The URL can be used to link to this page

10-30-2017 GIAMPO - Technical Advisory Committee Regular Meeting PacketGIAMPO – Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 10:00 am @ City Hall - Community Meeting Room 100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801 AGENDA 1.Call to Order This is a public meeting subject to the open meetings laws of the State of Nebraska. The requirements for an open meeting are posted on the wall in this room and anyone that wants to find out what those are is welcome to read through them. 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Minutes from the July 20, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 4.Approval Recommendation of Final Draft TIP Amendment No. 1 to FY 2018-2022 TIP 5.Approval Recommendation of Amendment No. 3 to the TAC Bylaws 6.Financial Update 7.Bike/Ped Master Plan Update 8.State Freight Plan 9.Approval Recommendation of Final Draft Summary Final Report for Regional Transit Study 10.Other Business 11.Next Meeting 12.Adjournment Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 1 / 176 Special Accommodations: Please notify the City of Grand Island at 308-385-5444 if you require special accommodations to attend this meeting (i.e., interpreter services, large print, reader, hearing assistance). Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 2 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item C1 Approval of Minutes from the July 20, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Staff Contact: Casey Sherlock, Hall County Public Works Director Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 3 / 176 1 GRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GIAMPO) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) MINUTES July 20, 2017 at 1:30 pm Grand Island City Hall – Community Meeting Room 100 E 1st Street, Grand Island, NE 68801 Voting Members in Attendance: Keith Kurz, City of Grand Island, Assistant Public Works Director Present John Collins, City of Grand Island, Public Works Director Present Marlan Ferguson, City of Grand Island, City Administrator Present Chad Nabity, Hall County Regional Planning Director Present Casey Sherlock, Hall County Public Works Director Absent Mike Meyer, Merrick County Hwy Superintendent Present Wes Wahlgren, NDOT District 4 Engineer Present Noel Salac (alternate for the VACANT NDOT Highway Planning Manager), NDOR Assistant Planning Engineer Present Ramona Schafer, Village of Alda Present Non-Voting Members in Attendance: Bentley Tomlin, Burling Northern Santa Fe Railroad Absent Mike Olson, Central NE Regional Airport Present Allan Zafft, City of Grand Island MPO Program Manager Present Shannon Callahan, City of Grand Island Street Superintendent Absent Renae Jimenez, City of Grand Island Finance Director Present William Clingman, City of Grand Island Asst. Finance Director Present Catrina DeLosh, City of Grand Island Public Works Admin Assistant Present Tim Golka, City of Grand Island Project Manager Absent Jerry Janulewicz, City of Grand Island City Attorney Absent Charley Falmlen, City of Grand Island Transit Program Manager Present VACANT, City of Grand Island Assistant to the City Administrator Absent Erich Hines, FHWA, Transportation Planner, Realty Civil Rights Absent Justin Luther, FHWA, Transportation Planner, Realty, Civil Rights Absent Mark Bechtel, FTA Community Planner Absent Logan Daniels, FTA Transportation Program Specialist Absent Daniel Nguyen, FTA Community Planner Absent Cindy Johnson, Grand Island Area Chamber of Commerce Absent Mary Berlie, Grand Island Area Economic Development Corporation Absent VACANT, NDOT Local Projects Engineer Absent Kaine McClelland, NDOT State Modeler Absent Noel Salac, NDOT Assistant Planning Engineer Present Jeff Soula, NDOT Local Projects Urban Engineer Absent Kyle Nodgaard, Union Pacific Railroad Absent Kelli O’Brien, Union Pacific Railroad Absent Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 4 / 176 2 Others in Attendance: Olsson Associates staff – Corinne Donahue, Emily Baush, Tom Worker-Braddock, Joe Johnson & Matt Rief Paul Gavin – NDOT Code Wilburs – FHWA Call to Order Nabity called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. The Nebraska Open Meetings Act was acknowledged. Roll Call Roll call was taken. Approval of Minutes from the April 10, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Motion by Wahlgren to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2017 meeting, seconded by Salac. Upon voice vote, all voted aye. Motion adopted. Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study An update was provided by Zafft on the transit study with a brief overview of existing conditions, community engagement round 1 and future transit options. An interactive discussion of transit options and prioritization was conducted by having meeting attendees participate in a survey on various scenarios. Olsson Associates staff facilitated the interactive discussion. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Zafft updated the committee on the project review and background, as well as the schedule and public involvement. Mention of adding the downtown group to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. February 2018 is the end of the study with end result to be shared at a future TAC meeting. Other Business Salac recognized Paul Gavin as Brad Zumwalt’s replacement in the Highway Planning Manager position of NDOT. Mr. Gavin previously worked for FHWA in D.C. Next Meeting Date The next Meeting of the TAC will be on August 14, 2017 at 10:00 am. Adjournment There being no further business, Nabity adjourned the meeting at 3:22 pm. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 5 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item H1 Approval Recommendation of Final Draft TIP Amendment No. 1 to FY 2018-2022 TIP Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 6 / 176 1 TAC Agenda Report Agenda Item No. H1 October 30, 2017 ISSUE VOTE: Amendment No. 1 to the 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program BACKGROUND The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the region’s short-range program, identifying projects to receive federal funds and projects of regional significance to be implemented over the next five year period. The Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) amends the TIP to accommodate changes to projects in the TIP. The proposed Amendment No. 1 to the 2018-2022 TIP includes 1 project: 1 new project to be added: o TIP No. 2018-003 – 5-Points Intersection Improvements in Grand Island, NE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS/DISCUSSION GIAMPO’s Public Participation Plan requires that proposed amendments to the TIP be released for public review and comment prior to Policy Board adoption. The project in the proposed Amendment No. 1 is financially constrained, and it is consistent with the currently adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS None. COMMITTEE ACTION None. RECOMMENDATION Approve Amendment No. 1 to the 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program and release this amendment for public review and comment. STAFF CONTACTS Allan Zafft Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 7 / 176 Friday, October 20, 2017 Page 1 of 1 Grand Island Metropolitan Region TIP – Amendment No. 1 Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018 - 2022 Amendment No. 1 TIP No.: 2018-003 Sponsor: Grand Island District: 4 Highway: Broadwell Avenue Project or State ID: TBD Project No.: TBD A/Q: Status: Exempt Length (SLM): 0.4 Project Name: 5-Points Intersection Improvements Project Description / Primary Work Type Reconstruction of intersection to a roundabout Category / Termini: Broadwell Avenue, State Street, and Eddy Street intersection Amendment Description: New Project Phase Year of Expenditure Fund Type Fund or Obligation Description TIP Estimate by Phase Amount ($1,000) PE 2018 Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program $175 PE 2018 Local Grand Island $44 ROW 2019 Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program $406 ROW 2019 Local Grand Island $101 Const./CE 2021 Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program $1,119 Const./CE 2021 Local Grand Island $420 Federal Total: $1,700 Non-Federal Total: $565 Total: $2,265 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 8 / 176 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Financial Plan Update Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) will require financial constraint table from the Fiscal Years 2018-2022 TIP to be modified as follows: GRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GIAMPO) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Years 2018-2022 Financial Constraint Projects ($1,000's) Federal Highway Administration 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)$10,588 $0 $0 $0 $3,002 $13,590 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)$1,290 $406 $0 $1,119 $0 $2,815 Earmark (EM)$355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $355 Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)$1,590 $1 $22,867 $0 $751 $25,209 City of Grand Island $68 $101 $2,465 $420 $0 $3,054 $13,891 $508 $25,332 $1,539 $3,753 $45,023 Federal Transit Administration 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Section 5307 $434 $355 $0 $0 $0 $789 Section 5311 $19 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19 Section 5339 $104 $0 $0 $0 $0 $104 Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)$6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 City of Grand Island $343 $252 $0 $0 $0 $595 Hall County $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $912 $607 $0 $0 $0 $1,519 NOTE: The financial table above illustrates the identified funding for the projects included in the tables for FY 2018-2022. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 9 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item H2 Approval Recommendation of Amendment No. 3 to the TAC Bylaws Staff Contact: Casey Sherlock, Hall County Public Works Director Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 10 / 176 1 TAC Agenda Report Agenda Item No. H2 October 30, 2017 ISSUE VOTE: Amendment No. 3 to the Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws BACKGROUND The Bylaws of the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) govern the operation of the TAC. The proposed Amendment No. 3 will add two entities as voting members to the TAC. The two entities are the following: Transit Program Manager, City of Grand Island Central NE Regional Airport POLICY CONSIDERATIONS/DISCUSSION The proposed Amendment No. 3 will require an amendment or redesignation to the GIAMPO Designation Agreement. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS None. COMMITTEE ACTION None. RECOMMENDATION Approve Amendment No. 3 to the TAC Bylaws. STAFF CONTACTS Allan Zafft Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 11 / 176 AMENDMENT TO THE GRAND ISLAND AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION – TECHNCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS AMENDMENT #3 Amended: XX/XX/20XX ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP SUBSECTION #1 Section 1. (Existing Membership) Section 1. A Technical Advisory Committee voting members shall hold the offices as listed in Subsection 1a. The chairperson or mayor representing the following entities shall submit in writing to the Technical Advisory Committee Secretary the name of the designated voting member who shall not hold a specific listed position. Subsection 1a. Voting Members • Public Works Director, City of Grand Island • City Administrator, City of Grand Island • Assistant Director of Public Works: Engineering Services, City of Grand Island • City of Grand Island/Hall County Regional Planning Director • Hall County Public Works Director • Nebraska Department of Roads Highway Planning Manager • Nebraska Department of Roads District 4 Engineer • Merrick County Hwy Superintendent • Village of Alda A Technical Advisory Committee non-voting member shall hold the offices as listed in Subsection 1b. Each entity shall appoint a non-voting in a manner appropriate for that entity. The name of the non-voting member not holding a specific listed position shall be submitted in writing to the Technical Advisory Committee Secretary. Subsection 1b. Non-Voting Members • Nebraska Department of Roads Local Projects Urban Engineer • Nebraska Department of Roads Local Projects Engineer • Transportation Planner, Realty, Civil Rights Federal Highway Administrator • Finance Director, City of Grand Island • Streets Superintendent, City of Grand Island • Union Pacific Railroad • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad • Grand Island Area Chamber of Commerce • Grand Island Area Economic Development Corporation • Central NE Regional Airport • Federal Transit Administration Region VII Transportation Planner Section 1 (As Amended) Section 1. A Technical Advisory Committee voting members shall hold the offices as listed in Subsection 1a. The chairperson or mayor representing the following entities shall submit in writing to the Technical Advisory Committee Secretary the name of the designated voting member who shall not hold a specific listed position. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 12 / 176 Subsection 1a. Voting Members • Public Works Director, City of Grand Island • City Administrator, City of Grand Island • Assistant Director of Public Works: Engineering Services, City of Grand Island • City of Grand Island/Hall County Regional Planning Director • Transit Program Manager, City of Grand Island • Hall County Public Works Director • Nebraska Department of Transportation Intermodal Planning Engineer or designee • Nebraska Department of Transportation District 4 Engineer • Merrick County Hwy Superintendent • Village of Alda • Central NE Regional Airport A Technical Advisory Committee non-voting member shall hold the offices as listed in Subsection 1b. Each entity shall appoint a non-voting in a manner appropriate for that entity. The name of the non-voting member not holding a specific listed position shall be submitted in writing to the Technical Advisory Committee Secretary. Subsection 1b. Non-Voting Members • Nebraska Department of Roads Local Projects Urban Engineer • Nebraska Department of Roads Local Projects Engineer • Transportation Planner, Realty, Civil Rights Federal Highway Administrator • Finance Director, City of Grand Island • Streets Superintendent, City of Grand Island • Union Pacific Railroad • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad • Grand Island Area Chamber of Commerce • Grand Island Area Economic Development Corporation • Federal Transit Administration Region VII Transportation Planner Dated this _________ day of __________________, 20XX ATTEST: __________________________________ _______________________________ Mayor Jeremy L. Jensen John Collins, P.E. GIAMPO Policy Board Chairperson GIAMPO Director / Secretary Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 13 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item H3 Financial Update Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 14 / 176 Financial Update Unified Planning Work Program State Fiscal Year 2017 – Entire Year (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017) Work Completed for Entire Year • Adopted the FY 2018 Unified Planning Work Program • Adopted the FY 2018-2022 Transportation Improvement Program • Adopted the GIAMPO Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation Plan • Acquired approval on the FTA 5037 for grant application for transit operations in Grand Island urbanized area for the period between July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 • Began the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study • Started the GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan State Fiscal Year 2018 – First Quarter (July 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018) Work Completed for First Quarter • Continued work on the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study (i.e. focus group meetings, Technical Memorandums Nos. 1 thru 3) • Continued work on the GIAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (i.e. data collection, neighborhood meetings, community workshop) • Prepared and held Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meetings in July and September and Technical Advisory Committee meeting in July • Participated in NDOT related activities (i.e. State Freight Advisory Committee and Transportation Plans and Programs Management Workshop) • Updated the GIAMPO stakeholder contact list and continued updates to the GIAMPO website Category Total Budget Total Expenditure Total Percent Expenditure Unified Planning Work Program 8,759$ 8,149$ 93% Transportation Improvement Program 10,349$ 9,503$ 92% Public Participation Plan 12,594$ 8,683$ 69% Short Range Studies 7,107$ 5,561$ 78% Long Range Transportation Plan 9,860$ 8,504$ 86% - Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (Outside Services)64,000$ -$ 0% Transit Planning 40,404$ 40,111$ 99% - Transit Needs Study (Outside Services) 155,000$ 36,384$ 23% Administration 29,413$ 25,378$ 86% Total 337,486$ 142,272$ 42% Category Total Budget Total Expenditure Total Percent Expenditure Unified Planning Work Program 9,292$ -$ 0% Transportation Improvement Program 10,464$ 533$ 5% Public Participation Plan 14,222$ 2,571$ 18% Short Range Studies 7,533$ 1,625$ 22% Long Range Transportation Plan 19,490$ 6,154$ 32% - Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (Outside Services)80,000$ -$ 0% Transit Planning 29,633$ 10,212$ 34% - Transit Needs Study (Outside Services) 125,000$ 70,800$ 57% Administration 34,129$ 5,504$ 16% Total 329,762$ 97,400$ 30% Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 15 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item H4 Bike/Ped Master Plan Update Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 16 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item H5 State Freight Plan Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 17 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item H6 Approval Recommendation of Final Draft Summary Final Report for Regional Transit Study Staff Contact: Allan Zafft, MPO Program Manager Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 18 / 176 1 TAC Agenda Report Agenda Item No. H6 October 30, 2017 ISSUE VOTE: Draft Summary Final Report for the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study BACKGROUND Grand Island and Hall County have had public transportation services available to residents since the mid-1970s. These services were funded in part by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rural transportation programs and Hall County. After the 2010 Census designation of Grand Island to an urban area, the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) was established in 2013 to serve as the formal transportation planning body for the greater Grand Island metropolitan region. The move from rural to urban designation affected the funding mechanisms for public transportation in Grand Island. As an urban area, the FTA appropriates funding to urban communities, such as Grand Island, by formula allocations across the United States each fiscal year. The formula is based on population and population density. One designated recipient within the urban area is appointed by the Governor, and for Grand Island, it is the City of Grand Island. Beginning on July 1, 2016, the City of Grand Island became the primary funding partner from a local perspective, with a small portion of the local match (5%) from Hall County. The allocation for Hall County is based upon existing services located primarily within the urban area of Grand Island and some service requests outside the City that include rural trips. In April 2016, the City of Grand Island City Council approved an interlocal agreement where the City provides public transit services within Hall County. The City of Grand Island has an existing contract with Senior Citizens Industries, Inc. d/b/a Hall County Public Transportation for an initial 12-month term, with options for a maximum of two years renewal. The City began managing the transit service in July 2016. GIAMPO in coordination with the City of Grand Island initiated the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study in March 2017. Olsson Associates was retained by the City to lead the study efforts. The primary purpose of this study is to provide baseline information to the City of Grand Island, as the City’s first year managing the transit service, and to give the City a plan for transit service based upon, but not limited to, community input and vision for the future. Olsson Associates has completed a Draft Summary Final Report for the study. This report provides the following information: Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 19 / 176 2 Development of project goals and vision for transit service in Grand Island and Hall County Market analysis for the study area Evaluation of existing transit services Analysis of the existing transit needs, gaps, and potential future demand for transit service Review of peer communities Evaluation of contract models for transit agencies and a discussion on future governance options Public and stakeholder involvement during the study Development of future transit alternatives A five year plan and budget and an implementation plan for the City of Grand Island The GIAMPO Public Participation Plan specifies there will be a 15-day public comment period before adoption of a GIAMPO report/document by the Policy Board. Staff will recommend TAC release the DRAFT Summary Final Report for public review and comment. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS/DISCUSSION Transit Agency – Peer Review The study included a Transit Agency Peer Review, which provides a useful tool in terms of lessons learned at other agencies and in assessing where Hall County Public Transportation is today, compared to peer communities, using transit industry typical statistics for reasonable costs, ridership, and service levels. The peer agencies included: Enid, OK; Idaho Falls, ID; Kingman, AZ; Helena, MT; Casper, WY; and North Platte, NE. As shown above, the operating cost per vehicle for the peer agencies range from approximately $40 to 52 per revenue vehicle hour. The operating cost per vehicle revenue Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 20 / 176 3 hour performance measure accounts for every hour a transit vehicle is in service. This measure includes driver salary, fuel, and wear and tear on the vehicles. Hall County Public Transportation is lower than all the peer agencies at $33.32 per revenue vehicle hour and has a low cost to operate the system. Contracting Models The study evaluated different contract models for the City of Grand Island to consider for its operation management in the future. 1.Traditional Transit Management Model – The contractor senior management typically manages the public transit budget and all aspects of the agency’s performance. They also typically report to the public sector board or local overseeing governmental agency. The financial risk of the operation resides with the public transit agency. 2.Operating Service Model – The transit agency contracts with the private sector to operate and manage its service operations, while maintaining the transit agency fleet. The transit agency continues to manage the other key functions of the service. 3.Turn-key Operating Service Contract Model – This is a partnership with a contractor and the public transit agency, who delegates the management and operation of an entire transit system to the contractor, who is held contractually accountable for all aspects and functions of the transit agency. 4.Purchase of Service Contract Model – This is a partnership with the public transit agency and the private provider, who specifically only provides service, direct operations management, and may or may not provide maintenance of the vehicles, depending upon the needs of the agency. This service model typically has payment per trip, which is different from the other models described above. Using the existing contract with SCI, local estimates for the City of Grand Island for contracting transit services are shown in the table below. This table also includes estimates for in-house models. Operation Models City Cost Contractor Cost Total Transit Costs Today*$93,000 $490,000 $583,000 Traditional $93,000 $698,200 $791,200 Operating Service $93,000 $668,790 $761,790 Turn-key $93,000 $943,200 $1,036,200 Purchase of Service $93,000 $632,215 $725,215 In-House (incl full-time & part-time drivers)$854,725 $0 $854,725 In-House (incl part-time drivers)$781,200 $0 $781,200 * Existing contract with SCI with contract amount of $638,000 There is not a wrong contracting model. Each community must choose a model that works best for their environment and political culture, keeping in mind, whichever model is chosen will have the best management and use of taxpayer dollars. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 21 / 176 4 Based upon the estimates from the operations table and the longevity of successful contracting for transit services in the Grand Island area, it is recommended the City continue to use contracting in the short term. Should the service parameters and/or type of service change to a flexible or fixed route service, the City should revisit the In-house Contracting opportunities to determine if a different method of contracting may be more appropriate for management, operations, and oversight. In addition, as transit demand increases, the City should research the number of administrative staff for oversight of services and determine appropriate leveling of staffing. Future Governance Options The City of Grand Island is the new manager of public transportation within the urbanized area of Grand Island. Prior to 2016, Hall County was the manager of public transit services. In the future, it is recommended to begin discussions of a formal governance structure, which incorporates representatives from each of the governmental entities in the region. This governance should be considered for several reasons: To establish fair and acceptable cost‐sharing arrangements among all entities To fund the service through administration of a dedicated funding source To ensure that any service changes contemplated in the future are in the best interests of the region and are fair and acceptable to each entity involved To establish a long‐term commitment for the provision of transit service among all entities The creation of a multiple entity Regional Authority changes the existing structure and presents an opportunity for a sizable expansion of the service area, if adjacent entities join the Authority. The formation of an Authority allows the regional governance of planning, funding, and operations all under one entity, making it more efficient to provide transit service beyond the city limits of Grand Island. The existing state law does not permit the City of Grand Island, nor Hall County to form an authority at this time. In 1972, the Nebraska State Legislature passed Legislative Bill 1275 “enabling” the creation of the Transit Authority, City of Omaha, a governmental subdivision of the State of Nebraska, pursuant to statute 14‐1803, and the only such transit authority in the state. No other Authority is allowed outside the City of Omaha without the change of this legislative bill. This study recommends the City continue discussions with Hall County and surrounding counties and cities to determine interest in changing existing state law for authorization in the development of an Authority. Future Alternatives Development The study developed future transit alternatives that shaped by the vision and goals articulated early in the process, historical ridership and boarding / de‐boarding data, transit need, gaps, evaluation of transit delivery in peer cities, input from the community, key stakeholders, rider and community surveys, and consideration of potential services within the community. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 22 / 176 5 Four primary alternatives were developed for the Grand Island and Hall County Region. 1.Status Quo – This is the existing service, which is 24-hour reservation, demand- response. 2.Same-day Demand Response – Resident calls for a reservation, and the bus will pick-up this person at curbside within three hours. 3.Flexible Route Service – Two routes operating in Grand Island, with the option of calling into the office for a route deviation if the rider is unable to walk to the bus stop. When trip deviation requests are made, the bus deviates off the route to pick-up or drop-off passenger, then travels back to the scheduled bus route. Trip deviations must be requested a day in advance. The two routes would operate every 60 minutes. 4.Fixed Route Service – Three scheduled routes throughout Grand Island, operating every 60 minutes. All passengers get on the bus and off at scheduled bus stops along each route. Eligible passengers who are unable to walk to the bus stop due to a physical or medical disability, have complementary curb-side paratransit service available to them, if the resident lives ¾-mile of the designated fixed bus route. Five additional services were also examined for their potential application for area residents and employees. 5.Regional Airport Service – This service provides regularly scheduled, reservations- required, ground passenger transit service to Central Nebraska Regional Airport from North Platte, Lexington, Kearney, and Grand Island, with one daily round trip seven days a week. 6.Commuter Express Routes – Two routes operating on Highway 30 between Grand Island and Kearny and Highway 34 between Grand Island and Hastings. Both commuter bus routes would operate two round trips each weekday, one trip in the morning peak hour and a second trip during the afternoon peak hour. (Note – After the third round of focus group meetings, Commuter Express Routes changed to Intercity Bus Service. This service would operate three trips, Monday through Friday – one morning trip, one mid-day trip, and late afternoon trip with connections to intermodal points.) 7.Ridershare Program – This program is for residents to register and form carpool, vanpool, school pool options within the community. The Rideshare software program matches persons traveling to/from similar locations within the community. This program is based on an online software program that matches two or more persons traveling together in a vehicle. 8.Vanpool Program – An option for a group of residents traveling to/from similar locations to travel together using a van through Enterprise. This program is a partnership between the Nebraska Department of Transportation and Enterprise. 9.Autonomous Vehicle Technology – Autonomous vehicles rely on “smart infrastructure” that facilitates automatic communication between cars, roadways, bridges, and traffic signals. This advancing technology provides an opportunity for all local government Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 23 / 176 6 entities and the private sector to continue forward-thinking and incorporate infrastructure to accommodate the upcoming technological changes. The four primary alternatives are exclusive alternatives, meaning only one of these alternatives would be implemented. Each of the additional services could theoretically operate alongside any of the other additional services, or with one of the primary alternatives. Autonomous Vehicle Technology, when sufficiently developed, could also be incorporated into any of the alternatives. The estimated costs for each transit alternative is summarized in the below table. Future Transit Alternatives Annual Operating Cost Total Capital Vehicles Total Capital Other Total Costs - Year 1 Status Quo $490,000 N/A N/A N/A Same-day Demand Response $738,098 $700,000 $60,000 $1,498,098 Flexible Route Service $682,549 $490,000 $601,500 $1,774,049 Fixed Route Service $910,066 $630,000 $868,250 $2,408,316 Regional Airport Service $67,737 $70,000 $10,000 $147,737 Commuter Express Routes $53,997 $140,000 $10,000 $203,997 Ridershare Program $12,500 $0 $60,000 $72,500 Vanpool Program Autonomous Vehicle Technology Data Varies Depending Upon Trip Distances and # of Participants Data Varies Depending Upon Trip Distances and # of Participants Five Year Plan The study has recommended the Fiscally Constrained Plan as the five year plan for the City of Grand Island and Hall County. The Fiscally Constrained Plan is based upon technical data analysis, the public engagement process for this study, and the realistic financial projections for the City for the next five years. Due to the limited resources of the City’s general fund, there is very little flexibility with the budget for the City, which is reflected in the Fiscally Constrained Plan. The Fiscally Constrained Plan includes the following elements: Status Quo – Demand Response Service o Demand Response o 24-hour Reservation o Curb-to-curb service o Monday – Friday o 6:00 am – 5:00 pm o 7 to 8 peak vehicles o $490,000 o $2.00 base fare Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 24 / 176 7 o 12 vehicles NEW – Transit Service o Vanpool Service o Rideshare Program NEW Changes o Branding for the transit service; new look, new image, new name. o Increase in transit marketing from dedicated City staff oversight. o Increased oversight of transit contract with dedicated City staff oversight. o Planning for Intercity Bus Service to/from Kearney and Hastings. The study has proposed an Illustrative Plan for the City of Grand and Hall County. This plan builds on the Fiscally Constrained Plan and transitions the transit service for the Grand Island urbanized area from Status Quo – Demand Response Service to Flexible Route Service. Due to the current budget constraints for the City, this option is not feasible for at least three years. Should additional funding become available in the near-term, the City’s Transit Program Manager would begin initial planning efforts to implement the Flexible Route concept. The Illustrative Plan includes the following elements: Flexible Route Service o 2 Routes o Monday – Friday o 6:00 am - 6:30 pm o 6 peak vehicles in urban area o 60-minute headways o $683,000 annual operating o 19,125 annual revenue hours Intercity Bus Service o Monday – Friday o Three trips per day o Wifi -equipped vehicles o 2 routes Hastings from/to Grand Island Kearney from/to Grand Island The implementation of the Intercity Bus Service is dependent on identifying the local match for vehicle procurement and other capital projects associated with the service. Implementation Plan The study has included an implementation plan with steps for the next two years to continue the momentum for public transportation in Grand Island. These steps will be carried out by the City’s Transit Program Manager. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 25 / 176 8 The implementation plan for actions over the next two year is shown in the following table: BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS The urbanized area projects in the Fiscally Constrained Plan is funded by FTA Section 5307 funds, FTA Section 5339 funds, Section 5311(f), state match, and local match. The Financial Capacity and Recommended Transportation Plan sections of the Long Range Transportation Plan will be amended to incorporate the operating and capital expenses and the funding of the urbanized area projects in the Fiscally Constrained Plan. COMMITTEE ACTION None. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Draft Summary Final Report and release this document for public review and comment. STAFF CONTACTS Allan Zafft Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 26 / 176 Study Background Grand Island and Hall County have had public transportation services available to residents since the mid‐1970s. After the 2010 Census designation of Grand Island to an urban area, the City of Grand Island became the primary provider for public transportation within the urbanized area, with Hall County responsible for the rural areas within the County. The City began managing transit service in July 2016. The City currently contracts with Senior Citizens Industries, Inc.(SCI) d/b/a Hall County Public Transportation to operate transit services within the urbanized area. SCI also provides transit service in the rural area with funding from Hall County. The primary purpose of this study is to provide baseline information to the City of Grand Island, as the City’s first year managing the transit service, and to give the City a plan for transit service based upon, but not limited to, community input and vision for the future. The study identifies future transit opportunities, challenges, and overall transit demand for public transportation in Grand Island and Hall County. Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study October 16, 2017 Executive Summary Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) 100 East First Street, Box 1968 Grand Island, NE 68802 308.389.0273 www.grand‐island.com/GIAMPO Final Report Transit Vision Efficient Mobility for All Residents in the Grand Island Region In March 2017, the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) retained Olsson Associates, and worked closely with stakeholders from around the community to develop future transit alternatives and develop this plan. The Summary Final Report includes a review of existing transit operations in the study area, identifies the areas in Grand Island with the greatest transit need, presents future transit options, and provides a realistic plan moving forward for the City of Grand Island. The study provides a roadmap for the City to follow to meet the future vision of transit for the Grand Island community. The project included a multi‐level data collection effort, evaluation of current conditions and operational structures, a review of peer communities, and the development of future transit alternatives. Based on technical analysis, public and stakeholder involvement, enhanced transit improvements are recommended. The study approach concluded with a 5‐Year Fiscally Constrained Plan and a 5‐Year Illustrative Plan for the urbanized area. An Implementation Plan with steps for the next two years is also included in the study. Future Governance Options The City of Grand Island is the new manager of public transportation within the urbanized area of Grand Island. Prior to 2016, Hall County was the manager of public transit services. In the future, it is recommended to begin discussions of a formal governance structure, which incorporates representatives from each of the governmental entities in the region. This governance should be considered for several reasons:  To establish fair and acceptable cost‐sharing arrangements among all entities  To fund the service through administration of a dedicated funding source  To ensure that any service changes contemplated in the future are in the best interests of the region and are fair and acceptable to each entity involved  To establish a long‐term commitment for the provision of transit service among all entities The creation of a multiple entity Regional Authority changes the existing structure and presents an opportunity for a sizable expansion of the service area, if adjacent entities join the Authority. The formation of an Authority allows the regional governance of planning, funding, and operations all under one entity, making it more efficient to provide transit service beyond the city limits of Grand Island. The existing state law does not permit the City of Grand Island, nor Hall County to form an authority at this time. In 1972, the Nebraska State Legislature passed Legislative Bill 1275 “enabling” the creation of the Transit Authority, City of Omaha, a governmental subdivision of the State of Nebraska, pursuant to statute 14‐1803, and the only such transit authority in the state. No other Authority is allowed outside the City of Omaha without the change of this legislative bill. This study recommends the City continue discussions with Hall County and surrounding counties and cities to determine interest in changing existing state law for authorization in the development of an Authority. Implementation Plan The implementation plan includes specific projects identified within the study to continue the momentum of enhancing public transit in the Grand Island region. In the next two years, transit projects are planned, which will set the stage for the next phases of enhanced public transit service in the community. 1 4 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 27 / 176 Multiple opportunities were provided for public engagement and activity participation throughout the study process. The Fiscally Constrained Plan is based upon technical data analysis, the public engagement process for this study, and the realistic financial projections for the City for the next five years. Due to the limited resources of the City’s general fund, there is very little flexibility with the budget for the City, which is reflected in the Fiscally Constrained Plan with the recommendation for remaining Status Quo, 24‐hour demand response service, which is what is provided today. Even though limited funding is projected to continue for the next five years, there are planning projects to begin immediately that require little or no funding increases over the existing budget, as shown on the right. New transit services in the next five years include coordination with the Nebraska Department of Transportation for Vanpool Services, which focus on major activity centers in the region and connecting riders to similar destinations. In addition, the City is implementing a free Rideshare Program available for all residents in the community. The Rideshare Program is based on an online software program that matches two or more persons traveling together in a vehicle. Fiscally Constrained Plan Public Engagement Many opportunities for public engagement were available throughout the study, including:  Public Open Houses  Focus Group meetings  Major employer meetings  Online community survey  Social media outreach  Transit rider survey  Local Project Team meetings  Transit provider interviews Illustrative Plan 5‐Year Transit Plan Public Engagement The study included a Transit Agency Peer Review, which provides a useful tool in terms of lessons learned at other agencies and in assessing where Hall County Public Transportation is today, compared to peer communities, using transit industry typical statistics for reasonable costs, ridership, and service levels. The peer agencies included: Enid, OK; Idaho Falls, ID; Kingman, AZ; Helena, MT; Casper, WY; and North Platte, NE. Transit Agency ‐ Peer Review The Illustrative Plan for the City of Grand Island and Hall County includes the Flexible Route Service concept. Due to the current budget constraints for the City, this option is not feasible for at least three years. Should additional funding become available in the near‐term, the Transit Program Manager would begin initial planning efforts to implement the Flexible Route concept. FLEXIBLE ROUTE SERVICE 2 3 Future Alternatives Development Future transit alternatives were developed and shaped by the vision and goals articulated early in the process, historical ridership and boarding / de‐boarding data, transit need, gaps, evaluation of transit delivery in peer cities, input from the community, key stakeholders, rider and community surveys, and consideration of potential services within the community. Four primary alternatives were developed for the Grand Island and Hall County Region. 1. Status Quo 2. Same‐day Demand Response 3. Flexible Route Service 4. Fixed Route Service Five additional services were also examined for their potential application for area residents and employees. 5. Regional Airport Service 6. Commuter Express Routes 7. Rideshare Program 8. Vanpool Program 9. Autonomous Vehicle Technology During Round Two Focus Groups, a representative from the NDOT suggested revisiting the Commuter Express Route as an Intercity Bus Route and provide transit service outside typical commute hours. The study team updated the service option to two Intercity Bus Routes, to/from Grand Island, Kearney, and Hastings. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 28 / 176 Prepared by: Olsson Associates 201 E 2nd Street Grand Island, Nebraska 68801 October 20, 2017 Olsson Project No. 017-0611 Grand Island Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study DRAFT Summary Final Report Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 29 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 30 / 176 Draft Summary Final Report Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study i REGIONAL TRANSIT NEEDS ASSESSMENT & FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT SUMMARY FINAL REPORT Submitted to: City of Grand Island and Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) 100 East First Street, Box 1968 Grand Island, NE 68802 308.389.0273 Submitted by: Olsson Associates 201 E 2nd Street Grand Island, NE 68801 www.OlssonAssociates.com 402.341.1116 Olsson Report No. 017-0611 OCTOBER 20, 2017 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 31 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 32 / 176 Draft Summary Final Report 5 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background ......................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of Study .................................................................. 2 1.3 Report Contents .................................................................. 2 CHAPTER 2 | GOALS AND VISIONS 5 2.1 Data Collection and Evaluation ...................................................... 5 2.2 Consistency With Other Plans and Programs .......................................... 5 2.3 Proposed Vision, Goals, and Objectives ............................................... 6 CHAPTER 3 | MARKET ANALYSIS 7 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................7 3.2 Study Area .......................................................................7 3.3 Land Use ........................................................................7 3.4 Population ......................................................................10 3.5 Transit Propensity ................................................................ 13 3.6 Employment .....................................................................15 3.7 Commuter Travel Patterns ......................................................... 17 CHAPTER 4 | EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES 19 4.1 Introduction .....................................................................19 4.2 Hall County Public Transportation ................................................... 19 4.3 Other Transportation Providers ..................................................... 23 CHAPTER 5 | TRANSIT DEMAND 27 5.1 Introduction .....................................................................27 5.2 Greatest Transit Needs Index Methodology ........................................... 29 5.3 Commuter Transit Demand Methodology ............................................. 29 5.4 Peer Data Demand Methodology .................................................... 31 5.5 Mode of Transportation to Work Methodology ......................................... 32 5.6 Transit Need Methodologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.7 Summary of Hall County Needs and Demand ......................................... 35 iii Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 33 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study Draft Summary Final Report iv CHAPTER 6 | PEER REVIEW 37 6.1 Introduction .....................................................................37 6.2 Methodology and Selection Criteria ................................................. 37 6.3 Peer Community Overview ......................................................... 39 6.4 Peer Community Questionnaire ..................................................... 42 6.5 Peer Community Findings ......................................................... 46 CHAPTER 7 | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT - ROUND ONE 47 7.1 Introduction .....................................................................47 7.2 Focus Group Meetings ............................................................ 47 7.3 Public Open Houses .............................................................. 52 'ULYHU6WDႇ0HHWLQJV .............................................................. 53 7.5 Major Employer Meetings .......................................................... 53 7.6 Overall Summary of Public Engagement - Round One .................................. 54 CHAPTER 8 | COMMUNITY SURVEY & TRANSIT RIDER SURVEY 57 8.1 Introduction .....................................................................57 8.2 Survey Analysis Summary ......................................................... 57 8.3 Online Community Survey ......................................................... 58 8.4 Transit Rider Survey .............................................................. 62 CHAPTER 9 | PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT - ROUND TWO 67 9.1 Introduction .....................................................................67 9.2 Focus Group Meetings ............................................................ 67 9.3 Summary of Focus Group Meetings ................................................. 71 9.4 Additional Alternatives Comment Form Summary ...................................... 73 9.5 Transit Bus Rider Survey - Future Alternatives ........................................ 75 CHAPTER 10 | TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 77 10.1 Introduction ....................................................................77 10.2 Alternatives ....................................................................77 10.3 Transit Alternatives Summary ..................................................... 85 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 34 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study Draft Summary Final Report v CHAPTER 11 | OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 87 11.1 Introduction ....................................................................87 11.2 Background ....................................................................87 11.3 Hire Employees vs. Contract Out ................................................... 88 11.4 Contracting Models .............................................................. 90 11.5 Future Governance Structure ...................................................... 97 CHAPTER 12 | FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN 101 12.1 Introduction ...................................................................101 12.2 Data Analysis Summary ......................................................... 101 12.3 Public Engagement Summary .................................................... 101 12.4 Budget Review Summary ........................................................ 102 12.5 Fiscally Constrained Plan Elements ............................................... 102 CHAPTER 13 | ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 111 13.1 Introduction ....................................................................111 13.2 Illustrative Plan .................................................................111 CHAPTER 14 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 117 14.1 Implementation Plan .............................................................117 APPENDICES | A-1 Appendix A: Senior Citizen Industries Annual Expenses .................................. A-1 Appendix B: Transit Rider Survey Instrument ........................................... B-1 Appendix C: Online Community Survey Instrument ...................................... C-1 Appendix D: Transit Rider Survey - Future Transit Alternatives ............................. D-1 TABLES | Table 3.1: Current Area Population Totals ................................................ 7 Table 3.2: Future Populations and Households Summary .................................. 10 Table 3.3: Grand Island Major Employers ................................................ 15 Table 3.4: Intercity Commuter Connections .............................................. 17 Table 4.1: Hall County Public Transportation Fleet Information .............................. 20 Table 4.2: Hall County Public Transportation Budget ...................................... 21 Table 4.3: Hall County Public Transportation System Wide Performance ...................... 23 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 35 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study Draft Summary Final Report vi TABLES | Table 5.1: Grand Island Commuter Transit Demand ....................................... 30 Table 5.2: Peer City Data .............................................................. 31 Table 5.3: Ridership Projections Using Peer City Metrics ................................... 32 Table 5.4: Mobility Gap Transit Need .................................................... 33 Table 5.5: Mobility Gap of Peer Cities ................................................... 34 Table 5.6: Methodology Summary ...................................................... 35 Table 6.1: Peer City Overview .......................................................... 38 Table 6.2: Characteristics of Selected Peer Cities ......................................... 39 Table 6.3: Mobility Gap of Peer Cities ................................................... 41 Table 7.1: Schedule of Focus Group Meetings ............................................ 49 Table 9.1: Focus Group Meeting Schedule ............................................... 68 Table 10.1: Transit Alternatives Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table 11.1: In-House Operations ....................................................... 88 Table 11.2: Contract Services .......................................................... 89 Table 11.3: Contract Variations in Job Functions .......................................... 92 Table 11.4: Traditional and Operating Service Cost Comparison ............................. 93 Table 11.5: Turn-key and Purchase of Service Cost Comparison . ............................ 94 Table 11.6: In-House Service Part-time and Full-time Cost Comparison ....................... 95 Table 12.1: Fiscally Constrained Budget - Expenses ...................................... 109 Table 12.2: Fiscally Constrained Budget - Revenues ......................................110 Table 13.1: Illustrative Plan Budget - Expenses ...........................................114 Table 13.2: Illustrative Plan Budget - Revenues ...........................................115 Table 14.1: Implementation Steps ......................................................117 FIGURES | Figure 3.1: Existing Land Use .......................................................... 8 Figure 3.2: Future Land Use ............................................................ 9 Figure 3.3: Existing Household Density ..................................................11 Figure 3.4: New Households 2040 ...................................................... 12 Figure 3.5: Transit Propensity Map ..................................................... 14 )LJXUH([LVWLQJ*UDQG,VODQG(PSOR\PHQW3UR¿OH ..................................... 16 Figure 3.7: Grand Island Commuter Flow ................................................ 18 Figure 5.1: Grand Island Transit Propensity .............................................. 28 Figure 6.1: Peer Operating Cost per Revenue Hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 7.1: Importance of Transit Today ................................................. 54 Figure 7.2: Importance of Transit Tomorrow ............................................. 54 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 36 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study Draft Summary Final Report vii FIGURES | Figure 8.1: How often do you ride public transit? ......................................... 58 Figure 8.2: If you use public transportation, what is your primary purpose? ................... 58 Figure 8.3: Characteristics - Age ....................................................... 59 Figure 8.4: Characteristics - Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Figure 8.5: Characteristics - Household Income .......................................... 59 Figure 8.6: Value of Hall County Public Transportation ..................................... 60 Figure 8.7: Priority of Hall County Public Transportation Improvements ...................... 60 Figure 8.8: Perception of Hall County Public Transportation . . .............................. 61 Figure 8.9: How Often Public Transit is Used ............................................. 62 Figure 8.10: Other Transportation Options ............................................... 62 Figure 8.11: Value of Hall County Public Transportation Today .............................. 62 Figure 8.12: Origin of Trip ............................................................. 63 Figure 8.13: Destination of Trip ........................................................ 63 Figure 8.14: Availability of Vehicle ...................................................... 63 Figure 8.15: Possession pf Driver’s License ............................................. 63 Figure 8.16: Characteristics - Household Income ......................................... 64 Figure 8.17: Characteristics - Age ...................................................... 64 Figure 8.18: Characteristics - Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 8.19: Aspects of Hall County Public Transportation ................................. 65 Figure 8.20: Priority Improvements ..................................................... 66 Figure 9.1: Top Service Priority ........................................................ 73 Figure 9.2: Autonomous Vehicle Technology ............................................. 73 Figure 9.3: Do the Additional Transit Services Meet the Goals/Objectives ..................... 74 Figure 9.4: Survey Question No. 1 ...................................................... 75 Figure 9.5: Survey Question No. 2 ...................................................... 75 Figure 9.6: Survey Question No. 3 ...................................................... 76 Figure 9.7: Survey Question No. 4 ...................................................... 76 Figure 9.8: Survey Question No. 5 ...................................................... 76 Figure 9.9: Survey Question No. 6 ...................................................... 76 Figure 10.1: Flex Route Service Alternative .............................................. 81 Figure 10.2: Fixed Route Service Alternative ............................................. 82 Figure 12.1: Fiscally Constrained Plan ................................................. 102 Figure 13.1: Illustrative Plan ...........................................................111 Figure 13.2: Flexible Route Service .....................................................113 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 37 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 38 / 176 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Grand Island and Hall County have had public transportation services available to residents since the mid-1970s. These services were funded in part by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rural transportation programs and Hall County. After the 2010 Census designation of Grand Island to an urban area, the Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO) was established in 2013 to serve as the formal transportation planning body for the greater Grand Island metropolitan region. The move from rural WRXUEDQGHVLJQDWLRQDႇHFWHGWKHIXQGLQJPHFKDQLVPVIRUSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLQ*UDQG,VODQG As an urban area, the FTA appropriates funding to urban communities, such as Grand Island, by IRUPXODDOORFDWLRQVDFURVVWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVHDFK¿VFDO\HDU7KHIRUPXODLVEDVHGRQSRSXODWLRQDQG population density. One designated recipient within the urban area is appointed by the Governor, and for Grand Island, it is the City of Grand Island. 3ULRUWR¿VFDO\HDU)<+DOO&RXQW\KDVEHHQWKH sole local governmental funding agency for Hall County Public Transportation. After July 1, 2016, the City of Grand Island is now the primary funding partner from a local perspective, with a small portion of the local match (5%) from Hall County. The allocation for Hall County is based upon existing services located primarily within the urban area of Grand Island and some service requests outside the City that include rural trips. In April 2016, the City of Grand Island City Council approved an interlocal agreement where the City provides public transit services within Hall County ¹. The City of Grand Island has an existing contract with Senior Citizens Industries, Inc. for an initial 12-month term, with options for a maximum of two years renewal². This contract is funded by FTA 5307 (Urban) and 5311(Rural) funds and local matching funding sources from the City of Grand Island and Hall County. Hall County Public Transportation ¹ https://agendamanagement.blob.core.windows.net/agenda-1000-public/meeting/132492/20160412-100_13.pdf ² https://agendamanagement.blob.core.windows.net/agenda-1000-public/meeting/132496/20160614-100_15.pdf Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 39 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 2 1.2 Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study is to provide EDVHOLQHLQIRUPDWLRQWRWKH&LW\RI*UDQG,VODQGDVWKH&LW\¶V¿UVW\HDUPDQDJLQJWKHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHZDV July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017, and to give the City a plan for transit service based upon, but not limited WRFRPPXQLW\LQSXWDQGYLVLRQIRUWKHIXWXUH7KHVWXG\LGHQWL¿HVIXWXUHWUDQVLWRSSRUWXQLWLHVFKDOOHQJHV and overall transit demand for public transportation in Grand Island and Hall County. This Final Report LQFOXGHVWKHWUDQVLWQHHGVDQGIXWXUHWUDQVLWRSWLRQVWKDWPRVWHႇHFWLYHO\VDWLVI\WKHFRPPXQLW\¶VYLVLRQIRU the Grand Island region. This feasibility study assesses the need for future transit services in Grand Island and Hall County. 6WDNHKROGHUVDQGSROLF\PDNHUVUHYLHZHGTXDQWL¿DEOHGDWDUHJDUGLQJWUDQVLWGHPDQGDQGRWKHUW\SHVRI WUDQVLWVHUYLFHVEHVLGHVZKDWLVRႇHUHGWRGD\6KRUWWHUPDOWHUQDWLYHVIRUIXWXUHSXEOLFWUDQVLWLQ*UDQG Island and Hall County are developed to meet the needs of the community. A Fiscally Constrained Plan and an Illustrative Plan were developed with an implementation plan to move forward. The funding plan is realistic for municipal and county governments. 1.3 Report Contents Three Technical Memorandums were prepared for this study and are summarized within this Final Report. The Final Report includes the following sections: Chapter 1 provides a description of this report. In this FKDSWHUDUHDGHUZLOO¿QGDQLQWURGXFWLRQWRWKHVWXG\WKH purpose of the study and brief descriptions of the contents found within. Chapter 2 includes the development of project goals and vision for transit service in Grand Island and Hall County. The goals and vision provide guidance to the project team, the City of Grand Island, GIAMPO, and local stakeholders as alternatives were developed. Chapter 3 contains a market analysis for the study area. This section provides a review of demographic information to assist in determining focus areas that may contain unserved or undeserved populations, as well as identify various market segments such as elderly, people with disabilities, low-income populations, minority areas, and zero vehicle households. Chapter 3 also examines regional commute patterns to assist decision-makers in understanding how residents get to and from work. Chapter 4 examines the existing transit service in the study area. This chapter presents the current service, performance, and ridership that exists in the study area. Hall County Public Transportation service daily to St. Francis Hospital Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 40 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 3 Chapter 5LGHQWL¿HVWKHH[LVWLQJWUDQVLWQHHGVJDSVDQGSRWHQWLDOIXWXUHGHPDQGIRUWUDQVLWVHUYLFHLQWKH study area. Utilizing research developed by the Transit Cooperative Research Board and other industry PHWKRGRORJLHVWKHWUDQVLWQHHGVDQGGHPDQGDUHLGHQWL¿HG Chapter 6VXPPDUL]HVWKH¿UVWURXQGRISXEOLFLQSXWIURPSXEOLFRSHQKRXVHVDQGVWDNHKROGHULQYROYHPHQW events. Chapter 7GLVFXVVHV*UDQG,VODQGDQGVLPLODUSHHUFRPPXQLWLHV6SHFL¿FFULWHULDWRVHOHFWWKHSHHU communities included similarities to the study area, transit operating characteristics, and transit organizational structure. Chapter 8 analyzes both the online survey distributed to the Grand Island area community, and the transit rider survey distributed on the Hall County Public Transportation buses. The surveys were intended to not only assess the existing transit services according to riders and non-riders, but also gather customer satisfaction of transit within the community. Chapter 9 summarizes the second round of focus groups meetings that were held in Grand Island on August 2-3, 2017.This chapter presents a brief review of the Round Two public engagement conducted thus far for the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study. Chapter 10 LGHQWL¿HVIRXUSULPDU\DOWHUQDWLYHV6WDWXV4XR6DPHGD\'HPDQG5HVSRQVH)OH[LEOH5RXWH Service, and Fixed Route Service) that are exclusive alternatives, meaning only one of these alternatives would be implemented. Each of the additional services (Regional Airport Service, Commuter Express Routes, Rideshare Programs, and Vanpool Programs) could theoretically operate alongside any of the other additional services, or with one of the primary alternatives. Chapter 11H[SODLQVWKHGLႇHUHQFHVLQFRQWUDFWPRGHOVIRUWUDQVLWDJHQFLHV7KLVDQDO\VLVZLOOEHDFULWLFDO resource when it is determined which contract model is chosen going forward. Chapter 12RXWOLQHVWKH)LVFDOO\&RQVWUDLQHG3ODQIRUWKHFRQWUDFWHGVHUYLFHSURYLGHUIRUWKHQH[W¿YH \HDUV7KH3ODQLGHQWL¿HVUHDOLVWLFH[SHQVHVDQGUHÀHFWVUHYHQXHVIRUWUDQVLWSURMHFWVDQGVHUYLFHV Chapter 13SUHVHQWVLQIRUPDWLRQEXLOGLQJIURPWKHSURMHFWVLGHQWL¿HGLQ&KDSWHUDQGPRYHVWRDQ enhanced level of public transportation for the community, or the Illustrative Plan. Chapter 14 provides a brief discussion of the implementation plan for actions over the next two years. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 41 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 42 / 176 5 CHAPTER 2 'DWD&ROOHFWLRQDQG(YDOXDWLRQ ,QWKLVUHSRUWDVLJQL¿FDQWDPRXQWRIGDWD collection was conducted to understand the environment in which transit operates in Grand Island and Hall County and to evaluate and identify the strengths and weaknesses from the perspective of the community. A thorough analysis of the demographic and socioeconomic data was conducted for purposes of identifying markets with high propensity for transit utilization, and potential new markets for Grand Island and Hall County. A comprehensive evaluation of how Grand Island compares to its industry peers in terms of operating and ¿QDQFLDOSHUIRUPDQFHWRKLJKOLJKWVWUHQJWKVDQG weaknesses was conducted. Finally, a variety of market research activities and public engagement were undertaken including: • An online community survey for all residents • An onboard customer survey for transit riders • Community focus groups These activities were designed to gain an understanding of the community’s perceptions of Hall County Public Transportation, the services it provides, the services most desired by users and non-users of the system, and the community’s vision for the future of transit. 2.2 Consistency With Other Plans and Programs 'XULQJWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHYLVLRQDQGJRDOVWKHDGRSWHG*,$032/RQJ5DQJH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQ and City of Grand Island Comprehensive Plan were reviewed for consistency. The goals and objectives developed for this study address, for example, the need to pursue the development of transit friendly land use, policies, regulations, and land development criteria. VISION AND GOALS To develop goals and objectives for this feasibility study, it is necessary to evaluate the needs of the community, support the plans and policies of local governmental agencies, and identify areas where RSHUDWLQJHႈFLHQFLHVDQGHQKDQFHPHQWVFDQEHDFKLHYHG7KLVFKDSWHULQFOXGHVWKHYLVLRQDQGJRDOVIRUWKH study. Hall County Public Transportation serving Golden Age Village Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 43 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 6 2.3 Proposed Vision, Goals, and Objectives $VSDUWRIWKH¿UVWURXQGRISXEOLFHQJDJHPHQWVWXG\JRDOVZHUHGLVFXVVHG7KHIROORZLQJJRDOVDQG REMHFWLYHVKHOSGH¿QHWKHRXWFRPHVRIWKLVVWXG\ Hall County Public Transportation Vision: (ႈFLHQW0RELOLW\IRU$OO5HVLGHQWVLQWKH*UDQG,VODQG5HJLRQ Goals and Objectives 7KHVFRSHRIWKLVSURMHFWFDOOVIRUDGHYHORSPHQWRID¿YH\HDUSODQWRHႈFLHQWO\RSHUDWHWUDQVLWVHUYLFH inside the Grand Island Metropolitan Planning Area, while understanding the constrained budgets of local partners.¹ *RDO(௻FLHQWO\SURYLGHPRELOLW\RSWLRQVWRDUHDUHVLGHQWV • Objective: Improve mobility by increasing knowledge of available services to area residents and access to public transit. 2EMHFWLYH3URYLGHDႇRUGDEOHHႈFLHQWSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQRSWLRQVIRUWKRVHZLWKOLPLWHGDFFHVVWR transportation. • Objective: Explore options for governing structures to assist in supporting future public transportation services. *RDO(QKDQFHHFRQRPLFDFWLYLW\E\LPSURYLQJDFFHVVWRHPSOR\PHQWIRUDUHDUHVLGHQWV 2EMHFWLYH6XSSRUWHFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQWYLWDOLW\DQGFRPSHWLWLYHQHVVE\HႈFLHQWO\HQKDQFLQJ access to existing employment centers. • Objective: Improve access to jobs for underemployed or low-income area residents. • Objective: Examine opportunities to provide public transportation to second- and third-shift employees at area employment centers. *RDO&RRUGLQDWHZLWKORFDORUJDQL]DWLRQVIRUSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQRSWLRQVZKLOHEHLQJ JRRGVWHZDUGVRIWKHSXEOLFGROODU • Objective: Identify partnership opportunities with local businesses, community organizations, and area partners. 2EMHFWLYH'HYHORS¿QDQFLDOO\DFKLHYDEOHWUDQVLWDOWHUQDWLYHVWRSURYLGHVHUYLFHWRDUHDUHVLGHQWV who need it the most. • Objective: Examine non-traditional solutions to provide after-hours transportation options for low- income employees at area employment centers. ¹ Local Study References • Grand Island Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GIAMPO), 2040 Performance Based Long Range Transportation Plan - Adopted April of 2016 • http://www.grand-island.com/home/showdocument?id=15898 • Grow Grand Island, Implementation Plan, January 2015 KWWS¿OHVGHVLJQHGLWRUFRP8SORDGHG)LOHV&)&)'%&))')SGI • Grander Vision, Vision Plan, November 2014 KWWS¿OHVGHVLJQHGLWRUFRP8SORDGHG)LOHV()'%)%&)%%'&$%$'SGI Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 44 / 176 7 CHAPTER 3 3.1 Introduction The population and employment characteristics of Grand Island and the GIAMPO area are described ZLWKLQWKLVFKDSWHU7KHGDWDDVVLVWHGLQGHWHUPLQLQJZKDWW\SHRIWUDQVLWVHUYLFHEHVW¿WVIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\ By analyzing the demographics, population and employment concentrations and general commuting patterns of the study area, transportation investments may be targeted to areas with a high transit need. This chapter organizes and reviews available data and reports pertaining to the feasibility of public transit VHUYLFHLQFRQFHUWZLWKFXUUHQWDQGSODQQHGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDQGODQGXVHFRQGLWLRQVDႇHFWLQJWUDQVLWVHUYLFH While this chapter is a summary of the market analysis phase of the study, the complete analysis is available in Technical Memorandum 1. 3.2 Study Area The study area location focuses on the City of Grand Island, Hall County, and part of Merrick County. The major communities in Hall County, starting with the highest populated, include Grand Island, Wood River, 'RQLSKDQ&DLURDQG$OGDTable 3.1 displays the study area’s 2011-2015 population totals, as estimated by the U.S. Census’ American Community Survey by county and city. 3.3 Land Use Overview Existing and future land use for the City of Grand Island was provided by GIAMPO, as shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. Much of the development is anticipated to occur westward, as well as areas in the southwest and the southeast of the City. Industrial expansion occurs west of the airport, and south of Highway 281, towards Interstate 80. A majority of the commercial development will continue along the existing Highway 281 corridor, but also along South Locust Street, nearby interstate interchanges, and at the intersection of Highway 2 and Highway 281. MARKET ANALYSIS Jurisdictions Populations Nebraska 1,869,365 Hall County 60,792 Merrick County 7,776 Grand Island 50,582 Alda 607 Cairo 888 'RQLSKDQ 1,020 Wood River 1,393 6RXUFH86&HQVXV%XUHDX $PHULFDQ&RPPXQLW\6XUYH\\HDU(VWLPDWHV Table 3.1: Current Area Population Totals Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 45 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 8 )LJXUH([LVWLQJ/DQG8VHGrand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 46 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 9)LJXUH)XWXUH/DQG8VHGrand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 47 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 10 3.4 Population Population projections for Grand Island and Hall County were developed for the GIAMPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). After applying the compound annual growth rate of 1.1 percent through the 2040 horizon year, the LRTP found the total number of households rose by 33 percent, or 6,186 households since the 2014 base estimate of 18,801 households ¹. Table 3.2 displays the projections for households and population, by County and City. Figure 3.3LGHQWL¿HVWKHFXUUHQWKRXVHKROGGHQVLW\ while Figure 3.4 depicts where the new households are projected by the year 2040. The majority of the development will take place in the northwest, southwest, and southeast of the City. 2010 2020 2030 2040 Grand Island Population 48,520 54,129 60,387 67,368 Households 18,326 20,076 22,397 24,987 Hall County Population 58,607 65,832 72,941 81,374 Households 22,196 23,702 26,442 29,499 Source: GIAMPO LRTP, 2016. Table 3.2: Future Populations and Households Summary ï*UDQG,VODQG$UHD(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW&RUSRUDWLRQ*UDQG,VODQG&RPPXQLW\+RXVLQJ6WXG\ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 48 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 11)LJXUH([LVWLQJ+RXVHKROG'HQVLW\Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 49 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 12 Figure 3.4: New Households 2040Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 50 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 13 3.5 Transit Propensity The demographic characteristics described in this chapter provide a composite snapshot of Grand Island area residents. The transit dependent market segments are most likely to use public transit more often than other persons in the region. These datasets are used to calculate the transit propensity and identify areas with the greatest need for transit within the community. 3.5.1 Methodology The Transit Propensity Analysis provides a general understanding of areas in the community with the greatest transit need. Each of the categories listed below was used to develop the transit propensity. • Elderly Population - Number of persons aged 65 years old and over 'LVDELOLW\3RSXODWLRQ1XPEHURISHUVRQVOLYLQJZLWKDKHDULQJFRJQLWLYHDPEXODWRU\VHOIFDUH or independent living disability • Low-Income Households - Number of households with an income in the past 12 months below the poverty level • Zero Vehicle Households - Number of households without owning an automobile The composite transit propensity map is shown in Figure 3.5.'HQVLWLHVIRUWKHDQDO\VLVDUHDWWKHEORFN group level. The areas with the greatest need within the Grand Island region are found in and around downtown Grand Island. As transit alternatives are developed, the transit propensity data will be used in the analysis to ensure that areas with a high transit need are adequately served by public transportation. The next sections examine the existing employment in the study area, as well as how work and non-work WULSÀRZVH[SODLQWKHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHHGVRIWKRVHZKROLYHDQGRUZRUNLQ*UDQG,VODQGUHJLRQ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 51 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 14 Figure 3.5: Transit Propensity MapGrand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 52 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 15 3.6 Employment 3.6.1 Existing and Future Employment The majority of jobs in the Grand Island region are concentrated at the retail-heavy businesses along the Highway 281 corridor, the retail and public employees located in the downtown area, and industrial concentrations at the intersection of Highway 30 and Highway 281, as well as east of the City. Figure 3.6 presents the 2014 employment concentrations for the Grand Island region. Employment projections for Grand Island and Hall County were developed for the GIAMPO Long Range 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQ)XWXUHHPSOR\PHQWIRUHFDVWVLQWKDWSODQZHUHEDVHGRQUHJLRQVSHFL¿FHPSOR\PHQW SURMHFWLRQJURZWKUDWHVSURYLGHGE\WKH1HEUDVND'HSDUWPHQWRI(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQWIRUWR 2020. Hall County is one of 22 counties located in the Central Economic Region of Nebraska, therefore the Central Region’s growth rates were applied to Hall County’s future employment forecasts. After applying the annual projected regional growth rate of each industry to the Hall County existing employment base provided by the Grand Island Chamber of Commerce, a total of 8,087 new jobs are estimated by the year 2040, a 21 percent increase from 2013 Allocation of these employment sectors were based on discussions with City of Grand Island and GIAMPO VWDႇWKH*UDQG,VODQG&RPSUHKHQVLYH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQDVZHOODVIXUWKHUDQDO\VLVRIDYDLODEOH land, permitted densities, future land uses, and neighboring developments. The sector of employment and WKHORFDWLRQRIWKHHPSOR\PHQWFHQWHUKDVDVLJQL¿FDQWLPSDFWRQWKHQHHGVRIWKHUHJLRQ¶VWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ network. 3.6.2 Major Employers The major employers in the Grand Island region are listed in Table 3.3. Larger concentrations of employment provide additional opportunities for commuter-related public transportation. For the Grand ,VODQGDUHDWKHWRS¿YHHPSOR\HUVLQFOXGH-%6&+,+HDOWK6W)UDQFLV*UDQG,VODQG3XEOLF6FKRROV Hornady Manufacturing, and CNH Industrial America. When reviewing the map of major employers, it is important to consider some of these larger employers are not all in one location. Of the top 10 employers, ¿YHDUHFRQFHQWUDWHGLQDVLQJOHORFDWLRQDQG¿YHDUHGLVSHUVHGLQRWKHUORFDWLRQVDURXQGWKH&LW\ 7DEOH*UDQG,VODQG0DMRU(PSOR\HUV Employer # of Employees JBS 3,200 CHI Health St. Francis 1,300 Grand Island Public Schools 1,250 Hornady Manufacturing 751 CNH Industrial America 722 Walmart 662 Chief Industries 650 McCain Foods 550 City of Grand Island 535 Principal Financial 445 Total 10,065 6RXUFH*UDQG,VODQG$UHD(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW&RUSRUDWLRQ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 53 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 16 )LJXUH([LVWLQJ*UDQG,VODQG(PSOR\PHQW3UR¿OHGrand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 54 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 17 3.7 Commuter Travel Patterns Commuter travel patterns indicate the connection between where people live and where they work. Figure 3.7 illustrates the work trip travel movements for communities in the Grand Island region. These GDWDZHUHH[WUDFWHGIURPWKH86&HQVXV/RQJLWXGLQDO(PSOR\HU+RXVHKROG'\QDPLFV/(+' SURJUDP7KH/(+'SURJUDPSURGXFHVSXEOLFXVHLQIRUPDWLRQFRPELQLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQG&HQVXV %XUHDXGDWDRQHPSOR\HUVDQGHPSOR\HHVXQGHUWKH/RFDO(PSOR\PHQW'\QDPLFV/('3DUWQHUVKLS7KH /(+'GDWDGHVFULEHVJHRJUDSKLFSDWWHUQVRIHPSOR\HHVE\WKHLUHPSOR\PHQWORFDWLRQVDQGUHVLGHQWLDO locations, as well as the connections between the two locations. The information shows the number of workers living in each community and the location of their employment. Table 3.4 shows a list of the major commuter connections from and to Grand Island. Since the GIAMPO LRTP was completed, employment totals are now available for as recent as 2014. $FFRUGLQJWRWKH/(+'SURJUDPWKH&LW\RI*UDQG,VODQGKDVDSSUR[LPDWHO\ZRUNLQJDJH individuals living within the City and approximately 32,000 individuals employed in Grand Island. This DFFRXQWVIRUDQHWMRELQÀRZRI2IWKHHPSOR\HGLQ*UDQG,VODQGSHUFHQWERWK work and live within the City. The remaining 15,600 employees live outside Grand Island and commute into the City for work. Direction Commuters Hastings to Grand Island 1,099 Grand Island to Lincoln 872 Grand Island to Hastings 790 Kearney to Grand Island 790 Grand Island to Kearney 731 Lincoln to Grand Island 686 Omaha to Grand Island 625 Grand Island to Omaha 622 Aurora to Grand Island 411 Central City to Grand Island 299 Total 6,925 6RXUFH86&HQVXV%XUHDX&HQWHUIRU(FRQRPLF6WXGLHV/(+'2Q7KH0DS Table 3.4: Intercity Commuter Connections Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 55 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 18 Figure 3.7: Grand Island Commuter FlowGrand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 56 / 176 19 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Introduction &KDSWHUSURYLGHVDQRYHUYLHZDQGDQDO\VLVRIH[LVWLQJRSHUDWLRQVDQG¿QDQFLDOLQIRUPDWLRQIRU+DOO County Public Transportation. In addition, information on current ridership and system performance are included in the summary data. Other transportation providers serving Hall County and Grand Island are also summarized within the chapter. 4.2 Hall County Public Transportation Grand Island and Hall County have had public transportation services available to residents since the mid-1970s. The current services, after July 1, 2016, are funded in part by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) urban transportation programs, 5311 rural funds, the City of Grand Island, and Hall County. 3ULRUWR¿VFDO\HDU)<+DOO&RXQW\ZDVWKHVROH local governmental funding agency for Hall County Public Transportation. After July 1, 2016, the City of Grand Island is now the primary funding partner, with a small portion of the local match (5 percent) from Hall County. The allocation for Hall County was based upon existing services located primarily within the urban area of Grand Island and some service requests outside the City (rural trips funded by the 5311 funding program). In April 2016, the Grand Island City Council approved an interlocal agreement where the City provides public transit services through contract services with Senior Citizens Industries, Inc. (SCI) for an initial 12-month term, with two one- year renewable options. This contract is funded from FTA 5307 (urban) and 5311 (rural) funds and local matching funding sources via the City of Grand Island and Hall County. Today, Hall County Public Transportation provides demand response, curb-to-curb service for Hall County residents. Reservations must be made 24 hours in advance, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. Transit service is available from 6:00 am to 5:00 pm. The base fare is $2.00 per one-way trip. Tickets are also available for purchase for 1 trip, 10 trips, or 20 trips. Hall County Public Transportation typically has seven or eight peak vehicles providing service from 6:00 am to 5:00 pm, each weekday. The agency provides transportation to all residents age 18 and older. Those under 18 years must have an adult companion. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES Hall County Public Transportation Rider Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 57 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 20 4.2.1 Fleet and Facilities 7KH+DOO&RXQW\3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQRႈFHRSHUDWHGE\6HQLRU&LWL]HQV,QGXVWULHV6&,LVORFDWHG at 304 E. 3rd Street, the Grand Generation Center, in downtown Grand Island. The buses are parked overnight across 3rd Street, in an uncovered lot. All SCI administration and operation are housed at this facility. The City of Grand Island hired a Transit Program Manager in May 2017, and one of the position’s primary duties is to oversee the contracted service provider. Administratively, the Transit Program Manager UHSRUWVGLUHFWO\WRWKH3XEOLF:RUNV'LUHFWRU Hall County Public Transportation operates curb-to-curb, demand response service for the residents ZLWKLQ+DOO&RXQW\XVLQJDÀHHWRIYHKLFOHVDVVKRZQLQTable 4.17KHÀHHWLQFOXGHVPLQLYDQVDQG small body-on-chassis gasoline-fueled buses. Seating capacity ranges from two seats in the minivans to 14 seats on the body-on-chassis buses. All vehicles are accessible with a wheelchair lift or ramp, with the exception of the 2012 12-passenger van. The lifts and ramps allow for level boarding at sidewalk or curb OHYHO7KLVIHDWXUHUHGXFHVDQGRUHOLPLQDWHJDSVEHWZHHQWKHERDUGLQJORFDWLRQDQGWKHEXVDVZHOODV allow SDVVHQJHUVZLWKPRELOLW\GHYLFHVWRVDIHO\DQGLQGHSHQGHQWO\ERDUGWKHEXV7KHH[LVWLQJÀHHWGRHV not have vehicle bike racks. Table 4.1: Hall County Public Transportation Fleet Information SCI Fleet - August 2016 Type of Vehicle Age of Vehicle (Yrs) Vehicle Capacity Wheelchair Lifts Wheelchair Ramps 1 2014 'RGJH*UDQG&DUDYDQ 32 No <HV 2 2014 'RGJH*UDQG&DUDYDQ 32 No <HV 3 2013 Ford Small Bus 4 14 <HV No 4 2008 Chevy Small Bus 9 14 <HV No 5 2009 Chevy Small Bus 8 14 <HV No 6 2014 Ford Small Bus 3 14 <HV No 7 2015 Senator II Small Bus 2 14 <HV No 8 2015 Senator II Small Bus 2 14 <HV No 9 2010 Ford Small Bus 7 14 <HV No 10 2010 Ford Small Bus 7 14 <HV No 11 2010 Ford Small Bus 7 14 <HV No 12 2012 Chevy Van 5 12 No <HV Source: SCI, Spring 2017. From July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, the agency provided approximately 35,000 annual one-way trips. 5LGHUVKLSLVDQWLFLSDWHGWRLQFUHDVHVOLJKWO\LQ)<GXHWRWKHGLVFRQWLQXDWLRQRIWKHWD[LYRXFKHU program in late 2016. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 58 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 21 4.2.2 Ridership $QQXDOSDVVHQJHUWULSGDWDIRU+DOO&RXQW\3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQZDVLQ)<7KLV ridership is slightly lower than the previous year of 36,394. Average ridership for the Hall County Public Transportation is slightly higher on Tuesday and Thursday, and slightly lower on Mondays. Annual weekday ridership by percent is listed below. • Monday – 17 percent total ridership (5,896 total annual one-way trips) • Tuesday – 22 percent total ridership (7,574 total annual one-way trips) • Wednesday – 20 percent total ridership (7,067 total annual one-way trips) • Thursday – 22 percent total ridership (7,807 total annual one-way trips) • Friday – 19 percent total ridership (6,741 total annual one-way trips) 4.2.3 Financial Review $QHVVHQWLDOHOHPHQWRIRSHUDWLQJDQGVXVWDLQLQJWUDQVLWVHUYLFHLVDUHYLHZRIWKH¿QDQFLDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFV RIWKHV\VWHP$QQXDORSHUDWLQJFRVWVIRU+DOO&RXQW\3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ)<ZHUH approximately $490,000 based upon current service levels. Annual revenue hours were approximately 14,705, which equates to approximately $34 operating cost per revenue hour. These costs are in the normal range for demand response transit agencies across the nation and within the state of Nebraska. The agency provides approximately 2.4 passengers per revenue hour, which is also within the normal range for demand response transit agencies across the nation. The revenue required to operate Hall County Public Transportation comes from a variety of sources consisting of the City’s general fund, county local funding, Federal 5307 and 5311 grants and fare UHYHQXHV8VLQJWKHEXGJHWIRU)<Table 4.2 provides the estimated breakout of funding sources. Hall County Public Transportation Operating Budget/Revenues FY 2015 - 2016 Amount Source Percent of Total $249,900 FTA 51% $65,467 Fares 13% $174,633 Local 36% $490,000 Total 100% Table 4.2: Hall County Public Transportation Budget Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 59 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 22 The largest revenue source is the FTA, representing 51 percent of total operating revenue. Fares contribute to approximately 13 percent of the budget, and local funding from the City and County is DSSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOEXGJHW)RUWKHORFDOIXQGLQJLQWKHODVW¿VFDO\HDUWKH City contributes approximately $161,000 and the County contributed approximately $5,700 annually. The City is eligible to apply annually for 50 percent reimbursement from the Nebraska Public Transportation Assistance Program towards the local match for the 5307 program relating to Grand Island’s transit operations. The Nebraska Public Transportation Assistance Program was created by the Nebraska 3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$FWLQDQGLWLVDGPLQLVWHUHGE\WKH1HEUDVND'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ¹ The funding is available for rural areas, small urban areas (Bellevue, Grand Island, Papillion-La Vista, and South Sioux City) and large urban areas (Omaha and Lincoln). Funding is awarded in the following order -- UXUDODUHDVVPDOOXUEDQDUHDVWKHQODUJHXUEDQDUHDV,Q)<WKH&LW\UHFHLYHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\ $80,000 reimbursement, which is approximately half of the local operating assistance in the urban area. This funding sources is not guaranteed; however, the City will likely apply for reimbursement each year. 7RWDORSHUDWLQJH[SHQVHVIRU)<ZHUHMXVWXQGHU6DODU\DQGZDJHVDFFRXQWIRU approximately 58 percent of the total budget, which is common among most transit agencies. Fuel is the second highest cost (10 percent of total budget) for Hall County Public Transportation at approximately $4,000 per month on average. Vehicle insurance is approximately nine percent of the budget, followed closely by routine preventative maintenance for vehicles at approximately $3,100 per month or eight percent total budget. These four categories of expenses make up approximately 85 percent of total expenses for the transit agency. Appendix A presents budget detail assumptions. 4.2.4 System Performance 7KHRSHUDWLQJHႇHFWLYHQHVVDQG¿QDQFLDOHႈFLHQF\RIDWUDQVLWDJHQF\DUHFHQWUDOIDFWRUVFRQWULEXWLQJWR WKHVXFFHVVRIDWUDQVLWV\VWHP2SHUDWLQJHႇHFWLYHQHVVLVWKHDELOLW\RIDWUDQVLWV\VWHPWRJHQHUDWHDQG VXVWDLQULGHUVKLSZKLOH¿QDQFLDOHႈFLHQF\LVDWUDQVLWV\VWHP¶VDELOLW\WRSURYLGHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHDWWKHORZHVW feasible cost. Table 4.3 presents the system-wide performance characteristics for Hall County Public Transportation. 7KLVVXPPDU\WDEOHLQFOXGHVGDWDIRURSHUDWLQJHႇHFWLYHQHVVDVPHDVXUHGE\WKHQXPEHURISDVVHQJHU WULSVSHUYHKLFOHUHYHQXHKRXUVDQGYHKLFOHUHYHQXHPLOHV)LQDQFLDOHႈFLHQF\LVPHDVXUHGE\WKH operating cost per passenger trip and operating cost per vehicle revenue hour. ¹ Nebraska Statutes, Chapter 13, Section 13-1201 to 13-1214. http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/ 5RDGVB'HSWBRI7LWOH&KDSWHUSGI Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 60 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 23 Hall County Public Transportation Bus Table 4.3: Hall County Public Transportation System Wide Performance System Performance Operating Cost $490,000 Passenger Trips 35,085 Vehicle Revenue Hours 14,705 Vehicle Revenue Miles 170,497 2SHUDWLQJ(ႇHFWLYHQHVV 3DVVHQJHU7ULSV5HYHQXH+U 2.4 3DVVHQJHU7ULSV5HYHQXH0LOH 0.21 )LQDQFLDO(ႈFLHQF\ Operating Cost per Passenger Trip $13.99 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $33.32 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile $2.87 Source: Olsson Associates, 2017. 4.3 Other Transportation Providers 4.3.1 Burlington Trailways Burlington Trailways provides intercity service seven days a week from Grand Island. The bus station is co-located with Arrow Stage Lines in Grand Island. Eastbound and westbound routes travel to out-of-state GHVWLQDWLRQV7KHEXVHVDUHDWWKHVWDWLRQLQ*UDQG,VODQGDWDPDPDQGSP:L¿LV DYDLODEOHRQDOOEXVHVIRUWUDYHOHUV)HHGEDFNIURPORFDOVWDWLRQVWDႇHVWLPDWHDSSUR[LPDWHO\ERDUGLQJV DQGGHERDUGLQJVRFFXULQ*UDQG,VODQGHDFKPRQWK3RSXODUGHVWLQDWLRQVLQFOXGH/LQFROQ2PDKD'HV 0RLQHVDQG,QGLDQDSROLV$JHQF\VWDႇUHSRUWEXVHVDUHRQWKHURDGGXULQJSHDNWUDYHOSHULRGV 7KHFRPSDQ\KDVYHKLFOHVLQLWVÀHHW Passengers on Burlington Trailways include PDQ\VWXGHQWVHOGHUO\DQGSHRSOHRQ¿[HG incomes. 4.3.2 Central City Mini Bus - Merrick County The Mini Bus operates demand response, curb-to-curb service Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm. Reservations are required 24-hour in advance. To travel WRIURP*UDQG,VODQGLWLVURXQGWULS The agency travels to Grand Island the ¿UVW0RQGD\RIHYHU\PRQWK7KHSULPDU\ purpose of most passengers traveling from Central City to Grand Island are for medical appointments. Burlington Trailways Bus B li t T il B Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 61 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 24 4.3.3 Navigator Airport Express The Navigator Airport Express is based out of Kearney and provides service into Grand Island Monday WKURXJK6DWXUGD\7KHDJHQF\IRFXVHVRQDLUSRUWVHUYLFHWRPXOWLSOHFLWLHVLQFOXGLQJ<RUN/LQFROQ2PDKD and Kearney. Reservations are required to schedule a trip. The average fare from Grand Island to Omaha is $62 per one-way trip. 4.3.4 Ponca Express The Ponca Express transit agency is based RXWRI1RUIRONDQGWUDQVSRUWVSDVVHQJHUVWR from Grand Island. Many passengers use Ponca Express to travel to the airport and to the University of Nebraska at Kearney. The agency makes the trip approximately every two weeks. The cost for the one-way trip is $5.00 per person. The agency has 14 vehicles in its ÀHHWZLWKDSSUR[LPDWHO\YHKLFOHVRSHUDWLQJ during peak hours. Five of the 12 vehicles DUHZKHHOFKDLUDFFHVVLEOH7ULSUHTXHVWVWR from Grand Island and Hastings have increased, in addition to requests for Lincoln and Omaha. 4.3.5 Ryde Transit 5\GH7UDQVLWLVEDVHGRXWRI.HDUQH\DQGWUDYHOVWR from Grand Island on a weekly basis. The agency estimates approximately 10,000 annual trips to Grand Island. The majority of trips are for medical appointments and the Veterans Administration facility in Grand Island. The one-way fare to Grand Island is $8.00 per person. The agency has 48 total YHKLFOHVLQLWVÀHHWZLWKDSSUR[LPDWHO\YHKLFOHVLQ operation during peak hours. 3RQFD([SUHVV Ryde Transit 1DYLJDWRU$LUSRUW([SUHVV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 62 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 25 4.3.6 Private Transit Providers Other transportation providers within Hall County and Grand Island are private companies, taxis, and Uber. In addition to these services is the company Liberty, which is a new startup company, based out of Lincoln, known as the rural ‘Uber’ service. The agency is currently looking for drivers in the Grand Island area to provide service to the community. The agency, similar to Uber and the taxi service, will provide rides 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The Liberty service has independent contract drivers who make their own schedules and get paid per PLOH'ULYHUVPXVWEHKDYHDVPDUWSKRQHZLWKDGDWD plan, and pass a brief background check. Liberty will be providing trips for central Nebraska, Kearney, Grand Island, Hastings, and the surrounding areas.8EHU&RPHVWR*UDQG,VODQG Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 63 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 64 / 176 27 CHAPTER 5 5.1 Introduction A key step in developing and evaluating transit feasibility in a community is a careful analysis of the PRELOLW\QHHGVRIYDULRXVVHJPHQWVRIWKHSRSXODWLRQDQGSRWHQWLDOWUDQVLWULGHUV6HYHUDOIDFWRUVDႇHFW GHPDQGQRWDOORIZKLFKFDQEHIRUHFDVWHG'HPDQGHVWLPDWLRQLVDQLPSRUWDQWWDVNLQGHYHORSLQJDQ\ transportation plan, and several methods of estimation have been presented within this chapter. The demand methodologies use census data, including demographic and socioeconomic data, presented in Chapter 3 and existing ridership and statistics from current services. Transit demand is used in Chapter 10 to identify and evaluate various transit service options. In addition to transit demand in the Grand Island region, Chapter 5 provides an overview of the transit needs within the region. Each methodology helps show the patterns that are likely to arise regarding transit needs within the area. Estimating demand for services is not an exact science and therefore must be carefully evaluated. The best approach for forecasting demand and estimating need is to use multiple methodologies and then HYDOXDWHWKHUHVXOWVLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHVSHFL¿FFRQGLWLRQVIRU*UDQG,VODQGDQG+DOO&RXQW\7KHPXOWLSOH methods are detailed below. Transit Demand Methodologies: • Greatest Transit Needs Index &RPPXWHU7UDQVLW'HPDQG 3HHU'DWD'HPDQG • Mode of Transportation to Work • Mobility Gap TRANSIT DEMAND Hall County Public Transportation Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 65 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 28 Figure 5.1: Grand Island Transit PropensityGrand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 66 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 29 5.2 Greatest Transit Needs Index Methodology Chapter 3 of this Final Report provided a detailed analysis of the areas in Grand Island with the greatest transit need. The Greatest Transit Need Index Methodology is based upon Census data from four categories (elderly, disabled, low-income, and zero vehicle households). Figure 5.1 illustrates the greatest needs in Grand Island are in the downtown area. By identifying the areas with a high need for public transportation, the local project team determined a pattern for the areas with the highest propensity to use transit service. These data were used in the analysis to ensure that areas with a high transit need were considered in future transit service options. &RPPXWHU7UDQVLW'HPDQG0HWKRGRORJ\ TKH&RPPXWHU7UDQVLW'HPDQG0HWKRGRORJ\HVWLPDWHVWKHGHPDQGIRUFRPPXWHUVW\SLFDOO\WUDYHOLQJ Monday through Friday from one community to another. For the Grand Island area, this is typically from a rural county to a regional center in another county. The Transportation Research Board developed this PHWKRGRORJ\WRHVWLPDWHFRPPXWHUGHPDQGZLWKVSHFL¿FIRFXVRQUXUDODQGVXEXUEDQDUHDV The basis of this methodology is a function of the number of existing commuters from surrounding areas coming into the urban center, and the distance of that commute. For example, a large number of commuters coming from a short distance, would exhibit a higher transit demand than the same number of commuters from a longer distance. The formula to estimate the demand is below. Proportion using Transit for Commuter Trips from Rural County to Urban Place = 0.024 + ( 0.0000056 x Workers Commuting from Rural County to Urban Place) – ['LVWDQFHLQ0LOHVIURP5XUDO&RXQW\WR8UEDQ3ODFH 0.015 ( if the Urban Place is a state capital ) ¹ ï7&53UHSRUW0HWKRGIRU)RUHFDVWLQJ'HPDQGDQG4XDQWLI\LQJ1HHGIRU5XUDO3DVVHQJHU7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ5HVHDUFKERDUG:DVKLQJWRQ'& Table 5.1 lists the top 25 locations whose residents commute to work in Grand Island. The cities where people live in, but work in Grand Island, was used as a proxy for rural counties. The table also shows commute distance from the community to Grand Island, and how many of those commuters expected to take transit, if a transit option did exist. The results indicate a small number of commuters from outlying rural areas taking transit to work in Grand ,VODQG,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRFODULI\WKLVPHWKRGRORJ\'2(6127WDNHLQWRDFFRXQWFRPPXWHUWULSVRULJLQDWLQJ ZLWKLQ*UDQG,VODQG7KHPHWKRGRORJ\DOVR'2(6127LQFOXGHWULSVWDNHQIRUPHGLFDORUVRFLDOVHUYLFH purposes. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 67 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 30 Residents That Work in Grand Island City Distance to Grand Island (Miles) Commuter Transit Demand (Daily Trips) Grand Island, NE 16,372 Hastings city, NE 1,191 26 0.02 Kearney city, NE 765 43 0.02 Lincoln city, NE 645 96 0.00 Omaha city, NE 596 145 0.00 St. Paul city, NE 434 23 0.02 Aurora city, NE 407 22 0.02 Central City city, NE 309 22 0.02 Wood River city, NE 304 16 0.02 'RQLSKDQYLOODJH1(250 12 0.02 Cairo village, NE 237 16 0.02 Alda village, NE 204 8 0.02 <RUNFLW\1(165 49 0.01 North Platte city, NE 149 146 0.00 Beatrice city, NE 106 131 0.00 Palmer village, NE 102 24 0.02 Norfolk city, NE 89 30 0.02 Bellevue city, NE 86 107 0.00 Holdrege city, NE 85 146 0.00 Loup City city, NE 81 77 0.00 Columbus city, NE 79 51 0.01 Chapman City, NE 78 64 0.01 Lexington city, NE 69 12 0.02 Giltner village, NE 69 20 0.02 All Other Locations:9,262 87 0.00 Total Daily Ridership:0.29 Annual Commuter Ridership:73 6RXUFH86&HQVXV%XUHDX&HQWHUIRU(FRQRPLF6WXGLHV/(+'2Q7KH0DS 7DEOH*UDQG,VODQG&RPPXWHU7UDQVLW'HPDQG Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 68 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 31 3HHU'DWD'HPDQG0HWKRGRORJ\ 7KH3HHU'DWD'HPDQG0HWKRGRORJ\FDOFXODWHVWUDQVLWXVDJHIRURWKHUVLPLODUSHHUDUHDVDQGIRUHFDVWV ridership with a similar level of transit service. Applying the transit ridership per capita for the existing ridership level (Hall County today = 0.7) - in other words, forecasting that future transit service would remain status quo as a proportion of total trips – just as it is today – expected ridership would be approximately 55,723 in the horizon year 2040. This calculation uses the population projections, discussed in Chapter 3, for 2040 with 81,374 persons in the county multiplied by the existing transit trip per capita (0.7). Peer city ridership data and trips per capita are shown in Table 5.2. Hall County Public Transportation has the lowest transit trips per capita of any of their peers, although Enid, OK has similar levels for trips SHUFDSLWDZLWK)RXUSHHUFLWLHVKDYH¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFHZKLFKWHQGWRH[KLELWPRUHWULSVSHUFDSLWD than cities with only demand response service. This is typically due to ridership growth, in which cities RIWHQ¿QGLWPRUHFRVWHႇHFWLYHWRLPSOHPHQWD¿[HGURXWHV\VWHPWRVHUYHWKHPDMRULW\RIWKHLUULGHUV UDWKHUWKDQH[SDQGLQJWKHLUGHPDQGUHVSRQVHÀHHW8QGHUVWDQGLQJWKLVIRUVLPLODUVL]HGWUDQVLWDJHQFLHV and communities, it is useful to examine potential demand from the perspective of demand response-only V\VWHPVDQGIURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIV\VWHPVWKDWKDYHERWKGHPDQGUHVSRQVHDQG¿[HGURXWHV\VWHPV Population Demand Response Trips Fixed Route Trips Total Trips All Transit Trips per Capita Grand Island, NE 51,236 35,085 QD 35,085 0.7 Enid, OK 51,386 40,800 QD 40,800 0.8 ,GDKR)DOOV,'58,691 QD 79,914 79,914 1.4 Kingman, AZ 28,912 QD 116,352 116,352 4.0 Helena, MT 29,943 QD 173,775 173,775 5.8 &DVSHU:<60,086 54,213 125,460 179,673 3.0 North Platte, NE 24,592 76,289 QD 76,289 3.1 Average All Peers 42,268 57,101 123,875 111,134 3.0 $YHUDJH7ULSVSHU&DSLWDRIFLWLHVZLWK'HPDQG5HVSRQVH21/<1.4 6RXUFH)HGHUDO7UDQVLW$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ7KH1DWLRQDO7UDQVLW'DWDEDVH 7KHWRWDOWUDQVLWULGHUVKLSSHUFDSLWDRIWKHSHHUJURXSLV¿[HGURXWHSOXVGHPDQGUHVSRQVH)RU Grand Island, this would result in projected demand of approximately 154,000 annual one-way trips, if the FRPPXQLW\KDG¿[HGURXWHDQGGHPDQGUHVSRQVHVHUYLFH*UDQG,VODQGSURMHFWVWKHSRSXODWLRQWREH 81,374 persons in the community. If the agency increased transit ridership to the peer agencies with only demand response service at 1.4 trips per capita, ridership would be approximately 111,548 trips annually, as shown in Table 5.3. 7DEOH3HHU&LW\'DWD Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 69 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 32 Population Ridership Projections All Peer Agencies - Trips Per Capita Peer Cities with ONLY Demand Response Service - Trips per Capita Projection Metric 3.0 1.4 Grand Island 2016 51,236 154,356 70,234 Grand Island 2040 81,374 245,152 111,548 Source: Olsson Associates, 2017. 5.5 Mode of Transportation to Work Methodology This methodology uses existing US Census data mode of transportation to work by bus. However, for Hall County, potentially due to the existing limited services, the census reported less than one percent DSSUR[LPDWHO\SHRSOHRIWRWDOHPSOR\HHVXVHGWUDQVLWIRUFRPPXWLQJWRIURPZRUN([LVWLQJGHPDQG for this data resulted in approximately 75,000 annual one-way trips, assuming each person travels round WULSZRUNV¿YHGD\VSHUZHHNIRUZHHNVRIWKH\HDU 5.6 Transit Need Methodologies ,QWKHSUHYLRXVVHFWLRQVVHYHUDOWUDQVLWGHPDQGPHWKRGRORJLHVLGHQWL¿HGWUDQVLWGHPDQGIRUWKH*UDQG Island region. In addition to these data, feedback from the community, the transit agency, and the local project team include transit needs, such as expansion of daily hours of service, broadening coordination DFWLYLWLHVDQG¿QGLQJEHWWHUZD\VRIDGGUHVVLQJFRPPXWHUQHHGV *DXJLQJWKHQHHGIRUWUDQVLWLVGLႇHUHQWIURPHVWLPDWLQJGHPDQGIRUWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVQXPEHURISRWHQWLDO SDVVHQJHUV'HPDQGZLWKLQDFRPPXQLW\ZLOODOZD\VH[LVWZKHWKHURUQRWSXEOLFWUDQVLWLVDYDLODEOH7KH 0RELOLW\*DS0HWKRGRORJ\LVXVHGWR¿QGWKHWRWDOGHPDQGIRU]HURYHKLFOHKRXVHKROGVE\DYDULHW\RI modes, including transit. 5.6.1 Mobility Gap Methodology 7KH0RELOLW\*DSPHWKRGPHDVXUHVWKHGLႇHUHQFHLQWKHKRXVHKROGWULSUDWHEHWZHHQKRXVHKROGVZLWK vehicles available and households without vehicles available. Because households with vehicles travel PRUHWKDQKRXVHKROGVZLWKRXWYHKLFOHVWKHGLႇHUHQFHLQWULSUDWHVLVWKHPRELOLW\JDS7KLVPHWKRGVKRZV total demand for zero vehicle household trips by a variety of modes including transit. 7KLVPHWKRGXVHVGDWDWKDWLVHDVLO\REWDLQDEOH\HWLVVWUDWL¿HGWRDGGUHVVGLႇHUHQWJURXSVRIXVHUVWKH elderly, the young, and those with and without vehicles. The data can be analyzed at the county or City OHYHODQGEDVHGXSRQWKHVWUDWL¿HGXVHUJURXSVWKHPHWKRGSURGXFHVUHVXOWVDSSOLFDEOHWRWKH&LW\DQGDW a realistic level of detail. The primary strength of this method is that it is based upon data that is easily available: household data and trip rate data for households with and without vehicles, obtained from the US Census. Rural and urban trip rate data were derived from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) for Nebraska. 7DEOH5LGHUVKLS3URMHFWLRQV8VLQJ3HHU&LW\0HWULFV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 70 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 33 The mobility gap methodology is the total number of trips not taken because members of zero vehicle households do not have readily available access to a car. The mobility gap for the nation as a whole and the nine Census regions has been developed from data in the 2009 National Household Travel Survey. A mobility gap estimate based on household vehicle availability, with the gap measured in trips per day, is computed as: 1HHGWULSV 1XPEHURI+RXVHKROGVKDYLQJ1R&DUî0RELOLW\*DS The mobility gap computation uses households with no vehicle available multiplied by the gap number for Nebraska (sited in the TCRP 161 report) to estimate the daily mobility gap. The estimate produced by the mobility gap methodology is measured in one-way trips per day.² 7RSURGXFHDQHVWLPDWHIRUDQQXDOQHHGLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDWWKHGDLO\0RELOLW\*DS¿JXUHEHPXOWLSOLHG E\GD\V7KLV¿JXUHUHÀHFWVWKDWWULSQHHGLVOLNHO\UHGXFHGRQWKHZHHNHQGVEXWDQQXDOQHHGLVQRW just associated with weekdays. This results in an annual need of 863,100 trips for Hall County, as shown in Table 5.4 ³. Transit Need Mobility Gap Methodology 0 - Vehicle HHs Hall County Mobility Gap Factor for NE 'DLO\7UDQVLW Need Annual Transit Need 1,370 x 2.1 = 2,877 863,100 The estimates of need made using the mobility gap method are typically far greater than the number of trips actually observed on transit systems and are likely greater than the demand that would be generated for any practical level of service. Therefore, the annual need of 863,100 trips for Hall County should EHVHHQDVDQXSSHUERXQGRIWKHQHHGDQGQRWUHÀHFWLYHRIWKHDFWXDOGHPDQGIRUDSDUWLFXODUOHYHORI service. Today, approximately 35,000 annual trips are provided by Hall County Public Transportation. Approximately four percent of the total need from the Mobility Gap Methodology is being met. Much of the UHPDLQLQJWULSEDVHGPRELOLW\JDSLVOLNHO\¿OOHGE\IULHQGVDQGUHODWLYHVGULYLQJUHVLGHQWVRIQRQFDURZQLQJ households. The mobility gap is a measure of trips not taken because residents in a community do not have access to a vehicle in their household (zero vehicle households). In Chapter 6 of this report is a discussion of the six peer communities. The mobility gap for each of these communities was calculated for Grand Island to gauge other communities for transit need using the Mobility Gap Methodology. 2QHEHQH¿WRIWKH peer review is to gauge the percentage of needs met for Grand Island and Hall County and for the peer communities. The City of Grand Island met approximately four percent of the total transit needs, using the mobility gap methodology. Grand Island’s ² The demand analysis is based on methodologies developed for the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the American Academy of Scientists. ñ7&53KWWSZZZWUERUJ7&53%OXUEVDVS[ Table 5.4: Mobility Gap Transit Need Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 71 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 34 The peer communities have a range of transit needs met, from 7 percent in Enid to 56 percent of the transit QHHGVPHWLQ&DVSHU:<7KHDYHUDJHRIWKHSHHUQHHGVPHWLVSHUFHQWZLWKDQDYHUDJHPRELOLW\JDS trip rate factor of 1.1. The trip rates are readily available data derived from the National Household Travel Survey. The mobility gap results for all the selected peer cities are shown in Table 5.5. Hall County Public Transportation Enid, OK *DU¿HOG&R Idaho Falls, ID (Bonneville Co) Kingman, AZ (Mohave Co) Helena, MT (Lewis and Clark Co) Casper, WY (Natrona Co) North Platte, NE (Lincoln Co) Peer Average Total Households 22,433 23,937 36,686 80,832 26,753 32,131 15,010 26,767 Zero Vehicle Households 1,370 996 1,757 4,389 1,438 1,340 957 1,463 Mobility Gap Factor¹2.1 2.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.1 1.1 'DLO\7UDQVLW Need 2,877 1,992 1,405 3,511 1,150 1,072 2,009 2,002 Annual Transit Need 863,100 597,600 421,680 1,053,360 345,120 321,600 602,910 449,280 Annual Ridership 35,085 40,800 79,914 116,352 173,775 179,673 76,289 100,270 Percent of Transit Need Met 4% 7% 19% 11% 50% 56% 13% 26% Source: 86&HQVXV%XUHDX$PHULFDQ&RPPXQLW\6XUYH\<HDU(VWLPDWH86'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ)HGHUDO7UDQVLW $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ1DWLRQDO7UDQVLW'DWDEDVH Table 5.5: Mobility Gap of Peer Cities Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 72 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 35 6XPPDU\RI+DOO&RXQW\1HHGVDQG'HPDQG A summary of the results of the methodologies are presented in Table 5.6. These estimates are not FXPXODWLYH'LႇHUHQWDSSURDFKHVIRFXVRQGLႇHUHQWPDUNHWV2WKHUPHWKRGRORJLHVH[LVWKRZHYHU substantial data collection is needed (and outside the scope of this project) to feed into the models for appropriate projections. While the demand forecasts have highly variable results, they are useful in identifying a range of demand for Hall County. The results were useful as the local project team developed GLႇHUHQWW\SHVRIVHUYLFHVIRUWKHIXWXUHLQ*UDQG,VODQGDQG+DOO&RXQW\ Methodology Summary Demand Today Annual Trips Future &RPPXWHU7UDQVLW'HPDQG 73 100 3HHU'DWD'HPDQGUDQJH 6WDWXV4XR6HUYLFH/HYHO 35,085 55,723 Enhanced Service Level- 1* 70,234 111,548 Enhanced Service Level- 2** 154,356 245,152 Mode of Transportation to Work 75,000 100,000 Need Mobility Gap 863,100 945,000 Existing Transit Trips 35,085 55,723 Needs Being Met 4%*** 6%**** 1RWHV: (QKDQFHG6HUYLFH/HYHO 3HHU0HWKRGRORJ\XVLQJWKHDYHUDJHWULSVSHUFDSLWD'HPDQG5HVSRQVHRQO\SHHU agencies) (QKDQFHG6HUYLFH/HYHO 3HHU0HWKRGRORJ\XVLQJWKHDYHUDJHWULSVSHUFDSLWD$OOSHHUDJHQFLHV - *** The four percent is based on annual need of 863,100 trips for Hall County that should be seen as an upper bound of the QHHGDQGQRWUHÀHFWLYHRIWKHDFWXDOGHPDQGIRUDSDUWLFXODUOHYHORIVHUYLFH 7KHVL[SHUFHQWLVEDVHGRQIXWXUHQHHGRIWULSVIRU+DOO&RXQW\WKDWVKRXOGEHVHHQDVDQXSSHUERXQGRIWKH QHHGDQGQRWUHÀHFWLYHRIWKHDFWXDOGHPDQGIRUDSDUWLFXODUOHYHORIVHUYLFH Table 5.6: Methodology Summary Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 73 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 74 / 176 37 CHAPTER 6 PEER REVIEW 6.1 Introduction Chapter 7 provides a host of information regarding peer communities for the Grand Island Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study. An overview of the peer selection process is described DQGWUDQVLWDJHQF\GDWDDQDO\]HG3HHUFRPPXQLWLHVZHUHLGHQWL¿HGLQFRRUGLQDWLRQZLWKWKHORFDOSURMHFW team based upon similar community size and similar transit agency service characteristics. While this chapter is a summary of the peer review phase of the study, the complete analysis can be found in Technical Memorandum 1. 6.2 Methodology and Selection Criteria To identify and select peer communities, the local project team began with 18 peer cities with similar characteristics to the City of Grand Island. In the past, the City of Grand Island has used many of the cities listed in Table 6.1 for other peer comparisons. Several of the peer communities listed in the table have robust transit systems, which may not be a good representation as a peer for the transit peer review. Before selecting the six peer communities, shaded in Table 6.1, the local project team reviewed several FULWHULDIRUVHOHFWLRQRIWKH¿QDOSHHUFRPPXQLWLHVDVVKRZQLQWKHEXOOHWHGOLVW Peer Review Criteria: • total population • post-secondary school enrollment • total transit trips • types of transit service • transit operating budget • transit annual revenue hours • transit annual revenue vehicle miles • revenue miles The following six peer communities, shaded in Table 7.1ZHUHVHOHFWHGIRUWKH¿QDOSHHUUHYLHZ • Enid, Oklahoma • Idaho Falls, Idaho • Kingman, Arizona • Casper, Wyoming • North Platte, Nebraska • Helena, Montana Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 75 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 38 City 2014 Population Total Transit Trips Transit Operating Budget Grand Island, NE 51,236 35,085 $490,000 1 -HႇHUVRQ&LW\02 43,132 328,114 $2,236,590 2 Enid, OK 51,386 40,800 $735,446 3 Sioux City, IA 82,517 1,113,770 $4,204,131 4 5DSLG&LW\6'73,569 366,884 $2,098,250 5 St. Joseph, MO 76,967 423,645 $5,060,920 6 Grand Junction, CO 60,358 3,978,503 $3,461,784 7 Victoria, TX 66,094 360,767 $4,768,385 8 6KHULGDQ:<17,873 37,104 $565,140 9 ,GDKR)DOOV,'58,691 79,914 $1,229,217 10 Kingman, AZ 28,912 116,352 $771,819 11 Cape Girardeau, MO 39,628 148,858 $2,072,278 12 Helena, MT 29,943 173,775 $1,317,688 13 &DVSHU:<60,086 179,673 $1,730,107 14 Kearney, NE 32,469 122,509 $1,432,958 15 Lincoln, NE 272,996 2,495,735 $11,383,799 16 Omaha, NE 446,599 4,163,850 $26,974,181 17 North Platte, NE 24,592 76,289 $634,603 18 6FRWWVEOXႇ1( 15,062 39,393 $340,735 Average 82,271 791,441 $3,945,446 6RXUFH86&HQVXV%XUHDX$PHULFDQ&RPPXQLW\6XUYH\<HDU(VWLPDWH86'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ )HGHUDO7UDQVLW$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ1DWLRQDO7UDQVLW'DWDEDVH Table 6.1: Peer City Overview Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 76 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 39 6.3 Peer Community Overview The following peer community overview provides a snapshot of information for each city and an overview of the transit system and its characteristics, although it should be noted that no two cities are the same. 'DWDZHUHREWDLQHGWKURXJKWKH1DWLRQDO7UDQVLW'DWDEDVH17'DQGGLVFXVVLRQVZLWKHDFKSHHUWUDQVLW agency to assist in recognizing both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of these communities. Table 6.2 LVWKHVXPPDU\WDEOHIRU*UDQG,VODQGDQGWKHVL[SHHUFRPPXQLWLHV)RUPRVWDJHQFLHV¿VFDO year 2015 and 2016 were available for the peer review. An average of the six peer communities is shown in the table below and also available for comparison. 2014 Population Post- Secondary School Enrollment Demand Response Trips Fixed Route Trips Total Trips Transit Trips per Capita Operating Budget Operating Budget per Capita Revenue Hours (Revenue Miles) Cost per Revenue Hour Grand Island, NE 51,236 2,163 35.085 1$35,085 0.7 $490,000 $10.10 14,705 (170,497)$33.32 1 Enid, OK 51,386 1,902 40,800 1$40,800 0.8 $735,446 $14.89 18,400 1$$39.07 2 Idaho )DOOV,'58,691 862 1$79,914 79,914 1.4 $1,229,217 $20.94 27,924 (350,476)$44.02 3 Kingman, AZ 28,912 1,707 1$116,352 116,352 4.0 $771,819 $26.70 16,564 (170,567)$46.60 4 Helena, MT 29,943 2,400 1$173,775 173,775 5.8 $1,317,688 $46.76 25,209 (488,299)$52.27 5 Casper, :<60,086 4,648 54,213 125,460 179,673 3.0 $1,730,107 $31.28 37,410 (448,385)$46.25 6 North Platte, NE 24,592 3,250 76,289 1$76,289 3.1 $634,603 $26.09 14,183 (163,656)$44.74 Average 42,268 2,462 57,101 123,875 111,134 3.0 $1,069,813 $27.78 23,282 (324,277) $45.64 The data shown in the above table include several performance statistics used to assess where Hall County Public Transportation is today, compared to the peer communities. The peer analysis is a useful tool in terms of lessons learned at other agencies, determining reasonable cost standards, and projecting ridership. Table 6.2: Characteristics of Selected Peer Cities Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 77 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 40 6.3.1 Ridership Ridership for Hall County Public Transportation is approximately 35,000 annual one-way trips, which is lower than the average for the six peer agencies at 111,134 annual trips. Enid, OK is the closest peer agency for ridership with approximately 41,000 annual trips. The population for the peer community varies IURPDSSUR[LPDWHO\LQ1RUWK3ODWWHWRRYHULQ&DVSHU:<5HYLHZLQJULGHUVKLSSHUFDSLWDLV a good peer measure of comparison. Grand Island has a 0.7 ridership per capita. The average of the peer communities is 3.0, with the highest in Helena, MT and the lowest in Enid, OK. 6.3.2 Operating Statistics The operating budget for the six peer communities is higher than Hall County Public Transportation. The ODUJHVWV\VWHPDPRQJWKHSHHUV\VWHPVLVLQ&DVSHU:<ZLWKWKHKLJKHVWDQQXDOEXGJHWDWDSSUR[LPDWHO\ $1.7M and highest ridership at approximately 180,000 annual one-way trips. North Platte Public Transportation is the smallest peer agency with $635,000 annual budget. However, North Platte has higher ridership than the City of Grand Island and Enid with approximately 76,000 annual one-way trips. The smallest peer agency for ridership is Enid, OK with approximately 41,000 annual trips, which is close to Hall County Public Transportation ridership. The annual budget for Enid, OK is $735,000. The operating cost per vehicle revenue hour performance measure accounts for every hour a transit vehicle is in service. This measure includes driver salary, fuel, and wear and tear on the vehicles. The peer agencies included in this review range from approximately $40 to $52 per revenue vehicle hour. While WKHUHDUHPDQ\SRVVLEOHUHDVRQVIRUVLJQL¿FDQWYDULDWLRQVZDJHVIXHOFRVWYHKLFOHPDLQWHQDQFHFRVWV etc.). It is important to note that Hall County Public Transportation is lower than all the peer agencies at $33.32 per revenue vehicle hour and has a low cost to operate the system. Figure 6.1 illustrates the range of values. The passenger trips per revenue vehicle hour is another measure included in the peer analysis to understand how many trips per hour each system carries, HYHQWKRXJKWKH\DUHYHU\GLႇHUHQW systems. The Kingman, AZ and the Helena, MT transit agencies have the highest passengers per revenue hour at approximately 7.0 passengers per hour. All peer agencies, except Enid, OK, carry more trips per hour than Hall County Public Transportation. The peer average is 4.9 passengers per hour. Enid, OK carries 2.2 passengers per hour and Hall County Public Transportation has 2.4 passengers per hour. $- $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 Grand Island, NE Enid, OK Idaho Falls, ID Kingman, AZ Helena, MT Casper, WY North Platte, NE Peer Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Figure 6.1: Peer Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 78 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 41 6.3.3 Mobility Gap The mobility gap is a measure of trips not taken because people in a community do not have access to a vehicle in their household (zero vehicle households). Chapter 5 presented several transit demand PHWKRGRORJLHVDQGWKHWUDQVLWQHHGVPHDVXUHGE\WKHPRELOLW\JDS2QHEHQH¿WRIWKHSHHUUHYLHZLVWR gauge the percentage of needs met for Grand Island and Hall County and for the peer communities. The City of Grand Island and Hall County met approximately four percent of the total transit needs, using the mobility gap methodology. The four percent is based on annual need of 863,100 trips for Hall County that VKRXOGEHVHHQDVDQXSSHUERXQGRIWKHQHHGDQGQRWUHÀHFWLYHRIWKHDFWXDOGHPDQGIRUDSDUWLFXODUOHYHO of service. Table 6.3 shows the percentage of needs met for each of the peer communities. Hall County Public Transportation Enid, OK *DU¿HOG&R Idaho Falls, ID (Bonneville Co) Kingman, AZ (Mohave Co) Helena, MT (Lewis and Clark Co) Casper, WY (Natrona Co) North Platte, NE (Lincoln Co) Peer Average Total Households 22,433 23,937 36,686 80,832 26,753 32,131 15,010 26,767 Zero Vehicle Households 1,370 996 1,757 4,389 1,438 1,340 957 1,463 Mobility Gap Factor¹2.1 2.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.1 1.1 'DLO\7UDQVLW Need 2,877 1,992 1,405 3,511 1,150 1,072 2,009 2,002 Annual Transit Need 863,100 597,600 421,680 1,053,360 345,120 321,600 602,910 449,280 Annual Ridership 35,085 40,800 79,914 116,352 173,775 179,673 76,289 100,270 Percent of Transit Need Met 4% 7% 19% 11% 50% 56% 13% 26% Source: 86&HQVXV%XUHDX$PHULFDQ&RPPXQLW\6XUYH\<HDU(VWLPDWH86'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ)HGHUDO7UDQVLW $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ1DWLRQDO7UDQVLW'DWDEDVH ï7&53KWWSZZZWUERUJ7&53%OXUEVDVS[ The peer communities have a range of transit needs met, from 7 percent in Enid to 56 percent of the transit QHHGVPHWLQ&DVSHU:<7KHDYHUDJHRIWKHSHHUQHHGVPHWLVSHUFHQWZLWKDQDYHUDJHPRELOLW\JDS trip rate factor of 1.1. The trip rates are readily available data derived from the National Household Travel Survey. Table 6.3: Mobility Gap of Peer Cities Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 79 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 42 3HHU&RPPXQLW\4XHVWLRQQDLUH Each transit agency was contacted by phone and by email to complete the brief peer review questions. Of the six peer communities, four provided thorough responses. All responses received are summarized in the following sections by question: Q1. How is your organization governed? (city, county, authority, etc.) • Enid, Oklahoma is governed by the Enid Public Transportation Authority. • Kingman’s transit system is governed by the City. • The City of Helena governs the Capital Transit. • The City of Casper contracts services to CATC (Casper Area Transit Coalition), a 501 (c) 3 organization. • The North Platte Transit system is a department within the City. Q2. Do you contract service or provide service directly? • The Enid Public Transportation Authority provides service directly. • Kingman Area Regional Transit provides service directly. • Capital Transit (Helena) provides service directly. • CATC is the contractor for service through the City of Casper. • North Platte provides service directly. 4:KDWLVWKHEUHDNGRZQRI\RXUVWDႇ" • The Enid Public Transportation Authority employs 19 workers. Fourteen of these are drivers, ZLWK¿YHIXOOWLPHSRVLWLRQVRQHSDUWWLPHRႈFHDVVLVWDQWRQHSDUWWLPHGLVSDWFKHURQHIXOOWLPH dispatcher, one part-time marketing manager, and one general manager. • Kingman Area Regional Transit employs 14 people. The agency has nine full-time and three part- time transit operators, one administrative assistant, and one superintendent. • Capital Transit has 18 employees. The agency has one supervisor, one administrative assistant, one transit operations coordinator, one dispatcher, and 16 drivers. • CATC employs a total of 34 employees. There are four administrative employees, three dispatchers, 16 full-time drivers, and 11 part-time drivers. North Platte Public Transportation Bus Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 80 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 43 Q4. What types of service do you provide? • The Enid Public Transportation Authority provides demand response service with a 24-hour call ahead requirement. If available, a rider can request same day service for a higher fare. • .LQJPDQ$UHD5HJLRQDO7UDQVLWRSHUDWHVIRXUGHYLDWHG¿[HG URXWHV:KLOHWKLVVHUYLFHKDVD³¿[HG´URXWHZLWKVFKHGXOHG stops, the bus can deviate from the route to pick up SDVVHQJHUVZLWKLQDôPLOHEXႇHURIWKHURXWH • &DSLWDO7UDQVLWRSHUDWHV¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFH$'$SDUDWUDQVLW service, and demand response service. • &$7&RSHUDWHV¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFHDQGGHPDQGUHVSRQVH service. • North Platte Public Transit operates door-to-door demand response service, with same day pick available, if the schedule allows and at a higher fee. Q5. What hours/days do you operate? • EPTA hours of operation are 6:00 am – 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday. • Kingman operates two routes from 6:00 am – 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday while two other routes operate from 6:00 am – 8:00 pm, Monday through Friday. All four routes operate from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm on Saturday. &DSLWDO7UDQVLW¶V¿[HGURXWHEXVHVRSHUDWHKRXUO\RQZHHNGD\VIURPDP±SP • CATC provides service from 6:30 am – 6:30 pm Monday through Friday and 7:30 am to 3:30 pm on Saturdays. • North Platte Public Transit operates 5:30 am – 8:00 pm on weekdays. Q6. How many peak vehicles do you operate on an average weekday? • Enid typically has six peak vehicles on the road between 11:00 am – 2:00 pm. The other times of the day, the agency has four peak vehicles available for service. • The Kingman Area Regional Transit system operates four vehicles during peak times. &DSLWDO7UDQVLWRSHUDWHVVL[¿[HGURXWHEXVHVDQGWKUHH$'$SDUDWUDQVLWEXVHVLQ+HOHQDGXULQJ peak hours. 'XULQJSHDNKRXUVIRU&$7&VL[¿[HGURXWHYHKLFOHVDQGVHYHQIRUGHPDQGUHVSRQVHVHUYLFHDUHLQ operation. Q7. For funding purposes, where does your local match originate from? • The Enid Public Transportation Authority receives funding for their local match from the City of Enid, State of Oklahoma and fares. • The KART local match is from the City of Kingman’s General Fund. • Capital Transit receives local funding from the City of Helena, Lewis and Clark County, and the City of East Helena to match federal and state dollars. • The cities of Casper, Mills, Evansville, and Bar Nunn contribute locally to match federal and state funding programs. • Match funding is provided by the City of North Platte. The transit system also uses fares and contract services for the local match. (QLG3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ%XV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 81 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 44 Q8. What are your agency’s annual ridership, annual revenue hours, annual revenue miles, and annual operating budget? • Refer to Table 7.1 on page 43 for ridership, revenue hours, revenue miles and operating budget information. Q9. Do you coordinate with local, regional, or state education facilities? • The Enid Public Transportation Authority does not currently coordinate with any educational facilities. • Kingman Area Regional Transit provides bus passes to local alternative high school programs for the students. • Capital Transit does not coordinate with any educational facilities. • CATC does not currently coordinate with any educational facilities. • North Platte Public Transit does not currently coordinate with local education facilities. Q10. Do you coordinate with any major employers in the area? • Enid Public Transportation Authority does not currently coordinate with any major employers. However, the agency is in preliminary discussions with local companies that have expressed interest in public transportation. • KART does not coordinate with any major employers in the area. • The Capital Transit system coordinates with the local government to provide trips from certain bus stops to the capital building. • CATC does not coordinate with any major employers in their area. Q11. Do you have a local transit committee that meets regularly to discuss transit services in the area? • There is a Transit Advisory Council in Enid, Oklahoma that meets once a year to discuss the transit needs of the City. This advisory council is made up of four members. • 7KH&LW\RI.LQJPDQKDVD¿YHPHPEHU7UDQVLW$GYLVRU\&RPPLVVLRQWKDWPHHWVTXDUWHUO\,WXVHG WREHDVHYHQPHPEHUFRPPLVVLRQEXWZDVUHGXFHGWR¿YHPHPEHUVGXHWRDODFNRILQWHUHVWHG applicants and inability to have a quorum. • The Capital Transit Advisory Council meets in Helena to discuss transit needs for their community. The Council has a senior leadership of four members and is committed to guiding Capital Transit. • No local transit committee exists that meets regularly in Casper, Wyoming. • North Platte does not have a local transit committee that meets regularly. Q12. Do you require a 24-hour advance reservation? • All peer agencies require a 24-hour advance reservation. Many of the agencies expressed their ridership is growing, which increases the importance of making a reservation. Several of the agencies, such as Enid Public Transportation Authority and North Platte Public 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQRႇHUVDPHGD\VHUYLFHDWD higher fee, if there is availability.North Platte Public Transit Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 82 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 45 Q13. Do you provide trips real-time, if space allows? • Enid Public Transportation Authority, Kingman Area Regional Transit, Capital Transit, and North 3ODWWH3XEOLF7UDQVLWSURYLGHUHDOWLPHWULSVLIVSDFHDYDLODEOH&$7&GRHVQRWRႇHUVDPHGD\WULSV at this time. Q14. How do you schedule demand response return trips? • Return trips in Enid, Oklahoma depend on the situation. If a rider is at an appointment with a VSHFL¿FWLPHIUDPHWKHQZKHQWKHULGHURULJLQDOO\FDOOVGLVSDWFKWRVFKHGXOHWKHWULSDUHWXUQLVDOVR scheduled. If a passenger is unsure of how long the appointment will be, such as a grocery store WULSWKHSDVVHQJHUVFKHGXOHVWKHUHWXUQWULSZKHQWKH\DUHGRQHE\FDOOLQJWKHRႈFH • KART’s curb-to-curb return trips are required to be booked in advance. If the passenger is not waiting outside when the driver arrives for the return trip, then the driver will return the following hour. • Capital Transit uses the RouteMatch software for all scheduled rides; thus, return trips are scheduled at the time the initial trip is scheduled. • CATC typically books the return trip at the same time as the initial call. Once in a while, passengers FDQERRNWKHUHWXUQZKHQ¿QLVKHGZLWKWKHDSSRLQWPHQW • North Platte Public Transit books same day and at the time of the reservation. Passengers will pay more for the same day bookings. Q15. What is your fare structure? • The Enid Public Transportation Authority has a base fare of $2 per one-way trip made 24-hrs in advance. Same day service is a base fare of $5 per one-way trip. • KART charges $1.50 per one- way trip as the base fare for WKH¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFH7KHFXUE to-curb service is a base fare of $6 per one-way trip. Riders who DUH$'$HOLJLEOHKDYHDEDVHIDUH of $3. Children under age 10 ride IRUIUHH.$57DOVRRႇHUV&RXSRQ Books, daily passes, and monthly passes. • Capital Transit has a base fare of $0.85 per one-way trip for the GHPDQGUHVSRQVHDQG¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFHV$'$HOLJLEOHUHVLGHQWVKDYHDEDVHGIDUHRISHU one-way trip. • The CATC base fare for the general public is $1 per one-way trip. The student base fare is $0.75 SHURQHZD\WULSDQG$'$HOLJLEOHVHQLRUVGLVDEOHGDQG0HGLFDUHULGHUVKDYHDEDVHIDUHRI per one-way trip. • North Platte Public Transit has a base fare of $1.50, if the trip is booked 24-hr in advance. Same day service has a base fare of $3 per one-way trip. .$57$'$$FFHVVLEOH%XV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 83 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 46 Q16. What is your age limit for riding the bus by yourself? • The Enid Public Transportation Authority allows passengers age 12 and older to ride the bus alone. • KART requires children be at least 10 years old to ride the bus without an adult. • Capital Transit allows children age six and older to ride without an adult. &$7&UHTXLUHVEXVSDVVHQJHUEHRYHUDJHWRULGHWKH¿[HGURXWHEXVDORQHDQGRYHU\HDUV old to ride the demand response bus alone. • North Platte Public Transit requires a child be at least six years old to ride the bus alone. Q17. Do you have bike racks on your buses? • Enid Public Transportation Authority has existing buses with bike racks. • All KART buses accommodate up to two bicycles on each vehicle. • Most Capital Transit buses have bike racks. $OO&$7&EXVHVRSHUDWLQJWKH¿[HGURXWHKDYHELNHUDFNV2QO\RQHGHPDQGUHVSRQVHEXVKDVELNH racks. • North Platte Public Transit does not have bike racks available. 6.5 Peer Review Findings The peer review compares transit service in Grand Island, Nebraska with other communities around the FRXQWU\ZLWKVLPLODUFKDUDFWHULVWLFV7KHLQIRUPDWLRQZLWKLQWKHFKDSWHUDVVHVVHVWKHGLႇHUHQWW\SHVRI VHUYLFHVRႇHUHGKRZVHUYLFHVDUHDGPLQLVWHUHGKRZVHUYLFHVDUHSDLGIRUDQGOHVVRQVOHDUQHGDWGLႇHUHQW peer agencies. Grand Island is similar to the peer communities; however, Grand Island does not have a robust transit VHUYLFHZKLFKLVVHHQLQRWKHUSHHUFRPPXQLWLHVSDUWLFXODUO\WKRVHDUHDVZLWKGLႇHUHQWW\SHVRIVHUYLFHV DQGPRGHV6HYHUDORIWKHSHHUFRPPXQLWLHVDOVRKDYHDVLJQL¿FDQWO\KLJKHUOHYHORIULGHUVKLS:LWKWKH H[FHSWLRQRI(QLG2NODKRPDDQG1RUWK3ODWWH3XEOLF7UDQVLWWKHRWKHUSHHUFRPPXQLWLHVRႇHUVRPH IRUPRI¿[HGURXWHRUGHYLDWHG¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFH.LQJPDQ$UHD5HJLRQDO7UDQVLWDQG&DVSHU$UHD 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RDOLWLRQSURYLGHDGHYLDWHG¿[HGURXWHDQGKDYHDFRVWSHUUHYHQXHKRXUWKDWLVLQWKH average of our peer communities. It is also important to acknowledge that while Grand Island has the fewest total trips of all the peer communities, the existing operating budget is also smallest among the peer communities. Grand Island’s total population and student population are comparable to the peer communities providing more modes and services. CATC Public Transit Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 84 / 176 47 CHAPTER 7 7.1 Introduction A key part of any planning study is the public outreach within the community. This chapter presents a brief review of the public engagement conducted for Round One of the Regional Transit Needs Assessment DQG)HDVLELOLW\6WXG\'XULQJWKHVWXG\WLPHIUDPHVHYHUDOPHWKRGVIRULQYROYLQJWKHORFDOFRPPXQLW\ were completed, including a community survey, public open houses, focus group meetings, and pop- up meetings. These opportunities openly welcome citizens to comment on transit services in Grand Island DQG+DOO&RXQW\'ULYHUPHHWLQJVZHUHKHOGWRUHFHLYH input from transit operators, dispatch, and supervisors. Other opportunities for feedback to the local project team LQFOXGHGRQVLWH¿HOGZRUNRQWKHEXVHVDQGDURXQGWKH community, which allow the project team to interact with ULGHUVVWDႇORFDOVWDNHKROGHUVDQGWKHJHQHUDOSXEOLF Community input helped in identifying the current and future local transit needs of community residents and Hall County Public Transportation. These needs were shaped into the vision for public transit, which led to goals and objectives. Providing a space that allows stakeholders and members of the public to provide input throughout the study process allows the community of Grand Island WRKDYHWKHLUYRLFHVKHDUGDQGWKDWVSHFL¿FDOWHUQDWLYHV opportunities, and issues are examined. Olsson Associates worked with the local project team for guidance and direction throughout the project. An initial ³.LFNRႇ0HHWLQJ´ZDVKHOGLQ0DUFKZLWK&LW\DQG *,$032VWDႇ7KHLPSRUWDQFHRIZRUNLQJZLWKWKHORFDOWHDPDQGWKHFRPPXQLW\LVSLYRWDOWRFRPPXQLW\ outreach and success of the study. Local stakeholders were also an active outlet for community education DQGKHOSLQJUHVLGHQWVXQGHUVWDQGWKHWUXHFRVWVDQGEHQH¿WVRIWUDQVLW 7.2 Focus Group Meetings A series of focus group interviews were conducted during the week of April 3, 2017, at the Grand Island 3XEOLF/LEUDU\1:DVKLQJWRQ6WUHHWDQGDWWKH2OVVRQ$VVRFLDWHVGRZQWRZQRႈFH(DVWQG Street. Stakeholders included: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT - ROUND ONE Focus Group Meeting Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 85 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 48 • Transportation providers • Governmental partners 1RQSUR¿WRUJDQL]DWLRQV (OHFWHGRႈFLDOV • Faith-based organizations • Human service agencies • Major employers • Educational institutions • Elderly services %LF\FOH3HGHVWULDQSDUWQHUV • Grow Grand Island partners • Ethnic Heritage partners The purpose of the initial round of focus group meetings was to gather information to help shape the vision for transit service in Hall County and Grand Island, discuss the need for enhanced transit services in the region and what future services are realistic, and determine the level of support for public transportation. 7KHLQSXWFROOHFWHGGXULQJWKH¿UVWURXQGRIHQJDJHPHQWIHGGLUHFWO\LQWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDOWHUQDWLYHV for the region. The focus group meeting format involved facilitated discussion with each of the target groups, which lasted approximately 45 minutes. The meetings began with a brief informal presentation followed by discussion of prepared questions. The schedule of focus group meetings for the week is shown in Table 7.1. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 86 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 49 Schedule of Meetings - April 2017 Date Time Activity Location Tues., April 4, 2017 9:00am - 9:30am Set up Library 9:30am - 10:15am 0DMRUEXVLQHVVHVRUJDQL]DWLRQVLibrary 10:30am - 11:15am 0DMRUEXVLQHVVHVRUJDQL]DWLRQV±Library 11:30am - 12:15pm 0DMRUEXVLQHVVHVRUJDQL]DWLRQV±Library 12:30pm - 1:30pm Governmental agencies – 1 Library 1:45pm - 2:30pm Lunch 3:00pm - 3:45pm Transportation providers Olsson 4:00pm - 5:00pm Educational institutions Olsson Wed., April 5, 2017 9:00am - 9:30am Set up Library 9:30am - 10:15am Governmental agencies – 2 Library 10:30am - 11:00am Set up public open house Grand Generation Center 11:00am - 1:00pm Public open house - 1 Grand Generation Center 1:00pm - 1:30pm Take down Grand Generation Center 1:45pm - 2:30pm Lunch 2:30pm - 4:00pm Faith-based community Olsson 4:15pm - 5:00pm Set up public open house Library 5:00pm - 8:00pm Public open house – 2 Library 8:00pm - 8:30pm Take down Library Thurs., April 6, 2017 8:30am - 9:00am Set up Olsson 9:00am - 9:45am Elderly services Olsson 10:00am - 10:45am %LNHSHGHVWULDQ Olsson 11:00am - 11:45am Grow Grand Island – 1 Olsson 12:00pm - 12:45pm Grow Grand Island – 2 Olsson 1:00pm - 2:00pm Lunch 2:30pm - 3:15pm Human services agencies Olsson 3:30pm - 4:15pm Ethnic heritage Olsson Fri., April 7, 2017 8:00am - 8:30am Set up Olsson 8:30am - 9:15am (OHFWHGRႈFLDOV±Olsson 9:30am - 10:15am (OHFWHGRႈFLDOV±Olsson 10:30am - 11:15am (OHFWHGRႈFLDOV±Olsson Table 7.1: Schedule of Focus Group Meetings Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 87 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 50 Prepared questions, listed below, were asked to each focus group and comments recorded. The responses received throughout the public engagement process helped the local project team develop alternatives for public transportation in Grand Island and Hall County. )RFXV*URXS4XHVWLRQV5DQN¿UVWTXHVWLRQV6FDOHRI JUHDWHVW 1. How would you rate the importance of transit for Grand Island and Hall County today? 2. How would you rate the importance of transit as Grand Island and Hall County continue to grow? +RZHႇHFWLYHGR\RXIHHO+DOO&RXQW\ Public Transportation is now? :KDWLVWKHJUHDWHVWEHQH¿WRIKDYLQJ+DOO County Public Transit in our community? 5. If you are familiar with the service, what are strengths of the transit service? 6. What could Hall County Public Transportation do to enhance existing services? 7. What do you think are the most important transit challenges to be addressed in the short-term of 1-3 years? :KDWVSHFL¿FWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVVKRXOGEH considered for the near future? 9. What areas within the region are likely to need public transportation the most? 10. If you or someone you know used public WUDQVLWZKHUHZRXOG\RXQHHGLWWRJR"7R From where? :KDWDUHVRPHRIWKHEHVWZD\VWRLQFOXGHRXUFLWL]HQVLQWRWKLVVWXG\HႇRUW" +RZGLG\RX¿UVWKHDUDERXWWKHWUDQVLWVWXG\" 7.2.2 Summary of Focus Group Meetings - Round 1 Engagement Throughout the week during the multiple meetings, over 150 people were contacted through the focus group meetings or public meetings, or via phone and email conversations. In addition to this direct contact at the scheduled 19 meetings, the local newspaper and TV stations provided coverage for the public transportation study. This broad base of listeners and viewers provided an opportunity for residents to learn about the study and to get involved. The following text provides a summary of overall comments from the ¿UVWURXQGRISXEOLFHQJDJHPHQW &RPPHQWV5HFRUGHG'XULQJ)RFXV*URXS'LVFXVVLRQV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 88 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 51 1. Question 1 (How would you rate the importance of transit for Grand Island and Hall County today?) a. Wide range of answers. General Consensus = Transit is fairly important (3-4) today and will become even more important as Grand Island continues to grow. 2. Question 2 (How would you rate the i m p o r t a n c e o f t r a n s i t a s G r a n d I s l a n d and Hall County continue to grow?) a. Transit will become more important as the community continues to grow (4-5). 4XHVWLRQ+RZHႇHFWLYHGR\RXIHHO Hall County Public Transportation is now?) D0DQ\EHOLHYHWKHWUDQVLWV\VWHPFRXOGEHPRUHHႇHFWLYH7KHVHDQVZHUVUDQJHGEHWZHHQDQG 3. 4XHVWLRQ:KDWLVWKHJUHDWHVWEHQH¿WRIKDYLQJ+DOO&RXQW\3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQLQRXU community?) a. Provides an option for people who do not have a vehicle available b. Helps employees get to work c. Good for disadvantaged populations 5. Question 5 (If you are familiar with the service, what are strengths of the transit service?) D*UHDW'ULYHUV E+HOSIXO'ULYHUV 6. Question 6/7/8 (What could Hall County Public Transportation do to enhance existing services? What do you think are the most important challenges to address in the short term? :KDWVSHFL¿FWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVVKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGIRUWKHQHDUIXWXUH" a. Marketing and Education b. Expand the hours c. Lower the age restriction d. Scheduled service or bus routes Focus Group Meeting Focus Group Meeting Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 89 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 52 7. Question 9 (What areas within the region are likely to need public transportation the most?) D0HGLFDORႈFHV b. Major employers (JBS, Hornady, etc.) c. Retail areas d. Schools e. Grocery f. Elderly residential areas 8. Question 10 (If you, or someone you know, used public transit, where would you need to go?) a. Walmart b. Grocery c. Entertainment 9. Question 11 (What are some of the best ways to include our citizens into this study?) D'LUHFWFRQWDFWZLWKWKHULGHUV E'LUHFWFRQWDFWZLWKORZLQFRPHFLWL]HQV F*RWRGLႇHUHQWFOXEVJURXSVRUDVVRFLDWLRQV 4XHVWLRQ+RZGLG\RX¿UVWKHDUDERXWWKHWUDQVLWVWXG\" a. Email b. MPO c. Other meetings 7.3 Public Open Houses 7KH¿UVWSXEOLFRSHQKRXVHVIRUWKHWUDQVLWVWXG\ZHUH KHOGRQ:HGQHVGD\$SULO7KH¿UVWPHHWLQJ was at the Grand Generation Center, 304 East 3rd Street, from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. The second open house was held at the Grand Island Public Library, 211 N Washington Street, from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. 7KHRSHQKRXVHVRႇHUHGPHPEHUVRIWKHFRPPXQLW\ an opportunity to provide public input regarding public transportation issues, ask questions about the transit study, and also learn about the Hall County Public Transportation existing services. A second public open house meeting will be held in November 2017 WRSUHVHQWWKH'UDIW6XPPDU\)LQDO5HSRUWIRU+DOO County Public Transportation.Open House at the Grand Generation Center Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 90 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 53 'ULYHU6WDႇ0HHWLQJV A meeting with the existing Hall County Public Transportation drivers was conducted on April 25, 2017 WRGLVFXVVH[LVWLQJWUDQVLWVHUYLFHDQGZKDWHQKDQFHPHQWVWKHLUULGHUVUHTXHVW'ULYHUPHHWLQJVSURYLGH DXQLTXHRSSRUWXQLW\WRPHHWZLWKVWDႇWKDWGULYHWKLVV\VWHPHYHU\GD\DQGKDYHLQVLJKWVLQWRNH\ performance issues and opportunities. The meeting was held at the Grand Generation Center during the mid-day shift change. In addition, the local project team FRQGXFWHGD¿HOGYLVLWRႈFHYLVLW and ride along for Hall County Public Transportation on March 13, 2017. The site visits are a good opportunity WRREWDLQ¿UVWKDQGLQIRUPDWLRQRQ passenger requests, scheduling challenges, on time performance, and to identify transit needs and opportunities. The input received GXULQJWKHVH¿HOGYLVLWVDVVLVWHGWKH quantitative analysis of the system and demographics of the community. 7.5 Major Employer Meetings 7KHORFDOSURMHFWWHDPLGHQWL¿HGVHYHUDOPDMRU employers who were not able to participate in the focus group meetings. Follow-up calls and site visits were conducted to JBS, Hornady, and Central Community College on April 25, 2017. The major employers were interested in future partnerships that may increase transit options for employees in the region. Each of the major employers agreed to distribute the community transit survey to their employees and student populations. In addition, the major employers participated in the focus group questions. Open House at the Grand Island Library Open House at the Grand Island Library Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 91 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 54 7.6 Overall Summary of Community Engagement - Round One $KLJKOHYHOVXPPDU\RIWKHLQSXWUHFHLYHGIURPWKH¿UVWURXQGRISXEOLFLQYROYHPHQWDFWLYLWLHVLVGLVFXVVHG below. 7.6.1 Importance of Transit Today The public was asked to rate the importance of a transit system in Grand Island. Figure 7.1 shows DSSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWRIWKHUHVSRQGHQWVUDWHGWUDQVLWDV³,PSRUWDQWWR9HU\,PSRUWDQW´ZKLOH SHUFHQWVDLGWUDQVLWLV³1RW,PSRUWDQWWR6RPHZKDW1RW,PSRUWDQW´ Participants discussed that while it may not be important for many Grand Island residents, the transit system is important for those that need it. Several respondents made up of professionals in the social VHUYLFHV¿HOGDQGXVHUVRIWKHVHUYLFHH[SUHVVHGVWURQJO\WKDWZLWKRXW+DOO&RXQW\3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ there would be no way for many of their clients and residents to take trips to work, school, or other necessities. This idea was echoed through many other participants. 7.6.2 Importance of Transit Tomorrow The public was asked to rank the importance of transit for the future of their community. Over half of the UHVLGHQWVHQJDJHGLQWKH5RXQGSXEOLFHQJDJHPHQWEHOLHYHGWKDWWUDQVLWLV³,PSRUWDQWRU9HU\,PSRUWDQW´ Refer to Figure 7.2. 5HVLGHQWVVXSSRUWHGDQHႈFLHQWWUDQVLWV\VWHPLQWKHIXWXUH0DQ\SDUWLFLSDQWVXQGHUVWRRGDQGYRLFHGWKDW DV*UDQG,VODQGFRQWLQXHVWRJURZWKHDPRXQWRI³EOXHFROODU´MREVZLOODOVRLQFUHDVHZKLFKOLNHO\LQGLFDWHV HPSOR\HHVZLOOQHHGWUDQVLWRSWLRQVWRIURPZRUN Major employers of Grand Island believed that without a transit system in place, Grand Island will not be DEOHWRJURZHႈFLHQWO\DQGFRQWLQXHWRSURYLGHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQRSWLRQVWRWKRVHZKRQHHGHGWKHP Figure 7.1: Importance of Transit Today Figure 7.2: Importance of Transit Tomorrow Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 92 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 55 +RZ(ႈFLHQW,V2XU7UDQVLW6HUYLFH $PL[HGUHVSRQVHZDVUHFHLYHGIURPSDUWLFLSDQWVIRUUDWLQJKRZHႈFLHQWLVWUDQVLWLQ*UDQG,VODQGWRGD\ 6HYHUDOSDUWLFLSDQWVEHOLHYHWKHFXUUHQWWUDQVLWV\VWHPLVVRPHZKDWHႇHFWLYH+RZHYHURQO\HႇHFWLYH for serving transit dependent populations in Grand Island. Over 50 percent of participants stated the WUDQVLWV\VWHPZDV³6RPHZKDW1RW(ႇHFWLYH´GXHWRUHVWULFWHGKRXUVRIRSHUDWLRQVDJHOLPLWVDQGOLPLWHG marketing. *UHDWHVW%HQH¿WRI7UDQVLW 3DUWLFLSDQWVZHUHDVNHGWRSURYLGHWKHJUHDWHVWEHQH¿WRI+DOO&RXQW\3XEOLF7UDQVLWLQ*UDQG,VODQGWRGD\ The primary response was the agency provides transportation options to those residents who need the service and do not have other mobility options. Other popular answers were good service for the elderly, employment, and medical trips. Others stated some service is better than no service. 7.6.5 Enhancing Transit Service How can we enhance service today was the primary question that generated the most discussion among meeting participants. The most widely agreed upon responses were: 7.6.6 Areas Transit Should Serve Participants were asked to identify places in the community that transit should serve. Popular answers YDULHGIURP³0DMRU(PSOR\HUV´WRVSHFL¿FDQVZHUVVXFKDV&HQWUDO&RPPXQLW\&ROOHJHDQG:DOPDUW General consensus included transit needed to focus on serving Medical Centers, Employment Centers, DQG(GXFDWLRQDO&HQWHUV%H\RQGWKHVHDUHDVPDQ\SHRSOHLGHQWL¿HG:DOPDUWDQGWKH*UDQG,VODQG Public Library as important locations that need service. Open House at the Grand Generation Center Open House at the Grand Island Public Library ,QFUHDVHPDUNHWLQJHႇRUWV • Increase the service’s hours of operation 'HFUHDVHWKHDJHUHVWULFWLRQ • Partner with local businesses 'HFUHDVHWLPHQHHGHGWRFDOODKHDGIRUD reservation • Add scheduled service, bus stops Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 93 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 94 / 176 57 CHAPTER 8 8.1 Introduction As part of this transit study, the project team had a goal of maximizing public interest and input for the study. The community’s feedback and diverse viewpoints enrich the evaluation and purpose of the study and provide open and meaningful input. The local project team conducted a community survey using Survey Monkey, an online survey software tool. A survey questionnaire was distributed through a variety RIQHWZRUNVLQDQHႇRUWWRFROOHFWIHHGEDFNDQGLQSXWIURPDFURVVWKHFRXQW\7KHVXUYH\ODXQFKHGRQ May 30, 2017 and closed on June 13, 2017. The survey was available in English or Spanish with separate online active links to the appropriate language. There was also the option of having the survey available in hard-copy. The local project team and focus group attendees were viable partners in the distribution of surveys to particular markets that may or may not have access to the survey. • The questionnaire was designed with a mindset of short and simple, so that the audience would not lose interest in completing the survey. The majority of questions were designed for ease of use, ZKLFKDOORZHGWKHVXUYH\UHVSRQGHQWWRFKHFNRႇDER[RUFOLFNRQDER[ 1RWL¿FDWLRQRIWKHVXUYH\ZDVDYDLODEOHIURPPXOWLSOHVRXUFHVLQFOXGLQJ7ZLWWHU)DFHERRNHPDLO blast, newspaper article, radio spots, and TV. At the conclusion of the community survey, the results provided a snapshot of opinions for transportation in Hall County. To compliment the online community survey, the local project team also developed the transit rider survey for Hall County Public Transportation. The rider survey is administered by the Hall County Public Transportation drivers, who are available for assistance to the rider if needed. The survey was conducted over two weeks. This chapter summarizes only a sample of the questions asked in each survey. Refer to Technical Memorandum 2 for the complete summary. 8.2 Survey Analysis Summary Chapter 8 analyzes both the online survey distributed to the Grand Island area community, and the transit rider survey distributed on the Hall County Public Transportation buses. The surveys were intended to not only assess the existing transit services according to riders and non-riders, but also gather customer satisfaction of transit within the community. In total, 267 respondents participated in the community survey, and 56 riders completed surveys in June 2017. English and Spanish versions were available for the community survey and an English version was available for the ridership survey. Appendix B includes the Transit Rider Survey and Appendix C includes the Online Community Survey. Essential information was gathered in each of the surveys regarding ridership patterns, demographic characteristics, and how respondents felt about the existing and future transit services. While the two surveys were administered separately, a total of 13 of the 20 questions were included in both surveys. The majority of online community survey respondents had: COMMUNITY SURVEY & TRANSIT RIDER SURVEY Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 95 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 58 • higher employment rate (80 percent working full-time compared to only 15 percent of bus riders) • higher income level (17 percent making less than $25,000 annually c o m p a r e d t o 7 9 p e r c e n t o f riders) • owned more vehicles (90 percent having access to a vehicle compared to 15 percent of riders) • used public transportation much less (nearly 75 percent of community respondents had never taken the bus) A high rate of respondents from each survey believed public transportation was very valuable to the community today (48 percent of community respondents compared to 78 percent of riders), and agreed with the priorities for public transportation in the future (ranking the same top three improvements, such as adding scheduled bus routes, expanding service days and hours). 8.3 Online Community Survey The community survey asks respondents how often they use public transportation in Grand Island. Approximately 75 percent of the respondents never use transit, as shown in Figure 8.1. For those respondents using public transportation, the survey asked what the SULPDU\SXUSRVHRIWKRVHWULSVZHUH7KLVVSHFL¿F question asks respondents to mark all that apply, so percentages are based on the total number of individual responses, and not the number of people responding. While ‘home’, ‘shopping and entertainment’, and ‘medical’ trip purposes vary slightly, both ‘other’ and ‘work’ trips make up nearly half of all responses, as shown in Figure 8.2. Other locations included destinations such as the senior center, searching for employment, therapy, banking, family, social opportunities, and volunteering. How often do you ride public transit services in Grand Island? Home 13% Work 22% School 7% Medical 15% Faith 3% Shopping & Entertainment 17% Other 23% If you use public transportation, what is your primary purpose? 3.4%4.1% 1.9% 10.1% 73.4% 7.1% Every day 2 to 4 times a week 1 to 4 times a month Rarely Never Other Figure 8.1: How often do you ride public transit? Figure 8.2: If you use public transportation, what is your primary purpose? Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 96 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 59 In the community survey, several questions asked respondents’ background, including gender, age, employment status, and annual household income. Figure 8.3 shows most frequent age range was 36 to 50 years, while few respondents were under the age of 18 or over 65 years. Figure 8.4 illustrates nearly 80 percent of respondents were employed full-time, with the next largest group (7 percent) were employed part-time. The largest single group in regards to annual household income included those making over $75,000. The remaining 60 percent was split between the four lower income brackets, with those earning between $50,001 and $75,000 making up the next largest group, as shown in Figure 8.5 18 years and under 19 to 35 years 36 to 50 years 51 to 64 years 65 years or older Employed Full-time Employed Part-time Not Currently Employed Student Retired Other Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $75,000 Over $75,000 16.8% 13.2% 12.0% 17.2% 40.8% 79.8% 7.1%1.9%1.1%6.0% 4.1% 0.4% 31.8% 36.3% 25.5% 6.0% 8.3.1 Socio-economic Characteristics Figure 8.5: Characteristics - Household Income Figure 8.3: Characteristics - Age )LJXUH&KDUDFWHULVWLFV(PSOR\PHQW Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 97 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 60 When respondents were asked how valuable Hall County Public Transportation is for the community today, approximately 65 percent agreed the service is a valuable resource. Figure 8.6 shows the responses. Approximately 36 percent of the remaining respondents ranked transit’s value with a one, two, or three. Figure 8.7 shows the prioritized improvements suggested from survey respondents. The most important improvements included adding scheduled bus routes within Grand Island, expanding service hours, and expanding service days. How would you prioritize improvements to Hall County Public Transportation in the short range, 1-3 years? (1= most important, and 8= least important) 3.02 3.37 3.99 2.84 6.84 4.89 4.24 6.81 Expand service hours Expand service days Increase awareness of Public Transportation Add scheduled bus routes within Grand Island Leave service as it is today 'HYHORSDQHZEUDQGIRUWUDQVLWVHUYLFHLQWKHDUHD Make reservation time only 4 hours in advance OtherAverage RatingOn a scale of 1 to 5, (1 = Not Valuable, 5 = Very Valuable), how valuable do you think Hall County Public Transportation is for our community today? (1) 11.6% (2) 7.5% (3) 16.5%(4) 16.1% (5) 48.3% Figure 8.6: Value of Hall County Public Transportation Figure 8.7: Priority of Hall County Public Transportation Improvements 8.3.2 Transit Service Perceptions Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 98 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 61 Figure 8.7 also shows increasing awareness as the fourth priority for transit. Over 100 comments were submitted, suggesting social media and the internet as the preferred media (34 percent). $SSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWSUHIHUWHOHYLVLRQUDGLRQHZVSDSHURUÀLHUVIRUDGYHUWLVHPHQWV7RLQFUHDVHWKH level of service, respondents suggested removing the 24-hour reservation requirement and implementing a ¿[HGURXWHV\VWHP 7KHVXUYH\DVNHGUHVSRQGHQWVZKDWWKHJUHDWHVWEHQH¿W+DOO&RXQW\3XEOLF7UDQVSRUWDWLRQRႇHUVWRWKH community. Of the 140 answers received, 18 percent of respondents considered those residents who do QRWKDYHDFFHVVWRDYHKLFOHUHFHLYHWKHJUHDWHVWEHQH¿WIURPWKHVHUYLFH7KHHOGHUO\SRSXODWLRQZDVWKH VHFRQGKLJKHVWUHVSRQVHEHQH¿WLQJIURPVHUYLFHVZLWKWKHGLVDEOHGORZLQFRPHDQGVWXGHQWVIDOOLQJFORVH EHKLQG5HVSRQGHQWVDOVRFRQVLGHUHGWKHVSHFL¿FWULSW\SHDVDEHQH¿WWRWKHFRPPXQLW\:KLOHPHGLFDO WULSVUHFHLYHGWKHPRVWDWWHQWLRQRWKHUEHQH¿FLDOWULSSXUSRVHVLQFOXGHGFRPPXWLQJWRZRUNDQGVKRSSLQJ The survey also asked residents to describe how they believe the community perceives Hall County Public Transportation. Of the 205 total responses, the majority of comments received followed themes involving a lack of awareness of the available service, or that existing service is for the elderly, disabled or low- income. Perceptions also indicated that existing services should be increased. Refer to the word cloud in Figure 8.8 for a visual representation of the comments received. The larger the words appear, the more times they were used to describe the community’s perception. The survey form also allowed residents to leave additional comments regarding Hall County Public Transportation. Most comments were generally SRVLWLYHUHDႈUPLQJWKHLPSRUWDQFHRISXEOLF transportation in the community. Other responses discussed personal stories about their own situation or someone else they know who depended on the transit services to meet their daily needs. Other comments included the following opportunities to improve the existing services: • &RQYHUWGHPDQGUHVSRQVHVHUYLFHWR¿[HG route • Remove the 24-hour reservation requirement • Expand service hours and days • Change the age restrictions • $GGLWLRQDOELF\FOHSHGHVWULDQRSWLRQV • Additional promotion for the service • Additional bilingual services What is the perception in the community of Hall County Public Transportation? Figure 8.8: Perception of Hall County Public Transportation Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 99 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 62 A transit rider survey was completed in June 2017. The drivers for Hall County Public Transportation handed out surveys to riders who completed while on the bus. Fifty six completed surveys were returned. Approximately 22 percent of the respondents use transit every day, with 46 percent using the bus 2 to 4 times per week, as shown in Figure 8.9. The survey asked transit riders how they would travel if public transportation were not available. Just over one-third said they would not make the trip, as shown in Figure 8.10. The second highest response was "Take an alternative mode of transportation." Transit riders were asked how valuable public transportation is within the community. Over 84 percent stated Valuable or Very Valuable, as shown in Figure 8.11. Just under 10 percent stated transit as Not Valuable. 34.5% 23.6%1.8% 32.7% 7.3% If public transportation was not available, you would: On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Not valuable, 5 = Very Valuable), how valuable do you think Hall County Public Transportation is for our community today? (1) 9.3% (3) 7.4% (4) 5.6% (5) 77.8% Figure 8.10: Other Transportation Options How often do you ride public transit services in Grand Island? (YHU\'D\ 2 to 4 times per week 1 to 4 times per month Rarely 21.8% 45.5% 30.9% 1.8% )LJXUH+RZ2IWHQ3XEOLF7UDQVLWLV8VHG Figure 8.11: Value of Hall County Transportation Today 8.4 Transit Rider Survey Not make this trip. Call friend or family. Look for alternative destination or place to go. Take an alternative mode of transportation. Other Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 100 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 63 Riders reported their origin and destination on the rider survey. Nearly 89 percent were originating from home, as shown in Figure 8.12. The most common destinations were medical appointments, work and other. Figure 8.13 also shows school, social trips, and home for common destinations. Figure 8.14 shows 85 percent of transit riders do not have a vehicle available for travel. Approximately 30 percent have a valid driver’s license, as shown in Figure 8.15. Where is your origin? Home 11.1% Work 25.9% School 7.4% Medical Appointment 29.6% Social Purpose 11.1% Other 14.8% Home 88.7% Work 3.8%Medical Appt. 7.5% Where is your destination? Yes 15.4% No 84.6% Yes 30.2% No 69.8% 'R\RXW\SLFDOO\KDYHDYHKLFOHDYDLODEOH for travel? 'R\RXKDYHDYDOLGGULYHU¶VOLFHQVH" Figure 8.12: Origin of Trip )LJXUH'HVWLQDWLRQRI7ULS Figure 8.14: Availability of Vehicle )LJXUH3RVVHVVLRQRI'ULYHU¶V/LFHQVH Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 101 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 64 Information collected from transit riders taking the on-board survey included characteristics such as gender, age, employment status, annual household income, and ethnicity. A selection of the characteristics are detailed below. Nearly 79 percent of transit riders said their annual household income is less than $25,000, as shown in Figure 8.167KH'HSDUWPHQWRI Health and Human Services’ poverty distinction is approximately $25,000 for a family of four. The age of respondents for the rider survey, shown in Figure 8.17, reports 67 percent above age 50. Sixteen percent of the transit survey respondents were between age 19 to 35 and another 16 percent age 36 to 50 years. Figure 8.18 shows approximately half of the respondents were retired. Transit riders who VHOHFWHGWKHµRWKHU¶RSWLRQVSHFL¿HGWKHLU employment status as disabled. 15.1% 15.1% 7.5% 3.8% 49.1% 9.4% 16.4% 16.4% 34.5% 32.7% Figure 8.16: Characteristics - Household Income Figure 8.17:Characteristics - Age )LJXUH&KDUDFWHULVWLFV(PSOR\PHQW6WDWXV 8.4.1 Socio-economic Characteristics 18 years and under 19 to 35 years old 36 to 50 years old 51 to 65 years old 66 years and up Employed Full-time Employed Part-time Not currently employed Student Retired Other 78.7% 12.8% 4.3% 2.1%2.1% Less than $25,000 $25,001 to $35,000 $35,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $75,000 Over $75,000 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 102 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 65 Transit riders ranked aspects of Hall County Public Transportation, as shown in Figure 8.19. Possible DQVZHUVUDQJHGIURPYHU\VDWLV¿HGWRQHXWUDOWRYHU\GLVVDWLV¿HG7KHKLJKHUYDOXHVVLJQLI\DKLJKHUUDWHRI VDWLVIDFWLRQDQGWKHORZHUYDOXHVFRUUHVSRQGWRDORZHUUDWHRIVDWLVIDFWLRQ7KHPRVWVDWLV¿HGDQGOHDVW VDWLV¿HGDVSHFWVDUHOLVWHGEHORZ 4.42 4.44 4.46 4.55 4.11 4.06 3.89 4.14 4.57 4.63 3.98 4.27 4.28 A. Timeliness - on-time arrival of the bus for most trips. B. Comfort - the temperature on the bus for most trips. C. Comfort - the seats on the bus. '&OHDQOLQHVVRIWKHYHKLFOH E. Info during reservation for bus arrival time. F. Info during reservation for how long the trip would take. G. Ease of booking or changing trip. H. Ease of finding information on Hall County PT. I. Helpfulness of the driver. J. Professionalism of the driver. K. Helpfulness of staff taking reservations. L. Overall service you receive from Hall County PT. M. Cost of the ride.Average RatingPlease rate the following aspects of Hall County Public Transportation. Figure 8.19 Aspects of Hall County Public Transportation 0RVW6DWLV¿HG$VSHFWV • Professionalism of the driver (4.63) • Helpfulness of the driver (4.57) • Cleanliness of the vehicle (4.55) • Comfort - the seats of the bus (4.44) • Comfort - the temperature of the bus (4.44) /HDVW6DWLV¿HG$VSHFWV • Ease of booking or changing a trip (3.89) • Info during reservation for how long the trip would take (4.06) • Info during reservation for bus arrival time (4.11) • (DVHRI¿QGLQJLQIRUPDWLRQRQ+DOO&RXQW\ Public Transportation (4.14) • Overall service you receive from Hall County Public Transportation (4.27) Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 103 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 66 Satisfaction ratings help prioritize opportunities for Hall County Public Transportation to improve the rider experience. The transit rider survey gathered input on ways to improve transit service in the short term. Riders were asked to prioritize these short range improvements to Hall County Public Transportation by ranking from most important to least important (1 = most, 8 = least). Figure 8.20 shows the results; however, it should be noted 9 of the 56 respondents (16%) answered this question. The most important priority was expanding service hours, followed closely by expanding service days and scheduled service. These three improvements were also prioritized in the top three for the online community survey respondents as well. The lower priority choices were: • 'HYHORSDQHZEUDQGIRUH[LVWLQJVHUYLFH • Increase awareness of public transit system • Leave service as it is today Transit riders could make additional comments regarding Hall County Public Transportation at the end of WKHVXUYH\:KLOHPRVWRIWKHFRPPHQWVZHUHJHQHUDOO\SRVLWLYHVWDWHPHQWVUHDႈUPLQJWKHLPSRUWDQFH RISXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLQWKHFRPPXQLW\RWKHUUHVSRQVHVRႇHUHGVXJJHVWLRQVWRLQFUHDVHVHUYLFHRQWKH weekends, and add more vehicles when demand is at its highest. How would you prioritize improvements to Hall County Public Transportation in the short range (1 - 3 years)? Figure 8.20 Priority Improvements 2.67 2.89 5.33 3.33 5.11 5.44 4.44 6.78 Expand service hours. Expand service days. Increase awareness of public transit system. Add scheduled bus routes within Grand Island. Leave service as it is today. 'HYHORSDQHZEUDQGIRUH[LVWLQJWUDQVLWVHUYLFH Shorten reservation time to 4 hours in advance. OtherAverage RatingGrand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 104 / 176 67 CHAPTER 9 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT - ROUND TWO 9.1 Introduction The second round of focus groups meetings was held in Grand Island on August 2-3, 2017.This chapter presents a brief review of the Round Two public engagement conducted thus far for the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study. These opportunities are critical to the process and study and allow the project team to openly engage the community. Understanding the voice of the community HQVXUHVWKH¿QDOSURGXFWUHÀHFWVDQGHQFDSVXODWHVWKHJRDOVDQGYLVLRQVVHWRXWDWWKHEHJLQQLQJ The Round Two focus group meetings were PDGHXSRIFLWL]HQVIURPPDQ\GLႇHUHQW VWDNHKROGHUJURXSVXQOLNHWKH¿UVWURXQG of focus group meetings where stakeholder groups met independently of each other. Community participation, surveys, and discussion were facilitated at the Olsson $VVRFLDWHV*UDQG,VODQG2ႈFH$PHHWLQJ was also held with the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). Community participation provides Hall County Public Transportation, the City of Grand Island, and GIAMPO the opportunity to hear the community's RSLQLRQVRIWKHVHYHUDOGLႇHUHQWWUDQVLW alternatives. With the vision and goals in mind, stakeholders were asked to participate in GLVFXVVLRQDQGWDNHDVXUYH\WRUDWHGLႇHUHQW alternatives. This chapter is a summary of the Public Engagement - Round Two phase of the study, the complete analysis can be found in Technical Memorandum 2. Round Two Focus Group Meeting 9.2 Focus Group Meetings $VHULHVRIIRFXVJURXSLQWHUYLHZVZHUHFRQGXFWHGRQ$XJXVWDWWKH2OVVRQ$VVRFLDWHVRႈFHLQ Grand Island, 201 E 2nd St. Stakeholders included: • Transportation providers • Government partners • 1RQSUR¿WRUJDQL]DWLRQV • (OHFWHGRႈFLDOV • Faith-based organizations • Human service agencies • Major Employers • Educational services • Elderly services • %LF\FOH3HGHVWULDQSDUWQHUV • Grow Grand Island partners • Ethnic Heritage partners Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 105 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 68 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKH5RXQG7ZRIRFXVJURXSPHHWLQJVZDVWRSUHVHQWWKHGLႇHUHQWDOWHUQDWLYHVDQGIRU stakeholders to provide feedback. The feedback collected during the Round Two engagement fed directly LQWRWKH¿QDOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRUWKHVWXG\ The focus group meeting format involved facilitated discussion, community participation, and the completion of a survey in which the stakeholder was asked to rate each transit alternative based on certain criteria. Each session lasted approximately 45 minutes. The meetings began with a brief informal presentation followed by discussion and the survey. The schedule of focus group meetings is shown in Table 9.1. Date Time Activity Location Wed., August 2, 2017 8:00am - 8:30am Set up 2$2ႈFH 8:30am - 9:15am Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 9:30am - 10:15am Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 10:30am - 11:15am Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 11:30am - 12:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 12:30pm - 1:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 1:30pm - 2:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 2:30pm - 3:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 3:30pm - 4:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 4:30pm - 5:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 5:30pm - 6:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 6:30pm - 7:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 7:30pm - 8:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH Thurs., August 3, 2017 8:00am - 8:30am Set up 2$2ႈFH 8:30am - 9:15am Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 9:30am - 10:15am Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 10:30am - 11:15am Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 11:30am - 12:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 12:30pm - 1:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 1:30pm - 2:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 2:30pm - 3:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 3:30pm - 4:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 4:30pm - 5:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 5:30pm - 6:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 6:30pm - 7:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH 7:30pm - 8:15pm Focus Group Meeting 2$2ႈFH Table 9.1: Focus Group Meeting Schedule Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 106 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 69 Prepared surveys were distributed to each focus group member and then comments recorded. The responses received throughout the public engagement process help the local project team identify what aspects of the designed alternatives were attractive and unattractive for the community of Grand Island and Hall County. Below is a copy of the survey and additional comment card provided to each focus group participant. Focus Group Survey Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 107 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 70 Focus Group Additional Comment Sheet Participants completed surveys and comment cards Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 108 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 71 9.3 Summary of Focus Group Meetings Focus group attendees provided detailed and conclusive responses regarding the multiple transit options. 7KHIROORZLQJWH[WDQG¿JXUHVSURYLGHDVXPPDU\RIWKHRYHUDOOFRPPHQWVIURPWKHVHFRQGURXQGRISXEOLF engagement. Each participant completed a survey for three of the four main alternatives (Fixed Route, 6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVHDQG)OH[LEOH5RXWHVDVZHOODVWKH¿YHDGGLWLRQDOVHUYLFHV5HJLRQDO Airport Service, Commuter Service, Rideshare, Vanpool, and Autonomous Vehicle Technology). The following discussion provides overall feedback from the focus group attendees, which was approximately 280 total comments from attendees. The summary is a result of aggregating all comment FDUGVUHFHLYHG$WWHQGHHVZHUHDVNHGWRVFRUHE\KRZHႇHFWLYHWKHTXHVWLRQPD\EH7KHFRPPHQWFDUGLV shown on page 65 and 66 of this report. 4XHVWLRQ+RZH௺HFWLYHO\GRHVWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQPHHWWKHJRDOVREMHFWLYHV" Goal 1(௻FLHQWO\SURYLGHPRELOLW\RSWLRQVWRDUHDUHVLGHQWV 6XPPDU\7KLUW\¿YHSHUFHQWRIUHVSRQGHQWVEHOLHYHG)L[HG5RXWH6HUYLFHDQG)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFH YHU\HႇHFWLYHO\PHW*RDOZKLOHSHUFHQWEHOLHYHG6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVHPHW*RDO 4XHVWLRQ+RZH௺HFWLYHO\GRHVWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQPHHWWKHJRDOVREMHFWLYHV" Goal 2(QKDQFHHFRQRPLFDFWLYLW\E\LPSURYLQJDFFHVVWRHPSOR\PHQWIRUDUHDUHVLGHQWV Summary: Goal 2 focuses on access to employment. Focus group members scored the Flexible Route KLJKHVWIRUEHLQJPRVWHႇHFWLYHPHHWLQJWKHJRDO7KH6DPH'D\6HUYLFHVFRUHGVHFRQGKLJKHVWIt should be noted the members of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) during the July 20, 2017 meeting, VFRUHG6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVH6HUYLFHDVYHU\HႇHFWLYHO\PHHWLQJ*RDO 4XHVWLRQ+RZH௺HFWLYHO\GRHVWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQPHHWWKH goals/objectives? Goal 3: Coordinate with local organizations for public transportation options, while being good stewards of the public dollar. Summary: Goal 3 focuses on working with the community to give the best possible service in the most realistic and responsible fashion. Respondents ranked the Fixed Route Service option for EHLQJWKHPRVWHႇHFWLYHPHHWLQJ*RDOZLWK)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFH FORVHO\IROORZLQJ7KH6DPH'D\6HUYLFHRSWLRQVFRUHGKLJKHVWIRU somewhat meeting Goal 3. There were very few responses stating WKHVHUYLFHVGRQRWHႇHFWLYHO\PHHW*RDOFULWHULD 4XHVWLRQ.QRZLQJWKHULGHUVKLSSURMHFWLRQVIRUWKLVWUDQVLW VHUYLFHKRZH௺HFWLYHGR\RXWKLQNWKLVRSWLRQLVIRURXUUHJLRQIRUWKHLQYHVWPHQW" Summary: )RUW\¿YHSHUFHQWRIUHVSRQGHQWVVFRUHGWKH)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFHDVWKHPRVWHႇHFWLYHWUDQVLW alternative. Through discussion, many focus group participants viewed the investment in Flexible Route Service as an appropriate stepping stone to one day having Fixed Route Service. No participants believed WKDW)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFHZDV1RW(ႇHFWLYHIRUWKHLQYHVWPHQW7ZHQW\¿YHSHUFHQWRISDUWLFLSDQWV EHOLHYHG6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVHDVWKHPRVWHႇHFWLYHDOWHUQDWLYHIRUWKHLQYHVWPHQW Focus Group Meetings Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 109 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 72 4XHVWLRQ+RZH௺HFWLYHLVWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQE\JDXJLQJWKHQXPEHURIDFWLYLW\FHQWHUVVHUYHG" Summary: Participants viewed maps with relevant activity centers in Grand Island and were asked to UDWHKRZHႇHFWLYHWKHWUDQVLWDOWHUQDWLYHVZHUHLQVHUYLQJWKHVHDUHDV7KLUW\HLJKWSHUFHQWRIUHVSRQGHQWV VFRUHG)L[HG5RXWH6HUYLFH³0RVW(ႇHFWLYH´ZKLOHSHUFHQWEHOLHYHG)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFHZDV³0RVW (ႇHFWLYH´'XULQJIRFXVJURXSGLVFXVVLRQLWZDVVWURQJO\VWDWHG-%6QHHGHGWREHLQFOXGHGLQWKH)OH[LEOH Route service area and have options of scheduled service during major shift changes. 4XHVWLRQ+RZH௺HFWLYHLVWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQE\VHUYLQJWKH*UHDWHVW7UDQVLW1HHGDUHDVLQWKH region? Summary: Approximately 75 percent of focus groups respondents scored Flexible Route Service and )L[HG5RXWH6HUYLFHDVPRVWHႇHFWLYH7KH7$&VFRUHG6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVHVHUYLFHDVWKHPRVW HႇHFWLYH$WWHQGHHVVXJJHVWHGPRUHWUDQVLWQHHGVLQWKHIXWXUHIRUDUHDVRI*UDQG,VODQGZHVWRI+LJKZD\ 281. 4XHVWLRQ+RZH௺HFWLYHLVWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQSURYLGLQJDFFHVVWRMREVLWHV" Summary: )RUW\RQHSHUFHQWRISDUWLFLSDQWVEHOLHYHG)L[HG5RXWHZDVPRVWHႇHFWLYHZKLOH)OH[LEOH5RXWH 6HUYLFHZDVWKHQH[WKLJKHVWZLWKSHUFHQW1LQHSHUFHQWRIUHVSRQGHQWVEHOLHYHG6DPH'D\'HPDQG 5HVSRQVHZRXOGQRWEHHႇHFWLYH0DQ\SHRSOHH[SUHVVHGWKH\ZRXOGKDYHUDQNHG)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFH higher if it provided direct access to JBS. 4XHVWLRQ.QRZLQJWKHFRVWHVWLPDWHVIRUWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQKRZOLNHO\LVWKLVWUDQVLWRSWLRQWREH LPSOHPHQWHGLQWKHQH[W\HDUV" Summary: 0RVWUHVSRQGHQWVDJUHHG6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVHDQG)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFHFRXOGEH LPSOHPHQWHGLQWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV7KHORZHUFRVWRI6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVHDQG)OH[LEOH5RXWHV PDGHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQPRUHUHDOLVWLFLQWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV)RUW\SHUFHQWEHOLHYHGWKHFRVWDQGSODQQLQJRI D)L[HG5RXWHV\VWHPZRXOGPDNHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQQRWOLNHO\LQWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV 4XHVWLRQ:KHQLVDUHDOLVWLFWLPHIUDPH for this transit option? Summary: A general consensus from focus JURXSDWWHQGHHVZDV6DPH'D\'HPDQG Response would be the quickest to implement within 1 - 3 years. Participants believed there were less barriers to implementation, as it is the most similar to the transit service provided in Grand Island today. Sixty percent believed Flexible Route Service in Grand Island could be implemented in 4 - 5 years. Finally, 43 percent believed Fixed Route Service could be implemented in Grand Island in 5 - 10 years. Round 2 Focus Group Meeting Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 110 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 73 9.4 Additional Alternatives Comment Form Summary 3DUWLFLSDQWVFRPSOHWHGFRPPHQWVKHHWVIRUWKH¿YHDGGLWLRQDOWUDQVLWVHUYLFHV3DUWLFLSDQWVZHUHDVNHGWR SLFNWZRRIWKH¿YHVHUYLFHVWKDWPD\EHUHDOLVWLFIRULPSOHPHQWDWLRQ7KHWZRPRVWSRSXODUFKRLFHVZHUH the Rideshare Program (54%) and the Commuter Express Routes (45%). Figure 9.1 shows respondents priority for the additional services. Focus group participants were asked if they would seriously consider using Rideshare or Vanpool services IRUFRPPXWLQJ/HVVWKDQ¿YHSHUFHQWUHVSRQGHGWKH\ZRXOGFRQVLGHULW(YHQWKRXJKPHPEHUVRIWKH focus group were not interested in rideshare themselves, they understood the importance of having these services available. Focus Group participants were also asked to weigh in on discussions of Autonomous Vehicle Technology. Figure 9.2 shows the results when people were asked if they would consider Grand Island a good pilot community to test autonomous vehicle technology. Finally participants were asked to DQVZHULIWKH¿YHDGGLWLRQDOWUDQVLW services met the goals and objectives of the study. The Rideshare service had the highest response with 61 percent believing the service does meet the goals of the study. The Regional Airport Service scored lowest, with 52 percent saying this service did not meet the study’s goals and objectives. Figure 9.3 shows the results on the following page. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Regional Airport Service Commuter Express Routes Rideshare Program Vanpool Program Autonomous Vehicle Technology Priority For Additional Services Figure 9.1: Top Service Priority 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Is Grand Island a Good Pilot Community for Autonomous Vehicles? Figure 9.2 Autonomous Vehicle Technology Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 111 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 74 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Not Sure Rideshare Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Not Sure Commuter Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Not Sure Vanpool Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Not Sure Regional Airport Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Not Sure Autonomous Vehicle Technology )LJXUH'RWKH$GGLWLRQDO7UDQVLW6HUYLFHV0HHWWKH*RDOV2EMHFWLYHV" Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 112 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 75 9.5 Transit Bus Rider Survey - Future Alternatives The second round of public engagement also included a transit rider survey distributed on Hall County Public Transportation requesting opinions on potential future transit alternatives. The Transit Rider Survey is shown in Appendix D, with results from the 65 completed surveys summarized in the following section. The survey was distributed by drivers from August 23, 2017 - September 4, 2017. 7KH¿UVWWZRTXHVWLRQVRIWKHVXUYH\DVNHGDERXWVFKHGXOHGEXVVHUYLFHDQGFXUEVLGHSLFNXSVKRZQLQ Figures 9.4 and 9.54XHVWLRQDVNHGULGHUVZKLFKVHUYLFHZRXOGEHEHVWIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\4XHVWLRQ DVNHGLIWKHUHZDVDGLႇHUHQFHEHWZHHQZKDWULGHUVEHOLHYHGZDVEHVWIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\DQGZKDWWKHLU personal preference was. For both questions, curbside pickup was preferred over scheduled bus service by at least a three to one ratio. Other commuting transit alternatives considered by riders included vanpool and rideshare programs. The results, shown in Figure 9.6 on the following page, reveal approximately 70 percent said a vanpool or rideshare would not be a viable commute option or were unsure at this time. For existing transit riders, a vanpool or rideshare would be a viable alternative for approximately 30 percent of the respondents. 4XHVWLRQDVNHGWUDQVLWULGHUVWRFKRRVHEHWZHHQHLWKHUQHZVHUYLFHWR.HDUQH\+DVWLQJVRUHQKDQFHG bus service within Grand Island, and over 80 percent of respondents preferred enhanced bus service within the City of Grand Island, as shown in Figure 9.75LGHUVZHUHDVNHGLQ4XHVWLRQKRZRIWHQWKH\ need to go to the airport. Approximately 90 percent of respondents, summarized in Figure 9.8, on the following page, said they travel to the airport no more than once a year. 4XHVWLRQRIWKHVXUYH\DVNHGULGHUVWRUHYLHZWZRSRWHQWLDOEXVURXWHVRSHUDWLQJHYHU\PLQXWHV The routes were shown on the back of the survey. Approximately one-third of the respondents stated the two routes would be a good alternative for them. Respondents were also asked "Why or Why Not?" the two bus routes would be a good travel alternative. Comments included the routes would get people to important places they needed to go. Some transit riders said the routes were too far from their home or WKHLUGHVWLQDWLRQ7KHVH¿QGLQJVDUHLQFOXGHGLQFigure 9.9. Curbside Pickup (82%) Scheduled Bus Service (18%) Walk a short distance for hourly bus service (25%) Bus arrives at your curb +/- 15 minutes from reservation )LJXUH4XHVWLRQ1R )LJXUH4XHVWLRQ1R ,QWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUVLQ*UDQG,VODQGZKDW service do you think is best for the community? What would you prefer? Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 113 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 76 Yes 31% No 27% Not Sure42% Once per year 88% 2 to 5 per year 10% > 6 per year2% Yes 31% No 30% Not Sure 39% )LJXUH4XHVWLRQ1R )LJXUH4XHVWLRQ1R )LJXUH4XHVWLRQ1R)LJXUH4XHVWLRQ1R Would a vanpool or rideshare program be a viable future option for your typical transit commute? What would you prefer? How often do you need to go to an airport? Enhanced Bus Service in Grand Island (82%) Bus Service to/from Kearney/ Hastings (18%) Below are two bus routes in Grand Island that would operate every 60 minutes. Would these bus routes be a good alternative for you? Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 114 / 176 77 CHAPTER 10 10.1 Introduction The future transit alternatives were developed and shaped by multiple factors. The factors included the YLVLRQDQGJRDOVDUWLFXODWHGHDUO\LQWKHSURFHVVKLVWRULFDOULGHUVKLSDQGERDUGLQJGHERDUGLQJGDWD transit need, gaps, evaluation of transit delivery in peer cities, input from the community, key stakeholders, rider and community surveys, and consideration of potential services within the community. This chapter is a summary of the transit alternatives phase of the study. The complete analysis can be found in Technical Memorandum 2. 10.2 Alternatives Four primary alternatives were developed for the Grand Island and Hall County Region. 1. 6WDWXV4XR 2. 6DPHGD\'HPDQG5HVSRQVH 3. Flexible Route Service 4. Fixed Route Service Five additional services were also examined for their potential application to service Grand Island area residents and employees. 5. Regional Airport Service 6. Commuter Express Routes 7. Rideshare Program 8. Vanpool Program 9. Autonomous Vehicle Technology 7KHIRXUSULPDU\DOWHUQDWLYHV6WDWXV4XR6DPHGD\'HPDQG5HVSRQVH)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFH and Fixed Route Service) are exclusive alternatives, meaning only one of these alternatives would be implemented. Each of the additional services (Regional Airport Service, Commuter Express Routes, Rideshare programs, and Vanpool programs) could theoretically operate alongside any of the other additional services, or with one of the primary alternatives. Autonomous Vehicle Technology, when VXႈFLHQWO\GHYHORSHGFRXOGDOVREHLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRDQ\RIWKHDOWHUQDWLYHV TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Hall County Public Transportation Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 115 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 78 To determine how each alternative met the goals of the study and the goals of the GIAMPO area, the alternatives were analyzed with a variety of criteria, including: • Market segment comparison of service • Projected ridership • Operating and capital cost estimates • Access to activity centers • Access to job sites • Likelihood of implementation • Stakeholder reception 6WDWXV4XR 7KHPLQLPXPOHYHORIVHUYLFHIRUWUDQVLWHYDOXDWLRQLVWRUHYLHZWKHRSWLRQ6WDWXV4XRZKLFKLQYROYHVQR change in Hall County Public Transportation services. This option may be appropriate when the existing QHHGVDUHPHWRULIEXGJHWFRQVWUDLQWVDUHLQHႇHFWGXULQJVSHFL¿FWLPHSHULRGV2QHRIWKHSULPDU\IDFWRUV impacting Grand Island over the next 10 to 20 year planning period is population projections for the region, which will result in an increase in the demand for transit service. Overall ridership has been constant and slowly increasing over the last few years. The existing service is 24-hour reservation, demand-response service. The annual cost is approximately $490,000. The annual revenue hours are 14,705 and 170,500 annual revenue miles. The annual ridership is approximately 35,000, with a cost per passenger trip of $13.97. Based on the information presented in Technical Memorandum 1 of baseline conditions and goals for the VWXG\WKH6WDWXV4XRDOWHUQDWLYHLVQRWDORQJWHUPVXVWDLQDEOHWUDQVLWDOWHUQDWLYHWKDWZLOOPHHWWKHQHHGV goals, and objectives of the community or the stakeholders. The purpose of this analysis is to determine LIWKHUHLVDPRUHHႇHFWLYHZD\WRKDYHWKHWUDQVLW system function in order to meet the needs of the community and to analyze the system impacts of developing new and additional transit services to meet the needs of the community’s residents. The advantage of maintaining the existing transit service and transportation provider is there is little or minimal additional cost for the City of Grand Island. The major disadvantage of maintaining the 6WDWXV4XRLVWKH&LW\ZLOORQO\PHHWDIHZRIWKH FRPPXQLW\¶VVWDWHGQHHGVRULPSURYHWKHLGHQWL¿HG system issues. Grid System Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 116 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 79 6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVH Today, residents must make reservations 24-hours in advance. Transit Alternative 2 allows residents to have same day demand response service (ability to have a bus at pickup within a three-hour QRWLFHRUVKRUWHU7KH6DPH'D\6HUYLFHSURYLGHVa higher level of service to passengers by allowing WKHPPRUHÀH[LELOLW\LQVFKHGXOLQJWULSVDQGWKH freedom of not having to schedule service a day in advance. Hall County Public Transportation currently uses Route Match, the trip scheduling software, to assist in scheduling and dispatching service. For Same 'D\6HUYLFHWKHVRIWZDUHZLOOUHTXLUHDQXSJUDGH WRDFFRPPRGDWHODVWPLQXWHVFKHGXOLQJ6DPH'D\ Service requires three additional vehicles to be in VHUYLFHEH\RQGWKHFXUUHQWVHUYLFH7KH6DPH'D\6HUYLFHRSWLRQSLFNVXSSDVVHQJHUVDWWKHFXUEDQG takes them directly to the curb of their destination, anywhere within the urbanized area. Service hours would be extended to 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday. In addition, general public demand response would be available for all persons outside the urbanized area of Grand Island, with required 24-hour reservations. 10.2.3 Flexible Route Service The Flexible Route Service alternative features two routes operating in Grand Island, with the option of FDOOLQJLQWRWKHRႈFHIRUDURXWHGHYLDWLRQLIWKHULGHULVXQDEOHWRZDONWRWKHEXVVWRS:KHQWULSGHYLDWLRQ UHTXHVWVDUHPDGHWKHEXVGHYLDWHVRႇWKHURXWHWRSLFNXSRUGURSRႇSDVVHQJHUWKHQWUDYHOVEDFNWRWKH scheduled bus route. Trip deviations must be requested a day in advance. The two routes would operate every 60 minutes. Passengers board a bus at a designated bus stop along the route, or for an additional fee, make an DGYDQFHGUHVHUYDWLRQWRHLWKHUEHGURSSHGRႇRUSLFNHGXSDWDQ\ORFDWLRQZLWKLQôPLOHRIWKHUHJXODU route. In addition, high demand locations, such as JBS, could be scheduled as regularly scheduled service DWYDULRXVWLPHVWKURXJKRXWWKHGD\HYHQLIWKHVHORFDWLRQVDUHQRWRQWKH¿[HGDOLJQPHQW7KH)OH[LEOH Routes primarily serve portions of the following corridors in Grand Island: 6HUYLFHKRXUVZRXOGEHXQWLOSP7KH)OH[LEOH5RXWHVHUYLFHLVVLPLODUWRDWUDGLWLRQDO¿[HGURXWH service, with branded vehicles, brochures with route maps and service schedules, and bus stops with signs, and shelters at high ridership locations. In addition to the Flexible Route Service, general public demand response would be available for all persons outside the deviation area, which is within the urbanized area of Grand Island. • 86'LHU V$YHQXH • Old Potash Highway • 'RZQWRZQDORQJSRUWLRQVRIst, 3rd, and 4th streets • 13th Street • Oak Street • Faidley Avenue • Webb Road • Lincoln Avenue • Broadwell Avenue • Capital Avenue • Locust Street aaaaa 6DPH'D\6HUYLFHLQ1RUWK3ODWWH Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 117 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 80 Outside the urbanized area, general public demand response would be available for all persons, with required 24-hour reservations. Figure 10.1 presents the proposed routes for the Flexible Route Service alternative. 10.2.4 Fixed Route Service The Fixed Route Service alternative has three scheduled routes throughout Grand Island, operating every 60 PLQXWHV$OOSDVVHQJHUVJHWRQWKHEXVDQGRႇDWVFKHGXOHGEXVVWRSVDORQJHDFKURXWH(OLJLEOHSDVVHQJHUV who are unable to walk to the bus stop due to a physical or medical disability, have complementary curb-side SDUDWUDQVLWVHUYLFHDYDLODEOHWRWKHPLIWKHUHVLGHQWOLYHVôPLOHRIWKHGHVLJQDWHG¿[HGEXVURXWHFigure 10.2 shows the proposed routes for the Fixed Route Service alternative. Fixed Route Service hours operate until 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday. The Fixed Route Service will have branded vehicles, brochures with route maps and service schedules, designated bus stops, and shelters at high ridership locations. The routes serve portions of the following corridors in Grand Island: • 86'LHU¶V$YHQXH • Old Potash Highway • 'RZQWRZQDORQJSRUWLRQVRIVWUGDQGWK streets • 13th Street • Oak Street • Sycamore Street • Faidley Avenue • Webb Road • Lincoln Avenue • Broadwell Avenue • Capital Avenue • Locust Street • Husker Highway In addition, general public demand response would be available for all persons outside the urbanized area of Grand Island. Bus Stop in Tulsa, Oklahoma Kingman (Arizona) Area Regional Transit Bus Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 118 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 81 )LJXUH)OH[5RXWH6HUYLFH$OWHUQDWLYH Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 119 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 82 )LJXUH)L[HG5RXWH6HUYLFH$OWHUQDWLYH Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 120 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 83 10.2.5 Additional Services The previous alternatives discussed primary modes of public transit within the Grand Island area. The community must decide the best mode of service for the growing Grand Island region. The transit alternatives discussed in the following sections are additional services that may be introduced with any of the primary modes of service for Grand Island. These alternatives IRFXVRQGLႇHUHQWPDUNHWVHJPHQWV of the community where transit may be a viable and suitable mode of transportation. 10.2.5.1 Regional Airport Service 7KH5HJLRQDO$LUSRUW6HUYLFHRSWLRQIRFXVHVRQUHJLRQDOVHUYLFHWRIURPWKH*UDQG,VODQGDLUSRUW7RGD\ ground transportation companies provide service from Grand Island to airports in Lincoln or Omaha; however, no regularly scheduled transit service takes passengers to the Grand Island airport. This alternative provides regularly scheduled, reservations-required, ground passenger transit service to Central Nebraska Regional Airport from North Platte, Lexington, Kearney, and Grand Island, with one daily round WULSVHYHQGD\VDZHHN3DVVHQJHUVKDYHFRQQHFWLRQVZLWKGDLO\ÀLJKWVWR'DOODVDQGWZLFHZHHNO\ÀLJKWV to Las Vegas and Phoenix. &RPPXWHU([SUHVV6HUYLFH 7KH&RPPXWHU([SUHVV6HUYLFHDOHUQDWLYHIRFXVHVRQFRPPXWHUWUDႈF0RQGD\WKURXJK)ULGD\WUDYHOOLQJ in and out of Grand Island. A combined 2,300 persons commute daily to the Grand Island area from Hastings, Kearney, Wood River, and Alda. Two commuter routes will operate each weekday: • 5RXWH*UDQG,VODQG.HDUQH\+LJKZD\5RXWH • 5RXWH*UDQG,VODQG+DVWLQJV+LJKZD\5RXWH 7KH&RPPXWHU([SUHVV6HUYLFHWRIURP.HDUQH\ZRXOGWUDYHO+LJKZD\DQGSURYLGHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHIRU commuters from Kearney, Grand Island, and other communities along the corridor. The Commuter Express 6HUYLFHWRIURP+DVWLQJVZRXOGWUDYHO+LJKZD\%RWKFRPPXWHUEXVURXWHVZRXOGRSHUDWHWZRURXQG trips each weekday, one trip in the morning peak hour and a second trip during the afternoon peak hour. Central Nebraska Regional Airport Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 121 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 84 10.2.5.3 Vanpool The Vanpool service alternative provides residents an option of travel besides the single occupant vehicles. ,QWKH1HEUDVND'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ1'27HQWHUHGLQWRSDUWQHUVKLSZLWK(QWHUSULVH 5LGHVKDUHDQDWLRQDO¿UPVSHFLDOL]LQJLQWKHULGHVKDUHDFURVVWKHFRXQW\$YDQSRROSURJUDPSURYLGHVDQ RSSRUWXQLW\IRUDJURXSRIUHVLGHQWVWUDYHOLQJWRIURPVLPLODUORFDWLRQVWRWUDYHOWRJHWKHUDQGVDYHPRQH\ along with reduced congestion, and being environmental conscious with vehicle emissions. It is common IRUWKHYDQSRROJURXSWRZRUNDWWKHVDPHFRPSDQ\RUOLYHLQWKHVDPHQHLJKERUKRRGDQGWUDYHOWRIURP work. In Nebraska, the Enterprise partnership begins with a group of seven or more participants, including the driver, to register for the program. The monthly and annual costs are calculated based upon the trip distance and number of participants. Each vanpool decides the logistics of their vehicle, such as rotating drivers or one driver assignment. Vehicles range from seven passenger minivans to 15-passenger vans. 1'27SURYLGHVDVXEVLG\SHUPRQWKWRYDQSRROVZLWKDWOHDVWVHYHQSDUWLFLSDQWV%DVHGXSRQ community feedback and documented travel patterns, two potential locations for the Grand Island area LQFOXGHD-%6YDQSRRODQGDYDQSRROWRIURP.HDUQH\ 10.2.5.4 Rideshare Service The Rideshare service alternative provides a voluntary program for residents to register and form carpool, vanpool, school pool options within the community. The Rideshare software program matches persons WUDYHOLQJWRIURPVLPLODUORFDWLRQVZLWKLQWKHFRPPXQLW\7KH5LGHVKDUHVRIWZDUHSURJUDPW\SLFDOO\ purchased by the City or the Metropolitan Planning Organization, requests travel data and matches SDUWLFLSDQWVEDVHGRQWKHLUSUHIHUHQFHVKRPHZRUNORFDWLRQVDQGZRUNWLPHV$IWHUWKHLQLWLDOSXUFKDVH and maintenance fees of the software, the primary expense is continued marketing of the program. Carpool matches are free for participants. *R1(:KHUH5LGHVKDUH3URJUDP Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 122 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 85 10.2.5.5 Autonomous Vehicle Technology Autonomous Vehicle Technology is rapidly developing across the world and within the United States, and several major automakers are expecting to have fully autonomous vehicles for individual consumers by 2020 or 2025. Autonomous transit vehicles are currently being manufactured and rolled out as pilots or limited transit service in parts of the US and Europe. The City of Grand Island Public Works 'HSDUWPHQWZDVDSSURDFKHGE\DFRPPXQLW\LQ Florida to discuss the applicability of autonomous vehicles in Grand Island. As the community continues to grow, this advancing technology provides an opportunity for all local government entities and the private sector to continue forward-thinking and incorporate infrastructure to accommodate the upcoming technological changes. Public transportation is one piece of the puzzle for infrastructure, and would welcome opportunities to test future vehicle or software technologies. Upcoming research projects and demonstrations provide options for Grand Island to showcase its grid community, its geographical features, and forward-thinking for future developments. Communities, such as Grand Island, are eligible to apply for grants to increase connectivity within a FRPPXQLW\ZLWKFRPSDFWWULSSDWWHUQV$XWRQRPRXVYHKLFOHVUHO\RQ³VPDUWLQIUDVWUXFWXUH´WKDWIDFLOLWDWHV DXWRPDWLFFRPPXQLFDWLRQEHWZHHQFDUVURDGZD\VEULGJHVDQGWUDႈFVLJQDOV/HJLVODWLYHIUDPHZRUN LVEHLQJGHYHORSHGDWERWKWKHIHGHUDODQGVWDWHOHYHOWRGH¿QHOHJDODQGOLDELOLW\LVVXHVVXUURXQGLQJ autonomous vehicles. At this time, it is not legal for an autonomous vehicle to operate on the roadway in the State of Nebraska. Other states, such as Nevada and Michigan, passed state laws to support the growing industry. 10.3 Transit Alternatives Summary Table 10.1 summarizes the estimated costs for each transit alternative. Autonomous Vehicle Technology Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 123 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 86 Table 10.1 Transit Alternative SummaryStatus QuoSame Day DemandResponseFlexible Route Fixed RouteRegional Airport ServiceCommuter ExpressServiceRideshare VanpoolAutonomous Vehicle Technology6HUYLFH'D\VM - F M - F M - F M - F M - Sun M - F M - Sun M- Sun $GGLWLRQDO&RVW'DWD1HHGHGIRU/RFDO,PSDFW Hours 6a - 5p 6a - 6:30p 6a - 6:30p 6a - 6:30pReservation Only2 trips per weekdaySelected by ParticipantParticipant ChoicePeak Vehicles 7 10 6 8 1 21$2Ann Revenue Hrs14,377 21,089 19,125 25,500 1,898 1,5131$ 1$Ridership 35,000 84,354 102,000 90,844 690 4,104 53,920 3,640Cost per Trip $14.10 $8.75 $6.69 $10.02 $98.16 $13.16 $0.23 'DWD9DULHV'HSHQGLQJ8SRQ7ULS'LVWDQFHVDQGRI3DUWLFLSDQWV Annual Operating Cost$490,000 $738,098 $682,549 $910,066 $67,737 $53,997 $12,500Fed Share$296,623 $376,430 $348,100 $464,133 $34,546 $27,539 $6,375State Share$- $- $- $- $- $- $-Local Share$193, 377 $361,688 $334,449 $445,932 $33,191 $26,459 $6,125Total Capital VehiclesN/A $700,000 $490,000 $630,000 $70,000 $140,000 $-Fed Share1$$560,000 $392,000 $504,000 $56,000 $115,000 $-State Share1$$- $- $- $- $- $-Local Share1$$140,000 $98,000 $126,000 $14,000 $28,000 $-Total Capital OtherN/A $60,000 $601,500 $868,250 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000Fed Share1$$48,000 $481,200 $694,600 $8,000 $8,000 $48,000State Share1$$- $- $- $- $- $-Local Share1$$12,000 $120,300 $173,650 $2,000 $2,000 $12,000Total Costs - Year 1N/A $1,498,098 $1,774,049 $2,408,316 $147,737 $203,997 $72,500Fed Share1$$984,430 $1,221,300 $1,662,733 $98,546 $147,539 $54,375State Share1$$- $- $- $- $- $-Local Share1$$513,668 $552,749 $745,582 $49,191 $56,459 $18,1251RWHV6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVH)OH[LEOH5RXWHDQG)L[HG5RXWHGRHVQRWLQFOXGHFRVWVIRUWKHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVIRUWKHQRQXUEDQL]HGDUHDRI+DOO&RXQW\Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 124 / 176 87 CHAPTER 11 11.1 Introduction The subject of operations management has been a long-debated question of whether it is more cost HႇHFWLYHWRRSHUDWHSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQVHUYLFHV in-house or to contract services. Hall County Public Transportation, under the auspices of the City of Grand ,VODQG3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQWFXUUHQWO\FRQWUDFWV services with Senior Citizens Industries, Inc. (SCI) for all services. The contract for this service has been in place with Hall County for several decades. This chapter is a summary of the operations management phase of the study. The complete analysis can be found in Tech Memo 2. 11.2 Background Many factors play into the discussion of outsourcing VHUYLFHVLQFOXGLQJFRVWSROLWLFVVWDႈQJFDSDELOLWLHV ULVNVH[SHUWLVHHWF,QWKH2ႈFHRI0DQDJHPHQW released the Budget Circular A-761SURYLGLQJWKHGH¿QLWLRQ of commercial activity. Throughout the last 50+ years, the Circular has been updated many times with WKHGLႇHUHQWDGPLQLVWUDWLRQVEXWWKHIXQGDPHQWDOSULQFLSOHUHPDLQVXQFKDQJHG±JRYHUQPHQWGRHV not compete with private enterprise. The message from the Circular states that government shall not SHUIRUPRUSURYLGHDFRPPHUFLDOSURGXFWRUVHUYLFHLIWKDWVDPHSURGXFWVHUYLFHFDQEHSURFXUHGPRUH economically from a commercial source. As mentioned previously, the concept of outsourcing has been in place in Hall County for many years. It is unknown why Hall County, many years ago, began outsourcing public transit services; however, it is likely PDQ\IDFWRUVZHUHLQSOD\VXFKDVDGGLQJIXOOWLPHHPSOR\HHVH[LVWLQJVWDႈQJFDSDFLW\OLWWOHH[SHULHQFHLQ SXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQVHUYLFHVOLDELOLW\DQGULVNFRVWHႇHFWLYHQHVVDQGRUTXDOLW\RIVHUYLFH,Q6SULQJ as the City of Grand Island, began planning for the administration of the public transportation services, it was decided to continue contracting for services to ensure a smooth transition of services for residents in the community. This chapter provides information for the City to use as decisions are made regarding future management of the service, either through outsourcing or as an operation in-house. 1 KWWSVZZZZKLWHKRXVHJRYVLWHVZKLWHKRXVHJRY¿OHVRPEFLUFXODUV$DSGI OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ([SODQDWLRQRI&RPPHUFLDO$FWLYLW\ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 125 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 88 11.3 Hire Employees vs. Contract Out Many factors are considered before deciding whether to contract or operate transit service in-house. The GHFLVLRQVKRXOGEHEDVHGRQZKHWKHUWKHVHUYLFHLVSHUIRUPHGPRUHHႈFLHQWO\LQKRXVHLQZKLFKWUXHFRVWV would be weighed against the cost of hiring a contractor. 3URFXUHPHQWUHJXODWLRQVDQGH[LVWLQJFRQWUDFWDUUDQJHPHQWVPD\EHVLJQL¿FDQWLPSHGLPHQWVWRWKH consideration of a third-party contractor. It is critical that legal limitations and requirements be considered when evaluating or implementing contract services. Additionally, the political viability of any large-scale contract of services should also be considered. Contracts often have strong opposition from employee unions. These political factors should always be planned for and considered prior to contract consideration, with particular attention paid to union concerns. 6RPHWUDQVLWDJHQFLHV¿QGLWPRUHFRVWHႇHFWLYHWRUHRUJDQL]HDQGLPSURYHLQWHUQDORSHUDWLRQVWKDQWXUQ services over to a third-party contractor. When estimating in-house costs, all true costs should be included WRDFFXUDWHO\FRPSDUHFRQWUDFWRUFRVWV,QDGGLWLRQZKHQFDOFXODWLQJFRVWVDQGEHQH¿WVRILQKRXVHYHUVXV FRQWUDFWVHUYLFHWKHFRVWVIRUDGGLWLRQDOFRQWUDFWDGPLQLVWUDWLRQPXVWEHFRQVLGHUHGGXHWRWKHVLJQL¿FDQW amount of monitoring and management of the contractor. %DVHGXSRQUHVHDUFKGDWDDQG¿UPH[SHULHQFHIURPRWKHUWUDQVLWDJHQFLHVDOLVWRIFRPPRQIDFWRUV LQÀXHQFLQJZK\WUDQVLWDJHQFLHVPDNHFRQWUDFWGHFLVLRQVDUHVKRZQLQTables 11.1 and 11.2. The variation in responses shows the advantages and disadvantages for each option. 'LUHFWRSHUDWLRQUHIHUVWRWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVWKDWDUHSURYLGHG³LQKRXVH´E\SXEOLFWUDQVLWDJHQFLHVWKDW assume total responsibility for the administration and operation of services. Many public transit operators EHOLHYHWKH\FDQHQVXUHPRUHHႈFLHQWVHUYLFHGHOLYHU\E\SURYLGLQJWKHVHUYLFHWKHPVHOYHV7KURXJK LQKRXVHRSHUDWLRQVWKH\DUHDEOHWRHQVXUHYHKLFOHUHOLDELOLW\DQGPRUHHႈFLHQWVHUYLFHGHOLYHU\'LUHFW RSHUDWLRQDႇRUGVPRUHFRQWURORYHUVHUYLFHTXDOLW\DQGPDNHVLWHDVLHUWRLQWHJUDWHDQGFRRUGLQDWHGLႇHUHQW service types. The advantages of publicly operated in-house transit usually include lower insurance rates, less expensive fuel costs due to bulk purchases, and internal control over quality and demand. 7KHGLVDGYDQWDJHVRILQKRXVHRSHUDWLRQVFHQWHUDURXQGWKHKLJKFRVWVRIWUDQVLWODERUDQGEHQH¿WVDQG LQÀH[LEOHZRUNUXOHV5HVHDUFKVXJJHVWVWKDWSXEOLFVHFWRUWUDQVLWZDJHVDQGEHQH¿WVDUHW\SLFDOO\KLJKHU than those of the private sector (i.e. market). Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. 5333) requires the position of existing transit workers not be diminished through projects initiated with federal '27IXQGV%HFDXVHORFDOWUDQVLWODERUXQLRQVDUHFRQFHUQHGWKDWFRQWUDFWLQJRXWWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVSDLGIRU with federal funds will lower the number of transit workers, they often seek to keep transit service delivery LQKRXVHZKLFKSRWHQWLDOO\PDNHVFRQWUDFWLQJIRUVHUYLFHVGLႈFXOW In-House Operations Advantage Disadvantage Avoid waisted contract administration time Regulations for funding expenditures through Federal funding programs Service quality /LPLWHGDYDLODELOLW\WRH[SDQGVHUYLFHVVWDႇ Control of operations High maintenance costs Low employee turnover /LPLWHGVWDႇWUDLQLQJIRUVSHFLDOW\VHUYLFHV Vehicles well-maintained 3ROLWLFDOLQÀXHQFHV Potential for lower fuel expenses Table 11.1: In-House Operations Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 126 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 89 As shown in Table 11.2, common advantages of contracting may include the avoidance of administrative costs for a public agency, which results in less full-time public employees. The provider typically absorbs the administrative costs into the contract bid. Another advantage of contracting service allows the transit agency to not have extensive public transit operational experience. The agency relies on the contractor IRUWKLVH[SHUWLVH$GGLWLRQDOO\FRQWUDFWLQJPD\KDYHSRVLWLYHSROLWLFDOUDPL¿FDWLRQVGXHWRFRRUGLQDWLRQ between public and private sector industries. The service quality under a contractor may be an advantage WRWKHWUDQVLWDJHQF\ZKHQWKHFRQWUDFWRULVDEOHWRKDYHLQFHQWLYHVLQWKHFRQWUDFWWRSURYLGHHႈFLHQW VHUYLFHDQGJRRGFXVWRPHUVHUYLFHWKURXJKLGHQWL¿HGSHUIRUPDQFHPHDVXUHV 'LVDGYDQWDJHVDUHDOVRGLVFXVVHGLQTable 11.2, in which some advantages may also be a disadvantage DWVRPHSXEOLFWUDQVLWDJHQFLHV)RUH[DPSOHSROLWLFDOUDPL¿FDWLRQVDVPHQWLRQHGLQWKHWDEOHDUHDQ advantage at some public transit agencies. However, at other transit agencies with active unions and LQÀXHQFHLQWKHFRPPXQLW\WKHUHPD\EHQHJDWLYHSROLWLFDOUDPL¿FDWLRQVIRUXVLQJRXWVLGHFRQWUDFWRUVIRU service. By hiring a contractor, some transit agencies may have pressure to keep the transit resources (funding) within the public transit agency and not hire outside workers. It is common across the country with private contractors that operator salaries are lower under a FRQWUDFWRUOLNHO\GXHWROHVVEHQH¿WVWKDQDSXEOLFDJHQF\7KHORZHUZDJHZLWKWKHFRQWUDFWRULVW\SLFDOO\ IURPQRWKDYLQJJRYHUQPHQWDOSHQVLRQVDQGEHQH¿WVDQGDORZHUKRXUO\ZDJHWRHPSOR\HHV+RZHYHU as mentioned earlier, this factor is also an advantage due to the overall cost saving in providing transit service. In addition, some contractors provide a low bid for services, and misjudge the true costs or have DVNHOHWRQVWDႇWRRSHUDWHVHUYLFHV7KLVPLVMXGJHPHQWRIFRVWVKDVDQLQGLUHFWHႇHFWRQWUDQVLWVHUYLFHV typically seen in the quality of service provided. Another disadvantage concerns the high administrative FRVWVRU¿[HGIHHVLQFOXGHGLQFRQWUDFWRU¶VELG7KHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHFRVWVVKRXOGEHDWDQDSSURSULDWHOHYHO IRUWKHVHUYLFHVSURYLGHGQRWRYHUVWDႇHG Contract Services Advantage Disadvantage Take advantage of open competitive market 3RVVLEOHLQWHUUXSWLRQGLVWUDFWLRQZLWKFKDQJHRIFRQWUDFWV &RVWVDYLQJVHႈFLHQF\Loss of direct control over services Risk of service provision 3ROLWLFDOUDPL¿FDWLRQV )OH[LEOHIXOOWLPHSDUWWLPHGULYHUSRVLWLRQV 'LYHUWLQJUHVRXUFHVRXWVLGHWKHDJHQF\ 3LORWRUQHZVHUYLFHÀH[LELOLW\Misjudgment of true costs Avoid administrative costs +LJKRYHUKHDGDGPLQFRVWV /LPLWHGWUDQVLWDJHQF\VWDႇH[SHULHQFH High employee turnover 3ROLWLFDOUDPL¿FDWLRQV Availability of providers 5HODWLRQVKLSVZVXSSOLHUVIRUUHGXFHGFRVWV Oversight required from entity Service quality Safety performance Operating costs lower (ႈFLHQWPDLQWHQDQFHPDQDJHPHQW Expertise Table 11.2: Contract Services Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 127 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 90 Recent research from the previous studies states the percentage of transit agencies in the United States using private contractors for service: • 10 percent – regular transit bus service • 65 percent – demand responses paratransit service • 25 percent – school bus service. 7UDQVLWDJHQFLHVHQWHULQWRVHUYLFHFRQWUDFWVZLWKSULYDWHIRUSUR¿WDQGQRQSUR¿WRUJDQL]DWLRQVUDQJLQJ from local taxi companies to national transportation companies, for the provision of transit services. The contracts are awarded to the organization who best meets selection criteria through the competitive bid SURFHVV&RQWUDFWVDUHDZDUGHGIRUDGHVLJQDWHGWLPHSHULRGRIXSWR¿YH\HDUVLQFOXGLQJUHQHZDORSWLRQV 0DQGDWRU\OHYHOVRIDFFLGHQWDQGOLDELOLW\LQVXUDQFHDUHVSHFL¿HG9HKLFOHVPD\EHSULYDWHO\RZQHG operated, and maintained, or provided by the transit agency. Contracts delineate performance standards, quality indicators, and general conditions. 0RVWFRQWUDFWVLQFOXGH¿QDQFLDOSHQDOWLHVIRUXQVDWLVIDFWRU\VHUYLFHDQGVRPHLQFOXGH¿QDQFLDOLQFHQWLYHV IRUVXSHULRUVHUYLFHGHOLYHU\6RPHWLPHVFRQWUDFWVLQFOXGHVSHFLDO³VWDUWXS´SURYLVLRQVWRDOORZQHZ contractors to make the transition to acceptable performance levels. Mandatory reporting and other compliance requirements, as well as monitoring strategies, are detailed. Considered to be more economical than publicly run transit services, studies suggest an average savings of 30 percent cost savings with privately provided transit services¹. The lower unit service cost is usually DWWULEXWHGWRWKHORZHUODERUFRVWVRIWKHSULYDWHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQLQGXVWU\DQGFRVWEHQH¿WVDFFUXHIURP economies of scale. Experienced private providers are often credited with having the capability to start up services quickly, as well as the resources to expand system capacity on relatively short notice. National transportation companies can draw additional vehicles from other localities, and private companies usually KDYHWKHÀH[LELOLW\WREX\RUOHDVHDGGLWLRQDOYHKLFOHVLQOHVVWLPHWKDQSXEOLFRSHUDWRUV 11.4 Contracting Models Transit agencies vary in what they choose to contract for services, depending upon circumstances and needs. Some agencies contract all transit bus service, others do the opposite with some services contracted out, with the remaining services handled by the transit agency. The focus of the following discussion are common contracting types most applicable to Grand Island. 1. Traditional Transit Management Model The Traditional Transit Management Model has the contractor senior management typically managing the public transit budget and all aspects of the agency’s performance. They also typically report to the public VHFWRUERDUGRUORFDORYHUVHHLQJJRYHUQPHQWDODJHQF\7KH¿QDQFLDOULVNRIWKHRSHUDWLRQUHVLGHVZLWKWKH public transit agency. 2. Operating Service Model The Operating Service Contract Model is another common type of contracting used today. In this model, the transit agency contracts with the private sector to operate and manage its service operations, while PDLQWDLQLQJWKHWUDQVLWDJHQF\ÀHHW7KHWUDQVLWDJHQF\FRQWLQXHVWRPDQDJHWKHRWKHUNH\IXQFWLRQVRIWKH service. ïKWWSFLWHVHHU[LVWSVXHGXYLHZGRFGRZQORDG"GRL UHS UHS W\SH SGI Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 128 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 91 The contractor is typically responsible to manage all aspects of service delivery, which includes hiring, managing, training, performing all vehicle and facilities maintenance, managing vehicle parts inventory, etc. The transit agency generally maintains control of service design, scheduling, passenger information, ZHEVLWHVVRFLDOPHGLDWLFNHWLQJSURFXUHPHQWJUDQWVDGPLQLVWUDWLRQ¿QDQFH,7OHJDOHWF The contractor maintains all vehicles, facilities, and other assets, with contractual commitment of SHUIRUPDQFHGH¿QHGULVNVDVVXPHGE\WKHFRQWUDFWRUDQGDJXDUDQWHHGFRVWVWUXFWXUH7KHFRQWUDFWRU also assumes operating risk and cost associated with accidents, which is included in the bid for services. 3. Turn-key Operating Service Contract Model The Turn-key Operating Service Contract Model is a partnership with a contractor and the public transit agency, who delegates the management and operation of an entire transit system to the contractor, who is held contractually accountable for all aspects and functions of the transit agency. These functions include overseeing and executing operations, vehicle maintenance, procurement, marketing, passenger LQIRUPDWLRQDQGFRPPXQLFDWLRQSODQQLQJVFKHGXOLQJWLFNHWLQJ¿QDQFHJUDQWVPDQDJHPHQWWHFKQRORJ\ human resources, and all other normal agency functions. The public transit agency is responsible for setting transit policies, including budgets, fare structure, policy decisions, short-range and long-range planning objectives, service standards, and grant purchases. The public transit agency oversees contract compliance with agreed-upon performance metrics, which are typically reported monthly to appropriate oversight Boards. The contractor is responsible for implementing DJHQF\SROLFLHVLQDQHႈFLHQWDQGHႇHFWLYHPDQQHU7KH\DUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRURXWFRPHVDQGKDYHWKH authority to use the best methods to achieve the outcomes. The risk is on the contractor, with penalties for service failures and incentives for goals met. 4. Purchase of Service Contract Model The Purchase of Service Contract Model is a partnership with the public transit agency and the private SURYLGHUZKRVSHFL¿FDOO\RQO\SURYLGHVVHUYLFHGLUHFWRSHUDWLRQVPDQDJHPHQWDQGPD\RUPD\QRW provide maintenance of the vehicles, depending upon the needs of the agency. This service model typically KDVSD\PHQWSHUWULSZKLFKLVGLႇHUHQWIURPWKHRWKHUPRGHOVGHVFULEHGDERYH7KHSXEOLFWUDQVLWDJHQF\ is responsible for service design, scheduling, passenger information, websites, social media, ticketing, SURFXUHPHQWJUDQWVDGPLQLVWUDWLRQ¿QDQFH,7OHJDOHWF A summary of the four contract models most applicable for Grand Island, shown in Table 11.3, lists GLႇHUHQWIXQFWLRQVRIWKHWUDQVLWV\VWHPDQGKRZWKH\DUHDႇHFWHGGHSHQGLQJXSRQWKHGHVLUHGPRGHO The contracting model discussion provides an overview of many types of transit agency organizational PDQDJHPHQW7KHUHLVQRµ2QH6L]H)LWV$OO¶DSSURDFKIRUHDFKWUDQVLWV\VWHPGXHWRWKHGLႇHUHQW dynamics, political environment, and history that forms the foundation in each community. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 129 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 92 Contract Variations in Job Functions Areas of Responsibility 1. Traditional Management Contract 2. Operating Service Contract 3. Turn-key Op- erating Service Contract 4. Purchase of Service Method of Payment Fixed Fee, plus costs Hourly Rate Hourly Rate Per Trip $3ULYDWH¿UPSURYLGHV 2SHUDWLRQV'HSDUWPHQW <HV <HV <HV <HV %3ULYDWH¿UPSURYLGHV 0DLQWHQDQFH'HSDUWPHQW <HV <HV1R <HV <HV &3ULYDWH¿UPKDQGOHV all Human Resources issues <HV <HV <HV <HV '7UDQVLWDJHQF\ provides facilities and equipment <HV <HV No No E. Transit agency provides all vehicles <HV <HV No No )3ULYDWH¿UPSURYLGHV administration depart- ment – Grants <HV1R <HV1R <HV1R No *3ULYDWH¿UPKDQGOHV procurement, prepares VSHFL¿FDWLRQVDQGELGV <HV1R <HV1R <HV1R No +3ULYDWH¿UPKDQGOHV planning & scheduling <HV <HV1R <HV <HV1R ,3ULYDWH¿UPKDQGOHV marketing <HV <HV1R <HV No -3ULYDWH¿UPKDQGOHV Board relations <HV <HV1R <HV1R No 1KWWSVZZZWUDQVLWGRWJRYVLWHVIWDGRWJRY¿OHVGRFV),1$/B)7$BFLUFXODU(SGI Table 11.3: Contract Variations in Job Functions Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 130 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 93 11.4.1 Local Contracting Model Estimates Using the existing contract with SCI, local estimates for the City of Grand Island for contracting transit services are shown in Table 11.4IRUWKHGLႇHUHQW contracting models. The table shows assumptions for one year of service, assuming the parameters stay the same. The estimates would need to be updated if additional revenue service KRXUVDUHLGHQWL¿HG 11.4.1.1 Traditional Management Contract Information in Table 11.4 describes the scenario if the City moved to a Traditional Management Contract, assuming service parameters are the same as today’s operation. It is assumed the annual cost for operations would increase due to GHVLJQDWHGPDQDJHPHQWVWDႇWR oversee the services of the contract. The proposed management structure is a Transit Manager, Assistant Manager, and an Administrative Assistant. These costs are included in the Additional Costs line item. 11.4.1.2 Operating Service Contract Table 11.4 also shows the estimated costs if the City moved to an Operating Service Contract. This contract method KDVWKHVDPH&LW\VWDႈQJUHTXLUHPHQWV as is used today. However, the private contractor would provide dispatch and scheduling functions and direct management of the operations. Table 11.4: Traditional and Operating Service Cost Comparison Today 1. Traditional 2. Operating Service Fixed Fee, plus costs Hourly Rate Existing Contract $638,000 Ridership 35,085 35,085 35,085 Annual Rev Hrs 14,705 14,705 14,705 Annual Rev Miles 170,497 170,497 170,497 Actual Budget $490,000 $588,200 $558,790 Cost per Rev Hr $33.32 $40.00 $38.00 Pass per Rev Hr 2.4 2.4 2.4 Operating Cost per Trip $16.62 $22.55 $21.71 Vehicle Fleet 12 12 12 Additional Contractor Costs $110,000 $110,000 City Cost $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 Contractor Cost $490,000 $698,200 $668,790 Total Transit Costs $583,000 $791,200 $761,790 City Position(s) 1.City Transit Program Manager 1.City Transit Program Manager 1. City Transit Program Manager Non-City or Contract-Related Position(s) 1. Non-City Transit Manger; 2. Non-City Asst. Mgr.; 3. Non-City Admin. Asst. 1. Non-City Transit Manger; 2. Non-City Asst. Mgr.; 3. Non-City Admin. Asst. Facility Lease (10-12k sq.ft.) Vehicle Expenses Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 131 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 94 11.4.1.3 Turn-key Service Contract The Turn-key Operating Service Contract Model, shown in Table 11.5, has the highest cost associated for transit program. However, it is the model with the least involvement from the City’s perspective. This model would assume the private contractor would bring 12 service vehicles into service for the City, in which the depreciation of the vehicles and the maintenance of the vehicles during the time of service would be included in the cost of the contract. The Turn-key Model assumes a Contract Transit Manager, Assistant Manager, Administrative Assistant, and Grant Administrator for the service. In addition, a facility would be leased for the contractor to operate services and house the transit vehicles. 11.4.1.4 Purchase of Service Table 11.5 includes information for the Purchase of Service Model. This model type, as the name suggests, is the City purchasing transit services for the transit system. This model assumes the City will have the same administration today with one Transit Program Manager. The private contractor will manage operations, drivers, hiring, scheduling, and dispatching. Table 11.5: Turn-key and Purchase of Service Cost Comparison Today 3. Turn-key 4. Purchase of Service Hourly Rate Per Trip Existing Contract $638,000 Ridership 35,085 35,085 35,085 Annual Rev Hrs 14,705 14,705 14,705 Annual Rev Miles 170,497 170,497 170,497 Actual Budget $490,000 $588,200 $632,315 Cost per Rev Hr $33.32 $40.00 $43.00 Pass per Rev Hr 2.4 2.4 2.4 Operating Cost per Trip $16.62 $29.53 $20.67 Vehicle Fleet 12 12 12 Additional Contractor Costs $355,000 $0 City Cost $93,000 $93,000 $93,000 Contractor Cost $490,000 $943,200 $632,215 Total Transit Costs $583,000 $1,036,200 $725,315 City Position(s) 1. City Transit Program Manager 1. City Transit Program Manager 1. City Transit Program Manager Non-City or Contract-Related Position(s) 1. Non-City Transit Manger; 2. Non-City Asst. Mgr.; 3. Non-City Admin. Asst.; 4. Non-City Grants Facility Lease (10-12k sq.ft.) $25,000 Vehicle Expenses $120,000 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 132 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 95 11.4.1.5 In-House Service Model Table 11.6 includes information comparing services today and what it may be if the transit agency changes models to an In-house Service Model. The In-house Model gives the Transit Manager full control over all aspects of the transit operations, including: • Scheduling and personnel – the scheduling and personnel responsibilities would be positions created in-house with daily functions for the transit operations. • Managing bus drivers – The City would have direct control over bus operators and in establishing policies for the drivers. Any operational issues related to drivers FRXOGEHKDQGOHGGLUHFWO\ZLWKVWDႇ The operating budget includes an Operations Manager for the day-to- day functions of service. In addition, scheduling and dispatching is included in the operations budget, shown in line 5 of Table 11.6, under ‘Actual Budget.’ • Training standards±&LW\VWDႇ would have the responsibility and RSSRUWXQLW\WRWUDLQGULYHUVDQGVWDႇ Strong training programs often have less risk associated with In-house Service Models. The City also has the opportunity to re-train, evaluate, and have on-going training with the In-house model. • Customer Service – The City would have direct control over customer service calls, questions, complaints, FRPPHQGDWLRQVHWF6WDႇFDQEH contacted directly for information DERXWDVLWXDWLRQDQGRUVROXWLRQ Table 11.6: In-House Service Part-time and Full-time Cost Comparison Today 5. In-House 6. In-House Admin/Ops/ Full-time & Part-time Drivers Admin/Ops/ Part-time Drivers Existing Contract $638,000 Ridership 35,085 35,085 35,085 Annual Rev Hrs 14,705 14,705 14,705 Annual Rev Miles 170,497 170,497 170,497 Actual Budget $490,000 $661,725 $588,200 Cost per Rev Hr $33.32 $45.00 $40.00 Pass per Rev Hr 2.4 2.4 2.4 Operating Cost per Trip $16.62 $24.36 $22.27 Vehicle Fleet 12 12 12 Additional Contractor Costs $0 $0 City Cost $93,000 $193,000 $193,000 Contractor Cost $490,000 $0 $0 Total Transit Costs $583,000 $854,725 $781,200 Non-City or Contract-Related Position(s) 1. City Transit Program Manager In-house wages higher due to competitive pay in other urban areas; 1. City Transit 'LUHFWRU 2. City Grants Admin; &LW\3ODQQHU Marketing In-house wages higher due to competitive pay in other urban areas; 1. City Transit 'LUHFWRU 2. City Grants Admin; &LW\3ODQQHU Marketing Non-City Position(s) Facility Lease (10-12k sq.ft.) $25,000 $25,000 Vehicle Expenses Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 133 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 96 7KH,QKRXVH0RGHODVVXPHVWKH&LW\ZRXOGKDYHD&LW\7UDQVLW'LUHFWRUDVZHOODVGULYHUGLVSDWFK scheduling, and administrative positions to operate the day-to-day services. Table 11.6 presents two options for the In-house Model: 2SWLRQDVVXPHVWKHPDMRULW\RIGULYHUVZRXOGEHIXOOWLPHVWDႇZLWKVRPHSDUWWLPHGULYHUV 2. Option 2 assumes part-time drivers for service operations. 11.4.2 Contracting Model Summary 7KHFRQWUDFWLQJPRGHOVGHVFULEHGLQWKLVFKDSWHUUHÀHFWQXPHURXVPHWKRGVRIKRZWRSURYLGHWUDQVLW services. There is not a wrong contracting model. Each community must choose a model that works best for their environment and political culture, keeping in mind, whichever model is chosen will have the best management and use of taxpayer dollars. The previously described contracting models are based on services within the metropolitan planning organization urbanized boundary. SCI, the current provider, currently provides the urban services for the City with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5307 funds, and the rural services, funded by Hall County and FTA 5311 funds. The FTA strongly encourages continued coordination among all transit agencies, as ORQJDVWKHVSHFL¿FVHUYLFHSDUDPHWHUVIRUXUEDQDQGUXUDOVHUYLFHVDUHGH¿QHGPRQLWRUHGDQGUHSRUWHG VHSDUDWHO\WRPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHGLႇHUHQWIHGHUDOIXQGLQJVRXUFHV7KLVLVWUXHIRUWKHUHYHQXH sources, as well as expenditure items. In the past, SCI did not have to monitor and track urban trip data verses rural trip data. However, after July 1, 2016, the City is mandated by the FTA to report the urban 21/<VHUYLFHGDWDH[SHQVHVUHYHQXHVDQGXUEDQV\VWHPFKDUDFWHULVWLFV6&,KDVDGMXVWHGRYHUWKHSDVW \HDUE\EUHDNLQJRXWWKHVSHFL¿FXUEDQGDWDWRFRPSO\ZLWKWKHUHJXODWLRQVZLWKJXLGDQFHIURPWKH&LW\ Based upon the detailed cost estimates from the previous section and the longevity of successful contracting for transit services in the Grand Island area, it is recommended the City continue to use FRQWUDFWLQJLQWKHVKRUWWHUP6KRXOGWKHVHUYLFHSDUDPHWHUVDQGRUW\SHRIVHUYLFHFKDQJHWRDÀH[LEOHRU ¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFHWKH&LW\VKRXOGUHYLVLWWKH,QKRXVH&RQWUDFWLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRGHWHUPLQHLIDGLႇHUHQW method of contracting may be more appropriate for management, operations, and oversight. In addition, DVWUDQVLWGHPDQGLQFUHDVHVWKH&LW\VKRXOGUHVHDUFKWKHQXPEHURIDGPLQLVWUDWLYHVWDႇIRURYHUVLJKWRI VHUYLFHVDQGGHWHUPLQHDSSURSULDWHOHYHOLQJRIVWDႈQJ In many rural and small urban areas, such as the Grand Island region, limited resources are often one challenge in providing more transportation choices for residents. An increasing number of residents in the region commute to urban-area jobs from rural or suburban communities, which by nature forces transit agencies, such as the City, to look beyond the urbanized boundary and look at the best method for SURYLGLQJHႈFLHQWSXEOLFWUDQVSRUWDWLRQDQGPD[LPL]LQJIHGHUDODQGVWDWHUHVRXUFHV.QRZLQJWKHFRQWLQXHG JURZWKSURMHFWLRQVIRU+DOO&RXQW\DQGWKH&LW\LWZLOOEHQH¿WWKH&LW\WRFRQWLQXHZRUNLQJWRZDUGVWKH goal of coordination with Hall County. As the City moves into the next contracting cycle, the City's Transit 3URJUDP0DQDJHUDQG+DOO&RXQW\RႈFLDOVVKRXOGEHJLQFRQYHUVDWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKHVSHFL¿FVHUYLFHVDQG requirements for the urban and for the rural areas. There is an opportunity with the next contracting cycle WRLQFOXGHVSHFL¿FSDUDPHWHUVH[SHFWHGIURPWKH&LW\IRUXUEDQVHUYLFHV,QDGGLWLRQWKHWUDQVLWFRQWUDFWRU ZLOODOVRQHHGWRSURYLGHPRQWKO\UXUDOVWDWLVWLFVWR1HEUDVND'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQIRUWKH&RXQW\ The following governance discussion provides mechanisms for increasing coordination in the future, with the ultimate goal of equitable funding among local agencies to fund the public transit services. . Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 134 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 97 11.5 Future Governance Structure Chapter 10 introduced several transit options for the City of Grand Island and Hall County. Some of the services are solely within the City of Grand Island; however, several of the transit options are multi- jurisdictional and do not stop at the city limits. As transit services expand over the next decade, the City of Grand Island should begin to discuss a formal governance structure, which incorporates representatives from each of the governmental entities in the region. This future structure is considered for several reasons: • To establish fair and acceptable cost-sharing arrangements among all entities • 7RHVWDEOLVKVHUYLFHOHYHOVDQGDSSURYHEXGJHWVWKDWDUH¿QDQFLDOO\IHDVLEOHIRUDOOSDUWLHV • To fund the service through administration of a dedicated funding source • To plan for and approve large capital expenditures and disposal of assets • To ensure that any service changes contemplated in the future are in the best interests of the region and are fair and acceptable to each entity involved • To establish a long-term commitment for the provision of transit service among all entities, and to establish a framework for the withdrawal of any party that is fair to the rest • 7RFRRUGLQDWHHႇRUWVEHWZHHQYDULRXVW\SHVRIWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVEHLQJRႇHUHGRUFRQVLGHUHGHJ H[SUHVVURXWHVÀH[LEOHURXWHVDQGDOORFDWHEXGJHWVDFFRUGLQJO\ 11.5.1 Governance Today The primary public transportation provider in Grand Island is Hall County Public Transportation, currently XQGHUWKHDXVSLFHVRIWKH&LW\RI*UDQG,VODQG3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQW7KH'HSDUWPHQWKDVEHHQ responsible for the administration and operation of transit service within the urbanized area, since July 1, 2016. The City of Grand Island has an existing contract with Senior Citizens Industries, Inc. for an initial 12-month term, with options for a maximum of two years renewal. This contract is funded by FTA 5307 (Urban) and 5311(Rural) funds and local matching funding sources from the City of Grand Island and Hall County. 11.5.2 Governance in the Future The most impactful change in the management and governance of transit service operations in the Grand Island region, including Hall County and Merrick County, would come from the formation of a multiple entity Regional Authority with direct taxation powers. The creation of the multiple entity Regional Authority would change the existing governance structure, which currently is with the City of Grand Island. Through a new multi-jurisdictional Regional Authority, the current employees would likely become employees of the new organization. Creation of a new Authority presents an opportunity for a sizable expansion of the service area for transit services in the region, if adjacent entities in the urbanized area join WKH$XWKRULW\DQGVXSSRUWWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVWKURXJKDFRPPXQLW\WD[DWLRQ$¿QDQFLDOFDSDFLW\DVVHVVPHQW would need to be conducted to establish the level of transit service that could be supported given the revenue generated by a levy from all participating communities in the Authority boundary. One viable solution for the long-term is to establish a multi-jurisdictional Regional Authority for Grand ,VODQGDQG+DOO&RXQW\)RUWKHWRSLFRIJRYHUQDQFHVWUXFWXUHLWZRXOGEHQH¿WWKH&LW\RI*UDQG,VODQGWR coordinate with Hall County and the surrounding counties to ensure a Regional Authority is truly regional in Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 135 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 98 nature to accommodate all transit needs and services in the region. The formation of an Authority allows the regional governance of planning, funding, and operations all under RQHHQWLW\PDNLQJLWPRUHHႈFLHQWWRSURYLGHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHEH\RQGWKHFLW\OLPLWVRI*UDQG,VODQG,QWKH VKRUWWHUPDVSHFL¿FVWXG\IRFXVLQJRQWKHJRYHUQDQFHRIWKHUHJLRQDQGDQLPSOHPHQWDWLRQVWUDWHJ\WR get it passed should be completed. The existing state law does not permit the City of Grand Island, nor Hall County to form an authority at this WLPH,QWKH1HEUDVND6WDWH/HJLVODWXUHSDVVHG/HJLVODWLYH%LOO³HQDEOLQJ´WKHFUHDWLRQRIWKH Transit Authority, City of Omaha, a governmental subdivision of the State of Nebraska, pursuant to statute 14-1803, and the only such transit authority in the state. No other Authority is allowed outside the City of Omaha without the change of this legislative bill. The 2PDKD$XWKRULW\FRQVLVWVRID¿YHPHPEHU%RDUGDSSRLQWHGE\WKHPD\RU8QGHUWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKH enabling status, the Authority shall have and retain full and exclusive jurisdiction and control over all public passenger transportation systems in the City of Omaha, excluding taxicabs and railroad systems. Funds REWDLQHGIURP2PDKD¶VWD[OHY\FDQQRWEHXVHGWRRႇVHWWUDQVLWVHUYLFHRSHUDWLQJH[SHQVHVLQFXUUHG outside of Omaha city limits. Today, transit service outside of the Omaha city limits is provided by contractual agreement between Metro and the respective political jurisdictions and agencies, wherein they agree to reimburse Metro for all operating expenses not recovered through farebox receipts, and federal and state subsidies. The level of service, miles, and hours of operation, are dictated by individual contracts. A few changes have been made over the years to the legislative bill, such as the name from Metro Area Transit (MAT) to Metro; however, the statutory structure for mass transit authorities in Nebraska remain PRVWO\WKHVDPH,QWKHIROORZLQJFKDQJHVGLVFXVVLRQVZHUHSURSRVHGWRWKH/HJLVODWXUHDGGUHVVLQJ challenges to the existing Bill. • The current legislation allows only a city of ‘metropolitan class’ to become an Authority. One example is that Omaha is a metropolitan class; however, Lincoln is designated a ‘primary class’ and not eligible under the existing language. Neither is Grand Island, the third largest community in the state. • 7KH1HEUDVND%XGJHW$FWKDVVSHFL¿FUHVWULFWLRQV1HZODQJXDJHZRXOGEHQHHGHGWRHQVXUH inclusion of any new such entity created, including the distribution, collection, and responsibility of any tax receipts. • Other changes would be taken at the federal and state level to facilitate the transfer of transit assets from a municipality to facilitate a regional transit authority, such as through intergovernmental agreements. • ,QWKH7UDQVLW$XWKRULW\/DZZDVVLJQL¿FDQWO\DPHQGHGE\/%ZKLFKPRGL¿HGWKH7UDQVLW Authority Law by permitting extension of its jurisdictional boundaries in order to allow establishment of a regional transit authority in other municipalities, villages, or counties if they wish to join. However, the statutory revisions enacted under LB720 do not truly enable the establishment of any true regional authority. The Nebraska Transit Authority Law was amended in 2003 and now authorizes the creation of a regional WUDQVLWDXWKRULW\FRYHULQJWKHIROORZLQJ&LW\RI2PDKD'RXJODV:DVKLQJWRQ'RGJHDQG6DUS\&RXQWLHV and Pottawattamie County in Iowa. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 136 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 99 7RGD\IXQGLQJLVDYDLODEOHWKURXJKERQGVIHGHUDOIXQGVIHHVIRUXVHIDUHVVDOHVWD[HVDQGRUSURSHUW\ taxes from participating jurisdictions. The Authority can also access sales tax funds through interlocal agreements with participating municipalities. The Local Option Revenue Act allows municipalities to impose a sales tax, which must be approved by the voters. Voter approved tax rates over 1.5 percent must also be approved by 70 percent of the City Council. 7KHDPHQGPHQWIRUPXOWLMXULVGLFWLRQDO$XWKRULWLHVZDVD¿UVWVWHSIRUFRRUGLQDWLRQRIUHJLRQDO services. However, other future potential changes to the legislation include: • 'LUHFWWD[LQJDXWKRULW\6WDWHOHJLVODWLRQUHFRJQL]LQJWKH5HJLRQDO7UDQVLW$XWKRULW\DVDVHSDUDWH political subdivision, could provide the authority with its own dedicated tax levy authority and its own tax cap to be determined. • $³PXOWLPRGDO´HQWLW\FRXOGEHFUHDWHGWRWDNHUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUURDGEULGJHWUDLODQGSXEOLFWUDQVLW LPSURYHPHQWVZLWKWKHDXWKRULW\WRUDLVHUHYHQXHWKURXJKDGHGLFDWHGVDOHVWD[DQGRUSURSHUW\WD[ 11.5.3 Governance Summary The most impactful change in the management and governance of transit service operations in the Grand Island region would come from the formation of a multiple entity Regional Authority with direct taxation powers. The creation of the multiple entity Regional Authority would change the existing governance VWUXFWXUHZKLFKFXUUHQWO\LVDGLYLVLRQXQGHUWKH3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQW Through a new multi-jurisdictional Regional Authority, the current employees would likely become employees of the new organization. Creation of a new Authority presents an opportunity for a sizable expansion of the service area for transit services in the region, if adjacent entities in the region join the $XWKRULW\DQGVXSSRUWWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVWKURXJKDFRPPXQLW\WD[DWLRQ$¿QDQFLDOFDSDFLW\DVVHVVPHQWZRXOG need to be conducted to establish the level of transit service that could be supported given the revenue generated by a levy from all participating communities in the Authority boundary. A multi-jurisdictional Regional Authority for the Grand Island region would need strong partnership. It would EHQH¿WWKH&LW\RI*UDQG,VODQGWRFRQWLQXHFRRUGLQDWLRQZLWK+DOO&RXQW\DQGWKHVXUURXQGLQJFRXQWLHV and cities to ensure a Regional Authority is truly regional in nature to accommodate all transit needs and services of region. The formation of this Authority allows the regional governance of planning, funding, and RSHUDWLRQVDOOXQGHURQHHQWLW\PDNLQJLWPRUHHႈFLHQWWRSURYLGHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHEH\RQGWKHFLW\OLPLWVRI Grand Island. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 137 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 138 / 176 101 CHAPTER 12 12.1 Introduction &KDSWHUSUHVHQWVWKH)LVFDOO\&RQVWUDLQHG3ODQIRUWKHFRQWUDFWHGVHUYLFHSURYLGHUIRUWKHQH[W¿YH years. This plan is based upon technical data analysis, the public engagement process for this study, DQGWKHUHDOLVWLF¿QDQFLDOSURMHFWLRQVIRUWKH&LW\IRUWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV7KH)LVFDOO\&RQVWUDLQHG3ODQ LGHQWL¿HVUHDOLVWLFH[SHQVHVDQGUHÀHFWVUHYHQXHVIRUWUDQVLWSURMHFWVDQGVHUYLFHV7KHVHLWHPVDUH LGHQWL¿HGDQGDUHUHDVRQDEO\H[SHFWHGWREHDYDLODEOHWRLPSOHPHQWFRQWLQXHWKHSURMHFWVRUVHUYLFHV RYHUWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV 'DWD$QDO\VLV6XPPDU\ The data analysis and technical evaluation suggests there is continued transit potential in the study area. 6XႈFLHQWWUDQVLWGHPDQGLVSUHVHQWLQWKHKLJKHVWWUDQVLWQHHGDUHDVRI*UDQG,VODQG+RZHYHULQVRPH areas of the region at this time, demand is not high enough to warrant a high level of transit service. Less FRVWO\DQGPRUHÀH[LEOHWUDQVLWRSWLRQVLQWKHIXWXUHDUHDPRUHYLDEOHDQGUHDOLVWLFRSWLRQ2YHUWLPHDV Hall County continues to grow, the communities will need to consider how to enhance existing public WUDQVSRUWDWLRQVHUYLFHVDSSURSULDWHO\VRWKH\PHHWGHPDQGFDQRSHUDWHUHOLDEO\DQGHႇHFWLYHO\DQGFDQ make transit service an attractive option for residents and employees, whether they are traveling to work, medical appointments, or the supermarket. The challenge of implementing new or expanded transportation services and programs in the near-term stems from constrained funding, limited service times of existing services, and the limited experience with transit as a viable mode of transportation versus the single occupant vehicle. Communities with higher levels of existing public transportation often choose to continue enhanced transit services as a priority, as they consider options for future successful services. 12.3 Public Engagement Summary Throughout the transit study planning time frame, many opportunities were available for public input regarding future transit services in the region, including stakeholder meetings, public open houses, online community survey, transit rider survey, website information, social media outreach, and the local project team meetings. Public sentiment, supported by technical analysis, formed the basis of the Fiscally Constrained Plan and the Illustrative Plan. Overall feedback from the public engagement process included support for increased transit services. FISCALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN 3XEOLF(QJDJHPHQW5RXQG Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 139 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 102 )HHGEDFNIURP5RXQG2QHDQG5RXQG7ZRSXEOLFHQJDJHPHQWLQFOXGHGLQFUHDVLQJPDUNHWLQJHႇRUWV changing the age restriction, increasing hours of operation, partnering with local businesses, decreased call-ahead time for a reservation and scheduled service. The Fixed Route Service option, primarily due to the increased cost of operations, was the least supported mode for future service. The Flexible Route Service had the highest support from overall SXEOLFIHHGEDFNZLWKWKH6DPH'D\'HPDQG5HVSRQVHVFRULQJVHFRQGKLJKHVW'XULQJWKH)RFXV*URXS meetings in September of 2017, all the potential plans such as the Fiscally Constrained Plan, Illustrative Plan, and Implementation Plan were shared with participants. 12.4 Budget Review Summary 7KH¿QDOVWHSSULRUWRSUHSDULQJWKH)LVFDOO\&RQVWUDLQHG3ODQLQFOXGHGGLVFXVVLRQVZLWKFLW\VWDႇIURPWKH )LQDQFH'HSDUWPHQWDQG3XEOLF:RUNV'HSDUWPHQW7KH)LQDQFH'HSDUWPHQWUHYLHZHGWKHIXWXUHWUDQVLW alternatives, with particular interest on the increase in local match needed for the increase in services. 'XHWRWKHOLPLWHGUHVRXUFHVRIWKH&LW\¶VJHQHUDOIXQGWKHUHLVYHU\OLWWOHÀH[LELOLW\ZLWKWKHEXGJHWIRUWKH &LW\ZKLFKLVUHÀHFWHGLQWKH)LVFDOO\&RQVWUDLQHG3ODQ 12.5 Fiscally Constrained Plan Elements 12.5.1 Transit Service 7KLVVHFWLRQGHVFULEHVWKH¿VFDOO\FRQVWUDLQHGIXQGDPHQWDO GHWDLOVRIWKHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHIRUWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV 6WDWXV4XR'HPDQG5HVSRQVH The contracted service provider will continue to operate 6WDWXV4XRGHPDQGUHVSRQVHVHUYLFHIRUWKHQH[W¿YH years. As discussed in the previous section, the limited resources of the City’s general fund weigh heavily into WKHGHFLVLRQIRUWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV$VDGGLWLRQDOIXQGLQJ becomes available, the City will begin the process to implement the Flexible Route Service Option, which is UHÀHFWHGLQWKH,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQ Figure 12.1 Fiscally Constrained Plan &®Ý½½ùÊÄÝãÙ®ÄW½Ä Status Quo – Demand Response Service xDemand Response xϮϰͲŚŽƵƌZĞƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ xCurb-to-curb service xMonday – Friday x6:00 am – 5:00 pm x7 to 8 peak vehicles x$490,000 x$2.00 base fare x12 vehicles NEW – Transit Service xVanpool Service xRideshare Program NEW Changes xBranding for the transit service; new look, new image, new name. x/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŵĂƌŬĞƟŶŐĨƌŽŵ ĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŝƚǇƐƚĂīŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ͘ xIncreased oversight of transit contract ǁŝƚŚĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŝƚǇƐƚĂīŽǀĞƌƐŝŐŚƚ͘ xPlanning for Intercity Bus Service to/ ĨƌŽŵ<ĞĂƌŶĞǇĂŶĚ,ĂƐƟŶŐƐ͘ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 140 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 103 12.5.1.2 Intercity Bus Service Knowing the limited budget over the next several years for the City, one future transit alternative included revisiting the Commuter Express Service to consider expanding the range of services beyond WKHPRUQLQJDQGHYHQLQJFRPPXWHUWULS'XULQJWKHVHFRQGURXQGRI)RFXV*URXSGLVFXVVLRQVD UHSUHVHQWDWLYHIURPWKH1HEUDVND'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ1'27VXJJHVWHGUHYLVLWLQJWKH Commuter Express Service. Potential funding for Intercity Bus Service is available to transit services between communities that focus on all trips throughout the day, not just commuter trips. Knowing the limited budget over the next several years for the City, the Commuter Express Service was expanded beyond the morning and evening trips and renamed Intercity Bus Service, which includes two routes: • 7RIURP*UDQG,VODQGDQG.HDUQH\ • 7RIURP*UDQG,VODQGDQG+DVWLQJV Both routes would operate three trips, Monday through Friday – one morning trip, one mid-day trip, and one late afternoon trip. The total annual operating cost for the two Intercity Bus routes is $126,500. One bus will be operated on each route, with one backup vehicle for a total of three vehicles for the Intercity Service. The vehicles will be similar size to the body-on-chassis buses used today, and will be equipped ZLWK:L¿ The Intercity Bus Service transit routes are eligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311(f) funding. This grant program currently funds 100 percent of many costs for the service, including detailed planning for the service. The funding breakout for the FTA 5311(f) is: • Operations (50% - Federal and 50% - State) • Capital - Signage and Shelters (80% - Federal and 20% - Local) • Vehicles (80% - Federal, 10% - State, 10% - Local) • Planning (80% - Federal and 20% - State) (DFKRIWKHURXWHVWRIURP.HDUQH\DQG+DVWLQJVZLOOVHUYHLQWHUPRGDOFRQQHFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJWKHEXV stations and the airports, which is a requirement to be eligible for the funding. Additional coordination and outreach with the major employers in Hastings, Kearney and Grand Island, the University of Nebraska Kearney, and the communities are the next steps for this service to move forward. In addition to serving the intermodal connecting points, the Intercity Bus Service will identify major WUDQVIHUDUHDVDQGRUSDUNDQGULGHORWVIRUEXVULGHUVXVLQJWKHVHUYLFH7KH&LW\ZLOOFRRUGLQDWHZLWKWKH 1'27RYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOPRQWKVIRUSODQQLQJRIWKH,QWHUFLW\%XV6HUYLFHDFTXLVLWLRQRIYHKLFOHV DQGWKHRSHUDWLRQDOSODQ<HDULQFOXGHVWKH,QWHUFLW\%XV2SHUDWLQJDQG0DUNHWLQJSODQLQDGGLWLRQWR completing a Park and Ride locational study. These necessary planning functions have a 100 percent IXQGLQJUHLPEXUVHPHQWIURPWKH)7$DQGWKH1'27 7KHRSHUDWLQJFRVWVWRVWDUWXSWKHVHUYLFHDUHVKRZQLQ<HDURIWKH,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQGXHWRWKHORFDO match for vehicle procurement and other capital projects associated with the service. The vehicle and RWKHUFDSLWDOSURMHFWVDUHVKRZQLQ<HDURIWKH,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 141 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 104 12.5.1.3 Vanpool Coordination 7KHUHFHQWFRQWUDFWEHWZHHQ1'27DQG(QWHUSULVH5LGHVKDUHSURYLGHVDQRSSRUWXQLW\IRUWKH&LW\WR continue discussions with the Enterprise representative and increase outreach to the major employers in the Grand Island region. The interest from our major employer stakeholders was outstanding for the study and provides a segway to continue the momentum for increased transit services through vanpool services. The City, in coordination with the Enterprise representative, should begin with setting up meetings in <HDUZLWKUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVIURPHVWDEOLVKPHQWVVXFKDV JBS and Veterans Home. These two major employers KDYHDVLJQL¿FDQWHPSOR\PHQWEDVHWRWHVWWKHYDQSRRO SURJUDPLQWKHUHJLRQ$FRQWLQXHGFRRUGLQDWLRQIRU<HDU 2 should concurrently follow to engage with other major employers in the area to determine interest in the vanpool program. 12.5.1.4 Rideshare Program The Rideshare Program service alternative provides a voluntary program for residents to register and form carpool, vanpool, or school pool options within the FRPPXQLW\7KH5LGHVKDUHVRIWZDUHSURJUDPPDWFKHVSHUVRQVWUDYHOLQJWRIURPVLPLODUORFDWLRQVDQG time frames within the community. The Rideshare software program would be purchased by the City RI*UDQG,VODQGLQ<HDU0DQDJHPHQWRIWKHSURJUDPZRXOGEHWKURXJKWKH&LW\7UDQVLW'LYLVLRQ7KH EUDQGLQJLQLWLDWLYHVIRUWUDQVLWVKRXOGFRRUGLQDWHHႇRUWVWRDOVRLQFOXGHULGHVKDUHVHUYLFHV 12.5.2 Management and Planning (YHQWKRXJKOLPLWHGIXQGLQJLVSURMHFWHGWRFRQWLQXHIRUWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUVWKHUHDUHVHYHUDOSROLF\DQG planning projects to begin immediately that require little or no funding increases over the existing budget. These include: Hall County Public Transportation Hall County Public Transportation Vanpool Coordination Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 142 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 105 12.5.2.1 New Branding for Transit Service in the City of Grand Island and Hall County The new branding for transit services in the City of Grand Island and Hall County includes many components to showcase the transit services available to all residents. One of the most heard comments throughout the public engagement process included residents not knowing about the service. This new branding provides an opportunity to reach the existing riders, in addition to new markets in the community that have never used the service. Promotional activities may include: • Creating a new brand that represents the Grand Island region and may be used for existing demand response service, but also complement intercity bus service options and other future transit service option. • 'HYHORSLQJSULQWHGDQGRQOLQHPDWHULDOVIRUWKHQHZEUDQGWRXVHDWRXWUHDFKHYHQWV • 7KHEUDQGLQJ²LQFOXGLQJORJRVOD\RXWDQGODQJXDJH²EHHDVLO\LGHQWL¿DEOHDQGÀH[LEOHHQRXJK WRDGDSWWRGLႇHUHQWW\SHVPRGHVRIVHUYLFH7KHQHZEUDQGPD\LQFRUSRUDWHHOHPHQWVRIH[LVWLQJ brand or may be a new look. The branding should be easily understood and replicable. The name, logo, and image should be easily convertable to all types of transit materials, including print newspaper, online media, and radio advertisements; website content; community outreach materials; and employer outreach materials. The WUDQVLWEUDQGPD\KDYHDZHEVLWHDGGUHVVVSHFL¿FWRWKHEUDQGFUHDWHGWRSURPRWHWUDQVLWVHUYLFHVEXW the address would redirect to the existing website. Transit Branding Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 143 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 106 12.5.2.2 Increased Marketing The City's Transit Program Manager has the opportunity to promote transit services internally throughout &LW\DQG&RXQW\'HSDUWPHQWVEXWDOVRWRWKHFRPPXQLW\7KHQHZSRVLWLRQKDVDPXOWLWXGHRIGLႇHUHQW opportunities for increased marketing from presentations to community organizations to updates for City &RXQFLO,QDGGLWLRQDJHQHUDOPDUNHWLQJSODQVKRXOGEHGHYHORSHGIRUWKHXSFRPLQJ)LVFDO<HDUWRKDYH intentional outreach in the community. ,QDGGLWLRQWRJHQHUDOPDUNHWLQJWDUJHWHGPDUNHWLQJHႇRUWVGHVLJQHGWRUHDFKNH\JURXSVVKRXOGEH pursued on an as-needed basis. For example, targeted marketing materials may focus on employers LQVSHFL¿FGHVWLQDWLRQDUHDVRUE\LQGXVWU\VRFLRHFRQRPLFRUGHPRJUDSKLFJURXSVVXFKDV-%6RU +RUQDG\ZRUNHUVRUFKXUFKHVDQGUHVLGHQWVLQVSHFL¿FORFDWLRQV Advertisements in newspapers, via online media, and on the radio would be used to promote transit services. Newspaper and radio advertising would be conducted on a quarterly basis. The relatively low cost of online advertising makes advertising online throughout the year feasible. Online media is generally purchased on a monthly basis and would be utilized throughout the year. The types of media outlets selected are those that are local to Grand Island and Hall County, with the exception of the radio outlets, which are regional. The new transit brand and the increased marketing raises awareness and promotes the transit services in the area, providing residents with the information needed to use these services. The marketing would: • Promote the new transit brand and services. • 'HYHORSVWDQGDUGL]HGSULQWHG marketing materials for the City to use across the region in outreach activities. • Place advertisements across a variety of media, including newspapers, online news sources, and radio. Ongoing advertising to support the general promotion of public transit would be conducted on a quarterly or other periodic basis throughout the year, and continue on DQDQQXDOEDVLVWKHUHDIWHU$GGLWLRQDO³VXUJH´ times for service promotions—e.g., Try Transit Week —may occur as needed. 12.5.2.3 Increased Oversight of Transit Contract 7KHFUHDWLRQRIWKH&LW\ V7UDQVLW3URJUDP0DQDJHUSRVLWLRQDOORZVDGHGLFDWHGVWDႇSRVLWLRQWRRYHUVHH and perform a variety of planning and administrative activities as to provide transit service and meet complex FTA requirements. The Transit Program Manager monitors the contract and works with the service provider to verify proper levels of safety and service quality are maintained, contract employee WUDLQLQJLVVXႈFLHQWDQGDSSURSULDWHEXVLQHVVSUDFWLFHVDUHIROORZHG Transit Rider Brochures Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 144 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 107 The Transit Program Manager oversees contractor performance through various activities, including inspecting contractor facilities or vehicles, and reviewing performance data related to customer complaints, on-time performance, accidents, and maintenance, which is compiled in a monthly report. In the future, the contractor should provide monthly performance metrics for the Transit Program Manager, in addition to the typical monthly invoice. 12.5.3 Capital Projects The following section describes the elements of the Fiscally Constrained Plan pertaining to capital projects, which includes facility improvements, vehicle procurement, and a study to identify potential transfer locations and park and ride locations. 12.5.3.1 Transit Facility Currently, Hall County Public Transportation operates from the Grand Generation Center, with the buses parked in an adjacent surface lot. The existing parking arrangement is not ideal for the City long term due to security of vehicles, in addition to the wear on the vehicles from exposure to the weather elements. The agency should consider a transit facility to provide a secure, covered location for the transit vehicles. Senior Citizens Industries (SCI), the current service contractor, operates the transit service from the Grand Generation Center building, and also manages the Grand Generation Center activities and lunches. The City should begin conversations with the FTA to discuss size, location, operational functions, and funding programs for a future facility. In the short term to have increased security for the transit vehicles, the City could use the mandatory FTA one percent safety and security allocation to install security cameras at the existing vehicle parking lot. Another option LQFOXGHVKLULQJVHFXULW\VWDႇWRDVVLVWLQRYHUQLJKW protection of the vehicles. In Grand Island, SCI has not experienced any criminal activity to date. 12.5.3.2 Park and Ride Lots The implementation of Intercity Bus and Rideshare Services often initiates the need for Park and Ride lots for residents to park and make connections to the transit service. It is recommended the City initiate, in coordination with the Intercity Bus Service Operations Plan, a location study for potential Park and Ride connections. It is common to have both formal and informal designated Park and Ride lots, depending upon the location in and around the community. 3DUNDQG5LGHIDFLOLWLHVKDYHPDQ\EHQH¿WVLQFOXGLQJ • Serves as the origin points for many intercity bus routes. • 6HUYHVDVFRQQHFWLQJSRLQWVIRUPDQ\FDUSRROVYDQSRROV • 2IWHQSURYLGHVFRQQHFWLRQVIRUSHGHVWULDQELF\FOHIDFLOLWLHV Park and Ride Lot Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 145 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 108 The Park and Ride location study will take into consideration ideal connections for residents, in addition to reviewing potential sites, which will likely need further environmental review for development. The City ZLOOFRRUGLQDWHZLWKWKH1'27DQGWKH)7$RQWKHQH[WVWHSVIRUGHVLJQDWHGORFDWLRQVIHGHUDOIXQGLQJ assistance, design elements, and site access. At a minimum, the following elements will be considered for the lots. 12.5.3.3 Vehicle Procurement The vehicles currently operated by Hall County Public Transportation are owned by Hall County and the 1'27:KHQWKH&LW\EHJDQPDQDJHPHQWRIWKHVHUYLFHVLQWKHYHKLFOHVZHUHQRWWUDQVIHUUHGIURP WKH&RXQW\WRWKH&LW\7KH7UDQVLW3URJUDP0DQDJHUVKRXOGFRQWLQXHWRZRUNZLWK1'27DQGWKH&RXQW\ for transfer of ownership. As the management of the transit service, it is recommended all future vehicles used in the urbanized area be owned by the City to ensure proper maintenance of vehicles and oversight. Table 12.1 shows a summary of the Fiscally Constrained budget, including operating and capital expenses. The projected revenues are also shown in Table 12.2. 12.5.4 Transit Outside Urbanized Area The above transit service alternatives and capital projects for the Fiscally Constrained Plan are under the DXVSLFHVRIWKH&LW\RI*UDQG,VODQG$SSUR[LPDWHO\¿YHSHUFHQWRIWKHH[LVWLQJULGHUVKLSIRU+DOO&RXQW\ Public Transportation operates within Hall County, but outside the urbanized area. The focus of this study is for the City of Grand Island; therefore, we will use existing parameters of the transit service for inclusion into the report. The rural transit service has approximately 720 annual revenue hours annually, with an annual budget of $24,500. The FTA 5311 program provides 50 percent reimbursement for these services, with the state reimbursing 25 percent, and the remaining local match of 25 percent ($6,125) from Hall County general fund. These assumptions will continue for the Fiscally Constrained Plan. • Multimodal access from street network, including pedestrian and bicycle access. • 5HDOWLPHSDUNLQJWUDQVLWLQIRUPDWLRQ • 'HGLFDWHGVSDFHIRUWUDQVLWRSHUDWLRQVEXV ED\VDQGVWDWLRQVWRSIDFLOLWLHV • Accommodation for private shuttle operators. • :DLWLQJDUHDVVKHOWHUVIRUWUDQVLWDQG FDUSRROYDQSRRO • Adequate landscaping and lighting in parking area. • $PHULFDQVZLWK'LVDELOLWLHV$FWDFFHVVIRU residents. • Covered bicycle racks or bicycle stations. • Trash receptacles throughout the facility. • 6WRUPZDWHUWUHDWPHQWPDQDJHPHQW facilities. Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 146 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 109 Year 12345 Notes Expenses Admin/Operating Funding % Breakouts 1 Admin Management $92,400 $95,172 $98,027 $100,968 $103,997 )HG/RFDO 2 Service Contract - Existing Urban $500,000 $515,000 $530,450 $546,364 $562,754 )HG/RFDO 3 Intercity Bus Service $100,000 )HG6WDWH 4 Vanpool Service Marketing $10,000 $11,935 $12,293 $12,662 )HG/RFDO 5 Rideshare Ann. IHHVPDUNHWLQJ $12,500 $12,875 $13,261 $13,659 )HG/RFDO 6 Service Contract - Rural $24,500 $25,235 $25,992 $26,772 $27,575 )HG6WDWH/RFDO Subtotal Capital 1 Transit Vehicles (2 @ $65K Each) $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 )HG/RFDO 2 Prev. Maintenance $72,500 $74,675 $76,915 $79,223 $81,599 )HG/RFDO 3 Vehicle Equipment $11,250 $11,588 $11,935 $12,293 $12,662 )HG/RFDO 4 Transit Branding $12,000 $12,360 $12,731 )HG/RFDO 5 Rideshare Software $60,000 )HG/RFDO 6 Transit Facility - Prel. Planning $100,000 $100,000 )HG/RFDO 7 Park and Ride Study $50,000 )HG6WDWH Subtotal TOTAL EXPENSES $992,650 $916,530 $910,861 $891,174 $944,909 * City may receive 50 percent reimbursement towards its local match from the Nebraska Public Transportation Assistance 3URJUDPWKURXJK1'27 ,QWHUFLW\%XV6HUYLFH3ODQQLQJDQG0DUNHWLQJLQ<HDU2SHUDWLRQV9HKLFOHV,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQ 3DUNDQG5LGH6WXG\FRPSOHWHZ,QWHUFLW\%XV6HUYLFH3ODQQLQJ 7DEOH)LVFDOO\&RQVWUDLQHG%XGJHW([SHQVHV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 147 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 110 Year 12345 Revenues Admin/Operating Local - City $268,480 $282,784 $291,268 $300,006 $309,006 Local - County $6,125 $6,309 $6,498 $6,693 $6,894 Local - Other (Vanpool Service) $5,000 $5,968 $6,147 $6,331 State $26,125 $6,309 $6,498 $6,693 $6,894 Federal 5307 $323,920 $344,888 $356,052 $366,733 $377,735 Federal 5311 $12,250 $12,618 $12,996 $13,386 $13,787 Federal 5311(f) $80,000 Total $716,900 $657,907 $679,279 $699,658 $720,647 Capital Local - City $45,150 $51,725 $46,316 $38,303 $44,852 State $10,000 Federal 5307 $76,600 $206,898 $81,265 $153,213 $75,409 Federal 5311(f) $40,000 Federal 5339 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 Total $275,750 $258,623 $231,581 $191,516 $224,261 TOTAL REVENUES $992,650 $916,530 $910,861 $891,174 $944,909 Table 12.2: Fiscally Constrained Budget - Revenues Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 148 / 176 111 CHAPTER 13 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 13.1 Introduction The previous chapter presented the Fiscally Constrained Plan for the contracted service provider. ,QIRUPDWLRQZLWKLQWKLVFKDSWHUEXLOGVIURPWKHSURMHFWVLGHQWL¿HGLQ&KDSWHUDQGPRYHVWRDQ enhanced level of public transportation for the community. 13.2 Illustrative Plan The Illustrative Plan for the City of Grand Island and the Hall County includes the Flexible Route Service concept. 'XHWRWKHFXUUHQWEXGJHWFRQVWUDLQWVIRUWKH&LW\WKLV option is not feasible for at least three years. Should additional funding become available in the near-term, the Transit Program Manager would begin initial planning HႇRUWVWRLPSOHPHQWWKH)OH[LEOH5RXWHFRQFHSW 13.2.1 Flexible Route Service The Flexible Route Service alternative features two routes operating in Grand Island, with the option of riders calling LQWRWKHRႈFHIRUDURXWHGHYLDWLRQLIWKHULGHULVXQDEOH to walk to the bus stop. When trip deviation requests are PDGHWKHEXVGHYLDWHVRႇWKHURXWHWRSLFNXSRUGURSRႇ passenger, then travels back to the scheduled bus route. The two routes would operate every 60 minutes. Passengers board a bus at a designated bus stop along the URXWHRUIRUDQDGGLWLRQDOIHHPDNHDQDGYDQFHGUHVHUYDWLRQWRHLWKHUEHGURSSHGRႇRUSLFNHGXSDWDQ\ location within ¾-mile of the regular route. The Flexible Routes primarily serve portions of the following • 86'LHU V$YHQXH • Old Potash Highway • 'RZQWRZQDORQJSRUWLRQVRIVWUGDQGWK streets • 13th Street • Oak Street • Faidley Avenue • Webb Road • Lincoln Avenue • Broadwell Avenue • Capital Avenue • Locust Street • Husker Highway Figure 13.1 Illustrative Plan /½½çÝãÙã®òW½Ä • Flexible Route Service x2 Routes xMonday – Friday x6:00 am - 6:30 pm x6 peak vehicles in urban area x60-minute headways xΨϲϴϯ͕ϬϬϬĂŶŶƵĂůŽƉĞƌĂƟŶŐ x$961,000 start up cost x19,125 annual revenue hours • Intercity Bus Service xMonday - Friday xThree trips per day xtŝĮͲĞƋƵŝƉƉĞĚǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ x2 routes - ƕ ,ĂƐƟŶŐƐĨƌŽŵͬƚŽ'ƌĂŶĚ/ƐůĂŶĚ ƕ Kearney from/to Grand Island Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 149 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 112 Service hours would be from 6:00 am to 6:30 pm. The Flexible Route Service is similar to a traditional ¿[HGURXWHVHUYLFHZLWKEUDQGHGYHKLFOHVEURFKXUHVZLWKURXWHPDSVDQGVHUYLFHVFKHGXOHVEXVVWRSV with signs, and shelters at high ridership locations. In addition to the Flexible Route Service, general public demand response would be available for all persons outside the deviation area, which is within the urbanized area of Grand Island. Figure 13.2 shows the Flexible Route Service. 7KH)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFHSODQQLQJZRXOGEHJLQLQ<HDUDORQJZLWKWKHSURFXUHPHQWRIWKUHHYHKLFOHV IRUWKHVHUYLFH,Q<HDUWKHSUHOLPLQDU\VWHSVIRUWKH)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFHLQFOXGH • Operations Plan • Capital Plan • Marketing Plan • Bus Stop Assessment • Bus Stop Installation These planning steps are included in the Illustrative Plan budget, displayed in Table 13.1 and Table 13.2 on the following pages. Capital Costs line 9 display costs for the Flexible Route Operations 3ODQLQ<HDUDQGZRXOGLQFOXGHGHYHORSLQJSODQVIRURSHUDWLQJFDSLWDODQGPDUNHWLQJ/LQHXQGHU WKH&DSLWDO&RVWVLV)OH[LEOH5RXWH,PSOHPHQWDWLRQLQ<HDUDQGLQFOXGHVWKH%XV6WRS$VVHVVPHQWDQG implementation. The Flexible Route infrastructure in Capital Costs Line 11 includes the construction of accessible stops for approximately 170 stops for the two routes. Seven vehicles will be used to operate WKHVHUYLFH*UDQG,VODQGZLOOSURFXUHIRXURIWKRVHYHKLFOHVLQ<HDUDQGIROORZHGE\WKHRWKHUWKUHH YHKLFOHVLQ<HDU7KHVXPPDU\WDEOHRIWKH,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQSURMHFWHGH[SHQVHVDQGUHYHQXHVDUH VKRZQIRUWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUV 13.2.2 Intercity Bus Service Intercity Bus Service, which includes two routes: • 7RIURP*UDQG,VODQGDQG.HDUQH\ • 7RIURP*UDQG,VODQGDQG+DVWLQJV Both routes would operate three trips, Monday through Friday – one morning trip, one mid-day trip, and one late afternoon trip. The total annual operating cost for the two Intercity Bus routes is $126,500. One bus will be operated on each route, with one backup vehicle for a total of three vehicles for the Intercity Service. The vehicles will be similar size to the body-on-chassis buses used today, and will be equipped with Wi-Fi. The Intercity Bus Service transit routes are eligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311(f) funding. This grant program currently funds 100 percent of many costs for the service, including detailed planning for the service. (DFKRIWKHURXWHVWRIURP.HDUQH\DQG+DVWLQJVZLOOVHUYHLQWHUPRGDOFRQQHFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJWKHEXV stations and the airports, which is a requirement to be eligible for the funding. Additional coordination and outreach with the major employers in Hastings, Kearney and Grand Island are the next steps for this service to move forward. 7KHRSHUDWLQJFRVWVWRVWDUWXSWKHVHUYLFHDUHVKRZQLQ<HDURIWKH,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQGXHWRWKHORFDO match for vehicle procurement and other capital projects associated with the service. The vehicle and RWKHUFDSLWDOSURMHFWVDUHVKRZQLQ<HDURIWKH,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 150 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 113 )LJXUH)OH[LEOH5RXWH6HUYLFH Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 151 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 114 Year 1 2 3 4 5 Notes Expenses Admin/Operating Funding % Breakouts 1 Admin Management $92,400 $95,172 $98,027 $100,968 $103,997 )HG/RFDO 2 Service Contract - Existing $500,000 $515,000 $530,450 $546,364 )HG/RFDO 3 ,QWHUFLW\%XV3ODQQLQJ Operations $100,000 $126,500 $130,295 $134,204 $138,230 )HG6WDWH Operations - )HG6WDWH 4 Vanpool Service Marketing $10,000 $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 )HG/RFDO 5 5LGHVKDUH$QQIHHV Marketing $12,500 $12,875 $13,261 $13,659 )HG/RFDO 6 Flexible Route Operations $682,549 )HG/RFDO 7 Service Contract - Rural $24,500 $25,235 $25,992 $26,772 $27,575 )HG6WDWH/RFDO Subtotal Capital 1 City Transit Vehicles (2@ $65k each) $130,000 $130,000 )HG/RFDO 2 Prev. Maintenance $72,500 $74,675 $76,915 $79,223 $81,599 )HG/RFDO 3 Vehicle Equipment $11,250 $11,588 $11,935 $12,293 $12,662 )HG/RFDO 4 Transit Branding $12,000 $12,360 $12,731 )HG/RFDO 5 Intercity Bus Service - 9HKLFOHV#N Marketing $210,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 )HG6WDWH/RFDO 6 Rideshare Software $60,000 )HG/RFDO 7 Transit Facility - Prel. Planning $100,000 $100,000 )HG/RFDO 8 Park and Ride Study $50,000 )HG6WDWH 9 Flexible Route Operations Plan $150,000 )HG/RFDO 10 Flexible Route Vehicles(3 @ $70k) $210,000 )HG/RFDO 11 Flexible Route Infrastructure $601,500 )HG/RFDO 12 Flexible Route Implementation $100,000 )HG/RFDO Subtotal TOTAL EXPENSES $1,202,650 $1,053,030 $1,049,520 $1,995,193 $1,181,199 * City may receive 50 percent reimbursement towards its local match from the Nebraska Public Transportation Assistance 3URJUDPWKURXJK1'27 7DEOH,OOXVWUDWLYH3ODQ%XGJHW([SHQVHV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 152 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study 115 Year 1 2 3 4 5 Revenues Admin/Operating Local $268,480 $282,784 $291,268 $300,006 $368,903 Local - County $6,125 $6,309 $6,498 $6,693 $6,894 Local - Other (Vanpool Service) $5,000 $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 State $26,125 $69,559 $71,646 $73,795 $76,009 Federal 5307 $323,920 $344,888 $355,234 $365,891 $436,765 Federal 5311 $12,250 $12,618 $12,996 $13,386 $13,787 Federal 5311(f) $80,000 $63,250 $65,148 $67,102 $69,115 Total $716,900 $784,407 $807,939 $832,177 $976,937 Capital Local - City $45,150 $51,725 $46,316 $230,603 $38,352 Local - Intercity Bus Service Partner Communities $42,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 State $10,000 Federal 5307 $76,600 $126,898 $81,265 $674,413 $155,409 Federal 5311(f) $208,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Federal 5339 $104,000 $80,000 $104,000 $248,000 Total $485,750 $268,623 $241,581 $1,163,016 $204,261 TOTAL REVENUES $1,202,650 $1,053,030 $1,049,520 $1,995,193 $1,181,199 Table 13.2: Illustrative Plan Budget - Revenues Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 153 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 154 / 176 117 CHAPTER 14 14.1 Implementation Plan The following steps and tasks are key to the continued momentum for public transportation in Grand Island and Hall County. Of particular importance within this report is the baseline transit agency information available to the City, as they continue to be the new management of the services since 2016. The Transit Program Manager must continue to monitor service performance and conduct bi-annual checks for the implementation of projects within this report. The City, with input from the service provider, should develop performance metrics on system performance. The service provider should regularly report these metrics to the Transit Program Manager. The Transit Program Manager and the service provider will be responsible for action items for implementation in order to ensure transit services in Hall County and Grand Island are maintained at a KLJKOHYHODQGRSHUDWLQJZLWKPD[LPXPFRVWHႇHFWLYHQHVVTable 14.1 provides the implementation plan for actions over the next two years. 2018 2019 Initial Implementation Steps 1 Research Rideshare software program options and develop RFP for purchasing the Rideshare software for implementation. 2 Implement Rideshare software and coordinate with software develop- HUVWDႇWRGHVLJQVRIWZDUHLQIUDVWUXFWXUHUHODWLYHWRORFDODQGUHJLRQDO needs. 3 Coordinate with Enterprise Vanpool program representative and estab- lishments such as JBS and Veterans Home. 4 Finalize contract with vendor and rollout of Enterprise Vanpool program. 5 'HYHORSJHQHUDOPDUNHWLQJSODQIRUFRPPXQLW\RXWUHDFKDQGDZDUHQHVV for transit services. 6 &RQWLQXHFRRUGLQDWLRQZLWK1'27RQWKH,QWHUFLW\%XV6HUYLFH3ODQ 7 &RRUGLQDWHZLWK1'27WRGHYHORS5)3IRU,QWHUFLW\%XV6HUYLFH Operations Plan and Park and Ride Study. 8 Coordinate with local agencies and establishments to fund the local match for the vehicles and other capital improvements for Intercity Bus Service. 9 'HYHORS%LGIRUVHUYLFHFRQWUDFWRIWUDQVLWRSHUDWLRQV 10 'HYHORS5)3IRUWUDQVLWIDFLOLW\SUHOLPLQDU\SODQQLQJ IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Table 14.1: Implementation Steps Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 155 / 176 Grand Island Feasibility Study Technical Memo #3 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 156 / 176 A-1 SENIOR CITIZEN INDUSTRIES ANNUAL EXPENSES APPENDIX A Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 157 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study A-2 Expenses Average Monthly Amount Percent of Budget Internet $20 0% Tablet plan $235 1% Telephone $23 0% Two-way radio $57 0% Utilities $263 1% Fuel $3,930 10% Admin Support $721 2% Gross Pay $22,965 58% Taxes $1,851 5% Auto Insurance $3,692 9% 3ULQWLQJ6XSSOLHV $145 0% Vision Insurance $146 0% Renewals $111 0% Unemployment taxes $97 0% Snow removal $13 0% Audit $300 1% Bank charges $10 0% Travel $10 0% ,QVXUDQFH'HGXFWLEOH $250 1% Training $137 0% ,QVXUDQFHSURSOLDELOLW\ $1,099 3% Prev. Main $- 0% Main - oil $24 0% Main - routine $3,146 8% Main - supplies $35 0% Main - non-routine $171 0% $- 0% Capital Support Equip $- 0% Remote phones $233 1% $- $39,683 6&,7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$YHUDJH([SHQVHV3HU0RQWK Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 158 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study A-3 Expense Amount Payroll: Gross Pay $188,734.53 Cab Tickets $62,585.50 Insurance: Automobile $47,153.82 Fuel $44,016.36 Payroll: Payroll Gross $40,909.78 Maintenance-routine $28,682.33 Payroll: Taxes $18,727.10 ,QVXUDQFHSURSHUW\OLDELOLW\ $8,789.50 Payroll: Admin Support $8,526.00 3ULQWLQJ6XSSOLHV $7,494.71 Bills: Tablet-data plan $5,744.04 Workman’s Comp Insurance $5,713.50 Misc $4,803.65 NATP - Reimburs. expenses $2,715.95 Maintenance-oil $2,133.57 Bills: Utilities $2,100.00 Advertising $2,095.31 Maintenance - Building $1,490.00 Unemployment Tax $1,384.02 Audit $1,225.00 Training $920.32 Bills: Telephone-2-way Radios $632.39 Vision Insurance $632.20 Bus Registrations $396.00 Bus Wash $321.00 Install radio new bus $287.77 Maintenance - non-routine $266.33 Bills: Telephone $218.10 Bills: Internet $217.51 'LVKRQHVW\%RQG $200.20 Membership dues $175.00 %LOOV'DWD3ODQ $125.00 Personnel $115.51 2ႈFH6XSSOLHV $111.09 Maintenance-wash $58.85 Bus: Maintenance $37.73 Maintenance-supplies $30.71 Reimbursed Title XX $10.00 Total Expenses $489,780.38 6&,$QQXDO([SHQVHV Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 159 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 160 / 176 B-1 TRANSIT RIDER SURVEY INSTRUMENTAPPENDIX B Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 161 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study B-2 Hall County Public Transportation Transit Rider Survey, June 2017 1. Please rate the following: Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied A. Timeliness - ontime arrival of the bus for most trips. B. Comfort - the temperature on the bus for most trips. C. Comfort - the seats on the bus. D. Cleanliness of the vehicle. E. Information during reservation for when the bus would arrive. F. Information during reservation for how long the trip would take. G. Ease of booking or changing trip. H. Ease of finding information on Hall County Public Transportation. I. Helpfulness of the driver. J. Professionalism of the driver. K. Helpfulness of staff taking reservations. L. Overal service you receive from Hall County Public Transportation. M. Cost of the ride. The City of Grand Island and GIAMPO launched the Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study in March 2017. The Purpose of the Study is to review existing transit services in Grand Island and Hall County, analyze transit demand, develop short-term public transportation options, and prepare a 3-5 year plan and budget. Hall County Public Transportation has provided curb-to-curb demand response transit to the community for over 30 years. The transit survey will help the project team assess existing transit services and customer satisfaction of transit riders within the community. Thank you for your participatio Transit Rider Survey Instrument Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 162 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study B-3 Transit Rider Survey Instrument Thank you! 7. On a scale of 1 to 5 how valuable do you think Hall County Public Transportation is for our community today? (1=Not Valuable, 5=Very Valuable) 1 I do not have special needs/ I do not require accommodations. Blindness/Visual Impairment Mobility Disability Other Deaf/Hard of Hearing Psychiatric Disability 1 - 4 times a month Rarely 2 3 4 5 8. What is the perception in the community of Hall County Public Transportation? 9. Which one of the following best describes you: Employed Full-time Student Walking: Yes No Bicycling: Yes No Public Transit: Yes No Yes No Yes No Male 18 years and under Less than $25,000 $35,001 - $50,000 Over $75,000 African-American/Black Caucasian/White Native-American/Indian Other 36 yrs - 50 yrs 66 yrs or older 19 yrs - 35 yrs Every Day 2 - 4 times a week $25,001 - $35,000 $50,001 - $75,000 Asian Hispanic/Latino Pacific Island/Hawaiian 51 yrs - 65 yrs Female Employed Part-time Retired Not currently employed Other 10. Gender 11. Age 12. What is your annual household income? 13. Ethnicity 14. What disability or special need do you require assistance with? 15. Was walking, cycling, or public transit an important consideration in your choice of where to live or work? 16. Do you typically have a vehicle available for travel? 17. Do you have a valid driver’s license? 18. What is the Date and Time of your ride today? 18. How often do you ride public transit services in Grand Island? 19. Additional Comments: Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 163 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 164 / 176 C-1 ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY INSTRUMENTAPPENDIX C Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 165 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study C-2 Online Community Survey Instrument g Grand Island Community Survey Regional Transit Needs Study Please take our short survey today and make your voiFHKHDUG<RXULQSXWZLOOKHOS ensure Hall County Public Transportation continues to meet the needs of the community! Thank you for your participation! 1. How often do you ride public transit services in Grand Island? Every day 2 to 4 times a week 1 to 4 times a month Rarely Never Other (please specify) 2. If you use public transportation, what is your primary purpose? (Mark all that apply) Home Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 166 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study C-3 g Work School Medical Faith 6KRSSLQJ(QWHUWDLQPHQW Other (please specify) 3. If you are not a bus rider, why do you NOT use Hall County Public Transportation for your transportation needs? (Mark all that apply) 'RHV not go to where I need to go (Today ± transit travels anywhere in Hall County) I have my own vehicle for transportation Cannot plan my trips 24 hours in advance (Today ± 24 hour reservation required) Takes too long 'RQ¶WNQRZKRZWRXVHWKHVHUYLFHV Too expensive (Today ± fare is $2 per one-way trip) Other (please specify) 4. How would you prioritize improvements to Hall County Public Transportation in the short range (1-3 years)? (1 = most important and 8 = least important) Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 167 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study C-4 g 5. Please include additional description to the improvement priorities from Question #4. How would you increase awareness of Hall County Public Transportation? What "other" improvements would you prioritize? 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, (1 = Not Valuable, 5 = Very Valuable), how valuable do you think Hall County Public Transportation is for our community today? 1 2 3 4 5 7. What is the perception in the community of Hall County Public Transportation? 8. For a typical walk, what distance is comfortable for you? 5 min - 8SWRDmile 10 min - Up to a mile Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 168 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study C-5 g 20 min - Up to 1 mile 30 min - Up to 1.5 miles 40 min - Up to 2 miles More than 2 miles Unable to walk Other (please specify) 9. What keeps you from walking more often for short trips? (Select top 3 reasons) Nearby vehicle traffic is too fast and congested Prefer to drive DQGRU used to driving out of habit My health My destination is too far away 6LGHZDONVSDWKVFURVVLQJV are missing or are in poor condition Weather Conditions 'DUNQHVV concerned about personal security or safety Need to transport other people and things Other (please specify) 10. If bike racks were available on Hall County Transit buses, would that be an incentive for you to ride transit more often? <HV No Unsure Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 169 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study C-6 g 11. What specific areas of Grand Island would you like to see transit service and bicycle/pedestrian connections? 12. Was walking, bicycling, or public transit service an important consideration in your choice of where to live or work? (Check all that apply) Walking Bicycling Transit Services None of the above were considered Other (please specify) 13. What is your age? 18 years and under 19 to 35 years 36 to 50 years 51 to 64 years 65 years or older 14. Do you typically have a vehicle available for travel? <HV No 15. Do you have a valid driver’s license? <HV No Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 170 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study C-7 g 16. Gender Male Female 17. Please select the best option that describes you. Employed Full-time Employed Part-time Not Currently Employed Student Retired Other (please specify) 18. What is your annual household income? Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $35,000 $35,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $75,000 Over $75,000 19. What is the greatest benefit of Hall County Public Transportation in our community today? 20. Additional Comments Here: Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 171 / 176 ------------This Page was Intentionally Left Blank ------------ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 172 / 176 D-1 APPENDIX D TRANSIT RIDER SURVEY - FUTURE TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 173 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study D-2 Continued Other Side August 2017 Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 174 / 176 Regional Transit Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study D-3 dŚĂŶŬzKh͊͊dddŚŚĂŶŬŬ zzzKKKhhh͊͊͊͊ Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 175 / 176 Technical Advisory Committee Monday, October 30, 2017 Regular Session Item J1 Other Business Staff Contact: Casey Sherlock, Hall County Public Works Director Grand Island Regular Session - 10/30/2017 Page 176 / 176