COTA Transit System Review - Final Report

SR 3

17

SR 3

17

HA

MIL

TON

SR 3

17

HA

MIL

TON

HA

MIL

TON

MORSE

BETHEL

KE

NN

Y

N BROADWAY

OLEN

TAN

GY RIVE

R

LANE

HIG

H

HIG

H

HIG

H

HIG

LIVINGSTON

CA

SSA

DY

AGLER

MAINMAIN

MC

NA

UG

HTE

N

OBETZ

VINE

GOOD ALE

NORTHWEST

SR 315

KE

NN

Y

RIVERSIDE

TREMO

NT

NO

RT

H S TA

R

5TH

3RD5TH

11TH

17TH

SUM

MIT

FOU

RTH

IND

IAN

OLA

WEBER

SIN

CLA

IR

MORSE

KA

RL

GEORGESVILLE

SULLIVANT

CLIME

HA

GU

E

BRIGGS

MOUNDSULLIVANT

NO

RTO

N

HILLIA

RD

RO

ME

BROAD

ROBERTS

TRABUE

MCKIN

LEY

WILSO

N

KING

NO

RTH

WE

ST

NOTTINGHAM

ZOLLINGER

FISHINGER

DU

BLIN

TRUE

MA

N

DAVIDSON

SCIOTO DARBY

DUBLIN

CEMETERY

NVILLE

MA

IZE

COOKE

OAKLAND PARK

MC

GU

FFE

Y

HUDSON

CLE

VELA

ND

JOYC

E

BR

EN

TNE

LL

NE

IL

HA

MLL

TON

DUBLIN

SPRING

ALU

M C

RE

EK

WILLIAMS

BIXBY

GRO

VEPOR

T

CHATTERTON

GE

ND

ER

BR

ICE

BR

ICE

US 33

ALU

M C

RE

EK

WHITTIEROH

IOC

HA

MPI

ON

FREBIS

FAIR

WO

OD

LOC

KB

UR

NE

FRANK-REFUGEESO

UTH EAST

3RD

GREENLAWN

FRON

T

BROAD

TOWNRICH

BROAD

BROAD

MCKINLEY

MT VERNON

AIRPO

RT

5TH

INTERNATIONAL SAWYER

HAVENS CORNERS

US

62

EASTON

MO

RS

E C

RO

SSING

MCCUTCHEON

STE

LTZE

R

HA

RRIS

BURG

BRO

ADW

AY

COLUMBUSSTRINGTOWN

BU

CKEYEWHITE

DE MO

REST

ST C

LAIR

PER

DU

E

MOCK

AGLER

SUN

BU

RY

STYG

LER

GRANVILLE

TAYLOR

TAYL

OR

STA

TIO

NB

RIC

E

RENNER

BRITTO

N

WILC

OX

TUTTLE CROSSING

VERSID

E

PAR

SON

S

CORR

WATKINS

WINCHESTER

WRIGHT

US 62

SR 161

KITZ

MIL

LER

DUBLIN GRANVILLE

GO

DO

WN

WEST CASE

SR 315

NG

Y RIV

ER

SR 315

TAYL

OR

MARYLAND

BRYDEN

NELSO

N

CO

UR

TRIG

HT GROVES

LIVINGSTON

JAM

ES

INNIS

WES

TERV

ILLEFERRIS

HENDERSON

MCCOY

RE

ED

BROADVIEW

RE

YNO

LDSB

URG

- N

EW A

LBA

NY

LAN

CA

STER

RO

SEH

ILL

NO

E B

IXBY

CO

UN

TRY

CLU

B

LOC

KB

UR

NE

LISLE

FRANK

BR

OW

N

HOME

GA

NTZ

HART HA

RM

ON

VALLEYVIEW

FISHER

EDER

CO

LE

ALTO

N &

DA

RB

Y CR

EE

K

AV

ERYHAYDEN R UN

KINNEAR

GAHANNA

NEW ALBANY

WHITEHALL

OBETZ

BEXLEY

GROVE CITY

GRANDVIEWHEIGHTS

HILLIARD

UPPERARLINGTON

REYNOLDSBURGWestwoods

Renner Rd

Hollywood Casino

Great Southern

Gender Rd

Eastland Mall

Livingston

EA

Berwick Plaza

Main & Wygant

Whitehall

Gahana

Reynoldsburg

NorthernLights

Indianola &Morse

RR 333311115555Olentangy & Bethel

Delawanda

KingsdaleGriggs Dam

Hilliard UnitedMethodist

HilliardCemetery

Tuttle MallEaston

Grove City

Southampton

P P P T

P

P

P

P

P

PP

P

P

P

P

P

PP

P

P

P

270

270

71

70

70

70 70

71

670

670

DowntownColumbus

RE

YNNO

LDSBB

URG

-- NEW

AAALB

AAN

Y

FINAL REPORT

Transit System ReviewService and Bus Network Plan

Submitted to Central Ohio Transit Authorityby IBI Group October 28, 2014

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT

TRANSIT SYSTEM REVIEW - SERVICE AND BUS NETW ORK PLAN

Prepared for COTA

Table of Contents

October 28, 2014 ii

Executive Summary (ES)

ES 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

ES. 1.1 Purpose of the TSR ................................................................................................. 1

ES. 1.2 TSR Methodology .................................................................................................... 1

ES. 1.3 Resource Base ........................................................................................................ 3

ES. 1.4 Establishing Goals ................................................................................................... 3

ES 2 Public Involvement Program and Results ........................................................................ 4

ES 3 Bus Network Plan ............................................................................................................... 4

ES. 3.1 Existing System Assessment ................................................................................... 4

ES. 3.1.1 Peer Review ................................................................................ 5

ES. 3.1.2 System Performance Overview ................................................... 5

ES. 3.2 Features and Benefits of the Bus Network Plan ...................................................... 6

ES. 3.3 Downtown Bus Operations .................................................................................... 12

ES. 3.4 Proposed Network Cost Drivers ............................................................................ 12

ES 4 Proposed Standards and Metrics ................................................................................... 16

ES 5 Infrastructure Plan ............................................................................................................ 16

ES 6 Technology Plan ............................................................................................................... 17

ES 7 Financial Plan .................................................................................................................... 17

ES 8 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 18

ES 9 Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................... 19

Final Report

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 20

1.1 Purpose of the TSR ............................................................................................... 21

1.2 TSR Methodology .................................................................................................. 21



Prepared for COTA

Table of Contents (Cont’d)

October 28, 2014 iii

1.3 Context for the TSR ............................................................................................... 22

1.3.1 Choice and Transit Dependent Riders ...................................................... 22

1.3.2 Network Productivity and Grid Design ...................................................... 23

1.3.3 Downtown Operations ............................................................................... 23

1.3.4 Improving the Bus Network ....................................................................... 24

1.4 Existing COTA Services ......................................................................................... 24

2 Service Plan Development Process ................................................................................ 26

2.1 Vision, Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 26

2.1.1 Ridership-Coverage Tradeoff .................................................................... 27

2.2 Core Planning and Investment Alternatives ........................................................... 27

2.2.1 Ridership Alternative ................................................................................. 29

2.2.2 Coverage Alternative................................................................................. 29

2.2.3 Midpoint Alternative................................................................................... 29

2.3 Public Involvement Program and Results .............................................................. 30

2.3.1 Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) ........................................................... 30

2.3.2 Focus Groups ............................................................................................ 34

2.3.3 Online Survey ............................................................................................ 34

2.3.4 Public Meetings ......................................................................................... 34

2.3.5 Social media .............................................................................................. 35

2.3.6 Internal Project Steering Committee ......................................................... 35

2.3.7 Consultation with COTA Staff ................................................................... 36

2.3.8 Board Presentations.................................................................................. 36

2.3.9 Results of Consultation ............................................................................. 36

2.4 Decision on Priorities ............................................................................................. 36

3 Bus Network Plan ............................................................................................................. 37

3.1 Summary of Existing System Assessment ............................................................ 37

3.1.1 Peer Review .............................................................................................. 37

3.1.2 System Performance Overview ................................................................ 37



Prepared for COTA


October 28, 2014 iv

3.1.3 Local Lines ................................................................................................ 40

3.1.4 Express Lines ............................................................................................ 42

3.1.5 Opportunities for Improvement ................................................................. 42

3.2 Features and Benefits of the Bus Network Plan .................................................... 44

3.2.1 Service Types and their Roles .................................................................. 48

3.2.2 Frequent Network ...................................................................................... 48

3.2.3 Thirty-minute Lines.................................................................................... 49

3.2.4 Coverage Lines ......................................................................................... 49

3.2.5 Peak Express Lines .................................................................................. 52

3.3 Design Principles for Ridership .............................................................................. 52

3.3.1 Expand and Optimize the Frequent Network ............................................ 52

3.3.2 Case Study of Tradeoffs: Inner Northeast Columbus ............................... 53

3.3.3 Build Frequent Segments Out of Infrequent Lines .................................... 54

3.3.4 Seven Day and Consistent Schedules...................................................... 54

3.4 Design Principles for Coverage ............................................................................. 55

3.4.1 Timed Transfers ........................................................................................ 55

3.4.2 Clock Headways ....................................................................................... 55

3.5 Summary of Line Changes .................................................................................... 56

3.5.1 North Central Columbus ........................................................................... 56

3.5.2 OSU, Short North and Inner Northwest .................................................... 57

3.5.3 Northeast Columbus, Gahanna and New Albany ..................................... 58

3.5.4 East Side (including Bexley, Whitehall, Reynoldsburg) ............................ 59

3.5.5 South Side (east of the river) .................................................................... 60

3.5.6 Southwest Side including Grove City ........................................................ 61

3.5.7 Dublin, Hilliard and Suburban Westside ................................................... 62

3.5.8 Polaris, Westerville and Suburban North .................................................. 63

3.6 Downtown Bus Operations .................................................................................... 63

3.6.1 Proposed Downtown Routings .................................................................. 64

3.6.2 Design Methodology ................................................................................. 66



Prepared for COTA


October 28, 2014 v

3.6.3 Bus Volumes on Key Downtown Segments ............................................. 66

3.7 Service and Operational Details ............................................................................ 69

3.7.1 Proposed Network Cost Drivers ................................................................ 69

3.7.2 Frequency Table ....................................................................................... 71

3.7.3 Line Correspondence Table ...................................................................... 71

3.8 More People Connected to More Jobs: Coverage Analysis ................................. 78

3.9 Coverage for Existing Riders ................................................................................. 79

3.10 Travel Time Analysis .............................................................................................. 80

3.11 Operational Changes ............................................................................................. 82

3.11.1 Bus Operator Reliefs ................................................................................. 83

3.11.2 Bus Operator Work Schedules ................................................................. 83

3.11.3 Transit User Transfers .............................................................................. 83

3.12 ADA/Paratransit Considerations ............................................................................ 83

3.12.1 Impact of Network Changes on 2017 Mainstream Service and Resource Requirement ............................................................................. 84

3.13 Title VI Considerations ........................................................................................... 86

3.13.1 Data Analyzed ........................................................................................... 86

3.13.2 Review Process ........................................................................................ 90

3.13.3 Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................... 93

4 Service Standards and Metrics ....................................................................................... 99

4.1 Existing COTA Standards and Metrics .................................................................. 99

4.2 Proposed Standards and Metrics ........................................................................ 100

4.2.1 Proposed Service Categories ................................................................. 100

4.2.2 Recommended Standards ...................................................................... 101

5 Infrastructure Plan .......................................................................................................... 102

5.1 Bus Fleet .............................................................................................................. 102

5.2 Transit Centers/Garages ...................................................................................... 103

5.3 Park and Ride Lots .............................................................................................. 104



Prepared for COTA


October 28, 2014 vi

5.4 Stops, Shelters ..................................................................................................... 108

5.5 Operations Infrastructure Needs .......................................................................... 110

6 Technology Plan ............................................................................................................. 111

6.1 Projects ................................................................................................................ 111

6.1.1 Project A – CAD/AVL Enhancements (Forms and Reporting, Service Alerts, Real-Time Information to Mobility Supervisors, IVR Integration Support) ................................................................................ 111

6.1.2 Project B – Communications (E-alerts, IVR upgrade, Interactive Transit Data for Customers, Online Operator Portal) ............................. 112

6.1.3 Project C – E-ticketing............................................................................. 112

6.1.4 Project D – Reporting (Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence) ..... 113

6.1.5 Project E – Security (Onboard Camera Upgrade, Facility Camera Upgrade) ................................................................................................. 113

6.2 Plan Summary ..................................................................................................... 114

6.3 Project Deployment and Costing ......................................................................... 115

6.4 Project Timelines ................................................................................................. 116

7 Financial Plan .................................................................................................................. 117

7.1 Operating Budget ................................................................................................. 117

7.1.1 Ridership ................................................................................................. 118

7.1.2 Revenue .................................................................................................. 118

7.1.3 Operating Costs ...................................................................................... 118

7.1.4 Net Operating Surplus ............................................................................ 119

7.2 Capital Budget ..................................................................................................... 119

7.3 Implementation Costs .......................................................................................... 119

7.4 Staffing ................................................................................................................. 120

8 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 122

9 Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 123

9.1 Implementation Options ....................................................................................... 123

9.1.1 All at Once ............................................................................................... 125



Prepared for COTA


October 28, 2014 vii

9.1.2 Phased .................................................................................................... 125

9.1.3 Hybrid ...................................................................................................... 126

9.1.4 COTA Capability to Implement ............................................................... 126

9.1.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 126

9.1.6 Tax Levy .................................................................................................. 127

9.1.7 Action Steps/Timeline ............................................................................. 127

9.1.8 Implementation Cost Estimates .............................................................. 132

Appendix A – COTA Public/Stakeholder Involvement Summary ............................................. 1

Appendix B – Service Standards and Metrics ........................................................................... 1

List of Exhibits

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES.1: Transit System Review Timeline ............................................................................... 2

Exhibit ES.2: Conflicting Ridership and Coverage Goals ............................................................... 3

Exhibit ES.3: High Performing Areas .............................................................................................. 6

Exhibit ES.4: Existing System Network Map .................................................................................. 8

Exhibit ES.5: Proposed Network Plan – Peak Frequency .............................................................. 9

Exhibit ES.6: Existing Frequent Network ...................................................................................... 10

Exhibit ES.7: Proposed Frequent Network ................................................................................... 11

Exhibit ES.8: Proposed Network Cost Drivers .............................................................................. 12

Exhibit ES.9: Downtown Bus Network Routing – Midday ............................................................. 13

Exhibit ES.10: Downtown Routing for Express Lines – Proposed Network Plan ......................... 14

Exhibit ES.11: Peak Bus Volume Comparison – Existing and Proposed Networks ..................... 15



Prepared for COTA


October 28, 2014 viii

Final Report

Exhibit 1.1: Transit Service Review Timeline ................................................................................ 22

Exhibit 1.2: Background COTA Transit System Review Statistics ............................................... 25

Exhibit 2.1: Conflicting Goals ........................................................................................................ 28

Exhibit 2.2: Ridership Scenario ..................................................................................................... 31

Exhibit 2.3: Coverage Scenario Map ............................................................................................ 32

Exhibit 2.4: Midpoint Scenario Map .............................................................................................. 33

Exhibit 3.1: High Performing Areas ............................................................................................... 38

Exhibit 3.2: Sector Boundaries...................................................................................................... 39

Exhibit 3.3: COTA Network Assessment Sector Boundaries ....................................................... 40

Exhibit 3.4: COTA Productivity by Line ......................................................................................... 44

Exhibit 3.5: Existing System Network Map ................................................................................... 45

Exhibit 3.6: Proposed Network Plan – Midday Frequency ........................................................... 46

Exhibit 3.7: Proposed Network Plan – Peak Frequency ............................................................... 47

Exhibit 3.8: Existing Frequent Networks ....................................................................................... 50

Exhibit 3.9: Proposed Frequent Networks .................................................................................... 51

Exhibit 3.10: Downtown Columbus Service Tradeoffs .................................................................. 53

Exhibit 3.11: North Central Columbus .......................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 3.12: OSU, Short North, Inner Northwest ......................................................................... 57

Exhibit 3.13: Northeast Columbus, Gahanna, New Albany .......................................................... 58

Exhibit 3.14: East Side .................................................................................................................. 59

Exhibit 3.15: South Side ................................................................................................................ 60

Exhibit 3.16: Southwest Side ........................................................................................................ 61

Exhibit 3.17: Dublin, Hilliard, Suburban Westside ........................................................................ 62

Exhibit 3.18: Polaris ...................................................................................................................... 63

Exhibit 3.19: Downtown Bus Network Routing – Midday .............................................................. 65

Exhibit 3.20: Downtown Routing for Express Lines – Proposed Network Plan ............................ 67

Exhibit 3.21: Peak Bus Volume Comparison – Existing and Proposed Networks ........................ 68

Exhibit 3.22: Proposed Network Cost Drivers ............................................................................... 69



Prepared for COTA


October 28, 2014 ix

Exhibit 3.23: Midday Bus Volume Comparison – Existing and Proposed Networks .................... 70

Exhibit 3.24: Local Frequency Table ............................................................................................ 72

Exhibit 3.25: Express Line Frequency Table ................................................................................ 73

Exhibit 3.26: Line Correspondence Table ..................................................................................... 74

Exhibit 3.27: Express Line Correspondence Table....................................................................... 77

Exhibit 3.28: Proposed Network – Coverage of Population .......................................................... 78

Exhibit 3.29: Proposed Network – Coverage of Jobs ................................................................... 79

Exhibit 3.30: Proposed Network – Coverage of Boardings at Existing Stops .............................. 80

Exhibit 3.31: Proposed Network – Stop Coverage ....................................................................... 81

Exhibit 3.32: Travel Time Changes with New Network (minutes) ................................................. 82

Exhibit 3.33: Mainstream Operating Statistics .............................................................................. 84

Exhibit 3.34: Analysis of Service Area Change ............................................................................ 85

Exhibit 3.35: Minority Census Tracts in COTA Service Area ........................................................ 87

Exhibit 3.36: Low-Income Census Tracts in COTA Service Area ................................................. 88

Exhibit 3.37: Low-Income and Minority (LIM) Census Tracts in COTA Service Area .................. 89

Exhibit 3.38: Existing COTA Lines ................................................................................................ 91

Exhibit 3.39: Proposed COTA Lines ............................................................................................. 92

Exhibit 3.40: Existing Line Alignments to be Eliminated by Proposed Changes .......................... 93

Exhibit 3.41: Potential Impact of Proposed Service Changes on Low-Income and Minority (LIM) Census Tracts in the COTA Service Area ......................................................... 94

Exhibit 4.1: Existing COTA Fixed Line Service Design Criteria .................................................... 99

Exhibit 5.1: Bus Fleet Utilization ................................................................................................. 102

Exhibit 5.2: COTA Vehicle Purchase Program 2014 - 2017 ....................................................... 103

Exhibit 5.3: Map of Park and Ride Lots on Proposed Bus Network ........................................... 105

Exhibit 5.4: Walking Distances to Park and Ride Lots From COTA Bus Stop............................ 106

Exhibit 5.5: Park and Ride Lot Utilization .................................................................................... 107

Exhibit 5.6: Stops and Shelter to be Relocated .......................................................................... 109

Exhibit 6.1: Sequence of Projects Building Up to COTA’s Future System Architecture ............. 114

Exhibit 6.2: ITS Strategic Plan: Project Costs ............................................................................. 115



Prepared for COTA


October 28, 2014 x

Exhibit 6.3: Project Deployment Sequence and Estimated Timeline .......................................... 116

Exhibit 7.1: Five-year Operating Budget Forecast for Proposed Bus Network .......................... 117

Exhibit 9.1: Implementation Options Analysis ............................................................................. 124

Exhibit 9.2: Key Implementation Plan Action Steps and Timeline .............................................. 128

Exhibit 9.3: Example of Implementation Costs ........................................................................... 132

IBI GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 1

William J. Lhota Building, COTA’s administrative offices and Pass Sales

Executive Summary (ES)

ES 1 Introduction

The Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) recognizes that its

bus network must change and adapt if it is to meet the quickly

growing central Ohio region. The Columbus metropolitan

area has a population of approximately 1.4 million and is

expected to experience a strong growth rate over the next 20

to 30 years.

Since its formation in 1974, COTA’s bus network has grown

incrementally, building upon the original network, focusing

most of its service on downtown Columbus. However, over

the past 40 years much of the regional growth has occurred

outside of Downtown.

To meet the evolving demand for transit and ensure that

COTA’s resources are being effectively utilized, COTA

decided to undertake a strategic Transit System Review

(TSR) of its bus network in October 2013.

The TSR assessed COTA’s current bus network,

recommended changes to the network and examined current

and potential technology upgrades.

ES. 1.1 Purpose of the TSR

COTA’s vision of the TSR is to:

“Improve the effectiveness and continued expansion of COTA’s bus network, downtown

operations, and technologies to meet the needs of growing and changing land uses in the

central Ohio region”.

To reach this vision the following plans were created:

Final Report:

A Bus Network Plan (“Service Plan”) identifying the proposed re-structuring

of COTA’s network and associated service levels;

A Downtown Operations Plan; and

An Implementation Plan.

Technology Investment Plan.

ES. 1.2 TSR Methodology

The TSR kicked-off in October 2013 and work concluded in September 2014, with the final

reports finished in October. A summary of the timeline is presented in Exhibit ES.1.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 2

Exhibit ES.1: Transit System Review Timeline

To develop the contents of the TSR the following key steps were taken:

A comprehensive, critical review of COTA’s existing bus network and services

to provide a baseline to develop a new bus network, presented in an Existing

Conditions Technical Memorandum;

A review and assessment of COTA’s downtown bus operations, including the

volume of buses operating on downtown streets, bus operating practices and

alternative approaches to improve operations and lessen the impact of bus

operations and transit users;

Two Core Planning workshops with COTA staff and one workshop with the

COTA Board of Trustees to assess the basis for more effectively deploying the

region’s public transit resources, consider the investment choices and to develop

changes to the bus network to meet new investment objectives;

Development of three network alternatives titled “Ridership”, “Coverage” and

“Midpoint” designed to illustrate the range of network design and service investment

options. Those were exposed to public, staff and Board examination;

An extensive public involvement plan (PIP) to engage the public and solicit input

from a broad cross-section of COTA’s stakeholders on the resource investment

choices. The input received was used to help develop the recommended bus

network and downtown operations plans;

Preparation of a proposed Bus Network plan based on feedback received from

Stakeholders regarding the three network design alternatives, and a Downtown

Operations plan together with supporting policy, service, infrastructure, financial

and implementation sub-plans;

A technology review to identify an appropriate technology investment strategy for

COTA to enhance customer service, customer information and operations

monitoring and management activities, and the preparation of a Technology Plan,

submitted separately; and



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 3

Preparation of an Implementation Plan, including recommended key action

steps.

ES. 1.3 Resource Base

For the purposes of the Service Plan component of the TSR, COTA’s budget projections for

2017, particularly service hours (1.163 million) and ridership, have been the basis for the

preparation of the proposed bus network and associated service levels (days, hours, span of

service, frequency of service). The funding level, COTA’s 0.25% permanent sales tax and

0.25%, was assumed to continue.

ES. 1.4 Establishing Goals

Before the development of a recommended bus network, a critical input on goals was required

from the Board. While it is common for agencies to adopt goals of various kinds, what was

needed in this process was the answer to a specific question that arises from the nature of the

transit product:

What percentage of COTA’s service resources should be devoted to a goal of

maximum ridership?

Resources not devoted to maximizing ridership would mostly be devoted to a popular but

competing goal called “coverage”. Coverage refers to the desire to provide some service to

people despite predictably low ridership, usually to meet expectations of equity or a desire to

meet the needs of disadvantaged people living in hard-to-serve places. Exhibit ES.2 shows the

potential conflict between maximizing ridership and providing coverage. COTA’s existing system

is estimated to divide its resources approximately 70%/30% between ridership and coverage

goals.

Exhibit ES.2: Conflicting Ridership and Coverage Goals

RIDERSHIP GOALS COVERAGE GOAL

Mantra “Maximum ridership.” “Service for everyone.”

Performance Measure Productivity: Boardings or

passenger-miles per unit of

service cost.

Coverage: % of population and

jobs that can walk to some

service.

Typical Objectives and Desires

Served by the Goal

Minimum subsidy (“Run transit

like a business”).

Vehicle trip reduction and

emissions benefits.

Protecting economic growth from

being capped by traffic

congestion.

Support for denser and more

walkable urban styles of

development.

“Meeting needs.” Basic access

for disadvantaged people, even in

hard-to-serve locations.

“We pay taxes too.” Expectations

of “equitable” distribution of

service over the area, regardless

of ridership.

Support for suburban-style car-

oriented development.

Typical Service Meeting the

Goal

Fewer but more attractive and

useful transit lines, focused on

areas with high ridership

potential.

Many transit lines spread all over

the region, but less frequent and

attractive than ridership service.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 4

COTA staff recommended to the Board that the existing resource split of 70% ridership, 30%

coverage be preserved, improving the network by continuing expansion efforts and refining the

current system. The COTA board agreed for the purposes of developing a new, proposed

network.

ES 2 Public Involvement Program and Results

Public involvement and education are essential to a comprehensive and robust planning study

such as the TSR. The consultant team, in conjunction with COTA staff, developed a public

involvement program which included the following activities:

Establishing a transit advisory committee (TAC) with representation of a cross‐section of COTA and community stakeholders while maintaining a workable number

of participants.

Small focus group meetings held at the

beginning and at the end of the study to

receive input from difficult to reach market

segments.

A web based survey available to the public

from January to April 2014 to introduce and

seek input on the TSR. Over 1,250 people

responded with 75% of those having used

COTA in the past year.

Five public meetings held across the COTA

service area at the mid-point of the study (March) with an additional five public

meetings held across the region at the end of the study (May/June) to present the

initial proposed plan and to receive comments.

A steering committee consisting of COTA staff. Regular meetings were held with

this committee as well as updates on study progress provided through conference

call and email communications during the course of the study. Members of the

committee were invited to participate in the Core Planning activities, to assist in

identifying stakeholders for the TAC, and to help identify the market segments for

Focus Group participation.

Input and feedback from COTA employees such as bus operators and

supervisors, and customer service representatives through one-on-one discussions

and on-road visits.

Presentations to and involvement by the COTA Board of Trustees in order to

both inform them as well as seek their direction. The Board was consulted at three

points in the study.

ES 3 Bus Network Plan

ES. 3.1 Existing System Assessment

The first element in the development of the TSR was an assessment of the existing network.

This was performed in two ways, a peer review and a line by line assessment.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 5

ES. 3.1.1 Peer Review

The assessment included a survey of six peer transit systems serving the Austin, Charlotte,

Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Orlando metro areas. The peers were selected

primarily on the basis of comparable service area populations ranging between 1.2 to 1.5 million

with the COTA service area near the midpoint at 1.37 million residents.

The results of the peer review suggest that COTA ranks in the second tier among transit

systems in terms of level of service offered to residents within COTA’s service area, and in

overall performance. Based on FY 2012 reported to the National Transit Database (NTD), COTA

ranked fifth among seven systems in four key performance criteria: Total annual ridership;

passengers per revenue vehicle hour; annual vehicle hours per capita; and peak vehicles per

capita. COTA ranked fourth in service productivity (passengers per service hour) and sixth in

fleet size.

ES. 3.1.2 System Performance Overview

The existing line system is designed primarily as a radial network focused on Downtown

Columbus and the OSU campus, although COTA has added more crosstown lines in recent

years. The network is comprised of 39 local lines, including 28 radials and 11 crosstowns; and

36 express lines. A line by line review indicated, as may be expected, that there was a variety of

performance effectiveness:

Some of the main radial routes serving Columbus Downtown were the best

performers. On the other hand there are several poor performers and considerable

overlap between routes;

Crosstown routes which do not serve Downtown show moderate to lower ridership

productivity; and

Express lines which operate in the peaks only had the lowest productivity.

As shown on Exhibit ES.3, COTA service is most successful within an “L-shaped” area

extending generally from Morse Road south through inner Columbus and east toward Hamilton

Road. High ridership and service productivity in this area stem from the synergistic conditions

created by full-service transit coverage and relatively high service frequencies, as well as higher

population density and established pedestrian infrastructure.

COTA service is less effective in the outlying communities of the metro area, including the

northern suburbs where many of the transit-supportive conditions prevalent in the urban core

either do not exist or are incomplete. Similarly, COTA service is less effective in areas south and

west of Columbus.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 6

Exhibit ES.3: High Performing Areas

ES. 3.2 Features and Benefits of the Bus Network Plan

The existing and proposed networks are shown on Exhibit ES.4 and Exhibit ES.5. The key

features and benefits of the proposed network are:

Expanded Frequent Network. Under the plan, the Frequent Network, consisting of

lines that run every 15 minutes or better all day, is significantly expanded. The total

number of high-frequency lines increase from 6 to 12, in the new network. The

number of residents who have access to 15-minute service increases by 112% or

126,100 residents while the number of jobs with service increases by 68% or

100,600 jobs. The objective of Frequent Network lines is to increase ridership,

which is expected to grow 10% two years after implementation. The existing and

proposed Frequent Networks are shown on Exhibit ES.6 and Exhibit ES.7.

Focus on non-Downtown Destinations. Although downtown will continue to be a

major destination easily reached from all parts of the network, the grid pattern of the

new network makes it easy to make many trips without going downtown.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 7

Standard frequencies. Using clock headways every 15 (or better), 30 or 60

minutes make schedules easier to understand and more predictable.

Consistent Service Pattern Every Day. Saturday and Sunday service is

expanded and standardized to reflect the every-day nature of a growing share of

transit demand. Weekend service frequencies match that of midday weekday

frequencies. Weekend alignments match those of weekday.

Simplified alignments. Overlapping lines or lines within walking distance (1/4 mile)

of other lines is reallocated, creating more frequent lines in many cases. Many lines

end in fewer locations, making service easier to understand.

Improved Access to Suburban Jobs. Key lines are extended into job-rich suburbs

for better access to suburban jobsites, with most lines operating seven days a

week.

Reduced Downtown Bus Volumes. Because of new opportunities to travel

without going downtown and the network being streamlined, the number of buses

running on High Street during peak times declines from 56 to 36 per hour at Broad

Street. Service will be more evenly distributed among other streets, reducing bus

congestion at High Street stops. Realignment of service will use COTA’s downtown

terminals will be more heavily, throughout the day.

New Suburban Coverage. While the focus of the plan is on high ridership service,

coverage of growing suburban areas is added with new all-day service, seven days

a week, to Polaris and new direct lines connecting Reynoldsburg-Gahanna-Easton

(line 25) and Hilliard-Dublin-Westside Columbus (line 28), as well as within Dublin.

Streamlined Express Service. Poorly performing express services are

discontinued or streamlined to create fewer services but with more trips per line.

The number of express lines is reduced from 26 to 11 commute and 9 to 6 reverse

commute. Under-used park-and-ride lots are de-emphasized but most areas with

express service still have a nearby park-and-ride lot with linking Express service.

Shown in blue on Exhibit ES.4 there are many lines operating at 30 minute midday frequency,

with certain lines increasing to 15 minute service during the peak. 30-minute lines can serve

either the ridership or coverage goal, depending upon the manner in which they are designed.

Infrequent coverage lines, shown on Exhibit ES.4 in green, are designed to provide basic access

to the transit system to the largest possible geographic area. The goal here is not ridership, but

maximizing the number of people who have some transit service, regardless of how much it is

likely to be used. The number and extent of Coverage lines has been reduced in the proposed

network.

The purpose of coverage lines is to efficiently and equitably deploy system resources in order to

provide access to the transit system to people in places where ridership potential is low.

Coverage lines cannot be expected to be highly productive; the measure of their success is the

degree to which they provide basic access to the transit system in areas incapable of generating

high ridership.

SERVICE TYPE MAP COLOR ALL-DAY FREQUENCY PURPOSE

Frequent Network Red < = 15 min Ridership

30-minute Service Blue 30 min Mixed

60-minute Service Green 60 min Coverage

Express Service Orange Peak trips only Coverage



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 8

Exhibit ES.4: Existing System Network Map



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 9

Exhibit ES.5: Proposed Network Plan – Peak Frequency



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 10

Exhibit ES.6: Existing Frequent Network



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 11

Exhibit ES.7: Proposed Frequent Network



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 12

ES. 3.3 Downtown Bus Operations

While the proposed network decentralizes the system somewhat, Downtown Columbus remains

the point where many frequent radial lines converge, facilitating transfers for trips across the city.

There is an issue about the volume of buses operating on High Street downtown and their

tendency to block one another, causing significant delays and local impacts. There are also

issues with crowding at stops. In brief, the findings of this plan are as follows:

The Proposed Network will reduce the number of routes and the number of

buses per hour on High Street, especially during the peak period, as detailed

below.

The improvement will be more pronounced than the mere decline in bus numbers

would suggest. Because the buses will be on fewer lines they will tend to arrive

more evenly spaced, creating less bus congestion at stops. Because most lines

serving downtown will be more frequent, passengers will tend to not wait as long,

reducing crowding at stops.

Exhibit ES.8 and Exhibit ES.10 show the rationale for rerouting lines in the downtown.

Exhibit ES.11 shows the resulting numbers of buses by street in the peak and compares

them with the existing flows. On High Street the number of buses per hour per direction in

the peak has been reduced from 56 to 36.

ES. 3.4 Proposed Network Cost Drivers

Cost drivers are attributes of the network contributing to its overall cost. Cost estimates for the

proposed bus network were calculated in terms of total vehicle-hours, vehicle-miles and peak

fleet. The primary focus was on vehicle-hours which are the best single predictor of final cost.

Vehicle-hours include time spent in revenue service, deadhead and layover/recovery time.

Exhibit ES.8 summarizes the key cost drivers.

Exhibit ES.8: Proposed Network Cost Drivers

COST DRIVERS PROPOSED NETWORK 2017 COTA PLAN

Annual Vehicle-Hours

Annual Vehicle Miles

Peak Fleet Requirement

Midday Fleet Requirement

1,220,949

13,997,777

314 (including 20% spares)

168

1,163,000

Not Determined


Not Determined

This network was designed to a target budget for the study year 2017 of 1,163,000 annual

vehicle-hours. This number was provided by COTA staff as a reasonable estimate based on an

observed average annual rate of increase. The tools used to develop this cost estimate have a

margin of error of approximately 5 to 10%; the final cost estimate presented here is 5.0% greater

than the budget used in scenario design.

The number of buses required for the proposed network is estimated at 314, reduced from 390

in the 2017 plan.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 13

Exhibit ES.9: Downtown Bus Network Routing – Midday



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 14

Exhibit ES.10: Downtown Routing for Express Lines – Proposed Network Plan



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 15

Exhibit ES.11: Peak Bus Volume Comparison – Existing and Proposed Networks



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 16

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that paratransit services, Mainstream

services as operated by COTA, have to be provided in the same service area and hours of

service as fixed route services. The analysis indicated that the service area would be decreased

but that hours of service would be increased due to changes in the fixed route network. Taking

all factors into consideration, the net impact could be as high as 15% to 20% in service hours for

Mainstream vehicles over 2017 levels but is likely to be lower as the increase in span of service

occurs at times of low ADA demand. No change is projected in the Mainstream vehicle fleet

requirement but the number of drivers may have to increase by 19 to 25.

ES 4 Proposed Standards and Metrics

COTA currently uses criteria for designing fixed route services which include statements

concerning directness, comprehensibility, hours of service and other attributes. The report

recommends modifying standards based on service purpose (coverage or ridership) and

frequency (<15 min., 30 min., 60 min. or express).

ES 5 Infrastructure Plan

COTA’s infrastructure assets comprise a wide range of physical elements in addition to the fixed

route and paratransit bus fleets to include the operations and vehicle maintenance centers

(garages), park and ride lots, bus stops and shelters, transfer terminals as well as transit priority

measures and road infrastructure requirements. The implications of the proposed plan for

infrastructure are:

Bus Fleet. The proposed bus network is

estimated to require a total fleet of 314 buses,

a reduction of 76 from the current 2017

projected fleet size of 390, a potential capital

savings of approximately $26.8 million.

Transit Centers and Garages. In view of the

projected fleet reduction of 76 units in the fixed

route network and no expansion in the ADA

fleet beyond the fleet already projected for

2017, no expansion or changes to COTA’s

three operations and maintenance facilities is required beyond any current plans for

modifications or upgrades.

Park and Ride Lots. With the reduced express bus network some of the park and

ride lots may become redundant.

Stops and Shelters. COTA has approximately 3,607 bus stops and 375 shelters

throughout its service area. Bus stop spacing is approximately one stop every 600

feet. It is recommended that COTA review and consider increasing the number of

bus shelters and establish a higher shelter coverage percentage. The proposed bus

network will result in a requirement to remove stops, install new ones, re-sign

existing stops and relocate existing shelters. Between 95% and 100% of all bus

stops will need to be re-signed in order to reflect the changes in line numberings or

lines serving each stop.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 17

ES 6 Technology Plan

COTA has a program of using Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and other technologies to

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations. The study team developed a

technology plan to carry on this program. This plan defines a future integrated systems vision for

COTA, and structures its development as a sequence of specific projects with timelines and

costs. For full details, refer to the separate Task 9: Technology Plan document. The technology

plan recommended includes five projects:

Project A – CAD/AVL Enhancements (Forms and Reporting, Service Alerts, Real-

Time Information to Mobility Supervisors, IVR Integration Support)

Project B – Communications (E-alerts, IVR upgrade, Interactive Transit Data for

Customers, Online Operator Portal)

Project C – E-ticketing

Project D – Reporting (Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence)

Project E – Security (Onboard Camera Upgrade, Facility Camera Upgrade)

These projects are described in Chapter 6 of the main report and in a separate document, the

Technology Plan. The total capital cost for these projects are estimated to be $9.2 million with

annual operating costs of $400,000 to $600,000.

ES 7 Financial Plan

The financial plan, based on the implementation of the proposed network, is provided in Chapter

7 of the full report and is based on a number of assumptions related to costs, ridership and

revenues. The ridership projections have the following assumptions:

Year 1 is assumed to experience no net growth or loss of ridership although there

may be evidence of ridership growth (over the 2017 base estimate) emerging from

Year 1 over the last 3 months. It is assumed that the projected 2017 ridership will

be the same as Year 1 ridership;

Net growth in Year 2 in the order of 5% over Year 1; and,

Net growth of 10% in Year 3 over Year 1 is assumed.

Passenger revenue is based on no increase in fare levels although the current COTA financial

plan has a fare increase tentatively scheduled for 2018. Other revenue is based on the current

COTA financial plan.

No increases in service levels for the fixed route service are provided after 2017. Increases in

COTA’s ADA service costs are included in Year 1. All remaining operating costs in COTA’s

financial plan are assumed to apply to the fixed route operation. Operating costs for Years 2 to 5

include an annual inflation rate of 2.8% based on analysis of the cost changes in COTA’s budget

projections for 2017 to 2019.

COTA’s net operating surplus, or cost net of Total Uses and Total Sources, is estimated as

follows for Years 1 to 5:

Year 1 - $22,226,491

Year 2 - $23,032,159

Year 3 - $23,860,034

Year 4 - $23,345,390



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 18

Year 5 - $22,793,047

The primary reason for the decline in Years 4 and 5 compared to COTA projections for 2018 and

2019 is the absence of a fare increase (intended for 2018). With the fare increase factored in,

the net revenue would increase accordingly. As the fare increase is discretionary, it has been

omitted from this forecast.

The only major change to COTA’s capital budget relates to the reduced need for bus purchases,

totaling 76 units less than COTA’s current projected 2017 bus fleet. The estimated bus

expenditure reduction (savings) is $26,881,000 subject to the specific cost items associated with

the planned vehicle purchases. COTA will need to review its bus purchase plans once an

implementation date has been selected. All other identified capital cost items are assumed to

remain valid subject to consideration of the Information Technology Plan recommendations.

The number of drivers required does not change from COTA’s current 2017 estimates of an

additional 84. The reduced fleet size over 2017 is estimated to result in a reduction of 15 in

maintenance staff is indicated.

Implementation costs for the network changes are estimated to be moderate, in the order of

$700,000 for staffing, bus stop and shelter changes and preparation of an implementation

strategy. In addition an allowance should be made for marketing, communication and

information programs and materials.

ES 8 Recommendations

The following actions are recommended for adoption by the COTA Board of Trustees and COTA

staff to implement the proposed new bus network plan:

Maintain the 70% Ridership/30% Coverage service investment principle as the

basis for future line and service planning;

Further refine the revised line and service metrics and evaluation principles and

process outlined within this report (COTA staff), and then adopt those metrics and

principles (COTA Board);

Approve the proposed Bus Network Plan in principle subject to further stakeholder

consultation and finalization of the detailed line and service schedules (COTA

Board);

Select an implementation date for the new bus network (COTA staff;

Develop a comprehensive implementation plan and communications strategy for

stakeholder consultation, customer information activities, and promotion strategy for

the service and bus network changes;

Hire a “network transformation manager” for an 18-month period commencing 12

months prior to the selected implementation date and dedicated to managing the

network change and implementation plan;

Reduce planned bus purchases by 76 units between 2014 and 2017, subject to

final determination of vehicle requirements for the proposed network; and

Confirm bus operator requirements and other staffing levels for the proposed

service and bus network changes.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 19

ES 9 Implementation Plan

Three implementation strategies were presented to COTA as options: “All at Once”, “Phased”, or

a “Hybrid”. The experience in other larger transit agencies surrounding the implementation of

service/network changes has largely been governed by these factors:

The magnitude of the change(s); and

The complexity and inter-relationships between the various changes.

In general, the All at Once approach is preferred. Preparing for this approach could require a

year of lead time. However, COTA is in a unique position and has plans to expand bus service

through 2017. Many other agencies that have implemented similar changes have done so in a

manner that did not immediately involve an increase in the amount of resources required with

the network change. Instead, changes were made with the same or similar level of staffing and

resources.

The All at Once approach would require COTA to hire and train an estimated 80 to 90 additional

drivers, depending on the final bus network, which would be challenging in the current labor

market and present difficulty training the volume of drivers necessary.

In consideration of this limitation, the only reasonable approach for COTA to implement the

proposed new bus network is to follow a phased approach over a few years with an emphasis on

minimizing any potentially redundant new service.

Due to COTA’s specific circumstances, a hybrid approach is recommended with an

implementation date between 2015 to 2017. To reach “Day 1 of Implementation”, the

implementation process would be divided into two phases. Phase I would be focused on

expansion of services through the regular service change process and Phase II would focus on

implementing Day 1 of the new network before September 2017.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 20

Final Report

1 Introduction

The City of Columbus, the capital of the State of Ohio, is

home to approximately 823,000 residents1 while the

Columbus Census Metropolitan Area has a population of

nearly 2.0 million. In addition to being the government seat,

Columbus is also home to the highly regarded Ohio State

University (OSU) and its related medical centers with a

student population of almost 57,000 and a large faculty.

Public transit service within Columbus is provided by the

Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) formed in 1974.

COTA’s service area includes not only the City of Columbus

but also other municipalities such as Dublin, Reynoldsburg,

Gahanna, Westerville, Worthington, Hilliard, Grove City and

New Albany, within a defined service area of primarily

Franklin County as well as contiguous parts of Delaware,

Licking, Fairfield and Union Counties. This larger “regional”

area has a population of approximately 1.4 million. The area

is projected to continue to experience a strong growth rate

over the next 20 to 30 years.

COTA’s 2014 operating budget is approximately $110 million

while its capital budget expenditure is approximately $54

million. The net operations and capital investment requirements (after deduction of fare and

miscellaneous revenues of $22.7 million) are mainly funded by a 0.5% sales tax levy of which

one-half (0.25%) is permanent and the remainder (0.25%) is renewable every 10 years.

Over the past 40 years, COTA’s bus network has evolved incrementally, building upon the

original network in place prior to the formation of COTA. The original bus network was heavily

focused on Downtown; although COTA has expanded bus service to various parts of the region

as growth has occurred further from Downtown, it has been done so in a piecemeal manner.

COTA conducts periodic service reviews, prepares Short and Long-Range Transit Plans every

two and four years, and has completed Comprehensive Operational Analyses (COAs) that

recommended operational refinements in the past, the most recent being 2001.

However there has not been a comprehensive, fundamental review of to how COTA’s bus

network better meet the needs of the community, with the intent of ensuring that COTA’s

resources (physical and financial) are being deployed and invested as effectively and efficiently

as possible given the financial constraints of funding resources. In order to ensure that these

resources are being effectively utilized, COTA decided to undertake a strategic Transit System

Review (TSR) of its bus network in October 2013.

1 2013 estimate



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 21

1.1 Purpose of the TSR

The purpose of the TSR is to:

Improve the effectiveness and provide a sound basis for continued expansion of

COTA’s bus network to meet the growing and changing needs of the central Ohio

region; and

Help establish COTA’s priorities for allocating available resources to best serve the

region.

The key deliverables from the TSR are:

A Bus Network Plan (“Service Plan”) identifying the proposed re-structuring of

COTA’s network and associated service levels;

A Downtown Operations Plan;

A Technology Investment Plan; and,

An Implementation Plan.

The TSRs terms of reference and recommendations are constrained by COTA’s projected 2017

funding resources and transit service levels of approximately 1.163 million hours of operation.

COTA’s 2014 hours of operation total approximately 985,000.

1.2 TSR Methodology

The work plan and activities undertaken as part of the TSR included the following key steps:

A comprehensive, critical review of COTA’s existing bus network and services and

the preparation of an Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum (#1) as a

baseline and input to the re-evaluation and re-design of COTA’s bus network;

A review and assessment of COTA’s downtown bus operations, specifically the

volume of buses operating on downtown streets, bus operating practices and

alternative approaches to improve operations and lessen the impact of bus

operations and transit users on High Street and the downtown core, and the

preparation of a Downtown Operations Assessment Technical Memorandum (#2);

Two Core Planning workshops with COTA staff and one workshop with the COTA

Board of Trustees to assess the basis for more effectively deploying the region’s

public transit resources, consider the investment choices and to develop changes to

the bus network to meet new investment objectives;

Development of three network alternatives titled “Ridership”, “Coverage” and

“Midpoint” designed to illustrate the range of network design and service investment

options open to COTA for delivering public transit to the Region and to serve as the

basis for review and comment by COTA’s stakeholders.

An extensive public involvement plan (PIP) to engage the public and solicit input

from a broad cross-section of COTA’s stakeholders on the resource investment

choices developed through the Core Planning process and on the proposed bus

network and downtown operations plans. The input received was considered in the

recommended bus network and downtown operations plans;

Preparation of a new Bus Network plan based on feedback received from

Stakeholders regarding the three network design alternatives, and a Downtown

Operations plan together with supporting policy, service, infrastructure, financial

and implementation sub-plans;



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 22

A technology review to identify an appropriate technology investment strategy for

COTA to enhance customer service, customer information and operations

monitoring and management activities, and the preparation of a Technical

Memorandum (#3); and,

Extensive consultation and collaboration with COTA staff at all levels.

This report presents the results of the work undertaken, the recommended resource investment

strategy for COTA, the recommended Bus Network plan and related policy, service,

infrastructure, financial and implementation sub-plans, the Downtown Operations plan and a

summary of the Technology Plan. This latter plan is provided in a separate report.

Exhibit 1.1: Transit Service Review Timeline

1.3 Context for the TSR

The Columbus area has several features that signal the potential for an increasing reliance on

and relevance for public transit. The co-location of a state capital and a major university tends to

be a good indicator for higher transit use. Government centers can form excellent transit markets

by concentrating many workers in a few locations which is easier to effectively and efficiently

serve by transit, while large universities with thousands of students are among the most powerful

engines of all-day ridership anywhere. The university and its surrounding economy also

guarantee a large population of “Millennials,” a generation that is notably less interested in cars

than their parents were at the same age. This generation, concentrating in walkable inner parts

of the city, are an important and growing market open to transit and yet with higher expectations

for usefulness and competitiveness than the typical rider.

1.3.1 Choice and Transit Dependent Riders

At the same time, traditional categories of “choice” and “transit dependent” riders are breaking

down, which is a good thing. Transit agencies have always known that if service is improved,

ridership increases; there is a direct correlation. As well, the traditional notion that populations

should be divided into “choice” and “transit dependent” is no longer relevant. These terms are

too easily misunderstood as implying that the transit-dependent rider is trapped and therefore

insensitive to service quality, and that the only future lies in chasing so-called “choice” riders,

who have access to cars and little reason not to use them. In fact, almost everybody is in the



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 23

middle, on a spectrum. People are in many different situations and have different preferences

that affect their choices about travel. Increasingly transit is becoming a logical choice for people

who want to work or engage in other activities while travelling – activities that are not safe to do

while driving a car. This means that choice and dependence are no longer opposites. Transit

agencies can grow their relevance incrementally, along this spectrum, not only through sudden

transformations that compete for an elite market.

These trends point to a path of growing relevance for transit in the region where incremental,

strategic improvements in service will gradually change public perceptions about the role of

transit in the life of Columbus. That, in turn, can change perceptions about critical issues such as

the way that transit is accommodated in the downtown core.

1.3.2 Network Productivity and Grid Design

Another important trend is the decentralization of transit networks to serve decentralizing

regions. These networks reduce the need to go downtown to complete non-downtown trips.

COTA’s existing network is already revealing that demand: three of the most productive lines

(89, 92, and 95) do not go downtown, and contribute to a grid pattern, the ideal pattern for

serving everywhere-to-everywhere trips.

True grid networks arise when multiple lines run at high frequency in a rough grid pattern so that

passengers can make easy “L-shaped” trips with one transfer to get from anywhere to

anywhere. Unlike any other kind of network design, grid networks do not focus on one preferred

focal point or location. Even smaller cities have had success with them.

There is also the question of low-demand areas where the productivity of most transit services

will be low. Here, the approach is to identify clearly the obstacles to productivity so that

alternative approaches can be considered in situations where effective operation with

conventional services is physically impossible.

1.3.3 Downtown Operations

Downtown transit operations are a core issue. Downtown Columbus features a high volume of

north-south bus services created by the confluence of many lines in a mainly radial network.

This concentration of service can be seen as an obstacle rather than a resource, but there are

ways of presenting downtown services that help people appreciate them as forming a high-

frequency intra-downtown shuttle. Because short, intra-downtown trips are extremely sensitive to

frequency (if people cannot see the vehicle coming, they will often start walking or hail a cab),

bands of overlapping bus services can often provide the lowest trip times of any option for intra-

downtown travel so long as they are provided in a way that advertises this utility.

That vision, the foundation of the downtown transit structure in cities as diverse as Portland and

Madison, is one key alternative that must be explored in the critical assessment of downtown

services, but there are others. There may indeed be too many buses downtown especially in

peak periods and it may be possible to organize these so that bus congestion is reduced.

A more decentralized grid structure could easily reduce the volume of buses routed through

downtown, but it would increase the number of people on them, strengthening the case for their

presence and accommodation. Still, grids must be balanced against the appropriately central

role of downtown + OSU as the biggest engine of the market. The north-south linearity of the

downtown + OSU area also suggests the possibility that existing frequent bus volumes can be

branded more effectively to be useful as a very frequent shuttle in the core area, as Portland and

Minneapolis have both achieved along similarly attractive streets.

All this will happen in the context of a diverse set of demands on downtown streets. While this

assessment will focus on transit in the downtown, it is important to consider the planning



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 24

environment of competing downtown uses, including cars, bikes, parking, pedestrians, public

space, and a broader set of issues commonly called “place-making”.

1.3.4 Improving the Bus Network

COTA’s bus network has been adjusted incrementally over many years, usually in response to

specific localized issues; the most recent review, a comprehensive operational analysis, was

conducted in 2001 but focused on refining operations of the network at the time rather than a

region wide, top-down approach. Transit networks routinely become obsolete over time, not just

because cities grow and change but also because values and goals for transit are changing.

Important trends affecting this plan include the suburbanization of employment, the

redevelopment of inner city areas, and the fact that the growth in private vehicle trips nationwide,

which was continuous from the 1950s until about 2004, has halted – partly as a result of the

growth of places like Short North where cars are simply less necessary for many purposes.

To make the most of these emerging opportunities, COTA’s network needs to be revised to

reflect the Columbus area as it is, and to anticipate the next phases of its development. As this

report reveals, it is possible to dramatically increase the usefulness of transit, and thus its

ridership potential, by revising parts of the network that are highly inefficient or duplicative.

The plan is based on (a) careful analysis of the existing system, (b) experience and insights from

transit planning in similar cities, and most importantly, (c) close consultation with COTA staff,

staff of the cities and county, and the larger community.

These philosophies and principles have been applied to the TSR work plan and resulting

recommended bus network and downtown operations plans as outlined in this report.

1.4 Existing COTA Services

COTA’s current transit services have the following key features:

All-bus operation.

Fixed route with parallel paratransit ADA services branded as “Mainstream”.

Service area of 562 square miles.

Population served – approximately 1,368,000.

A fixed route network of 69 lines: 11 local/radial, 21 cross-town and 36 express

lines as well as a recently introduced downtown circulator line (CBUS).

1,883 route miles.

Services provided up to 18 hours per day

Monday to Saturday with lower levels of

service on Sundays and select holidays.

2013 ridership (boardings) of 18.3 million.

2013 vehicle-hours: Fixed route -

997,000, Mainstream – 168,190.

Fares of $2.00 per trip for local lines, and

$2.75 for express with reduced rates for

seniors and children; free transfers. 31-

day, 7-day and daily passes available.

Three operating divisions and garages, 28 park and ride facilities, 375 bus shelters

and 3,607 bus stops, two downtown terminals, three transit centers.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 25

For the purposes of the Service Plan component of the TSR, COTA’s 2017 budget projections,

particularly service hours (1.163 million) and ridership, have been the basis for the preparation of

the proposed bus network and associated service levels (days, hours, span of service,

frequency of service). The key 2017 statistics in this regard are listed in Exhibit 1.2.

The Service Plan has been developed within the context of the resource constraints implied by

the service hours and budget specified for 2017. This, in turn, essentially sets out the operating

and capital budgets presented in the financial part of this report.

Exhibit 1.2: Background COTA Transit System Review Statistics

2014 2017

Ridership (fixed route) 18.3 M (2013) 21.0 M

Service Hours:

Fixed route

Mainstream

985,000 (2014)

168,190 (2013)

1,163,000

189,299

Bus Fleet:

Fixed route

Mainstream

325 (262 in peak)

62

390 (314 in peak)

70

Employees (total) 950* No estimate

Bus Operators:

Fixed route

Mainstream

561

113

645

127*

Maintenance staff (total) 122 No estimate

Mechanics 44 No estimate

Night service staff 21 No estimate

Operating Budget (excl

Mainstream)

$101.3 M $126.5 M

Operating budget –

Mainstream

$6.7 M $7.1 M

Operating Budget – Total $108.0 M $133.6 M

Capital Budget $54.3 M $67.7 M

*Estimates provided by COTA

IBI GROUP FINAL REPORT TRANSIT SYSTEM REVIEW - SERVICE AND BUS NETWORK PLAN Prepared for COTA

2 Service Plan Development Process This section summarizes the background principles and process involved in preparing the Service Plan outlined in this report. The Service Plan provides the operational, infrastructure, financial details, key outcomes and implementation plan for the proposed Bus Network and Downtown Operations Plans developed during the course of the TSR.

The Bus Network and Downtown Operations Plans were developed in three steps:

• First, in a Core Planning workshop, COTA staff and the consultant team developed three bus network “Concept Alternatives” sketches representing different visions of what transit could mean for Columbus. The three alternatives presented different bus networks using the same budget and service hours, all based on COTA’s 2017 projections, oriented towards either a greater focus on building ridership, extending coverage, or maintaining the existing balance (Midpoint) between these two competing goals. These alternatives are explained in detail in section 2.2 below.

• The three bus network and service investment alternatives were presented to COTAs stakeholders in a series of meetings across the region to receive input on the preferred investment direction and service priorities.

• Following receipt of public comment on the three bus network alternatives and investment alternatives, they were presented to the COTA Board of Trustees. The Board was asked for direction on which of the three alternatives to use as a basis for further development of the bus network and service plan, and the resource split between the competing objectives.

• The selected alternatives were subsequently refined by COTA staff and the consultant team into a draft Preferred Network Alternative. This network was then presented to the public in a second round of meetings and presentations and, following extensive feedback from the public and consideration of specific operational issues, was further revised into the draft Proposed Network.

• The Downtown Operations Plan was prepared during the Bus Network plan development process and reflects the changes to COTA’s current downtown operations as a result of the Bus Network Plan as well as other operational considerations.

2.1 Vision, Goals and Objectives The vision of the overall TSR and Service Plan was to provide the most effective service possible within COTA’s available funding and resource envelope as projected for 2017. COTA’s specific objective for the plan was to:

“Improve the effectiveness and continued expansion of COTA’s bus network, downtown operations, and technologies to meet the needs of growing and changing land uses in the central Ohio region”.

At the same time, the goal of the network planning process and Service Plan was to demonstrate that COTA was efficiently using its resources as determined by consideration of competing demands for service and overall system performance, in other words, emphasize ridership and maximize productivity, or emphasize the provision of some level of service throughout the region at the risk of lower productivity and efficiency.

October 28, 2014 26


The objective of the TSR was to provide the foundation for the future growth and development of public transit in the Columbus region and form the basis for COTA staff to plan and deliver transit service into the future.

2.1.1 Ridership-Coverage Tradeoff Before the development of a recommended bus network, a critical input on goals was required from the Board. While it is common for agencies to adopt goals of various kinds, what was needed in this process was the answer to a specific question that arises from the nature of the transit product:

What percentage of COTA’s service resources should be devoted to a goal of maximum ridership?

Resources not devoted to maximizing ridership would mostly be devoted to a popular but completing goal called “coverage”. Coverage refers to the desire to provide some service to people despite predictably low ridership, usually to meet expectations of equity or a desire to meet the needs of disadvantaged people living in hard-to-serve places. COTA’s existing system is estimated to divide its resources approximately 70%/30% between ridership and coverage goals.

2.2 Core Planning and Investment Alternatives The bus network concept alternatives were designed in two intensive workshops with the consultant team and COTA staff, defined as “Core Planning”. The Core Planning process asked participants to design a bus network from the ground up, based on a wealth of available data:

• Existing stop-level ridership;

• Various existing system performance statistics;

• Residential and employment density;

• Public comments and,

• Demographic data.

In the first Core Planning workshop, lasting three days, the group designed the three alternatives outlined above. Following an extensive public involvement process and board direction, a second Core Planning workshop was held to design a Draft Preferred Alternative. In accordance with guidance of the board, this workshop refined the preferred alternative using the same materials as before but made significant revisions to bring the plan closer to implementation-level detail. The draft plan which emerged from this workshop was then presented to the public, revised again, and fashioned into the service plan presented in this report.

In planning a transit network there are two conflicting goals:

1. to maximize coverage of the network throughout the service area, or,

2. to maximize ridership.

A Coverage Goal focuses on getting a little bit of service to everyone, including at low densities where low ridership is the predictable outcome. The goal here is not ridership, but maximizing the number of people who have access to some service,

October 28, 2014 27


regardless of how much they use it. Transit that focuses on achieving a coverage goal also places great importance on providing service to social service institutions or regional activity centers that are located in areas of discontinuous development.

A Ridership Goal tries to make the service effective, in the sense of being useful and therefore ridden, by as many people as possible. By contrast, the coverage goal is trying to deploy service that citizens will subjectively see as fair: a little for everyone regardless of how much they use it. The main characteristics of the two Goals are summarized in Exhibit 2.1.

Exhibit 2.1: Conflicting Goals

RIDERSHIP GOALS COVERAGE GOAL

Mantra “Maximum ridership.” “Service for everyone.”

Performance Measure Productivity: Boardings or passenger-miles per unit of service cost.

Coverage: % of population and jobs that can walk to some service.

Typical Objectives and Desires Served by the Goal

Minimum subsidy (“Run transit like a business”).

Vehicle trip reduction and emissions benefits.

Protecting economic growth from being capped by traffic congestion.

Support for denser and more walkable urban styles of development.

“Meeting needs.” Basic access for disadvantaged people, even in hard-to-serve locations.

“We pay taxes too.” Expectations of “equitable” distribution of service over the area, regardless of ridership.

Support for suburban-style car-oriented development.

Typical Service Meeting the Goal

Fewer but more attractive and useful transit lines, focused on areas with high ridership potential.

Many transit lines spread all over the region, but less frequent and attractive than ridership service.

The proposed network was also developed in response to public requests heard with frequency since the development of the 2006 Long-Range Transit Plan. These requests included:

• Extension of 89 Hamilton Road from Broad Street to Morse Road;

• Local service on SR 161;

• Local service on Rome-Hilliard Road north of Renner Road;

• Service to Polaris Fashion Place;

• Expanded service to Rickenbacker area; and

• Connection from OSU to Easton.

These requests, fulfilled in the proposed network, reinforce the demand the demographics, land uses and physical environment in these areas exhibit.

During the process,-+ COTA board was asked to provide guidance to help COTA staff and the consultant team define a split of transit resources to be dedicated to each of these goals. To articulate the outcomes of this choice, COTA staff and the consultant team developed three

October 28, 2014 28


conceptual network alternatives in the initial Core Planning workshop. The three alternatives were based upon:

• Concentrating on increasing ridership;

• Spreading the transit service to cover as much as possible of the service area; and

• A mixture of these two goals, dubbed the Midpoint alternative.

These three bus network alternatives are described in more detail below.

2.2.1 Ridership Alternative In the Ridership Alternative (see Exhibit 2.2), 90% of COTA’s funding was dedicated to services designed to generate high ridership, while 10% was dedicated towards low-productivity services covering hard-to-serve areas. The Ridership Alternative greatly enriches and expands the number of people and jobs within ¼ mile of the Frequent Network (the web of lines with 15 minute or better service) when compared to the existing system, and is structured as a grid of services between which relatively easy connections can be made, particularly during peak periods when many 30-minute lines jump to 15-minute frequency.

With this focus on ridership-oriented services, the geographical coverage area of the network is reduced, as is the overall number of people and jobs within walking distance of transit service. Only the express lines most likely to generate high ridership are retained, and many existing express services are condensed into more frequent, standardized patterns.

2.2.2 Coverage Alternative The Coverage Alternative (see Exhibit 2.3) splits resources evenly between the two goals, with 50% for ridership and 50% for coverage. The network concept spreads transit service widely across the COTA service area, providing basic access to the transit system to a much greater number of people across a much larger land area than in the Existing System, Ridership or Midpoint alternatives. Among the three Concept Alternatives, the Coverage Alternative is unique in including Dial-a-Ride service, a demand-response method of serving very low-density areas unlikely to support even the most minimal fixed route service. The inclusion of Dial-a-Ride service is consistent with the coverage focus of this alternative, since it is a lower cost method of expanding the number of people who can access the system

Expanding the coverage area comes at a cost; the Frequent Network is unchanged from the existing system, and there is no increase in the number of people or jobs accessible by the most useful tier of transit service. By allocating resources over a large area, COTA has fewer resources to dedicate to any single line. This scenario has many more hourly lines than in Ridership or Midpoint, and is unlikely to attract many new customers, but is the only way to spread a limited budget over a broad area. The Coverage Alternative retains much more of the existing peak express network; where express lines are eliminated, expansions of all-day fixed-line or dial-a-ride service are present.

2.2.3 Midpoint Alternative Following the initial design workshop, each alternative was refined and a third alternative, referred to as the “Midpoint”, was developed by combining elements of the Ridership and Coverage Alternatives. The Midpoint Alternative was designed to reflect current COTA funding priorities, estimated at a 70/30 ridership/coverage split, while incorporating line changes consistent with the design principles explained above.

The primary features of the Midpoint Scenario (see Exhibit 2.4) are an expansion of frequent service (though not to the extent seen in the Ridership Scenario), and an increase in the number of required connections outside of downtown. Compared to the existing system, this scenario

October 28, 2014 29


reallocates some of the services where ridership is very low, or where other services are available within walking distance. It deploys the resulting resources to provide a balance of frequent service and coverage to developed areas that are currently not served.

Sections 3.8 and 3.9 provide more detailed information on the impact of these alternatives on how many people and jobs have access to transit.

2.3 Public Involvement Program and Results Public involvement and education are essential to a comprehensive and robust planning study such as the TSR. The consultant team, in conjunction with COTA staff, developed a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) that outlined internal and external communications activities and outreach efforts ranging from public meetings and targeted stakeholder discussions to the use of a survey and social media for soliciting input from COTA’s varied stakeholders.

In addition, a meeting was held with the director of transportation and traffic management and transportation project manager of the Ohio State University to discuss the university’s Comprehensive Parking and Transportation Plan and integrate with the work of the TSR.

The following summarizes the scope of public/stakeholder involvement conducted for the study and the key results. All information pertaining to the PIP activities including dates, attendances, materials presented and comments received are included in Appendix A.

2.3.1 Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) At the outset of the study, a transit advisory committee (TAC) was set up with careful consideration given to proper representation of a cross‐section of COTA and community stakeholders while maintaining a workable number of participants. Members of the TAC are listed in Appendix A. The purpose of the TAC was to:

• Engage transit, municipal and business leadership in the assessment and recommendations for the COTA transit system review study;

• Ensure a transparent and inclusive process that helps create buy‐in for the study and recommendations; and

• Assist with engaging the constituents the members of the committee represent in the study and service development process.

October 28, 2014 30


Exhibit 2.2: Ridership Scenario

October 28, 2014 31


Exhibit 2.3: Coverage Scenario Map

October 28, 2014 32


Exhibit 2.4: Midpoint Scenario Map

October 28, 2014 33


The TAC met three times, at the beginning, middle and end of the study, to seek their input and ideas as the study moved from a concept to a preferred alternative of the bus network and options for how COTA would invest the available funding to improve transit service. During these meetings key themes were heard:

• Focus on strong core network – ridership – with strategic service to employment centers;

• Bring employers to the table prior to selecting a site for their company to ensure transit service is available or can be provided – not after the fact;

• Connect to large concentrations of employment outside the downtown core, these growing suburban employment centers include areas southeast of the City at Rickenbacker, southwest of the City in Grove City, west of the City near the casino and northeast of the City in New Albany; and

• Consider technology to support the strategic part of the selected network scenario – service information, service delivery.

2.3.2 Focus Groups Small focus group meetings were held at the beginning and at the end of the study to receive input from difficult to reach market segments. Three meetings were held at the beginning of the study to provide an overview of the TSR and seek opinions, comments and priorities for the COTA bus system. At these meetings, attendees were presented with the contrasting ideas of Ridership and Coverage principles for re-designing the bus network system. At the end of the study, two focus group meetings were held to share the final draft bus network and downtown operations plans that would then be presented to the public for their comment.

From these meetings, the following key themes were heard:

• Keep a balance, the network needs to serve workforce, low income, elderly but still focus on ridership;

• Improve security, communications to customers and payment options; and,

• New network is good, the key for success will be outreach, if people do not understand, the plan will fail.

2.3.3 Online Survey In lieu of an initial public meeting, a web based/e‐survey was used from January to April 2014 to introduce and seek input on the TSR. The survey was designed to introduce the study to the general public and seek their opinion about transit in the area. The survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey and a link provided on the COTA website and promoted via social media. Over 1,250 people responded with 75% of those having used COTA in the past year. Of those responses, 48.5% rated the overall quality of COTA service as “good” and 45% felt buses support more livable communities by encouraging development of dense and vibrant neighborhoods.

2.3.4 Public Meetings To meet regional needs and reach the largest audience possible, five public meetings were held across the COTA service area at the mid-point of the study (March) with an additional seven public meetings held across the region at the end of the study (May/June). A summary of these meetings and key results are presented below.

October 28, 2014 34


Public Information Meetings #1, March 18-20, 2014

The first series of public meetings were held after the development of the three alternative scenarios. These scenarios, based on the alternative strategies developed for re-structuring COTA’s bus network, were presented: Ridership, Coverage and a Midpoint between the two extremes. Comments and opinions about each network alternative and priorities for transit in the Columbus area were solicited as well as through the COTA website. The public meetings were held at the COTA Offices, Hilliard City Hall, Reynoldsburg City Hall, the Northwood Building – OSU and at the Worthington Holiday Inn.

Public comments during and after the first round of public meetings were collected through comment sheets, verbal comments during the public meetings, emails, letters, COTA’s website, COTA’s Twitter site and COTA’s Facebook site. Overall, public comments expressed support for a midpoint alternative although there was concern raised over potentially eliminating lines and support for more weekend service.

Public Information Meetings #2, May 28-June 4, 2014

A second series of public meetings were held to present the preferred alternative, the downtown operations plan and the preliminary service plan. Comments and opinions about the draft preferred network and the draft downtown operations plan were solicited at these meetings as well as through the COTA website. The comments received were used as input to finalizing the preferred network design option that was presented to the Board on July 23, 2014. The public meetings were held at the COTA Offices, Hilltop Public Library, Central Community House, Grove City City Hall, and the Northwest Public Library. In addition, two public meetings were held at the COTA Offices on May 28 and June 4 that focused only on the downtown operations plan.

Public comments at the end of the study were collected through comment sheets, verbal comments during the public meetings, emails, letters, COTA’s website, COTA’s Twitter site and COTA’s Facebook site. Overall, public comments expressed support for the proposed bus network as a good compromise for maximizing ridership yet balancing broader service and coverage needs. There was concern expressed over increased walking distance to service in a couple of areas and a reduction in the number of express lines. There was overall support of the proposed downtown operations plan.

2.3.5 Social media The TSR presented the opportunity for focused messaging regarding the value of transit and the transit system to central Ohio. The goal of TSR social media outreach was to increase awareness about the study, and to provide an interactive means of communication with stakeholders. COTA managed the social media coordination of the TSR study through their Twitter, and Facebook accounts.

2.3.6 Internal Project Steering Committee Although not formally part of the public involvement plan, the project was guided by a steering committee consisting of COTA staff who also attended the project kick‐off meeting.

Regular meetings were held with this committee as well as updates on study progress provided through conference call and email communications during the course of the study. Members of the committee were invited to participate in the Core Planning activities, to assist in identifying

October 28, 2014 35


stakeholders for the TAC, and to help identify the market segments for Focus Group participation.

2.3.7 Consultation with COTA Staff In addition to the Project Steering Committee, input and feedback was also sought from COTA employees such as bus operators and supervisors, and customer service representatives through one-on-one discussions and on-road visits.

2.3.8 Board Presentations An important step in the consultation activities were presentations to and involvement by the COTA board in order to both inform them as well as seek their direction. The Board was consulted at three points in the study:

• February 26, 2014 – to provide an update on the project progress and review the network redesign concepts.

• April 30, 2014 – workshop to review, discuss and receive direction on the preferred network concept option. The workshop considered comments from the public, TAC and staff on the concepts.

• July 23, 2014 – presentation to the Board to receive Board approval or support for preferred network redesign option provided by consultant and COTA staff. Board to vote on preferred option.

2.3.9 Results of Consultation The public and internal COTA staff consultation process were fundamental to guiding and informing the development of both the investment strategy to be adopted by the COTA Board as well as the final proposed network design. For example, as noted above, stakeholders expressed a preference for the midpoint alternative and the 70/30 split between ridership and coverage services and that lines such as 18 Bryden and 30 Smoky Row, originally indicated for discontinuation, be retained, which they are in the final network design.

2.4 Decision on Priorities At the April 30, 2014 Board meeting it was decided that the Midpoint alternative should be the basis for developing the new plan although it was recognized that many changes would be required in looking at this plan in more detail.

COTA staff recommended to the Board that the existing resource split of 70% ridership, 30% coverage be preserved. The COTA board agreed and directed staff and the consultant team to refine the Midpoint Alternative into the bus network and service plan presented in Section 3.

The Midpoint Alternative was presented to the stakeholders during the second round of meetings at the end of May/early June 2014. The feedback received was considered and the Midpoint Alternative refined and the proposed bus network plan was presented to the Board at its meeting on July 23, 2014 as the basis for the preparation of the Service Plan and final study report. The Board supported the proposed bus network plan.

October 28, 2014 36


3 Bus Network Plan The proposed Bus Network Plan is the core element of the overall Service Plan and was developed through the Core Planning workshops and public involvement activities described in Section 2. Its preparation was informed by an assessment of the existing bus network and related service levels. This section describes the process involved in assessing the existing bus network and associated services, key conclusions and the process involved in developing the proposed Bus Network Plan.

Based upon the direction received from the Board that the goals of the system were essentially to invest 70% of resources towards maximizing ridership and 30% towards providing coverage and the 2017 resource constraints, the bus network plan was developed. This plan was based upon two sources:

• The Midpoint alternative originally developed for the inspection of the Board and the public; and,

• A critical analysis of the existing line system.

The following sections outline the proposed bus network plan in some detail.

3.1 Summary of Existing System Assessment A comprehensive, critical review of COTA’s existing bus network and services was conducted to establish baseline conditions and to provide a technical basis for the re-evaluation and re-design of the bus network. The results are documented in a separate document in the Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum (#1), and highlighted in the following pages.

3.1.1 Peer Review The assessment included a survey of six peer transit systems serving the Austin, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Orlando metro areas. A peer review is helpful in assessing and placing into context the performance of the transit agency compared to other transit agencies. It assists in identifying potential opportunities or areas for improvement. The peers were selected primarily on the basis of comparable service area populations ranging between 1.2 to 1.5 million with the COTA service area near the midpoint at 1.37 million residents.

The results of the peer review suggest that COTA ranks in the second tier among transit systems in terms of level of service offered to residents within COTA’s service area, and in overall performance. Based on FY 2012 reported to the National Transit Database (NTD), COTA ranked fifth among seven systems in four key performance criteria: Total annual ridership; passengers per revenue vehicle hour; annual vehicle hours per capita; and peak vehicles per capita. COTA ranked fourth in service productivity (passengers per service hour) and sixth in fleet size.

The peer review also indicates that COTA is less modally diversified than its peers. For example, four of six peers have substantial vanpool programs with fleet sizes ranging from 36 to 127 vans. Two systems operate rail service as well as bus service; and four systems offer non-traditional bus services such as flexible lines, community and central business district circulators.

3.1.2 System Performance Overview COTA’s fixed-route service carried approximately 18.5 million customer boardings in FY 2013; slightly more than in FY 2012, but less than in FY 2011. Ridership has trended upward over the past decade with 2.9% average annual growth since FY 2004, although within the last five years

October 28, 2014 37


since FY 2009 the growth rate declined to 1.8% annually. Average daily ridership was approximately 63,000 boardings per weekday, 33,000 boardings per Saturday, and 16,500 boardings per Sunday/holiday during FY 2013.

The existing line system is designed primarily as a radial network focused on Downtown Columbus and the OSU campus, although COTA has added more crosstown lines in recent years. The network is comprised of 39 local lines, including 28 radials and 11 crosstowns; and 36 express lines. COTA service is most successful within an “L-shaped” area extending generally from Morse Road south through inner Columbus and east toward Hamilton Road. As seen in Exhibit 3.1, this area is covered by a well-developed grid network comprised of traditional radial lines (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10) and more recently implemented crosstown lines (81, 83, 89, 92, 95, 96). High ridership and service productivity in this area stem from the synergistic conditions created by full-service transit coverage and relatively high service frequencies, as well as higher population density, established pedestrian infrastructure and historical transit ridership dating back over 100 years on the inner segments of most radial lines.

Exhibit 3.1: High Performing Areas

COTA service is less effective in the outlying communities of the metro area, including the north suburbs where many of the transit-supportive conditions prevalent in the urban core either do

October 28, 2014 38


not exist or are incomplete. Generally this includes Dublin, Hilliard, Worthington, Westerville, Gahanna, New Albany, and to a lesser extent Upper Arlington. Not surprisingly, these areas contain no major radial lines and just six secondary radials, all of which operate significantly below average productivity.

Similarly, COTA service is less effective in areas south and west of Columbus. Other than Columbus Street and Stringtown Road in Grove City, these areas are characterized by low density residential development and large tracts of agricultural and industrial land that typically impede transit productivity. Consequently, the existing line structure is limited in these areas and service frequencies are lower than in the City.

The line-by-line assessment was conducted around six geographic subareas or sectors to better understand the functions performed by individual lines as part of the larger system. Network assessment sector boundaries appear in Exhibit 3.2, and a summary of lines operating within in each sector is provided in Exhibit 3.3. Individual line evaluations, maps and performance profiles are provided in Appendix A of the Technical Memorandum #1. Baseline 2013 operating and performance data are provided in tables in Appendix B in Technical Memorandum #1.

Exhibit 3.2: Sector Boundaries

October 28, 2014 39


Exhibit 3.3: COTA Network Assessment Sector Boundaries

3.1.3 Local Lines COTA locals generate over 96% of total weekday ridership, or about 61,000 daily boardings. Functionally the local lines are intended to address the full spectrum of customer travel needs

Sector Local Routes Express Routes Crosstown Routes

1 – North 1 Cleveland 2 High 4 Indianola 7 Neil 8 Hamilton 12 McKinley/Fields 21 Night Owl

29 Polaris 30 Smoky Row 31 Worthington 32 Crosswoods 33 North Central 34 Karl 35 Tamarack 52 OSU/Airport

81 Hudson/Ohio 83 Oakland/Weber 95 Morse/Henderson 96 5th Avenue

2 - Northeast 9 Leonard/Brentnell 16 East Long

27 Brooksedge 36 Annehurst 37 Westerville 38 Easton 39 New Albany 40 New Albany 41 Gahanna

81 Hudson/Ohio 87 Cassady 92 James/Stelzer 95 Morse/Henderson 96 5th Avenue

3 - Southeast 1 Livingston 2 East Main 6 Mt. Vernon 10 East Broad 11 Oak/Bryden 11 St. Clair

43 East Broad 44 North Reynoldsburg 45 Reynoldsburg 46 Eastland 47 Brice 48 Eastgreen

81 Hudson 87 Cassady 89 Hamilton Road 92 James/Stelzer

4 – South 4 Parsons 7 Whittier 8 Frebis 16 South High

49 Southeast 55 Gender Road

81 Hudson/Ohio 89 Hamilton Road

5 - Southwest 3 West Mound 6 Sullivant 10 West Broad / 222 12 McKinley Fields 13 US 33/Watermark 14 Harmon/Greenlawn 15 Grove City

53 Lincoln Village 54 London/Groveport 64 Grove City 65 Southpark

6 - Northwest 3 Northwest Boulevard 5 West 5th Ave 18 Kenny 19 Arlington/Grandview

56 Tuttle 57 Hilliard 58 Dublin 59 Dublin Metro 60 Arlington 61 Kenny 67 East Hilliard 68 Hilliard/Westbelt

80 OSU/Lennox 82 Grandview/OSU 83 Oakland/Weber 84 Hilliard/Arlington/OSU 95 Morse/Henderson 118 Sawmill

October 28, 2014 40


with extended service span covering weekday peak and base periods, as well as weeknights and weekends where warranted. For purposes of assessment, COTA local lines were divided into four groups:

• Major radials include the six most heavily patronized lines in the system that provide direct access to downtown from city neighborhoods and outlying townships, and operate as interlined pairs (1, 2 & 10) through downtown Columbus. They are distinguished as a group by relatively high service frequencies (i.e., better than 15 minutes during peak periods), strong ridership and service productivity ranging from the system best down to slightly above average. The major radials collectively generated nearly half of all local ridership in FY 2013.

• Radials include 22 lines that similarly provide direct access to downtown, including seven line pairs (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16), seven terminal lines (5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19), and Line 12 running through downtown between COTA’s two principal operating facilities. They are distinguished as a group by moderate to lower service frequencies (i.e., weekdays 15 to 60 minutes), moderate to low ridership, and service productivity ranging from slightly above average to substantially below average. This group of radials collectively generated about one-third of all local ridership in FY 2013.

• Crosstowns include 11 lines that connect city neighborhoods and townships without going through Downtown Columbus directly. They are distinguished by moderate to lower service frequencies and ridership productivity. While crosstown ridership has been increasing in recent years with the addition of new lines and improved service frequencies, this group generated just 11% of total local ridership in FY 2013.

• LINK lines respond to community-based service needs with smaller buses running on relatively short lines. No LINK lines operated during FY 2013. However, a downtown circulator service, CBUS, was introduced in May, 2014.

The line-by-line assessment of the COTA network indicated that Line 2 North High is the top performing radial line by a significant margin; with weekday service productivity over 39 passengers per revenue service hour and average net cost per passenger of $0.67. Other top performing radials include: Line 1 Cleveland; 10 East Broad; 10 West Broad; and 8 Hamilton. Collectively, the 28 COTA radial lines averaged 25 passengers per revenue service hour in weekday service with a net cost of $1.66 per passenger.

At the opposite end of the performance spectrum, nine of 28 radial lines are more than 50% less productive and cost-effective than the category average, indicating that they are failing to respond to prevailing travel patterns and do not adequately contribute to transit network effectiveness. Among the weakest radial lines are two peak-only commuter shuttles (13, 14) with limited schedules and very low ridership; as well as the shuttle between COTA garages (12). Among full-service radials, line 3 Northwest Boulevard is the weakest performer with an average weekday ridership productivity of just 13.5 passengers per revenue service hour, and an average net cost of $4.07 per passenger. Other marginally performing radial lines are: 5 West 5th Avenue; 15 Grove City; 9 Leonard/Brentnell; and 4 Indianola.

Among COTA’s 11 crosstowns line 89 Hamilton Road is the top performer with service productivity of nearly 21 passengers per revenue service hour and average net cost of $2.52 per

October 28, 2014 41


passengers. Other top performing crosstowns include Line 95 Morse/Henderson and 92 James/Stelzer. Collectively the crosstown lines averaged 14 passengers per revenue service hour with a net cost of $3.85 per passenger riding weekday service. Three crosstown lines performed more than 50% below the category average during FY 2013, including: 118 Sawmill; 83 Oakland/Weber; and 80 OSU/Lennox (0.42). Other marginally performing lines include: 96 East 5th Avenue; and 82 Grandview/OSU.

3.1.4 Express Lines The express network generates less than four percent of total weekday ridership, or about 2,300 daily boardings. Express lines characteristically focus on finite travel markets such as downtown commuters, OSU campus students and employees, and employees located in selected suburban office and industrial parks the COTA service area. They are characterized by limited peak-only schedules, moderate to low ridership, and average service productivity that generally is significantly lower than local service. While all express lines are evaluated as a single category, COTA operates three types of express service:

• Peak direction expresses include 25 lines that operate from outlying suburbs into downtown Columbus on weekday mornings and returning in the afternoon.

• Reverse direction expresses include nine lines that operate from downtown to selected suburban office and industrial parks on weekday mornings, and return to downtown in the afternoon.

• OSU campus expresses include two lines providing direct service from Hilliard and seasonal service to Port Columbus International Airport.

Overall the level of service offered by COTA express lines is low with 12 lines operating weekday schedules containing six or more one-way trips (i.e., three trips per peak period) and 23 lines operating schedules offering five or fewer trips. Half of all express lines operate four daily trips; most commonly focused on 7:30 am and 8:00 am work start times, and 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm quit times. Most of the express lines have freeway segments and serve at least one COTA park-ride lot. It is noted that the best performing express lines typically are those that offer higher service levels. While this does not necessarily mean that adding service to lower performing lines will improve productivity, it does suggest a correlation between service level and ridership.

The weakest express is Line 48 Eastgreen with weekday service productivity of just 1.8 passengers per trip, and average net cost of $22.40 per passenger. Other marginally performing express lines include: 56 Tuttle; 40 New Albany Business Park; 68 Hilliard/Westbelt; and 33 North Central. It is noted that four of the five weakest lines are reverse commute services to Reynoldsburg, Dublin, New Albany and the Westbelt industrial area north of I-70. Although ridership is low, it is recognized that there would be negligible financial savings generated by discontinuing COTA reverse commuter lines because most of the time and miles would continue to be incurred as deadhead.

3.1.5 Opportunities for Improvement The system assessment highlighted several opportunities to improve transit system performance through network restructuring and redistribution of service consistent with COTA’s adopted service design guidelines and key performance measures. The local radial network contains duplicative segments that unnecessarily compete for the same riders in several inner city neighborhoods. For example,

• Line 11 Oak/Bryden covers Oak Street and Bryden Road east of Alum Creek Drive mirroring a the streetcar line that once ran on Oak Street when East Broad Street functioned as a “carriageway”. This segment is lightly patronized, due both to being

October 28, 2014 42


hemmed in by strong primary radial lines on Main Street (2) and Broad Street (10), and also because of the slow access to downtown for passengers boarding east on Alum Creek Drive and Refugee Road as far east as Gender Road Town Center.

• Lines 6, 11 and 16 unnecessarily compete for the same ridership base in the near-northeast side neighborhood between East Broad Street and East 5th Avenue. Mt. Vernon and adjacent city neighborhoods have experienced dramatic changes in population density, demographics and street pattern. The service in this area should be consolidated to eliminate duplication and improve productivity.

Other structural concerns include line alignments that are either too long or too short to support operational efficiency and customer travel itineraries, as well as gaps and limitations in outer network connectivity.

COTA recognizes that the historically radial transit network requires diversification and has implemented several crosstown lines in recent years. Crosstown connections are somewhat prevalent on the north side and east side of the service area, but are seriously lacking on the south and west sides of the service area. Missing segments on the east side include North Hamilton Road between East Broad Street and Morse Road; connectivity to Gender Road Town Center from Reynoldsburg and Whitehall; north-south connectivity between East 5th Avenue and East Broad Street through Bexley via Cassady Avenue and Drexel Avenue. On the west side, potential new crosstown corridors include Rome-Hilliard Road, Hague Avenue/Wilson Road. On the north side, restoration of former crosstown service on Dublin-Granville Road has been requested by customers. Limited connectivity to Port Columbus International Airport is significant concern; particularly the lack of direct service to and from downtown and the OSU campus.

COTA has too many express lines offering too little flexibility to customers. Existing schedules focus on a narrow portion of the regional commuter market built around traditionally structured work start-quit times of downtown employees. Many express segments operate on local streets resulting in slower running speeds and minimal ridership. Express service is insufficiently focused on COTA’s 28 park-ride lots, where less than 30% of total parking capacity is used on an average daily basis. Several park-ride lots are poorly situated away from key destinations and access to freeways.

A key insight that emerges from the existing network performance is the strong correlation between all-day frequency and productivity. Productivity is ridership per unit of cost, and since doubling frequency doubles cost, frequency could superficially be expected to have a downward impact on productivity. However, the most productive lines tend to be the most frequent.

This relationship is observed in many comparable networks. While frequency is expensive, the most productive lines tend to be the most frequent. This indicates that while a frequency increase will likely cause a short-term loss of productivity, well-designed frequency expansions – focused on areas where the built environment is highly supportive of transit – can help build a highly successful network in the long run.

October 28, 2014 43



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 44

Exhibit 3.4: COTA Productivity by Line

3.2 Features and Benefits of the Bus Network Plan

This section presents the existing and proposed bus networks and reviews the key elements of

the bus network service plan. The existing and proposed networks are shown on Exhibit 3.5 and

Exhibit 3.6. The key features and benefits of the proposed network are:

Expanded Frequent Network. Service needs to be running frequently, so that

users do not have to build their life around a timetable. As noted previously, the

most frequent services in the current network are also the most productive in

ridership terms. Under the plan, the Frequent Network, consisting of lines that run

every 15 minutes or better all day, is significantly expanded. The total number of

high-frequency lines increase from 6 to 12, in the new network. The number of

residents who have access to 15-minute service increases by 112% or 126,100

residents while the number of jobs with service increases by 68% or 100,600 jobs.

The objective of Frequent Network lines is to increase ridership, which is expected

to grow 10% two years after implementation. The expanded reach of the Frequent

Network is described in depth in Sections 3.8 and 3.9.

Focus on non-Downtown Destinations. Although downtown will continue to be a

major destination easily reached from all parts of the network, the grid pattern of the

new network makes it easy to make many trips without going downtown. The new

network also converges on major destinations such as Easton and OSU as well as

on downtown.

Consistent Service Pattern Every Day. Saturday and Sunday service is

expanded and standardized to reflect the every-day nature of a growing share of

transit demand. Weekend service frequencies match that of midday weekday

frequencies. Weekend alignments match those of weekday.

Standard frequencies. Using clock headways every 15 minutes or better, 30

minutes or 60 minutes make schedules easier to understand and more predictable.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 45

Exhibit 3.5: Existing System Network Map



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 46

Exhibit 3.6: Proposed Network Plan – Midday Frequency



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 47

Exhibit 3.7: Proposed Network Plan – Peak Frequency



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 48

Simplified alignments. Overlapping lines or lines within walking distance (1/4 mile)

of other lines is reallocated, creating more frequent lines in many cases. Many lines

end in fewer locations, making service easier to understand.

Improved Access to Suburban Jobs. Key urban lines are extended into job-rich

suburbs for better access to suburban jobsites – including Dublin, Polaris,

Westerville, and Rickenbacker – from many parts of the city, seven days a week, in

addition to some outward express service to Dublin, Polaris and New Albany.

Reduced Downtown Bus Volumes. Because of new opportunities to travel

without going downtown and the network being streamlined, the number of buses

running on High Street during peak times declines from 56 to 36 per hour at Broad

Street. Service will be more evenly distributed among other streets, reducing bus

congestion at High Street stops. Realignment of service will use COTA’s downtown

terminals will be more heavily, throughout the day. COTA’s downtown terminals will

also be used more heavily 7 days a week.

New Suburban Coverage. While the focus of the plan is on high ridership service,

coverage of growing suburban areas is added with new all-day service, seven days

a week to Polaris and new direct lines connecting Reynoldsburg-Gahanna-Easton

(line 25) and Hilliard-Dublin-Westside Columbus (line 28), as well as within Dublin.

Streamlined Express Service. Poorly performing express services are

discontinued or streamlined to create fewer services but with more trips per line.

The number of express lines is reduced from 26 to 11 commute and 9 to 6 reverse

commute. Under-used park-and-ride lots are de-emphasized but most areas with

express service still have a nearby park-and-ride lot with linking Express service.

3.2.1 Service Types and their Roles

Four different types of fixed route bus service make up the proposed network.

SERVICE TYPE MAP COLOR ALL DAY FREQUENCY PURPOSE





These can be broadly classified by their prevailing frequency, and also by whether their purpose

is to generate high ridership, or to provide basic access to the transit system for people in hard-

to-serve areas. This section will discuss in general the characteristics, purpose, necessary

conditions and consequences of each service type.

3.2.2 Frequent Network

The purpose of the Frequent Network is to generate high ridership, by providing a service that is

useful to a wide range of people, focused on places where transit can succeed: high density,

walkable places, where the street network allows transit to use efficient, relatively straight paths,

and where the pedestrian network does not present barriers to access for people near to transit.

In most transit systems, the highest performing all-day lines are frequent two-way services

running through areas where density, walkability, and the straightness of available transit paths

are all conducive to transit. These are generally the lines on which ridership grows when

frequency is increased.



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 49

All-day frequent service is one of the strongest drivers of all-day ridership. Frequencies better

than every 15 minutes, in particular, create a sensation that the bus is available whenever a

passenger needs it, which fundamentally transforms its usefulness. At that frequency, transit

begins to approximate the convenience of a personal vehicle that is ready to go whenever it is

needed.

Lines in the Frequent Network are characterized by:

15 minute or better midday and peak frequencies;

15 or 30 minute evening frequencies, as demand warrants; and,

19.5+ hour total weekday span of service, 18 hours on Saturdays and 16 hours on

Sundays.

Because frequency is expensive, this layer of the network was always drawn first in the

development of each alternative. Special attention was paid to align the Frequent Network to

high-productivity corridors and areas of high population and employment density that are

currently not provided with 15-minute service in the existing network.

Exhibit 3.8 and Exhibit 3.9 show the Frequent Network in the Existing Plan and in the Proposed

Plan respectively.

3.2.3 Thirty-minute Lines

Shown in blue on Exhibit 3.6 and 3.7, these lines operate at 30 minute midday frequency, with

certain lines increasing to 15 minute service during the peak. 30-minute lines can serve either

the ridership or coverage goal, depending upon the manner in which they are designed.

Ridership-oriented 30-minute lines are routes which have the potential to generate high

ridership, and which could be upgraded to 15-minute service in the future should additional

resources become available.

Coverage-oriented 30-minute lines are unlikely to generate strong all-day demand through the

length of the line, but do pass through areas of moderate productivity, or may connect a

particularly important destination, such as a educational or social service institution, to the

Frequent Network.

Lines in the 30 Minute Network are characterized by:

30-minute frequency throughout the midday and evening/late-night, frequently

increasing to 15 or 20 minutes during the peak where demand warrants; and,

19.5+ hour total weekday span of service, 18 hours on Saturdays and 16 hours on

Sundays.

3.2.4 Coverage Lines

Infrequent coverage lines, shown on Exhibit 3.6 and 3.7 in green, are designed to provide basic

access to the transit system to the largest possible geographic area. The goal here is not

ridership, but maximizing the number of people who have some transit service, regardless of

how much it is likely to be used.

The infrequent coverage network is characterized by:

60 minute frequency throughout all periods of the day, with select lines increasing

to 30 minute during peak periods; and,

18.5 hour weekday span of service, 18 hours on Saturdays and 16 hours on

Sundays for Infrequent Coverage lines that combine to form more frequent lines



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 50

Exhibit 3.8: Existing Frequent Networks



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 51

Exhibit 3.9: Proposed Frequent Networks


• 15.5 hour weekday span of service, 15 hours on Saturdays and Sundays for standalone Infrequent Coverage lines.

The purpose of coverage lines is to efficiently and equitably deploy system resources in order to provide access to the transit system to people in places where ridership potential is low, as indicated by a low aggregate density of population and jobs, difficult-to-navigate street patterns, and an inhospitable pedestrian environment.

In some cases, coverage lines are used to provide service within a short walk to areas where more frequent lines have been realigned for a more consistent overall line spacing.

Coverage lines cannot be expected to be highly productive; the measure of their success is the degree to which they provide basic access to the transit system to areas incapable of generating high ridership.

3.2.5 Peak Express Lines COTA currently operates an extensive network of peak-only express lines, providing service to Downtown Columbus from a number of outlying Park and Ride lots. However, the system is burdened by a complex structure where multiple lines offering only a few trips per peak travel along different paths between Downtown and a Park and Ride lot. In the preferred alternative, many expresses have been combined, offering simpler, more frequent patterns in the peak direction. Where demand is high enough, reverse commute trips are included either along the same path as in the peak direction, or with deviations designed to serve particular employment or commercial areas. In the Core Planning workshops participants specified the number of peak direction and reverse commute trips for each express line based on the general performance of lines in each market. In limited cases, express service was retained from the Existing Network if discontinuing the service would have resulted in a total loss of access to the transit system in an area.

3.3 Design Principles for Ridership

3.3.1 Expand and Optimize the Frequent Network COTA’s existing ridership by stop, and that of most peer agencies, shows that high ridership (per unit of service cost) arises from the following network characteristics:

• Service running frequently all day.

• Serving areas where the built environment features:

• Density – so that there are many people traveling to/from points around each stop.

• Walkability – so that these people can easily and safely access the stop.

• Linearity – the bus itself can travel in a reasonably straight line that many people will perceive as direct, as opposed to having to meander or deviate.

• Continuity – the service does not have to cover long rural gaps where there is no ridership potential.

North High Street, especially between downtown and around Hudson Street, is the top performing corridor in the region because it has all of those features. For this reason, the ridership-oriented network is focused on developing the largest possible Frequent Network, shown in red on all of our maps.

The Frequent Network is a network for people in a hurry, people who cannot plan their day around limited bus schedules. Expanding this network is the most effective strategy for building

October 28, 2014 52


long term ridership. It also defines locations where people who want to rely less on cars can choose to locate, thus supporting the goals of several cities in the area to develop more walkable and urban neighborhoods.

Expanding the frequent network to include more areas where the market is favorable to transit was the single most important goal of the ridership-oriented design effort.

The trade-offs for maximum frequency typically include:

• Slightly longer walking distances. COTA currently runs parallel lines very close together in some areas. Frequency arises from spacing parallel lines more consistently, so that parallel lines are not overlapping each other. From the customer perspective, a typical outcome of service changes such as this is that instead of having two half-hourly lines on different streets near home, there may be just one more frequent line. Frequent service is worth walking to.

• More but easier transferring. In some cases, transfers are required that are not required today (though the reverse is also true). Simple frequent lines are only possible if people are willing to transfer between services to reach their destinations. However, these transfers are made much easier due to the reduced wait times provided by more frequent services.

The Frequent Network provides considerably more coverage in the Proposed Network than in the Existing Network. The expansion of coverage by the Frequent Network is discussed in depth in Section 3.8.

3.3.2 Case Study of Tradeoffs: Inner Northeast Columbus A good example of the application of these tradeoffs can be found by looking at the inner northeast area of Columbus, specifically the area bounded by I-670 on the north and west, and Broad Street on the south.

Exhibit 3.10: Downtown Columbus Service Tradeoffs

In the existing system, several half-hourly lines meander through the area, none especially direct or frequent. There is service very close to everyone but the service is slow, infrequent, and often circuitous, offering little of value to time-sensitive customers.

In the proposed network, straight and frequent lines run through the area, spaced far enough apart that each serves a unique market. Since Broad is already a Frequent Corridor, it made sense to choose Mt Vernon as the other, as it is a reasonably straight path that is far enough from Broad, and that is within walking distance of most of the northern part of the area.

October 28, 2014 53


Because the red lines are always coming soon (offering better than 15-minute frequency through the peak and midday), the overwhelming majority of people travelling east-west will choose to walk to them. In this area, however, there are a few pockets where walking is difficult due to the street pattern. This is the case in the area north of East Broad, south of I-670, and bounded to the east and west by Alum Creek and a three-track trail corridor. The creek, railway and highway limit available paths into or out of this neighborhood, and within the neighbourhood itself; the gridded street pattern disintegrates, restricting available transit and walk paths.

There are also destinations of concern to populations with limited physical mobility, most obviously the hospital at Hawthorne & Taylor. For these populations, hourly bus lines have been added to reach these areas more directly. The lines are hourly because they are expected to be useful mostly to people with a strong limitation to walking. For those who can walk, the way to get anywhere quickly will be to walk to the frequent service.

In the north-south direction, the same area displays the tradeoff between frequency and no-transfer service. Existing line 81 passes through this area, but meanders both east and west off its direct path to hit certain destinations directly. The result is direct access without walks or transfers, but at the expense of a line that is too circuitous to be useful to anyone just trying to ride through.

In the proposed network, line 81 is straightened out, renumbered as 80, and the reduced mileage is part of why it is affordable to run more frequently. The intersecting east-west frequent lines, because of their high frequency, become useful for reaching Line 80, as part of the high frequency grid.

For north-south travel, some people will find that Line 80 is now worth walking further to reach because its higher frequency makes it so much more useful. Again, the hourly lines are available for those that do not want to make this tradeoff; these lines go downtown, where connections to destinations citywide are available.

Even these hourly lines are expensive. They are deployed in this area to ensure complete access because of relatively high levels of disadvantage, including the presence of the hospital. In most other areas, a cost-effective network that is designed for ridership would not include such services.

3.3.3 Build Frequent Segments Out of Infrequent Lines The proposed network is built around a core of long frequent lines. However, in some cases, demand is high for an inner frequent segment and then declines further out. In this situation, two infrequent lines serving lower-demand markets can be combined through the area of high demand to create a frequent line, as with the combined 14 and 15 lines converging on Mt Vernon, shown above. Proposed Lines 14 and 15 are each half-hourly further out; one goes to the airport while the other goes to Easton. However, they converge and run together to form this high-frequency service through the inner city.

3.3.4 Seven Day and Consistent Schedules Another important ridership principle is to accommodate the seven-day nature of a great deal of transit demand. The plan delivers a pattern of service that is largely consistent across the seven days of the week, except for expresses and rush-hour frequency upgrades that happen only on weekdays. This constitutes a major expansion of weekend service.

Many transit agencies are discovering that when they serve the weekend well, Saturday ridership approaches that of weekdays (minus the commute peak) and Sunday ridership grows as well. It is easy to see why weekend service is so successful. Transit succeeds partly by making it easier for people and families to own fewer cars then they have adults in the household. This requires that transit be available seven days a week. In addition, many of the

October 28, 2014 54


people who are most likely to be attracted to transit are in lower income demographics that tend to work in service and retail sectors. These sectors are busiest on the weekend so most jobs require working then. As a result, a consistent seven day service pattern is critical to delivering a system that people can choose to rely on.

3.4 Design Principles for Coverage Coverage services were designed to minimize the loss of service to existing riders, and as much as possible to ensure basic access to as many jobs and residents as possible. Since high ridership is not expected, coverage services achieve their outcomes mostly through hourly services that ensure a basic level of access. These infrequent services typically meet at major nodes for easy connections to travel throughout the network.

In the long run, the goal of coverage services is to maximize the number of people and jobs who have access to some service. To this end, the plan introduces some new coverage services in areas that are developing but where the built environment (density, walkability, linearity) does not indicate the potential for high-ridership service.

Inevitably, when proposing a near-term change, the impact on existing riders is also critical. While some existing riders may experience substantial changes in service, practically none are no longer served at all, as detailed in the coverage analysis section below.

While the coverage network is inevitably infrequent, the following are some of the key techniques used to optimize its usefulness.

3.4.1 Timed Transfers Timed connections, also called pulses, occur when buses from many lines are designed and scheduled to be at the same place at the same time, so that people can quickly connect from on line to another. Timed connections allow infrequent lines to make reasonably fast connections with one another, thus expanding the range of places that can be reached from each line. Timed connections are relevant for both ridership-oriented planning and coverage-oriented planning, because while they increase the range of destinations and thus increase ridership potential, their utility is greatest on the infrequent lines (every 30 or 60 minutes) that tend to be the result of coverage goals.

Timed connections are familiar in Columbus in the form of the evening “line-ups” downtown, which are important when the Frequent Network drops to low frequencies in the late evening.

In the proposed network, timed connections are recommended among infrequent lines at Easton transit center, up to the limits of the facility’s capacity. Four half-hourly lines from different directions converge here, along with two hourly lines. Timing these connections so that there is little delay at the transit center will dramatically reduce travel times for many trips all over the north and eastern edges of the service area. (It is less important to time-transfer the schedules of the two frequent lines.)

3.4.2 Clock Headways At very high frequencies, there is little need to remember the schedule. At frequencies worse than every 15 minutes, however, the schedule is a limitation on your life. The limitation is easier to handle, however, if the schedule is easy to remember.

In the proposed network, all frequencies that are worse than every 15 minutes are either 30 or 60 minutes. This means that the pattern of the schedule repeats each hour so that the whole day’s schedule can easily be committed to memory. While 20-minute frequencies do this as well, 30 and 60 are preferred because they provide two options that both divide evenly into an hour, and this makes it easier to organize timed connections on an hourly or half-hourly pattern.

October 28, 2014 55


Limiting frequencies to these options also means that wherever lines intersect, it is often easy to time their connections because the frequencies match, providing faster connection times. Even if connections cannot be timed, clock headways mean that the timing of the connection is the same across the day.

3.5 Summary of Line Changes This part of the report details the network plan by sub-area. These sub-areas are not intended to be understood as strictly-bounded units within the network; instead, they are loosely defined parts of Columbus that are useful for detailed description of parts of the network. Reference is to be made to the existing network map, Exhibit 3.5, and the proposed network maps, Exhibit 3.6: Proposed Network Plan – Midday Frequency, and Exhibit 3.7 Proposed Network Map – Peak Frequency, provided in section 3.2 above.

3.5.1 North Central Columbus

Exhibit 3.11: North Central Columbus

This part of Columbus, extending generally from I-670 up to Dublin-Granville Road, and between James-Stelzer and Kenny, consists of a rough grid pattern of streets and many areas of high to moderate density. Much of the area is walkable pre-war fabric with good street connectivity, although these features fall off dramatically east of Cleveland Avenue Major destinations are around the edges of this area: OSU and downtown to the southwest, Easton to the east, Riverside Hospital on the west, and suburban destinations further north.

The grid pattern of the Frequent Network will be most effective in this area, providing many opportunities for anywhere-to-anywhere travel without going downtown. The area features High Street, already the most productive transit line in the city, and Cleveland Avenue, site of the future bus rapid transit (BRT) service. The plan introduces new north-south frequent lines along James-Stelzer roads, Neil Ave-Karl Road, and along Kenny in the west. These intersect a major new east-west frequent line 95 along Morse-Bethel roads to create many frequent connection opportunities

A series of 30-minute lines complete the grid pattern, including east west lines 93 along Hudson (linking OSU and Easton), 94 along North Broadway – Oakland Park Ave– Innis Rd (linking

October 28, 2014 56


Riverside Hospital and Easton), and 96 along Dublin-Granville Road (linking Worthington and Easton). North-south line 4 (Indianola) is retained at 30-minute frequency.

In streamlining the grid, a number of lower-demand areas needing coverage did not fit into these grid lines. Proposed Lines 17 and 19 are designed to cover these areas, allowing the main lines to be simplified and made more frequent.

3.5.2 OSU, Short North and Inner Northwest

Exhibit 3.12: OSU, Short North, Inner Northwest

A key principle of the plan is a clearer division of labor between COTA and the OSU campus shuttle system. As part of the network plan, COTA’s re-defined role is to connect OSU to the city and region, but not to circulate within the campus.

The proposed network focuses on accessing OSU along the edges where straight, simple lines can operate reliably. High Street is the main focus, with service proposed every 7 minutes all day, every 5 minutes the peak. This extreme frequency is created by overlaying Line 2 (High Street and East Broad) and Line 1 (Kenny and Livingston). Most High Street service ends at Worthington but a half-hourly service continues to the Polaris area to provide new access there from OSU.

Line 1 also runs along the north edge of the campus, on Lane Street, and then continues north via Olentangy River, Riverside Hospital, North Broadway, Kenny and Bethel to Sawmill, serving numerous areas of dense student population. Less frequent service continues out Sawmill to Hard Road, and to downtown Dublin.

South of the campus, service is retained along Neil through the Victoria Park area, but this is now part of new Frequent Line 8, which extends east on 11th and north along Hamilton and Karl, linking these areas to the campus while also improving their frequency to downtown.

October 28, 2014 57


Frequent Line 5 covers West 5th through Short North and Grandview Heights, linking these areas to downtown. Half-hourly Line 3 runs the length of Northwest Boulevard. Finally, Line 93 connects major student areas west of campus into OSU with continuing service to Easton.

3.5.3 Northeast Columbus, Gahanna and New Albany

Exhibit 3.13: Northeast Columbus, Gahanna, New Albany

Easton is the logical focus for the northeastern network (roughly east of Cleveland and north of Broad) as it is the largest destination in the area and a central point for connections in many directions. It is also the point where the grid pattern ends and connects to suburban services. To provide access to both Easton Transit Center and the major destinations centered on the Easton Town Center, most lines serve both purposes. Proposed timed connections among the infrequent lines at Easton will make it possible to travel between a wide range of origins and destinations with a quick connection at this point.

Major improvements in this area include the extension of Line 89-Hamilton, which now runs only within the east side, northward through Gahanna to Morse and then west into Easton, creating a new connection to Easton from the eastside and making it easy to travel either west or south from Gahanna. A less frequent new line, the hourly 25, covers other developing areas east of the I-270 loop, linking Easton, Gahanna, and Reynoldsburg.

October 28, 2014 58


3.5.4 East Side (including Bexley, Whitehall, Reynoldsburg)

Exhibit 3.14: East Side

The East Side (roughly south of 5th, north of Chatterton and east of Downtown) retains its three major radials on Broad, Main and Livingston, providing good connections between origins and destinations in the East Side, Downtown and points beyond served by other radial frequent lines. The most important improvements to these lines are the extension of 15-minute frequency on the 1-Livingston all the way to Reynoldsburg Park and Ride, and the throughrouting of the 1-Livingston and 1-Kenny necessitated by the introduction of BRT. This new through line opens up a multitude of connections between NW and E and SE Columbus, greatly reducing travel times between the Reynoldsburg area and Dowtown, the Short North, OSU, and points north.

Two new frequent crosstown lines improve mobility in Bexley and Whitehall: the 80-Ohio Crosstown and 92-James/Stelzer Crosstown. These lines operate every 15 minutes or better through the midday and peak periods, connecting to each of the three existing frequent radials, other frequent lines like the 14/15, 1 and 2, and destinations like Easton and Eastland Mall. While some of these connections are possible in the Existing System via Line 81 and 92, increased frequency and decreased wait times makes them dramatically more useful.

Further east, major improvements include the extension of the 89 from Eastland Mall all the way to Easton, extension of the 10-East Broad longline all the way to the county line, improved frequency on the 2-East Main longline, and the introduction of a new coverage line, the 25. The 25 is a 60-minute coverage line, providing connections to lines converging from across the city at Easton, the 1-Livingston, as well as to longlines of frequent lines 10, 2, and 9.

October 28, 2014 59


3.5.5 South Side (east of the river)

Exhibit 3.15: South Side

The southeast area of Columbus (east of the Olentangy River and south of Livingston) incorporates two functional units: close to Downtown and along South High Street, grid elements similar to the inner north and east sides of the city persist; further east and south, as densities drop and land uses become less supportive of high transit ridership, the focus is on connecting specific areas to the frequent network.

West of Alum Creek, a high-frequency grid is now in place to Whittier where lines 9 and 80 connect. South of Whittier, lines 3 and 4 provide direct connections from South High and Parsons streets to the downtown and the broader array of frequent network lines. These lines now both operate at 30-minute frequency throughout the midday and peak periods. Line 80 now ends in a two-way loop from Frebis and Fairwood streets serving the area currently served at low frequency by line 8 but in a streamlined pattern designed to serve as many people as possible within a ¼ mile walk distance.

East of Alum Creek, an important node is established at Eastland Mall. From the Frank-Refugee Expressway, line 9-Alum Creek/Whittier branches, continuing as the 9b with 30-minute frequency east via Chatterton and connecting to the end of line 92-James/Stelzer and 89-Hamilton at Eastland Mall. The 9b then proceeds east to Gender Road where it terminates at a connection with the new line 25-Brice coverage line.

The other branch of the 9, the 9a, continues south from Frank-Refugee on Alum Creek to Rickenbacker, similar to today’s 81. Additionally, a peak-only longline of the 89 also serves Rickenbacker from Eastland via SR 317 and Hamilton.

October 28, 2014 60


3.5.6 Southwest Side including Grove City

Exhibit 3.16: Southwest Side

The southwest side of Columbus, bounded by the river to the east and Broad Street to the north, is relatively little-changed compared to other sections on the network. The most important improvement here is the extension of frequent service on line 10-West Broad to the Westwoods Park and Ride. A variety of less-frequent lines now feature easy connections to the downtown and the rest of the city via other frequent lines from Westwoods and the Hollywood Casino.

Line 15-Grove City is retained as existing but brought to a standard 30-minute frequency. Line 14-Sullivant is offset with line 15-Grove City from Franklinton through downtown and out Mt. Vernon combining the frequencies of the two lines to create a trunk of 15-minute service. This increases the reach of the frequent network and the good connections it enables. West of Franklinton, line 14 travels via Sullivant to the Hollywood Casino and a connection to the frequent line 10, but now includes a two-way loop via Georgesville and Norton to the west, providing new coverage to a developing area (and connecting this area to line 10 at Westwoods and the casino).

Line 17 replaces the existing line 3 substantially simplifying its path and improving its connection to the now-frequent 10-West Broad at the casino.

October 28, 2014 61


3.5.7 Dublin, Hilliard and Suburban Westside

Exhibit 3.17: Dublin, Hilliard, Suburban Westside

In Hilliard, Dublin, and other areas west of the river and north of West Broad, the major impact is the extension of all-day lines to places currently served only by limited numbers of peak express trips. For example, while express trips still travel from Hilliard to downtown via Hilliard-Rome Road and I-70, Hilliard-Rome Road is now served throughout the day by line 28, which connects Westwoods Park and Ride to Tuttle Mall. As a result, connections from the suburban westside to the 15-minute line 10-West Broad are possible as well as to the 30-minute crosstown line 95 at Tuttle. The result is the extension of basic all-day access to the transit service to many people who were previously unserved.

The increased amount of all-day service in this area means that express services can be refocused to concentrate on the most important destinations. While line 57 is effectively unchanged, the westside is now served somewhat differently by two new express lines. Lines 58-Dublin and 61-Bethel now function as express loops picking up from their origins at Dublin Dale and Bethel and Sawmill, traveling downtown, and then returning as reverse commutes via I-70 and I-270 in order to serve employment centers in the vicinity of I-270 and Tuttle Crossing/Rings Road.

October 28, 2014 62


3.5.8 Polaris, Westerville and Suburban North

Exhibit 3.18: Polaris

North of Dublin-Granville Road, two all-day lines connect at a new node at the north end of the Cleveland BRT local corridor near the OhioHealth campus at Polaris Parkway and Africa Road. The new BRT local extends from the end of the BRT line at Dublin-Granville while line 2L replaces the outer segment of today’s Line 2. The 2L is a substantial change from the present condition traveling from High Street via Campus View, Sancus and Polaris Parkway to connect to the BRT local at OhioHealth. For the first time, Polaris Parkway west of Cleveland is served by an all-day COTA line providing all-day access to the transit service and direct service to downtown for the many employees and residents in the Polaris area.

Express service in the suburban north is condensed into two lines, the 29 and 36. The 29 serves Polaris and the Chase campus via Crosswoods. Line 36 serves Westerville similarly to the existing line 27. Both express lines include reverse commute trips.

3.6 Downtown Bus Operations While the proposed network decentralizes the system somewhat, Downtown Columbus remains the point where many frequent radial lines converge, facilitating transfers for trips across the city. It also serves as a terminus for numerous 30-minute and 60-minute lines, improving these lines’ usefulness by connecting them to a greater number of frequent lines.

There is an issue about the volume of buses operating on High Street downtown and their tendency to block one another, causing significant delays and local impacts. There are also issues with crowding at stops. In brief, the findings of this plan are as follows:

• The Proposed Network will reduce the number of buses per hour on High Street, especially during the peak period, as detailed below.

• The improvement will be more pronounced than the mere decline in bus numbers would suggest. Because the buses will be on fewer lines they will tend to arrive more evenly spaced, creating less bus congestion at stops. Because most lines serving downtown will be more frequent, passengers will tend to not wait as long, reducing crowding at stops.

October 28, 2014 63


• A more effective long-term solution to reducing the crowding and other impacts at stops is a real-time information system that allows passengers to find out, via phone-based services, when the bus will actually arrive. Where these systems are in use, high ridership does not correlate to high numbers of passengers accumulating at stops, because passengers tend to appear just a few minutes before the bus comes. This is better for downtown environment impacts and also better for the passengers, who spend less time waiting outdoors in inclement weather and sometimes in the presence of safety concerns.

• Where there is a viable alternative alignment that removes a line from High Street, this alternative is shown. Such alternatives typically involve east-west operation into the North or South Terminals.

• However, most frequent lines logically need to be on a north-south axis, and there is no alternative street that (a) is as central to downtown’s transit demand and (b) provides sufficient pedestrian activity at all hours of the day and evening to deter crime against transit passengers. More isolated stops in places with little activity outside peak hours raise more serious safety concerns for waiting passengers, and also imply much longer average walks to and from downtown destinations.

At the same time, the proposed network plan offers significant improvement to current downtown bus operations in terms of:

• Reduced bus volumes on High Street,

• Fewer lines operating on High Street;

• Fewer transfer requirements by transit users as a result of the increased grid network and ability to transfer between lines away from downtown;

• Through-routing (interlining) of lines to reduce transfer requirements; and,

• Reduced need for bus operators to change shifts downtown thereby reducing bus dwell times and bunching.

3.6.1 Proposed Downtown Routings Exhibit 3.19 presents the existing and proposed downtown bus network with the proposed network with lines color-coded based on midday frequencies.

October 28, 2014 64


Exhibit 3.19: Downtown Bus Network Routing – Midday

October 28, 2014 65


During the peak period some of the lines shown become more frequent but the routings remain the same.

Peak-only Express lines are added during the peak period, but there are fewer of these than in the existing system, which further reduces bus volumes from the existing network. In the Proposed Network, these lines are divided into several groups based on their origin, each of which circulates through Downtown using either Front or the 3rd/4th couplet, terminating at the North or South Terminal (See Exhibit 3.20.). The remaining expressed routes are:

• SR-315 group – Front Street, terminate South Terminal

• I-70 W or US33 group – Spring/Long, 3rd,4th, terminate South Terminal

• I-71 N or I-670 group – Spring/Long, Front Street, terminate South Terminal

• I-71 S group – Front Street, terminate North Terminal

• I-70 E group – 3rd/4th, circulate through South Terminal, terminate North Terminal

• SR 104 group – south High Street

3.6.2 Design Methodology The Downtown element of the Proposed Network was carefully designed to balance two important priorities: improving the utility and legibility of the network for passengers; and reducing the conflicts arising from many buses queuing on High Street. Another important goal was to improve access to key destinations and developing areas in the greater downtown.

Several elements of the redesign relate to serving growth in the east downtown area and the need for better access to Columbus State. A new frequent line (14-15) appears along Spring-Long. In addition, Line 3, which links Northwest Boulevard and Parsons, is routed to better serve Columbus State and East Downtown. Approaching from the south via Parsons, the route continues north along Washington to Spring-Long, then turns west and follows Spring-Long all the way across downtown to Neil. The result is new direct access to Columbus State for both Parsons and Northwest Blvd, and also more direct access to BRT from Parsons. The route is designed for future upgrading to frequent service.

High Street remains a critical axis around which the Proposed Network revolves. Because the best transit markets in Columbus are all located on High Street (OSU, Short North, Downtown), it is imperative that easy connections are possible there. In the Proposed Network, High Street is used by each frequent line which converges in Downtown, either to pass through as a through-line, or to access a layover location near the North or South terminal. Two 30-minute lines, the 2L and the 4, also use High Street in the Downtown.

The concept principle followed was to reduce the number of lines on High Street to only the most critical, frequent network lines. The maps above show that all 60-minute lines and all but two 30-minute lines have been removed from High Street. For transit users this means that if they are coming to Downtown to transfer to a frequent line, those transfers are all possible within a very short distance, either along High Street or from the 3rd/4th Street couplet.

3.6.3 Bus Volumes on Key Downtown Segments Exhibit 3.21 compares the bus volumes on downtown streets between the existing and proposed bus networks in the peak period.

October 28, 2014 66


Exhibit 3.20: Downtown Routing for Express Lines – Proposed Network Plan

October 28, 2014 67


Exhibit 3.21: Peak Bus Volume Comparison – Existing and Proposed Networks

October 28, 2014 68


Reducing the number of lines on High Street also moderately reduces the number of vehicles using the street from 56 to 36 buses per hour per direction during the peak period on the segment of High Street between Long and Broad streets. Furthermore, the reduced number of lines means that the arrival and departure of buses is more predictable. Rather than many 30-minute and 60-minute lines and buses arriving and departing at times throughout the hour, the frequent lines cycle through Downtown at set intervals: every 15 minutes, or 10 minutes in the peak. To further reduce the volume of buses on High Street Downtown, the Cleveland Avenue BRT underlying local service has been truncated at the North Terminal. This does not drastically diminish its usefulness as the majority of 15-minute lines in the system either pass North Terminal on High Street or intersect with the line within the downtown area.

Midday reductions are obviously less dramatic than peak because of the lack of express lines, but all sections of High Street continue to see decreased numbers of vehicles per hour per direction.

Exhibit 3.23 compares the midday bus volumes on High Street and the surrounding road network between the existing and proposed bus networks.

3.7 Service and Operational Details This section provides greater detail on the specific operational characteristics of the Proposed Network. In the first subsection, a high-level summary of the cost drivers (vehicle requirement, hours, miles) of the network as a whole is presented.

In Section 3.7.1, specific details of Proposed Network lines’ frequencies and spans are available. Earlier in this document, Section 3.5 provides a high-level description of the changes to the network structure; Exhibit 3.24 includes much more specific detail on precise frequencies of lines throughout the day. Section 3.7.2 includes a table of existing lines showing corresponding lines in the Proposed Network (Exhibit 3.26). This exhibit can be used to understand how a particular segment or area is served differently in the Proposed Network than in the Existing System.

3.7.1 Proposed Network Cost Drivers Cost drivers are attributes of the network contributing to its overall cost. Cost estimates for the proposed bus network were calculated in terms of total vehicle-hours, vehicle-miles and peak fleet. The primary focus was on vehicle-hours which are the best single predictor of final cost. Vehicle-hours include time spent in revenue service, deadhead and layover/recovery time. Exhibit 3.22 summarizes the key cost drivers.

Exhibit 3.22: Proposed Network Cost Drivers

COST DRIVERS PROPOSED NETWORK 2017 COTA PLAN

Annual Vehicle-Hours

Annual Vehicle Miles

Peak Fleet Requirement

Midday Fleet Requirement

1,220,949

13,997,777


168

1,163,000

Not Determined


Not Determined

October 28, 2014 69


Exhibit 3.23: Midday Bus Volume Comparison – Existing and Proposed Networks

October 28, 2014 70


This network was designed to a target budget for the study year 2017 of 1,163,000 annual vehicle-hours. This number was provided by COTA staff as a reasonable estimate based on an observed average annual rate of increase. The tools used to develop this cost estimate have a margin of error of approximately 5 to 10%; the final cost estimate presented here is 5.0% greater than the budget used in scenario design. While we are confident in the accuracy of this cost estimation methodology for the purposes of transit network design, precise costs would be refined as the Proposed Network was finalized and detailed scheduling completed prior to implementation.

3.7.2 Frequency Table Exhibit 3.24 displays local line frequency by day and by service period. The “Mid” period corresponds to the line frequencies displayed on the “Proposed Network Midday Frequency” map, while the AM and PM peak categories are shown on the “Proposed Network Peak Frequency” map. Cells of this table are color-coded corresponding to the frequency classes used on these maps:

• Red – Frequent Network lines, operating at 15-minute headways or better.

• Blue – 30-minute lines.

• Green – 60-minute coverage lines.

Exhibit 3.24 also displays the purpose of each line - whether it serves the goal of maximizing ridership or extending coverage to the greatest number of people or jobs. Refer to Section 2.1 for an in-depth explanation of these two goals.

Express lines are described in Exhibit 3.25. Each express line is shown with the number of trips in the peak direction per peak period, as well as the number of reverse commute trips if applicable. The terminus of line outside downtown is listed in the “Terminus 1” column; Terminus 2 is always downtown, which is the origin or destination of all express lines depending upon the peak period. If there is a reverse commute pattern, it is described in the “Reverse Commute” column at the right side of the exhibit.

3.7.3 Line Correspondence Table While nearly all segments currently served in the Existing System are served in the Proposed Network, many are now served by lines with different numbers, or which travel to new destinations. Exhibit 3.26 presents a list of existing local lines, with their equivalent or replacement lines in the Proposed Network, broken down by segment where appropriate.

To examine the way specific lines in the Proposed Network have changed from the Existing Network, locate a line in the “Existing Line” column. The equivalent line in the Proposed Network, or new lines serving the same segments, are shown in the “Proposed Network Lines” column. If multiple segments of an existing line are now served by several new lines, each segment has its own entry in the “Existing Line Segment” column.

Exhibit 3.27 for express lines follows a similar format. Each existing express line is listed in the left hand column; the right hand column explains whether that line has been deleted, retained, or which lines in the Proposed Network serve the same destination.

October 28, 2014 71


Exhibit 3.24: Local Frequency Table

Route # Route Name Segment Type Purpose

Early AM (5:30am-6:30am)

AM PEAK (6:30am-9:00am)

MID (9:00am-4:00pm)

PM (4:00pm-7:00pm)

EVE (7pm-10:00pm

Late Night (10:00pm-1:00am)

Weekday SpanSat Base (6:00am - 9:00pm)

Sat Eve (9:00pm-12:00am)

Sun Base (6:00am-9:00pm)

Sun Eve (9:00pm-10pm)

Span (Sat/Sun)

1 Livingston Trunk Ridership 30 10 15 10 15 30 19.5 15 15 15 15 18/16Kenny Trunk Ridership 30 10 15 10 15 30 19.5 15 15 15 15 18/16

1a-Kenny - Dublin Branch Coverage 60 40 60 40 60 60 19.5 60 60 60 60 15/151b-Kenny - Hard Rd Branch Coverage 60 40 60 40 60 60 19.5 60 60 60 60 15/15

2 North High Trunk Ridership 30 10 15 10 15 30 19.5 15 15 15 30 18/16East Main Trunk Ridership 30 10 15 10 15 30 19.5 15 15 15 30 18/16

2b-East Main - County Line longline Ridership 60 20 30 20 60 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/162L North High-Polaris LTD Trunk Ridership 30 30 30 30 30 30 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/163 Parsons Trunk Ridership 60 15 30 15 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/163 Northwest Blvd Trunk Ridership 60 15 30 15 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 60 18/164 Indianola Trunk Ridership 60 15 30 15 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 60 18/164 South High Trunk Ridership 60 15 30 15 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 60 18/16

West 5th Trunk Ridership 60 15 15 15 30 60 19.5 15 30 15 30 18/165a-West 5th - Wilson Branch Coverage 60 60 60 60 60 60 19.5 60 60 60 60 18/16

5b-West 5th - Renner P&R Branch Coverage 60 60 60 60 60 60 19.5 60 60 60 60 18/168 Neil / Karl Trunk Ridership 60 15 15 15 30 60 19.5 15 30 15 30 18/16

Alum Creek - Whittier Trunk Ridership 60 15 15 15 30 60 19.5 15 30 15 30 18/169a Alum Creek - Whittier - Rickenbacker Branch Branch Coverage 60 30 30 30 60 60 19.5 30 60 30 60 18/169b Alum Creek - Whittier - Reynoldsburg Branch Branch Coverage 60 30 30 30 60 60 19.5 30 60 30 60 18/16

East Broad Trunk Ridership 30 10 12 10 15 30 19.5 12 15 12 15 18/1610-East Broad to County Line longline Ridership 60 20 24 20 30 60 19.5 24 30 24 30 18/16

10 West Broad Trunk Ridership 30 10 12 10 15 30 19.5 12 15 12 15 18/1612 McKinley Trunk Coverage 20 20 20 30 15 30 30 30 60 9 *as existing

14-15 Town-Rich and Mt Vernon (common segment of 14-15_ Trunk Ridership 30 15 15 15 15 30 19.5 15 15 15 15 18/1614 Sullivant branch Trunk Ridership 60 30 30 30 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/1614 Airport branch Trunk Coverage 60 30 30 30 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/1615 Grove City branch Trunk Coverage 60 30 30 30 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/1615 Easton branch Trunk Coverage 60 30 30 30 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/1617 West Mound Trunk Coverage 60 30 60 30 60 60 19.5 60 60 60 60 15/1517 Brentnell Trunk Coverage 60 30 60 30 60 60 19.5 60 60 60 60 15/1518 Bryden Trunk Coverage 60 60 60 60 60 60 15.5 60 60 60 60 15/1519 Joyce/Maize Trunk Coverage 60 60 60 60 60 60 15.5 60 60 60 60 15/1525 Brice Rd Trunk Coverage 60 60 60 60 60 60 15.5 60 60 60 60 15/1528 Hilliard-Rome Rd Trunk Coverage 60 60 60 60 60 60 15.5 60 60 60 60 15/15

Ohio Crosstown Trunk Ridership 60 10 15 10 15 60 19.5 15 15 15 30 18/1680 Ohio Crosstown - a/b longline loop longline Ridership 60 20 30 20 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 18/16

Hamilton Rd Crosstown Trunk Coverage 60 30 30 30 60 60 19.5 30 60 30 60 15/1589 Hamilton Rd - Rickenbacker k - only long Coverage 60 60 5.5 Weekday Only Weekday Only 0

92 James / Steltzer Crosstown Trunk Ridership 60 15 15 15 15 60 19.5 15 15 15 30 18/1693 Hudson Crosstown Trunk Ridership 60 15 30 15 60 60 19.5 30 60 30 60 18/16

North Broadway Crosstown Trunk Ridership 60 15 30 15 30 60 19.5 30 30 30 30 15/1594 North Broadway Crosstown - Hilliard-Rome Rd longline Coverage 60 30 60 30 60 60 19.5 60 60 60 60 15/15

Morse Crosstown Trunk Ridership 60 15 15 15 30 60 19.5 15 30 15 30 18/1695 Morse Crosstown - Tuttle longline Ridership 60 30 30 30 60 60 19.5 30 60 30 60 18/16

96 Dublin-Granville Crosstown Trunk Coverage 60 30 30 30 60 60 19.5 30 60 30 60 18/16BRT Cleveland BRT Trunk Ridership 10 15 10 30 16 30 30 30 30 16/15BRT Cleveland Underlying Local Trunk Coverage 60 30 30 30 30 60 16 30 30 30 30 16/15400 Airport Direct Shuttle Trunk Coverage 60 60 60 60 60 60 15.5 60 60 60 60 15/15

Grey shaded routes = divided frequency (branches and longlines)

5

2

80

1

89

94

95

10

9

October 28, 2014 72


Exhibit 3.25: Express Line Frequency Table

Line #

Line Name Peak Trips

Reverse Trips

Terminus 1 Terminus 2 Reverse Commute

32 Smoky Row 3 St. Andrew PnR

Downtown

29 Crosswoods (Polaris Reverse)

4 3 Crosswoods PnR

Downtown via Campus View Blvd, Sancus to Polaris

36 Westerville 6 3 Westerville PnR

Downtown via 161, Karl, Schrock, Cleveland, Main to Westerville PR

38/39

Easton 4 5 Easton PnR Downtown Reverse commute to Easton, continuing to New Albany New Albany 3 New Albany

PnR Downtown

47 Reynoldsburg PnR 9 Reynoldsburg PnR

Downtown

54 Grove City 3 2 Grove City PnR

Downtown Same as peak direction

55 Winchester 4 Gender Rd PnR

Downtown

57 Renner 4 Hilliard Cemetery PnR

Downtown

58 Dublin 7 7 Dublin Dale PnR

Downtown Reverse commute via I-70 West, 270, Tuttle Crossing, Frantz Road

61 Bethel 4 4 Carriage Place Shopping Ctr

Downtown Reverse commute via I-70 West, 270, Tuttle Crossing, Blazer Pkwy, Park Center Avenue, Frantz Road, Hayden Run Road

October 28, 2014 73


Exhibit 3.26: Line Correspondence Table

EXISTING LINE EXISTING LINE SEGMENT PROPOSED NEW NETWORK LINES

1 Cleveland Replaced with BRT / BRT local (6-Cleveland) combination

1 Livingston 1-Livingston

2 North High 2-North High

2 East Main 2-East Main

3 West Mound Downtown to Hague 17-West Mound

3 West Mound Eakin segment nearest Line 14-Sullivant.

3 West Mound Westport and Georgesville segments

Served by longline loop of 14-Sullivant on Industrial Mile and Georgesville.

3 Northwest Blvd Downtown - 3rd segment Nearest Line 8-Neil, 5-West 5th

3 Northwest Blvd 3rd - Fishinger segment 3-Northwest Blvd

4 Parsons Parsons to Downtown via Livingston

1-Livingston

4 Parsons Livingston to Great Southern 3-Parsons

4 Indianola Downtown to Morse Rd retained

4 Indianola Indianola to Westview Turnaround

2-North High, 95-Morse Crosstown

5 West 5th Ave Downtown to Hilliard Rome Rd 5-West 5th

6 Mt Vernon Downtown to Nelson Rd 14/15-Mt Vernon

6 Mt Vernon Nelson - Maryland Deviation nearest Lines 14/15 Mt Vernon

6 Mt Vernon East of Nelson Rd 14-Mt Vernon/Airport

6 Sullivant Downtown to Hollywood Casino

14-Sullivant

6 Sullivant Demorest-Huron deviation 14-Sullivant

7 Whittier 9-Alum Creek/Whittier

7 Neil Downtown to 11th 8-Neil/Karl

7 Neil North of 11th no service on Neil north of 11th; nearest Lines 1-Kenny, 2-North High, 93-Hudson, 94-North Broadway

8 Hamilton Ave 8-Neil/Karl

8 Hamilton Ave Maize segment 19-Maize-Cook

8 Frebis Downtown to Whittier 9-Alum Creek/Whittier

8 Frebis Whittier to Champion no service on existing segment; nearest Lines 9-Alum Creek/Whittier, 3-Parsons, 80-Ohio

8 Frebis Lockbourne segment 80-Ohio Crosstown

8 Frebis turnaround look east of Fairwood

nearest Line 80-Ohio Crosstown

9 Leonard / Brentnell 17-Brentnell

9 Leonard / Brentnell north of Cleveland 8-Neil/Karl

October 28, 2014 74



10 East Broad Retained

10 West Broad Retained

11 Oak/Bryden via Oak no service on Oak; nearest Line 18-Bryden

11 Oak/Bryden via Bryden to Nelson 18-Bryden

11 Oak/Bryden Main to Gender Rd 9b-Alum Creek/Whittier

11 St. Clair Downtown to St. Clair BRT, 14/15-Mt Vernon, 17-Brentnell

11 St. Clair north of Mt Vernon no service on Caldwell and Atcheson; nearest Lines 17-Brentnell, 14/15-Mt Vernon, 80-Ohio Crosstown

12 McKinley/Fields 12-McKinley/Fields

13 US 33 / Watermark no service to Watermark

14 Harmon/Greenlawn no service on Harmon south of Mound; nearest Line 15-Grove City

15 Grove City Retained; service on Town by 17-West Mound

16 South High 4-South High, no service on 4th St

16 East Long Downtown to E 5th no service on Long, Nelson; nearest Lines 14/15-Mt Vernon, 19-Joyce, 10-East Broad

16 East Long 5th to Airport Rd no service on Cassady in this segment; nearest Line 15-Mt Vernon/Easton

16 East Long Airport to Easton 15-Mt Vernon/Easton, 92-James/Stelzer; no service to Gateford deviation

18 Kenny Downtown to Sawmill 1-Kenny

18 Kenny Sawmill to Tuttle 95-Morse Crosstown longline

19 Arlington / Grandview no service on Cambridge/Tremont between Northwest Boulevard and Fishinger, nearest Line 3-Northwest Blvd

21 Night Owl 19.5 hour span on 2-North High and all other 15 and 30-minute lines

80 OSU/Lennox deleted; OSU circulation via CABS lines

81 Hudson / Ohio 93-Hudson Crosstown

81 Hudson / Ohio High to Olentangy no service on Dodridge; service on Olentangy via 1-Kenny

81 Hudson / Ohio Genessee segment no service; 93-Hudson continues via Hudson. Nearest Lines 19-Joyce, 8-Neil/Karl, BRT, 93-Hudson

81 Hudson / Ohio Hudson to Mt Vernon 17-Brentnell

81 Hudson / Ohio Mt Vernon to Frebis 80-Ohio Crosstown

81 Hudson / Ohio Frebis to Rickenbacker 9b-Alum Creek/Whittier - Rickenbacker longline

82 Grandview / OSU OSU internal circulation via CABS lines

82 Grandview / OSU High Street to Grandview 93-Hudson Crosstown

October 28, 2014 75



82 Grandview / OSU King to Goodale no service on this segment; nearest Line 3-Northwest Blvd

83 Oakland / Weber replaced by 94-North Broadway Crosstown

83 Oakland / Weber Weber no service; nearest Lines 94-North Broad, 93-Hudson

84 Hilliard / Arlington / OSU

Near OSU served by CABS


SR-135 to Kingsdale 3-Northwest Blvd, 93-Hudson Crosstown, 94-North Broadway Crosstown


East of Kingsdale 94-North Broadway Crosstown

87 Cassady Morse to Shanley via Karl 8-Neil/Karl

87 Cassady Karl to Cleveland nearest Lines BRT, 95-Morse, 8-Neil/Karl

87 Cassady Cleveland to Hamilton Rd 19-Joyce, 93-Hudson, 15-Mt Vernon / Easton, 14-Mt Vernon/Airport, 10-East Broad

89 Hamilton Rd Streamlined and extended to Easton TC

89 Hamilton Rd south of Refugee 89-Hamilton Rd longline (peak only service to Rickenbacker)

89 Hamilton Rd Noe Bixby Rd deviation nearest Lines 89-Hamilton Rd longline, 92-James/Stelzer, 9b-Alum Creek to Gender rd

92 James / Stelzer Retained, 15-minute frequency

92 James / Stelzer Airport deviation 400-Airport, 14-Mt Vernon/Airport

95 Morse/Henderson loop south of Henderson not served, nearest Lines 1-Kenny, 95-Morse crosstown

95 Morse/Henderson High to Easton TC retained, increased to 15-min frequency

95 Morse/Henderson Stelzer to Hamilton Served by 89-Hamilton, no direct service to Meijers

96 East 5th Ave 3rd Avenue loop nearest Lines 5-West 5th, 8-Neil/Karl, 2-North High

96 East 5th Ave Summit to Fields 12-Fields

96 East 5th Ave Fields to Joyce 80-Ohio Crosstown, 17-Joyce

96 East 5th Ave Joyce to Woodland 17-Joyce

96 East 5th Ave Woodland to Hamilton 14-Mt Vernon/Airport

96 East 5th Ave East of Hamilton Rd 25-Brice

118 Sawmill served by 1a and 1b branches of 1-Kenny

October 28, 2014 76


Exhibit 3.27: Express Line Correspondence Table

EXISTING EXPRESS SERVICE CHANGES IN PROPOSED NETWORK

27 Brooksedge elements retained as 36-Westerville

29 Polaris retained as reverse commute of 29-Crosswoods; includes service to Chase

30 Smoky Row Retained

31 Worthington service reallocated to 2L North High-Polaris Limited; service from Crosswoods retained as 29-Crosswoods

32 Crosswoods retained, with reverse commute to Polaris

33 North Central Deleted

34 Karl Deleted

35 Tamarack Deleted

36 Annehurst elements retained as 36-Westerville

37 Westerville retained with reverse commute via Karl, Schrock, Cleveland, State

38 Easton retained, combined with New Albany lines as 38-Easton/39-New

39 New Albany 39-New Albany service to New Albany Park & Ride

40 New Albany Business Park 39-New Albany service to New Albany Park & Ride

41 Gahanna Deleted

43 E Broad Deleted

44 North Reynoldsburg Deleted

45 Reynoldsburg service to Reynoldsburg as 47 via I-70 East

46 Eastland Deleted

47 Brice service to Reynoldsburg as 47 via I-70 East

48 Eastgreen service to Reynoldsburg as 47 via I-70 East

49 Southeast Deleted

53 Lincoln Village Deleted

54 London / Groveport retained to Grove City

55 Gender Road Retained

56 Tuttle retained as 58-Dublin and 61-Bethel reverse commute trips

57 Hilliard retained via Renner PR as 57-Renner

58 Dublin Retained

59 Dublin / Metro retained as 58-Dublin reverse commute trips; all day service via 1a-Kenny/Livingston

60 Arlington Deleted

61 Kenny Retained

64 Grove City retained as 54-Grove City

65 Southpark Deleted

66 Hilliard/OSU service between Hilliard and Downtown retained as 57-Renner; segment to OSU deleted

67 East Hilliard Deleted

68 Hilliard/Westbelt Deleted

October 28, 2014 77


3.8 More People Connected to More Jobs: Coverage Analysis An important method of assessing the changes to the network is in terms of how many people and jobs can access transit. The more people and jobs are within walking distance of transit, the bigger transit’s market can be. This is particularly true with the Frequent Network; the more people and jobs have access to the most useful service type, the better we can expect those services to perform.

This section observes how the proposed network affects the coverage of population, jobs, and existing riders. In general:

• The population served by the network increases slightly, as shown on Exhibit 3.28, but the population that has access to the Frequent Network more than doubles. It is the latter factor that will cause a likely ridership increase, as highly useful service is extended to more than twice as many people.

• Exhibit 3.29 shows that over 20,000 jobs are added to the area covered by the network within 1/4 mile. More important, though, for usefulness is that the number of jobs on the Frequent Network – which can provide convenient access at most hours of the day – goes up by 68%.

This outcome reflects the intention of the board in preserving the existing 70/30 resource split: the overall level of coverage is held constant (and slightly improved through focused effort to design efficient transit paths), while the Frequent Network becomes much more relevant to many more people.

Exhibit 3.28: Proposed Network – Coverage of Population

238,100

516,100

112,000

511,000

within 1/4 mi of 15-minute service

within 1/4 mi of any service

Existing Network Draft Proposed Network

October 28, 2014 78


Exhibit 3.29: Proposed Network – Coverage of Jobs

3.9 Coverage for Existing Riders Anytime a transit network is revised, a great deal of the feedback comes from existing riders who are accustomed to the network as it is. Many of these riders will find that the network changes their service in some way, but in general, the higher the ridership of a service, the more likely it is to be improved.

The origin of existing riders is not known, only where they board. With this caution, we can evaluate how well the new network serves locations where existing daily boardings are observed. There are currently approximately 52,900 boardings recorded per day on the existing network.

While the Proposed Network is not within ¼ mile of all existing boardings on the existing system, it is there for 98.3% of them as shown on Exhibit 3.30. Additionally, the increased relevance of the Frequent Network is evident, as the number of those boardings within walking distance of a frequent line increases by 36%. Exhibit 3.31 shows the affected stops and approximate numbers of uses affected.

There may be concern that even 900 existing boardings are no longer within 1/4 mile of service. Fortunately, most are just barely over ¼ mile, and if existing riders walk this distance, they’ll get improved service over what they have today. The image on the next page shows the proposed network with blue circles indicating where current boardings are more than 1/4 mile from service. In almost all such cases, service remains within ½ mile and it is usually more useful service – in terms of frequency or directions served – than is available today.

246,600

431,500

146,000

409,000




October 28, 2014 79


Exhibit 3.30: Proposed Network – Coverage of Boardings at Existing Stops

3.10 Travel Time Analysis To gauge the benefits to personal mobility made possible by the Proposed Network, a basic travel time analysis was conducted on sample trips across the Columbus region. It would take a computer model to calculate this for every possible trip, which was beyond the scope of this project. However, to give a general indication, we selected six possible trip origins scattered around the region, with a preference for areas with high population density and hence more people being likely to travel. No particular preference was given to places where access is much improved. In fact, two of the six, as noted below, were selected because they are losing direct service under the plan.

The six origins studied were:

• 5th Avenue & Grandview Avenue, a rough centroid of the growing northwest area.

• Whittier Street & Fairwood Street.

• Livingston Avenue & Brice Road, Reynoldsburg.

• Sullivant Avenue & Binns Boulevard.

• Atcheson Street & Bolivar Street in the inner northeast. This is the site of a tall apartment building and was selected because under the plan it loses its local service on Atcheson Street, but gains frequent service on Long Street nearby.

• Dierker Rd halfway between Bethel and Henderson roads in the northwest. This is also an area where the local service is being removed, but there is frequent service nearby.

For each origin, we studied trips to the four of the city’s biggest destinations: Downtown, Easton, OSU, and Riverside Hospital.

43,900

52,000

32,300

52,900




October 28, 2014 80


Exhibit 3.31: Proposed Network – Stop Coverage

October 28, 2014 81


Travel time is the sum of in-vehicle travel time, waiting time (for each bus required), and walk time at both ends of the trip.

• Drive time = distance x service speed for new lines, or scheduled time for existing lines.

• Waiting time = ½ the headway (elapsed time between consecutive trips) of each line used to make the trip.

• Walk time, drawn from Google’s walk time estimates, based on an average walking speed of approximately 3 mi/hr, but also factoring in slope and other geographical elements that may affect walk speed. Some trips start and end at transit-served locations, so walk time of these trips is effectively 0.

To determine routing for sample trips in the Existing System, we used Google Transit to determine the range of trips available, and then selected the trip with the shortest apparent travel time.

Each trip was assumed to start from 12:00 noon. In order to evaluate the Existing Network without the benefit of scheduling favourable to certain transfers, the average waiting time was used even if the actual wait time is more or less. This allows a direct comparison between Existing and Proposed, since the proposed network uses average waiting time.

Exhibit 3.32: Travel Time Changes with New Network (minutes)

DOWNTOWN (HIGH & BROAD)

EASTON TC OSU RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL

5th & Grandview -7.8 -40.3 -15.2 -17.4 Whittier & Fairwood -6.5 -6.0 -17.2 -17.6 Livingston & Brice -17.0 -16.0 -16.0 -31.0 Sullivant & Binns 2.1 -8.0 -6.0 -18.2 Atcheson & Bolivar. Tall apt bldg. -8.4 -3.0 -6.8 -26.1 Dierker & Burgoyne Ct. -19.1 -0.3 -15.9 -2.2

The result of the travel time analysis (Exhibit 3.32) shows significant improvements in travel time across much of the network. It should not be surprising that downtown-oriented trips see the least improvement, as this is the focal point of the existing network. The proposed network is primarily designed to improve access to all the other destinations across the city.

The greatest travel time improvement was to the trip between 5th Avenue & Grandview Avenue and Easton. This trip currently requires at least one, and perhaps two transfers, depending upon routing; now the 93 Hudson Crosstown makes a relatively direct trip between these two points every 30 minutes.

The one trip that actually became slower, from Sullivant Avenue and Binns Boulevard to Downtown, became slower as a function of the standardization of clock headways. The existing 6-Sullivant runs at 28 minute frequency; the new 14-Sullivant runs every 30 minutes, and the routing is slightly adjusted, yielding an increase of 2 minutes in travel time.

3.11 Operational Changes The proposed network, with more crosstown/grid lines and fewer lines coming into the downtown and higher, consistent daytime and weekend service levels, will provide opportunities for changes to COTA’s operational practices, most notably bus operator reliefs and work scheduling.

October 28, 2014 82


3.11.1 Bus Operator Reliefs Currently, most bus operators are relieved (change shifts) at the COTA downtown office on High Street. This is a reflection of historic practice as well as the fact that most lines start/end in the downtown. While the location is convenient, doing reliefs here compounds the bunching of buses on a critical segment of High Street, as the process of driver relief typically requires a minute or so of delay as the new driver adjusts seat and mirrors.

With the proposed network, a number of bus operators will have to be relieved “on line”, primarily on the lines which do not operate into the downtown area, or specifically on High Street. This will reduce bus dwell times, delays and congestion downtown. However, COTA will have to make arrangements to transport bus operators between their operating base and their on-line relief point. Transportation is provided for bus operators now via line 12 between the McKinley transit facility and downtown so additional transportation would not be precedent-setting. Such transportation could be provided by vans or small cars driven by the bus operators as is the practice in other transit agencies. As Line 12 represents an added operational cost, its role and appropriate frequency should be reviewed in the future in light of changes in relief points and volumes.

3.11.2 Bus Operator Work Schedules With the increased daytime, evening and particularly weekend service levels and particularly the significant reduction in express lines, it is anticipated that COTA will be able to realize more efficient work scheduling for its bus operators. Specifically, there should be fewer “split” shifts where operators are required to work a 2 or 3 hour assignment in the morning and return for a similar piece of work in the late afternoon to handle the weekday peak periods. Instead, there should be more “straight” (8 hour) shifts which will be more appealing to the employees. The higher levels of service on weekends will, on the other hand, require more operators to work “weekends” with corresponding days-off during the rest of the week. There may be the opportunity to offer more bus operators consecutive days off instead of split days off (ie. Sunday, Tuesday).

3.11.3 Transit User Transfers The network provides a greater ability for transit users to change lines away from downtown not just at established transfer terminals (ie. Easton) but at any point where lines intersect. COTA may need to review and update its transfer policy to reflect this change in practice. At the same time, the ability for transit users to transfer away from the downtown along with a greater degree of interlining (through-routing) of lines will reduce the number of transfers and hence passenger volumes at the key downtown stops, particularly on High Street.

3.12 ADA/Paratransit Considerations The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity and access for persons with disabilities. To that end, each public entity operating a fixed route system shall provide paratransit or other special service to individuals with disabilities that is comparable to the level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system. Typically, this is a transportation service where individuals who are unable to use public transportation due to a physical or mental impairment are picked up and dropped off at their destinations. The paratransit service must be comparable to the city's fixed bus system regarding lines (within ¾ mile) and availability (days of week, hours of day).

October 28, 2014 83


ADA Title II applies to public transportation services such as public city buses and rail transit systems, including commuter rail and subway systems.

This section summarizes the impact of the proposed changes to the fixed route bus network on COTA’s “Mainstream” ADA service in terms of service hours and, in turn, staff (drivers) and fleet requirements. The factors influencing the service hours are changes to the service coverage area (3/4 mile) envelope around the proposed fixed route network and changes in the fixed route level of service such as replacement of areas currently only served by express lines with all day service and increased levels of service in the evenings and weekends. COTA currently provides ADA service during the times that express lines operate. This is above the ADA standard requirement.

The key operating statistics for COTA’s Mainstream service are summarized in Exhibit 3.33.

Exhibit 3.33: Mainstream Operating Statistics

STATISTIC 2013 2017 Annual Service Hours 168,190 189,299 Bus Fleet 62 70 Bus Drivers 113 127 Service Hours per Bus 2,713 2,704 Service Hours per Driver 1,488.4 1,490.5 Operating Budget $7,136,494 $9,121,000 Cost per Service Hour $42.43 $48.18

The 2017 service-hours estimate is based on a 3% growth rate per year from 2014 to 2017 as suggested by COTA staff which, in turn, informed the estimated number of buses and drivers.

3.12.1 Impact of Network Changes on 2017 Mainstream Service and Resource Requirement

An analysis of the change in the service area envelope was conducted taking into account changes to areas currently served by express lines and new all-day coverage lines. This analysis indicated that the service area will decrease by approximately 6%. The map in Exhibit 3.34 illustrates the change in the service area.

An analysis of the change in Mainstream service levels as a result of the change in fixed route network service levels was also undertaken although since COTA’s Mainstream service level and bus utilization characteristics are undefined for 2017, a detailed comparison was not possible. At the same time, since the Mainstream service is demand-based, it is difficult to predict any change in demand as a result of either changes to the fixed route network or hours of service and service levels. On this basis, a high level analysis only was undertaken.

Despite the fact that the service area decreases, the total number of additional service hours needed by Mainstream may be about 25% to 30% higher compared to the projected 2017 service hours because of increased service span on the fixed route network. However, many of these new hours are on weekends and in the late evening when demand for paratransit is lower. About 40% of the new fixed-line service is in the late evening, when there are only about 2-3 paratransit buses in operation. Another 30% are on the weekends when paratransit demand is approximately one-half of that on weekdays. The remaining 30% is during the day on weekdays.

On the basis of this analysis, the increase (net of service area reduction and service level increase) in the Mainstream service hours for 2017 is estimated to be 15% to 20%, or 28,394 to 37,859 hours. This represents an annual operating cost increase of between $1,368,000 and $1,824,000. However, as noted earlier, because Mainstream is a demand-based service and, in the absence of any other factors to influence an increase in the number of trips and therefore requirement to increase service-hours, the actual increase in Mainstream service levels as a result of the proposed fixed route bus network changes may be much less.

October 28, 2014 84


In terms of vehicles and drivers, no change is projected in the vehicle fleet requirement for 2017. The number of additional bus drivers required, subject to actual experience, compared to the projected 2017 total of 127, may be 19 to 25.

With regard to the reduction in service area COTA should review the number of registrants and trips affected to better assess the actual impact and potential mitigation measures which could include continuing to maintain ADA service for the affected registrants.

Exhibit 3.34: Analysis of Service Area Change

October 28, 2014 85


3.13 Title VI Considerations The Federal Transit Administration requires that transit service and access to transit facilities are equitably distributed and provided without regard to race, color, religious creed, or national origin. A high level, conceptual review of the COTA transit network consistent with the requirements of FTA Circular FTA C 4702.1B, Section IV(7), dated October 1, 2012, was performed to help determine if the impacts of the proposed changes to existing services would fall disproportionately on low income and minority residential populations in the service area. The results of this review can be used to help COTA determine if a full Title VI analysis will be needed prior to implementing the changes.

3.13.1 Data Analyzed The data used to perform the analysis included:

• GIS data for the census tracts in the service area

• Minority population data for every tract in the service area

• Low income population data for every census tract in the service area

• GIS data for the alignments of the existing and proposed lines

The data was used to determine which census tracts can be considered low income or minority (LIM) based on the average for the entire service area. Census tracts with above average low income minority populations were designated as such on a GIS map of the service area.

The average percentage of minority populations for the study area was calculated to be 32%. Therefore, census tracts that have over 32% minority populations were determined to be LIM census tracts, as shown in Exhibit 3.35.

The service area has an average percentage of the population in poverty of 16%. Therefore, census tracts that have over 16% low-income populations were determined to be LIM census tracts, as shown in Exhibit 3.36.

The minority and low-income tracts were combined to show the total number of LIM census tracts for the service area, as shown in Exhibit 3.37.

October 28, 2014 86


Exhibit 3.35: Minority Census Tracts in COTA Service Area

Source: U.S. Census 2010, TIGER/Line Shapefiles; IBI Group

October 28, 2014 87


Exhibit 3.36: Low-Income Census Tracts in COTA Service Area


October 28, 2014 88


Exhibit 3.37: Low-Income and Minority (LIM) Census Tracts in COTA Service Area


October 28, 2014 89


3.13.2 Review Process Each existing line was compared to the proposed changes in service. The existing lines are shown in Exhibit 3.38 and the proposed lines are shown in Exhibit 3.39. These differences were examined to determine if the existing line served LIM areas, if the proposed line maintains the service to these areas, and if there are any impacts on the LIM areas, such as new transfers and/or longer walking distances to stops.

The potential impacts to LIM areas in this high level, conceptual review were categorized as follows:

• Positive Impact – Line is proposed to be improved, e.g., higher frequency or added hours of service.

• No impact – Line remains unchanged (LIM areas are not affected)

• Low Impact – Small changes in the line or elimination of lines with low levels of service (LIM areas are minimally affected). Examples of small changes in a line would include elimination of short out of direction segments for local access, or elimination of segments at the end of a line in non LIM areas. Low levels of service were generally considered to be routes with weekday service operated only during the peak periods, with few or no stops in LIM areas.

• Medium Impact – Many changes in the line or elimination of lines with low levels of service in LIM areas (LIM areas are moderately affected). Examples of changes would include elimination of route segments that would require longer walks or transfers to access replacement services. Routes with replacement segments from three or fewer routes were generally considered to have medium impacts.

• High Impact – Substantial change or elimination of the line with replacement by four or more segments of other lines (LIM areas are substantially affected) Examples of substantial changes would include elimination of long or several segments of existing lines in LIM areas requiring longer walks and/or multiple transfers to complete longer distance trips.

October 28, 2014 90


Exhibit 3.38: Existing COTA Lines

Sources: U.S. Census 2010, TIGER/Line Shapefiles; Jarrett Walker + Associates; IBI Group

October 28, 2014 91


Exhibit 3.39: Proposed COTA Lines


October 28, 2014 92


3.13.3 Findings and Conclusions The majority of the lines run through LIM areas, so any changes to those lines will affect a LIM area. Exhibit 3.40 shows the existing line segments in LIM areas that would be eliminated if the proposed changes were enacted. A summary of the review of each of the 75 existing lines is provided in the table in Exhibit 3.41.

The review found that nearly one-quarter (11 of 75) of the line changes could potentially have a medium or high impact on LIM areas. In addition, over half of the changes would result in low impacts to LIM areas. Therefore, a Title VI analysis of the final set of changes will need to be done prior to implementation of the service changes and it may reveal the need for mitigations to reduce the level of impact to LIM areas.

Exhibit 3.40: Existing Line Alignments to be Eliminated by Proposed Changes


October 28, 2014 93


Exhibit 3.41: Potential Impact of Proposed Service Changes on Low-Income and Minority (LIM) Census Tracts in the COTA Service Area

EXISTING LINE PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES

POSSIBLE IMPACTS TO LIM AREAS POTENTIAL IMPACT LEVEL

Local 1 Cleveland Replaced with BRT / BRT local

(6-Cleveland) combination. A few minor deviations would be eliminated. Service would be improved.

Positive

1 Livingston Line maintained. Small deviation would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

2 North High Line replaced by Lines 2-North High and 2L-North High Limited.

Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

2 East Main Line replaced by Lines 2-East Main and 2a-East Main / County.

Deviation would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

3 West Mound Line replaced by Lines 14-Sullivant and 17-West Mound.

Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

3 Northwest Blvd Line replaced by Lines 3-Northwest Blvd, 5-West 5th, and 8-Neil.

A portion of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Medium

4 Parsons Line replaced by Lines 1-Livingston and 3-Parsons.


Low

4 Indianola Line south of Morse retained. Line north of Morse replaced by Lines 4-Indianola, 2-North High, 95-Morse Crosstown.

Some of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

5 West 5th Ave Line replaced by Lines 5-West 5th and 5B-West 5th/Renner Road


Low

6 Mt Vernon Line replaced by Lines 14-Mt Vernon and 14-Mt Vernon/Airport.


Low

6 Sullivant Line replaced by Line 14-Sullivant.

Few minor deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

7 Whittier Line replaced by Line 9-Alum Creek/Whittier.

Slightly modifications to the alignment. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

7 Neil Downtown to 11th portion replaced by Line 8-Neil/Karl. No service on Neil north of 11th. Nearest lines are 1-Kenny, and 2-North High, and crosstown Lines 93-Hudson and 94-North Broadway.


Medium

October 28, 2014 94




8 Hamilton Ave Line replaced by Lines 8-Neil/Karl and 19-Maize/Cook.


Low

8 Frebis Line replaced by Lines 9-Alum Creek/Whittier and 3-Parsons, and Crosstown Line 80-Ohio. No service on Whittier to Champion segment.


Medium

9 Leonard / Brentnell

Line replaced by Lines 8-Neil/Karl and 17-Brentnell.


Medium

10 East Broad Line maintained. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

10 West Broad Line maintained. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

11 Oak/Bryden Line replaced by Lines 18-Bryden and 9b-Alum Creek/Whittier.

The alignment on Oak would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Medium

11 St. Clair No service north of Mt. Vernon. Nearest Lines would be 17-Brentnell, 14/15-Mt Vernon, 80-Ohio Crosstown.

Line north of Mt. Vernon would be replaced by 17-Brentnell, 14/15-Mt Vernon, 80-Ohio Crosstown, which serves a similar area with a transfer necessary.

Medium

12 McKinley/Fields Line maintained. Small modification to the alignment. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

13 US 33 / Watermark

Replaced by Line 58-Dublin. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

14 Harmon/ Greenlawn

Replaced by Line 15-Grove City. A large portion of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Medium

15 Grove City Line maintained. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

16 South High Replaced by Line 4-South High. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

16 East Long Replaced by Lines 10-East Broad, 14-Mt Vernon, 15-Mt Vernon/Easton, 19-Joyce, 92-James/Stelzer.

A large portion of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

High

October 28, 2014 95




18 Kenny Replaced by Line 1- Kenny and 95-Morse Crosstown Longline.


Medium

19 Arlington / Grandview

Replaced by Line 3-Northwest Boulevard.

A large portion of the alignment would be eliminated. Little effect on LIM areas.

Low

21 Night Owl Line replaced by Line 2-North High.

Minor portion of alignment eliminated. No change in service.

Low

Express

27 Brooksedge Line eliminated. Low level of service. Alternative travel on 36-Westerville and 100 BRT

Line serves LIM area. Low

29 Polaris Service retained as a reverse commute.

Line serves LIM areas. Change does not appear to cause an impact.

None

30 Smokey Row Line retained. No impact. None 31 Worthington Line eliminated. Service from

Crossroads retained as 29. Runs in LIM areas on southern part of alignment. Substitute service is provided.

Low

32 Crosswoods Retained with added reverse commute.

Line serves LIM areas. Positive change. Positive

33 North Central Line eliminated. Several segments would not be served. Limited existing service to LIM areas.

Low

34 Karl Line eliminated. Low level of service.

Several segments in LIM areas would not be served.

Medium

35 Tamarack Line eliminated. Low level of service.

Some segments in LIM areas would not be served.

Medium

36 Annehurst Line eliminated. Some segments in LIM areas would not be served.

Medium

37 Westerville Line retained with new reverse commute service.

Would be an improvement to service in LIM areas.

Positive

38 Easton Retained and combined with 36-Easton and 39-New Albany.

Minimal impact. Low

39 New Albany Line retained. Small portion of alignment in LIM area. Low 40 New Albany

Business Park Line eliminated. Covered by 6-Cleveland and 94-North Broadway.

Service eliminated in some LIM areas. Medium

41 Gahanna Line eliminated. Low level of service.

Service eliminated in LIM area. Low

43 East Broad Line eliminated. Low level of service.


44 North Reynoldsburg

Line eliminated. Low level of service.


45 Reynoldsburg Service retained as 47. Low level of service.

Limited impact with service replacement. Low

46 Eastland Line eliminated. Low level of service. Portion of alignment served by 55-Winchester and 9 B.

Limited impact with service replacement. Low

47 Brice Service retained with some change.

Limited impact with the minor change. Low

48 Eastgreen Service retained as 47. Low level of service.

Increased walking distance to stops from elimination of part of the alignment.

Medium

October 28, 2014 96




49 Southeast Line eliminated. No replacement service. Low level of service.

Line served LIM areas. Medium

53 Lincoln Village Line eliminated. Replace by 10-West Broad.

Line served LIM areas. Other lines would serve the corridor.

Low

54 London / Groveport

Replaced by Line 54-Grove City. Some of the alignment in LIM areas would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

55 Gender Road Line maintained. No changes in service. None 56 Tuttle Replaced by 58-Dublin, 61-

Bethel. Some of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

57 Hilliard Replaced by 57-Renner. A large portion of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Medium

58 Dublin Line maintained. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

59 Dublin / Metro Replaced by 1a-Kenny/Livingston, 58-Dublin reverse commute trips.


Low

60 Arlington Line eliminated. Replaced by 30-Smokey Row and 61.

Service is provided primarily to non LIM areas, with some service to LIM areas.

Low

61 Kenny Replaced by Line 61-Bethel. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

64 Grove City Replaced by Line 54-Grove City. Some of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

65 Southpark Line eliminated. Line serves primarily non LIM areas. Low

66 Hilliard/OSU Replaced by Line 57-Renner A large portion of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Medium

67 East Hilliard Line eliminated. Replaced by 58-Dublin and 61 B

Line provides limited service to LIM areas.

Low

68 Hilliard/Westbelt Line eliminated. Service to LIM areas would be eliminated.

Medium

Crosstown

80 OSU/Lennox Replaced by OSU circulation via CABS lines.

Service to LIM areas provided handled by OSU Circulation

None

81 Hudson / Ohio Replaced by Lines 1-Kenny, 8-Neil/Karl, 9a-Alum Creek/Whittier, 17-Brentnell, 19-Joyce, 80-Ohio Crosstown, 93-Hudson.


High

October 28, 2014 97




82 Grandview / OSU

Replaced by 3-Northwest Blvd, 93-Hudson OSU internal circulation via CABS lines.


Medium

83 Oakland / Weber

Line replaced by Line 94-North Broadway, 93-Hudson.

Some of the alignment would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Medium


Replaced by Lines 3-Northwest Blvd, 93-Hudson, 94-North Broadway. OSU internal circulation via CABS lines.

A large portion of the alignment would be eliminated.

Medium

87 Cassady Replaced by Lines 8-Neil/Karl, 10-East Broad, 14-Mt Vernon/Airport, 15-Mt Vernon / Easton, 19-Joyce, 93-Hudson, 95-Morse.


High

89 Hamilton Rd Line maintained. Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops.

Low

92 James / Stelzer Line maintained. Airport deviation covered by 400-Airport and 14-Mt. Vernon / Airport.


Low

95 Morse/ Henderson

Replaced by Lines 1-Kenny, 89-Hamilton, 95-Morse Crosstown.

Several deviations would be eliminated. Longer walks may be required to access stops and transfers may be required.

Low

96 East 5th Ave Line replaced with 2-North High, 5-West 5th, 8-Neil/Karl, 12-Fields, 14-Mt Vernon/Airport, 19- Arlington/Grandview, 25, 80-Ohio.


High

118 Sawmill Replaced by Line 1-Kenny and 1 B.

Short deviation eliminated. Service maintained on Sawmill. A portion of the line serves a LIM area.

Low

Source: IBI Group

October 28, 2014 98


4 Service Standards and Metrics In this section new standards and metrics for evaluating the performance of COTA’s existing and proposed bus network and services as well as new lines and service requests according to the service philosophy of “ridership” versus “coverage” are presented.

4.1 Existing COTA Standards and Metrics The transit system assessment was conducted using performance metrics documented in COTA’s FY 2013-2017 Short-Range Transit Plan.2 These include a series of design criteria summarized in Exhibit 4.1 below:

Exhibit 4.1: Existing COTA Fixed route Service Design Criteria

DESIGN CRITERIA PERFORMANCE TARGET

Line directness Where possible, operate two-way service on the same street; minimize mid-line deviations; limit terminal loops to 25% of line mileage.

Line variations (Maximum branches/turnbacks)

No more than two branches and one turnback per line.

Service Span (Minimum days & hours)

Weekday: Local -17 hours; Crosstown -14 hours Saturday: Local - 16.5 hours; Crosstown -14 hours Sunday: Local - 14 hours; Crosstown - 12 hours Express Weekday - 5 hours (peak only)

Headways (Maximum minutes between buses)

Local Peak 30 minutes Off-peak 60 minutes Express Peak 60 minutes

Loading Condition (Percent of seated capacity) 3

Local - Peak 120%; Non-peak 100% Express - 100%

On-time performance Minimum 80% target established for buses arriving “on time” defined as between zero minutes ahead and 4.9 minutes behind schedule the published timetable.

Missed trips Maximum one percent of total scheduled trips

Additionally, the evaluation of individual lines was conducted using COTA’s existing performance rating process that is based on a performance index calculated and reported on a trimester basis for each line relative to the average performance of all lines in a particular category. The combined performance index blends two key performance indicators:

• Ridership productivity using average passengers per vehicle revenue hour (local) and passengers per trip (express) as a scale; and,

• Economic productivity using net operating cost (subsidy) per passenger as a scale.

Most of the data used for this analysis were supplied by COTA staff, including ridership information in the form of summarized automatic passenger count (APC) data collected over a four-month period, January - April 2013. Timetables and level of service information are based

2 Chapter 3: Standards for Service Design; pp. 3-1 – 3-22 3 Standards apply when condition persists for at least 60 minutes. Passenger loading on individual trips may exceed the standard.

October 28, 2014 99


on the January 2013 service signup database reported by the computer-aided scheduling system.

4.2 Proposed Standards and Metrics This section provides a brief overview of the key recommendations around service standards associated with the proposed network and application of resources. A more complete discussion of service standards and metrics appears in Appendix B. That discussion recommends an approach to standards, but lays out specific targets only for the purposes of illustration. The standards will need substantial refinement before adoption.

4.2.1 Proposed Service Categories This Transit System Review has introduced a series of new ideas for thinking about services. In particular, we propose new hierarchy of service types that replaces the current categories of Local, Crosstown, and Express, although the Express category is retained:






The new categories are better aligned with service purpose, and make it easier to talk about why each type of service exists and how it connects with reasons that people care about transit. Again,

• The purpose of ridership aligns with goals of:

• reduced subsidy,

• vehicle trip reduction,

• reduced emissions,

• protecting economic growth from congestion4, and,

• support for urban-style redevelopment.

• The purpose of coverage aligns with goals of:

• equitable provision of service by area or jurisdiction,

• lifeline access to people with mobility limitations, and,

• support for suburban-style redevelopment.

The proposed categories also refer more directly to the customer experience. Frequency and span, which determine whether service exists at all when passengers need it and whether it’s ready to serve their own lives; needs, are dominant features in building high-ridership networks in most urban areas. The three frequency categories are fundamentally different in customer experience. Frequent service is ready to go whenever riders are, while hourly service is so infrequent that people must build their lives around the schedule and live in fear of missing a bus. Half-hourly service is halfway between these two opposite experiences.

4 By providing options for travel that do not contribute to congestion, transit can permit economic growth to continue beyond the level where traffic congestion would tend to limit it.

October 28, 2014 100


It is important to note that while the categories refer to frequency and service type, the purpose is really the driving force behind the categories and the standards we apply to them. In general, we recommend tying service standards to these four categories, but the justification of the standard is really the motivating purpose – ridership (and the purposes it serves) or coverage (and the purposes it serves). The animating principle here, which is missing in many service standard methodologies, is this: Services should be monitored and evaluated according to their actual purpose. Expectations for ridership on 60-minute and Express categories should be low because ridership is not their reason to exist. The coverage they provide, regardless of ridership, is their main justification.

4.2.2 Recommended Standards Appendix B discusses in detail the justification for standards covering frequency, stop spacing, productivity coverage and other possible outcomes.

The key idea is that the recommended standards should reflect the purpose for which the service was designed. Thus:

• Services whose goal is ridership have a high standard for productivity (ridership per unit of service cost), and also have high standards for service features that tend to lead to high ridership, such as frequency, reliability, and amenity.

• Services whose goal is coverage have lower standards for productivity but are judged instead by how many residents and jobs have access to service.

Thus, for example, a coverage service might be retained despite very low ridership if it is a very efficient way to bring a large number of jobs into the network. Such a service may be providing a crucial lifeline of job access for the people who use it even though it is clear, because of built environment factors, that there is no potential for high productivity.

In addition, recommended standards cover:

• Frequency, as specified in the frequency table above. Midday frequency is a defining feature of each service type. For Frequent and 30-minute services, this frequency should extend over 15 hours a day, seven days a week, to establish a level of service that can be relied on for most of life’s needs. Service at a lesser frequency should extend over at least 18 hours a day, seven days a week on these Frequent and 30-minute services.

• Stop spacing. On the frequent network, where people are likely to be waiting at most stops, a wider stop spacing is important to ensure a balance of speed and access, because speed and reliability are important to service cost as well as to customer service. A range of 1,000 to 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) is recommended. This would be additional to COTA’s existing standards for bus stop spacing.

• On-time performance. A standard of 80% is retained, but with the proviso that services up to one minute early can be considered on-time, to avoid minor failures associated with synchronization. It is important that this standard be achieved on the Frequent Network alone, as this is what will affect the most passengers. It is relatively easy to maintain on-time performance on low-ridership services, but if a high system wide on-time performance is achieved through high performance of low-ridership lines, this means that the on-time performance as experienced by the average passenger is much lower than the stated rate for transit vehicles.

In all, the standards replace all of the elements listed in the existing standards in the previous section. Appendix B provides a full presentation and extensive discussion of these standards, and also includes advice on monitoring standards, updating the classification of routes, and responding to service requests.

October 28, 2014 101


5 Infrastructure Plan COTA’s infrastructure assets comprise a wide range of physical elements in addition to the fixed route and paratransit bus fleets to include the operations and vehicle maintenance centers (garages), park and ride lots, bus stops and shelters, transfer terminals as well as transit priority measures and road infrastructure requirements. The impact of the proposed bus network and service level changes on each of these elements is discussed below.

5.1 Bus Fleet The proposed bus network indicates a requirement for 263 buses in peak periods, 168 off-peak, and a total fleet of 314 buses including a 20% allowance for operational and maintenance spares. This is subject to final detailed scheduling, runcutting and related operational considerations. This total also includes the buses for the Cleveland BRT line.

This number compares with COTA’s 2017 projected requirement for 314 buses in peak periods and a total fleet of 390, a reduction of 76 buses. This is a significant change in the size of the fleet and largely reflects the bus network design emphasis away from a large number of inefficient express lines which have a high bus requirement (resulting in a high peak/off peak ratio of vehicles) to the concentration on fewer lines with more frequent service and a lower peak/off-peak ratio of vehicles (263/168 = 1.56).

With a higher number of service-hours and service-miles associated with the proposed bus network compared to COTA’s 2017 service projection, as summarized below, the utilization of the bus fleet changes significantly, as represented by the Average Miles per Bus and Total Bus Miles per 12-year vehicle life which is the FTA replacement guideline. FTA guidelines, although regarded as a minimum, suggest that buses would accumulate 500,000 miles during a 12-year operating lifespan. COTA’s current (2013) and 2017 utilization profile closely matches the FTA guideline. The proposed network would result in a fleet utilization experience which would be moderately over the mileage guideline by 5.7%.

Exhibit 5.1: Bus Fleet Utilization

YEAR BUS FLEET

ANNUAL SERVICE HOURS

ANNUAL SERVICE MILES

AVERAGE BUS HOURS PER YEAR

AVERAGE MILES PER BUS PER YEAR

TOTAL BUS HOURS PER BUS PER 12 YEARS

TOTAL BUS MILES PER BUS PER12 YEARS

2013 313 918,000 12,943,800* 2,933 41,354 35,196 496,248

2017 (COTA) 390 1,163,000 16,398,300* 2,982 42,047 35,785 504,563

2017 Proposed Network

314 1,163,000 13,799,777 3,704 44,446 44,448 533,350

Change -76 N/A N/A +24% 5.7% 24% 5.7%

*Based on local/crosstown lines

The proposed network utilization profile may affect COTA’s vehicle maintenance program and staffing levels although the impact should be modest. The increased vehicle utilization, which is

October 28, 2014 102


consistent with current conditions, will increase the frequency and number of routine vehicle inspections and preventative maintenance activities. COTA will need to review its vehicle maintenance program in light of the projected smaller vehicle fleet and increased vehicle utilization profile to determine any required changes to its vehicle maintenance program and staffing levels.

However, the indicated reduction in fleet size would affect COTA’s vehicle procurement program. Exhibit 5.2 summarizes COTA’s planned vehicle purchase, retirement and fleet expansion program for 2014 to 2017.

Exhibit 5.2: COTA Vehicle Purchase Program 2014 - 2017

FLEET STATUS YEAR

2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Previous Year 313 332 348 364 -

Service Expansion 19 16 16 26 77

Replacement 17 22 7 12 58

Net Change 19 16 16 26 77

Total Fleet 332 348 364 390 -

Total Bus Purchase 36 38 23 38 135

Vehicle Purchases

Of the 135 new vehicles to be purchased over the 2014 to 2017 period, 77 are for service expansion and 58 are replacements. Thirteen of the expansion vehicles are for the Cleveland Avenue BRT line and are to be purchased in 2016. With the projected reduction of 76 vehicles in the fleet size for the proposed bus network, COTA would not need to purchase 76 of the 77 planned additional buses for service expansion. This would reduce COTA’s capital bus purchase program for service expansion by approximately $26,881,000 over 2014 to 2016. The purchase of 58 vehicles intended as replacements should proceed. As it is recognized that the vehicles being purchased for the Cleveland BRT line will have distinctive features and branding, the new vehicles intended as replacements in 2016 and six of the 12 in 2017 could have these features.

On a go-forward basis, vehicle purchases would continue after 2017, or after the bus network implementation date, for replacement purposes. Buses for service expansion would then be determined based on available funding, ridership experience and requests for new service.

5.2 Transit Centers/Garages In view of the projected fleet reduction of 76 units in the fixed route network and no expansion in the ADA fleet beyond the fleet already projected for 2017, no expansion or changes to COTA’s three operations and maintenance facilities is required beyond any current plans for modifications or upgrades.

It should be noted that with the move to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fuel for the bus fleet, the McKinley facility is the only facility with CNG fueling. As a result, all weekend service is operated from this one facility.

October 28, 2014 103


COTA has three transit transfer centers in addition to the two terminals in downtown Columbus (Linden at 1390 Cleveland Avenue, Easton at 4260 Stelzer Road and Near East at 1125 Main Street). Each of these locations will continue to be relevant, particularly the Linden and Easton centers, for the proposed bus network.

5.3 Park and Ride Lots COTA has 28 park and ride lots distributed across its service area, primarily in the outskirts (Dublin, Gahanna, New Albany, Grove City, Reynoldsburg, etc).

These existing sites were reviewed to determine their continued relevance for the proposed bus network and mapped. Exhibits 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 below illustrate the location of the lots, their proximity to the proposed new lines and their current utilization rate. All of the sites are adjacent or close to the proposed network lines. However, 10 of them do require transit users to walk a significant distance (>200 feet) with two locations in particular, #1 – Berwick Plaza and #3 – Royal Plaza (Gahanna) with walk distances of 597 feet and 400 feet respectively. This distance is excessive and does not make these locations convenient. Unless COTA decides to re-direct the closest proposed lines to serve these lots, then it is recommended that COTA consider closing these lots.

In addition, COTA may wish to give consideration to the usefulness of sites at Eastland Mall, Hilliard United Church, Main & Weyman loop, St. Andrew, St. Peters and Whitehall which have low utilization rates according to COTA statistics. An analysis of the cost of maintenance and ownership of each lot should be undertaken to determine the value of retaining these lots. Strategically, the identified lots do not appear to be either useful or conveniently located to attract users. It is recommended that COTA give consideration to the usefulness of lots 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and consider closing them. This may impact COTA’s park and ride lot operating and maintenance budget and capital budget program.

October 28, 2014 104


Exhibit 5.3: Map of Park and Ride Lots on Proposed Bus Network

October 28, 2014 105


Exhibit 5.4: Walking Distances to Park and Ride Lots From COTA Bus Stop

ID NAME DISTANCE ALONG LINE?

SPACES CITY LOCATION

1 Berwick Plaza 597' Nearby 60 COLUMBUS REFUGEE RD & WINCHESTER PIKE

2 Reynoldsburg 138' Yes 214 REYNOLDSBURG 2100 BIRCHVIEW DR 3 Royal Plaza (Gahanna) 400' Nearby 40 GAHANNA AGLER RD & STYGLER

RD 4 Westerville 123' Yes 230 WESTERVILLE 312 W MAIN ST 5 Crosswoods 260' Yes 169 COLUMBUS 7460 HUNTINGTON

PARK DR 6 Indianola & Morse 84' Yes 105 COLUMBUS 4720 Indianola Ave 7 Dublin Dale Dr 108' Yes 82 DUBLIN 4450 DALE DR 8 Easton Transit 238' Yes 41 COLUMBUS 4260 TRANSIT DR 9 Olentangy & Bethel 265' Yes 150 COLUMBUS 4990 OLENTANGY RIVER

RD 10 Hilliard Cemetery Rd 174' Yes 90 HILLIARD 4199 PARKWAY LN 11 Grove City 209' Yes 150 GROVE CITY 2321 OLD STRINGTOWN

RD 12 Westwoods 100' Yes 100 COLUMBUS 55 WESTWOODS BLVD 13 Livingston & Barnett 152' Yes 101 COLUMBUS 3380 E LIVINGSTON AVE 14 Northern Lights 257' Yes 60 COLUMBUS CLEVELAND AVE & INNIS

RD 15 Delawanda 76' Yes 58 COLUMBUS 4939 N HIGH ST 16 Kingsdale 42' Yes 46 UPPER ARLINGTON 3206 TREMONT RD 17 Great Southern 305' Yes 84 COLUMBUS S HIGH ST & OBETZ RD 18 Whitehall 162' Yes 148 WHITEHALL 4540 E BROAD ST 19 Broad & Southampton 74' Yes 68 COLUMBUS W BROAD ST &

SOUTHAMPTON AVE 20 Griggs Dam 265' Yes 16 COLUMBUS RIVERSIDE DR &

NOTTINGHAM RD 21 St. Andrew 163' Yes 14 DUBLIN 1985 SWANSFORD DR 22 St. Peters 138' Yes 20 COLUMBUS 6899 SMOKY ROW RD 23 Main & Weyant Loop 75' Yes 12 COLUMBUS E MAIN ST & WEYANT

AVE 24 Hilliard United

Methodist Church 83' Yes 37 HILLIARD 5445 SCIOTO DARBY RD

25 Renner Rd 97' Yes 116 COLUMBUS 5608 RENNER RD 26 Eastland Mall 206' Yes 27 COLUMBUS 4138 REFUGEE RD 27 Gender Rd 82' Yes 40 CANALWINCHESTER 5336 GENDER RD 28 New Albany NA Yes 88 NEW ALBANY 5202 FOREST DR

October 28, 2014 106


Exhibit 5.5: Park and Ride Lot Utilization

ID NAME CAPACITY AVERAGE COUNT

AVG/CAP (UTILIZED)

1 Berwick Plaza 60 12 20.40%

2 Reynoldsburg 214 99 46.06%

3 Royal Plaza (Gahanna) 40 14 34.58%

4 Westerville 230 55 24.06%

5 Crosswoods 169 34 20.34%

6 Indianola & Morse 105 25 24.12%

7 Dublin Dale Dr 82 64 78.24%

8 Easton Transit 41 12 28.24%

9 Olentangy & Bethel 150 9 6.18%

10 Hilliard Cemetery Rd 90 11 12.74%

11 Grove City 150 30 20.30%

12 Westwoods 100 14 13.83%

13 Livingston & Barnett 101 19 18.55%

14 Northern Lights 60 28 45.91%

15 Delawanda 58 26 45.13%

16 Kingsdale 46 18 38.87%

17 Great Southern 84 12 13.82%

18 Whitehall 148 17 11.48%

19 Broad & Southampton 68 18 26.41%

20 Griggs Dam 16 11 70.18%

21 St. Andrew 14 7 47.62%

22 St. Peters 20 8 40.00%

23 Main & Weyant Loop 12 0 0.00%

24 Hilliard United Methodist Church 37 3 7.99%

25 Renner Rd 116 55 47.22%

26 Eastland Mall 27 3 12.61%

27 Gender Rd 40 28 69.08%

28 New Albany 26 15 57.69%

Source: COTA; Park and Ride Averages from 8/22/2012 to 8/22/2014.

October 28, 2014 107


5.4 Stops, Shelters COTA has developed an extensive bus stop and shelter design document which provides a comprehensive guide and justification for locating and upgrading stops as well as for the warrant and installation of bus shelters and other transit user amenities. COTA has distributed this document to the municipalities and relevant developers and it forms an important guide for the installation of this important transit infrastructure. The document was reviewed by the consulting team and no changes or additions are suggested.

COTA has approximately 3,607 bus stops and 375 shelters throughout its service area. Bus stop spacing is approximately one stop every 600 feet. The shelter coverage ratio is approximately 10%, or in the range of 20% with low utilization stops excluded (based on discussion with COTA staff). There is a trend in the industry to increase shelter coverage ratios to 30% or higher as part of a strategy to increase the attractiveness of using transit. It is recommended that COTA review and consider increasing the number of bus shelters and establish a higher shelter coverage percentage.

The proposed bus network will result in a requirement to remove stops, install new ones, re-sign existing stops and relocate existing shelters. The following changes are projected:

• Between 95% and 100% of all bus stops will need to be re-signed in order to reflect the changes in line numberings or lines serving each stop.

• Approximately 1,292 stops (36% of existing stops) will need to be removed based on a GIS-based comparison of existing stop locations and the future network. Approximately 600 new stops will need to be installed along streets with new service assuming an average spacing of 600 feet between stops. This represents a total of 1,892 stop changes.

• Approximately 84 shelters will need to be relocated.

Stops to be removed and shelters to be relocated are illustrated below in Exhibit 5.6.

The cost to install a new bus stop is approximately $148.00 excluding time for obtaining location approvals. New bus stop sign (sign and vinyl overlay) is approximately $65.00. The labor cost to replace old signs with new would be approximately $17.00 per stop (assuming 3 stops per hour) depending on the time required. Removal of stops would have a similar labor cost while the hardware removed could be re-used thereby offsetting the cost for new signage.

On this basis, the removal of 1,292 signs would cost approximately $21,964.00; the installation of 600 new bus stop locations would cost $88,800 for labor and materials, plus the labor cost for location approvals. Replacement of the information signage on the remaining existing stops (2,315 locations) would cost approximately $82.00 per sign or $189,830. It may be possible to undertake this work more efficiently and thereby reduce this cost.

The estimated 84 shelters requiring relocation would have a cost of approximately $39,000 for labor plus an estimated average cost of $1,500 per stop for new concrete pads (actual costs will vary by location) for a total relocation cost of approximately $164,000 plus the time to obtain locations approvals.

October 28, 2014 108


Exhibit 5.6: Stops and Shelter to be Relocated

In summary, the cost to change, remove or install bus stops and relocate shelters, exclusive of the labor cost to obtain location approvals or any other miscellaneous costs, would total approximately $464,654 as follows:

• Remove 1,292 stops $21,964.00

• Install 269 stops $88,800.00

• Re-sign 2,315 existing stops $189,890.00

• Relocate 84 shelters $164,000.00

October 28, 2014 109


5.5 Operations Infrastructure Needs To implement the recommended bus network plan, the following infrastructure needs were identified during the development of the proposed bus network to either facilitate the introduction of the proposed network changes or to improve transit operations. These will need to be considered during the implementation phase.

Loops/Turnarounds

• Line 1 - Need to improve loop and user amenities at Livingstone and Hamilton.

• Lines 1b/30 - Provide a terminus or enhanced bus stop with user amenities at the new Wal-Mart planned for the Olde Sawmill Square site at Sawmill Road and Saltergate Drive. Line 1b will turn around by circulating through this parking lot, but there are currently no passenger amenities present and this turnaround may require redesign upon construction of the new Wal-Mart.

• Lines 2a/2b – Improve loop and user amenities at the Great Eastern turn-around on Main between Hamilton Road and Shady Lane. This will be the site of the turnback of the 15-minute segment of Line 2.

• Line 17 – Provide a turn-around area or loop in the vicinity of the Wal-Mart store at Georgesville Road with suitable user amenities. The primary purpose of this loop would be to shorten the existing loop arrangement into the shopping plaza.

• Lines 28 and 95 – Construct a layover area (bus pull-in bay, stop, shelter other amenities) at the Tuttle Mall.

• Line 94 – At the west end of the 30-minute segment (at Kingsdale Shopping Center), construct a loop/terminus with user amenities. This will be an important site for transfers between Lines 3, 93 and 94.

• Line 95 – Review local road layout to identify a suitable loop/turnaround arrangement and a terminus for line 95 on Kenny Road at Bethel/Godown Roads. Consider a common stop location with Line 1-Kenny and include a bus pull-bay.

Bus Stops and Bus Bays

• Lines 1/30/61/94 – Add a new on-street bus stop, pull-in bay with a concrete pad, sidewalks and shelter on W. North Broadway, southside of Riverside Hospital.

• Line 8 – Add a new bus stop and bus bay along the southbound route south of Boardwalk Street and Shapter Avenue near the Giant Eagle.

• Lines 10/89 – Westbound stop of Line 10 and southbound stop of Line 89 needed at E. Broad Street and Hamilton Road to facilitate transfers between both directions of both routes.

• Line 93 - Construct crosswalks on Olentangy River Road at Lennox with bus stop pads and sidewalks.

• Easton Mall / Easton Way west of Stelzer Road – Add customer amenities: shelter and benches.

• General – Work with local areas to develop shelter designs that blend/compliment local architecture.

• Passenger amenities will be needed at new downtown transfer locations - shelters, benches and lighting.

Cost estimates and related operational requirements for each of the above items will need to be developed by COTA staff and would be additional to the cost elements included within the financial plan section in this report.

October 28, 2014 110


6 Technology Plan IBI Group developed a technology plan that defines a future integrated systems vision for COTA, and structured its development as a sequence of specific projects with timelines and costs. The findings of the technology plan are summarized in this section. For full details, refer to the separate Task 9: Technology Plan document.

6.1 Projects This section presents a sequence of recommended transit technology projects. The project sequence was developed considering COTA priorities and also prerequisite and related technologies. For example, although a business intelligence platform could be deployed in isolation, its value increases significantly if a data warehousing solution is deployed first or in conjunction.

COTA has already begun work on several projects:

• Stabilize CAD/AVL and mobility systems;

• Radio receiver upgrade; and

• Facility access control system upgrade.

As these projects are already underway, they are not included in the projects sequence plan. It is assumed they will be completed prior to the plan projects (particularly efforts to stabilize the existing CAD/AVL and mobility systems).

6.1.1 Project A – CAD/AVL Enhancements (Forms and Reporting, Service Alerts, Real-Time Information to Mobility Supervisors, IVR Integration Support)

The project includes several desired enhancements to the Trapeze NOVUS fixed route CAD/AVL system and the Trapeze PASS mobility scheduling and dispatch management systems. As enhancements to an existing system, it is necessary these be performed by Trapeze as the system vendor. Project A combines into a single project those enhancements that would logically be sole-sourced to Trapeze. These include key missing functionality identified by COTA, and lay the groundwork for several elements in later projects.

Specific enhancements in Project A include:

• Improved Forms and Reporting. Create a new form that allows supervisors to log interactions with customers. Auto-fill common form fields (e.g. vehicle location). Log more of the information the CAD/AVL system displays (e.g. text messages and radio calls). Create new reports and clean-up existing reports to show collected information in a more usable format.

• Improved Service Alerts. Provide schedule adherence data and dispatcher entered service alert information to customer service in an automated fashion.

• Data Availability to Third Parties. Establish a real-time data feed and API for schedule adherence and service alert information that third-party systems could access and use to share with customers (i.e. via some combination of SMS, email, website, smartphone apps, and the COTA social media presence). Continue to address the data feed requirements to enable Google Transit.

• Real-time Information to Mobility Supervisors. Provide mobility supervisors with improved methods to manage mobility vehicles and operators. This would include allowing supervisors to view vehicle locations on their smartphones and receive notices via email or SMS.

October 28, 2014 111


• Integration with IVR. Integrate the future upgraded IVR with the CAD/AVL and mobility systems using Interface Control Documents from one or more of the vendors.

6.1.2 Project B – Communications (E-alerts, IVR upgrade, Interactive Transit Data for Customers, Online Operator Portal)

Project B would provide new communications functionality, including external communications with COTA customers and internal communication with operators. Providing COTA customers with easily available and accurate real-time information improves service attractiveness and customer satisfaction. Improving and automating communications with COTA operators frees up dispatcher resources from daily repetitive tasks. A number of vendors could implement this project, so it is recommended for competitive procurement.

Project B includes:

• E-Alerts. Allow customers to subscribe for updated information on particular stops and/or routes during specified times periods and days of the week. Support multiple delivery information methods (e.g. SMS, email). Push information to COTA social media presence (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) based on customizable business rules. Notify mobility customers about booking/pickup status.

• IVR Upgrade. Provide better data logging and reporting abilities to support COTA analysis (e.g. time to connect, IVR options selected, time to be routed to agent if selected). Mobility services customers could use the IVR to confirm or cancel previously created bookings, and receive recorded messages with pickup reminders or when their vehicle is approaching.

• Interactive Transit Data for Customers. Provide customers with schedule and real-time data in an intuitive and interactive format. Allow customers to view real-time stop arrival predictions using data from the CAD/AVL system, through methods provided by COTA and third parties (e.g., Google Transit, phone IVR, API/feed for third party mobile applications).

• Online Operator Portal. Allow operators and extraboard operators to view in an automatically populated online portal their upcoming work as well as additional information (e.g. turn-by-turn instructions, detour information).

6.1.3 Project C – E-ticketing E-ticketing allows transit fare products to be purchased and then presented for inspection using a customer smartphone app. A basic e-ticket system would allow customers to purchase single tickets using a credit card, while more extensive versions would support the purchase of all prepaid fare media such as period passes. Several vendors offer e-ticketing solutions, so a competitive procurement is recommended. As this would be a highly visible change for COTA, a phased approach should be considered (e.g. single use tickets on one route (such as the new downtown circulator) before adding other route and fare product options.

Project C includes:

• E-Ticketing. Purchase single-use tickets and passes through a smartphone app and mobile-compatible website. An onboard reader would be installed on fixed route vehicles to validate the ticket presented on the smartphone or printed from the website, which could optionally also be inspected by COTA personnel using handheld devices. These are generally hosted systems, with the main hardware being the onboard readers and if needed handheld inspection devices. Since mobility vehicles currently do not have fareboxes and passenger volumes are much lower, it is anticipated that visual validation would be more cost effective. Hence, e-ticketing readers are assumed to only be installed only on fixed-route vehicles.

October 28, 2014 112


6.1.4 Project D – Reporting (Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence) Many reports within COTA business processes can be automated. This section considers a Data Warehouse system to consolidate data from various sources. Combined with a Business Intelligence system, this would allow COTA to better use the significant amount of data available from their existing systems. This project could be implemented by a number of vendors and is recommended for competitive procurement.

Project D includes:

• Data Warehouse. Store consolidated data from various sources, including CAD/AVL, scheduling, fare, APC, maintenance, HR, and finance systems. Act as a historical data repository, archived through COTA IT practices. Facilitate data exchange between systems (without need for direct integration) through the data warehouse.

• Business Intelligence (BI). Transform historical data from the data warehouse for reporting. Facilitate report automation and integration to allow information access across various departments. Support management and planning efforts by mining data for trends, detecting issues early or finding new ways to improve service. The BI system could be part of the data warehouse system, or a separate but integrated system.

6.1.5 Project E – Security (Onboard Camera Upgrade, Facility Camera Upgrade) This project would enhance existing security systems to provide consistent and reliable coverage across the COTA fleet and facilities. A number of vendors could implement this project, so it is recommended for competitive procurement.

Project E includes:

• Fixed-Route and Mobility Cameras Expansion/Consistency Upgrades. Normalize the onboard configuration to equip each set of fixed-route and mobility buses of the same vehicle type with microphones and the same number of cameras. This is anticipated to include seven cameras for all fixed route vehicles (roughly two thirds of fixed route vehicles have six cameras currently, while the others have seven, five, or three cameras each) and two cameras for mobility vehicles. The specific number of cameras for various vehicle types will be finalized as part of the specifications development for this project.

• Automated Onboard Video Flagging. Integrate DVR with other onboard equipment to flag the times for video of certain onboard events. This would include certain operator actions (e.g. button press), system-triggered events (e.g. using g-force sensors), and video analytics (e.g. bag left on bus). This would improve efficiency for locating relevant video.

• Garage WLAN Upgrade. Upgrade WLAN coverage and throughput, to avoid separate WLANs for systems from multiple vendors. Ensure throughput is sufficient for reliable uploading of flagged video, in addition to all other bulk data transfer needed as vehicles return to coverage.

• Facilities Camera System Upgrade. Upgrade current DVR systems at the Park and Ride Facilities, to enable hardware self-checks and automated system administration alerts. These upgrades would also support remote access to video.

October 28, 2014 113


6.2 Plan Summary Exhibit 6.1 shows the COTA system vision diagram, indicating project connections with other projects and existing systems.

Exhibit 6.1: Sequence of Projects Building Up to COTA’s Future System Architecture

Fixed Route Vehicles

Vehicles

CentersTravelers

Field

CAD/AVLCentral Software

Data Warehouse

On-board Computer

Automatic Passenger Counter

Onboard Cameras

Farebox

Wireless Communication Hardware

Onboard Voice Radio

Social Media E-Alerts

Interactive Transit Data (apps)

Interactive Voice Response System (phone)

Online Trip Planner

Legend:o Existing System Component o Program Deployment Component- - - - Wireless Data Transmission–––––– Wired Data Transmission

Facility Camera Systems

Ticket Vending Machines

Dynamic Message Signs

Real-Time Information Website

Business Intelligence

Facility Access Control System

Base Radio

Real-Time Info Feeds and APIs

E-ticketing Software

Online Operator

Portal

Fixed Route Scheduling System (Trapeze FX)

Demand Response Scheduling and Dispatch System (Trapeze PASS)

Planning Software (ArcGIS)

Fare Management System

Integrated Video Management System

Wireless Gateway Data Comms. Software

APC Software Module

Digital Video Recorder

Demand Response Vehicles

On-board Computer

Mobile Data Terminal

Drive Cam

GPS

Wireless Communication

HardwareOnboard Voice

Radio

Onboard Cameras

Digital Video Recorder

Emergency Alarm

Existing/Ongoing Project A Project B Project C Project D Project EProject Legend:

Maintenance Management

Software

Automatic Vehicle Monitoring

Software Module

Customer Service Alerts

Reporting Module

Mobility Supervisor Smartphone

E-ticketing Reader

Mobile Data Terminal

GPSDrive Cam

AVA Software Module

Interior Sign

PA AmplifierPA Speaker Emergency Alarm

Headsign

October 28, 2014 114


6.3 Project Deployment and Costing Estimates are based on resources from past projects and discussions with various technology vendors. These numbers include the projected costs for specification development and implementation, management costs, warranty costs, and allowance for contingency.

Exhibit 6.2: ITS Strategic Plan: Project Costs

Project Capital Costs*

Annual Operating and Maintenance

Costs* (including annual

software license/support)

Project A (a) CAD/AVL System Enhancements $123,000 $14,000

SUBTOTAL $123,000 $14,000

Project B

(a) E-Alerts $176,000 $20,000

(b) IVR Upgrade $176,000 $20,000

(c) Interactive Transit Data (Mobile App) $53,000 $6,000

(d) Online Operator Portal $176,000 $20,000

SUBTOTAL $581,000 $66,000

Project C (a) E-Ticketing $3,905,000 $243,000

SUBTOTAL $3,905,000 $243,000

Project D

(a) Data Warehouse $102,000 $8,000

(b) Business Intelligence $440,000 $50,000

SUBTOTAL $542,000 $58,000

Project E

(a) Onboard Camera and Microphone Upgrade $2,878,000 $57,000

(b) Automated Onboard Video Flagging $762,000 $15,000

(c) Garage WLAN Upgrade $220,000 $4,000

(d) Facility Camera Upgrade $201,000 $5,000

SUBTOTAL $4,061,000 $81,000

Additional Budgeted Staffing Cost for ITS, CAD/AVL System Maintenance --- $80,000

TOTAL $9,212,000 $542,000

* Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand.

October 28, 2014 115


6.4 Project Timelines Exhibit 6.3 presents an estimated timeline for deploying each project, along with annual cost estimates for planning purposes. This scenario does not consider potential COTA financial constraints on deployment sequence timing. The rollout could also be adapted along the way based on COTA experience.

Exhibit 6.3: Project Deployment Sequence and Estimated Timeline

Project A: CAD/AVL Enhancements 123,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project B: Communications 581,000.00$ 66,000.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project C: E-Ticketing 3,905,000.00$ 243,000.00$ 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project D: Reporting 542,000.00$ 58,000.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Project E: Security 4,061,000.00$ 81,000.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Additional FTE -$ 80,000.00$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capital BudgetOperations and MaintenanceTotal Budget

Planning and ReviewSpecification and ProcurementImplementation and TestingWaranty

Q2

Year 1 Year 5

Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q3

Year 4

9,211,000.00$ Total 5-Year Expenditure

172,000.00$ 2,284,000.00$ 2,886,000.00$ 3,869,000.00$ -$

Q1 Q2 Q3Projects

Capital Budget and Contingency

Annual Operations and Maintenance

Year 2 Year 3

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q1

Legend

10,636,000.00$ 1,425,000.00$

Q4 Q1

Year 4Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 5

2,378,000.00$ 253,000.00$ 542,000.00$ 4,321,000.00$ 3,142,000.00$ 81,000.00$ 94,000.00$ 256,000.00$ 452,000.00$ 542,000.00$

NOTE: Costs have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

October 28, 2014 116


7 Financial Plan This section summarizes the financial plan for the proposed bus network and presents a 5-year operating and capital budget based on COTA’s projected 2017 budget. In view of the uncertainty of the date for implementing the proposed bus network, the budget plan is for unspecified years 1 to 5, with year 1 being the first year following the date of implementation.

Estimated costs associated with implementing the proposed bus network are listed and would largely apply before the date of implementing the proposed bus network with some residual costs post implementation. It is to be noted that as no expansion of transit service beyond the proposed bus network plan changes or changes to the projected 2017 service hours for the fixed route or paratransit services are part of the TSR, the 5-year budget forecast is essentially constant: the only variable is for inflation, for which COTA’s assumptions for years beyond 2017 have been used, as well as changes in ridership, fare revenue levels and resulting net cost.

On the capital side, the primary change in COTA’s budget projections is a reduction in the cost allocation for “Fixed Route Diesel/CNG Bus” purchases but this would occur in the years leading up to 2017, or the year of implementation. Unit costs (cost per service hour, average fare, cost per bus) have been used for the operating and capital budget estimates.

7.1 Operating Budget The operating budget shown in Exhibit 7.1 presents the projected operating cost for Years 1 to 5 following the date of service implementation. The column, “Year Prior”, refers to the year prior to implementation of the proposed network plan.

Exhibit 7.1: Five-year Operating Budget Forecast for Proposed Bus Network

CATEGORY 2017 COTA PROJECTION

YEAR PRIOR YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Service Hours Fixed route 1,163,000 - 1,163,000 1,163,000 1,163,000 1,163,000 1,163,000 Paratransit 189,000 - 222,075 222,075 222,075 222,075 222,075 Ridership 20,995,476 - 20,995,476 22,045,249 23,095,023 23,095,023 23,095,023 Revenue Sources Fare Revenue $25,554,381 - $25,551,494 $26,829,068 $28,106,643 $28,106,643 $28,106,643 Other $128,756,493 - $131,901,442 $135,215,876 $138,658,534 $142,145,234 $145,706,273 Total Revenue $154,310,874 - $157,452,936 $162,044,944 $166,765,177 $170,251,877 $173,812,916 Operating Budget Fixed Route $124,509,265 - $124,509,265 $127,995,524 $131,579,399 $135,263,622 $139,051,004 Paratransit $9,121,005 - $10,717,180 $11,017,261 $11,325,744 $11,642,865 $11,968,865 Total Operating $133,630,270 - $135,226,445 $139,012,785 $142,905,143 $146,906,487 $151,019,869 Net (Operations) $20,680,604 $22,226,491 $23,032,159 $23,860,034 $23,345,390 $22,793,047 New Expenditures Bus stop, shelter Changes

$464,654

Implementation Strategy

$35,000

Management support

$200,000

Cost Reductions Maintenance staff ($1,200,000)

October 28, 2014 117


The operating budget is based on COTA’s 2017 service hour estimate of 1.163 million which was the basis for the development of the Proposed Network Plan. As developed, the Network Plan indicates approximately 1,220,000 million service hours as referenced in section 3.7.1. This estimate is within the 5% margin of error applicable to the service design development process. In the final service design process, COTA will determine the number of service hours and the actual operating costs associated with the proposed network.

7.1.1 Ridership COTA projects its 2017 ridership to be 20,995,476. As indicated during the TSR plan development process, the selected service investment scenario of 70/30 with the significant increase in the number of frequent service lines is projected to increase COTA ridership by 10% after 2 years following implementation. At the same time, however, a decline in ridership was noted following a major re-structuring of lines and services as riders acclimatize themselves to the new services. Such decline usually extends for approximately 6 months but could be longer or shorter depending on local factors and the level of public information and awareness of the changes. Thereafter, ridership is projected to recover. It should be emphasized that projected responses to major service changes and projecting future ridership levels is not an exact science. Therefore, the estimates provided are professional assumptions, not predictions.

On this basis, the ridership projections have the following assumptions:

• Year 1 is assumed to experience no net growth or loss of ridership although there may be evidence of ridership growth (over the 2017 base estimate) emerging from Year 1 over the last 3 months. It is assumed that the projected 2017 ridership will be the same as Year 1 ridership;

• Net growth in Year 2 in the order of 5% over Year 1; and,

• Net growth of 10% in Year 3 over Year 1 is assumed.

These assumptions result in potential ridership levels of 20,995,476 (COTA 2017 estimate) in Year 1, 22,045,249 in Year 2 and 23,095,023 in Year 3. The ridership changes are based on COTA’s 2017 projection. No ridership increases are provided beyond year 3 as unknown external conditions may influence ridership levels.

7.1.2 Revenue The revenue source summary is presented as “Fares” and “Other” since, for the purposes of this budget analysis, revenues from fares and other sources, such as COTA’s sale and use tax and investment income, are projected to vary. No provision for a fare increase beyond Year 1 is included even though a fare increase is indicated for 2018 in COTA’s SRTP. For the purposes of this analysis, the impact of a fare increase could skew the ridership and revenue projections and is therefore not included. COTA may wish to consider the planned 2018 fare increase following implementation of the line network.

Fare revenues for Years 1, 2 and 3 vary according to the ridership projections and are based on COTA’s projected 2017 average fare of $1.217 per passenger. COTA’s “other” revenue sources are projected to vary as provided by COTA.

7.1.3 Operating Costs The operating cost for the Paratransit operation has been separated from the overall operating budget summary in view of the projected 17.5% increase in service levels for the paratransit service in Year 1 as a result of the coverage and service level changes for the proposed network. Thereafter, the service levels remain constant. A service hour increase of 15% to 20% was indicated in section 3.3. For simplicity, this increase has been averaged as 17.5% in Year 1.

October 28, 2014 118


No increased service levels for the fixed route service are provided for with all remaining operating costs in COTA’s budget summary assumed to apply to the fixed route operation.

Operating costs for Years 2 to 5 include an annual inflation rate of 2.8% based on analysis of the cost changes in COTA’s budget projections for 2017 to 2019.

On the basis of these assumptions and projections, COTA’s net operating cost will change from the COTA 2017 projected level of $133,630,270 to $151,019,869 by Year 5.

7.1.4 Net Operating Surplus COTA’s net operating surplus, or cost net of Total Uses and Total Sources, is estimated as follows for Years 1 to 5:

• Year 1 - $22,226,491

• Year 2 - $23,032,159

• Year 3 - $23,860,034

• Year 4 - $23,345,390

• Year 5 - $22,793,047

The primary reason for the decline in Years 4 and 5 compared to COTA projections for 2018 and 2019 is the absence of a fare increase (intended for 2018). With the fare increase factored in, the net revenue would increase accordingly. As the fare increase is discretionary, it has been omitted from this forecast.

7.2 Capital Budget As noted above, the only major change to COTA’s capital budget relates to the reduced need for bus purchases, totaling 76 units less than COTA’s current projected 2017 bus fleet. The estimated bus expenditure reduction (savings) is $26,881,000 subject to the specific cost items associated with the planned vehicle purchases. COTA will need to review its bus purchase plans once an implementation date has been selected. All other identified capital cost items are assumed to remain valid subject to consideration of the Information Technology Plan recommendations.

7.3 Implementation Costs Implementation of the proposed network involves a significant level of effort. While COTA’s staff and financial resources normally applied annually to on-going service change and service delivery efforts would be, instead, dedicated to the network change program, additional resources will be needed in the short term in the following areas in order to successfully implement the proposed network. The areas include:

• Management support/added staff resources (project manager).

• Move stops, relocate shelters.

• Stakeholder consultation.

• Marketing, customer communications and promotion (subject to preparation of a marketing and implementation strategy).

• Training and orientation of employees.

• Scheduling and runcutting.

October 28, 2014 119


For the purposes of implementation, it is assumed that COTA would devote the majority of its staff time and resources to planning for and implementing the changes in the year leading up to the implementation date. This would cover such areas as infrastructure staff (stops, shelters), planning and scheduling (no other service changes implemented), marketing and communications and stakeholder consultation. However, additional effort and expenditures are suggested in the areas of management support, marketing and stakeholder consultation.

Management support would take the form of a person dedicated, likely on contract, to overseeing implementation as discussed previously. An estimated allowance of $200,000 is suggested for 18 months. This estimate is based on $10,000 per month plus $20,000 in miscellaneous expenditures associated with the position (office, communications, travel).

In the area of marketing and customer communications, a budget for additional short-term expenditures in this area will likely be required and would be defined once COTA has prepared a marketing and implementation strategy. This strategy would identify any needed additional staff support, costs and communications materials, media advertisements and related activities to effectively promote and communicate the forthcoming change. The estimated cost to prepare a marketing and communications strategy is $35,000 if an external agency or resource is retained to prepare the plan.

Costs to change bus stops and shelters was identified previously is projected to total $464,654 including materials and assuming labor is contracted. Some of this cost (labor and materials) may already be provided for within the COTA’s operating budget as an on-going annual expense and would reduce this estimate.

Training and Orientation pertains to new bus operators, supervisors and customer information staff and will include briefing sessions, tours of specific sites, displays and information materials to inform employees about the network change as well as specific new-hire training costs. In this regard, a total of approximately 84 additional bus operators is projected for the network change although, in fact, this number may be unchanged from COTA’s projected staffing level for 2017 and already-planned service improvements. The actual bus operator requirement would be determined at the time of detailed scheduling and runcutting. COTA will need to develop a strategy for progressively hiring/training the additional bus operators.

Overall, it is anticipated that existing COTA staff resources normally dedicated to the periodic service changes and associated scheduling and runcutting assignments should be able to handle the required work for the network change over the course of the year leading up to the change.

7.4 Staffing As noted in previous sections, staff changes associated with the proposed bus network would result in an increase in the number of bus operators and a decrease in vehicle maintenance staff:

• Operations:

• Drivers – while the network change will involve new lines and schedules, no net change in the projected service hours for 2017 beyond COTA’s funding envelope are projected. Therefore, no additional bus operators will be required to implement the change compared to COTA’s original service plan for 2017. However, this is predicated upon COTA continuing to add service and additional bus operators as originally envisioned in the 5-Year SRTP. If, on the other hand, COTA does not implement its planned service improvements over the 2014 – 2017 period with the associated increases in staff (drivers), then there will be a requirement to hire and train the necessary

October 28, 2014 120


employees in time for the network change. COTA has projected an increase of 84 in the number of bus operators between 2014 and 2017 (561 to 645).

• Maintenance:

• Mechanics - potential reduction of ten mechanics for the reduced fleet size. This estimate is based on the current bus/mechanic ratio of 7:1 applied to the projected fleet reduction of 76 buses. However, it is subject to COTA’s overall vehicle maintenance program requirements.

• Vehicle Servicing/Cleaning staff – potential reduction of five vehicle servicing (fueling, cleaning) staff due to fewer buses to wash, clean and fuel. This is based on the existing bus/servicing staff ratio of 15:1.

The salary impact for these 15 potential staff reductions is estimated at $1,200,000 on the basis of an average salary, including benefits and related costs, of $80,000 per position recognizing that there are remuneration differences between the mechanic and vehicle servicing/cleaning staff positions.

October 28, 2014 121


8 Recommendations The following actions are recommended for adoption by the COTA Board of Trustees and COTA staff to implement the proposed new bus network plan:

• Maintain the 70% Ridership/30% Coverage service investment principle as the basis for future line and service planning as outlined within this report (COTA Board);

• Further refine the revised line and service metrics and evaluation principles and process outlined within this report (COTA staff), and then adopt those metrics and principles (COTA Board);

• Approve the proposed Bus Network Plan in principle subject to further stakeholder consultation and finalization of the detailed line and service schedules (COTA Board);

• Select an implementation date for the new bus network (COTA staff, staff advise Board) implementation and dates for phase-in of service and line changes leading up to final implementation of the new bus network;

• Develop a comprehensive implementation plan and communications strategy for stakeholder consultation, customer information activities, and promotion strategy for the service and bus network changes leading up to and including the final changeover to the new bus network (COTA Staff);

• Hire a “network transformation manager” for an 18-month period commencing 12 months prior to the selected implementation date and dedicated to managing the network change and implementation plan (COTA staff);

• Reduce planned bus purchases by 76 units between 2014 and 2017, subject to final determination of vehicle requirements for the proposed network;

• Following determination of the service and bus network changes and timing, complete a Title VI analysis prior to finalizing the lines and implementing bus network and related service changes (COTA Staff);

• Confirm bus operator requirements and other staffing levels for the proposed service and bus network changes over the defined time period for implementing the changes; reduce bus servicing/cleaning staff levels by five (5) positions; review maintenance staff requirements subject to a review of COTA’s bus maintenance program requirements associated with reduce bus fleet.

October 28, 2014 122


9 Implementation Plan Implementing a major re-structuring of a transit network is a significant task and event. Few transit agencies completely restructure their bus line networks as is proposed within this study; most agencies evolve their networks over a lengthy period of time, such as COTA has been doing since 1974. For COTA, the proposed bus network presents a critically important opportunity to re-focus its mandate and resources and to engage the community in building a more effective, useful and ultimately more successful (in terms of ridership and community support) transit service. It will also form the foundation for increased future investment in transit by the region and constituent municipalities and community stakeholders.

As may be judged by the foregoing descriptions and outcomes of how the proposed bus network was developed, virtually all of COTA’s existing bus network will be affected; few lines will be unaltered. The most visible and significant component of COTA’s transit infrastructure that will require changing will be its bus stops and shelters. The impact of implementing the proposed network plan is summarized below with quantification of the costs and level of effort identified, where possible.

9.1 Implementation Options What is the best way to implement the required extensive changes?

There are essentially three implementation options: “All at Once”, “Phased”, or a “Hybrid”. Being able to phase-in the changes depends on the extent and complexity of the changes and, in particular, whether the changes can be segmented into discreet “sets” of implementation packages. This also applies with a hybrid approach. The hybrid approach would involve some service level improvements as well as some line changes or additions which may be further altered in subsequent changes.

The experience in other larger transit agencies surrounding the implementation of service/network changes has largely been governed by these factors:

• the magnitude of the change(s), and,

• the complexity and inter-relationship between the various changes.

With smaller transit systems, a major network change has usually been done all at once. There is no need for and no advantage in phasing. For larger systems, the factors mentioned above come into play in any decision of how and when to change, which is also influenced by the capability/capacity of the organization to handle and implement the change, and local appetite/attitude for change. While there are not many examples of a complete re-design of the bus network being undertaken by larger systems (many systems have evolved their network re-designs in gradual steps over many years rather than doing a single “rethink” of their system), a few, notably Orange County and Houston, and others (Jacksonville, for example) have made the change all at once. Again, part of the decision is influenced by whether, in fact, the changes can be phased. For the cases where they can’t, then an “all at once” change is the only option.

The pros and cons of each change strategy or option are summarized in Exhibit 9.1.

October 28, 2014 123


Exhibit 9.1: Implementation Options Analysis

ALL AT ONCE PHASED HYBRID Pros Cons Pros Cons Pros Cons - Over and done

with once - Major effort,

extra resources required

- Less staff effort required to implement change compared to single change

- Prolonged change process

- Duplication of effort – marketing, customer information and materials, driver scheduling, etc

- Greater risk/potential to backtrack or abandon planned changes

- Less concerted staff effort and resources compared to singles change

- Provides gradual build up to network change

- Assists with bus operator ramp-up

- Prolonged change process

- Duplication of effort, marketing, customer information materials, driver scheduling, etc.

- Limited opportunity for gradual service ramp-up

- Greater risk/potential to backtrack or abandon changes

- Less on-going controversy

- Extensive preplanning required

- Potential less controversy surrounding each change

- Prolonged potential controversy

- Potential less controversy surrounding each change

- Prolonged potential controversy

- Significant media event, opportunity to highlight importance of transit

- Potential for major negative feedback

- Potential for sustained media profile with each change (but less impact than major change)

- Less potential for major media event and to highlight transit

- Some potential for continuing media event

- Less potential for major media event

- Demonstrates agency’s confidence and decisiveness, commitment

- Could be handled by existing staff

- Potential for higher operating costs/lower savings due to not implementing services efficiently

- Could be handled by existing staff

- Potential for service or line change redundancy

- Potential higher overall operating costs

- Requires long lead time and sustains media and communications effort

- Less lead time required to plan change

- Less lead time required for service and network changes

- Continuous planning, marketing and communications effort

- Cannot hire and train sufficient bus operators in short time period

- Ability to build up to required staffing level, particularly bus operators

- May require several years

- Ability to build up to required staffing level, particularly bus operators

- May require several years

October 28, 2014 124


9.1.1 All at Once For an All at Once change, a lot of lead time, pre-planning and concentrated resources will be required in all areas of the organization – operations (driver and supervisor training/ orientation), planning/scheduling of lines/schedules/runcutting, infrastructure (bus stops, shelters, park and ride), interface/coordination with municipalities, marketing (ads, promotional campaign), customer services (schedule brochures, website info), technology (GPS, stop announcements, etc.). COTA would need to augment staff resources such as by hiring a project manager (on contract) to be the “Implementation Czar/Champion” as well as short term staff to handle the preparation of new customer information materials and, potentially, the required changes to bus stops, shelters and other infrastructure ahead of time although it may be possible for this work to be handled with existing staff with a long enough lead-time. Additional staff may be required for a few weeks before/after the changeover to change stops/re-sign existing stops/change stop information. As well, there will inevitably be line/schedule issues following the change which will need to be addressed.

Without doubt, a major change to the transit system network is a major media event and an opportunity to highlight transit and demonstrate leadership. At the same time, a major change will result in potentially more controversy compared to smaller changes which will have to be managed although continuing changes with a phased approach results in continuing controversy. Regardless, this is the area where many agencies/municipalities/politicians have run into difficulty as they react to complaints leading to doubts, re-thinking and pressure to change lines back. Going into any change process, whether Day One, Phased or Hybrid, everyone has to be confident/assured that what is being done is right. That is why the Board of Trustees has been included in the process from the beginning. Ultimately, the Board should not direct staff to proceed with implementation until it believes firmly in the plan and is ready to stand by it as controversies ensue. This is the only way to ensure not only that the plan is implemented successfully but that it also contributes to a region-wide narrative that, by making these changes, COTA is making better use of its resources and making itself more relevant to the communities it serves. This factor argues strongly in favour of implementing the network and service changes all at once; less risk to re-visit and backtrack. At the same time, the ability to make the change at one time is subject to the ability of the organization to have the required staff resources in place, such as bus operators.

9.1.2 Phased Although not as extensive as for an All at Once implementation, lead-time/pre-planning and added staff resources will be required for a phased approach. The main advantage of a phased approach is that it is done in smaller pieces so it may appear to be easier to handle and manage. In fact, it can take more effort on a continuing/sustained basis resulting in duplication of effort. For example, because the network recommendations are so interdependent, considerable effort often goes into defining a viable half-implemented network, and working out all the problems raised by that scenario. And, sustained/on-going change will result in sustained confusion and controversy which can sap the agency’s energies. Finally, a phased implementation yields results whose effects are harder to trace as the impact of the service change is more readily confused with other contextual causes arising along the way. More critically, a phase approach does open up the risk and potential for backtracking and abandoning the planned service changes.

However, aside from these considerations, a phased approach is only possible if the changes can be packaged and be discreetly implemented without redundancy or undoing any of a previous changes in order to implement the next change.

From an implementation standpoint, where a significant increase in staff resources, such as bus operators, is required and the agency has limited capacity to hire these resources in a short

October 28, 2014 125


period of time, then a phased approach becomes more practical although it brings with it the risk of increasing service levels which may be in excess of what is required in the new network.

9.1.3 Hybrid The hybrid approach seeks to implement the proposed changes by separating service improvements from the bus network changes.

The most likely strategy along these lines would be to introduce frequency increases or changes on existing lines that are similar to the new ones, without doing any significant line changes. For example, frequencies could be increased on Lines 15 Grove City, 92 (James-Stelzer) or 95 (Morse). The 89 (Hamilton) could also be extended through Gahanna to Easton as the plan proposes.

This would be the easiest way to introduce some improvements prior to doing the full network changes, but it is limiting in terms of what can be done and makes the messaging more difficult.

The problem with doing these improvements before doing the whole plan is that each comes with an implied tradeoff. Lines 92 and 89, for example, both have deviations that are proposed to be removed, and the best time to remove those deviations is when the frequency is being improved, so that the agency is introducing a benefit at the same time it introduces an inconvenience for some riders.

As with phased, a hybrid approach will also lead to difficulty tracing the causes of network outcomes. Frequency improvements are an important part of how the proposed network succeeds, but the complete network is also important. Doing these things separately will make it harder to track the impacts of the whole proposed plan. More critically, as noted for the phased approach, the hybrid does open up the risk and potential for backtracking and abandoning the planned service changes.

9.1.4 COTA Capability to Implement In the examples of major network re-designs in other jurisdictions, the transit agencies have made the changes largely within the scope of the existing resources; limited new service and new service hours were added. In the case of the proposed COTA network change, the mandate has been to consider COTA’s 2017 projected service hours of approximately 1,163,000. As such, the proposed network change would essentially increase service hours from the 2014 level of approximately 997,000 hours, an increase of 166,000 hours. This is a significant service increase. In order to implement this service level, COTA will need to hire and train an estimated 80 to 90 bus operators, depending on final schedule. This number exceeds COTA’s training capabilities within a short time. The alternative of hiring and training bus operators in advance of need would be very inefficient and result in new staff either being temporarily laid off, pending the implementation date, or remaining on staff with no work assignments. This approach is neither practical, cost-effective nor fair to the new employees. Therefore, in consideration of this limitation, the only reasonable approach for COTA to implement the proposed new bus network is to follow a phased approach over one to two years with an emphasis on minimizing any potentially redundant new service.

9.1.5 Conclusion COTA staff is proposing a hybrid approach with an implementation date between 2015 through 2017. To reach “Day 1 of Implementation”, the implementation process would be divided into two congruent phases. Phase I will focused on expansion of services through the regular service change process and Phase II would focus on those lines that have to be completed all at once due to the complexity the realignments. Phase II is referred to as Day 1 Implementation.

October 28, 2014 126


Phase I would focus on implementing service that has minimal impact on current riders by using resources budgeted for service expansion up until the date of Day 1 Implementation. Once COTA has exhausted the changes to the bus network that have limited impacts on the community, Day 1 of the new network would be deployed. Prior to finalizing changes for any service change, public comments would be solicited through regular service change meetings, social media, and COTA’s customer service (telephone, letters and email).

Phase II, Day 1 of Implementation, would include major alignment modifications that affect multiple lines, reallocation of resources in redundant services and changes to the express network. Planning of this phase would begin in fall 2014 with implementation occurring between 2016 through 2017, with Day 1 of Implementation not being determined until COTA staff completes detail scheduling of lines, which is expected by first quarter 2015. Phase II includes replacing bus stop signs and shelters, printing new timetables, public outreach, agreements to operate on any non-COTA owned property, monitoring service after implementation and other action steps found in Exhibit 9.2.

Changes to service proposed in the TSR that are not implemented in Phase I would be implemented Day 1 of Implementation with the exception of the CMAX, COTA’s bus rapid transit (BRT) service traveling along Cleveland Avenue, planned to being operations in May 2017. The CMAX is a separate project that requires substantial construction in the Cleveland Avenue corridor and is currently awaiting a decision of approval for Small Starts funding under MAP-21, the current transportation bill.

Prior to Day 1 of Implementation, COTA will reach out to the public and stakeholders to solicit feedback on the proposed changes to service in advance of any final decisions. Public input will be an integral part of finalizing changes to the network prior to implementation. A public outreach plan will be developed early in 2015.

9.1.6 Tax Levy The pending tax levy referendum has been raised as a concern for the timing of any changes. COTA staff and the Board of Trustees will have to judge the most appropriate time to implement the changes. We really cannot comment on whether or not to do anything before or after the Referendum except to say (and no surprise to COTA staff) that any change, however positive, will have some naysayers. It just comes with the territory and there is no way of avoiding it except to offset any potential negative feedback through a very strong, positive marketing and promotion campaign ahead of and following the change. If COTA doesn’t want to risk negative feedback ahead of the referendum, then it may be desirable to defer any change until later. However, word of a pending network change is already in the public domain by virtue of the TSR activities and there is, therefore, an expectation of forthcoming change. Failure to implement the proposed changes could result in a negative view of COTA’s capability to plan and deliver an effective transit service.

9.1.7 Action Steps/Timeline For a phased approach, the steps involved include COTA implementing service and limited routing changes over a defined time period (1, 2 or 3 years) leading up to the major change to the proposed bus network. COTA will need to determine which changes to implement in the lead-up and would then follow their normal service change implementation process for those changes. A key step, then, for COTA to complete, aside from selecting the implementation date and year for the major changeover, is to prepare a comprehensive implementation strategy and communications plan associated with the major changeover following approval of the TSR report, final network plan, service standards and metrics and as the basis for COTA to determine which service and line changes would be implemented leading up to the changeover.

October 28, 2014 127


On this basis, the following Action Steps and Timeline (Exhibit 9.2) are presented related to the final changeover to the proposed bus network. It is estimated that COTA will need to allow a 12-month lead-up to the changeover to complete the various tasks. In view of the uncertainty of an implementation date at this time, the Action Steps and Timeline are presented dating back from the selected implementation date.

Exhibit 9.2: Key Implementation Plan Action Steps and Timeline

ACTION STEP DETAILS TIMELINE COMMENTS/ACTION CHECKLIST 1 COTA staff approve TSR

report Fall 2014

2 COTA Board adopt TSR report, bus network plan and associated service standards and metrics

Fall 2014

3 Select implementation date for major network change

Fall 2014 Considerations include:

- Implementation approach;

- Finalization of route and service changes;

- Stakeholder/rider consultation process and timing;

- Staff resources;

- Ability to arrange infrastructure (bus stop, shelter) changes;

- Ability to hire/train required staff (bus operators); and

- Need to complete scheduling and runcutting.

- Implement changes during early summer – lower ridership, good weather in the event of operational/scheduling issues.

4 Develop a comprehensive implementation plan and communications strategy

Fall 2014/early 2015

Document would confirm:

- The service and network changes leading up to and including the final major changeover and identify the timeline;

- Resources required and costs to effectively communicate the service plan changes to target audiences and implement the various changes to service levels and bus network.

5 Confirm line and service level changes and phasing of changes

Winter 2015

Would form part of Implementation Plan. Tasks to complete include:

- Determining service and line changes to be implemented each year leading up to the full network change;

- Confirming hours of service and schedules for each phase of implementation;

October 28, 2014 128


ACTION STEP DETAILS TIMELINE COMMENTS/ACTION CHECKLIST

- Prepare initial estimate of bus requirements and number of bus operators subject to detailed scheduling (see Task 9)

- Provide information to bus operators on line and service changes

6 Revise 2014-2017 bus procurement plan to reduce by 76 buses

Fall/Winter 2014-15

Need to finalize bus requirements through Implementation Plan

7 Determine need for a Project Manager and select/hire a person.

Fall/Winter 2014-15

Would form part of Implementation Plan. The need for the person would be based on the scope and timing of the final changes and level of effort required. Prepare job description/objectives

8 Present interim and final service and network changes to Stakeholders for final comment

Winter 2015/ Spring 2016

Timing of this task depends on Implementation Plan and extent and timing of interim service and network changes

- Provide information and provide briefing to bus operators and customer information staff;

- Provide information displays in bus operator lounges and COTA head office

9 Finalize lines and service level changes

12 months before implementation

Tasks involved:

- Finalize route details for each line after considering feedback from stakeholders and bus operators;

- Finalize hours of service and schedules after considering feedback from stakeholders;

- Test drive each route with instructors and bus operators as per normal practice and make any required adjustments;

- Confirm running times and time points;

- Confirm bus and bus operator requirements.

- Provide information on routes and schedules to marketing and customer service.

10 Complete Title VI analysis 11 months before implementation

Prepare following finalization of routes and level of service and submit to FTA as per established practice.

11 Identify bus stop and shelter location changes

10 to 12 months before implementation

Task depends on final routing design. Extent of stop and shelter changes would be influenced by interim or phased service and line changes leading up to major changeover.

- Confirm locations of stops and shelters;

October 28, 2014 129


ACTION STEP DETAILS TIMELINE COMMENTS/ACTION CHECKLIST

- Complete utility locates and related permits;

- Develop schedule for moving shelters and stops;

- Arrange for contractors to install pads and move shelters

12 Prepare for bus stop sign changes


Task depends on final routing design and Implementation Plan, and service and network change phasing. Extent of changes will be reduced with phased approach to service and network changes. Activities include:

- Confirm stop locations;

- Confirm sign inventory;

- Confirm information (line numbers and names) to be included on each sign

13 Complete bus operator scheduling/runcutting

To be determined

Task will be influenced by timing and phasing of service and network changes and extent of final major network changeover.

14 Confirm staffing levels for operations and maintenance

Winter 2015

Based on Implementation Plan. Will be progressive over period of time leading up to major changeover

15 Determine number, arrangements for hiring and training required bus operators

Winter 2015

Based on Implementation Plan. Will be progressive over period of time leading up to major changeover

16 Prepare bus operator driver information materials

3 months before implementation of service changes

Would be undertaken in advance of each set of service and line changes as defined in Implementation Plan

17 Bus operator, supervisor, customer service personnel orientation for new network

2 to 3 months before implementation

Would be undertaken in advance of each set of service and line changes as defined in Implementation Plan but more extensive prior to major network changeover

18 Program bus stop/Next Stop announcements


Would be undertaken in advance of each set of service and line changes as defined in Implementation Plan but more extensive prior to major network changeover

October 28, 2014 130


ACTION STEP DETAILS TIMELINE COMMENTS/ACTION CHECKLIST 19 Confirm line displays for bus

destination signs for new network


This task refers to finalizing the line names and destination information to be displayed on bus destination signs. Would be undertaken in advance of each set of service and line changes as defined in Implementation Plan but more extensive prior to major network changeover.

- Inform bus operators and customer service staff of new line names and destination sign display information.

20 Relocate shelters 0 – 2 months before implementation

Would be undertaken with each set of service/routing changes. Include signage advising reason for shelter being moved and new location.

- Based on local capabilities (COTA and contractors), move shelters maximum of one month in advance of move or move following route change.

21 Reprogram bus destination signs

2 weeks before implementation

Would be undertaken with each set of service/routing changes.

Inform bus operators and customer information staff of new line and bus destination sign displays

22 Cover bus stops to be removed, cover new bus stops

2 weeks before implementation

Would be undertaken with each set of service/routing changes

- Stops would be covered maximum of 2 weeks ahead (any longer and signage may be vandalized);

- Include date stop no longer in use, or when stop comes into use;

- Cover could be a strong coated, cardboard sleeve;

- For new stops, use sleeve to inform when new stop in use;

- Remove sleeves from new stops one week after change.

23 Install new bus stops 2 weeks before implementation

Would be undertaken with each set of service/routing changes. Could be undertaken in two steps:

- Install poles. Can commence one month in advance of line changes;

- Install signs, one week ahead of line change

24 Launch new service Implement Select date – summer

October 28, 2014 131



Prepared for COTA

October 28, 2014 132

ACTION

STEP DETAILS TIMELINE COMMENTS/ACTION CHECKLIST

ation date - Create media event;

- Special celebration for COTA employees;

- Special customer materials.

25 Remove old bus stops Second

week

following

implement

ation

Allow 1 week following service/line change

before removal of sign and pole as basis for

reminding public of changes that have taken

place

9.1.8 Implementation Cost Estimates

An estimate of implementation costs is highly subject to the final activities to be undertaken,

timing and resource requirements. As such, a detailed estimate of costs is not offered within this

report. Rather, examples of key cost items are outlined below. These cost estimates are subject

to review and confirmation by COTA staff at the time of deciding to pursue implementation and

the preparation of the Implementation Plan and comprehensive Communications Strategy which

will define what would be done, timeline, ability to build on and use existing activities and

resources and requirement for temporary staff.

Exhibit 9.3: Example of Implementation Costs

ITEM COST

Project manager $200,000

Communication and Implementation Strategy $35,000

Bus stop, shelter changes (total over the

implementation plan)

$464,654

Marketing, communications, customer service and

information program and materials

TBD


Appendix A – COTA Public/Stakeholder Involvement Summary

October 28, 2014 A-1


This appendix includes a summary of additional details from the public and stakeholder involvement regarding COTA’s Transit System Review (TSR). These details include meeting dates, times and locations for the public outreach efforts and listings of invited members of the Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) and focus groups.

Public Outreach Effort Meeting Information

OUTREACH TYPE DATE TIME LOCATION

TAC (Meeting #1) January 13, 2014 4-6pm MORPC

Focus Groups (Round #1; Meeting #1) January 21, 2014 11am-12:30pm MORPC

Online Survey January 22 to

April 22, 2014

NA NA

Focus Groups (Round #1; Meeting #2) January 22, 2014 8-9:30am MORPC

Focus Groups (Round #1; Meeting #3) January 22, 2014 11am-12:30pm MORPC

TAC (Meeting #2) March 17, 2014 4-6pm MORPC

Public Meeting (Round #1; Meeting #1) March 18, 2014 12-2pm COTA Offices

Public Meeting (Round #1; Meeting #2) March 18, 2014 5-7pm Hilliard City Hall

Public Meeting (Round #1; Meeting #3) March 19, 2014 5-7pm Reynoldsburg City Hall

Public Meeting (Round #1; Meeting #4) March 20, 2014 12-2pm Northwood Building (OSU)

Public Meeting (Round #1; Meeting #5) March 20, 2014 5-7pm Worthington Holiday Inn

TAC (Meeting #3) May 27, 2014 4-6pm MORPC

Public Meeting (Round #2; Meeting #1) May 28, 2014 12-2pm COTA Offices

Public Meeting (Round #2; Meeting #2)5 May 28, 2014 5-7pm COTA Offices

Public Meeting (Round #2; Meeting #3) May 29, 2014 5-7pm Hilltop Public Library

Focus Groups (Round #2; Meeting #4) May 30, 2014 8-10am MORPC

Public Meeting (Round #2; Meeting #4) June 2, 2014 5-7pm Central Community House

Focus Groups (Round #2; Group #5) June 3, 2014 11am-1pm MORPC

Public Meeting (Round #2; Meeting #5) June 3, 2014 5-7pm Grove City Hall

Public Meeting (Round #2; Meeting #6)1 June 4, 2014 12-2pm COTA Offices

Public Meeting (Round #2; Meeting #7) June 4, 2014 5-7pm Northwest Library

5 These public meetings focused on the COTA Downtown Operations Plan.



Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) Members

NAME REPRESENTING

Jordan Miller 5/3 Bank

Deborah Breisblatt Abercrombie (New Albany Business Group)

Matt Lutz CDDC

Jo Youngs Central Ohio Workforce Investment Council

Steve Campbell City of Columbus

Kenny McDonald Columbus 2020

Michael Dalby Columbus Chamber

Liz Lessner Columbus Food League

Alex Fischer Columbus Partnership

Steve Simmons Columbus Public Schools

Tory Richardson Columbus Regional Airport Authority

Curtis Stitt COTA

Cleve Ricksecker COTA Board

John Nestor CSCC

Brett Kaufman Developer

Terry Foegler Director of Strategic Initiatives/Special Projects

Nicole Sherrod Eddie Bauer at Rickenbacker

Brian Ross Experience Columbus

John O'Grady Franklin County Commissioner

Amy Klaben Homeport

Lynn Aspey Jewish Family Services

Mike McCaman Jobs and Family Services

William Murdock MORPC

Noel Williams NAACP

Trudy Bartley OSU

Geoff Chatas OSU

Susan Colbert OSU Extension

Tracie Davies Small Business Rep

Eric Davies Transit Columbus



Focus Group Members

NAME REPRESENTING NAME REPRESENTING

Trent Smith Business Leader Tom Weeks Human Needs Community

Chris Strayer Business Leader Kent Stanley Local Rider

Mary Jo Hudson Business Leader Damien Petranek Local Rider

Betsy Pandora Business Leader Vilvi Vannek Local Rider

Renea Williams Community Leader Susan Pence Mobility Challenged Community

Michael Clarey Community Leader George Barnes Mobility Challenged Community

Don Walters Community Leader Catherine Gives Mobility Community

Jason Bechtold Community Leader Patrice Allen OSU Student

Dan Havener Community Leader Brian Myers OSU Student

Robert Lamb Community Leader Maria Schaper Regional Interest

Paul Feldman Community Leader Bernice Cage Regional Interest

Walker Evans Community Leader Janice Aselin Senior Community

Ira Weiss Community Leader Barbara Sullivan Senior Community

Dave Paul Community Leader Eric Davies Special Interest Group

Jeffry Harris Community Leader Amy Schmittauer Young Professional

Darci Congrove Community Leader Alison Pegg Young Professional

Ashley Lester Downtown Interest Kacey Campbell Brankamp

Young Professional

Susan Ungar Downtown Interest Andy Hutter Young Professional

Tim Kelsey Express Rider Tyler Durbin Young Professional

Susan Willeke Express Rider Jordan Davis Young Professional

Christine Boucher Human Needs Community Steve Swift Young Professional

Focus Group Members (Others Invited)

NAME Steven Michalovich

Yohannan Terrell

Tim Fulton

Benjamin Buckner

Jason N. Bechtold

David Meeks

Ben Kessler

Emanuel Torres

Patrik Bowman

David Meeks

Zachary Woodruff

Jennifer Chrysler

Chris Smith



Additional Information

A separate stand-alone appendix containing a comprehensive collection of public outreach materials can be found under separate cover as an electronic file. This appendix includes sign-in sheets, meeting summaries, exhibits and comments from TAC, Focus Group and Public Meetings. It also includes questions and response from the online survey, references to social media responses and a collection of news articles. The Appendix sub-sections are:

1. COTA Board Workshops

2. Focus Group Meetings

3. Online Survey – Questions and Responses

4. New Articles

5. Public Meetings

6. Social Media

7. Transit Advisory Committee Meetings



Appendix B – Service Standards and Metrics

October 28, 2014 B-1


Introduction

Service standards are targets that are used to evaluate the quality and outcomes of transit service, and to identify where these are in need of remedial attention. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires transit providers to adopt service standards to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This appendix provides a detailed discussion of recommended service standards.

These standards are derived from the intentions of the recommended network plan and, in many cases, are only relevant once the plan is implemented. Final adoption of these standards should therefore come with, or after, a final decision to proceed with the new network.

The new service standard scheme, outlined in this report, includes:

• An overview of key principles.

• A new system of service types or categories, each of which will have its own standards.

• Recommended standards to be monitored, and recommended targets for those standards.

• Advice on applying the standards in typical situations.

Principles

While this report presents proposed performance targets, the exact targets suggested are less important than the principles to be used in setting targets in the future. The key principles are:

• Standards should measure services against their actual purposes, not purposes for which they are not intended.

• While standards are conventionally applied to lines, some standards only make sense at the level of the line segment because a line may come apart into two or three segments that differ in purpose.

• While standards are conventionally applied to lines, the real outcomes of transit happen at the level of the network. Care should be taken in assessing a line as deficient if performance on other lines is likely to be heavily affected by its demotion or deletion. This is especially true of the network of high-frequency services, where the interdependence between the elements of the network is the whole point of the design.6

New System of Service Types Tied to Customer Experience and Purpose

This Transit System Review has introduced a series of new ideas for thinking about services. In particular, it proposes a new hierarchy of service types that replaces the current categories of Local and Crosstown. The existing Express category, which refers to peak-only nonstop services, is retained:

6 This principle is easily misunderstood as implying that a low-ridership line is important to the ridership success of a high-ridership line. In conventional transit this is rarely the case. An hourly coverage line carrying three people per hour may connect with a frequent trunk carrying 30 per hour, and may indeed contribute 3 of those 30 people, but in this case the coverage line depends on the frequent line for 100% of its ridership while the frequent line depends on the coverage line for only 10% of its. In practice, if that coverage line’s resources were redeployed as additional frequency where and when it is warranted, the resulting productivity would be much higher. Ridership lines do not depend for their ridership on coverage lines even if they get a few riders from connecting with them. The principle of network interdependence is much more important where lines of similar frequency connect, exchanging passengers in more equal numbers and thus becoming equally dependent on another other for their success.







Express Service Orange peak trips only Coverage

These four categories are sufficient to cover all proposed lines in the network. In the future, there may be others. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) will be a fifth category above the Frequent Network, with a Ridership purpose.

It is conceivable that at some point there could be ridership-justified Express services, though this is likely only when the costs and inconvenience of driving alone reach a level that pushes larger numbers of people to seek an alternative, as tends to be the case in more congested cities. Most cities with Columbus’s levels of traffic and parking cost generally see similarly low ridership on Express services. Indianapolis, an especially comparable city, has no express network at all.

Assigning Categories to Line Segments

It is easiest, in practical terms, if a category applies to an entire line. One challenge of using frequency-based or purpose-based standards is that part of a line may be in one category and part in another. Many lines in the proposed network have an inner frequent segment which is clearly ridership-justified and less frequent tails or branches which could be considered coverage-justified.

In these cases, it is recommended that:

• If the low-frequency portion of a line is less than 10% of the total revenue hours, the entire line can be analyzed in the higher-frequency category.

• Otherwise, the frequent and infrequent segments should be separated and assigned to separate categories.

If a low frequency arises from a mid-route split or minor variant, the line should be identified in the higher-frequency category.

It is relatively easy to analyze the productivity of an inner versus an outer line segment, where the inner segment has higher frequency and usually higher ridership. The analytical method is as follows:

• For ridership:

• Using APC data, identify the total inbound boardings and outbound alightings7 that occur on the outer segment. Add these two numbers together to get the total ridership that makes some use of the outer segment.

• Subtract this number from the total line ridership to get boardings assignable entirely to the inner frequent segment.

• For cost drivers such as vehicle hours or revenue hours:

• Using a costing tool such as Transitmix.net, estimate the cost of operating the frequent inner segment if the outer segment did not exist.

7 This method counts each trip once and does not double-count trips that are entirely within the outer segment. If there are difficulties with counting alightings, simply count the total inbound boardings and double, presuming most trips are round trips, to capture the trips alighting in the segment.



• Assign that cost to the inner segment. Assign the difference between that cost and the line’s full cost to the outer segment.

It is not necessary that this calculation be calibrated to actual costs, so long as the percentage split emerging from the analysis is correct. Several other input versus output metrics can be counted in similar ways.

Analyzing by Segment but Not Time of Day

It is important to emphasize that while it is logical to divide up a line into inner and outer segments for the purpose of analysis, it is not good practice to divide up a line by time of day. Each customer’s decision to use transit is a function of the availability of a total schedule, not just the availability of the trip that they use. This means that the times of day are interdependent. In fact, this is one of the principles behind the consistent spans that are proposed throughout the network. Evening service is unproductive when looked at in isolation, but it is important to making a service feel broadly useful and able to accommodate spontaneous changes in plan, so cutting evening service tends to affect ridership midday. For this reason, all standards apply to the aggregate performance across the week, not disaggregated by time of day.

Alignment of Categories with Service Purpose

The preliminary assignment of purposes to line segments in the proposed network is shown in the frequency table below. It shows how the network adds up to the Board-adopted guideline that 70% of the service should be ridership-justified and 30% should be coverage-justified.

The assignment is straightforward in the case of all lines except the half-hourly category:

• Frequent lines are ridership-justified. The expensive concentration of resources on certain streets is an inefficient way to provide coverage but seems to be essential for the best ridership outcomes, as demonstrated by the high performance of frequent lines in the existing network.

• Hourly lines are coverage-justified. This minimal level of service generates poor productivity wherever it is operated. Instead, the purpose of this level of service is about extending a basic level of access to as many people or jobs as possible. This implies spreading resources thinly across a large area, which is the coverage goal.

• Express lines are coverage justified because, currently, Columbus lacks the traffic congestion, downtown parking costs and other disincentives to driving that would motivate nine-to-five long-distance commuters to seek alternatives to driving in large numbers. This may change over time and it is possible that a ridership-justified express service could emerge in the future.

• Half-hourly lines may have a mixture of both purposes. Segments may be:

• Ridership-justified, because they are top performers in the half-hourly category and ready for promotion to frequent service as soon as resources permit; or

• Coverage-justified, if the necessary conditions for very high ridership are not present, but ridership is still high enough to justify the frequency. Typically this means that the line is unlikely to graduate into the Frequent Network, but is more productive than it would be if the service were cut to hourly.

Using Categories as the Basis of Service Standards

• Ideally, all lines would have a clear purpose, and service standards would evaluate a line’s performance in light of its intended purpose. As noted above, purposes and service categories do align except in the case of half-hourly lines, where the purpose tends to be mixed.



• Because sorting out the mixture of purposes in half-hourly lines is difficult and requires some judgment, it is recommended that the four frequency-based categories be used as the basis for service standards. In this approach, half-hourly lines would all have the same performance targets, but those performing well would be eligible to “graduate” into the Frequent Network, while those performing very poorly would be at risk of dropping to hourly service.

• The frequency-based categories listed above should be the primary organizing framework for service standards. Express remains an important category but the three categories of all-day frequency would replace the categories of Local and Crosstown in organizing services that run all day.

Recommended Performance Standards under a 70% Ridership/30% Coverage Network

Structure of Standards

Exhibit B.1 presents the recommended standards. The specific levels of each standard – which define success – are estimated and subject to revision. However, the structure of the standards, and the way that they follow from the purpose of each service, should be a table of this form. The rows of the table represent the main service types with a note as to their purpose. Since Frequent Network services are ridership-justified and hourly services are coverage-justified, the standards for these represent a recommended approach to evaluating these services against their purposes.

For the 30-minute category, it is recommended that lines be evaluated against a standard that is partway along the range between the two extremes. Options for these services are discussed in greater detail in the next section.

The columns of the table are organized by the type of standard – i.e. what kind of performance is to be measured. The table sorts standards into three very different kinds:

• Defining Features are part of the definition of a category. If a service does not have these features it should not be in this category.

• Input Targets. These describe features of the transit product to be provided. • Output Targets. These describe outcomes of the product, including ridership (and

related measures) as well as coverage (and related measures).

It is the output targets that are the ultimate measure of transit’s success. Input targets are designed to encourage the creation of a network that will deliver on the output targets, but if the two kinds of target fall out of alignment the input targets must be refined to better deliver the outputs. However, the proposed input targets do reflect significant professional experience, including the lessons of COTA’s own existing ridership patterns, regarding how inputs are likely to correspond to outputs, especially ridership or productivity outputs.

Existing Performance

Existing Performance should never be the sole guide to standards but they do help to frame the lower bound of what can be realistically aspired to. However, setting standards much higher than existing performance also requires an explanation about what will change to achieve the higher standard. Where applicable, a higher standard is proposed and related explanation provided. Exhibit B.2 shows the existing performance of COTA services on the key metrics of Reliability, Ridership, and Coverage. In the case of Coverage of hourly services, this is based on what is achieved by the recommended network. This table is referenced in the discussion below to justify the specific targets proposed in Exhibit B.1.



Exhibit B.1: Columbus Draft Standards Table



Exhibit B.2: Ridership Coverage Split



Exhibit B.3: Existing Performance on Key Standards of Reliability, Ridership, Coverage



The following sections describe the proposed standards (Exhibit B.1), sometimes with reference to existing performance (Exhibit B.2: Ridership Coverage Split



Exhibit B.3).

Defining Features: Frequency

Defining features are part of the definition of a service category. Defining features should be kept to a minimum so that there is no ambiguity about whether a service belongs in a category. In this case, the defining features are simply the all-day frequency and the number of hours per day and days per week that this frequency is to be provided.

All-Day frequency is the single most important defining standard. All-day means “throughout both peaks, the daytime period between them, and into the early evening.” Span standards below clarify this range.

Defining Features: Span

Span of service has been increased above the existing standard, to match what is in the recommended plan. Current performance (and current standards as discussed in Section 4.1) specify that local service should run 18 hours per weekday, 14 hours per Saturday, and 12 hours per Sunday. The new recommendation drops the “Local” service category and introduces the frequency-based categories. Using this system, the justification for long span is much higher for Ridership-justified services than for the Coverage-justified hourly category.

In addition, there is little evidence to support the assumption, in the existing standard, that span should be dramatically shorter on weekend days. Current standards call for an 18-hour span on weekdays but only 12 hours on Sundays. The customer base that relies on transit (and those who are mostly likely to be attracted to it) tends to have work and errand commitments all around the clock and all seven days a week.

To reflect these realities, the proposed network extends minimum spans on Ridership-justified services to 18 hours weekday, 17 Saturday, and 15 Sunday. Coverage services, whose purpose is more “lifeline,” tolerate a shorter minimum span but still a longer one than is used today: a span of 14 hours, 7 days a week is recommended.

Finally, the existing standard provides no commitment about frequency or span for crosstowns. In the proposed network, the distinction between Locals and Crosstowns is no longer used in standards. Instead, the frequency based categories shown in these tables are used. All routes of a particular frequency category are entitled to standards that reflect their purpose.

Defining Features: Stop Spacing

COTA has existing bus stop guidelines that have been adopted by the COTA Board. This section (echoed in the standards table in Exhibit B.1) presents recommendations for how these guidelines could be updated once the proposed network is implemented.

Closely-spaced stops make it easier to access a service but make that service less attractive to riders, because it runs more slowly and often less reliably. Serving a stop takes time regardless of the number of people boarding or alighting there. When planning for high ridership, then, it is important to encourage customers to gather at the fewest possible stops. Fewer stops also means that better amenities can be afforded at each stop.

When BRT is introduced, stop spacing will become a defining feature, because part of the definition of BRT is faster service and a wider stop spacing than local services.

For the local-serving products (Frequent, 30-min, hourly) stop spacing should be set according to the following principles:

• Frequent Network stop spacing can be up to 1/4 mile and should not be less than 800 feet, because the heavy ridership and high level of investment by COTA both require that these lines move expeditiously. Stop spacing up to 1/4 mile is

October 28, 2014 B-10


increasingly accepted for high-frequency services when accompanied with appropriate amenity.

• Spacing on hourly coverage lines can be much closer, because these low-ridership services rarely stop at every marked stop. Stop spacing thus has less of an impact on speed and reliability than it does on Frequent services.

• Regardless of spacing standard, stops for service in opposite directions should not be placed where it is not safe for an able-bodied person to cross the street in most traffic conditions. Any round trip will require using stops on both sides of the street, so the stops are not useful if this crossing is impossible for most customers. This consideration raises an important area of collaboration with cities, in ensuring that stops are placed with street crossings in mind. This consideration is another reason supporting wider stop spacing.

• As a line approaches a low-ridership endpoint, fewer passengers are trying to ride through a stop and the likelihood of the bus stopping at every stop is lower. In this case, stop spacing can be closer but should still not exceed the indicated minimum. (Even if fewer passengers are directly affected by a delay, the cycle time of the line, and thus its operating cost, is still at stake, as is its reliability.)

Input Target: Reliability and On-time Performance

On-time performance is the usual measure of reliability. This measure refers to the percentage of all observed trips that depart from a timepoint within a window of time, usually between one minute early and five minutes late. The measurement is made at the time a bus departs from a scheduled timepoint. It is not a problem for a bus to arrive early at a timepoint so long as it does not leave early.

On-time performance should be measured and standards set, but transit agencies running in mixed traffic should never allow it to be described in ways that make it sound like the agency’s sole responsibility. The most perfectly managed transit operation will not be 100% on time when exposed to traffic delay and random delays caused by some passenger needs. Traffic delay and construction, in particular, is the result of the designs and policies adopted by the governments designing and managing the road network.

Today, typical COTA half-hourly and hourly routes have an on-time performance in the range of 75%. COTA’s existing frequent routes are slightly lower, averaging just under 74%. It is a tribute to the low levels of peak freeway congestion in central Ohio that the peak-only express category is now the most reliable, at 83.4%.

While it is tempting to set standards to match current performance, performance figures below 80% are accurately perceived (by the customer and media) as extremely poor.

One solution is to broaden the definition of on-time performance to include trips that are up to one minute early. Because of the inevitable margins of error in synchronization, a policy of not being one second early, as in the current “zero to five minutes late” policy, often amounts to encouraging bus operators to be a minute or two late. (While bus operators should consult the system clock at every timepoint, it is human nature that they will be most comfortable in the middle of the permissible band than close to either end of it.) Passengers should always be advised to be at a stop several minutes early – if only to handle the variance between the system clock and the timepieces on which they may be relying – so permitting buses to be up to one minute early should not cause many misses, but will set the meaning of “on time “ to be more realistic. It should also make 80% more achievable.

The proposed on-time performance standard is constant across all of the all-day service types. Under normal conditions, the Frequent Network is likely to experience the greatest delays, and it will be tempting to set lower standards for it. However, it also carries the most people, so its

October 28, 2014 B-11


delay counts most heavily in determining the customer experience of service. This is where physical or policy improvements – from transit priority to all-door boarding – will have the highest payoff in terms of speed and reliability. For this reason, a strong commitment to on-time performance on the Frequent Network is essential.

Note on Headway Variance Option

In the future, COTA may develop entire lines that run at very high frequencies, better than every 9 minutes or so. At that point, it will be appropriate to introduce headway variance as a standard. Headway variance is the percentage of cases in which the interval between consecutive buses, crossing a timepoint, is within an acceptable range, such as no more than 20% more or less than the scheduled headway.

The difference is simple: Imagine that a line runs every 15 minutes and every bus on the line is 15 minutes late. The on-time performance would be 0% but the headway maintenance would be 100%, and the latter number would better describe the customer experience, which would look like perfection.

Headway maintenance standards are justified because they reflect the customer’s actual experience. At a single-digit frequency, the customer is not expecting to catch a bus at a particular time, but rather expects the assurance that a bus will be along in a few minutes. Thus, the problem for the customer is not the lateness of any particular bus but the emergence of long gaps between buses.

Headway maintenance is easily measured with AVL tools, but it is harder to monitor and correct because it involves the cooperation of multiple drivers along a line. It should only be introduced if COTA is ready to introduce more intensive levels of supervision.

Input Target: Amenity

Signage and information systems should convey the categories of service as useful information for the public.

Beyond this, all infrastructure investment should be guided by trying to improve the customer experience of the greatest possible number of people. This means that stop amenities should be keyed to the number of boardings at that stop, though higher amenity may be appropriate in a developing area where much higher ridership is expected at build-out.

In general, the busiest stops will be on the Frequent Network, so these will be where the overall benefit of amenities is greatest. Some downtown and Park-and-Ride stops on the Express network may also justify amenities based on brief peaks of demand, but of course these benefit fewer people than amenities that are consistently used all day.

A range of other infrastructure investments, notably transit priority, is recommended to follow the Frequent Network, because the more frequently COTA operates, the more exposed it is to a transit speed and reliability problem.

Input Target: Loading

The existing standard of 120% maximum seated load, which generally reflects a comfortable standing load, is retained, with 100% for express services.

Output Target: Ridership

The ridership measure that matters most is productivity. Productivity is typically measured as boardings per revenue hour of service. Where fares are constant across the network, farebox recovery tracks with productivity, so managing for one outcome effectively manages for the other.

October 28, 2014 B-12


Exhibit B.3 presents the existing productivity of COTA services when are sorted by frequency, according to the new standards. The positive relationship between frequency and productivity – and the vastly higher outcomes from the Frequent Network – are clearly in evidence.

The productivity standards shown here are not acceptable minimums, but rather an acceptable average across all lines in the category. On any one route, productivity less than 2/3 of this average should be considered cause for concern.

This approach is especially important for the Frequent Network because it is a network. Relying too narrowly on line-by-line evaluation can miss the strong level of interdependence between the line.

The justification for the recommended targets is as follows:

• Frequent Network’s target of 28 boardings/revenue hour is slightly below the current performance of the three existing Frequent routes (1, 2, and 10). The recommended network improves service even on these corridors and reduces duplicative services, so productivity on these corridors is likely to rise. However, the dramatic expansion of the Frequent Network under the plan may reduce productivity slightly as other corridors are introduced into the network.

• The 30-minute network’s target of 17 boardings/revenue hour matches current average performance of 17.5. Some loss of productivity in this layer should be expected as the most productive 30-minute segments are promoted out of this category and into the Frequent Network under the plan. On the other hand, the reduction of duplication should have an upward impact.

• The hourly network’s target of 10 boardings/revenue hour is below existing performance of 12.9 boardings/hour, again because some of the stronger services are being promoted while new outer-suburban coverage is being added in this category. Important: Since all hourly services are justified by coverage, the coverage standard takes precedence over the ridership standard because coverage, not ridership, is the purpose of these services.

• The Express network’s standard of 15 boardings/vehicle hour is above the current performance. The Express network is considerably streamlined under the plan and an increase in ridership should be a result.

For the Express network it is important to set the standard in terms of vehicle hours, not revenue hours. The difference is deadhead time – time spent traveling out of service, typically between the operating base and the point where the bus enters or leaves the line. For local-stop services the difference does not matter because the scale of deadhead is a fairly consistent percentage of the total, but for one-way express services deadhead is a very large factor. Reporting boardings/revenue hour therefore conceals the real cost of one-way express services, artificially inflating their performance. For this reason, targets for express services should be expressed as boardings / vehicle hour. For other services revenue hours are acceptable because the difference ratio of revenue hours to vehicle hours is roughly constant.

Note on Boardings vs. Linked Trips

Boardings are a count of the number of times a customer boards a bus. Boardings are the typical way of measuring ridership because it is easy to measure and to assign to lines, segments, and scheduled trips. However, the term that would better track with both customer experience and fare revenue is linked trips, the number of times a customer reached their destination. Once transit agencies have smartcard fare systems that can track a complete passenger trip through a series of transfers, internal monitoring should be shifted to focus on linked trips, as these are what the customer cares about and are also what tracks with fare revenue.

October 28, 2014 B-13


Output Target: Coverage

The primary outcome of coverage service is a basic level of access to as many people and jobs as possible. The measure of this outcome is the percentage of the COTA service area’s residents and jobs that are within a fixed access distance of service. A typical coverage standard takes the form:

__ % of population and jobs will be within ___ (distance) of service.

Note that this differs from the criterion that tends to dominate when planning a major service change, such as the proposed TSR restructuring. In that case, the politically dominant consideration tends to be coverage of existing riders. Once a network design is in place, however, the overall coverage of the region matters most. The coverage analysis provided in this report will need to be periodically updated as development patterns change.

In the analyses of this report, we have used 1/4 mile air distance as the standard distance. The use of air distances is a problematic approximation, because the actual walkability of communities varies widely across the region. Many urban areas are developing or contributing to complete databases of walk links. These databases (a) include offstreet paths and sidewalks, (b) exclude streets where walking is unsafe, and (c) include the locations of safe places to cross high-speed arterials. A coverage standard that reflected actual customer experience would of course measure walk distance rather than air distance.

Once the region has the ability to automate the measuring of walk distances, the coverage standard should be revised to reflect walk distances. At the same time, the tolerable walking distance must be raised. A 1/4 mile air distance standard corresponds, on average, to a walk distance standard of 3/8 to 1/2 mile, because few people can walk to a bus stop in a straight line even in the most pedestrian-friendly areas.

Finally, this report measures coverage to points on a line (excluding nonstop segments of expresses) but actual passengers must walk to stops. If the coverage standard is revised to refer to stops, then again the walk distance standard must be raised closer to 1/2 mile. If average stop spacing is as high as 1/4 mile, as we recommend, then a walk of 1/8 mile long the line will be a routine part of walking to service. This means that 1/8 mile should be added to the tolerable distance when this shift to a stop-based coverage measure is made.

This report refers also to the population and jobs covered by the Frequent Network. This is an important way of describing the broad usefulness of the Frequent Network and the number of lives it can potentially touch, but it is not tied to the coverage goal; instead, it is another way of measuring the effectiveness of the network in creating the necessary conditions for ridership, because ridership is the Frequent Network’s purpose. If such a target is desired, it should be tied specifically to the Frequent Network and presented as an input target. More likely, however, it should not be a standard but simply a reported outcome, one that explains why high ridership can be expected.

Coverage Metrics Related to Lifeline Needs

Coverage service is also about basic access to lifeline destinations such as hospitals, senior centers, and other sites with high demands from people with extreme transit needs. A range of additional metrics could be defined to capture these dimensions, such as:

• Coverage of senior population (% of senior population within 1/4 mile of service)

• Coverage of disabled population.

• Coverage of medical facilities above a certain scale.

However, care must be taken to avoid promising to serve a destination no matter where it may choose to locate in the future. Except for the largest facilities, such as major hospitals, these

October 28, 2014 B-14


metrics should include an exception for new facilities located in places that are very expensive to serve.

Note on Coverage of Expresses

The coverage standard above, if applied to Expresses, would imply that we should measure the population and jobs within walking distance of a Park-and-Ride or other express stop. This measurement should be used for a total measure of population and jobs within 1/4 mile of service.

The real purpose of Expresses, though, includes providing a basic availability for everyone located upstream of a Park-and-Ride, where upstream means “the area for which the Park-and-Ride is on a reasonably direct path to downtown Columbus.” If desired, this can also be measured as a coverage outcome and monitored separately. A reasonable standard is that the Express network’s upstream coverage area should bring another 10% of the population into a “covered” area, though this slice does not count as covered by the walking distance standard. We have not verified if this exact target is met by the proposed system, and this should be reviewed carefully before adoption.

Using and Updating the Standards

This section provides procedures for typical situations in which the standards are used. They include:

• Monitoring the Standards and Addressing Deficiency.

• Updating Service Purposes as Networks and Performance Change

• Responding to Service Requests

Monitoring the Standards and Addressing Deficiency

The role of service standards is to provide measurable benchmarks against which performance can be monitored. The standards provide a clear signal when some aspect of performance is unacceptable. That signal should trigger an evaluation of the problem and a plan of action for resolving it.

The frequency and nature of monitoring varies by the type of standard:

• Frequency, Span, Stop Spacing and Coverage are the outcome of planning activities and can be verified for compliance with the standards at the time a plan is proposed and adopted. Systemwide coverage should also be reviewed whenever updated population and jobs layers are available, to observe whether coverage rates have changed due to shifts in population and job locations even as the system has remained static..

• On-Time Performance is available on at least a monthly basis, though the best management information systems allow them to be monitored in real time. These standards should be achievable on average over each month, though exceptions may be made for long periods of severe weather. On-time performance problems should be addressed as quickly as possible.

• Productivity should be achieved as an annual average including a complete cycle of seasons. Any new service or network element should be allowed to run an entire year before judgments are made about inadequate productivity of certain segments. Appropriate marketing – especially distinctive branding and marketing of the Frequent Network – is a key precondition for success at that layer.

The following guidelines apply to the monitoring of standards:

• Productivity outcomes are the result of an entire network layer of a given frequency. Thus the standard presented in the table is the average across the entire layer that

October 28, 2014 B-15


should be achieved, while a deficiency for a single line is identified only when that line drops below two thirds of that standard. This is important to ensure that the interdependence of elements of a network is recognized when a line is declared deficient.

• Productivity standards are segment-based, so they will require segment-level assessment of ridership. Once the desired segmentation is developed, automated queries of APC data should be developed for ease of reporting.

• To capture the interdependence of Frequent lines, any low-performing Frequent line should be analyzed as follows before considering reducing its frequency:

• Does the line have an inner segment which connects with other Frequent lines and outer segments that do not? If so, look at the productivity of these outer segments in isolation to see if these are the cause of poor performance. If so, the segmentation of the line can be revised and the outer segment demoted to a lower frequency and service category.

• Does the line show strong evidence of high transfer volumes at key Frequent network intersections?8 If so, assume that any service reduction will cause ridership drops not just on the line under study but also on the intersecting line.

• On-Time performance should be reviewed on the route level based on monthly reports. Vehicle location data should then be queried to diagnose the causes of deficiencies, isolating the problem. It is usually possible to determine whether a delay problem correlates with a particular route segment, a particular time of day, a particular operator, or a particular vehicle type. The appropriate action will depend on this analysis.

Updating Service Purposes as Networks and Performance Change

In the service standards table (Exhibit B.1), the purpose column indicates the intention behind each kind of service: ridership goals or coverage goals.

In the future it will be necessary to update this evaluation as ridership evolves. This updating is not necessary for monitoring the service standards, since half-hourly services have their own standards that reflect their mixed purpose, but it is necessary to determine whether the overall split of the budget between ridership and coverage matches the adopted policy.

Again, the primary challenge is the half-hourly category. Frequent services are all ridership-justified. Hourly services are all, by definition, coverage services. Express services should be presumed to be coverage services until such time as they begin to perform in a range where – measured in boardings / vehicle hour – they begin to match the performance of the Frequent Network. At that point a category of ridership-justified Express services can be created.

When considering the purpose of a half-hourly service, the following considerations can be used to categorize them.

• If the segment’s productivity is in the range of Frequent Network services, then it is a ridership service.

• If the segment’s productivity, compared to that of the total network, is below the percentile defined by the percentage of the network devoted to coverage, then it is a coverage service. For example, the current allocation assigns 30% of service to the coverage goal, so if the productivity of the route is in the bottom 30% systemwide, it can be assigned to that coverage goal.

8 If transfers cannot be assessed directly, look for high boarding volumes at Frequent Network junctions that exceed what you would expect from land use alone, and look on the intersecting line for similar volumes.

October 28, 2014 B-16


• If ridership is clearly very different on one part of a segment than another, divide the segment into smaller segments and assign purpose separately and see if this produces segments satisfying the above criteria. (See “Assigning Categories to line Segments,” above.)

In certain cases:

• If there are clear reasons to expect ridership to dramatically improve soon, such as imminent development or redevelopment, provisionally assign the line to the ridership purpose. Any such imminent improvement should be an improvement in one or more of the necessary features for ridership that arise from the built form: density, walkability, linearity, and continuity.

• If the built environment is mostly unfavorable to transit (in terms of generally low density, walkability, linearity, and continuity) and shows little sign of changing for the better, assign the line to the coverage purpose.

The above method reflects the actual factors at work but a simpler method is available. This method would say that the adopted policy on the ridership-coverage split (currently 70% ridership, 30% coverage) is achieved if:

• The revenue hours of the ridership services, plus 70% of the revenue hours in the mixed category, add up to 70% of total revenue hours.

• The revenue hours of the identified coverage services, plus 30% of the revenue hours in the mixed category, add up to 30% of the budget.

This simpler method keeps clear that there are distinct purposes, and that a 70-30 split must be maintained, without requiring every service to be rigidly assigned to one category or the other, as there is obviously a middle ground where this assignment will seem arbitrary. There is no way to completely remove professional judgment from the process of inferring intentions from services. This is why all estimates of the percentage split are rounded to the nearest 5 percentage points. Further precision would be meaningless.

Consequences of Purpose Ranking

When a half-hourly segment is assigned to a ridership or coverage purpose, it should be reviewed in the following terms:

• Half-hourly segments categorized as ridership may be in line for promotion to the Frequent Network as resources permit. However, there may be cases – such as segments driven by a strongly daytime-only or peak demand – where the service may stabilize at 30 minute base frequency as optimal for maximum productivity, and continue to satisfy the standard for a ridership-justified line (i.e. the Frequent Network standard).

• In this case, service planners should review whether its half-hourly frequency is deserved, as opposed to the hourly frequency that is typical of coverage service. There may be extenuating circumstances; for example, in some cases, no resources may be saved by reducing the frequency, or the frequency may be created by hourly branches further out that cannot be cut further.

Responding to Service Requests

Transit agencies routinely receive requests to operate new service, typically out of their existing operating budget. The overwhelming majority of these requests will be for low-ridership services which, if provided, would reduce the overall productivity of the transit network. Transit agencies must be extremely clear, at the level of policy, that if they are expected to deliver high farebox

October 28, 2014 B-17


return or productivity, they cannot deploy service in response to requests without consideration of the following test, no matter how influential the requesting party may be.

Step 1. Does the Request Increase Ridership in the Near Term?

The first step in responding to a service request is to ask: Would meeting this request achieve ridership comparable to that of the ridership network? This can be assessed by asking if the request improves or worsens the following features of the high-ridership network:

• Density. The network’s stops are surrounded by a high density of residents, jobs, or other trip-generating land uses.

• Walkability. The network is focused on areas where it is easy and safe to walk between bus stops and the surrounding development.

• Linearity. The network’s lines are as straight as possible, so that they are perceived as a reasonably direct path between any two points on the line.

• Continuity. Service does not need to cross long rural gaps.

• Uniqueness. Parallel lines are far enough apart that they do not compete for the same riders.

If a service request would not be a clear net improvement in the features of the ridership network, then it is a coverage request. Meeting a coverage request will predictably lead to lower ridership, so coverage requests must be met out of the portion of the budget assigned to coverage.

Options and Limitations for Formalizing Step 1

Given the standards outlined above, it is normal to ask for specific quantified thresholds for justifying transit. This is particularly common in the case of density. Many studies have proposed various density thresholds for justifying various levels of transit service. This section reviews this literature and then presents some cautions about applying it too literally.

Density is an indicator of a corridor’s suitability for investment of operating dollars in the form of frequency, but as a service standard, it must be considered cautiously, and as a guideline rather than a rulebook. Density can be measured in many different ways, with different units, using methodologies that produce differing results. This section provides advice on how to formalize density standards to the degree desired.

In the late 1970s, researchers Boris Pushkarev and Jeffery Zupan9 developed a set of residential density thresholds for transit frequency. The thresholds are conceived as minimum residential densities required to support increasingly frequent transit service, based on a survey of actual practice in various US cities. Since that early work, subsequent research has extended this analysis to many cities throughout North America and around the globe10. These thresholds describe a minimum density as which a given level of transit service can be expected to generate relatively strong ridership.

In 1989, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) synthesized this research into a set of recommendations that have since been widely cited as reasonable residential and employment density indicators for varying levels of bus transit service11 (Exhibit B.4):

9 Pushkarev, P. and Zupan, J. (1977) Combining Transport and Community Development. Regional Plan News no. 99 New York, New York. 10 Newman and Kenworthy, (1989), 11 Institute of Transportation Engineers (1989) A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion.

October 28, 2014 B-18


Exhibit B.4: Residential and Employment Density Indicators for Transit Service

LEVEL OF SERVICE MIN. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MIN. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY

60 minute 4-5 du/acre 50-80 employees / acre

30 minute 7 du/acre 80-200 employees / acre

10 minute12 15 du/acre 200-500 employees / acre

Again, these thresholds should serve as a guideline only, and be used in very specific ways:

• Measurement of residential densities should be conducted using the same units, preferably from Census counts of dwelling units, rather than estimates derived from population counts.

• Density should be assessed across the entire length of the segment of the corridor being considered for improved frequency. This is fundamentally different from the way a developer or community thinks about density, as a feature of a development, parcel or neighborhood. These thresholds represent minimum densities in the travelshed of the transit line; a transit line that serves a high-density area for 1 mile and low-density areas for 8-miles is unlikely to meet the threshold.

• Density analysis should encompass the area of land relevant to the transit service under consideration: either adjacent census blocks, or census block groups or TAZs within ¼-1/2 mile of service.

Even if measured in these ways, there is an additional caution. If an agency promises a specific level of service in response to a specific built environment, it may be promising more than it can deliver. Implicit in the ITE table above is a local value judgment that is not ITE’s to make, namely that a region wishes to fund enough coverage-justified service to meet all the areas satisfying the 30-minute or 60-minute thresholds, and enough ridership-justified service to serve the denser areas.

For that reason, COTA should consider developing updated density thresholds, similar to the generalized ones presented above, based on the actual characteristics of existing corridors that are succeeding in either ridership or coverage terms. While this is outside our scope in this project, it is a fairly straightforward process of analyzing the land uses already being served, on routes that are deemed to be succeeding in terms of their purpose, and inferring the aggregate densities that seem to be minimally needed to deliver that performance.

Pending completion of that task, the ITE thresholds above should be treated as a basis for saying either no or maybe to a proposed service, but they are an insufficient basis for saying yes. A “yes” requires:

• An assessment not just of density but also of:

o Walkability. What percentage of the population and jobs within 1/4 mile of the line are within 1/4 mile walk of the line, given the local street network?

o Linearity. How much longer is the proposed route than a direct path between major points on the route? Deviations of any kind are a strong negative signal, but the severity of a deviation varies based on expected through-ridership at a point. A

12 Note that in much of this research, and in ITE’s definition, Frequent Service is described as service at a frequency of 10 minutes. Thus, if the standard for Frequent Service is set lower, at 15 minutes, as in the Proposed Network, this threshold can be relaxed somewhat. Newman and Kenworthy (1989) describe a minimum standard of 12 du/acre for 20 minute service.

October 28, 2014 B-19


deviation near an outer end of a line, where through-ridership can be expected to be low, is less of a problem than one near the line’s peak-load point.

o Continuity. Density must be divided over any rural gaps that must be covered to reach it. This is captured by the aggregate full-line measurement of density proposed above.

o Uniqueness. A proposed line must not overlap an existing line (by running on the same streets or a parallel path within 1/2 mile.) If it does, the overlap area should be excluded from estimates of its market.

• The availability of resources in COTA’s budget, assigned to the appropriate purpose (ridership or coverage) for this case:

Note that continuity and uniqueness can be assessed using refinements of the proposed methodology of density measurement above: A proposed route must be measured in terms of its total aggregate density along the route, including any rural gaps (continuity) and excluding any areas covered by a parallel or overlapping route (uniqueness)13. Once a sufficiently robust GIS layer of walk connections is available, walkability could also be included, by including in a density measurement only those areas within 1/4 mile walk of service along the available pedestrian network, not just bands or circles representing 1/4 mile air distance. Linearity will require a separate assessment, but this is the most intuitively obvious and easily explained of transit features.

Step 2. Does the Request Increase Ridership in the Long Term?

Sometimes, developers or advocates ask transit agencies to fund a service because they believe it will help a community develop in a certain way, leading to a long-term ridership outcome. Transit agencies must view these arguments with caution, because it puts the transit agency in the position of gambling on the land use outcome using its operating budget. There is almost always a way to invest service toward a shorter-term ridership outcome, one that depends on fewer uncertain factors, so investing in these possible futures comes at a cost to potential riders in the present.

Obviously the actual policy toward a particular developing area must reflect the degree of likelihood that the development will occur as planned. Fully financed development on the verge of construction must be treated as existing land use, but development in earlier planning stages requires the cautions outlined above.

Transit agencies dealing with these requests sometimes propose deals under which an interested local party (the developer, the local government, an employer, or whoever else is requesting the service) agrees to fund operations until the service reaches a certain ridership threshold, after which the transit agency agrees to take it over. The service would cease if the ridership threshold were not reached and the funding partner no longer wished to continue.

Step 3. Does the Request Increase Coverage in an Efficient Way?

If the request substantially improves the system’s performance on the Coverage output target, and does so at a modest cost, it should be identified as a possible Coverage improvement. Possible coverage improvements should be prioritized for allocation from the portion of the operating budget that is dedicated to the coverage goal rather than the ridership goal. Coverage improvements off this list can be implemented if and when:

• Resources grow to the point that the resources are available in the slice of the budget devoted to coverage.

13 Perpendicular routes do not count as overlap, since they are adding connectivity options rather than overlapping in the same market.

October 28, 2014 B-20


• The Board elects to shift the policy split of the budget between ridership and coverage purposes.

• Other coverage services are deleted, possibly those that provide coverage less efficiently or those whose ridership is far too low even for a coverage service.

Step 4. If the answer to the above questions is “no”

COTA should be very reluctant to introduce services that do not satisfy one of the above tests. If there is a strong desire on the part of the Board to add the service for other reasons, options can include:

• Seeking external funding for the service, ideally from the parties most likely to benefit from it.

• As a last resort, creating a third slice of the budget, distinct from the ridership and coverage slices, called “discretionary.” This slice could be devoted to any services the Board desires regardless of objective justification. Most peer agencies have avoided doing this, but it remains a coherent option that allows the system of standards to stand for most or all other services.

Many requests for service will indeed fail all of these tests, usually because they seek services to land use patterns that are unsuited to transit for known geometric reasons (density, walkability, linearity, continuity). There is both a long-term and short-term way to talk about these requests.

The short term answer is to propose alternative forms of mobility. Some transit agencies have developed parallel programs to help address needs for which transit is not suited, such as ridematching programs, vanpool programs, subsidized taxi programs, and so on. Vanpool programs are especially popular because their expense lies mostly in capital rather than operations, and this is easier to fund through grants without undue pressure on the transit agency budget. However, it does not have to be the transit agency that undertakes these initiatives. There are many ways to organize them, and there is always the risk that too many such programs could dilute a transit agency’s ability to focus on, and deliver, its core product.

The long-term way is to insist that people, businesses and institutions must take some responsibility for the transit consequences of their own location choices. Access-visualization tools (Exhibit B.45) are now under development that will show anyone – at the time they are making a location choice – how well-connected a location is to many destinations via transit. These tools will help to inform people about the consequences of their location choice before that choice is made.

Exhibit B.5: Example of Outputs of Transit Access Software for Location Choice (Portland, Oregon Example)

October 28, 2014 B-21


Source: Conveyal.com

These images show how much of a city can be reached on transit + walking, based on a selected location. The blue area is within 15 minutes, the green area within 30 minutes, the pink area within 45 minutes. (Portland, Oregon example by Conveyal.com) These tools are now under development to encourage more informed location choices.

October 28, 2014 B-22

COTA Transit System Review - Final Report

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of COTA Transit System Review - Final Report