17 replacement vehicles and one expansion vehicle.

Table 7-5 is the unconstrained financial plan for vehicle replacement and expansion. This plan includes eight expansion vehicles.

FACILITY IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES AND FUNDING SOURCES

The constrained financial plan for facilities, equipment, and other capital is provided in Table 7-6. These expenses are also assumed to be funded with federal (80%), state (10%), and local (10%) funds. Table 7-7 provides the unconstrained financial plan for facilities, Equipment, and Other Capital.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 7-8 Table 7-4: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Vehicle Replacement and Expansion Constrained Plan Number of Vehicles FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Replacement 4 7 4 0 0 2 Expansion 1 0 0 0

Total Vehicles 5 7 4 0 0 2

Vehicle Costs

Replacement$ 160,000 $ 295,000 $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000 Expansion$ 65,000 $ - $ - $ -

Total Projected Vehicle Costs$ 225,000 $ 295,000 $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000

Anticipated Funding Sources

Federal (1)$ 215,000 $ 236,000 $ 960,000 $ - $ - $ 104,000 State$ 5,000 $ 29,500 $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ 13,000 Local$ 5,000 $ 29,500 $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ 13,000

Total Vehicle Revenues$ 225,000 $ 295,000 $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000

(1) In FY 2011, it is anticipated that two of the replacement vehicles will be funded with ARRA funds and the expansion vehicle will be funded with CMAQ funds. funds. Both ARRA and CMAQ are 100% federal share. 7-9 Table 7-5: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Vehicle Replacement and Expansion Unconstrained Plan Number of Vehicles FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Replacement 4 7 4 0 0 2 Expansion 1 2 5 0 0 0

Total Vehicles 5 9 9 0 0 2

Vehicle Costs

Replacement$ 160,000 $ 295,000 $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000 Expansion$ 65,000 $ 600,000 $ 795,000 $ - $ - $ -

Total Projected Vehicle Costs$ 225,000 $ 895,000 $ 1,995,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000

Anticipated Funding Sources

Federal (1)$ 215,000 $ 716,000 $ 1,716,000 $ - $ - $ 104,000 State$ 5,000 $ 89,500 $ 139,500 $ - $ - $ 13,000 Local$ 5,000 $ 89,500 $ 139,500 $ - $ - $ 13,000

Total Vehicle Revenues$ 225,000 $ 895,000 $ 1,995,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000

(1) In FY 2011, it is anticipated that two of the replacement vehicles will be funded with ARRA funds and the expansion vehicle will be funded with CMAQ funds. In FY 2013 it is anticipated that two of the expansion vehicles will be funded with CMAQ funds. Both ARRA and CMAQ are 100% federal share. 7-10 Table 7-6: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Facilities, Equipment, and Other Capital Constrained Projects FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Bike Racks for Vehicles$ 19,500 Transit Enhancements$ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Security Cameras for Vehicles$ 20,000 Renovation of Maintenance Facility$ 5,000,000 Other Capital Projects$ 250,000 $ 358,000 $ 228,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000

Total Projected Non-Vehicle Capital Expenses $ 270,000 $ 5,417,500 $ 248,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000

Anticipated Funding Sources

Federal$ 216,000 $ 4,334,000 $ 198,400 $ 176,000 $ 176,000 $ 176,000 State$ 27,000 $ 541,750 $ 24,800 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 Local$ 27,000 $ 541,750 $ 24,800 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000

Total Projected Non-Vehicle Capital Revenue $ 270,000 $ 5,417,500 $ 248,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 7-11 Table 7-7: Tri-Cities TDP Financial Plan for Facilities, Equipment, and Other Capital Unconstrained Plan Projects FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Bike Racks for Vehicles$ 19,500 Transit Enhancements$ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Shelters for New Service Areas$ 25,000 $ 25,000 Security Cameras for Vehicles$ 20,000 Renovation of Maintenance Facility$ 5,000,000 Other Capital Projects$ 250,000 $ 358,000 $ 228,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000

Total Projected Non-Vehicle Capital Expenses $ 270,000 $ 5,442,500 $ 273,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000

Anticipated Funding Sources

Federal$ 216,000 $ 4,354,000 $ 218,400 $ 176,000 $ 176,000 $ 176,000 State$ 27,000 $ 544,250 $ 27,300 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 Local$ 27,000 $ 544,250 $ 27,300 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000

Total Projected Non-Vehicle Capital Revenue $ 270,000 $ 5,442,500 $ 273,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 220,000 7-12 Final Report

Chapter 8

TDP Monitoring and Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The Tri-Cities Area TDP, developed over a 12-month period and guided by the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee, has included the following tasks:

• The development of goals, objectives, and service standards;

• Detailed documentation and analysis of current public transportation services, with a focus on the services provided by PAT, including boarding and alighting counts;

• A peer review showing the service and financial characteristics of transit programs similar in scope to PAT;

• A transit needs analysis, including demographic analysis, land use analysis, a review of relevant planning documents, public opinion surveys, and rider surveys;

• The development of service and organizational alternatives;

• The development of a cost allocation model to be used as a tool to share transit expenses among the jurisdictions that enjoy PAT services;

• The development of recommendations for transit improvements for inclusion in the TDP, with improvements tentatively identified by year; and

• Funding requirements and potential funding sources for recommended transit improvements in the region.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 8-1 Final Report

While a consensus was not reached concerning the regional cost allocation approach during this TDP process, it is hoped that this document will help to solidify a future financial relationship among the jurisdictions where transit services are provided.

The current economic downturn has also clouded the picture for transit service expansions in the near-term, other than those that can be funded through federal and state grants that offer 100% or close to 100% funding. Expansions have been included in the plan and they are attached to particular years, but these projects may slip to future years if the economy does not improve or if grants are not secured for implementation. This TDP may need to be updated during the six-year planning period to reflect funding availability.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS AND PROGRAMS

The Tri-Cities Area Year 2031 Transportation Plan was completed in June 2008. The public transportation section of the plan does not currently include major transit service expansions, other than the opening of the Petersburg Station. Maintaining current service levels and ensuring the timely replacement of vehicles and equipment are the focus of the public transportation portion of the 2031 Transportation Plan. Amendments to the Plan will be needed so that projects recommended for implementation within this TDP can be included and potentially funded with CMAQ funds.

Transit services consistent with those recommended within this TDP are included in the Fort Lee Growth Management Plan (2008), including a recommendation to form a partnership between PAT and Fort Lee to develop additional service to the base.

Transit service expansion in the Tri-Cities is also consistent with the 2008 Richmond/Petersburg Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan, which was developed to guide funding decisions for the Federal S.5310, S.5316, and S.5317 funding programs.

PAT is represented by the Mayor of Petersburg on the MPO’s Policy Committee and is also represented on the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee by the City of Petersburg’s Director of Public Works, whose responsibilities include oversight of PAT.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 8-2 Final Report

SERVICE PERFORMANCE MONITORING

A number of service standards were developed for PAT (Chapter 2) for this TDP. The purpose of including these standards was to develop some objective measurements of performance that PAT could use to monitor transit services in the future and make objective, performance-based service planning decisions. It is recommended that PAT monitor service performance on a monthly basis.

ANNUAL TDP MONITORING

For this TDP it is particularly important that PAT monitor the progress each fiscal year. There are projects included for implementation that are dependent upon grants and these grants must be written by either PAT or by the affected jurisdictions. Projects may also need to shift from one year to the next if funding is not available. Alternatively, if the reauthorization of the federal transportation funding program is more generous than SAFETEA-LU, projects could potentially be implemented ahead of schedule or additional projects could be added to the TDP.

PAT should also monitor the operating statistics for current and new services to ensure that the performance is consistent with the service standards included in this TDP.

The Tri-Cities Area 2010 Transit Development Plan 8-3