BAY TRANSIT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN: FISCAL YEARS … · BAY TRANSIT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN:...
Transcript of BAY TRANSIT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN: FISCAL YEARS … · BAY TRANSIT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN:...
BBAAYY TTRRAANNSSIITT
TTRRAANNSSIITT DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT PPLLAANN::
FFIISSCCAALL YYEEAARRSS 22001100 –– 22001155
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Under contract to:
October 2009
Bay Transit i October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss
11..00 OOvveerrvviieeww ooff BBaayy TTrraannssiitt
1.1 History ............................................................................................................ 1‐1
1.2 Governance .................................................................................................... 1‐2
1.3 Organizational Structure ................................................................................ 1‐4
1.4 Transit Services Provided and Areas Served .................................................. 1‐6
1.5 Fare Structure ................................................................................................ 1‐7
1.6 Fleet ............................................................................................................... 1‐7
1.7 Existing Facilities ............................................................................................ 1‐7
1.8 Transit Security Program ............................................................................... 1‐8
1.9 Public Outreach .............................................................................................. 1‐8
22..00 GGooaallss,, OObbjjeeccttiivveess,, aanndd SSttaannddaarrddss
2.1 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 2‐1
2.2 Service Performance Standards ..................................................................... 2‐5
33..00 SSeerrvviiccee aanndd SSyysstteemm EEvvaalluuaattiioonn
3.1 Historical and Existing Service Perspective .................................................... 3‐1
3.2 Peer System Review ....................................................................................... 3‐4
3.3 Public On‐Board Passenger Survey ................................................................ 3‐6
3.4 Level of Support for Transit ........................................................................... 3‐9
3.5 Focus Groups and General Community Input ............................................. 3‐10
3.6 Recent Changes in Patronage, Operating Costs, and Operating Revenue .. 3‐11
3.7 Deviations from Service Standards and Potential Remedies ...................... 3‐14
3.8 Potential Solutions to Gaps or Service Deficiencies .................................... 3‐17
3.9 Potential Remedies for Equipment and Facility Deficiencies ...................... 3‐17
3.10 Title VI Report and FTA Quadrennial Review .............................................. 3‐18
44..00 SSeerrvviiccee EExxppaannssiioonn PPrroojjeecctt DDeessccrriippttiioonnss
4.1 Demographic Analysis of Anticipated Population
and Employment Changes ............................................................................. 4‐1
4.2 Potential Service Expansion and Facility Needs ............................................ 4‐6
Bay Transit ii October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
4.3 Estimates of Capital and Operating Costs for Identified Improvements ..... 4‐14
55..00 SSeerrvviiccee aanndd FFaacciilliittyy RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss
5.1 Service Recommendations ............................................................................ 5‐1
5.2 Facility Recommendations ............................................................................. 5‐2
5.3 Other Recommendations ............................................................................... 5‐4
66..00 CCaappiittaall IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm
6.1 Vehicle Replacement Program ...................................................................... 6‐1
6.2 Facility Improvement Program ...................................................................... 6‐1
77..00 FFiinnaanncciiaall PPllaann
7.1 Operation and Maintenance Costs and Funding Sources ............................. 7‐1
7.2 Bus Purchase Costs and Funding Sources ...................................................... 7‐5
7.3 Facility Improvement Costs and Funding Sources ......................................... 7‐6
88..00 TTDDPP MMoonniittoorriinngg aanndd EEvvaalluuaattiioonn
8.1 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs ............................................... 8‐1
8.2 Service Performance Monitoring ................................................................... 8‐2
8.3 Annual TDP Monitoring ................................................................................. 8‐2
AAppppeennddiicceess
A. FTA Triennial Review Report*
B. Title VI Report*
C. Fleet Inventory from DRPT’s On‐Line Grant Application System (OLGA)
D. Operating and Capital Expenses and Revenues – A 3‐Year Retrospective
E. Transit Rider On‐Board Survey Results
F. Stakeholder’s Meeting Minutes: March 12, 2009
*Currently defined as a service that is provided in a rural portion of the Commonwealth, Bay Transit is not required to prepare and submit its own separate Title VI report or the associated FTA Quadrennial Review; therefore, Appendix A and Appendix B are not included as part of this document.
Bay Transit iii October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
LLiisstt ooff TTaabblleess
Table 1‐1. Bay Transit Fare Structure Table 3‐1. Operating Statistics for Bay Transit, FY2006‐FY2008 Table 3‐2. Peer Group Comparison Summary Table 3‐3. Bay Transit System Revenues and Operating Assistance FY2006‐FY2008 Table 3‐4. Allocation of Net Operating Assistance FY2006‐ FY2008 Table 4‐1. Present Day Population and Employment Summary Table 4‐2. Future Year Bay Transit Service Area Population Estimates (All Ages) Table 4‐3. Future Year Bay Transit Service Area Population Estimates of Elderly Persons
(65 or Older) Table 4‐4. Bay Transit Fleet Replacement Program, FY2009‐FY2015 Table 4‐5. Estimated Cost of Base Fleet Vehicle Replacement Program, FY2009‐FY2015 Table 4‐6. Operating Statistics of Bay Transit, FY2008‐FY2015 Table 4‐7. System Revenues and Operating Assistance of Bay Transit, FY2008‐FY2015 Table 4‐8. Estimated Annual Operating Miles of Proposed Fixed Routes Table 4‐9. Estimated Cost per Revenue Mile of Proposed Fixed Routes Table 4‐10. Estimated Annual Operating Miles of Proposed Fixed Routes Table 4‐11. Capital Cost of Proposed Fixed‐Route Service Expansions Table 4‐12. Total Annual Cost of Proposed Fixed‐Route Service Expansions Table 4‐13. Cost Estimate for Computerized Scheduling and Dispatching System Table 4‐14. Annual Passenger Estimation for Bay Transit Table 7‐1. TDP Financial Plan for Funding Annual O&M Costs Table 7‐2. TDP Financial Plan for Funding Bus Purchases Table 7‐3. TDP Financial Plan for Funding Facility Improvements
Bay Transit iv October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
LLiisstt ooff FFiigguurreess
Figure 1‐1. Counties Served by Bay Transit Figure 1‐2. Bay Transit Organizational Chart Figure 3‐1. Annual Passengers, FY 2006‐FY 2008 Figure 3‐2. Annual Operating Costs, FY 2006‐FY 2008 Figure 3‐3. Cost Per Passenger, FY 2006‐FY 2008 Figure 3‐4. Peer Comparison Figure 3‐5. Bay Transit System Revenues and Operating Assistance FY2006‐FY2008 Figure 3‐6. Allocation of Net Operating Assistance FY2006 – FY2008 Figure 4‐1. Projected Population (All Bay Transit Service Jurisdictions) Figure 4‐2. Proposed Fixed‐Route Services Figure 4‐3. Northern Neck Proposed Fixed Transit Routes
Bay Transit 1‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
11..00 OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW OOFF BBAAYY TTRRAANNSSIITT
11..11 HHiissttoorryy
Bay Transit began its operations in 1996 in Gloucester County, in the coastal area directly east of Richmond, Virginia.
From its beginning, Bay Transit has been an operating division of Bay Aging, a multi‐county Area Agency on Aging. Bay Aging initiated the transit service with one bus and provided only two days of demand‐responsive, door‐to‐door type service per week, with a focus on the provision of basic transportation services to residents of Gloucester County.
Service soon grew to a fleet of two buses in 1998, and it has continued to steadily expand over the years. Through the use of a rural public transportation demonstration funding grant from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), which required a five percent local government match, service was expanded first into Lancaster County and then in December 1999 into Essex County.
Bay Transit’s new transit service enjoyed interest and support from the public. Citizens of the local governments asked County supervisors to request transit service from Bay Transit. Bay Transit would typically provide service on a demonstration basis, and then would continue to operate these services with the use of federal, state, and local government financial support to supplement passenger fares. Currently, local government financial support represents 25 to 30 percent of annual operating expenses.
With the good reputation for quality service developed during the initial years of the operation, Bay Transit has continued to look for ways to expand their services. Initially, the individual counties imposed service restrictions that essentially created a group of ten separate small systems. However, inter‐county on‐demand service was soon requested and service demands for the local community colleges increased in Gloucester County and Richmond County.
Today, Bay Transit operates on‐demand public transportation services in 12 counties: Charles City, Essex, Gloucester, King and Queen, King William, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, New Kent, Northumberland, Richmond, and Westmoreland. Bay Transit also serves the towns of West Point and Colonial Beach and runs seasonal trolley service in the towns of Kilmarnock, Irvington, White Stone, Urbanna, and Colonial Beach.
Based on 2000 Census data, the 12‐county area served by Bay Transit, shown in Figure 1‐1, covers approximately 2,700 square miles and has an estimated population of approximately 150,000 people.
Bay Transit 1‐2 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Figure 1‐1. Counties Served by Bay Transit
From its initial fleet of just a few vehicles, Bay Transit has grown to now include in 2009 a fleet of 68 vehicles comprised of 12 to14 passenger handicapped accessible buses, vans, trolleys, and service and support vehicles that serve all ages of passengers and all trip purposes.1 The system carried over 156,000 passenger trips in 2008.
Recently, on April 27, 2009, Bay Transit broke ground for a new operations and maintenance facility at 111 Commerce Parkway in the Commerce Park of Warsaw. The almost 11,000 square foot facility will include an area for operations and dispatch, as well as a fleet maintenance shop.
11..22 GGoovveerrnnaannccee
The operation of Bay Transit is managed by Bay Aging, the regional Area Agency for Aging (AAA). Bay Aging is a nonprofit organization that provides services for older adults and persons with disabilities of all ages in the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck regions of the Commonwealth.
1 NOTE: Seven of the 12 to 14 passenger vehicles will be sold in the summer of 2009.
Bay Transit 1‐3 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
The Bay Aging Board of Directors consists of one director from each of 10 counties and one member‐at‐large, as shown below.
Bay Aging Board of Directors
2008 - 2009
Mr. Luther J. Derby, Jr. Essex County P. O. Box 267 Tappahannock, VA 22560 Mr. Joseph Curry Lancaster County P. o. Box 737 Kilmarnock, VA 22482 Mr. Ed Clayton Mathews County 1205 Aarons Beach Road Diggs, VA 23045 Mrs. Carolyn Gray, Secretary Richmond County 3945 Folly Neck Road Warsaw, VA 22572 Dr. Elton Smith, Jr. King & Queen County P. O. Box 27 Shacklefords, Virginia 23l56 Mr. Kenneth E. Smith, Treasurer Gloucester County 7083 Tracey Court Gloucester, VA 23061 Mrs. Diana Pitts Middlesex County P. O. Box 191 Urbanna, VA 23175 Mr. Manuel Haynie, Vice Chairman Northumberland County Bayside Realty P. O. Box 281 Reedville, VA 22539 Ms. Sara Looney Westmoreland Co. 3 Marshall Avenue Colonial Beach, Va. 22443
Bay Transit 1‐4 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Mr. Jim Mickens, Chairman King William Co. 1809 Churchville Road West Point, VA 23181 Mr. James N. Carter, Jr. At Large Board Member P O. Box 300 Irvington, VA 22480
11..33 OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonnaall SSttrruuccttuurree
Bay Aging supervises the operation of Bay Transit. A senior manager from Bay Aging serves as the overall Transit Director, with two Division Managers responsible for the management of the day‐to‐day operations of Bay Transit.
There are five major operations/dispatch offices for Bay Transit. These offices are located in Essex County, Gloucester County, Lancaster County, the Town of Colonial Beach, and New Kent County. Each office has a Regional Operations Supervisor who reports to the respective Division Manager.
Currently, Bay Transit has a total of 90 employees. Of this total, 16 are full‐time and 74 are part‐time employees. The latter group primarily represents the vehicle drivers. The full‐time staff constitutes the management, administration operations, scheduling personnel, and some full‐time drivers. All of these individuals are employees of Bay Aging.
An organization chart for Bay Transit is shown in Figure 1‐2 below.
Bay Transit 1‐5 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Figure 1‐2. Bay Transit Organizational Chart
Bay Transit 1‐6 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
11..44 TTrraannssiitt SSeerrvviicceess PPrroovviiddeedd aanndd AArreeaass SSeerrvveedd
Areas Served. As shown in Figure 1‐1 in Section 1.1, the service areas include the counties of Charles City, New Kent, Essex, Gloucester, King and Queen, King William, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex, Northumberland, Richmond, and Westmoreland and the Towns of West Point and Colonial Beach.
Transit Services Provided. Bay Transit currently provides on‐demand services in all counties within the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck Planning District Commission (PDC) regions from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Riders are requested to call Bay Transit at least 24 hours in advance of the scheduled appointment. In 2008, Bay Transit provided over 156,000 passenger trips, with over half of these being work‐related trips. It is estimated that the average one‐way distance of the typical passenger trip provided by Bay Transit is between 9 and 12 miles. Bay Transit buses offer fixed‐route service in the towns of Colonial Beach and West Point. Three trolleys provide fixed‐route service in the towns of Kilmarnock, Irvington, White Stone, Colonial Beach, and Urbanna during the summer months and some fall and winter holiday weekends. The availability of Federal Job Access and Reverse Commuting (JARC) program funding has been important in recent years for the operation of Bay Transit. With this funding and the local government funding match, Bay Transit was able to operate late evening services (6 PM to 8 PM). When the JARC funding ended, Bay Transit was forced to eliminate the late evening services. Previously provided midday services also were reduced. Work trip‐related transit services are now being primarily provided only during the AM and PM peak periods.
Several years ago, Bay Transit developed an initial plan for potential system growth, but recent limitations on funding provided by the different federal, state, and local government agencies is the major constraint on the ability to expand the services beyond what is presently being provided. As described above, Bay Transit has had to eliminate some previously operated services due to program funding restraints. While this action resulted in some modest ridership declines, the high cost of gasoline in 2008 resulted in continuing growth in transit demands and ridership has been returning to previously observed levels in recent months.
In January, 2009, VDRPT announced an 8.469 percent decrease in the amount of formula assistance that would be provided by the Commonwealth in Fiscal Year 2009. Subsequently, in February, 2009, Bay Transit cut one hour of service per day on at least one bus in each county. VDRPT has announced additional operating expense reductions of 10 percent for FY 2010. Similarly, since DRPT recently changed their policy on state operating assistance support due to a reduced level of available funding, and with the 2008 federal regulations restricting the provision of charter services by public transportation agencies, Bay Transit
Bay Transit 1‐7 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
is no longer able to provide charter services to local charity or non‐profit events. Local agencies appreciated this service and several complaints were generated when it was discontinued.
11..55 FFaarree SSttrruuccttuurree
The Bay Transit fare structure for the demand–responsive services is shown in Table 1‐1. The base boarding fare for most of the Bay Transit services is a flat‐fee of $1.00 per trip. There is an additional $1.00 fee charged when a rider transfers from one bus to another. Only one county (Lancaster County) is charging a base boarding fare of $2.00 per trip. Trolley fares are $.25 per ride per person.
Bay Transit accepts cash fares on an exact fare basis and does not have a dedicated fare box in their vehicles. Another payment method that is used by Bay Transit is a booklet of ten tickets sold at a discounted price of $8.00 per booklet.
Table 1‐1. Bay Transit Fare Structure
Base Fare – all areas except Lancaster County $1.00/trip
Base Fare – Lancaster County $2.00/trip
Additional fare for transfer $1.00
Booklet of 10 tickets – discounted fare $8.00
Local businesses and the community colleges do not contribute funding to Bay Transit, and little or no funding resources have been provided from commercial revenues.
11..66 FFlleeeett
Bay Transit’s major services are provided in the form of demand‐response services. Based on the vehicle data available from DRPT, Bay Transit presently has a total inventory of 68 vehicles located in the facilities of the different counties. Thirty‐three (33) of these 68 vehicles have diesel engines, while the other 35 vehicles use gasoline engines. The passenger fleet primarily consists of 12 to 14 passenger handicapped accessible vans. Appendix C at the end of this report details the Bay Transit’s fleet inventory, including vehicle identification number, make, model, year, seated capacity, engine type, wheelchair accessibility, and service type.
11..77 EExxiissttiinngg FFaacciilliittiieess
The service area of Bay Transit covers the counties of Charles City, New Kent, Essex, Gloucester, King and Queen, King William, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex,
Bay Transit 1‐8 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Northumberland, Richmond, and Westmoreland and the Towns of West Point and Colonial Beach. Since this area is large, Bay Transit has several facilities to store and maintain their vehicles. Currently, Bay Transit has a central administrative office in Urbanna in the same complex that houses the Bay Aging main offices. In addition, operations facilities are located in Essex County, Gloucester County, Lancaster County, New Kent County, and the Town of Colonial Beach.
Recently, on April 27, 2009, Bay Transit broke ground for a new operations and maintenance facility at 111 Commerce Parkway in the Commerce Park of Warsaw. The almost 11,000 square foot facility will include an area for operations and dispatch, as well as a fleet maintenance shop with two vehicle bays with lifts. The facility is scheduled to be open in the summer of 2010.
11..88 TTrraannssiitt SSeeccuurriittyy PPrrooggrraamm
Currently, Bay Transit does not have GPS devices, on‐vehicle cameras, or alarm sensors installed in their vehicles. All vehicles have two‐way radios on board to allow communication with each of the operations facilities.
11..99 PPuubblliicc OOuuttrreeaacchh
The service area of Bay Transit is rural and a majority of the local residents are considered to be low‐income. While Bay Transit provides public transportation for “all people, of all ages, for all reasons”, most of Bay Transit’s services currently are perceived to be primarily for the elderly in the region.
While some limited surveys of passengers have been conducted in past years, these have focused more on the ridership in one or a small group of counties. Bay Transit has not conducted any system‐wide surveys or surveys of non‐riders.
Bay Transit 2‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
22..00 GGOOAALLSS,, OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS,, AANNDD SSTTAANNDDAARRDDSS Bay Transit is a service of Bay Aging. Bay Aging is a non‐profit, 501(c) (3) Area Agency for Aging that has been serving the residents of the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck regions of the Commonwealth since 1978.
While the focus of the parent agency, Bay Aging, is on the provision of programs and services for older adults and persons with disabilities of all ages, the stated vision of Bay Transit is:
“Public Transportation Service for ALL People, of ALL Ages, for ALL Reasons!”2
This mission statement of Bay Transit is:
We believe that every citizen must be assured accessible and safe transportation to the local destination of their choice without regard for disability, age, or economic status.
In support of its defined mission, Bay Transit is enhancing its generalized operating policies and procedures that will be reviewed and acknowledged by each of the system’s employees.
22..11 GGooaallss aanndd OObbjjeeccttiivveess
As a non‐profit community transit service for a 12‐county region, Bay Transit provides primarily 24‐hour advance reservation, on‐demand, curb‐to‐curb transit service. Seasonal trolley fixed‐route services are provided in Urbanna, Kilmarnock, and Colonial Beach.
As part of this TDP work effort, specific goals, objectives, and standards have been defined to guide Bay Transit operations and activities over the TDP time period. Goals center on specific themes. Objectives have been defined within each goal. Future updates of the Long‐Range Rural Transportation Plans for the Middle Peninsula PDC and the Northern Neck PDC regions and specific town and county Comprehensive Plans should take into consideration these goals and objectives.
GOAL 1: Provide reliable demand‐responsive service, and modified fixed‐route service, that meets the transportation needs for all residents of the Bay Transit service area.
Objective 1.1: Provide transit service connections between residential areas and commercial areas with jobs, education, shopping, and medical services.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
2 http://www.baytransit.org/
Bay Transit 2‐2 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Document and record customer service requests.
Coordinate regularly with the Towns and Counties and to identify planned new developments that might warrant transit service.
Survey riders at least once every five years to determine rider service needs.
Objective 1.2: Provide easily identifiable stop locations along routes and passenger shelters, if warranted.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Establish safe bus stop locations when modifying an existing alignment or implementing new service.
Work with Town and County Public Works Department and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff in developing stops with high ridership demands.
Monitor ridership activity at high demand stops to determine if/when passenger waiting shelters are needed.
GOAL 2: Market existing transit services.
Objective 2.1: Actively market transit services as a viable travel option within the entire Bay Transit service area.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Maintain “Bay Transit System, Route, and Schedule Guide” for users of the transit system.
Continue to update transit information on the Bay Transit and Bay Aging web sites and establish links to those web sites maintained by the towns, counties, and PDCs within the service area.
Participate in community events to promote public transportation.
Maintain a mailing list of organizations and social service agencies that represent markets that are likely to ride transit and provide service information to those organizations and agencies.
Objective 2.2: Explore potential demand to expand hours of operation and/or cost‐effective transit service to areas outside of the current 12‐county Bay Transit service area.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Initiate exploration meetings with Town, County, and PDC staff and local officials to determine potential transit service needs.
Bay Transit 2‐3 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Such meetings should take place no less frequently than once a year.
GOAL 3: Deliver modified fixed‐route and demand‐responsive services in a cost‐effective manner.
Objective 3.1: Maintain a system‐wide farebox recovery ratio (farebox revenues/total operating expenses) that meets or exceeds standards identified in Section 2.2 of this TDP.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Record and monitor trends in passenger trips by route and county service area.
Record and monitor monthly transit operations expenses and farebox revenues.
Objective 3.2: Hold administrative costs to approximately 20 percent of total operating budget.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Continue to record and monitor monthly transit operations expenses and farebox revenues.
Objective 3.3: Achieve system‐wide demand‐responsive and modified fixed‐route ridership levels that meet or exceed standards identified in Section 2.2 of this TDP.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Maintain and monitor monthly ridership reports for all demand‐responsive and fixed‐route services, with ridership reported on a county‐level basis for all demand‐responsive operations and on a route‐segment basis for all fixed‐route services.
Implement corrective measures if ridership falls below established standards for specific county operations or town‐level fixed‐route services for more than two (2) months in a row. Such corrective measures may include: modifications to vehicle dispatching and scheduling procedures for demand‐responsive operations, route alignment for fixed‐route services, service frequency, and span of service and/or fare adjustments.
GOAL 4: Deliver modified fixed‐route and demand‐responsive services in a safe manner.
Objective 4.1: Ensure that transit service operators maintain an accident rate less than the standard identified in Section 2.2 of this TDP.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Bay Transit 2‐4 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Maintain a training program for new employees.
Review Operating Policies and Procedures at least once a year and update as necessary.
Review those policies and procedures as part of all training efforts with new staff. Also review with existing staff at least once every two years.
Objective 4.2: Ensure that an adequate fleet of vehicles is maintained for demand‐responsive services.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Identify the need for replacement vehicles based on industry standards for defined useful life of vehicles. For most buses operated by Bay Transit, the defined useful life is four years or 100,000 revenue miles of service.
Maintain a spare ratio of at least 10 percent of total number of vehicles at all times for each of the three principal multi‐county sub regions (Northern Neck, Middle Peninsula, and Charles City/New Kent Counties) for demand‐responsive services.
GOAL 5: Provide transit services that are accessible to citizens.
Objective 5.1: Provide transit services that are accessible to all population groups within the 12‐county Bay Transit service area.
This objective is to be accomplished through the following minimum activities:
Comply with the applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Provide the ADA‐eligible population with door‐to‐door paratransit service that is comparable to service provided by the fixed‐route system in those towns where fixed routes are being operated.
Bay Transit 2‐5 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
22..22 SSeerrvviiccee PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee SSttaannddaarrddss
This TDP work effort has identified the following service standards to be monitored on a monthly basis by Bay Transit administrative staff.
Ridership Service Productivity Measures
The following system‐wide service standards are proposed based on a review of ridership characteristics over the past several months:
Modified Fixed‐Route Standard – Monthly system‐wide fixed‐route ridership should maintain levels equivalent to 1.40 passenger trips per revenue hour.
Demand‐Response Standard – Monthly demand‐response service should maintain ridership levels equivalent to 2.0 passenger trips per revenue‐hour with average one‐way ride times not exceeding 50 minutes. Monthly demand‐response service should maintain ridership levels equivalent to 1.5 passenger trips per revenue‐hour with average one‐way ride times exceeding 50 minutes.
Corrective measures should be investigated if ridership on Bay Transit’s services fall below the levels identified above for a period of three (3) consecutive months.
Cost‐Effectiveness Measures
Fixed‐Route Standard ‐ Bay Transit’s farebox recovery ratio (farebox revenues as a percentage of operating expenses) for fixed‐route services shall remain at approximately 2.0 percent. Corrective measures should be investigated if the farebox recovery ratio falls below this standard for three (3) consecutive months.
Demand‐Response Standard – Bay Transit’s farebox recovery ratio for demand‐response service should remain within the range of 5.0 to 8.0 percent. Corrective measures should be investigated if these thresholds are not met for three (3) consecutive months.
Vehicle Maintenance Performance Measures
The following two standards shall be monitored with regards to vehicle maintenance performance:
Bus Preventive Maintenance Inspections – Preventive maintenance shall be conducted on all vehicles in the transit fleet per the vehicle manufacturer recommendations.
Revenue Vehicle Failures – Bay Transit should maintain a standard of no more than 0.15 revenue vehicle failures per 1,000 revenue bus‐miles of service.
Bay Transit 3‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
33..00 SSEERRVVIICCEE AANNDD SSYYSSTTEEMM EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN The purpose of this chapter is to describe the recent performance of the Bay Transit system relative to generally accepted performance standards for the demand‐responsive transit mode associated with this system. This assessment describes the manner in which Bay Transit is providing public transportation services to the residents of the 12‐county region in which it operates. Each of the following sections discusses one facet of this evaluation process.
33..11 HHiissttoorriiccaall aanndd EExxiissttiinngg SSeerrvviiccee PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee
Bay Transit is one of the newer public transportation systems in the Commonwealth of Virginia. From the initiation of service in Gloucester County in 1996, the system has expanded to now offer services across a total of 12 counties.
As the system has continued to grow and expand, changes have been regularly observed in virtually all relevant comparative factors, from the number of revenue‐miles and revenue‐hours operated each year to the total system operating costs and the number of passengers transported. With many of the service changes having been observed over just the past several years, it is difficult to apply a traditional five‐year service history to the system.
The most comprehensive assembly of statewide system performance data for public transit systems in Virginia was published in 2007.3 Although the title of this statewide transit performance report indicates that it presents data for the period FY 2002 – FY 2006, this information is typically only provided for the larger and better established urban bus and rail systems in the Commonwealth.
In the case of Bay Transit, and virtually all of the other small municipal and rural public transit systems in the state, only data for FY 2006 is provided in this report. As a result, the historical evaluation of Bay Transit operations associated with this TDP has only been able to consider the three‐year period from FY 2006 through FY 2008. Table 3‐1 and the subsequent charts illustrate several operating statistics in each of these three years.
3 Virginia Transit Performance Report (FY2002‐FY2006); Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation; Richmond, Virginia; 2007.
Bay TransiTransit Dev
As showpersons higher atyears rep
Much of in the amin FY 20061,822 re
FY 2
FY 2
FY 2
t velopment Pla
Tabl
Oper
Annual Pa
Annual Op
Annual Re
Annual Re
Passenger
Passenger
Cost per P
Cost per R
Cost per R
Source: Bay
n in the Figin FY 2006 tt 157,190 pepresents an
this reportemount of tra06 to 1.66 mevenue hour
130,000
2006
2007
2008
n: FY 10‐15
le 3‐1. Oper
rating Statis
ssengers
perating Cost
venue Miles
venue Hour
s per Reven
s per Reven
assenger
Revenue Mile
Revenue Hou
Transit
Figure 3‐
ure 3‐1 aboto 156,067 ersons. This 11 percent i
ed ridership nsit service million revers in FY 2006
135,000
rating Statis
stics
ts $
s
s
ue Mile
ue Hour
e
ur
‐1. Annual P
ove, the numin FY 2008,net increasencrease ove
increase appbeing provinue miles in6 to 75,045 r
140,000
140
3‐2
stics for Bay
FY 2006
140,632
$ 1,779,269
1,214,502
61,822
0.12
2.27
$12.65
$1.47
$28.78
Passengers,
mber of annwith the ane in ridershiper this time p
pears to be aded by Bay n FY 2008 (revenue hou
145,000
0,632
Transit, FY2
FY 200
157,19
9 $ 2,146,3
1,510,29
70,876
0.10
2.22
$13.65
$1.42
$30.28
FY 2006‐FY
nual passengnnual ridershp of 15,435 pperiod.
attributableTransit, froman increaseurs in FY 200
150,000 1
2006‐FY2008
7 FY 2
0 156
390 $ 2,45
93 1,664
6 75,
0.
2.
5 $15
$1
8 $32
2008
gers increasehip in FY 20persons ove
to the contm 1.21 millio of 37.2 pe09 (a 21.4 pe
155,000 1
1
156
October
8
2008
,067
59,305
4,376
045
09
08
5.76
.48
2.77
ed from 140007 being slier a period o
inuing expanon revenue rcent), and ercent increa
160,000
157,190
6,067
r 2009
0,632 ightly f two
nsion miles from ase).
Bay TransiTransit Dev
As wouldannual syincrease,
When thconclusioobservedthis onlyvalue, th
Similarly,per passepercent. operating
FY 2
FY 2
FY 2
t velopment Pla
d be expectystem opera, from $1.78
hese total aons can be dd in FY 2006y representse factor is st
, as shown aenger in FY 2 Much of thg costs, wit
$0
2006
2007
2008
FY 200
FY 200
FY 200
n: FY 10‐15
Figure 3‐2.
ted with incating costs, 8 million in FY
nnual valuedrawn. For e6 declined to an 8.4 pertill in an acce
Figure 3‐
above in Fig2006 to $15.his increase th much of
$500,000
$0.00
06
07
08
Annual Op
creases of tshown in thY 2006 to $2
es are expreexample, theo a value of rcent declineeptable rang
‐3. Cost Per
ure 3‐3, the.76 per passappears to f the increa
0 $1,000,0
$5.00
3‐3
erating Cost
his magnituhe Figure 3‐2.46 million
essed in terme average pa2.08 passene in this proge.
Passenger,
e average cosenger in FYbe attributaase due to
000 $1,500
$10.00
ts, FY 2006‐F
ude in the a‐2 above, alin FY 2008 (a
ms of unit fassengers pengers per reoductivity fa
FY 2006‐FY
ost per passe2008, or a cable to the oboth signif
,000 $2,00
$1,7
$15.00
$12.65
$13.65
$1
FY 2008
amount of sso experienan increase
factors, somer revenue hevenue houractor. Even
2008
enger increahange of apobserved inficantly mor
0,000 $2,5
779,269
$2,146
$20.00
5.76
October
service provnced a signifof 38.2 perc
mewhat diffeour value ofr in FY 2008n at this low
ased from $1proximatelycrease in syre service b
00,000
6,390
$2,459,30
r 2009
vided, ficant cent).
erent f 2.27 . Yet wered
12.65 y 24.6 ystem being
05
Bay Transit 3‐4 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
provided and the higher fuel costs experienced during FY 2008 for the gasoline and diesel‐powered vehicle fleet operated by Bay Transit. All of these cost and ridership response factors will need to be regularly monitored and reported by the system’s management in order to identify trends of both a positive and a negative nature.
33..22 PPeeeerr SSyysstteemm RReevviieeww
A peer system review compares system characteristics and performance for Bay Transit with those of other systems of similar size and operational characteristics. While comparing Virginia systems to those in other states is certainly appropriate, in the case of rural demand‐response systems, there are advantages to keeping the comparison limited to other Virginia systems. This is due to the fact that state funding rules and procedures and the relationship of rural public systems to various human services agencies can differ greatly from state to state. Thus, the systems considered for inclusion in this peer system review were limited to systems within Virginia.
A number of criteria were used to select the systems to be included in the comparison. Only rural systems operating exclusively or primarily demand‐responsive service were considered, due to the relatively unique operating environments and characteristics of these systems. Another of the criteria was that the systems all be multi‐county operations. This is also due to the operating environments of these systems as well as the general trip characteristics of these types of systems. Other criteria used in the selection of the peer systems included service area population, system size, and the number of annual passenger trips served.
Based on these criteria, three systems were selected for inclusion in the peer system review. These systems include Mountain Empire Transit (MEOC), 4‐County Transit, and JAUNT. These systems are all multi‐county rural systems providing primarily or exclusively demand‐responsive service. Table 3‐2 and Figure 3‐4 summarize the general system characteristics and key performance indicators for the three selected systems and Bay Transit for FY 2008. The average values for the peer systems are also included in the table.
Bay Transit’s service area population is very close to the average for the three peer systems. The average for the peer systems for both of these measures is higher than it otherwise would be due to the size of the JAUNT system. This is impacted by the fact that JAUNT’s service area includes a small urban area rather than strictly a rural area.
Bay Transit’s annual vehicle revenue miles and vehicle revenue hours are both higher than the average for the three peer systems, with the total number of vehicle miles being considerably higher. This is due to the fact that the geographical size of Bay’s service area is quite large, resulting in relatively longer trips and higher miles per hour than that of any of the peer systems.
Bay Transit 3‐5 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
The annual number of unlinked passenger trips for Bay Transit is more than ten percent lower than the peer system average for both JAUNT and 4‐County Transit, but higher than the total number of trips for MEOC. Bay Transit’s rate of passengers per revenue mile is the lowest of the four systems. This also is most likely due to the size of the service area and the fact that the average passenger trip is quite likely longer than those of the other systems. By contrast, while Bay Transit’s rate of passengers per revenue hour is also lower than the peer system average, it is not the lowest of the four systems.
As shown in Table 3‐2 and in Figure 3‐4, the overall average unit operating cost for Bay Transit is quite comparable to the values of the peer systems. While Bay Transit’s cost per trip of $15.76 is above the average for the three peer systems, this is due to the extremely low value reported for 4‐County Transit. Bay’s cost per trip is actually lower than that for the other two peer systems and certainly appears to be in line with other systems within Virginia.
Table 3‐2. Peer Group Comparison Summary
Characteristics and
Performance Indicators
MEOC 4‐County Transit
JAUNT Peer
Systems Average
Bay Transit
Service Area Population
91,019 114,940 200,000 135,320 130,000
Total System Operating Cost
$1,354,143 $1,629,633 $4,566,275 2,516,684 $2,459,305
Total Vehicle Revenue Miles
647,584 1,154,672 1,750,276 1,184,177 1,664,376
Total Vehicle Revenue Hours
53,059 56,874 83,564 64,499 75,045
Total Unlinked Passenger Trips
75,641 184,140 270,875 176,885 156,067
Passengers per Revenue Mile
0.12 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.09
Passengers per Revenue Hour
1.43 3.24 3.24 2.74 2.08
Cost per Trip $17.90 $8.85 $16.86 $14.23 $15.76
Cost per Vehicle Revenue Mile
$2.09 $1.41 $2.61 $2.13 $1.48
Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour
$25.52 $28.65 $54.64 $39.02 $32.77
Bay Transit 3‐6 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Figure 3‐4. Peer Comparison
Bay Transit’s cost per vehicle revenue mile of $1.48 is more than 30 percent below the peer system average of $2.13 per vehicle revenue mile, and it is lower than two of the three systems. Similarly, Bay Transit’s cost per vehicle revenue hour of $32.77 is approximately 16 percent lower than the peer system average of $39.02 per vehicle revenue hour.
Overall, while Bay Transit’s productivity values are lower than those of its peers, this is primarily due to the nature of the system’s service area and the relatively long passenger trips that it provides. The unit cost figures for Bay Transit are certainly in line with those of its peer systems indicating a reasonable level of system efficiency.
33..33 PPuubblliicc OOnn‐‐BBooaarrdd PPaasssseennggeerr SSuurrvveeyy
Appendix E at the end of this report presents a technical memorandum with detailed findings from the on‐board transit rider survey.
Using these survey results, the typical Bay Transit rider can be characterized as follows:
Passenger Demographics:
Gender: The majority of the passengers are female.
Age: The findings suggest that Bay Transit is providing basic mobility services to a
broad cross‐section of the service area population and is not, as some might
perceive it to be, a system transporting only elderly residents.
Race: African‐American and Caucasian are the top two races using Bay Transit
service, representing over 90 percent of ridership.
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
Cost per Trip Cost per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour
MEOC 4‐County Transit JAUNT Peer Systems Average Bay Transit
Bay Transit 3‐7 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Education Level: Approximately 80 percent of the passengers indicated that they
either possessed a high school degree (48 percent) or had not graduated from high
school (32 percent).
Annual Household Income: Persons with low income are the major users of Bay
Transit.
Frequency of Ridership: A high level of repeat ridership further indicates that Bay
Transit is providing an essential mobility service to a broad cross‐section of its
passengers.
Passenger Trip Characteristics:
Trip Origin/Destination: The vast majority (84.7 percent) of the passengers started their
trips from their home. The results demonstrate that the current ridership is using the
Bay Transit system for basic mobility purposes between their homes and their
workplace or other important destinations.
Reason for Riding Bay Transit: The responses indicate that the current ridership can be
classified as “transit captives”; that is, they have few if any other travel options available
and if the current transit service was not provided, the subject trip would probably not
be made.
Service Ratings:
The service factors presented for rating were as follows:
Reservation procedures
Bus on‐time performance
Hours of bus service
Cost of bus fare
Sense of security on the buses
Cleanliness of buses
Courtesy/friendliness of bus drivers
Overall service rating
For each of these eight evaluation measurements, those that responded to the survey provided combined ratings of “Very Good” or “Good” in the range of approximately 80‐95 percent for almost every measurement. The findings represent a very positive reaction from the passengers of Bay Transit. They also indicate that the current users are satisfied with the overall services provided by Bay Transit.
Bay Transit 3‐9 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Future Service Needs:
More than half of respondents viewed the following suggested areas of potential service improvement as being “Very Important” or “Somewhat Important”
Less advance time to schedule trip
Expand hours / days of service
33..44 LLeevveell ooff SSuuppppoorrtt ffoorr TTrraannssiitt
Bay Transit has received a positive reaction from the people of the region and residents regularly express the opinion that it is a good service for the community. When Bay Transit initiated their services, not all counties in the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck PDC regions were covered. Citizens of the local governments asked County supervisors to request transit service from Bay Transit, and this service would typically be provided initially on a demonstration basis for some period of time. If determined to be successful, the service would continue with the use of federal, state, and local government financial support to supplement passenger fares. The system has been successful, as Bay Transit now provides service to a 12‐county area.
The change in transit service demand appears to be generally keeping pace with observed population growth in the region. Bay Transit developed an initial plan for potential system growth, but recent limitations on funding provided by the different federal, state, and local government agencies is the major constraint on the ability to expand the services beyond what is presently being provided.
A stakeholder’s meeting was conducted on March 12, 2009 (meeting minutes included in Appendix F). At this meeting, the following comments were offered by the attendees regarding the current Bay Transit service:
A representative of DRPT indicated that funding was an issue for each transit system in Virginia. However, DRPT had matched the maximized funding available for Bay Transit for the last couple of years.
A representative of the Town of Colonial Beach mentioned that there were certain demands for transit services from Colonial Beach to the community of Montross, but apparently the services cannot be provided by Bay Transit due to funding limitations.
Westmoreland County, the second biggest county in Northern Neck, currently has only one Bay Transit vehicle for transit services.
Colonial Beach has their own buses running transit services, with the representative of Colonial Beach expressing the willingness that they would like to cooperate with Bay Transit to develop a plan to provide more transit services between the jurisdictions.
Bay Transit 3‐10 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Some private business owners have expressed a willingness to substitute the operating cost for Bay Transit fixed‐route services if the route can serve their locations.
One representative suggested that Bay Transit should obtain the opinions of people who currently do not use the transit services to help determine their willingness to use transit services if the transit system fits their needs.
Representatives at this stakeholder’s meeting expressed the following suggestions for Bay Transit’s consideration:
o Request Stimulus Funding to purchase additional vehicles o Keep the fare at its current level o Consider the potential for commuter rail service to Richmond in the long term future o Work with Westmoreland County to provide more buses o Support for drivers to have more training o Expand services to the areas that attract tourists o Build walking and biking trails to connect major attractions o Reroute Bay Transit services to cover more areas
One representative suggested that DRPT should encourage carpool, vanpool, and other transportation programs to increase use of the public transit systems.
In general, there appears to be a good level of local government support for the continued operation of Bay Transit, but the finances of all the local governments are being strained at the present time. As a result, the potential for significant increases in local operating assistance is viewed as being unlikely over the next few years.
33..55 FFooccuuss GGrroouuppss aanndd GGeenneerraall CCoommmmuunniittyy IInnppuutt
DRPT recently changed their previous policy on state operating assistance support due to a reduced level of available funding. Combined with the effects of new federal regulations issued by FTA restricting the provision of local charter type services by public transportation agencies, Bay Transit is no longer able to provide transit services to local charity organizations or the sponsors of local non‐profit events.
This change has generated a number of complaints from many local agencies with respect to the challenges it presents to increasing community involvement with such activities. These local community groups and private citizens are supportive of providing additional public transit services in the region, but they are unable to generate local government support for increased public funding.
During the course of the TDP development process, Bay Transit agency staff and the consulting team received a number of suggestions from the representatives of the counties that currently have Bay Transit services. Most of those that offered these suggestions are not users of the system. What they suggested as potential service improvements included better on‐time
Bay Transit 3‐11 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
performance and an expanded service frequency (longer hours of operation during the day as opposed to initiation of service on weekends).
33..66 RReecceenntt CChhaannggeess iinn PPaattrroonnaaggee,, OOppeerraattiinngg CCoossttss,, aanndd OOppeerraattiinngg RReevveennuuee
Over the past three years, the number of annual passengers transported by Bay Transit has increased from 140,632 persons in FY 2006 to 156,067 in FY 2008, with the annual ridership in FY 2007 being slightly higher at 157,190 persons. This net increase in annual ridership of 15,435 persons over a period of two years represents an 11 percent increase over this time period. Much of this reported ridership increase appears to be attributable to the continuing expansion in transit service; from 1.21 million revenue miles in FY 2006 to 1.66 million revenue miles in FY 2008 (an increase of 37.2 percent in revenue miles), and from 61,822 revenue hours in FY 2006 to 75,045 revenue hours in FY 2008 (a 21.4 percent increase in annual revenue hours).
As would be expected with increases in services of this magnitude, annual system operating costs have also experienced a significant increase, from $1.78 million in FY 2006 to $2.46 million in FY 2008 (an increase of 38.2 percent).
When these total annual values are expressed in terms of unit factors, somewhat different conclusions can be drawn. For example, the average passengers per revenue hour value of 2.27 observed in FY 2006 declined to a value of 2.08 passengers per revenue hour in FY 2008. Yet this change only represents an 8.4 percent decline in this productivity factor. Even at this lowered value, the factor is still in an acceptable range when compared to the average of the three peer transit systems (see Section 3.2).
Similarly, the average cost per passenger increased from $12.65 per passenger in FY 2006 to $15.76 per passenger in FY 2008, or a change of approximately 24.6 percent. Much of this increase appears to be attributable to the observed increase in system operating costs, with much of the increase due to both significantly more service being provided and the higher fuel costs experienced during FY 2008 for the predominantly diesel and gasoline powered vehicle fleet operated by Bay Transit.
All of these cost and ridership response factors need to be regularly monitored and reported by the system’s management in order to identify trends of both a positive and a negative nature.
Table 3‐3 and Figure 3‐5 present a summary of the Bay Transit system’s annual revenues and operating assistance for Fiscal Years 2006 to 2008. As shown in the table, system passenger revenues experienced consistent growth over this period, from $94,779 in FY 2006 to $119,602 in FY 2008. This represents an increase of approximately 26.2 percent over the two year period, a rate of increase higher than the 11 percent increase in annual passengers reported in Table 3‐1. The average revenue per passenger of $0.67 in FY 2006 increased to a value of $0.77 per passenger in FY 2008. Contract revenues were $164,022 in FY 2006 and decreased slightly to $156,937 in FY 2008.
Bay TransiTransit Dev
$50
$1,00
$1,50
$2,00
$2,50
$3,00
Oth
Loc
t velopment Pla
Table
Sysand Op
Passenger Fa
Contract Rev
Local Operat
State Operat
Federal Ope
Other Match
Totals
Source: Bay T
Figure
$0
00,000
00,000
00,000
00,000
00,000
00,000
her Match
cal Operating
n: FY 10‐15
3‐3. Bay Tra
stem Revenueperating Assis
ares
venues
ting Assistanc
ting Assistanc
rating Assista
h
Transit
3‐5. Bay Tr
FY 2006
$32,6$94,7$164,
$416,
$445,
$693,
Assistance
ansit SystemFY2
es stance
ce
ce
ance
ransit SystemFY2
6
612 779 ,022
,591
,718
,318
Passenge
State Op
3‐12
m Revenues 006‐FY2008
FY2006
$ 94,779
$ 164,022
$ 416,591
$ 445,718
$ 693,318
$ 32,612
$ 1,847,040
m Revenues006‐FY2008
FY 2007
$101,64$158,78
$619,93
$385,31
$949,75
er Fares
erating Assist
and Operat8
FY200
$ 101,
2 $ 158,
1 $ 619,
8 $ 385,
8 $ 949,
0 $ 2,215
and Operat8
40 81
33
18
59
Co
tance Fe
ing Assistan
07 FY
640 $ 1
,781 $ 1
933 $ 6
318 $ 3
759 $ 1,0
$ 12
,431 $ 2,5
ting Assistan
FY 2008
$120,391$119,602$156,937
$679,436
$357,891
$1,095,59
ontract Reven
ederal Operat
October
nce
Y2008
119,602
156,937
679,436
357,891
095,597
20,391
529,854
nce
1 2 7
6
1
7
nues
ting Assistanc
r 2009
ce
Bay Transit 3‐13 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
As noted earlier in this chapter, total system operating costs have steadily increased in recent years. The total annual system operating costs (defined here as passenger fares + contract revenues + operating assistance) are reported to have increased from $1,847,040 in FY 2006 to $2,529,854 in FY 2008. This represents an increase of approximately 37 percent. With system revenue miles of service increasing from 1.21 million miles in FY 2006 to 1.66 million miles in FY 2008, the observed increase in total system operating costs appears to be reasonable.
Total reported revenues (passenger fares + contract revenues) in FY 2006 of $258,801 represented approximately 14.0 percent of the total reported operating cost of $1,847,040. In FY 2008, the total reported revenues of $276,539 represented approximately 10.9 percent of the total reported operating costs in that fiscal year. Passenger fares alone represented 5.1 percent of total reported operating costs in FY 2006, 4.6 percent of total reported operating costs in FY 2007, and 4.7 percent of total reported operating costs in FY 2008. As shown in the chart, in all three years, most of Bay Transit’s income is from federal and local operating assistance.
As shown in Table 3‐4 and Figure 3‐6, the share of operating assistance provided by local governments, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Federal government have fluctuated somewhat from year to year. The Federal Transit Administration’s share of total net operating costs has ranged from 41 percent in FY 2006, 46 percent in FY 2007, and 47 percent in FY 2008.
Table 3‐4. Allocation of Net Operating Assistance FY2006‐FY2008
Funding Source FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Local Governments 25% 30% 29%
State Government 26% 19% 15%
Federal Government 41% 46% 47%
Contract Revenues 10% 8% 7%
Other 2% 5%
Totals 104% 103% 103%
Source: Bay Transit
Bay TransiTransit Dev
State opTransporpercent ifunding operating
33..77
As a demlarge anddifferentthe Bay Tdevelope(FTA) or Board. Oin an indservice st
In May TransporconjunctGuideline
1. PM
4 Maryland
1
1
O
t velopment Pla
Figure
perating asrtation has fin FY 2007 ahas fluctuag costs in FY
DDeevviiaattiioonn
mand‐respod generally t service staTransit systeed at a natioby the Tran
Others have dividual stattandards for
2002, thertation pubion with thes were defi
rovide techMaryland.
d Transit Guide
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Other Contr
n: FY 10‐15
3‐6. Allocat
ssistance fufluctuated band 15 perceated to covY 2006 to 38
nnss ffrroomm SSeerr
nsive publiclow‐densityndards and em. Some oonal level thrnsit Cooperabeen develoe. At the pr application
e Marylandblished a rhe Marylandned as havin
hnical guida
elines, Marylan
FY2006
2%10%
25%
26%
41%
ract Revenue
tion of Net O
unding provetween 26 pent in FY 200ver the rempercent in F
rrvviiccee SSttaanndd
c transportay rural portioperating gof these serrough reseaative Researoped with a present timen to rural sys
Transit Aeport titledd Compreheng four prim
ance to tra
nd Transit Adm
s Local Go
3‐14
Operating A
vided by tpercent of t08. Local gomaining diffeFY 2007 and
ddaarrddss aanndd
ation prograon of the Cguidelines thrvice standarch sponsorerch Programfocus on rure, DRPT hasstems such a
Administratiod “Marylanensive Transmary objectiv
ansit agenc
ministration, Ba
FY2007
8%
30%
19%
46%
vernments
ssistance FY
the Departotal net opeovernment, erence, fromto 41 perce
PPootteennttiiaall
am whose sCommonweahat can be ards and opeed by the Fe (TCRP) of tral public tra not develoas Bay Transi
on of the d Transit sit Plan (Mves or purpo
ies and tra
ltimore, Maryl
FY
State Gover
Y2006 – FY20
tment of Rerating cost contract revm 37 percent in FY 200
RReemmeeddiieess
service areaalth, there aapplied to terating guideederal Transthe Transpoansit serviceoped a set oit.
Maryland Guidelines.”CTP), the Mses4:
ansit provid
land; May 200
Y2008
5%7%
29%
15%
47%
rnment Fed
October
008
Rail and Pin FY 2006 tvenue, and oent of tota8.
ss
encompassare a numbhe operatioelines have it Administrortation Reses being operof general tr
Departmen” PrepareMaryland Tr
ders throug
2, Page 2.
deral Governm
r 2009
Public to 19 other l net
ses a ber of ns of been ration earch rated ransit
nt of ed in ransit
ghout
ment
Bay Transit 3‐15 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
2. Create consistency in transit service and infrastructure throughout Maryland.
3. Establish measurable guidelines for transit.
4. Provide a basis for securing funding for transit improvements.
The Maryland Transit Guidelines encompassed all of the transit modes operating in the state, from large urban fixed‐guideway systems to small urban area bus and rural demand‐responsive services. For the purposes of the Bay Transit TDP, the following Maryland service guidelines developed for application to rural, general public, demand‐responsive transit services will be applied:
Reservations
Span of Service
System Access and Availability
Directness
Dependability
Rider Compliance and No Show Policy
Financial
Productivity
The application of each of these guidelines to the current operations of Bay Transit is discussed below.
Reservations. This criterion delineates both the minimum and maximum amount of time in advance of requested service that a rider is required to place a reservation with the transit system operator. The MTA minimum reservation period for non‐ADA service such as that operated by Bay Transit is “noon on the prior day” and the maximum reservation period is two weeks. Bay Transit requires a 24‐hour advance notice for individual trips and allows for regular trips to be prescheduled several weeks in advance. The current service satisfies this service guideline.
Span of Service. The MTA guidelines define “span of service” as the duration of time when service is “made available” and is measured from the earliest to the latest pick‐up times. For rural, non‐ADA services, the MTA guidelines define span of service as from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays. Bay Transit currently operates Monday through Friday between the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The current service satisfies this service guideline.
Loading Guideline. The MTA service guidelines indicate that no standees are permitted at any time on demand‐responsive vehicles throughout the State of Maryland. Bay Transit satisfies this guideline by requiring all passengers to wear seatbelts at all times on the vehicles and never allowing standees on any trip.
Bay Transit 3‐16 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
System Access and Availability. The MTA guidelines define the minimum “access” for demand‐responsive service to be the provision of “curb‐to‐curb” transportation. This guideline is being satisfied by Bay Transit. The MTA guideline for “availability” defined compliance as service being provided for any trip purpose on a space/time available basis within the agency’s operating service area. Bay Transit is in full compliance with this guideline across the 12‐county area that it serves.
Directness. The MTA guidelines recommend that a demand‐responsive trip should take no more than an hour (60 minutes) for a driving distance of up to 20 miles and discourage transfers on demand‐response systems. Bay Transit does not schedule passenger transfers for those trips that have both their origin and their destination within a single county service area. Transfers are limited to those trips that require a passenger to use separate vehicles when traveling from one county to another. Given the large geographic size of the 12‐county region served by Bay Transit, non‐adherence to this MTA guideline is deemed to be reasonable and acceptable. Based on a review of a small random sample of driver logs and reservation sheets, the maximum trip time guideline is being satisfied. Dependability. The MTA guideline for dependability measures whether the service is operated as scheduled and whether the service picks up all passengers who have made reservations. The MTA service guidelines involve two criteria: schedule adherence and trip fulfillment. The MTA schedule adherence criteria define “on‐time” as being 15 minutes early to 15 minutes late for pick‐ups, and up to 15 minutes late for drop‐offs. The associated “on‐time” percentage for pick‐ups and drop‐offs is 90 percent. Bay Transit currently operates a manual dispatching system with modest levels of computer assistance. Driver assignment sheets define the time of all scheduled pick‐ups over the course of the service day and drivers record the actual times that pick‐ups and drop‐offs take place for each trip. Based on a review of a small random sample of driver logs and reservation sheets, the schedule adherence guidelines appear to be satisfied. Similarly, the trip fulfillment criterion is being satisfied by all scheduled trips being served.
Rider Compliance and No Show Policy. All demand‐responsive transit system operators should strive to provide all eligible patrons with no turn downs. To accomplish this objective, persons that are consistent “no shows” must be denied service so that other riders can use the available system capacity. Since its earliest days of operation, Bay Transit has implemented and maintained a consistent set of policies related to rider compliance and “no shows”. Records are maintained of those persons who make a reservation but are not available to be picked up within the designated time period or who cancel a reservation on short notice. Written notification is provided to these individuals of the potential for suspension of service if the situation continues. Suspension of service has been applied where necessary and appropriate. It appears that this service criterion is being satisfied.
Financial. The cost of operating a demand‐response transit system can be measured by several basic financial factors. The most commonly used factors are the average system‐wide cost per passenger and the average system‐wide cost per vehicle hour of service provided. As described
Bay Transit 3‐17 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
earlier in this chapter, Bay Transit appears to be operating a very efficient and cost effective service. The current average cost per passenger during FY 2008 was $15.76, and Bay Transit’s average cost per vehicle hour of service provided was $32.77 during FY 2008, a value approximately 16 percent lower than the average experienced by the other three peer transit systems.
Productivity. The most useful measure of a demand‐response system’s productivity is passengers per revenue hour because it provides the operating agency with a method to measure service without focusing on operating costs. As noted earlier in this chapter, Bay Transit’s system‐wide passenger per revenue hour factor during FY 2008 was 2.08, as compared to the average value for this factor experienced by the three peer transit systems of 2.74. Given the fact that most of the peer systems provide service to much smaller geographic areas, typically only a single county as opposed to the 12‐county region served by Bay Transit, this finding is not unexpected. Comparing this operating statistic for Bay Transit to the same measure for its most comparable peer system, MEOC Transit, results in a much more favorable finding. While Bay Transit carried 2.08 passengers per revenue hour during FY 2008, MEOC Transit carried 1.43 passengers per revenue hour. It would thus appear that Bay Transit is providing service in a very cost‐effective manner.
33..88 PPootteennttiiaall SSoolluuttiioonnss ttoo GGaappss oorr SSeerrvviiccee DDeeffiicciieenncciieess
Bay Transit’s services are essentially all demand‐response in nature. Year‐round fixed‐route services are offered weekdays in the Towns of Colonial Beach and West Point. Three seasonal trolleys run seasonal weekend fixed routes in the towns of Colonial Beach, Kilmarnock, White Stone, Irvington, and Urbanna. As described above, the system appears to be providing these services in an efficient and cost‐effective manner. As evidenced by the results of the on‐board ridership survey, the current passengers appear to be pleased and supportive of the transit services that are being provided.
With that said, the service factor of “On‐time Performance” may be the single most important factor that the current riders believe is in need of improvement. This factor has also been noted by the Bay Transit management, who recently initiated a needs assessment for paratransit services scheduling software. The primary purpose of this project is to assess the current primarily manual scheduling practices of Bay Transit and to recommend scheduling and dispatching software that can be employed to increase operational efficiencies and ridership. This needs assessment project began in May 2009 and is planned to be completed by the end of 2009.
33..99 PPootteennttiiaall RReemmeeddiieess ffoorr EEqquuiippmmeenntt aanndd FFaacciilliittyy DDeeffiicciieenncciieess
Since the initiation of service in 1996, Bay Transit has been successful in both acquiring the vehicles required to operate its service on a regular basis and in obtaining federal, state, and local government operating assistance. However, they have been constrained by limitations on
Bay Transit 3‐18 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
obtaining appropriate administrative and maintenance facilities. The Bay Transit senior management and administrative staff currently share space with their co‐workers of Bay Aging at the latter’s main offices in Urbanna, Middlesex County. Actual operations and maintenance functions are distributed across a number of locations on both the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula portions of the 12‐county service area. Area operations managers typically work out of the Bay Aging offices in their particular area, with vehicle maintenance services provided by private contractors. Recognizing the need to address this issue, Bay Transit has been working closely with DRPT and its local government partners over the past several years on the planning and design of its first new dedicated operations and maintenance facility. This work culminated on April 27, 2009 with groundbreaking ceremonies in the Commerce Park of Warsaw, Virginia for an 11,000 square foot transit facility that will include space for operations and dispatch functions as well as a fleet maintenance shop consisting of two vehicle bays with lifts. The combined design and construction cost for the Bay Transit operations and maintenance facility is $2,720,327.5 The construction of this new facility is anticipated to be completed by Spring 2010, with operations out of the center beginning in Summer 2010. The Warsaw center will serve as the dispatch location for all twelve (12) counties. Bay Transit is also beginning to plan for the development of a Middle Peninsula administration and maintenance facility to accommodate its needs in the central and southern portions of the Middle Peninsula and those in New Kent and Charles City Counties. The specific location for this facility has not yet been identified. The current thinking of Bay Transit management is that this facility should be in operation within the next five to seven years, or within the time‐frame associated with this initial Transit Development Plan.
33..1100 TTiittllee VVII RReeppoorrtt aanndd FFTTAA QQuuaaddrreennnniiaall RReevviieeww
As a designated subrecipient of FTA capital and operating assistance funding through the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) whose services are provided in a rural portion of the Commonwealth, Bay Transit is not required to prepare and submit its own separate Title VI report or the associated FTA Quadrennial Review. However, Bay Transit is still required to follow the Title VI and Title VI‐dependent guidelines for Federal Transit Administration recipients as described in FTA Circular C 4702.1A. Thus, for example, the appropriate provisions of the NEPA process were followed in connection with the planning, design, and construction of the new Warsaw transit operations and maintenance center. Similarly, all official publications issued by Bay Transit include appropriate language concerning non‐discrimination.
5 Bay Transit has Groundbreaking Ceremony for Warsaw Transit Facility; http://www.drpt.viginia.gov/nnews/details.aspx?id=379.
Bay Transit 4‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
44..00 SSEERRVVIICCEE EEXXPPAANNSSIIOONN PPRROOJJEECCTT DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONNSS This chapter presents a description of potential service and facility improvement needs over the multi‐year duration of the transit plan. This discussion should be viewed not as a “wish list”, but rather as documentation of those reasonable potential actions to improve the existing transit system over the next five to seven years. The contents of this chapter include the following elements:
Demographic analysis that identifies anticipated changes in population and employment within the service area.
A description of potential needs based on the work undertaken to date in connection with the TDP development. This work reflects inputs from the transit agency staff, other regional stakeholders, and the technical analysis undertaken by the members of the consultant team.
Preliminary capital and operating cost estimates associated with each of the various identified potential needs and a discussion of potential policy, funding, or operating issues associated with the defined needs. This data will include estimates of potential ridership response to the various service improvements.
Each of these topics is discussed in more detail below.
44..11 DDeemmooggrraapphhiicc AAnnaallyyssiiss ooff AAnnttiicciippaatteedd PPooppuullaattiioonn aanndd EEmmppllooyymmeenntt
CChhaannggeess
The Bay Transit service area encompasses a 12‐county region in the eastern part of the Commonwealth of Virginia that is predominantly rural in character. With the exception of a number of small urban centers that house concentrations of population and employment, most of the land area is primarily agricultural, forest, or wetlands.
As shown on Table 4‐1, the estimated present day population of the Bay Transit service area (based on 2008 data) is approximately 168,300 persons, spread across a total land area for the 12 counties of approximately 2,664 square miles. The resulting average population density is approximately 63.2 persons per square mile.
The more densely‐populated portion of the region is composed of the six counties that constitute the Middle Peninsula PDC. These six counties contain approximately 92,240 persons, or approximately 55 percent of the total service area population.
The four counties that comprise the Northern Neck PDC area contain approximately 50,987 persons, or approximately 30 percent of the regional total, with the two counties (Charles City County and New Kent County) within the Richmond Regional PDC containing the remaining 25,037 persons, or approximately 15 percent of the regional total.
Bay Transit 4‐2 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Between 2000 and 2008, the Richmond Region population grew the most (22.8 percent), followed by the Middle Peninsula (10.2 percent). The Northern Neck grew very little (3.3 percent).
Recent estimates assembled by the Virginia Employment Commission show that the total employment within these twelve counties is approximately 80,500 jobs. As shown in Table 4‐1, this estimate includes approximately 45,200 jobs in the six Middle Peninsula PDC counties, approximately 22,800 jobs in the four Northern Neck PDC counties, and the remaining 12,400 jobs in Charles City and New Kent Counties.
Table 4‐1. Present Day Population and Employment Summary
PDC and Counties Population
Percent Change in Pop‐ulation
County Area (Sq. Miles)
Population Density
(Persons/Sq.Mi.) 2009
Employment
2000 2008 2000 2008
PDC 18 ‐Middle Peninsula
Essex County 9,989 11,091 11.0% 276.4 36.1 40.1 5,382
Gloucester County 34,780 38,656 11.1% 253.3 137.3 152.6 19,702
King and Queen County 6,630 6,830 3.0% 324.4 20.4 21.1 3,110
King William County 13,146 16,040 22.0% 285.2 46.1 56.2 7,965
Mathews County 9,207 9,038 ‐1.8% 103.1 89.3 87.7 4,242
Middlesex County 9,932 10,585 6.6% 142.3 69.8 74.4 4,841
Total PDC 18 83,684 92,240 10.2% 1384.7 60.4 66.6 45,242
PDC 17 ‐ Northern Neck
Lancaster County 11,567 11,466 ‐0.9% 150.0 77.1 76.4 5,153
Northumberland County
12,259 12,915 5.4% 216.4 56.6 59.7 5,468
Richmond County 8,809 9,144 3.8% 206.1 42.7 44.4 3,877
Westmoreland County 16,718 17,462 4.5% 277.7 60.2 62.9 8,338
Total PDC 17 49,353 50,987 3.3% 850.2 58.0 60.0 22,836
PDC 15 ‐ Richmond Region
Charles City County 6,926 7,212 4.1% 204.0 34.0 35.4 3,541
New Kent County 13,462 17,825 32.4% 225.0 59.8 79.2 8,861
Total PDC 15 (partial) 20,388 25,037 22.8% 429.0 47.5 58.4 12,402
Service Area Total 153,425 168,264 9.7% 2663.9 57.6 63.2 80,480
Sources: 2000 Population and County Area ‐ 2000 Census 2008 Population Estimates ‐ http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51036.html 2009 Employment Data (Average: January – June 2009) ‐ Virginia Employment Commission
Future year forecasts of population for each of the 12 counties in the Bay Transit service area for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 were obtained from the Virginia Employment Commission.
Bay Transit 4‐3 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Employment projections for these rural counties were not available from the Virginia Employment Commission.
For the purposes of the Bay Transit TDP, a future plan horizon year of 2015 has been identified, six years from the current base transit operations year of 2009. Table 4‐2 presents estimates of future population for the years 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030 for each of the Bay Transit service area counties. The 2015 estimates were interpolated from the 2010 and 2020 estimates.
Bay Transit 4‐4 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 4‐2. Future Year Bay Transit Service Area Population Estimates (All Ages)
PDC and Counties 2010 2015 2020 2030
Change: 2010‐2015
Number Percent
PDC 18 ‐ Middle Peninsula
Essex County 10,969 11,465 11,960 12,974 496 4.5%
Gloucester County 40,474 43,244 46,013 51,824 2,770 6.8%
King and Queen County 6,891 7,039 7,187 7,564 148 2.1%
King William County 16,187 17,653 19,119 22,227 1,466 9.1%
Mathews County 9,097 9,087 9,077 9,068 ‐10 ‐0.1%
Middlesex County 11,012 11,534 12,055 13,181 522 4.7%
Total PDC 18 94,630 100,021 105,411 116,838 5,391 5.7%
PDC 17 ‐ Northern Neck
Lancaster County 11,485 11,481 11,477 11,478 ‐4 0.0%
Northumberland County 13,420 14,004 14,587 15,821 584 4.3%
Richmond County 8,333 9,117 9,900 10,512 784 9.4%
Westmoreland County 17,483 17,910 18,336 19,261 427 2.4%
Total PDC 17 50,721 52,511 54,300 57,072 1,790 3.5%
PDC 15 ‐ Richmond Region PDC
Charles City County 7,431 7,682 7,932 8,749 251 3.4%
New Kent County 18,681 21,176 23,671 29,496 2,495 13.4%
Total PDC 15 (partial) 26,112 28,858 31,603 38,245 2,746 10.5%
Service Area Total 171,463 181,389 191,314 212,155 9,926 5.8%
Source: 2000 Census and Virginia Employment Commission Community Profiles for each county.
As Table 4‐2 shows, almost all of the Bay Transit service area counties are projected to experience increases in population from 2010 to 2015. Only Mathews County and Lancaster County are projected to experience very small decreases in population. In these two counties, the anticipated percentage change resulting from these decreases is expected to be less than 0.1 percent, which can be considered as no change in the total population. For the overall Bay Transit service area, the total estimated population increase is projected to be 9,926 persons from 2010 to 2015, or a percentage change over this period of 5.8 percent. On an average annual basis, this equates to approximately 1.1 percent per year.
Table 4‐3 illustrates the current and projected future service area population of persons age 65 or older.
Bay Transit 4‐5 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 4‐3. Future Year Bay Transit Service Area Population Estimates of Elderly Persons (65 or Older)
PDC and Counties 2010 2015 2020 Change, 2010‐2015
Number Percent
PDC 18 ‐ Middle Peninsula
Essex County 1,914 2,143 2,372 229 12.0%
Gloucester County 5,676 7,016 8,356 1,340 23.6%
King and Queen County 1,265 1,385 1,505 120 9.5%
King William County 2,118 2,647 3,175 529 25.0%
Mathews County 2,198 2,253 2,307 55 2.5%
Middlesex County 2,706 2,933 3,160 227 8.4%
Total PDC 18 15,877 18,376 20,875 2,499 15.7%
PDC 17 ‐ Northern Neck
Lancaster County 3,122 3,019 2,916 ‐103 ‐3.3%
Northumberland County 3,944 4,050 4,156 106 2.7%
Richmond County 1,688 1,767 1,846 79 4.7%
Westmoreland County 3,422 3,616 3,809 194 5.7%
Total PDC 17 12,176 12,452 12,727 276 2.3%
PDC 15 ‐ Richmond Region PDC
Charles City County 1,193 1,453 1,712 260 21.8%
New Kent County 2,297 3,401 4,504 1,104 48.0%
Total PDC 15 (partial) 3,490 4,853 6,216 1,363 39.1%
Service Area Total 31,543 35,681 39,818 4,138 13.1%
Source: 2000 Census and Virginia Employment Commission Community Profiles for each county.
As shown on Table 4‐3, the population of elderly persons age 65 or older is projected to increase from 2010 to 2015 for all counties in the Bay Transit service area except Lancaster County. Lancaster County is projected to experience a decrease of approximately 103 persons age 65 or older between 2010 and 2015. This value represents a 3.3 percent decrease in the elderly population of this county. For the overall Bay Transit service area, the total number of elderly persons is projected to increase from approximately 31,543 persons in 2010 to approximately 35,681 persons in 2015. This change in the number of elderly residents of 4,138 persons from 2010 to 2015 represents a percentage change of approximately 13.1 percent, or approximately 2.5 percent per year. Figure 4‐1 below presents the existing population and the projected total and elderly populations for the Bay Transit service area jurisdictions in the years 2010, 2015, and 2020, compared to the 2008 base year. The elderly population (65+) for 2008 was not readily available, but it can be assumed that it is a similar portion of the total population as 2010.
Bay TransiTransit Dev
44..22 PP
As descriand expain Gloucecounty re
The fundsystem. replacemthe desigsystems Bay Trantotal coststate or approxim
In recentaverage using Fedtypical ve
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
t velopment Pla
Figure 4
PPootteennttiiaall SSe
ibed in previanding systeester Countegion.
damental qu One of the
ment and flegnation in Ain Virginia t
nsit was ident of $395,90local matc
mately $56,5
t years, Bayof seven or deral Recovehicle acqui
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
2
n: FY 10‐15
4‐1. Projecte
eerrvviiccee EExxpp
ious sectionm for over aty, the syste
uestion nowe basic facileet expansioApril 2009 ofto receive Fntified as the00. This allocching funds500.
y Transit haeight vehic
very Act stimsition / repl
2008
168,264
Elderly Po
ed Populatio
ppaannssiioonn aann
s of this TDPa decade. Siem has grow
w facing the lity needs ison program.f Bay TransitFederal Recoe recipient ocation will ta required.
s typically ales each yeamulus fundinacement cy
2010
31,54
171,
opulation (65+
4‐6
on (All Bay T
dd FFaacciilliittyy NN
P document,nce the initiwn to a flee
agency is hs the contin This activit as one of overy Act stof seven repake the form The avera
acquired fivear. The sevng thus repcle. Assumi
2
3
,463
+) Total
Transit Servi
NNeeeeddss
, Bay Transitation of servet of 68 veh
how best tonuation of tity continuethe rural animulus fundplacement pm of 100 percage cost of
e to ten veven vehicles resents the ing that this
015
35,681
181,389
l Population (
ce Jurisdicti
t has been a vice in 1996 hicles operat
o improve uthe historicaes today, mond small urbding. Througassenger tracent Federaf each of t
hicles in anto be obtaisystem’s re
s typical veh
2020
39,818
191,
(All Ages)
October
ions)
steadily growith one veting across a
upon the cual transit veost recently ban public trgh this progansport vansl funding withese vehicl
y given yeaned during ecently obseicle replace
8
,314
r 2009
owing ehicle a 12‐
rrent ehicle with ransit gram, s at a th no es is
ar, an 2009 erved ment
Bay Transit 4‐7 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
cycle is continued over the next several years, Table 4‐4 illustrates the total passenger fleet size and the anticipated average vehicle age between 2009 and the TDP horizon year of 2015.
Table 4‐4. Bay Transit Fleet Replacement Program, FY2009‐FY2015
Passenger Vehicle Fleet Calendar Year 2008 ‐ 2015
Model Year No. of Vehicles
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1988 1 1
1999
1990 1 1
1991 1 1
1992 1 1
1993
1994 1 1
1995 1 1
1996
1997
1998 1 1
1999 2 2
2000 1 1
2001 2 2 2
2002 6 6 6
2003 7 7 7 7
2004
2005 7 7 7 7 7
2006 10 10 10 10 10 10 5
2007 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2008 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2009 ‐ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
2010 ‐ 7 7 7 7 7 7
2011 ‐ 7 7 7 7 7
2012 ‐ 7 7 7 7
2013 ‐ 7 7 7
2014 ‐ 7 7
2015 ‐ 7
Total Vehicles 57 57 54 53 53 53 55 57 59
Average Age 5.6 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.7
Assumptions: Current fleet size remains relatively constant; 7 vehicles to be acquired each year starting 2009.
Bay Transit 4‐8 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Applying the average vehicle acquisition cost of $56,500 in the current year (2009) and applying an average annual inflation rate of 2.0 percent over the period of 2010 to 2015, the typical average annual cost associated with the acquisition of several replacement vehicles each year over this period is shown in Table 4‐5.
Table 4‐5. Estimated Cost of Base Fleet Vehicle Replacement Program, FY2009‐FY2015
Model Year
Avg. Vehicle Cost
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Cost
2009 $56,500 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
2010 $57,600 $ ‐ $ ‐ $403,200 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $403,200
2011 $58,800 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $411,600 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $411,600
2012 $60,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $420,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $420,000
2013 $61,200 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $428,400 $ ‐ $ ‐ $428,400
2014 $62,400 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $436,800 $ ‐ $436,800
2015 $63,600 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $445,200 $445,200
Totals $ ‐ $ ‐ $415,100 $436,100 $457,800 $480,900 $504,700 $529,900 $2,545,200
Note: Average Vehicle Cost each year assumes 2.0 percent inflation rate.
As illustrated in Table 4‐5, the average vehicle cost today of $56,500 could increase to approximately $63,600 by the year 2015 assuming an average annual inflation rate of 2.0 percent, and with the average vehicle cost rounded to the nearest $100. The total estimated cost of acquiring seven vehicles each year for a period of six years would be approximately $2,545,200.
Table 4‐6 and Table 4‐7, respectively, illustrate the anticipated operating statistics and operating assistance funding levels associated with the continuing operation of the Bay Transit system at present day service levels. These tables assume that the currently observed vehicle miles and hours of service would remain basically unchanged over the next several years, with the anticipated increase in service area population defining the magnitude of the anticipated passenger growth. The latest available budget information for Bay Transit is FY 2010. Therefore, operating expenses are assumed to experience an average annual increase of approximately 2.0 percent starting from FY 2011 to FY 2015.
Bay Transit 4‐9 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 4‐6. Operating Statistics of Bay Transit, FY2008‐FY2015
Operating Statistics FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Annual Passengers
156,067 157,784 159,519 161,274 163,048 164,842 166,655 168,488
Annual Operating Costs
$ 2,459,305 $ 2,420,176 $ 2,582,544 $ 2,634,195 $ 2,686,879 $ 2,740,616 $ 2,795,429 $ 2,851,337
Annual Revenue Miles
1,664,376 1,664,456 1,664,456 1,664,456 1,664,456 1,664,456 1,664,456 1,664,456
Annual Revenue Hours
75,045 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175
Passengers per Revenue Mile
0.094 0.095 0.096 0.097 0.098 0.099 0.100 0.101
Passengers per Revenue Hour
2.08 2.10 2.12 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.22 2.24
Cost per Passenger
$15.76 $15.34 $16.19 $16.33 $16.48 $16.63 $16.77 $16.92
Cost per Revenue Mile
$1.48 $1.45 $1.55 $1.58 $1.61 $1.65 $1.68 $1.71
Cost per Revenue Hour
$32.77 $32.19 $34.35 $35.04 $35.74 $36.46 $37.19 $37.93
1. The percentage of Annual Passenger increase is assumed to be 1.1% based on the regional population increase, beginning in FY 2009. 2. FY2010 Operating Cost obtained from DRPT FY2010 district budget data. Beginning in FY2011, the Annual Operating Cost calculated assuming a 2.0%/year inflation rate.
3. Annual Revenue Miles assumed to be constant through the life of the TDP period. 4. Annual Revenue Hours for FY 2009 provided by Bay Transit and assumed to be constant through the life of the TDP period. 5. FY2010 Passenger Fare and Contract Revenue Total obtained from DRPT FY2010 district budget data and assumed to be constant through the life of the TDP period. 6. Federal Operating Assistance reflects estimated FTA Section 5311 and FTA 5316 funds; assumed to remain flat at FY2010 levels.
7. FY2010 State Operating Assistance obtained from DRPT FY2010 district budget data. The increase in State Operating Assistance, as per DRPT, is assumed to be 1.77% in FY2011, 2.90% in FY2011‐FY2012, 3.50% in FY2012‐FY2013, 3.16% in FY2013‐FY2014, and 3.16% in FY2014‐FY2015.
8. Net Operating Cost calculated as Total Cost less Passenger Fares and Contract Revenues.
Bay Transit 4‐10 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 4‐7. System Revenues and Operating Assistance of Bay Transit, 2008‐2015
System Revenues
and Operating Assistance
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Passenger Fares
$119,602
$120,000 $ 121,234 $ 122,568 $ 123,917 $ 125,280
$ 126,658 $ 128,051
Contract Revenues
$156,937
$157,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
$ 25,000 $ 25,000
Local Operating Assistance
$679,436
$621,219
$757,793
$799,821
$837,315
$872,444
$909,785 $947,704
State Operating Assistance
$357,891 $411,839
$469,501
$477,811
$491,668
$508,876
$524,957 $541,545
Federal Operating Assistance
$1,095,597
$1,071,118
$1,208,972
$1,209,000
$1,209,000
$1,209,000
$1,209,000 $ 1,209,000
Other Match $120,391
$39,000
Totals
$2,529,854
$2,420,176 $2,582,500 $2,634,200 $2,686,900
$2,740,600 $2,795,400 $ 2,851,300
Net Operating
Cost
$2,253,315
$2,143,176 $2,436,266
$2,486,632
$2,537,983 $2,590,320
$2,643,742 $2,698,249
1. The percentage of Annual Passenger increase is assumed to be 1.1% based on the regional population increase, beginning in FY 2009. 2. FY2010 Operating Cost obtained from DRPT FY2010 district budget data. Beginning in FY2011, the Annual Operating Cost calculated assuming a 2.0%/year inflation rate.
3. Annual Revenue Miles assumed to be constant through the life of the TDP period. 4. Annual Revenue Hours for FY 2009 provided by Bay Transit and assumed to be constant through the life of the TDP period. 5. FY2010 to FY2015 Passenger Fare and Contract Revenue Total estimate obtained from Diana Giles, CFO, Bay Transit. 6. Federal Operating Assistance reflects estimated FTA Section 5311 and FTA 5316 funds; assumed to remain flat at FY2010 levels.
7. FY2010 State Operating Assistance obtained from DRPT FY2010 district budget data. The increase in State Operating Assistance, as per DRPT, is assumed to be 1.77% in FY2011, 2.90% in FY2011‐FY2012, 3.50% in FY2012‐FY2013, 3.16% in FY2013‐FY2014, and 3.16% in FY2014‐FY2015.
8. Net Operating Cost calculated as Total Cost less Passenger Fares and Contract Revenues.
Bay Transit 4‐11 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Potential Service Expansions
As described in previous sections of this TDP document, currently Bay Transit only provides demand‐response transit services. However, the staff of Bay Transit and several stakeholders have identified the potential need in the region for the initiation of fixed‐route services. Based on the demand of services, three potential fixed routes have been identified in this TDP, as shown in Figure 4‐2 and described below:
Proposed Fixed‐Route 1: Gloucester Point – Urbanna – Tappahannock: This route starts from Gloucester and follows Rt. 17 to get to Urbanna and then to Tappahannock. The one‐way distance of this route is approximate 62 miles and travel time is estimated at 1 ½ hours for a one‐way trip. The following figure shows the proposed route.
Proposed Fixed‐Route 2: Colonial Beach – Montross – Warsaw – Tappahannock: This
route starts from Colonial Beach and follows Rt. 205 to Montross, then Rt. 3 to Warsaw, and then travels to Tappahannock via Rt. 360. The one‐way distance of this route is approximately 40 miles, and travel time is estimated at 1 hour for a one‐way trip. The following figure shows the proposed route.
Proposed Fixed‐Route 3: Kilmarnock – Warsaw – Kilmarnock: This route is a loop route.
It starts from Kilmarnock to get to Warsaw via Rt. 3 and then follows Rt. 360 and Rt. 200 to return to Kilmarnock. The loop distance of this route is approximately 70 miles, and travel time is estimated at 1 ½ hours for a typical one‐loop trip. The following figure shows the proposed route.
The routes shown in Figure 4‐3 were submitted by the Northern Neck Planning District Commission as their suggestion for potential new fixed‐route services. Note that the green route in Figure 4‐3 matches the Proposed Fixed‐Route 2 and the red loop route in Figure 4‐3 matches Proposed Fixed‐Route 3. The PDC suggested the following service details for these potential routes:
1. The loop could be implemented in two or more phases. The Colonial Beach‐to‐Warsaw segment might be Phase One as it would provide service between two regional employment centers, as well as regularly scheduled transportation to/from Rappahannock Community College.
2. The ideal fixed‐route schedule would be six or seven days a week, with buses running
primarily from 6 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 7 PM on weekdays, and another schedule on weekends, depending on demand.
Bay Transit 4‐12 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Figure 4‐2. Proposed Fixed‐Route Services
Two additional suggestions for expanded service were presented at the Final Stakeholder Meeting on October 7, 2009. This meeting was held to discuss the contents of this TDP and review its final recommendations. During the general question and answer period at the end of the meeting, the following two services were discussed and it was agreed that they would be included in the TDP for reevaluation and consideration, if funding were to become available in the future:
1. Commuter service from New Kent/Charles City to Richmond or Williamsburg. This
service would be provided Monday through Friday, with one trip in the morning and a
return trip in the evening.
2. The extension of existing demand‐response service to include later evening hours (after
6:00 PM) and/or weekend service (primarily Saturday).
Bay Transit 4‐13 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Figure 4‐3. Northern Neck Proposed Fixed Transit Routes
Bay Transit 4‐14 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Computerized Scheduling and Dispatching System Another transit service improvement that Bay Transit has proposed is the planned acquisition of a computerized scheduling and dispatching system. Bay Transit is presently using manual methods to schedule and dispatch their vehicles.
Based on their experiences with the manual method, they have found that it is not an efficient means to operate their system. Therefore, Bay Transit currently is in the early phases of a process to acquire a computerized scheduling and dispatching system to operate their system. A needs assessment of paratransit services scheduling software has recently been initiated, with completion expected by the end of calendar year 2009. The funding mechanism for the acquisition of the computerized scheduling and dispatching system has not yet been identified.
Based upon limited experience in other communities, it is anticipated that implementation of such a computerized scheduling and dispatching system may be able to achieve operational efficiencies. Bay Transit suggests that the overall annual system ridership could experience an increase of approximately 10 percent per year following implementation of the system (assumed as FY 2012).
Administration and Maintenance Center
Based on the transit demand growth in the Bay Transit service area, a new administration and maintenance center has been proposed to be built in the Middle Peninsula. It has been assumed that this new facility could be funded and constructed within the five to seven year TDP time‐frame. The size of this proposed administration and maintenance center is assumed to be similar to that of the Warsaw facility, which broke ground on April 27, 2009 and is anticipated to be completed in 2010.
44..33 EEssttiimmaatteess ooff CCaappiittaall aanndd OOppeerraattiinngg CCoossttss ffoorr IIddeennttiiffiieedd IImmpprroovveemmeennttss
The previous section identified the potential improvement needs for Bay Transit. In this section, the capital and operating costs associated with these improvements are evaluated and estimated.
1. The cost of three fixed‐route services
The cost of the three new proposed routes includes the capital cost and estimated operating cost. The capital cost for the new fixed routes are anticipated to include the cost for the required new vehicle purchase. The operating cost includes all the expenses for the operation of the transit service. For examples: the salaries of Bay Transit staff, motor fuels, motor tires and parts, etc.
The latest available budget information from FY 2009 was used to estimate both future capital and operating cost. All cost estimations are based on this current year budget information with
Bay Transit 4‐15 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
the application of an assumed 2.0 percent annual inflation rate for each of the future years through the TDP horizon year of 2015.
It is assumed that these new fixed routes will be implemented in FY 2012, and that the transit services will be operated 12 hours per day, 5 days per week. The total number of operating days for the transit service is assumed to be 250 days per year. Two options are considered for each route: one vehicle running the route or two vehicles running the route. Based on the information associated with the Federal Recovery Act stimulus funding allocation to Bay Transit, the anticipated average cost of each of these additional required vehicles is approximately $56,500.
The methodology to determine the operating cost of the fixed‐route services is based on the annual operating miles of fixed routes and the cost per revenue mile. The annual number of revenue miles associated with each of the three proposed routes is the product of the miles of each round trip on the route, the number of round trips assumed to be operated per day on each route, and the assumed number of service days per year.
Table 4‐8 below summarizes the annual operating miles of the proposed fixed routes described in the previous section. It should be noted that a 5 percent deadhead mileage factor has been added to the initially estimated annual revenue miles of service for each route to arrive at the estimated total annual operating miles for the route.
Table 4‐8. Estimated Annual Operating Miles of Proposed Fixed Routes
Proposed Fixed Route Option Annual Operating Miles of Proposed Fixed Routes
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Route (1) Gloucester Point – Urbanna – Tappahannock
Option 1 – one vehicle
0 0 130,200 130,200 130,200 130,200
Option 2 – two vehicles
0 0 260,400 260,400 260,400 260,400
Route (2) Colonial Beach – Montross – Warsaw – Tappahannock
Option 1 0 0 126,000 126,000 126,000 126,000
Option 2 0 0 252,000 252,000 252,000 252,000
Route (3) Kilmarnock – Warsaw – Kilmarnock
Option 1 0 0 147,000 147,000 147,000 147,000
Option 2 0 0 294,000 294,000 294,000 294,000
Totals Option 1 0 0 403,200 403,200 403,200 403,200
Option 2 0 0 806,400 806,400 806,400 806,400
Note: Total annual operating miles = total estimated revenue miles plus 5 percent deadhead mileage.
Based on the FY 2009 Bay Transit budget information, the average cost per revenue mile of operation is $1.48 per mile. By applying an annual inflation rate of 2.0 percent, the cost per revenue mile for each of the future years is summarized in Table 4‐9 below.
Bay Transit 4‐16 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 4‐9. Estimated Cost per Revenue Mile of Proposed Fixed Routes
Cost per Revenue Mile
Proposed Fixed Route FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Route (1) Gloucester Point – Urbanna – Tappahannock
Option 1
$1.48
$1.51
$1.54
$1.57
$1.60
$1.63
Option 2
$1.48
$1.51
$1.54
$1.57
$1.60
$1.63
Route (2) Colonial Beach – Montross – Warsaw – Tappahannock
Option 1
$1.48
$1.51
$1.54
$1.57
$1.60
$1.63
Option 2
$1.48
$1.51
$1.54
$1.57
$1.60
$1.63
Route (3) Kilmarnock – Warsaw – Kilmarnock
Option 1
$1.48
$1.51
$1.54
$1.57
$1.60
$1.63
Option 2
$1.48
$1.51
$1.54
$1.57
$1.60
$1.63
Note: Present (FY2009) cost per revenue mile = 1.45 dollar/mile. Assumed annual inflation rate is 2 percent.
The annual operating costs for the proposed fixed routes are calculated by multiplying the estimated number of annual operating miles by the average cost per revenue mile. Table 4‐10 summarizes the estimated annual operating costs for each of the proposed fixed‐route services.
Table 4‐10. Estimated Annual Operating Miles of Proposed Fixed Routes
Operating Cost
Proposed Fixed Route FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Route (1) Gloucester Point – Urbanna – Tappahannock
Option 1
$ ‐
$ ‐ $200,300
$204,400
$208,400
$212,600
Option 2
$ ‐
$ ‐
$400,700
$408,700
$416,900
$425,200
Route (2) Colonial Beach – Montross – Warsaw – Tappahannock
Option 1
$ ‐
$ ‐
$193,900
$197,800
$201,700
$205,700
Option 2
$ ‐
$ ‐
$387,800
$395,500
$403,400
$411,500
Route (3) Kilmarnock – Warsaw – Kilmarnock
Option 1
$ ‐
$ ‐
$226,200
$230,700
$235,300
$240,000
Option 2
$ ‐
$ ‐
$452,400
$461,400
$470,700
$480,100
Total
Option 1
$ ‐
$ ‐ $620,400
632,900
$645,400
$658,300
Option 2
$ ‐
$ ‐
$1,240,900
$1,265,600
$1,291,000
$1,316,800
Bay Transit 4‐17 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
For these proposed fixed‐route services, the anticipated need for new vehicle purchases is the capital cost for the system. It is assumed that the services will be operated in FY 2012 and that replacement vehicles will be purchased in FY 2015 to conform to normal four‐year service life per 100,000 miles of revenue service criteria. Table 4‐11 below summarizes the capital cost of the proposed fixed‐route services.
Table 4‐11. Capital Cost of Proposed Fixed‐Route Service Expansions
Proposed Fixed Route Option Capital Costs
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Route (1) Gloucester Point – Urbanna – Tappahannock
Option 1 – one vehicle
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 60,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 63,700
Option 2 – two vehicles
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 127,300
Route (2) Colonial Beach – Montross – Warsaw – Tappahannock
Option 1 – one vehicle
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 60,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 63,700
Option 2 – two vehicles
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 127,300
Route (3) Kilmarnock – Warsaw – Kilmarnock
Option 1 – one vehicle
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 60,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 63,700
Option 2 – two vehicles
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ 120,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 127,300
Note: Present (FY2009) vehicle purchase cost is $56,500 per vehicle. Assumed annual inflation rate is 2 percent.
The combination of the estimated annual operating cost and the capital cost in the year in which it is expected to occur is the total estimated cost of the proposed fixed‐route service expansions. These totals are summarized in Table 4‐12.
Bay Transit 4‐18 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 4‐12. Total Annual Cost of Proposed Fixed‐Route Service Expansions
Proposed Fixed Route
Total Cost
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Route (1) Gloucester Point – Urbanna –
Tappahannock
Option 1
Operating Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐ $200,300 $204,400
$208,400
$212,600
Capital Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐ $60,000
$ ‐
$ ‐
$63,700
Option 2
Operating Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$400,700
$408,700
$416,900
$425,200
Capital Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐ $120,000
$ ‐
$ ‐
$127,300
Subtotal
Option 1 Cost $ ‐
$ ‐ $260,300
$204,400
$208,400
$276,300
Option 2 Cost $ ‐
$ ‐
$520,700
$408,700
$416,900
$552,500
Route (2) Colonial Beach – Montross – Warsaw –
Tappahannock
Option 1
Operating Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐ $193,900
$197,800
$201,700
$205,700
Capital Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐ $60,000
$ ‐
$ ‐
$63,700
Option 2
Operating Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐ $387,800
$395,500
$403,400
$ 411,500
Capital Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$120,000
$ ‐
$ ‐
$127,300
Subtotal
Option 1 Cost $ ‐
$ ‐ $253,900
$197,800
$201,700
$269,400
Option 2 Cost $ ‐
$ ‐
$507,800
$395,500
$403,400
$538,800
Route (3) Kilmarnock – Warsaw – Kilmarnock
Option 1
Operating Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐ $226,200
$230,700
$235,300
$240,000
Capital Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$60,000
$ ‐
$ ‐
$63,700
Option 2
Operating Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$452,400
$461,400
$470,700
$480,100
Capital Cost
$ ‐
$ ‐
$120,000
$ ‐ $ $127,300
total
Option 1 Cost $ ‐
$ ‐
$286,200
$230,700
$235,300
$303,700
Option 2 Cost $ ‐
$ ‐
$572,400
$461,400
$470,700
$607,400
Grand Total
Option 1 Cost $ ‐
$ ‐
$800,400
$632,900
$645,400
$849,400
Option 2 Cost $ ‐ $ ‐
$1,600,900 $1,265,600 $1,291,000 $1,698,700
Bay Transit 4‐19 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
2. The cost of the planned computerized scheduling and dispatching system
As described in the previous section, the planned computerized scheduling and dispatching system is the system improvement Bay Transit is in the initial phases of acquisition. Bay Transit initiated a contract with a consulting firm to research the appropriate scheduling and dispatching software for Bay Transit in April 2009. It is assumed that this system will be acquired and first operated within the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame.
A similar study was conducted by PBS&J in 2008 for Loudoun County, Virginia. As the research results showed, there are different kinds of software that could be applied to a transit system such as Bay Transit. The average cost of this type of software is approximately $350,000, with an annual licensing fee of approximately $2,000. Assuming similar software is implemented for Bay Transit by FY 2012, Table 4‐13 below summarizes the cost estimation of the software.
Table 4‐13. Cost Estimate for Computerized Scheduling and Dispatching System
Total Cost
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Scheduling and Dispatching System
$ ‐ $ ‐ $2,122 $2,165 $2,208 $ 2,252
Capital Cost
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
$ ‐ $364,140 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Total Cost
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
$ ‐ $364,140 $2,122 $2,165 $ 2,208 $ 2,252
Note: Present (FY2009) system cost is $350,000 with annual licensing fee of $2,000. Assumed annual inflation rate is 2 percent. Costs for the system will be finalized in a subsequent update to the TDP once an RFP is issued and proposals are received.
Due to the improved operational efficiencies, Bay Transit expects that their annual system ridership will increase by approximately 10 percent in the year following the software implementation (FY 2012). The estimated annual ridership with and without the dispatching system is summarized in Table 4‐14 below.
Table 4‐14. Annual Passenger Estimation for Bay Transit
Passengers FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Annual Passengers w/o dispatching system*
159,519 161,274 163,048 164,842 166,655 168,488
Annual Passengers w/dispatching system
159,519 161,274 179,353 197,810 199,986 202,186
* Note: It is assumed that a 1.1 percent annual passenger increase will occur on the current base system due to area growth. Then with the software implementation, starting in FY 2012, an additional 10 percent ridership increase is expected.
Bay Transit 4‐20 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
3. The cost of a new Administration and Maintenance Center
The funding for this administration and maintenance facility has been previously identified as a Federal earmark without the requirement of any local matching funds. The total allocated budget for the center is $2,615,113 and it is expected that this new facility could be constructed at the end of the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame in FY 2015. Note that based on a review of preliminary feasibility studies, the cost of the facility is estimated to be slightly higher than this budgeted amount.
Bay Transit 5‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
55..00 SSEERRVVIICCEE AANNDD FFAACCIILLIITTYY RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS This chapter identifies service and facility needs that are recommended for inclusion over the multi‐year duration of the transit plan. A more comprehensive listing of potential services and facility needs were identified in the prior chapter of this TDP. Recommended service and facility improvements presented in this chapter are based on the anticipated funding availability levels during the TDP time period.
Where sufficient federal, state, and local funding has been identified for either the estimated capital or operating costs associated with a specific recommendation, the activity has been categorized as achievable under the fiscally “constrained” transit development plan. Where a substantial portion or the total required amount of estimated capital or operating costs for a specific action cannot be easily identified, the activity has been identified as being in need of additional funding and has been considered to be achievable only under the fiscally “unconstrained” transit development plan. This designation does not mean that the action cannot be accomplished during the six‐year TDP cycle ending in FY 2015, but rather that additional sources of federal, state, or local funding beyond those currently anticipated to be available to the Bay Transit system will need to be identified and committed to the specific project.
55..11 SSeerrvviiccee RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss
Chapter 4 of this TDP identified the following potential service improvements for consideration over the TDP’s six‐year time period of FY 2010 to FY 2015 in addition to the continuation of the current Bay Transit level of operations:
The initiation of fixed‐route services.
o Proposed Fixed‐Route 1: Gloucester Point – Urbanna – Tappahannock
o Proposed Fixed‐Route 2: Colonial Beach – Montross – Warsaw – Tappahannock
o Proposed Fixed‐Route 3: Kilmarnock – Warsaw – Kilmarnock
As was noted in Chapter 4, two options were proposed for each route, the first being the operation of each of the three routes with a single bus, and the second being the use of two buses on each route to provide more reasonable headways on the order of once an hour. It was assumed that both of the proposed routes could start operation in FY 2012 if the necessary capital and operating funding could be made available. The estimated annual total costs of these options were approximately $800,000 (Option 1) and $1.6 million (Option 2) in first year of operation (FY 2012).
Taking into consideration the current Bay Transit financial condition and anticipated funding levels in the near‐term future, it appears to be unlikely that Bay Transit would be financially able to initiate the new fixed‐route services.
Bay Transit 5‐2 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
As was described in Chapter 3, the total annual revenues (passenger fares and contract revenues) generated by Bay Transit’s operations in FY 2008 represented approximately 10.9 percent of the total annual operating costs. The remaining net operating costs were funded during that year through a combination of local government (29 percent), state government (15 percent) and federal government (47 percent) funds.
Because of the recent economic downturn, it is expected that the local government tax base will not be growing at a significant rate. In addition, future federal and state funding levels are somewhat uncertain at this point, with the level of state operating assistance support having recently experienced a reduction in funding.
Therefore, it is recommended that Bay Transit’s top priority as defined in this TDP be a focus on maintaining the current demand‐response service levels in the near‐term. The proposed initiation of three new fixed‐route services should only be considered an element of the “unconstrained” TDP program of projects. Should additional operating assistance funds become available from federal, state, or local sources, one or more of these three routes could be designated as an element of the “constrained” TDP program of projects.
55..22 FFaacciilliittyy RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss
Chapter 4 of this TDP identified several potential facility improvements for consideration over the TDP’s six‐year time period. The improvements are as follows:
Existing operating vehicle acquisition / replacement as vehicles reach the end of their designated useful life
Computerized Scheduling and Dispatching System
Administration and Maintenance Center in the Middle Peninsula
Existing operating vehicle acquisition / replacement
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) identified Bay Transit as one of the rural and small urban public transit systems in Virginia to receive Federal Recovery Act stimulus funding. Through this program, Bay Transit was identified as the recipient of seven replacement passenger transport vans at a total cost of $395,900. This allocation will take the form of 100 percent Federal funding with no state or local matching funds required.
Therefore, it is expected that seven vehicles will be replaced for Bay Transit in FY 2009 using the ARRA stimulus funding. In addition, Bay Transit has typically acquired an average of 7 or 8 vehicles each year. Assuming that during the TDP’s six‐year time period, the typical vehicle replacement schedule is continued, then from FY 2009 to FY 2015, Bay Transit should be expected to be able to acquire approximately seven new/replacement vehicles each year, as shown in Table 4‐4. This historically observed vehicle replacement schedule is thus viewed as an element of the “constrained” TDP program of projects.
Bay Transit 5‐3 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Computerized Scheduling and Dispatching System
As described in Chapter 4 of this TDP, Bay Transit currently is in the early phases of a process to acquire a computerized scheduling and dispatching system to improve the operations of their system. A needs assessment of paratransit services scheduling software has recently been initiated, with the completion of this activity expected by the end of calendar year 2009. The funding mechanism for the acquisition of the computerized scheduling and dispatching system has not yet been identified; however, it is assumed that this system will be acquired and first operated within the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame.
Administration and Maintenance Center
Construction of a new operations and maintenance facility for Bay Transit in Warsaw, Virginia began on April 27, 2009, and it is anticipated to be completed in 2010. Based on the transit demand growth in the Bay Transit service area, an administration and maintenance center has been proposed to be built in the Middle Peninsula.
The funding for this administration and maintenance facility has been previously identified as a Federal earmark without the requirement of any local matching funds. The total allocated budget for this facility is $2,615,113, and it is expected that this new facility could be constructed at the end of the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame in FY 2015. Note that based on a review of preliminary feasibility studies, the cost of the facility is estimated to be slightly higher than this budgeted amount.
Since the funding for this facility has already been identified and approved, this project should be defined as an element of the “constrained” TDP list of projects for Bay Transit.
Assuming the allocated capital funding from Federal and state governments and ARRA stimulus funding are all available for Bay Transit in the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame, the facility improvements recommended for implementation for each year are as follows:
FY2009 Seven replacement vehicles (ARRA stimulus funding) FY2010 Seven replacement vehicles FY2011 Seven replacement vehicles Computerized Scheduling and Dispatching System FY2012 Seven replacement vehicles
Bay Transit 5‐4 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
FY2013 Seven replacement vehicles FY2014 Seven replacement vehicles Construction of an Administration and Maintenance Center in the Middle Peninsula FY2015 Seven replacement vehicles
55..33 OOtthheerr RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss
The comments received from the on‐board survey conducted for Bay Transit in February and March 2009 suggested that Bay Transit consider the extension of their service hours to include weekend service. These riders currently have to seek a family member or friend’s assistance or use other options to travel on weekends. This request may be a potential service improvement that Bay Transit can study further following the acquisition and implementation of the computerized scheduling and dispatching system. No specific time‐frame has been identified for this study effort, and no local government funding has been assumed in the TDP’s financial plan. The installation of surveillance cameras and GPS devices for the vehicles of Bay Transit are another potential improvement that Bay Transit could consider. Currently, no surveillance cameras or GPS devices are installed in the buses. However, based on Bay Transit’s current request for a computerized scheduling and dispatching system, this type of equipment may be needed for the implementation of all aspects of the dispatching system. With the computerized scheduling and dispatching software not yet acquired or implemented, no specific time‐frame has been identified for the possible installation of the on‐board surveillance cameras and GPS devices, and no funding sources have been assumed in the TDP’s financial plan.
Bay Transit 6‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
66..00 CCAAPPIITTAALL IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTT PPRROOGGRRAAMM This chapter describes those capital programs (vehicles, facilities, and equipment) required to carry out the operations and services set forth in the TDP service and facility recommendations that were presented in the prior chapter.
66..11 VVeehhiiccllee RReeppllaacceemmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm
As was noted in prior chapters of this TDP, Bay Transit presently has a total vehicle inventory of 68 vehicles located in the facilities of the different counties. Thirty‐three (33) of these 68 vehicles have diesel engines, with the other 35 vehicles using gasoline engines. The passenger fleet primarily consists of 12 to 14 passenger handicapped accessible vans. Model years range from 1988 through 2008.
In recent years, Bay Transit has typically acquired five to ten vehicles in any given year, an average of seven or eight vehicles each year. These represent both replacements for existing vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life and the acquisition of additional vehicles for the provision of expanded services. The seven vehicles to be obtained during 2009 using Federal Recovery Act stimulus funding thus represent the system’s recently observed typical vehicle acquisition / replacement cycle. This allocation will take the form of 100 percent Federal funding with no state or local matching funds required.
Assuming that this typical vehicle replacement cycle is continued over the next several years through available funding from Federal, State, and Local governments, Table 4‐4 illustrates the total passenger fleet size and the anticipated average vehicle age between 2008 and the TDP horizon year of 2015.
66..22 FFaacciilliittyy IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm
Chapter 4 of this TDP also identified two potential facility improvements for Bay Transit over the TDP’s six‐year time period. These two improvements were the acquisition of a computerized scheduling and dispatching system and the construction of an administration and maintenance center.
Bay Transit currently is in the early phases of a process to acquire a computerized scheduling and dispatching system to improve the operations of their system. A needs assessment of paratransit services scheduling software has recently been initiated, with the completion of this activity expected by the end of calendar year 2009. The funding mechanism for the acquisition of the computerized scheduling and dispatching system has not yet been identified; however, it is assumed that this system will be acquired and first operated within the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame.
The funding for the planning, design, site acquisition, and construction of the administration and maintenance facility has been previously identified as a Federal earmark without the
Bay Transit 6‐2 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
requirement for any local matching funds. Note that based on a review of preliminary feasibility studies, the cost of the facility is estimated to be slightly higher than the budgeted amount. It is expected that this new facility could be constructed near the end of the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame in FY 2015.
Bay Transit 7‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
77..00 FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL PPLLAANN The financial plan is a principal product of the TDP. It is in this chapter that an agency demonstrates its ability to provide a sustainable level of transit service over the TDP time period, including the rehabilitation and replacement of capital assets. This chapter identifies potential funding sources for annual operating and maintenance costs, funding requirements and sources for bus purchases, and funding requirements and sources for other facility improvements.
77..11 OOppeerraattiioonn aanndd MMaaiinntteennaannccee CCoossttss aanndd FFuunnddiinngg SSoouurrcceess
Based on the latest budget information available from Bay Transit, the system’s operating budget was approximately $2.4 million in FY 2009. Funding sources for the adopted FY 2009 operating budget were as follows:
Federal Funds ‐ $1,071,118 (44%)
State Funds ‐ $411,839 (17%)
Local Government and Other Match Funds ‐ $660,210 (27%)
Passenger Fares and Contract Revenues ‐ $277,000 (11%)
This TDP’s financial plan begins with these costs and funding sources and those in the currently proposed FY 2010 system budget as the “base year” values for the estimation of future year operating costs and revenue streams.
Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs during the TDP time period are projected to grow from approximately $2.4 million in the FY 2009‐FY 2010 period to over $2.8 million by FY 2015. It is assumed that a two percent annual inflation rate is applied to these “base year” costs to estimate the annual O&M costs over the TDP time period.
Federal operating assistance funds are assumed to remain at essentially a constant amount during the TDP time period. In FY 2010, the presently budgeted federal operating assistance fund level of $1,208,972 is projected to cover approximately 47 percent of Bay Transit’s total annual O&M costs. This percentage is projected to decrease each year during the TDP time period since the total O&M costs are assumed to increase at a rate of two percent each year due to inflationary factors, and the amount of annual Federal operating assistance funds are assumed to remain at a constant level of approximately $1,209,000 from FY 2011 through FY 2015.
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has identified $469,501 in state operating assistance for Bay Transit in FY 2010 in its Transportation Improvement Program. The DRPT’s TIP reflects a 19 percent growth in state operating allocations from its Mass Transit Trust Fund on a statewide basis between FY 2010 and FY 2015. Based on the
Bay Transit 7‐2 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
information from DRPT, little growth in the allocation of state operating assistance funding to Bay Transit has been assumed beyond the FY 2010 budgeted amount over the duration of this TDP cycle. The percentage increases in the anticipated annual state operating assistance are 1.77% in FY 2010‐FY 2011, 2.90% in FY 2011‐FY 2012, 3.50% in FY 2012‐FY 2013, 3.16% in FY 2013‐FY 2014, and 3.16% in FY 2014‐FY 2015. The annual state operating funding level will be increased by these percentage increases from the FY 2010 funding level (approximately $469,500) through the TDP time period.
State formula assistance grants for public transportation operating expenses are awarded on the basis of the total annual amount of state funds available expressed as a percentage of the total annual amount of transit operating expenses, subject to a cap of 95% of eligible expenditures. Eligible expenditures are defined as costs of administration, fuel, tires, and maintenance parts and supplies (payroll costs of mechanics and drivers are excluded). Projections for state operating assistance, as identified in the TDP financial plan, have been provided for planning purposes and may fluctuate up or down based on the aforementioned parameters.
State capital program grants from the Mass Transit Trust Funds (MTTF) are awarded to all public transportation capital projects deemed to be eligible, reasonable, and appropriate at a uniform level of state participation. The goal is to reach the maximum state share of capital expenses of 95%, but there have not been sufficient funds to support transit capital projects at this level since the Mass Transit Trust Fund was created in 1986. This level of participation or “state share” of capital project expenses is calculated by dividing the amount of state funds available for capital projects each year by the amount needed to support the non‐federal share of all eligible transit capital projects for the year. Beginning in FY 2008, additional capital funds from the Transportation Capital Projects bond proceeds authorized under Chapter 896 of the 2007 Acts of Assembly have been available annually at a maximum state matching share of 80% in the Transit Capital Fund.
The estimated annual farebox and other revenues for Bay Transit are assumed to remain essentially the same between FY 2009 and FY 2011. This assumption reflects the very modest changes in service area population that are anticipated during this period of no more than 1.0 percent each year, and no anticipated change in the annual revenue vehicle‐hours of operation to be provided across the Bay Transit service area.
Farebox and other revenues are projected to increase more noticeably from FY 2012 to FY 2015 due to the operational efficiencies that are expected to be experienced by the system as a result of the implementation of the computerized scheduling and dispatching system. As discussed earlier in Chapter 4 of this TDP, Bay Transit anticipates that the implementation of this computerized scheduling and dispatching system in FY 2011 could generate a 10 percent increase in ridership compared to those anticipated without consideration of this operational improvement in FY 2012.
Bay Transit 7‐3 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 7‐1 presents the TDP financial plan for the funding of the annual O&M costs through the TDP six‐year time period. Using the assumptions identified above of the level of Federal and State operating assistance funding, the required local government funding requirements are anticipated to steadily increase through the TDP time period, from approximately $694,471 in FY 2010 to approximately $891,192 in FY 2015.
As a percentage of the total estimated system operating costs, the local government share is anticipated to increase from approximately 27 percent of the total annual cost in FY 2010 to approximately 31 percent of the total annual cost in FY 2015.
Bay Transit 7‐4 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 7‐1. TDP Financial Plan for Funding Annual O&M Costs
TDP Financial Plan for: Service O&M Costs FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Annual Revenue Hours 75,045 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175 75,175
Annual Operating Costs $ 2,459,305 $ 2,420,176 $2,582,544 $2,634,195 $2,686,879
$2,740,616 $2,795,429 $2,851,337
Anticipated Funding Sources
Federal $ 1,095,597 $ 1,071,118 $1,208,972 $1,209,000 $1,209,000
$1,209,000 $1,209,000 $1,209,000
State $357,891 $411,839 $469,501 $477,811 $491,668 $508,876 $524,957 $541,545
Farebox $119,602 $120,000 $121,234 $122,568 $ 123,917
$125,280
$126,658 $128,051
Farebox Recovery Ratio 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4%
Other (Contract Rev & Other) $277,328 $196,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $ 25,000
Local Gov't Funding Required $679,436 $621,219 $757,837 $799,816 $837,294 $872,460
$909,814
$947,741
Local Gov't Funding Percentage 28% 26% 29% 30% 31% 32% 33% 33%
Notes:
1. Annual Revenue Hours for FY 2009 provided by Bay Transit and assumed to be constant through the life of the TDP period.
2. FY2010 Operating Cost obtained from DRPT FY2010 district budget data. Beginning in FY2011, the Annual Operating Cost calculated assuming a 2.0%/year inflation rate . 3. Federal Operating Assistance reflects estimated FTA Section 5311 and FTA 5316 funds; assumed to remain flat at FY2010 levels.
4. FY2010 State Operating Assistance obtained from DRPT FY2010 district budget data. The increase in State Operating Assistance, as per DRPT, is assumed to be 1.77% in FY2011, 2.90% in FY2011‐FY2012, 3.50% in FY2012‐FY2013, 3.16% in FY2013‐FY2014, and 3.16% in FY2014‐FY2015 . 5. FY2010 to FY2015 Passenger Fare and Contract Revenue Total estimate obtained from Diana Giles, CFO, Bay Transit.
Bay Transit 7‐5 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
77..22 BBuuss PPuurrcchhaassee CCoossttss aanndd FFuunnddiinngg SSoouurrcceess
As noted in Chapter 6 of this TDP, no service expansion has been proposed that would increase Bay Transit’s bus fleet size. The bus purchases during the TDP time period are only for bus replacements.
In FY 2009, Bay Transit has been identified as the recipient of seven replacement passenger transport vans at a total cost of $395,900 through ARRA funds. This allocation will take the form of 100 percent Federal funding, with no state or local matching funds required.
Assuming that the historically observed cycle of seven vehicle replacements per year for Bay Transit is continued between FY 2011 and the TDP horizon year of FY 2015, the remaining bus purchases have been assumed to be funded through FTA’s Section 5311 Program. This assumption anticipates a continuation of the traditional shared allocation of costs with 80 percent funding provided by the Federal Government, 10 percent funding by the State Government, and 10 percent funding by the Local Governments. For the bus purchase prices, a 2 percent annual inflation rate is applied. Table 7‐2 presents the suggested TDP financial plan for funding bus purchases through the TDP six‐year time period.
Table 7‐2. TDP Financial Plan for Funding Bus Purchases
TDP Financial Plan for Bus Replacements
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Bus Replacements 7 buses 7 buses 7 buses 7 buses 7 buses 7 buses 7 buses
Bus Replacement Costs $395,900 $403,400 $411,500 $419,700 $428,100 $436,700 $ 445,400
Anticipated Funding Sources
Federal ‐ ARRA $395,900
$ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Federal ‐ FTA 5311 Program (80%) $ ‐ $322,700 $329,200 $335,800 $342,500 $349,400 $356,300
State (10%) $ ‐ $ 40,300 $41,200 $42,000 $42,800 $43,700 $44,500
Local Government Funding Required (10%) $ ‐ $ 40,300 $41,200 $42,000 $42,800 $43,700 $44,500
(All Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars) Notes: 1. Bus replacements by year identified in Chapter 6 of TDP.
2. Bus replacement costs assumed to be $56,500 in current year (FY2009) dollars.
3. Table reflects 2.0 percent per year inflation in bus acquisition costs.
4. FY2009 buses being acquired through the use of ARRA funding. 5. All other buses assume 80 percent funding through FTA Section 5311 program, 10 percent funding from State, and remaining 10 percent from local governments.
Bay Transit 7‐6 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
77..33 FFaacciilliittyy IImmpprroovveemmeenntt CCoossttss aanndd FFuunnddiinngg SSoouurrcceess
Several facility improvements have been identified for Bay Transit. These improvements include the acquisition and implementation of a computerized scheduling and dispatching system and the construction of an administration and maintenance center. It also should be noticed that the construction of a new operations and maintenance facility for Bay Transit in Warsaw, Virginia began on April 27, 2009, and it is anticipated to be completed in 2010.
Based the findings from a similar study conducted by PBS&J in 2008 for Loudoun County, Virginia, the average cost of acquiring the computerized scheduling package software suitable for Bay Transit’s needs is estimated to be approximately $350,000. With the application of a two percent annual inflation rate to the assumed current year cost of $350,000, the cost of this computerized scheduling package software is estimated at approximately $364,140 in FY 2011. The funding mechanism for the acquisition of the computerized scheduling and dispatching system has not yet been identified; however, it is assumed that this system will be acquired and first operated within the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame.
The administration and maintenance center has been proposed to be built somewhere in the Middle Peninsula. The funding for this administration and maintenance facility has been previously identified as a Federal earmark without the requirement of any local government matching funds. The total allocated budget for this facility is $2,615,113, and it is expected that this new facility could be constructed at the end of the TDP’s six‐year time‐frame in FY 2015. Note that based on a review of preliminary feasibility studies, the cost of the facility is estimated to be slightly higher than this budgeted amount.
Table 7‐3 presents the TDP financial plan for the funding of these two additional facility improvements through the TDP six‐year time period.
Bay Transit 7‐7 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Table 7‐3. TDP Financial Plan for Funding Facility Improvements
TDP Financial Plan for: Facility Improvements FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Computerized Scheduling Package $30,000 $ ‐
$364,140
$2,122 $2,165
$2,208 $ 2,252
Warsaw Multimodal Facility $ ‐
$917,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Second Maint. and Operations Center $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
$2,615,100 $ ‐
Total Facility Improvement Costs
$30,000
$917,000
$364,140
$2,122 $2,165
$2,617,308
$2,252
Anticipated Funding Sources
Federal ‐ ARRA $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
Federal ‐ FTA 5309 and 5311 Programs $ ‐
$733,600
$291,300
$1,700
$1,700 $2,093,800 $1,800
State
$30,000
$183,400
$36,400
$200
$200 $523,500
$200
Local Gov't Funding Required $ ‐ $ ‐ $36,400
$200
$200 $ ‐
$200
Notes:
1. Facility improvement costs identified in Chapter 4 of TDP.
2. Table reflects 2.0%/year inflation in capital costs beginning in FY2010. 3. The cost of the Computerized Scheduling Package includes $30,000 for a feasibility study conducted in FY2009, the budgeted package purchase price of $350,000 (FY2009 dollar), and the annual license fee of $2,000. Costs for the system will be finalized in a subsequent update to the TDP once an RFP is issued and proposals are received. 4. Warsaw Multimodal Facility and the Second Maintenance and Operation Center funded through SAFETEA‐LU Federal and State allocations, no Local Funding required. 5. Capital expenditures in FY2011 and beyond assume 80% funding through FTA programs, 10% State funding, and remaining 10% Local Funding. 6. The total construction budget of Warsaw Multimodal Facility is approximately $2.7 million. $917,000 is allocated in FY2010. The remaining budget has been spent in land acquisition, site plan design, building plan design, etc. in the previous years.
Bay Transit 8‐1 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
88..00 TTDDPP MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG AANNDD EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN Similar to any other multi‐year duration planning document, the transit development plan (TDP) for a specific public transit system must be regularly monitored and evaluated in order to maintain its usefulness over time. The previous chapters of this TDP have presented a comprehensive evaluation of the Bay Transit system’s service and cost characteristics. The key elements that have been addressed in this TDP effort include:
The development of suggested goals, objectives, and general performance standards that can be used to help guide the further development of Bay Transit’s services.
A detailed evaluation of existing service characteristics, with a discussion of the system’s current strengths and weaknesses.
A peer agency review that compares the recent service and financial characteristics of Bay Transit to those of other similar systems operating in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
An on‐board ridership survey that identified the primary socioeconomic characteristics of the current riders, their satisfaction with the existing services, and potential service improvements that are desired by the riders.
A description of potential service and facility improvements for consideration in the TDP.
A series of recommended service and facility improvements for inclusion in the TDP, with the year of the improvements identified as appropriate.
A discussion of the funding requirements and potential funding sources for the capital and operating costs associated with the recommended service and facility improvements.
This TDP represents an initial step in the future service and facility improvements for the Bay Transit system. In order to ensure the relevance of the TDP over time, it will be important for Bay Transit to regularly coordinate with other transportation and land use planning efforts across its multi‐jurisdictional service area, to continue to monitor service performance, and to provide DRPT with annual updates regarding implementation of the ultimately adopted TDP service and facility improvements program.
88..11 CCoooorrddiinnaattiioonn wwiitthh OOtthheerr PPllaannss aanndd PPrrooggrraammss The completion of this TDP requires that it be coordinated with a variety of other ongoing land use and transportation planning efforts at the county, regional, and statewide levels. For example, the public transit‐oriented goals and objectives suggested by this TDP should be reviewed and incorporated into the transportation‐related goals and objectives sections of each of the county comprehensive plans for the 12 counties that are currently being served by Bay
Bay Transit 8‐2 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
Transit. The multi‐jurisdictional long‐range regional transportation plans developed by the Northern Neck, Middle Peninsula, and Richmond Regional Planning District Commissions, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), should also include appropriate references to the Bay Transit TDP.
At the statewide level, the TDP recommendations for Bay Transit should be incorporated into the public transportation elements of the DRPT developed six‐year state transportation improvement program (SYTIP) and the statewide multimodal long‐range transportation plan VTrans2035.
88..22 SSeerrvviiccee PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee MMoonniittoorriinngg In prior chapters of this TDP, a group of specific system‐wide performance measures and operating guidelines have been identified for application to a rural demand‐responsive public transit system such as Bay Transit. The adoption of these operating guidelines will allow for the system’s management to regularly monitor the performance of Bay Transit to help ensure that existing performance characteristics do not degrade over time.
Where changes in performance are identified, appropriate corrective measures should be investigated. These corrective actions might involve route adjustments for local fixed‐route services, modifications to service frequency (headway), and/or span of service adjustments. Bay Transit presently has a basic performance monitoring program in place, with an emphasis on tracking ridership, service‐hours, service‐miles, and operating costs and revenues on a monthly basis at the county and system‐wide levels. As the system continues to grow and develop, this process should be expanded as necessary.
An important element of this performance monitoring process should be a regularly scheduled update of the on‐board ridership survey conducted as part of this TDP process. In order to comply with current DRPT guidelines, a new on‐board survey should be undertaken at least once during each six‐year TDP cycle. With the initial system‐wide survey being conducted in the spring of 2009, the next such survey should be conducted no later than during the spring of 2015.
88..33 AAnnnnuuaall TTDDPP MMoonniittoorriinngg The current TDP guidelines issued by DRPT require the submittal of an annual update letter that describes the progress being taken towards implementing the TDP’s recommendations and any significant changes to the currently adopted TDP. These changes should include, but not be limited to, system expansions or reductions, new services or facilities being planned or implemented, organizational/governance changes, changes to the current fare structure, or other actions. The recommended contents of this “TDP Update” letter include, but are not limited to, the following:
Bay Transit 8‐3 October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15
A summary of ridership trends at the system and service area/local route level for each of the previous 12 months.
A description of those TDP goals and objectives that have been advanced over the previous 12 months.
A description of any service and facility improvements that have been implemented in the previous 12 months, including the identification of those that were identified in this TDP.
An update to the TDP’s list of recommended service and facility improvements. This update should specifically identify those service or facility improvements that are being shifted to a new year, are being eliminated, and/or are being added. This update of recommended improvements should be extended one more fiscal year into the future in order to maintain a six‐year TDP planning period.
A summary description of current fiscal year capital and operating costs and the associated federal, state, and local funding sources.
Updates to the capital and operating financial plan tables presented in Chapter 7 of this TDP. These tables should be extended one more fiscal year into the future in order to maintain a six‐year TDP planning period.
*Note: Information from the OLGA system for Bay Transit’s fleet inventory was inaccurate; therefore, the information in this Appendix was obtained from Bay Transit’s actual inventory.
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC..
FFLLEEEETT IINNVVEENNTTOORRYY
FFrroomm DDRRPPTT’’ss OOnn‐‐LLiinnee GGrraanntt AApppplliiccaattiioonn ((OOLLGGAA)) SSyysstteemm**
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD..
OOPPEERRAATTIINNGG AANNDD CCAAPPIITTAALL EEXXPPEENNSSEESS AANNDD RREEVVEENNUUEESS
AA 33‐‐YYeeaarr RReettrroossppeeccttiivvee
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009Passenger
Fares 94,778.97$ 101,640.00$ 119,602.00$ 120,000.00$
Contract
Revenue 164,022.00$ 158,781.00$ 156,937.00$ 157,000.00$
Local
Government 416,591.00$ 619,933.00$ 679,436.00$ 621,219.00$
State 445,718.00$ 385,318.00$ 357,891.00$ 411,839.00$
Federal 693,318.00$ 949,759.00$ 1,095,597.00$ 1,071,118.00$
Other Match 32,612.00$ 120,391.08$ 39,000.00$
Total 1,847,039.97$ 2,215,431.00$ 2,529,854.08$ 2,420,176.00$
Expenses 1,779,268.00$ 2,146,390.00$ 2,459,304.89$ 2,420,176.00$
State 26% 19% 15% 18%
Local
Government 25% 30% 29% 27%
Federal 41% 46% 47% 47%
Contract
Revenue 10% 8% 7% 7%
Other 2% 0% 5% 2%
Totals 104% 103% 103% 100%
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐1
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX EE..
TTRRAANNSSIITT RRIIDDEERR OONN‐‐BBOOAARRDD SSUURRVVEEYY RREESSUULLTTSS
EE..11 OOnn‐‐BBooaarrdd SSuurrvveeyy PPrroocceessss
In September 2003, Bay Transit conducted a transit customer satisfaction survey. They distributed approximately 300 surveys and achieved a 28 percent rate of return. The survey results generated the following major findings:
86 percent of the respondents indicated that they were regular riders of Bay Transit.
90 percent of the respondents said that their basic mobility needs were being met.
86 percent of the respondents indicated that the transit services were being provided on time.
77 percent of the respondents mentioned that the riders did not have trouble scheduling a return trip.
Based on the results summary, most of the responses were positive and riders were generally satisfied with the services that Bay Transit provided at that time. These results were encouraging in that they indicated that the staff of Bay Transit was doing a good job.
As an element of this initial TDP, a more comprehensive onboard passenger survey was conducted in February and March of 2009 to collect more up‐to‐date information on the demographic and travel characteristics of current riders. The summary results are being used as one element of the service evaluation process.
A copy of the survey questionnaire is presented in Figure E‐1 below. This survey included four basic groups of questions:
Demographic information
Trip‐specific information
A rating by the passengers of the current day service being provided
Passenger suggestions as to the importance of future service improvement needs
The summary results of the 2009 on‐board ridership survey are presented in the tables and figures in the following sections. The compiled raw survey data from the returned surveys is contained in the Data Input Sheets at the end of this Appendix. This data includes the written comments provided on the various survey forms. The contents of this data are sorted by each of the individual county service areas to allow for comparison between each of the areas in which Bay Transit currently operates.
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐2
Figure E‐1. On‐Board Survey Questionnaire for Bay Transit
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐3
EE..22 SSuurrvveeyy RReessppoonnssee RRaatteess
A total of 1,197 on‐board surveys were distributed. The total number of returned surveys was 523, which equates to a return rate of approximately 44 percent. Table E‐1 presents the number of surveys distributed and returned in each of the individual county service areas. The following tables summarize the system‐wide results of the on‐board ridership survey of Bay Transit.
Table E‐1. Distribution of Passenger Surveys and Return Rate by County
County / Service Area Number of Surveys
Distributed
Number of Surveys Returned
Percent Return Rate
New Kent/Charles City County 177 42 23.7% King William County/King & Queen County/Town of West Point
84 70 83.3%
Gloucester County 274 141 51.5% Mathews County 65 22 33.8% Lancaster County 153 74 48.4% Northumberland County 83 27 32.5% Middlesex County 57 20 35.1% Essex County 122 46 37.7% Westmoreland County 37 14 37.8% Richmond County 52 29 55.8% Town of Colonial Beach 60 24 40.0% Dahlgren 33 14 42.4%
Totals 1,197 523 43.7%
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐4
EE..33 RReessppoonnsseess ttoo SSuurrvveeyy QQuueessttiioonnss
E.3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMATION
Summary. Table E‐2 summarizes the passenger characteristics of the current Bay Transit ridership based upon the information contained in the returned surveys.
Table E‐2. Summary of Bay Transit Passenger Characteristics
Gender Number Percent Household Annual
Income Number Percent
Male 150 29.7% Under $10,000 193 49.4%
Female 355 70.3% $10,000 ‐ $20,000 116 29.7%
No Response 18 $20,000 ‐ $30,000 31 7.9%
Total Responding 505 100.0% $30,000 ‐ $40,000 27 6.9%
$40,000 ‐ $50,000 10 2.6%
Age Number Percent Over $50,000 14 3.6%
19 or under 29 5.7% No Response 132
20‐29 48 9.5% Total Responding 391 100.0%
30‐39 48 9.5%
40‐49 78 15.4%
Frequency of Ridership
Number Percent
50‐59 88 17.4%
Less than once a month
16 3.1%
60 or older 214 42.4% Once or twice a month 33 6.5%
No Response 18 1 day a week 26 5.1%
Total Responding 505 100.0% 2‐3 days a week 242 47.4%
4 or more days a week 194 38.0%
Race Number Percent No Response 12
Caucasian 169 33.8% Total Responding 511 100.0%
African‐American 302 60.4%
Hispanic 6 1.2%
Other 23 4.6%
No Response 23
Total Responding 500 100.0%
Educational Level Number Percent
Not High School Graduate 156 31.5%
High School Graduate / GED 236 47.6%
Some College 75 15.1%
College Degree or Higher 29 5.8%
No Response 27 Total Responding 496 100.0%
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Gender
As Figureresponse
t velopment Pla
e E‐2 shows,es reported a
n: FY 10‐15
Fig
female passat approxim
F
gure E‐2. Su
sengers respately 29.7 p
Female70%
E‐5
urvey Result
ponded at a ercent.
ts: Gender
rate of 70.3
Male30%
percent, wi
October
th male
r 2009
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Age
The passwere defof Bay Trpercent oage categ
Among tage bracThose paof the toservices perceive
t velopment Pla
sengers’ agefined. Basedransit, with of survey regories.
the riders yockets, while assengers thotal ridershto a broad it to be, a s
n: FY 10‐15
F
es are relatid on the ridethe percent
espondents.
ounger thanapproximat
hat reportedip. These fcross‐sectio
system trans
60 or older42%
Figure E‐3. S
ively well‐diership survetage of tran This value
n 60, approxtely 19.0 ped their age afindings sugon of the sesporting only
r
E‐6
Survey Resu
istributed acey results, ridsit passengeis also the h
ximately 32.ercent wereas 19 or undggest that Bervice area y elderly res
19 or und6%
50‐5917%
ults: Age
cross each oders age 60 ers that are highest sing
8 percent we in the 20‐der represenBay Transit populationsidents.
der
20‐2910%
31
of the diffeor older are60 or olderle percentag
were in the 29 and 30‐3nt approximais providin and is not,
30‐3910%
40‐4915%
October
rent rangese the major r making upge for any o
40‐49 and 539 age bracately 5.7 peg basic mo, as some m
r 2009
s that users 42.4 of the
50‐59 ckets. rcent bility might
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Race
African‐Acombineonly 1.2 p
t velopment Pla
American ad percentagpercent and
n: FY 10‐15
F
nd Caucasiage of these tw 4.6 percent
AfricAme
60
Figure E‐4. S
an are the wo races is 9t of the repo
can‐rican0%
Hispanic1%
Oth5%
E‐7
Survey Resu
top two r
94.2 percentorted ridersh
er%
lts: Race
races using t Hispanic ahip, respectiv
Caucasian34%
Bay Transand Other ravely.
n
October
sit service.aces represe
r 2009
The ented
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Educatio
With resindicatedfrom higattendedbachelor
t velopment Pla
n Level
spect to thed that they egh school (3d some coller’s degree.
n: FY 10‐15
Figure
reported eeither posse1.5 percentege, while 5
G
Some
College Dor High
6%
E‐5. Survey
education leessed a high t). Approxim5.8 percent
High School Graduate / GED
48%
e College15%
egree her
E‐8
y Results: Ed
vel, approxischool degrmately 15.1reported h
Not
D
ducation Lev
imately 79.1ree (47.6 pe percent ofaving earne
t High School Graduate
31%
vel
1 percent ofercent) or haf the riders ed at least a
October
f the passenad not gradureported haa collegiate
r 2009
ngers uated aving level
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Annual H
Persons total Baywith 49.4per year.and $30,$40,000 $50,000 incomes persons degree represen
t velopment Pla
Household In
with low iny Transit res4 percent of. Approxima,000, while per year. Twere approof over $50surveyed (2of non‐respnting all of th
$20,000 ‐$30,000
8%
n: FY 10‐15
ncome
Figure E‐6.
ncome are tspondents ref the passenately 7.9 pean additionaThose reporoximately 20,000 per ye25.2 percenpondents, ihe income le
$10,0$20,030%
$30,000$40,000
7%
Survey Resu
he major useported lessngers reportrcent of rideal 6.9 percerting annual .6 percent ear were 3.6t) did not rit would aevels found i
000 ‐000%
‐0
$40,000 $50,000
2%
E‐9
ults: Annual
sers of Bay s than $20,0ting a houseers reportedent reportedhousehold of the tota6 percent. respond to ppear that n the Bay Tr
‐0
Over $504%
l Household
Transit. A 000 for theiehold incomd an annual d annual incincome leveal ridership, Interestinglythis questiothe syste
ransit service
Under 4
0,000
d Income
total of 79.r household
me level of leincome of bomes betweels of betwewhile thos
y, just over on. Yet evem is transe area.
$10,0009%
October
1 percent od annual incess than $10between $20een $30,000een $40,000se with repoa quarter on with this porting pe
r 2009
of the come, 0,000 0,000 0 and 0 and orted of the high rsons
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Frequenc
Most of regular bdays a wCombininthat respclassifiedindicatesits passe
t velopment Pla
cy of Ridersh
the riders tbasis. A totaweek, with ang these twponded used as “regulars that Bay Trngers.
n: FY 10‐15
hip
Figure E‐7
that participal of 38.0 pean additionao values inde Bay Transr” rather tharansit is pro
L
4 or moa w38
. Survey Re
pated in thiercent of theal 47.4 percdicates that it services an occasionaoviding an es
Less than oncemonth3%
ore days week8%
E‐10
sults: Frequ
is survey ree riders repocent reportinapproximatemore than al riders. Thssential mob
e a
uency of Rid
ported usinorted a riderng use of thely 85.4 pertwo days p
his high levebility service
Once or twicemonth7%
2‐3 days a47%
dership
ng Bay Transrship frequehe system 2rcent of the per week ael of repeat e to a broad
e a
1 day a we5%
a week%
October
sit services ncy of 4 or 2‐3 days a wtotal passenand can thuridership fud cross‐sectio
eek
r 2009
on a more week. ngers us be rther on of
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐11
E.3.2 TRIP‐SPECIFIC SURVEY RESULTS
Summary. Table E‐3 summarizes responses to the on‐board survey questions related to the trip being made at the time of the administration of the survey.
Table E‐3. Results of Survey Topic ‐ About Your Trip Today
Trip Origin Type Number Percent
Trip Destination
TypeNumber Percent
Home 427 84.7% Home 53 10.5%
Work 30 6.0% Work 193 38.2%
School/College 6 1.2% School/College 23 4.6%
Shopping 4 0.8% Shopping 38 7.5%
Medical/Dental 11 2.2% Medical/Dental 53 10.5%
Social/Recreational 6 1.2% Social/Recreational 56 11.1%
Service Agency 3 0.6% Service Agency 20 4.0%
Other 17 3.4% Other 69 13.7%
No Response 19 No Response 18
Total Responding 504 100.0% Total Responding 505 100.0%
Reason for Riding Number Percent
Don't have a car 251 50.4%
Car not available 63 12.7%
Prefer to ride bus 46 9.2%
To save time 7 1.4%
To save money 19 3.8%
Disability/unable to drive 82 16.5%
Other 30 6.0%
No Response 25
Total Responding 498 100.0%
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Trip Orig
The vast the naturegion, th
Approximlocation. “Medical
t velopment Pla
in
majority (8ure of the he remainin
mately 6.0 p The thrl/Dental”, “S
Home
Medical/De
n: FY 10‐15
Figu
84.7 percentBay Transit g trip origins
percent of tree next mSchool/Colle
6
11
W
ental So
ure E‐8. Surv
t) of the passystem’s ds were distri
the passengmost frequeege”, and “So
6%
1%1%
2% 1%
Work
ocial/Recreati
E‐12
vey Results:
ssengers stademand‐respibuted acros
gers reporteent trip orocial/Recrea
1%
3%
Schoo
ional Servic
Trip Origin
rted their trponsive opess a wide ran
ed starting rigins wereational”.
85%
ol/College
ce Agency
n
rips from therations acrnge of trip p
their trips e cited as
Shopping
Other
October
eir home. Goss a 12‐courposes.
from their being “Ot
g
r 2009
Given ounty
work ther”,
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Trip Dest
The top percent, four destfor 10.5 These remobility
t velopment Pla
tination
four trip de”Social/Rectinations accpercent of tsults demonpurposes be
1
1
Home
Medic
n: FY 10‐15
Figure
estinations wcreational” acount for 73the trips, fonstrate thatetween thei
10%
1%
4%
al/Dental
E‐9. Survey
were noted at 11.1 perc3.5 percent ollowed by “St the currentir homes an
8%
14%
Work
Social/Re
E‐13
y Results: Tr
as being ”Wcent, and ”Mof the total tShopping”, “t ridership isd their work
10%
5%
ecreational
rip Destinat
Work” at 38Medical/Dentrips. “Hom“School/Colls using the kplace or ot
%
School/Colle
Service Age
ion
8.2 percent, tal” at 10.5
me” was the lege”, and “Bay Transit ther importa
38%
ege Sh
ncy O
October
“Other” at percent. Tcited destin“Service Agesystem for ant destinat
hopping
ther
r 2009
13.7
These ation ncy”. basic ions.
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Reason fo
When asmost freqAvailablereasons fhighest rsuch as “the respo These reis, they hnot provtrips beicould resmeaning
t velopment Pla
for Riding Tra
sked to identquently indie” (12.7 percfor using Baresponse at “To save timondents, res
sponses indhave few if vided, the sung made fosult in signifful employm
1%
n: FY 10‐15
ansit
Figure E‐10.
tify the princated that tcent). Comy Transit ser16.5 percenme” or “To sspectively.
dicate that thany other tubject trip wor work, shoficant negatiment or nece
9%
4%
17%
Don't have Prefer to riTo save moOther
. Survey Res
ncipal reasonhey “Did Nobined, theservice. The fat, followed bave money”
he current rtravel optiowould probaopping, or mive effects oessary medic
13%
%
6
a carde busoney
E‐14
sults: Reaso
n why they wot Have a Cae two respoactor of “Disby “Prefer to” were only
idership canons availableably not be medical/denton the abilitycal services.
6%
on for Riding
were riding r” (50.4 peronses accounsability/unabo ride bus” acited by 1.4
n be classifiee and if themade. Wittal purposesy of the stud
Car not To saveDisabilit
g Transit
the bus, surcent) or thanted for 63.ble to drive”at 9.2 percen4 percent an
ed as “trans current trath a large ps, the lack ody area pop
50%
availablee timety/unable to
October
rvey respondt a “Car Wa1 percent o” was the sent. Other fand 3.8 perce
it captives”;ansit serviceercentage oof basic moulation to o
drive
r 2009
dents s Not of the econd actors ent of
; that e was of the obility btain
Bay TransiTransit Dev
E.3.3 SE
Figure Edevelopeoffered b
R
B
H
C
For eachprovidedpercent fthose for
Courtes
t velopment Pla
ERVICE RATI
E‐11 and Taed to obtainby Bay Trans
eservation p
us on‐time p
Hours of bus
ost of bus fa
h of these d combined for almost er “Bus On‐tim
Reservat
Bus On‐Tim
Hour
C
Sense of Se
Clean
sy/Friendlines
n: FY 10‐15
INGS SURVE
able E‐4 sun the view sit. The serv
procedures
performance
service
are
eight evaluratings of “every measume Performa
Figure
tion Procedure
me Performanc
s of Bus Servic
Cost of Bus Far
ecurity on Buse
nliness of Buse
ss of Bus Driver
Overall Servic
Very Good
EY RESULTS
mmarize thof the currice factors p
e
uation mea“Very Goodurement. Tance” and “H
E‐11. Surve
0% 10%
es
ce
ce
re
es
es
rs
ce
Good Ok
E‐15
he responseent riders apresented fo
surements, d” or “Goodhe two servHours of Bus
ey Results: S
20% 30% 4
kay Poor
es to the sas to qualityor rating wer
Sense of
Cleanline
Courtesy
Overall s
those thatd” in the ranvice factors ws Service”.
Service Ratin
40% 50% 60
Very Poor
survey quesy of servicere as follows
f security on
ess of buses
y/friendlines
service ratin
t respondednge of apprwith the low
ngs
% 70% 80%
Not Sure
October
stions thate currently bs:
the buses
ss of bus driv
g
d to the suroximately 8west ratings
% 90% 100%
r 2009
were being
vers
urvey 80‐95 were
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐16
Table E‐4. Survey Results: Service Ratings Reservation Procedures
Number Percent
Sense of Security on Buses
Number Percent
Very Good 218 45.8% Very Good 286 59.7%
Good 182 38.2% Good 165 34.4%
Okay 61 12.8% Okay 27 5.6%
Poor 7 1.5% Poor 1 0.2%
Very Poor 2 0.4% Very Poor 0 0.0%
Not Sure 6 1.3% Not Sure 0 0.0%
No Response 47 No Response 44
Total Responding 476 100.0% Total Responding 479 100.0%
Bus On‐Time Performance
Number Percent Cleanliness of Buses Number Percent
Very Good 202 41.5% Very Good 269 55.8%
Good 189 38.8% Good 172 35.7%
Okay 76 15.6% Okay 34 7.1%
Poor 15 3.1% Poor 5 1.0%
Very Poor 3 0.6% Very Poor 1 0.2%
Not Sure 2 0.4% Not Sure 1 0.2%
No Response 36 No Response 41
Total Responding 487 100.0% Total Responding 482 100.0%
Hours of Bus Service Number Percent Courtesy / Friendliness
of Bus DriversNumber Percent
Very Good 174 38.7% Very Good 335 69.4%
Good 179 39.8% Good 129 26.7%
Okay 74 16.4% Okay 16 3.3%
Poor 10 2.2% Poor 1 0.2%
Very Poor 2 0.4% Very Poor 0 0.0%
Not Sure 11 2.4% Not Sure 2 0.4%
No Response 73 No Response 40
Total Responding 450 100.0% Total Responding 483 100.0%
Cost of Bus Fare Number Percent Overall Service Number Percent
Very Good 356 74.9% Very Good 283 59.6%
Good 96 20.2% Good 159 33.5%
Okay 22 4.6% Okay 29 6.1%
Poor 1 0.2% Poor 2 0.4%
Very Poor 0 0.0% Very Poor 0 0.0%
Not Sure 0 0.0% Not Sure 2 0.4%
No Response 48 No Response 48
Total Responding 475 100.0% Total Responding 475 100.0%
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐17
For “Bus On‐time Performance”, 80.3 percent of the riders rated this service factor “Very Good” or “Good”. Approximately 15.6 percent of the riders rated this service factor as being “Okay”, with a total of 3.7 percent rating this factor as “Poor” (3.1 percent) or “Very Poor” (0.6 percent).
In the case of “Hours of Bus Service”, 78.4 percent rated this service factor as being “Very Good” or “Good”. Approximately 16.4 percent of the riders rated this service factor as being “Okay”, with a total of only 2.6 percent rating this factor as “Poor” (2.2 percent) or “Very Poor” (0.4 percent).
The highest positive service factor ratings were for “Cost of Bus Fare”, with a total of 95.2 percent rating this “Very Good” and “Good”, and “Courtesy/Friendliness of Bus Drivers”, at 96.1 percent rating this factor “Very Good” or “Good”.
The “Overall Service” rating for Bay Transit was 93.1 percent “Very Good” or “Good”, and 6.1 percent “Okay”. Only 0.4 percent of the riders rated the current service as “Poor”, with none rating it as being “Very Poor”.
These findings represent a very positive reaction from the passengers of Bay Transit. They also indicate that the current users are satisfied with the overall services provided by Bay Transit.
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 E‐18
E.3.4 FUTURE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS SURVEY RESULTS
Table E‐5 and Figure E‐12 summarize the responses to those survey questions pertaining to potential service improvements that Bay Transit might wish to consider. The three suggested areas of potential service improvement were:
Less advance time to schedule trip
Expand hours / days of service
Improve security on buses
Table E‐5. Survey Results: Future Service Improvements
Less Advance Time to Schedule Trip
Number Percent Improve Security
on BusesNumber Percent
Very Important 142 37.5% Very Important 80 23.3%
Somewhat Important 109 28.8% Somewhat Important 84 24.4%
Not Important 92 24.3% Not Important 143 41.6%
Not Sure 36 9.5% Not Sure 37 10.8%
No Response 144 No Response 179
Total Responding 379 100.0% Total Responding 344 100.0%
Expand Hours/ Days of Service
Number Percent
Very Important 226 54.7%
Somewhat Important 82 19.9%
Not Important 81 19.6%
Not Sure 24 5.8%
No Response 110 Total Responding 413 100.0%
Bay TransiTransit Dev
Given thcategorieare the should fo
With resas beingresponde
With resbeing “Vresponde
The respis not viepercent o41.6 perc
Less Ad
Ex
t velopment Pla
Fig
he number es, those fortwo potentocus on.
pect to “Lesg “Very Iments rated th
pect to “ExVery Imporents rated th
onses to theewed as beinof the passecent rated it
dvance Time to
xpand Hours/D
Improve Sec
Very
n: FY 10‐15
gure E‐12. S
of responder “Less Advatial service
s Advance Tportant” orhis service fa
pand Hours/rtant” or “his service fa
e potential nng a high priengers ratedt as “Not Imp
o Schedule Trip
Days of Service
curity on Buses
y Important
Survey Resul
ents to eacnce Time to improvemen
Time to Scher “Somewhaactor as bein
/Days of Se“Somewhat actor as bein
need to “Impority need fd this as beinportant”.
0% 10% 2
p
e
s
Somewhat
E‐19
lts: Future S
h question, Schedule Trnts that the
edule Trip”, 6at Importanng “Not Impo
rvice”, 74.6Important”
ng “Not Impo
prove Securirom the pasng “Very Imp
0% 30% 40%
Important
Service Impr
of the potrip” and “Exe current p
66.3 percennt”. Conveortant”.
percent of ”. Conversortant”.
ty on the Bussengers’ vieportant” or
% 50% 60%
Not Importa
rovements
tential servipand Hours/assengers t
t of respondersely, 24.3
respondentsely, 19.6
uses” indicatewpoint. Ap“Somewhat
70% 80% 90
nt Not Su
October
ce improve/Days of Serhink Bay Tr
dents viewed3 percent of
ts viewed thpercent of
te that this fproximately Important”
0% 100%
ure
r 2009
ment rvice” ransit
d this f the
his as f the
factor y 47.7 ”, and
On
-Bo
ard
Rid
ersh
ip S
urv
ey (
Dem
and
Res
po
nse
Ser
vice
) -
Dat
a In
pu
t S
hee
tS
yste
m N
ame:
Bay
Tra
nsit
Su
rvey
Dat
e:2/
09/0
9 ~
3/2
0/09
No
te:
"0"
or "
Bla
nk"
= N
o R
espo
nse
to q
uest
ion
Ab
ou
t Y
ou
r T
rip
To
day
Co
mm
ent
Sys
tem
ID
(01-
06)
Ser
ial
Nu
mb
er
(100
1 o
r g
reat
er)
Ro
ute
or
Ser
vice
Are
a
Boarding Time
Sex (1-2)
Age (1-6)
Race (1-4)
Education (1-4)
Household Income (1-6)
Ride Frequency of Demand-Response Service (1-5)
Ride Frequency of Fixed Route Service (1-5)
Trip Origin (Type 1-8)
Trip Origin (Place)
Destination (Type 1-8)
Destination (Place)
Ride Reason (1-7)
Reservation Procedures (1-6)
Bus On-time (1-6)
Hours (1-6)
Cost of bus fare(1-6)
Security (1-6)
Cleanliness (1-6)
Courtesy (1-6)
Overall Rating (1-6)
Less advance time (1-4)
Expand Hours/Days of Service (1-4)
Improve Security (1-4)
Other (1-4)
110
01N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y1
52
22
41
111
040
Bar
notts
Roa
d2
New
Ken
t Cou
nty
22
31
11
11
11
11
01
1018
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
25
21
15
11
Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y O
ld H
igh
Sch
ool
12
22
11
22
11
11
0 S
houl
d co
nsid
er s
ome
trip
s to
Hop
ewel
l VA
or
to C
aval
ier
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r.1
1033
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
14
23
35
11
8532
Old
Ela
m C
emet
ery
Roa
d2
2401
Rex
olry
Roa
d3
32
21
11
11
22
30
110
34N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
301
31
32
21
119
001
Eith
nal o
f Wes
t Bin
t2
13
34
12
13
21
13
01
1035
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/18
/09
8:15
26
42
14
11
Sae
law
isel
le5
Wor
ge-W
illia
msb
urg
62
22
22
22
21
13
1 M
ore
rout
es.
110
36N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y2
62
21
40
15
00
30
33
33
32
22
21
1049
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
12:4
52
31
23
31
1C
ount
y3
Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
20
22
11
21
21
10
01
1050
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
14:0
02
12
10
51
1C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y 3
Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
76
63
33
22
34
32
41
1035
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/18
/09
8:15
26
42
14
11
Sae
law
isel
le5
Wor
ge-W
illia
msb
urg
62
22
22
22
21
13
1 M
ore
rout
es.
110
36N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y2
62
21
40
15
00
30
33
33
32
22
21
1049
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
12:4
52
31
23
31
1C
ount
y3
Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
20
22
11
21
21
10
01
1050
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
14:0
02
12
10
51
1C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y 3
Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
76
63
33
22
34
32
41
1051
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
15:0
01
11
10
41
115
800
San
dy P
oint
Roa
d3
Cha
rles
City
Cou
rt H
ouse
61
31
12
11
23
33
01
1052
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
15:1
51
12
10
41
1W
illco
x N
eck
Roa
d3
155
02
32
11
11
11
12
01
1065
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
23
43
12
11
Rt 1
065
Pro
vred
ence
For
ge1
11
11
11
11
42
44
110
66N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 15
:45
22
22
24
01
CC
Rt 5
811
601
John
Tyl
er M
emor
ial H
ighw
ay1
55
51
22
14
12
10
110
05N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y1
42
30
51
1C
harle
s C
ity2
Cha
rles
City
13
33
12
22
22
14
01
1006
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
15
21
24
11
1104
0 C
harle
s C
ity V
A1
72
21
11
11
10
10
01
1007
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
26
21
14
18
Wes
t Poi
nt8
Will
iam
sbur
g1
21
21
11
11
11
20
110
08N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y2
62
11
41
8W
est P
oint
8W
illia
msb
urg
12
12
22
22
21
11
01
1009
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
26
21
14
18
Wes
t Poi
nt8
Will
iam
sbur
g1
22
21
21
21
10
00
110
10N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y2
62
11
41
1W
est P
oint
8W
illia
msb
urg
12
22
12
12
22
00
01
1011
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
16
21
15
11
00
11
11
11
11
11
11
110
12N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y2
62
01
44
12
22
22
22
22
21
11
11
1013
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
24
22
25
11
Cou
nty
2C
ount
y1
24
33
21
13
11
20
110
14N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y1
32
22
51
1C
ount
y2
Cou
nty
10
00
00
00
01
12
01
1015
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
10
21
04
11
New
Ken
t2
Jam
es C
ity C
ount
y1
33
31
22
22
12
40
110
40N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 8:
152
62
12
40
1R
oute
60
and
Fox
wel
l Roa
d6
Cha
rles
City
Com
mun
ity C
ente
r3
23
01
12
12
00
00
110
41N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/2
009
26
21
04
01
Rt 2
49 A
ngel
Vie
w6
Cha
rles
City
Com
mun
ity C
ente
r3
03
03
22
12
00
30
110
42N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/0
9 9:
222
62
00
40
1G
eorg
e W
atki
ns R
oad
and
Pin
e F
ork
63
02
02
12
12
12
20
110
43N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/0
9 9:
102
42
10
40
1T
eleg
raph
and
Dis
patc
h R
oad
2R
oxbu
ry In
dust
rial C
ente
r6
20
30
22
12
12
20
110
44N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/0
9 9:
272
31
00
50
1R
t 106
2R
oxbu
ry In
dust
rial C
ente
r6
23
01
11
12
22
20
110
45N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/0
9 9:
322
02
10
40
1G
olde
n W
heel
Roa
d0
Rt 1
55 N
.K1
34
31
11
12
12
20
110
46N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/0
9 9:
502
52
40
50
1S
ign
Pos
t Apa
rtm
ents
2C
harle
s C
ity C
omm
unity
Cen
ter
12
30
12
21
20
10
01
1047
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
3/17
/09
9:58
26
21
04
01
Chu
rch
Lane
6C
harle
s C
ity C
omm
unity
Cen
ter
60
40
02
02
00
01
01
1048
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
3/17
/09
10:0
82
62
10
40
1R
uthv
ille
Roo
d6
Cha
rles
City
Com
mun
ity C
ente
r1
03
00
22
21
23
40
110
53N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/0
9 9:
501
22
20
50
1S
ign
Pos
t Apa
rtm
ents
2M
cdon
ald'
s R
t 60
and
249
11
44
11
21
21
10
01
1054
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
3/17
/09
10:2
52
02
40
20
1R
t 60,
800
0 F
oxw
ell R
oad
3H
erita
ge L
ibra
ry0
34
41
12
13
11
20
110
55N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
17/2
009
13
22
05
01
The
Loe
p R
oad
2M
cdon
ald'
s R
t 60
and
249
13
43
12
22
21
13
01
1056
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
3/17
/09
11:4
01
62
10
50
0R
t 60,
Pro
vide
nce
For
ge1
Lane
xa1
11
22
22
12
22
20
110
67N
ew K
ent/C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 13
:20
23
22
24
11
Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
4C
harle
s C
ity1
35
31
23
13
23
31
Not
to w
ait f
or a
rid
e ov
er a
long
per
iod
of ti
me.
To
get t
o de
stin
atio
n on
tim
e.1
1068
New
Ken
t/Cha
rles
City
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
15:1
01
11
10
40
1C
harle
s C
ity
3C
harle
s C
ity C
ount
y7
04
31
22
22
33
30
111
01K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/20
/09
6:45
15
21
24
11
Kin
g W
illia
ms
5T
appa
hann
ock
VA
32
12
21
21
12
21
01
1102
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
21
14
11
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A8
Chu
rch
12
22
11
11
10
20
01
1103
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
25
23
14
15
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A1
Kin
g an
d Q
ueen
Cou
nty
21
12
11
21
13
13
0W
eeke
nd T
rips
111
04K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/09
8:20
25
22
25
11
2M
ango
hick
Va
63
33
12
22
20
00
0W
eeke
nd D
river
s1
1106
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/0
9 8:
151
42
21
51
1K
ing
and
Que
en C
ount
y2
Kin
g W
illia
ms
61
11
11
11
10
00
0P
leas
e ke
ep s
ervi
ce g
oing
111
07K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/09
16:0
01
42
22
51
2T
appa
hann
ock
VA
1K
ing
and
Que
en C
ount
y1
11
11
11
11
10
00
111
08K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/09
9:00
26
21
14
11
Kin
g W
illia
ms
6K
ing
Will
iam
s3
11
00
01
10
40
00
111
09K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/09
9:15
26
22
14
11
Kin
g W
illia
ms
6K
ing
Will
iam
s1
11
00
01
10
40
00
111
10K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/09
9:15
26
21
14
11
Kin
g W
illia
ms
8K
ing
Will
iam
s1
11
23
21
11
22
20
111
11K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/09
9:35
16
21
14
10
00
62
62
22
12
44
30
111
15K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
61
22
21
0K
ing
Will
iam
s1
Kin
g W
illia
ms
23
22
12
21
21
23
01
1117
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
22
14
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
6S
enio
r C
ente
r1
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
19K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
62
21
41
1S
enio
r C
ente
r6
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
12
22
12
22
23
33
01
1120
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
16
21
14
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
6S
enio
r C
ente
r1
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
21K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
62
11
41
1S
enio
r C
ente
r6
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
62
22
12
22
23
33
01
1122
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
26
22
14
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
6S
enio
r C
ente
r6
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
23K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
62
21
41
1S
enio
r C
ente
r6
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
62
22
12
22
23
33
01
1124
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
26
20
14
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
6S
enio
r C
ente
r6
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
25K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
91
62
21
41
1K
ing
Will
iam
s5
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A6
22
21
22
22
22
30
111
26K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
52
21
51
1S
enio
r C
ente
r2
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
12
22
12
22
22
33
01
1127
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
25
22
24
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
2S
enio
r C
ente
r7
22
21
22
22
20
33
111
28K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
52
21
41
1S
enio
r C
ente
r2
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
12
22
12
22
22
03
31
1129
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
15
22
14
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
3S
enio
r C
ente
r1
22
21
22
22
23
30
111
30K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
52
21
21
1S
enio
r C
ente
r5
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
71
11
11
11
10
00
01
1136
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
23
22
31
72
22
22
22
22
12
44
111
37K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/09
8:45
26
23
04
05
7S
enio
r C
ente
r2
03
01
23
12
11
20
111
38K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
61
41
11
0S
enio
r C
ente
r0
04
43
11
11
21
13
01
1142
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
32
14
07
7S
enio
r C
ente
r7
10
00
00
00
00
00
111
43K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
62
21
45
1W
est P
oint
2W
est P
oint
Va
12
00
20
02
00
00
01
1144
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
02
04
51
Wes
t Poi
nt1
70
20
00
00
10
31
01
1145
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
01
04
51
1W
est P
oint
Va
71
00
00
00
00
00
01
1146
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
10
21
11
Wes
t Poi
nt6
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a1
22
21
22
22
22
20
111
47K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
61
22
11
1W
est P
oint
6W
est P
oint
Va
21
22
21
11
22
32
01
1148
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/0
9 8:
302
62
20
44
15
31
23
20
11
20
00
01
1149
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
22
15
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
2W
est P
oint
Va
72
22
12
22
23
33
01
1150
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
22
15
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
2W
est P
oint
Va
72
22
12
31
13
33
01
1151
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
02
14
11
5W
illia
msb
urg
62
22
12
22
23
33
01
1152
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
22
14
11
2W
est P
oint
Va
72
22
12
22
23
33
01
1153
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
22
03
11
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
2W
est P
oint
Va
22
22
12
22
23
33
01
1154
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
24
22
05
11
Wes
t Poi
nt2
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a7
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
55K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
42
24
41
1S
hack
lefo
rds
Va
7K
ing
& Q
ueen
Co.
12
11
11
11
10
10
01
1156
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
21
15
51
21
23
22
23
22
22
00
111
57K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/09
6:35
24
22
45
52
Wes
t Poi
nt2
61
11
11
11
11
11
11
1158
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/0
9 7:
452
42
21
54
2W
est P
oint
1W
est P
oint
Va
11
11
11
11
10
00
1ca
ll w
hen
bus
is la
te
Ab
ou
t Y
ou
Ser
vice
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s R
atin
gF
utu
re Im
pro
vem
ent
Nee
ds
111
60K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/09
7:00
26
21
15
07
23
11
01
11
11
11
10
111
61K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/09
7:15
24
21
14
11
Kin
g &
Que
en C
o.2
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a1
22
21
22
12
02
20
111
62K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/09
7:30
23
22
14
11
7W
est P
oint
Va
12
22
12
22
23
33
01
1163
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/0
9 9:
000
62
21
41
1W
est P
oint
5W
est P
oint
Va
12
22
12
22
23
33
31
1164
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
22
12
14
11
Wes
t Poi
nt2
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a1
22
21
22
22
33
33
111
65K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
91
12
20
31
14
11
11
11
11
13
23
01
1166
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
22
12
14
11
Wes
t Poi
nt2
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a1
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
67K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
62
21
41
1W
est P
oint
5G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
68K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
52
21
41
1W
est P
oint
5W
est P
oint
Va
62
22
12
21
13
33
01
1169
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
24
22
05
11
Wes
t Poi
nt2
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a5
22
21
22
11
33
30
111
70K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
91
42
30
41
1W
est P
oint
2W
est P
oint
Va
22
22
12
21
13
33
01
1171
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
26
22
14
11
Wes
t Poi
nt5
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a2
22
21
22
11
33
30
111
72K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/19
/200
92
12
20
41
1K
ing
Will
iam
s3
Gle
nns
12
22
12
21
13
33
01
1173
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
19/2
009
15
22
04
11
Kin
g
6K
ing
Will
iam
s7
22
21
22
11
33
30
111
74K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
52
20
51
2K
ing
Will
iam
s2
Kin
g W
illia
ms
11
21
11
11
11
11
01
1175
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/0
9 7:
502
12
20
41
1K
ing
Will
iam
s3
Gle
nns
73
43
22
22
30
00
01
1176
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
26
12
21
11
Wes
t Poi
nt6
Wes
t Poi
nt V
a0
22
22
22
22
00
00
111
77K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
14
20
50
1W
est P
oint
3G
lenn
s1
22
22
22
22
22
20
111
78K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
42
30
50
2W
est P
oint
2W
est P
oint
Va
10
30
11
21
23
12
01
1179
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
15
11
03
00
00
12
11
11
11
42
44
111
80K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
52
10
41
00
01
11
11
11
14
44
41
1181
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
13
11
05
01
Kin
g &
Que
en C
o.4
Kin
g W
illia
ms
12
12
11
11
12
12
01
1182
Kin
g W
illia
m C
ount
y/K
ing
& Q
ueen
Cou
nty/
Tow
n of
Wes
t Poi
nt3/
18/2
009
24
11
04
00
02
12
11
11
11
00
00
111
83K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
91
42
21
21
1W
est P
oint
72
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
84K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
11
20
51
3W
est P
oint
1K
ing
Will
iam
s2
22
21
22
22
33
30
111
85K
ing
Will
iam
Cou
nty/
Kin
g &
Que
en C
ount
y/T
own
of W
est P
oint
3/18
/200
92
42
21
41
1W
est P
oint
5G
louc
este
r, V
A1
22
21
22
11
33
30
111
87G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
15/0
9 6:
301
61
40
41
1G
louc
este
r8
63
34
11
22
30
12
11
1188
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:30
12
13
24
11
Glo
uces
ter
Poi
nt3
Gle
nns
12
36
13
33
22
42
01
1189
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
11
04
21
2H
ays
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r6
11
11
12
11
10
10
111
90G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
9/09
7:3
02
61
10
42
12
Hay
s S
hopp
ing
Cen
ter
01
11
01
11
11
11
01
1191
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
25
02
05
01
Urb
anna
Mar
ket
5U
rban
na M
arke
t6
11
11
11
11
41
41
Pra
ise
the
serv
ice
111
96G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
42
31
51
185
07 D
aven
port
Roa
d2
Ham
pton
Inn,
Glo
uces
ter
11
11
11
11
13
13
01
1217
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
92
42
10
51
1S
hopp
ing
Cen
ter
2S
hopp
ing
Cen
ter
10
22
22
22
22
21
01
1218
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
90
62
10
54
06
22
22
22
02
24
44
01
1220
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/10
/09
8:20
16
23
24
01
6M
ain
Str
eet,
Glo
uces
ter
62
31
11
11
12
22
2
112
21G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
401
41
40
41
8G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se8
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
rt H
ouse
65
40
12
21
31
00
1
Nee
d be
tter
rout
ing
of b
uses
. Bet
ter
com
mun
icat
ion
betw
een
driv
ers
and
disp
atch
er. A
bilit
y to
em
ail r
eque
st fo
r rid
ers.
Abi
lity
to s
ched
ule
rides
on
a w
eekl
y or
m
onth
ly b
asis
.1
1222
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
11:0
02
31
21
31
1N
orth
ern
Nec
k R
t. 17
175
11 R
iver
pack
Roa
d, H
ayes
, VA
230
772
11
11
11
11
23
30
112
24G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
41
22
50
1G
louc
este
r P
oint
2H
ayes
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r1
33
41
11
12
31
30
112
44G
louc
este
r C
ount
y1
52
21
41
11
13
33
12
42
33
13
01
1246
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:30
26
22
14
01
Hay
es, G
louc
este
r6
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
rt H
ouse
11
12
12
21
10
10
0 B
ette
r co
mm
unic
atio
n be
twee
n dr
iver
s an
d ba
se1
1247
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/12
/09
7:15
24
12
15
11
9845
Lin
e F
ence
Roa
d, H
ayes
275
41 Z
anon
i Roa
d, G
louc
este
r2
22
21
11
11
22
44
112
48G
louc
este
r C
ount
y1
21
20
51
1G
louc
este
r P
oint
2G
louc
este
r C
ount
y1
23
32
22
22
32
20
112
49G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
401
51
23
51
1G
lass
, VA
2W
al-M
art,
Rt.
17 a
nd C
ourt
Hou
se B
ypas
s1
03
31
12
22
21
31
Impr
ove
sche
dulin
g1
1251
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
12
14
31
11
11
11
11
11
01
00
112
52G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
002
61
11
41
1D
affo
dil G
arde
n, G
rove
6M
ain
Str
eet,
Glo
uces
ter
61
11
11
11
10
00
0 E
xpan
d th
eir
serv
ices
to w
eeke
nd.
112
54G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
9/09
9:0
02
61
32
41
1D
affo
dil G
arde
n, G
rove
8M
ain
Str
eet,
Glo
uces
ter
11
11
11
11
12
20
0 S
atur
day
serv
ice
112
56G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
301
32
22
41
2G
louc
este
r V
A2
Wal
ter
Ree
d P
laza
21
11
11
11
10
20
01
1257
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
9:30
25
23
15
11
Glo
uces
ter
VA
2G
louc
este
r V
A1
33
01
11
10
01
00
112
60G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
31
10
41
62
Glo
uces
ter
VA
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1261
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
06
22
24
01
7256
Doe
Driv
e2
Hay
es V
A1
22
01
12
11
00
00
Cro
ss to
Ham
pton
Roa
ds.
112
63G
louc
este
r C
ount
y1
04
12
51
8G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se2
Abi
ngto
n E
lem
enta
ry S
choo
l6
23
21
11
12
00
00
112
64G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 13
:15
21
41
05
11
Glo
uces
ter
VA
2H
ayes
VA
22
32
12
31
21
11
01
1265
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
91
24
13
41
1H
ospi
tal
2H
ospi
tal
11
11
11
11
12
13
01
1276
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:30
26
22
14
51
Cou
nty
6C
ount
y3
23
31
22
21
11
20
112
77G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
302
62
21
40
1C
ount
y8
Cou
nty
63
32
11
21
11
22
01
1278
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
15
22
15
11
Glo
uces
ter
VA
2G
louc
este
r V
A6
22
21
11
11
22
20
112
79G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
13/0
9 6:
052
52
21
40
5G
louc
este
r V
A, R
WR
H5
21
12
11
11
11
00
01
1293
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
16
44
44
11
Ced
ar B
ush
Roa
d5
Riv
ersi
de H
ospi
tal
13
33
13
11
23
23
01
1294
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
12
54
01
Cou
nty
5H
ospi
tal
61
11
10
11
11
00
01
1295
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
23
24
11
4523
Geo
rge
Was
hing
ton
HW
Y1
4523
Geo
rge
Was
hing
ton
HW
Y3
22
21
12
22
21
20
112
96G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
352
64
00
41
1F
ire S
tatio
n8
Sen
ior
Cen
ter
12
22
21
21
11
22
01
1297
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
92
01
21
40
16
Bay
Agi
ng1
11
11
10
10
00
00
112
98G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
052
61
22
41
1G
louc
este
r V
A8
Glo
uces
ter
VA
12
32
22
21
21
12
1 E
xpan
d ro
utes
to th
e ot
her
side
of C
olem
an B
ridge
.1
1299
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
22
05
18
86
20
00
00
00
10
00
113
00G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
402
61
12
41
1G
louc
este
r V
A8
Glo
uces
ter
VA
21
11
11
11
13
43
01
1301
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
12
04
11
Hay
es V
A8
Mai
n S
tree
t, G
louc
este
r7
11
11
11
11
00
00
Tim
e as
it is
113
02G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
61
21
41
1T
inde
rnec
k, G
louc
este
r8
Mai
n S
tree
t, G
louc
este
r1
11
11
11
11
00
00
Goo
d as
is1
1303
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/13
/09
8:30
26
12
24
11
Hay
es V
A1
Map
le D
rive,
Glo
uces
ter
12
22
22
22
22
13
1 W
ish
bus
runn
ing
on w
eeke
nds
113
04G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
13/0
9 8:
301
61
32
51
14
Map
le D
rive,
Glo
uces
ter
12
22
12
31
21
13
0 W
ish
bus
runn
ing
on w
eeke
nds
and
expa
nd s
ervi
ces
over
Col
eman
Brid
ge1
1305
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/18
/200
92
61
01
10
129
49 C
hero
kee
Roa
d8
Glo
uces
ter
VA
61
11
11
11
10
00
01
1306
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
22
42
22
51
3412
Lee
's W
eek
Far
m R
oad
2H
arde
e's
11
33
23
33
20
00
01
1308
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:30
26
21
04
11
248
52 F
letc
her
Roa
d, G
louc
este
r V
A3
11
21
11
11
01
01
Wee
kend
Rid
es1
1309
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:50
26
11
65
11
1184
3 H
arcu
m R
oad,
Glo
uces
ter
VA
6G
louc
este
r V
A1
61
11
11
11
43
30
113
11G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
102
62
22
41
151
79 F
letc
her
Roa
d, G
louc
este
r V
A6
Mai
n S
tree
t, G
louc
este
r3
11
00
11
11
00
00
Eve
ryth
ing
is fi
ne1
1313
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:25
26
21
24
11
8964
Dav
enpa
nt R
oad
13
11
11
11
11
00
00
113
14G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
11
25
11
Rt.
669,
Glo
uces
ter
VA
2G
uine
s C
ircle
Mar
yus,
Glo
uces
ter
51
11
11
11
10
20
01
1315
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/12
/09
8:35
16
12
25
11
2425
Isla
nd R
oad,
Glo
uces
ter
8M
ain
Str
eet,
Glo
uces
ter
61
11
11
11
10
00
01
1316
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
21
04
11
11
30
00
00
00
00
00
113
17G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
002
61
31
52
1C
hest
nut F
ork
Roa
d4
Mai
n S
tree
t, G
louc
este
r1
22
21
11
11
01
00
113
18G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
052
62
35
45
10
Cou
nty
61
11
11
11
10
00
0 P
rais
e th
e se
rvic
e1
1319
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/12
/09
8:00
16
21
14
41
Glo
uces
ter
VA
1G
louc
este
r V
A1
21
12
22
22
11
11
113
71G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
64
32
51
1P
rosp
ect R
oad,
Glo
uces
ter
8G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se6
11
61
12
21
44
44
113
72G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
61
11
51
1M
ain
Str
eet,
Wes
t Poi
nt8
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
rt H
ouse
61
26
11
22
14
44
41
1373
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
23
11
25
11
Dog
woo
d F
ores
t Driv
e, G
louc
este
r8
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
rt H
ouse
66
26
11
22
14
44
41
1374
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
21
15
11
Dra
gon
Driv
e, S
alud
a8
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
rt H
ouse
66
26
11
22
14
44
41
1375
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
16
14
35
11
Hic
kony
For
k R
oad,
Glo
uces
ter
8G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se6
32
22
22
22
11
22
(C
heap
er b
us fa
re fo
r A
DB
rid
e (p
ay $
1 pr
ivat
ely,
$1.
50 fo
r A
DB
)1
1376
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
16
12
44
11
Cla
y B
ark,
Glo
uces
ter
8G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se6
21
61
12
21
44
44
112
04G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
23
11
35
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
8G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
22
22
22
44
44
112
05G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
14
22
15
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
8G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
22
22
22
44
44
112
06G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
11
15
11
Wes
t Poi
nt8
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
62
22
23
22
24
42
41
1207
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
64
32
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A8
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
62
22
22
22
24
44
41
1208
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
91
62
11
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A8
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
62
22
22
22
24
44
41
1209
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
13
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A8
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
62
22
22
22
24
44
41
1210
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
62
11
51
1S
alud
a, M
iddl
esex
8G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
22
22
22
44
44
112
11G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
16
12
35
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
8G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
22
22
22
44
44
112
12G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
12
24
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
8G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
22
22
22
44
44
112
19G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
12/2
009
24
12
25
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
2G
louc
este
r, V
A1
11
11
11
11
31
31
112
53G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2/
16/2
009
26
21
24
15
Hos
pita
l5
Hos
pita
l4
11
11
11
11
01
01
Wee
kend
s1
1254
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
2/13
/09
10:5
02
64
23
41
1G
louc
este
r, V
A5
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
64
44
11
13
62
41
1B
eing
on
Tim
e1
1265
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
62
10
40
1G
louc
este
r, V
A2
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
53
12
21
11
10
10
0W
eek
end
serv
ice
112
66G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
22
04
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
7G
louc
este
r, V
A3
01
00
11
11
00
00
112
67G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
21
04
01
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
6G
louc
este
r, V
A0
33
33
33
33
01
00
112
68G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
11
65
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
7G
louc
este
r, V
A1
11
11
11
11
01
00
112
69G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
16
41
14
11
61
21
22
22
01
12
22
112
70G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
16
31
24
01
61
22
22
22
22
40
00
Sat
urda
y S
ervi
ce1
1271
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
31
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A1
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
22
23
22
22
20
00
1S
atur
day
Ser
vice
112
72G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
21
22
34
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
7G
louc
este
r, V
A1
11
11
11
11
11
11
112
73G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
22
24
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
7G
louc
este
r, V
A3
11
11
11
11
01
00
112
80G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
14
25
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
7G
louc
este
r, V
A1
22
22
22
22
11
11
112
81G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
03
15
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
7G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
22
22
22
11
11
112
82G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
26
12
14
01
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
1G
louc
este
r, V
A1
12
21
12
11
10
00
Sat
urda
y S
ervi
ce1
1283
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
90
62
21
41
1G
louc
este
r, V
A6
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
61
11
11
11
11
00
01
1284
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
91
61
32
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A8
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
12
22
12
21
12
12
0W
eeke
nd s
ervi
ce1
1285
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
26
41
11
11
11
11
11
10
00
01
1287
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
22
41
1G
louc
este
r, V
A1
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
13
33
22
22
21
12
0W
eeke
nd s
ervi
ce1
1288
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
22
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A8
12
22
11
11
12
22
0W
eeke
nd s
ervi
ce1
1289
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
90
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
1290
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
90
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
1291
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
90
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
1320
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
62
22
40
1G
louc
este
r, V
A5
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
63
11
11
11
10
10
01
1321
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
91
61
22
40
1G
louc
este
r, V
A5
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
62
20
11
11
20
10
01
1322
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
91
21
32
41
1G
louc
este
r, V
A3
Gle
nns
12
36
13
32
22
42
01
1323
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
91
41
26
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A2
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
63
22
21
11
11
21
01
1324
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
11
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A2
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
62
12
22
21
21
11
01
1325
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
64
10
41
11
31
00
00
00
01
00
01
1326
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
10
42
11
60
23
10
13
11
32
41
1327
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
11
13
13
01
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
3G
louc
este
r, V
A2
32
31
11
11
00
00
113
28G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
61
03
40
1G
louc
este
r, V
A5
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
61
11
11
11
10
10
01
1329
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
11
12
05
01
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
2G
louc
este
r, V
A6
22
22
22
22
00
00
113
30G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
41
33
20
1G
louc
este
r, V
A5
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
61
11
11
11
14
14
01
1331
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
25
12
05
01
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
8G
louc
este
r, V
A6
11
11
11
11
11
33
113
32G
louc
este
r C
ount
y1
11
12
31
3G
louc
este
r, V
A1
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1333
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
26
22
04
01
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
5G
louc
este
r, V
A6
11
11
11
11
31
30
113
34G
louc
este
r C
ount
y2
62
20
50
1G
louc
este
r, V
A2
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
12
23
12
21
23
23
01
1335
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
15
14
55
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
56
23
32
22
12
32
31
113
36G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
19/0
9 10
:50
26
42
34
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
5G
louc
este
r, V
A2
33
32
20
12
11
11
Sch
edul
ed T
ime
113
37G
louc
este
r C
ount
y1
42
22
40
12
21
33
11
11
21
12
01
1338
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
25
23
15
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
2G
louc
este
r, V
A1
33
01
11
11
21
00
113
39G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
19/2
009
25
12
05
01
21
21
11
12
11
21
20
113
40G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 8:
151
62
32
40
1G
louc
este
r, V
A6
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
61
02
22
01
14
44
41
1341
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
62
11
45
18
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
30
00
10
10
01
00
01
1342
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
91
51
41
31
1G
louc
este
r, V
A2
Hay
es V
A1
11
11
11
11
01
00
113
43G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
20
32
04
01
Cou
nty
82
01
00
03
00
01
00
113
44G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 7:
302
60
11
40
127
29 P
igeo
n H
ill R
oad,
Hay
es, V
A1
Mai
n S
tree
t, G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se1
02
02
24
22
01
00
113
45G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 9:
252
64
36
45
173
80 W
alke
r A
venu
e6
Bay
Agi
ng, M
ain
Str
eet
13
33
22
32
21
13
41
1346
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
22
51
270
00 E
lm S
tree
t, H
ayes
8R
oute
17
10
00
00
00
00
00
01
1347
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/09
5:45
25
22
14
11
Mai
n S
tree
t5
Ren
tal A
dvan
tage
11
11
11
11
11
32
01
1348
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/09
6:15
25
13
25
11
3245
Woo
dsto
ck R
oad,
Glo
uces
ter
VA
2M
ain
Str
eet,
Glo
uces
ter
21
11
11
11
10
24
01
1349
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/09
8:20
26
12
12
11
Ark
Roa
d5
Hos
pita
l1
41
11
11
11
11
10
113
50G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
20/2
009
14
12
05
16
Wel
lnes
s C
ente
r, G
louc
este
r6
Bow
ling
Alle
y, G
louc
este
r6
33
31
12
12
31
04
113
51G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
20/0
9 8:
502
42
20
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A8
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
12
22
12
22
21
11
01
1352
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/200
92
61
20
51
1G
louc
este
r, V
A8
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
12
22
12
21
12
30
31
1353
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/200
92
51
24
40
5H
ayes
5C
ount
y3
12
21
22
22
01
00
113
54G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
20/2
009
25
13
13
11
2538
Ced
arw
ood
Driv
e, G
louc
este
r5
Hay
es V
A1
22
21
11
11
31
40
113
55G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
20/2
009
21
12
12
11
7100
Mar
gare
t Driv
e5
Hay
es M
edic
al C
ente
r1
21
21
11
11
33
30
113
56G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
20/2
009
26
23
24
11
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
5G
louc
este
r M
edic
al D
octo
rs B
uild
ing
22
20
11
11
12
23
01
1357
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/200
91
31
30
55
0G
louc
este
r P
oint
2G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se1
11
11
11
11
22
30
113
58G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
20/2
009
24
12
25
11
Glo
uces
ter
Brid
ge2
Hay
es S
hopp
ing
Cen
ter
13
25
11
11
12
13
01
1359
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/200
92
61
13
40
14
Glo
uces
ter
VA
60
20
22
31
10
00
01
1361
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/19
/09
6:50
24
12
25
11
Glo
uces
ter
Vill
age
Sou
th A
part
men
ts2
Glo
uces
ter
Dar
11
11
11
11
11
11
01
1362
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
25
21
14
11
Glo
uces
ter
2T
own
Glo
uces
ter
50
11
11
11
00
00
01
1363
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
12
12
15
11
1635
Tyn
all P
oint
2G
louc
este
r C
ourt
Hou
se1
33
32
32
22
22
10
113
64G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
20/2
009
14
11
25
11
Yor
k H
avar
d La
ne, G
louc
este
r2
Glo
uces
ter
VA
11
11
11
11
10
10
01
1370
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
25
22
05
11
2C
ourt
Hou
se6
11
11
13
11
41
40
113
77G
louc
este
r C
ount
y3/
19/2
009
24
12
03
11
Kin
g W
illia
m4
Kin
g W
illia
m1
11
11
11
11
13
20
Pra
ise
the
syst
em1
1378
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/09
7:00
12
11
15
01
286
Bel
la T
rea,
Nor
th V
A2
6632
Mai
n S
tree
t , G
louc
este
r V
A6
22
31
12
11
11
10
Exp
and
tran
spor
tatio
n ar
ea1
1379
Glo
uces
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/09
7:20
15
22
15
01
3334
Map
le K
nol L
ane
266
32 M
ain
Str
eet ,
Glo
uces
ter
VA
62
23
11
21
11
33
41
1447
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
12/0
9 9:
302
21
21
31
1M
obja
ck B
ay2
Glo
uces
ter
Mat
hew
s F
ree
Clin
ic1
22
21
11
11
01
00
Pra
ise
the
serv
ice
114
50M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
26
21
14
11
Riv
ersi
de H
ospi
tal
181
15 B
uckl
ey H
all R
oad,
Hud
gins
VA
11
11
11
11
10
20
0 S
atur
day
serv
ice
114
80M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
91
31
22
52
1M
athe
ws
VA
2G
oust
er2
11
11
11
11
31
30
114
81M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
11:4
51
41
23
41
1D
iggs
VA
8G
louc
este
r2
11
11
11
11
11
00
114
82M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
26
10
04
12
Glo
uces
ter
VA
1M
athe
ws
VA
73
23
11
11
21
10
0 F
eel s
afe
now
114
83M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
15:3
02
11
20
41
8M
athe
ws
VA
1M
athe
ws
VA
11
12
21
11
11
20
4
114
88M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
15:0
52
22
20
51
2G
louc
este
r S
ubw
ay1
Mat
hew
s V
A5
22
21
12
11
11
31
Whe
n yo
u ha
ve ti
me
to g
et p
icke
d up
why
sho
uld
othe
rs h
ave
to w
ait
beca
use
that
per
son
is n
ot r
eady
.1
1489
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
452
62
21
41
1S
usan
VA
4W
al-M
art
11
11
01
11
10
00
01
1490
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
22
12
16
64
20
11
11
10
10
00
114
93M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
91
61
32
50
6M
athe
ws
VA
2M
athe
ws
VA
23
22
22
21
12
22
01
1495
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
22
15
06
Mat
hew
s V
A6
Mat
hew
s C
ourt
Hou
se6
32
22
21
11
12
10
114
96M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
92
62
11
45
1M
athe
ws
VA
6M
athe
ws
VA
63
33
33
11
22
22
01
1497
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
22
11
11
Car
dina
l Are
a R
t. 67
57
Mat
hew
s C
ourt
Hou
se7
22
01
11
11
12
00
Add
at l
east
one
mor
e bu
s in
Mat
hew
s1
1499
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
22
34
11
Por
t Hay
woo
d, V
A6
Mak
Cen
ter
01
00
00
00
01
10
01
1501
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
10/0
9 9:
002
22
23
55
2M
athe
ws
VA
2G
louc
este
r V
A5
11
11
11
11
11
11
Nig
ht s
ervi
ce a
vaila
ble?
115
03M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/14
/200
92
62
11
41
119
4 S
andb
era
Lane
, Car
dina
l, V
A6
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y S
enio
r C
ente
r1
22
22
22
22
21
30
115
05M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:00
26
12
45
01
Nor
th M
athe
ws
2P
eary
Lan
e2
41
21
11
11
22
22
115
06M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/12
/09
7:07
23
12
15
11
Rt.
3, M
athe
ws
VA
2G
louc
este
r V
A6
44
31
11
11
22
30
115
07M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:00
12
12
15
11
Nor
th V
A2
Glo
uces
ter
VA
11
33
11
41
11
13
01
1508
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
451
22
23
54
125
5 C
hape
l Nec
k R
oad
225
5 C
hape
l Nec
k R
oad
11
11
11
11
10
10
01
1509
Mat
hew
s C
ount
y2/
12/0
9 6:
501
61
12
50
11
Boh
anno
n V
A6
10
01
11
11
00
00
Pra
ise
the
serv
ice
115
10M
athe
ws
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
92
42
11
51
1N
orth
VA
2M
athe
ws
Har
dee'
s1
22
22
22
02
11
00
115
11La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
5:42
14
21
05
01
Nut
tsvi
lle V
A2
Kilm
arno
ck V
A4
21
22
22
22
22
12
115
12La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
5:44
15
23
04
51
Nut
tsvi
lle V
A2
41
11
11
11
13
31
01
1513
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
002
40
20
51
1O
ttom
on V
A2
Whi
te S
tone
22
22
22
22
20
10
01
1514
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
112
22
32
51
1M
ollu
sk V
A2
Mos
quito
Poi
nt R
oad,
Whi
te S
tone
23
43
22
22
32
11
01
1515
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
152
22
33
51
1R
iver
Roa
d, M
ollu
sk V
A2
CM
G L
ivel
y O
ffice
, Liv
ely
VA
13
14
22
21
32
13
1 E
very
one
pays
sam
e ra
te1
1516
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
232
61
20
40
1La
ncas
ter
VA
6K
ilmar
nock
VA
11
22
11
11
13
33
01
1517
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
13
32
44
11
Kilm
arno
ck V
A2
Mor
atti
Co
12
22
22
22
21
13
01
1518
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
531
52
11
51
1La
ncas
ter
VA
5K
ilmar
nock
VA
12
33
11
11
12
11
01
1519
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
532
52
21
51
1La
ncas
ter
VA
2K
ilmar
nock
VA
12
22
11
11
22
11
01
1520
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
23
21
11
Kilm
arno
ck V
A5
Kilm
arno
ck V
A1
11
11
12
11
21
20
115
21La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
9:30
24
21
04
11
Wee
ms
2K
ilmar
nock
VA
12
22
22
22
21
11
01
1522
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:08
24
21
24
11
Lanc
aste
r V
A2
Irvi
ngto
n V
A1
33
31
11
13
11
10
115
23La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
11:0
82
51
11
21
1Li
b-La
nshi
re1
Kilm
arno
ck V
A3
11
11
11
11
11
11
115
24La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
11:5
52
34
26
50
128
8 S
choo
l Str
eet
1K
ilmar
nock
VA
11
11
11
11
10
00
01
1541
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
302
32
13
55
1C
oan
Sta
ge R
oad
213
42 L
ittle
Bay
Roa
d, W
hite
Sto
ne V
A1
11
11
11
11
00
04
115
42La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:10
11
21
24
11
Prid
e of
Virg
inia
2P
ride
of V
irgin
ia1
21
02
11
11
22
22
115
43La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:30
26
11
14
11
439
Lum
ber
Lost
Roa
d T
rail
Kilm
arno
ck6
Kilm
arno
ck V
A6
11
21
21
11
22
20
115
44La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:0
01
61
46
21
1La
ncas
ter
VA
4K
ilmar
nock
VA
31
22
11
11
12
33
01
1545
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:00
26
12
14
51
Kilm
arno
ck V
A8
Kilm
arno
ck V
A1
22
22
22
11
32
30
115
25La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
6:25
24
11
24
11
Mid
dles
ex V
A2
Mid
dles
ex V
A1
11
11
11
11
33
30
115
26La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
52
31
21
8La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
5K
ilmar
nock
, Va
61
11
12
11
10
10
01
1527
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
25
13
23
11
Urb
anna
2M
iddl
esex
VA
11
11
11
11
12
02
01
1528
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
17/2
009
15
23
14
11
21
33
33
33
33
01
00
115
29La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
21
22
41
55
Kilm
arno
ck, V
a1
22
01
21
22
11
20
115
30La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
21
22
31
1K
ilmar
nock
1K
ilmar
nock
13
33
12
31
31
12
01
1531
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
23
12
45
18
Pilo
t Hou
se2
NN
SB
72
22
11
11
10
10
0N
eed
notif
icat
ion
if 15
min
late
115
32La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
61
30
21
1M
iddl
esex
VA
4W
alm
art
21
11
11
11
11
10
01
1533
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
22
22
15
52
2U
rban
na M
arke
t1
33
33
33
33
11
00
115
34La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
90
62
11
44
22
71
00
00
00
00
00
01
1535
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
12
12
45
11
Har
tfiel
d V
A2
13
32
12
11
32
13
01
1536
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 10
:30
12
22
24
11
Mid
dles
ex V
A2
12
24
12
21
32
12
01
1537
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
12
23
12
11
Har
tfiel
d V
A8
Del
tavi
lle V
A2
13
31
11
11
11
14
115
38La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
62
20
40
01
10
30
00
00
00
00
01
1539
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
20/0
9 8:
402
32
41
41
1Lo
cust
Hill
,VA
4
Glo
uces
ter,
VA
21
22
11
11
13
13
01
1540
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
23
13
13
11
Kilm
, VA
3G
louc
este
r, V
A1
12
13
31
11
21
30
redu
ce $
2 fa
re to
$1
115
46La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
8:25
26
22
04
01
Mid
dles
ex V
A7
Mid
dles
ex V
A1
11
11
11
11
31
30
115
47La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
7:25
26
21
04
01
Mid
dles
ex V
A6
Mid
dles
ex V
A1
11
31
11
11
21
20
115
48La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
7:15
16
11
04
51
Mid
dles
ex V
A6
Mid
dles
ex V
A1
11
11
11
11
33
30
115
49La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
62
10
40
1U
rban
na6
Mid
dles
ex V
A1
21
31
11
11
21
30
115
50La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/200
92
62
20
40
1W
ater
view
6M
iddl
esex
VA
12
23
11
11
12
13
01
1551
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 8:
302
62
22
31
1U
rban
na7
Mid
dles
ex V
A1
11
11
11
11
12
20
115
52La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
7:45
16
21
04
01
drag
on R
un7
Mid
dles
ex V
A5
11
11
11
11
01
00
115
62La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
6:18
14
21
25
01
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
Kilm
arno
ck1
22
21
11
11
41
40
115
63La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
6:35
23
21
25
01
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
22
22
22
22
31
10
Wee
kend
ser
vice
115
64La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
7:35
25
13
05
01
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
Lanc
aste
r 2
23
32
22
22
21
10
Wee
kend
ser
vice
115
65La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
6:25
15
21
00
01
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A5
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y1
11
11
11
11
31
30
Wee
kend
ser
vice
115
66La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
8:25
24
22
14
01
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y1
23
62
21
22
01
03
Wee
kend
ser
vice
115
67La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
6:15
13
22
05
01
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A3
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2
22
21
11
21
01
00
115
68La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
8:00
14
22
15
42
21
21
21
11
21
14
13
115
69La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/200
91
62
10
40
1N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
81
21
11
11
11
33
33
115
70La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/20
/200
92
42
31
40
1N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
2N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
11
11
11
11
13
13
0W
eeke
nd s
ervi
ce1
1578
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 6:
401
42
21
55
1K
ilmar
nock
2K
ilmar
nock
21
11
11
11
11
11
11
1579
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 6:
452
51
22
51
1K
ilmar
nock
2K
ilmar
nock
11
22
22
21
10
10
01
1580
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 7:
102
61
22
41
1La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
5La
ncas
ter
02
22
22
22
23
23
01
1582
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 7:
401
12
12
41
2P
ride
of V
irgin
ia2
Whi
te S
tone
11
11
11
11
12
13
01
1583
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
115
84La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
8:45
26
12
14
46
Kilm
arno
ck6
Kilm
arno
ck6
23
21
22
12
11
10
115
85La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
9:30
24
24
05
11
Kilm
arno
ck2
Kilm
arno
ck1
11
11
11
11
11
44
115
86La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
9:30
23
12
05
01
Kilm
arno
ck2
Irvi
ngto
n V
A1
10
00
00
00
00
00
115
91La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
6:24
22
23
45
11
Mol
lusk
VA
2D
r of
fice
13
14
41
11
22
12
1on
e ra
te fo
r al
l rid
ers
115
92La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
7:32
13
32
45
11
Kilm
arno
ck2
Mor
atti
Co
13
33
33
33
31
13
01
1593
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 6:
212
22
31
51
1M
ollu
sk V
A2
Whi
te S
tone
22
33
21
12
32
11
01
1594
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 6:
001
52
22
51
1S
enor
a R
d2
Irvi
ngto
n V
A2
23
31
11
11
11
00
115
95La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
6:00
24
12
04
11
Lanc
aste
r2
Whi
te S
tone
22
22
22
22
20
10
01
1596
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 8:
102
52
21
51
2La
ncas
ter
2K
ilmar
nock
VA
12
13
11
11
12
11
0C
hg fa
re b
ack
to $
11
1597
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 8:
202
32
21
01
1La
ncas
ter
7K
ilmar
nock
VA
11
12
12
11
11
11
01
1598
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/2
009
25
24
25
11
Lanc
aste
r V
A2
Wee
ms
VA
21
11
11
11
10
00
01
1599
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 8:
322
42
12
41
1La
ncas
ter
VA
7La
ncas
ter
11
11
11
11
10
00
0C
hg fa
re b
ack
to $
11
1600
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 8:
300
61
26
40
1La
ncas
ter
VA
8K
ilmar
nock
VA
12
22
22
22
20
00
01
1601
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 9:
522
21
21
31
1W
hite
sto
ne8
Lanc
aste
r 1
11
11
11
11
11
30
116
02La
ncas
ter
Cou
nty
3/18
/09
10:0
82
42
32
41
2La
ncas
ter
VA
2La
ncas
ter
12
33
11
11
20
10
01
1603
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y3/
18/0
9 10
:50
26
21
14
11
8K
ilmar
nock
VA
13
22
22
22
21
11
01
1604
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y2
31
20
50
1K
ilmar
nock
VA
1La
ncas
ter
11
11
11
11
10
00
01
1605
Lanc
aste
r C
ount
y1
22
12
41
1K
ilmar
nock
VA
2La
ncas
ter
22
22
22
22
22
12
01
1626
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
151
51
20
51
1K
ilmar
nock
Was
te W
ater
Pla
nt2
Kilm
arno
ck V
A5
11
11
11
11
01
00
116
27N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:25
14
21
25
11
Ree
dvill
e 2
Lanc
aste
r 2
11
11
11
11
21
40
116
28N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:08
26
21
14
11
89 S
choo
l Str
eet,
Kilm
arno
ck V
A2
1621
Qic
Roa
d1
11
11
11
11
00
00
116
29N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:20
05
13
05
11
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A7
Soc
ial S
ervi
ces
Nor
thum
berla
nd2
33
31
03
13
32
00
116
30N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
90
52
20
43
22
12
30
32
02
21
11
01
1631
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
402
22
31
41
1N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
2N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
12
00
00
00
00
20
01
1637
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
15
04
02
11
00
22
21
11
22
21
00
116
38N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
91
32
20
44
22
03
33
33
33
32
32
21
1642
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
12/2
009
22
20
05
11
2C
ount
y5
11
11
11
11
10
00
116
43N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
9:15
25
13
15
11
Hea
thsv
ille
2R
eedv
ille
62
22
11
11
12
23
01
1644
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
24
23
25
12
Foo
d Li
on H
eath
svill
e2
Foo
d Li
on H
eath
svill
e7
33
32
22
22
01
00
116
45N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
92
62
20
01
1N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
6G
ame
12
00
00
00
00
00
01
1647
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
10/0
9 6:
202
42
12
50
2N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
116
48N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:30
14
21
15
11
1154
Che
stnu
t Gro
ve, B
row
nsto
re2
Blu
ff P
oint
Roa
d2
22
21
11
11
41
40
116
49N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:32
23
24
54
11
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
Kilm
arno
ck V
A2
13
01
13
12
01
00
116
50N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:48
22
12
14
11
Bur
gess
, Nor
thum
berla
nd8
War
saw
VA
73
12
11
11
21
12
01
1651
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
481
51
01
54
1B
urge
ss, N
orth
umbe
rland
2B
urge
ss, N
orth
umbe
rland
73
11
12
11
21
12
01
1652
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
451
42
21
31
1F
olly
Roa
d, H
eath
svill
e V
A8
Hea
thsv
ille
VA
12
22
11
11
23
13
01
1653
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
24
23
11
11
8B
urge
ss, N
orth
umbe
rland
12
22
22
22
22
11
01
1654
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
25
21
14
11
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
12
22
22
22
21
11
11
1655
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
322
42
20
51
1C
alla
o, N
orth
umbe
rland
Apa
rtm
ent
2W
arsa
w, B
uyrit
e1
22
21
11
11
11
30
116
56N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:32
22
11
14
51
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A4
Tap
paha
nnoc
k1
12
21
11
11
31
20
116
57N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:32
26
11
14
11
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A4
Tap
paha
nnoc
k1
12
21
11
11
31
20
116
58N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/12
/200
92
42
11
51
22
30
00
00
10
01
00
01
1659
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
571
32
32
51
1V
illag
e B
P H
andy
Sto
re3
War
saw
13
33
11
11
22
13
01
1691
Nor
thum
berla
nd C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 14
:20
24
23
44
11
Lofts
burg
, Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A2
War
saw
, Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2
11
11
11
11
11
10
116
93N
orth
umbe
rland
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
92
32
00
51
1N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
21
03
02
22
22
11
10
117
41M
iddl
esex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:28
24
11
25
01
Mid
dles
ex V
A2
Mid
dles
ex V
A5
11
11
11
11
11
30
117
42M
iddl
esex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:50
25
23
14
11
Lanc
aste
r V
A5
Kilm
arno
ck V
A1
12
21
22
10
42
20
117
43M
iddl
esex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:00
13
14
35
11
War
e V
A2
Kilm
arno
ck V
A5
11
11
11
11
21
30
117
44M
iddl
esex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:05
16
41
24
01
Mid
dles
ex V
A5
Glo
uces
ter
VA
30
00
00
00
01
00
01
1745
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
251
52
21
21
1H
artfi
eld
VA
8M
iddl
esex
VA
12
22
12
22
22
23
01
1746
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
302
52
21
55
22
11
11
11
11
01
11
01
1747
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
452
32
41
41
14
Rt.
33 /
Rt.
619
22
22
11
11
13
13
0 N
eed
wee
kend
ser
vice
s1
1748
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
002
23
21
54
22
51
21
23
22
34
00
01
1749
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
10/2
009
20
22
14
48
87
01
00
00
20
10
00
117
50M
iddl
esex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
9:30
22
22
25
51
Mid
dles
ex V
A2
Glo
uces
ter
VA
11
11
11
11
14
21
01
1751
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:35
12
12
45
01
Top
ping
VA
21
13
31
21
11
21
30
117
52M
iddl
esex
Cou
nty
2/10
/200
92
51
22
51
1M
iddl
esex
VA
2D
elta
ville
VA
12
23
11
11
20
10
01
1753
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 11
:30
16
14
14
14
Del
tavi
lle M
arke
t1
Wee
ms
VA
51
26
11
11
10
00
01
1754
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
10/0
9 11
:50
15
22
25
11
7237
Geo
rge
Pul
ler
HW
Y4
Tra
star
11
11
11
11
10
00
01
1772
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
151
61
10
45
1W
are
VA
6M
iddl
esex
VA
11
21
11
11
13
33
01
1773
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
452
42
10
45
1M
iddl
esex
VA
6M
iddl
esex
VA
11
21
11
11
13
33
31
1774
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
101
52
10
44
1M
iddl
esex
VA
6M
iddl
esex
VA
41
11
11
11
13
33
31
1778
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
302
62
12
31
1W
arne
r, M
iddl
esex
6S
alud
a, M
iddl
esex
13
33
33
33
22
32
01
1779
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
302
62
11
31
1S
alud
a, M
iddl
esex
6S
alud
a, M
iddl
esex
13
33
33
33
12
31
01
1780
Mid
dles
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
002
62
10
44
1M
iddl
esex
VA
6M
iddl
esex
VA
11
21
11
11
13
33
31
1816
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
102
02
12
55
12
12
33
33
22
22
24
41
1817
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
432
60
21
11
12
32
00
00
00
00
10
01
1818
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
21
14
11
Ess
ex C
ount
y2
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r1
22
22
22
22
10
00
118
19E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:43
26
22
14
11
Ess
ex C
ount
y6
12
00
00
00
01
00
01
1820
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
002
42
22
51
1E
ssex
Cou
nty
2T
app
VA
12
22
01
21
11
12
41
1821
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
032
42
43
21
1E
ssex
Cou
nty
5E
ssex
Cou
nty
61
11
11
11
10
00
1 C
ompl
aint
the
disp
atch
ers
118
22E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:28
25
22
25
11
1955
Bat
tery
Roa
d, E
ssex
2S
outh
side
Hot
el, E
ssex
13
22
23
22
31
11
01
1824
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
281
54
45
30
36
51
46
34
56
11
23
41
1825
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
232
62
15
40
18
10
00
00
00
00
00
01
1826
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
361
61
32
34
1La
nevi
ew V
A4
Tap
paha
nnoc
k2
11
11
11
11
33
00
118
27E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:36
26
22
12
11
Tap
paha
nnoc
k4
Wal
-Mar
t, T
appa
hann
ock
10
00
00
00
00
00
01
1828
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
442
42
33
51
129
49 A
shda
le R
oad
2T
ES
31
11
11
11
10
00
01
1829
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:02
25
22
14
41
4F
ood
Lion
1
03
30
00
00
01
00
118
30E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:0
62
52
32
21
1T
appa
hann
ock
4W
al-M
art,
Tap
paha
nnoc
k1
11
11
11
11
01
00
118
31E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
11:1
72
42
11
40
1B
ehin
d R
acew
ay8
Rig
ht in
Tow
n1
43
31
33
44
23
20
Com
plai
nt th
e di
spat
cher
s1
1832
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 11
:17
26
23
13
11
1000
C W
inst
on R
oad
4E
ssex
Squ
are
13
13
11
11
21
13
0 C
ompl
aint
the
disp
atch
ers
118
33E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/12
/09
11:5
32
32
11
54
1T
own
2T
own
12
22
22
22
21
11
0 W
eeke
nd R
ides
118
34E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/10
/09
10:3
41
52
23
51
1C
ount
y2
Tow
n3
12
11
11
11
31
30
118
35E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:0
62
21
11
51
1K
ing
Str
eet
2W
inst
on S
tree
t1
11
11
11
11
21
10
118
36E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:3
42
42
42
41
1T
appa
hann
ock
Bou
leva
rd8
Tap
paha
nnoc
k B
oule
vard
12
13
11
11
11
10
01
1837
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 11
:00
16
21
14
11
1000
H W
inst
on R
oad
8T
appa
hann
ock
VA
12
22
12
21
22
32
01
1857
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
091
51
12
51
114
52 E
ssex
Mill
Roa
d2
780
Ber
ryhi
ll R
oad
51
11
11
11
10
10
01
1858
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
140
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
118
59E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:23
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
118
60E
ssex
Cou
nty
16
22
14
11
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A5
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A6
11
11
11
11
33
33
118
61E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:10
25
24
24
11
1036
Tow
nhou
se D
rive,
Ess
ex C
ount
y2
Wal
-Mar
t, E
ssex
Cou
nty
13
22
12
21
12
12
01
1862
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
102
22
20
41
1C
ount
y2
12
22
22
22
12
22
21
1863
Ess
ex C
ount
y1
32
21
55
82
11
11
11
11
10
00
01
1864
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
102
32
21
41
3T
appa
hann
ock
VA
3T
appa
hann
ock
VA
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
1865
Ess
ex C
ount
y2
52
01
51
22
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1866
Ess
ex C
ount
y2
62
21
54
1T
appa
hann
ock
VA
2T
appa
hann
ock
VA
11
11
11
11
10
00
01
1867
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
351
42
11
45
17
War
saw
12
23
11
11
10
10
01
1868
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
001
52
22
51
1K
ing
and
Que
en C
ount
y2
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A6
12
22
22
11
12
24
118
69E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:10
24
21
14
15
Hos
pita
l1
Ess
ex M
oble
Hom
e T
raile
r P
ark
11
11
11
11
12
13
41
1870
Ess
ex C
ount
y0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01
1871
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
102
62
26
55
11
Cou
nty
11
11
11
11
00
00
01
1872
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
422
60
10
30
1C
ount
y8
Cou
nty
31
11
11
11
11
11
11
1873
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
12
22
35
51
Dun
nsvi
lle2
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A7
11
31
11
11
31
30
118
74E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:3
51
22
21
45
12
31
11
11
66
61
11
11
1875
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 12
:35
23
10
01
11
Sun
ny S
ide
Roa
d5
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A1
11
11
11
11
11
10
118
76E
ssex
Cou
nty
15
11
04
11
Ess
ex C
ount
y4
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A3
22
22
22
22
02
00
119
19E
ssex
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
14:3
41
31
23
51
1T
appa
hann
ock
VA
2T
appa
hann
ock
VA
11
11
11
11
12
12
01
1920
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 15
:05
24
21
34
11
2T
appa
hann
ock
VA
11
00
00
00
00
00
11
1921
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 15
:00
11
10
05
13
Tap
paha
nnoc
k S
enio
r A
cade
my
8O
mal
ly T
imbe
r P
rodu
cts
71
11
11
11
13
31
1 O
pen
clos
ed r
oute
s1
1922
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 15
:24
14
22
25
12
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A1
Kin
g an
d Q
ueen
Cou
nty
11
21
01
11
01
21
11
1923
Ess
ex C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 15
:55
15
22
24
11
Kin
g W
illia
ms
5T
appa
hann
ock
Dia
lyis
32
22
11
11
13
33
01
1966
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
451
12
12
51
1M
ontr
oss,
Wes
tmor
elan
d2
Mon
tros
s, W
estm
orel
and
11
11
11
11
10
00
0 P
ick
us u
p w
here
they
dro
p us
off
at1
1967
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
001
12
12
51
1M
ontr
oss,
Wes
tmor
elan
d2
Mon
tros
s, W
estm
orel
and
11
12
12
11
23
23
0 P
ick
up in
the
afte
rnoo
n w
here
I ge
t off
at p
each
grov
e1
1968
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
301
12
22
51
13
13
53
11
32
34
02
11
1969
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
502
42
21
41
1Je
rusa
lem
Bap
tist C
hurc
h3
Rap
p. C
omm
. Col
lege
, War
saw
11
11
11
11
10
10
0 M
ore
buse
s1
1970
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
002
32
21
54
2W
estm
orel
and
2W
estm
orel
and
32
22
22
22
21
11
11
1971
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
302
52
11
23
1W
estm
orel
and
8W
estm
orel
and
72
22
22
22
21
11
11
1972
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
26
21
12
41
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y8
10
10
00
00
00
00
21
1973
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
11
03
33
01
81
11
11
11
11
22
22
119
74W
estm
orel
and
Cou
nty
2/12
/09
9:00
16
11
24
11
Mon
tros
s, W
estm
orel
and
5W
arsa
w6
12
21
21
11
33
30
119
75W
estm
orel
and
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
90
64
14
45
1M
ontr
oss,
Wes
tmor
elan
d8
War
saw
31
11
11
11
12
22
21
1976
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
16
22
14
11
Kin
sale
, Wes
tmor
elan
d5
War
saw
50
20
11
21
12
33
01
1977
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
16
24
44
11
2924
MT
. Hol
ly R
oad
5W
arsa
w D
ial
61
11
11
21
12
12
01
1978
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:40
25
23
24
15
DC
A -
War
saw
VA
1H
ague
, VA
62
22
11
11
12
23
01
1992
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
23
21
15
18
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y1
Wes
tmor
elan
d C
ount
y3
11
11
11
11
11
11
120
41R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:20
13
22
04
11
Far
nham
, Ric
hmon
d8
Rt.
31
43
41
32
22
12
20
Mor
e fr
eque
nt d
rop-
off a
nd p
ick-
up in
the
area
120
42R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
120
43R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
6:17
26
21
25
11
New
land
Roa
d, W
arsa
w2
War
saw
13
33
13
33
21
14
01
2044
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
171
42
11
51
1R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2T
appa
hann
ock
VA
11
11
11
11
10
10
01
2045
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
14
22
45
32
2T
appa
hann
ock
VA
41
11
11
11
11
11
11
2046
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 6:
442
24
24
31
1W
arsa
w2
War
saw
11
11
11
11
12
31
01
2047
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 7:
002
51
34
51
134
47 R
ichm
ond
Roa
d, W
arsa
w2
Wal
-Mar
t Tap
paha
nnoc
k1
11
21
11
11
21
30
120
48R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:09
25
21
15
11
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A2
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y7
11
11
11
11
33
30
120
49R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
7:32
11
22
15
11
1036
Tow
nhou
se D
rive,
Ess
ex C
ount
y3
War
saw
11
21
11
21
12
12
01
2050
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
102
42
21
12
1F
arnh
am, R
ichm
ond
4W
arsa
w2
12
32
33
23
33
33
120
51R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
8:30
26
21
24
58
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y8
121
Jone
s La
ne, R
ichm
ond
70
00
00
00
10
00
11
2052
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 8:
452
62
11
41
1R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
8R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
32
22
02
22
22
22
01
2053
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 9:
002
52
44
51
1W
arsa
w2
Hay
nesv
ille,
Ric
hmon
d1
11
11
11
11
11
33
120
54R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
9:50
26
13
21
11
77 F
reed
om W
ay, W
arsa
w4
War
saw
21
11
11
11
13
33
31
2055
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:05
23
21
14
11
Jone
s La
ne, R
ichm
ond
547
09 W
arsa
w, R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
13
22
11
11
11
12
1 K
eep
up th
e go
od w
ork
120
56R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:3
02
61
11
41
1N
orth
umbe
rland
VA
4T
appa
hann
ock
VA
11
11
11
11
12
12
01
2057
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:30
22
11
14
51
Nor
thum
berla
nd V
A4
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A1
11
11
11
11
21
20
120
58R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:3
02
41
31
21
15
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y1
33
33
33
33
44
44
120
59R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:4
51
62
22
41
5W
arsa
w1
993
Con
ly P
ond
Roa
d3
11
11
11
11
33
33
120
60R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
10:4
52
62
11
41
5F
arnh
am, R
ichm
ond
1F
arnh
am, R
ichm
ond
11
11
11
11
13
33
31
2061
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 10
:45
21
23
04
11
War
saw
3R
CC
12
32
11
32
22
13
01
2062
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 12
:00
16
21
14
15
War
saw
1T
appa
hann
ock
VA
11
11
11
11
13
33
31
2072
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/0
9 14
:30
16
21
12
11
2321
Cop
le H
ighw
ay, M
ontr
oss
123
21 C
ople
Hig
hway
, Mon
tros
s1
22
22
22
21
11
10
120
74R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
15:1
01
22
41
51
2W
arsa
w V
illag
e S
hopp
ing
Cen
ter
1T
hree
way
, Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y1
12
11
11
11
21
30
120
75R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
120
76R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/09
15:3
02
22
21
41
22
War
saw
13
42
22
11
10
00
0 R
un o
n w
eeke
nds
120
77R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
2/11
/200
92
21
21
41
185
69 H
isto
ryla
nd H
WY
, War
saw
244
4 W
ater
Lan
e, T
appa
hann
ock
11
22
12
21
13
34
01
2078
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
11
22
14
11
Ess
ex C
ount
y1
11
11
11
11
12
30
01
2079
Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y2/
11/2
009
12
22
14
13
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A1
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A1
11
11
11
11
23
44
121
16T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/11
/09
8:40
15
22
44
51
12th
Str
eet a
nd R
t. 20
54
Col
onia
l Bea
ch1
11
11
11
11
01
00
121
17T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/11
/09
9:35
26
12
25
51
Livi
ngst
ove
Str
eet
5C
olon
ial P
laza
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r1
11
11
11
11
31
33
121
18T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/11
/09
10:5
22
61
43
44
14
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r2
11
11
11
11
01
00
121
19T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/11
/09
10:1
52
61
41
45
1Lo
ssin
g A
venu
e4
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r- C
olon
ial B
each
11
21
21
21
10
13
01
2120
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2/
11/0
9 10
:15
20
10
04
51
Ban
crof
t Ave
nue
4C
olon
ial B
each
Gat
e1
12
21
11
11
11
30
121
21T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/11
/09
12:0
72
64
11
40
1B
ay A
ging
at C
olon
ial B
each
4B
each
Gat
e R
ite A
id3
11
11
11
11
01
30
121
22T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/11
/09
12:5
32
52
01
54
1C
olon
ial B
each
11
11
11
11
11
01
30
121
23T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/11
/09
12:5
32
12
11
23
1C
olon
ial B
each
11
11
11
11
11
00
30
121
40T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
2/12
/09
8:30
26
12
24
51
1107
Dav
is S
tree
t, C
olon
ial B
each
5N
W H
ospi
tal
31
11
11
11
13
13
01
2141
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2/
12/0
9 8:
232
62
11
44
14
61
00
00
00
00
10
01
2142
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch3/
18/0
9 8:
302
41
36
45
1C
olon
ial B
each
6C
olon
ial B
each
& F
redr
icks
burg
21
11
11
11
13
23
1E
veni
ng h
ours
1-2
times
a w
k1
2143
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch3/
18/0
9 8:
301
51
36
45
1C
olon
ial B
each
6C
olon
ial B
each
21
11
11
11
13
23
2P
m h
ours
121
45T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
3/18
/09
9:30
23
13
61
18
24 H
awth
orn
4F
ood
Lion
, Bau
k2
11
11
11
11
11
10
121
48T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
3/18
/09
8:30
26
12
52
11
Tap
paho
nnoc
k V
A1
Tap
paha
nnoc
k V
A6
22
22
23
22
22
10
Ser
vice
to P
otom
ac M
ills
121
49T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
3/18
/09
8:30
25
13
52
11
War
saw
, Ric
hmon
d C
o.2
War
saw
52
22
22
32
22
21
0p/
u at
War
saw
for
Pot
Mill
s1
2150
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2/
18/0
9 8:
302
61
22
23
4P
otom
ac M
ills
,Prin
ce W
m C
o4
Pot
omac
Mill
s, P
rince
Wm
Co
21
11
11
11
13
33
31
2151
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2
60
00
23
14
21
11
11
11
10
00
0re
plac
e th
e bi
g bu
s1
2152
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch3/
18/0
9 8:
302
52
24
11
1F
irst S
tree
t, C
olon
ial B
each
VA
4P
otom
ac M
ills,
Dal
e C
ity V
A3
22
22
21
22
01
10
121
53T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
3/18
/09
8:30
25
22
02
34
War
saw
1W
arsa
w R
ichm
ond
Cou
nty
32
22
22
21
21
00
01
2154
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch3/
18/0
9 8:
302
62
20
21
41
Col
onia
l Bea
ch3
22
21
22
12
10
00
121
55T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
3/19
/09
8:20
26
02
25
11
409
Livi
ngst
ion
Str
eet
41
11
11
11
11
00
00
121
56T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
3/19
/09
8:30
16
01
01
07
Bay
Tra
nsit
Offi
ce8
Rt 3
70
10
11
11
10
13
01
2158
Tow
n of
Col
onia
l Bea
ch3/
19/0
9 8:
152
51
36
11
8C
olon
ial A
venu
e4
Sho
ppin
g C
ente
r3
11
11
11
00
01
00
121
60T
own
of C
olon
ial B
each
3/19
/09
8:10
26
12
24
41
1107
Dav
is S
tree
t, C
olon
ial B
each
4C
entr
al P
ark
31
11
11
11
13
13
01
2161
Dah
lgre
n2/
11/0
9 5:
502
52
24
51
8C
olon
ial B
each
2D
ahlg
ren
31
11
11
11
10
00
0 P
ick
up in
Oak
Gro
ve1
2162
Dah
lgre
n2/
11/0
9 6:
012
21
34
51
1C
olon
ial B
each
2D
ahlg
ren
52
23
11
21
20
00
0 P
rais
e th
e se
rvic
e1
2163
Dah
lgre
n2/
11/0
9 6:
401
22
20
44
195
6 B
ryan
t Driv
e2
Wal
-Mar
t1
12
11
11
11
00
00
121
64D
ahlg
ren
2/11
/09
6:05
25
22
55
11
306
3rd
Str
eet,
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2
NS
WC
FC
U D
ahlg
ren
30
10
11
41
10
00
0 N
ewer
impr
oved
bus
es to
rid
e1
2165
Dah
lgre
n2/
11/0
9 6:
122
42
24
55
1C
olon
ial B
each
2D
ahlg
ren
11
11
11
21
12
20
01
2166
Dah
lgre
n2/
11/0
9 6:
051
12
10
51
130
6 3r
d S
tree
t, C
olon
ial B
each
8D
ahlg
ren
10
10
31
41
10
00
0 B
ette
r bu
ses
121
67D
ahlg
ren
3/19
/09
5:50
25
21
05
18
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2
Dah
lgre
n3
02
01
11
11
00
00
121
68D
ahlg
ren
3/19
/09
6:10
23
21
15
41
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2
Dah
lgre
n2
11
11
11
11
11
11
121
69D
ahlg
ren
3/19
/09
6:05
22
13
45
11
Ban
crof
t Ave
nue
2D
ahlg
ren
51
22
11
21
13
33
3S
eat C
lean
ing
121
70D
ahlg
ren
3/19
/09
6:05
13
13
45
11
Sec
ond
Str
eet,
Col
onia
l Bea
ch2
Dah
lgre
n1
11
21
23
11
00
00
121
71D
ahlg
ren
3/19
/09
6:30
16
14
65
51
3 A
zale
a R
oad,
Col
onia
l Bea
ch V
A2
NS
WC
Nav
al B
ase,
Dah
lgre
n3
11
11
11
11
33
33
121
72D
ahlg
ren
3/19
/09
6:10
25
22
55
11
306
Thi
rd S
tree
t, C
olon
ial B
each
2N
SW
C N
aval
Bas
e, D
ahlg
ren
31
11
31
11
13
33
01
2173
Dah
lgre
n3/
19/0
9 6:
102
42
23
55
1C
olon
ial B
each
2D
ahlg
ren
11
11
11
11
13
33
01
2174
Dah
lgre
n3/
19/0
9 5:
502
42
24
51
2C
olon
ial B
each
2D
ahlg
ren
42
22
12
20
12
22
0N
ew B
uses
, veh
icle
s ar
e ol
d
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 F‐ 1
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX FF..
BBAAYY TTRRAANNSSIITT SSTTAAFFFF AANNDD SSTTAAKKEEHHOOLLDDEERRSS MMEEEETTIINNGG Interviews with Bay Transit staff and stakeholders were held on March 12, 2009 at the Bay Transit office in Urbanna, Virginia. Agenda
PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS MEETING AGENDA
Bay Transit Urbanna, Virginia
March 12, 2009
10:00 AM
1. Self Introduction of Attendees
2. Overview of Transit Development Program (TDP) Process
3. Review of Project Scope of Work Elements
4. Summary of Initial Findings
a. Transit system service and operating characteristics and history b. Service area demographic and travel characteristics c. Transit agency interaction with other public and private organizations
5. Stakeholder Perspectives on:
a. Project specific issues and concerns b. Potential system goals, objectives, and service standards c. Desired outcomes of the project
6. Next Steps in Study Process
7. Potential Next Meeting Date(s)
8. Adjourn
LUNCH SERVED
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 F‐ 2
Attendees
Attendee Organization
Christina Greene Charles City County
Trish King Colonial Beach
David Whitlow Essex County
Georgette Hurley Gloucester County
Frank Pleva King William County
William Pennell Lancaster County
John Shaw Mathews County
Marcia Jones Middlesex County
Kelli Le Duc New Kent
Vonnie Reynolds NNPDC
Luttrell Tadlock Northumberland County
Trent Funkhouser West Point
Russ Culver Westmoreland County
Allyn Gemerek Bay Aging
Cle Johnson Bay Transit Southern Division
Darrel Feasel DRPT
Lenea England Bay Transit
Melissa Phillips Bay Transit
Pat Sanders Bay Transit Northern Division
Lewis Grimm PBS&J
Kevin Chiang PBS&J
Session Notes Following self introductions, Lewis Grimm provided an overview of the TDP process and a summary of the initial findings from the on‐board ridership surveys conducted by Bay Transit in February 2009. The following is a summary of comments and discussion items: Financials
Darrel Feasel indicated that funding is an issue for each transit system in Virginia; however, DRPT has matched the maximum funding available to Bay Transit for the last couple of years.
Darrel Feasel had a question about the FY 2007 Contract Revenues that were shown in the presentation slide of Revenues and Operating Assistance. The FY 2007 revenue number seems considerably lower than the revenue numbers in FY 2006 and FY 2008.
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 F‐ 3
Darrel Feasel described the sources of funding for transit systems in Virginia. In general, the federal government contributes 50 percent, the state government contributes 25 to 30 percent, and the local government contributes 20 to 25 percent of the cost.
Darrel Feasel mentioned that the Stimulus Funding for DRPT will be used to purchase replacement buses.
Representatives suggested the following uses for Bay Transit Stimulus Funding: maintain current fare structure; explore the potential for commuter rail; add more buses in Westmoreland County; provide additional driver training; expand services in the tourist attraction areas; build biking trails; and reroute buses to cover more of the service area.
Security
Lenea England suggested that for security purposes, Bay Transit should install video recording systems in their vehicles.
Darrel Feasel explained that there are a limited number of bus security incidents reported to DRPT. He could only recall one specific incident.
In general, surveillance cameras are installed to provide additional evidence regarding any potential disagreements or altercations that could occur on buses.
Driver training is very important. In an emergency situation, the driver should contact the dispatcher and call 911 immediately.
Services
Trish King mentioned that there were demands for transit service from Colonial Beach to Montross, but it was discussed that the services cannot be provided by Bay Transit.
Westmoreland County, the second biggest county in Northern Neck, only has one Bay Transit vehicle.
Colonial Beach provides some of their own transit bus service; however, Ms. King expressed a willingness to cooperate with Bay Transit of Westmoreland to work out a plan to provide transit service between the jurisdictions.
The County board members asked about the buses with empty seats running in the middle of the day. Bay Transit staff responded that they need the capacity (number of seats) provided by those vehicles to meet the AM and PM peak demands. These same size vehicles are thus running empty in the middle of the day as the demand is lower.
Bay Transit October 2009 Transit Development Plan: FY 10‐15 F‐ 4
Darrel Feasel mentioned that if Bay Transit thought that fixed‐route service for some “hot spots” should be provided, then it should be indicated in the TDP as a potential improvement if funding is available for its implementation.
Some private business owners are willing to subsidize the operating cost for Bay Transit fixed‐route services if the route serves their location.
One representative suggested that we should gather the opinions of residents who do not currently use the transit system. This information would help to determine their willingness to use transit services if the transit system could be designed to fit their needs.
One representative mentioned that the connection to another transit system is an important need for their system.
Bay Transit staff mentioned that a reduction in county funding contributions would result in a reduction of services provided by Bay Transit.
The potential was considered for service expansion to Newport News or Richmond in five years. There are residents in the Bay Transit service area that currently commute to Richmond.
One representative asked how gas prices are affecting the Bay Transit operation.
One representative suggested that DRPT should encourage carpool, vanpool, and other transportation programs to increase the usage of the public transit systems.
Darrel Feasel asked the consultant staff to identify the boundaries of the TDP study areas with regard to the different planning agencies (MPO and US Census). This delineation is important to clarify the transit system funding sources.
Bay Transit hopes to expand their services to include fixed‐route services.