The URL can be used to link to this page

11-08-2010 TPU DRAFT FINAL REPORTCITY OF WOODBURN Transit Plan Update Draft Final Report L^ 6 k Am FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED October 11, 2010 Technical guidance for this project was provided by a Project Development Team (PDT) and consultant team, members of which are as follows: Protect Development Team Dan Brown, Public Works Director Martin Warner, Urban Services and Transit Division Program Manager Julie Moore, Senior Management Analyst Jim Hendryx, Economic & Development Services Director Brenda Williams, Transit Operations Supervisor Consultina Team Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates (Project Management) Cogan Owens Cogan ECONorthwest This project is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 w RECOVERY. GOV Tr Pl Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ........................................ ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Chapter1. Introduction .......................................................................... ............................1 -1 Chapter 2. Literature Review .................................................................. ............................2 -1 Chapter 3. Community Profile and Demographic Overview ................ ............................3 -1 DemographicProfile ............................................................................. ............................... 3 -3 Population and Employment Trends ................................................... ............................... 3 -12 MajorEmployers ..................................................................................... ...........................3 -13 Planned Developments ........................................................................... ...........................3 -18 Chapter 4. Existing Transportation Services ........................................ ............................4 -1 Overview of Existing Services .................................................................. ............................4 -1 PrivateProviders ..................................................................................... ............................4 -7 Woodburn Transit Bus Detail ................................................................... ............................4 -9 Dial -a -Ride Overview .............................................................................. ...........................4 -16 Transit Revenue Sources ....................................................................... ...........................4 -21 Performance Summary ........................................................................... ...........................4 -23 Chapter 5. Passenger Survey ................................................................ ............................5 -1 On -Board Passenger Survey: Bus ........................................................ ............................... 5 -2 On -Board Passenger Survey — Dial -a- Ride ......................................... ............................... 5 -14 Chapter6. Peer Review .......................................................................... ............................6 -1 Chapter7. Community Input .................................................................. ............................7 -1 Chapter 8. Key Findings and Unmet Transit Needs ............................. ............................8 -1 Chapter 9. Goals, Objectives and Performance Standards ................. ............................9 -1 Vision for Transit in Woodburn ................................................................. ............................9 -1 Transit Goals and Objectives ................................................................... ............................9 -2 Performance Standards ........................................................................... ............................9 -5 Chapter 10. Potential Service Strategies ............................................ ...........................10 -1 Potential Transit Service Strategies ........................................................ ...........................10 -1 Summary of Service Strategies and Priorities ........................................ ..........................10 -21 Chapter 11. Funding Projections and Strategies ............................... ...........................11 -1 FundingProjections ................................................................................ ...........................11 -1 Potential New Funding Sources .............................................................. ...........................11 -3 Other Funding Considerations ................................................................ ...........................11 -9 Chapter 12. Flexible Service Plan ...................................................... ..........................12 -15 Status Quo Service with Limited Funding Increase ................................ ..........................12 -15 Moderate Service and Funding Increase ................................................ ..........................12 -17 Significant Service and Funding Increase .............................................. ..........................12 -19 Funding Considerations ......................................................................... ..........................12 -21 Other Implementation Considerations .................................................... ..........................12 -22 Page i Transit Plan Update • Draft Final R e p o r t CITY OF WOOD BURN Appendix A: Survey Instruments Appendix B: On -Board Passenger Survey Response Rate Estimation Appendix C: On -Board Passenger Survey Boardings and Alightings Appendix D: Stakeholder Meeting Notes Appendix E: Prioritized Service Strategies Appendix F: Summary of Potential Funding Sources Page ii Transit Plan Update • Draft Fin R e p o r t CITY OF WOOD BURN Table of Figures Page Figure 2 -1 TSP Planned Transit Improvements ..................................... ............................2 -3 Figure 2 -2 Unmet Needs and Corresponding Service Strategies ........... ............................2 -5 Figure 3 -1 Woodburn and Surrounding Communities ......................... ............................... 3 -2 Figure 3 -2 Population Density, 2000 ...................................................... ............................3 -4 Figure 3 -3 Age Distribution ................................................................. ............................... 3 -5 Figure 3 -4 Older Adult (65 +) Population Density in 2000 by Census Block ........................3 -8 Figure 3 -5 Youth (17 and under) Population Density in 2000 by Census Block ..................3 -8 Figure 3 -6 Disability Status, 2005 - 2007 ................................................. ............................3 -9 Figure 3 -7 Household Income, Past 12 Months, 2008 inflation- adjusted dollars ..............3 -10 Figure 3 -8 Density of Households without Access to a Vehicle (top) and Low Income Population (bottom) in 2000 by Block Group ........................ ...........................3 -11 Figure 3 -9 City of Woodburn Projected Population, 2007 -2030 (Medium Growth) ...........3 -12 Figure 3 -10 Projected Older Population Change, 2000 - 2030 .................. ...........................3 -12 Figure 3 -11 City of Woodburn Projected Employment, 2000 - 2020 .......... ...........................3 -13 Figure 3 -12 Local Commute Shed (where residents work), 2008 ............ ...........................3 -14 Figure 3 -13 Regional Commute Shed (where residents work) ............ ............................... 3 -16 Figure 3 -14 Regional Labor Shed (where workers live) .......................... ...........................3 -17 Figure 3 -15 Current Zoning and Planned Land Use ................................ ...........................3 -18 Figure 4 -1 Woodburn Transit System Overview ..................................... ............................4 -2 Figure 4 -2 Regional Transit Providers .................................................... ............................4 -6 Figure 4 -3 Bus Service Hours and Frequencies ..................................... ............................4 -9 Figure 4 -4 Bus Fare Structure ............................................................... ............................4 -9 Figure -5 Bus Fleet ............................................................................. ...........................4 -10 Figure 4 -6 Ridership by Month, July 2008 — March 2010 ...................... ...........................4 -11 Figure 4 -7 Ridership by Day of Week, First full week of month, March 2009 - March 20104 -12 Figure 4 -8 Top Boarding Locations ....................................................... ...........................4 -13 Figure 4 -9 Boardings and Alightings ..................................................... ...........................4 -14 Figure 4 -10 On -Time Performance Chart — Scheduled versus Actual ..... ...........................4 -15 Figure 4 -11 Woodburn Transit Dial -a -Ride Fleet ..................................... ...........................4 -17 Figure 4 -12 Monthly Dial -a -Ride Ridership by Type, July 2008 — March 2010 ...................4 -17 Figure 4 -13 Monthly Dial -a -Ride Ridership by Trip Purpose, March 2009 — March 2010 ...4 -18 Figure 4 -14 Dial -a -Ride Origin- Destination Matrix ................................... ...........................4 -20 Figure 4 -15 Transit Revenues, FY 2008 and FY 2009 ............................ ...........................4 -21 Figure 4 -16 Woodburn Transit System Revenue Sources, FY 2007 -08 and FY 2008 - 09...4 -22 Figure 4 -17 Fixed Route Bus Performance Data and Indicators (FY 2004/05 — FY 2008/09).4- 25 Figure 4 -18 Fixed Route Bus Performance Indicator Trends (FY 2004/05 — FY 2008/09)..4 -26 Figure 4 -19 Dial -a -Ride Performance Data and Indicators (FY 2004/05 — FY 2008/09) .....4 -29 Figure 4 -20 Dial -a -Ride Performance Indicator Trends (FY 2003/04 — FY 2007/08) ..........4 -30 Figure 5 -1 Number of Passenger Surveys Collected by Survey Day ...... ............................5 -3 Figure 5 -2 Where are you coming from and where are you going? ........ ............................5 -3 Figure 5 -3 Trip Origins and Destinations ................................................ ............................5 -4 Figure 5 -4 How did you get to the bus stop? .......................................... ............................5 -5 Figure 5 -5 How will you go from this bus to the end of your trip? ........ ............................... 5 -5 Figure 5 -6 How often do you ride Woodburn Transit? ............................ ............................5 -6 Figure 5 -7 How long have you been riding Woodburn Transit? .............. ............................5 -6 Page iii Transit Plan Update • Dra ft Final R e p o r t CITY OF WOODBURN Figure 5 -8 If there was no bus service available, how would you make this trip ? ............... 5 -7 Figure 5 -9 Was a car available to you for this particular trip? .............. ............................... 5 -7 Figure 5 -10 Where do you get information about Woodburn Transit? ...... ............................5 -8 Figure 5 -11 Overall, how would you rate this bus service? ................... ............................... 5 -8 Figure 5 -12 How would you rate the following items? (Graph) .............. ............................... 5 -9 Figure 5 -13 How would you rate the following items? (Table) ............. ............................... 5 -10 Figure 5 -14 Where would you like to see Woodburn Transit go that it doesn't go? ............ 5 -11 Figure 5 -15 What improvements would help you choose to ride Woodburn Transit more often? ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 -11 Figure 5 -16 How early should Woodburn Transit operate? ................. ............................... 5 -12 Figure 5 -17 How late should Woodburn Transit operate? ....................... ...........................5 -12 Figure 5 -18 Other Suggestions / Comments ........................................... ...........................5 -13 Figure 5 -19 Number of Passenger Surveys Collected by Survey Day ............................... 5 -14 Figure 5 -20 How often do you ride Dial -a -Ride? ................................. ............................... 5 -15 Figure 5 -21 How long have you been riding Dial -a- Ride? ....................... ...........................5 -15 Figure 5 -22 If Dial -a -Ride were not available, how would you have made this trip? ........... 5 -16 Figure 5 -23 Was a car available to you for this particular trip? ............ ............................... 5 -16 Figure 5 -24 Do you have a disability that prevents you from using the regular bus route?. 5-17 Figure 5 -25 Overall, how would you rate Dial -a -Ride service? ............ ............................... 5 -17 Figure 5 -26 How would you rate the following items about Dial -a -Ride? (Graph) ............... 5 -18 Figure 5 -27 How would you rate the following items about Dial -a -Ride? (Table) ................ 5 -19 Figure 5 -28 Other Suggestions / Comments about Dial -a -Ride .......... ............................... 5 -19 Figure 6 -1 Peer Systems — General Characteristics ........................... ............................... 6 -4 Figure 6 -2 Peer Review — Service and Fare Characteristics ............... ............................... 6 -5 Figure 6 -3 Peer Operating Expenses and Revenue Sources, FY 2008 /09 .........................6 -9 Figure 6 -4 Performance Data and Indicators (Fixed Route and Demand - Response), FY 2008/09 ........................................................................... ............................... 6 -10 Figure 6 -5 Performance Data and Indicators (Fixed Route), FY 2008 / 09 .........................6 -11 Figure 6 -6 Performance Data and Indicators (Demand Response), FY 2008/09 ..............6 -12 Figure 6 -7 Comparison of Woodburn to its Neighbors .......................... ...........................6 -13 Figure 7 -1 Stakeholders Interviewed ..................................................... ............................7 -2 Figure 7 -2 Factors that Influence Greater Use of Public Transportation . ............................7 -4 Figure 9 -1 Woodburn Transit Service Efficiency Standards ................ ............................... 9 -6 Figure 9 -2 Woodburn Transit Service Quality /Reliability Standards .... ............................... 9 -7 Figure 9 -3 Woodburn Transit Service Design Standards .................... ............................... 9 -8 Figure 10 -1 Short -Term Fixed -Route Streamlining ................................. ...........................10 -3 Figure 10 -2 Fixed Route Expansion ........................................................ ...........................10 -7 Figure 10 -3 Framework for Prioritizing Strategies ............................. ............................... 10 -21 Figure 10 -4 Prioritized Strategies ..................................................... ............................... 10 -22 Figure 11 -1 Total Revenue Projection, Woodburn Transit, 2010 dollars, FY 2010/11 to FY 2030/31 ............................................................................... ...........................11 -1 Figure 11 -2 Estimated Operating Costs versus Revenues, FY 2010/11 to FY 2030/31 .....11 -3 Figure 11 -3 Potential Funding Sources and Evaluation .......................... ...........................11 -6 Figure 11 -4 Fare Modifications, 2010 -2030 ............................................ ...........................11 -9 Figure 11 -5 Fareless System Benefits and Costs ............................. ............................... 11 -10 Figure 11 -6 Possible Ridership Impact of Fareless Operation .......... ............................... 11 -11 Figure 11 -7 General Cost and Benefits of Service Delivery Models .. ............................... 11 -12 Figure 11 -8 High -Level Cost Comparison with OHAS- Contracted Service ....................... 11 -13 Figure 12 -1 Summary of Status Quo with Limited Funding Increase Scenario ................. 12 -16 Figure 12 -2 Summary of Moderate Service and Funding Increase Scenario .................. 12 -19 Page iv Transit Plan Update • Draf Final R e p o r t CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 12 -3 Summary of Significant Service and Funding Increase Scenario ..................12 -20 Page v TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF WOODBURN Transit Plan Update Executive Summary Public Works Department Plan Review and Summary • , Il D /` ll AT In co r p o r a t e d 1 8 8 9 October 2010 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The Transit Plan Update (TPU) will guide the provision of transit services and facilities in Woodburn over the next 20 years. The TPU supplements the Transportation System Plan (TSP), which all jurisdictions are required to complete by state law. The ultimate goal of the TPU is to ensure that transit is an integral component of the overall multi -modal transportation network. Transit, along with other transportation modes, will help build a safe and efficient multi -modal transportation network in Woodburn. The TPU will also be used as reference when making future planning decisions as our community grows. The Transit Plan Update (TPU) has been developed as a comprehensive plan that will guide the provision of transit services and facilities in Woodburn over the next 20 years. The TPU also serves as the transit element of the Transportation System Plan (TSP), which all jurisdictions are required to complete by state law. The ultimate goal of the TPU is to ensure that transit is an integral component of the overall transportation network. Transit, along with other transportation modes, will help build a safe and efficient multi -modal transportation network in Woodburn. The TPU will also be used as reference when making future planning decisions as our community grows. To better understand the planning context of the community, a review of previously produced planning documents was conducted in Chapter 2. In addition, Chapter 3 provides a community profile and demographic overview that focuses on key population segments that typically have the greatest propensity of need and use transit services (seniors, youth, low- income households, households and people with disabilities). A detailed overview of existing transit services in Woodburn is presented in Chapter 4. The City of Woodburn currently operates several types of transit services: • Fixed route bus. This service operates a single, hourly fixed route with 55 stops throughout the city. Service is available to the general public Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM — 5:00 PM. One -way fares are $1.00. Dial -A -Ride. This service is provides curb -to -curb ADA Complimentary Para - transit Service for certified seniors and people with disabilities who are unable to use the fixed route service. Dial -A -Ride is available Monday through Friday from approximately 9:00 AM — 5:00 PM. One -way fares are $1.50. The Dial -A -Ride demand response program also arranges for volunteer drivers to provide transportation to seniors and people with disabilities outside of Woodburn'. The fixed route service provides about 28,000 passenger trips per year, while Dial -A -Ride provides about 6,800 passenger trips per year. Ridership over the past few years has remained stable on Dial -A -Ride but has declined somewhat on the fixed route bus, likely a result of the economic downturn. Despite the recent decline, ridership figures on the fixed route bus appear to be recovering. The FY 2009 budget for Woodburn Transit is approximately $450,000. Operating and capital revenues to support transit come from a variety of local, state and federal sources. On an annual basis, the local contribution for transit is approximately $150,000 (30 -40% of total revenue) and ' Through the Marion County Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), senior volunteer drivers are utilized to provide trips for elderly and people with disabilities to medical appointments throughout the region (Salem and Portland). The program is also used to deliver meals throughout Marion County. Page ES -1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY fare revenues are approximately $25,000 (5 -7% of total revenue). State and federal sources make up the difference but actual revenue amounts vary from year -to -year. To better understand community perceptions of public transit, a series of focus groups and "stakeholder" interviews were conducted with individuals that have a direct stake in the transit services provided in Woodburn. A total of 19 individuals were consulted, most of which were in one of five small focus group meetings held on May 13th, 2010. Three separate surveys were also conducted, including an on -board passenger survey on the fixed route bus and Dial -A -Ride as well as a community survey. A total of 161 passenger surveys were received on the fixed route bus and 23 surveys were returned on the Dial -A -Ride. Over 150 community surveys were received that solicited information about what transit improvements they prefer and how people travel for work, shopping, and medical services. Survey results and community input are provided in Chapters 5 and 7, respectively. A comparative analysis of transit operations in communities that are similar to Woodburn was conducted in Chapter 6. Five communities were selected: Canby, OR; Galt, CA; Sanger, CA; Mount Vernon, WA; and McMinnville, OR. In addition, several elements of the transit services operated in Sandy, OR and Wilsonville, OR were also reported and compared to Woodburn. In general, Woodburn compares favorably to its peer transit operators, especially in terms of operating cost per revenue hour. However, the level of transit service provided in Woodburn is low compared to most peer communities, especially nearby communities with a dedicated source of funding for transit (Canby, Sandy and Wilsonville), as summarized in Figure ES -1. Figure ES -1 Comparison of Woodburn to Neighbors Woodburn Canby (OR) Wilsonville (OR) it's Sandy (OR) Annual Operating Budget (approx.) (F /R and demand response) $350,000 $1,400,000 $3,000,000 $1,100,000 Annual Service Hours (approx.) 5,600 22,000 32,000 13,800 Annual Ridership (approx.) 35,000 225,000 305,000 275,000 Cost / Passenger (approx.) $10 $6 $10 $4 City Population (approx.) 24,000 15,000 18,000 8,000 Dedicated revenue source? No Yes, Payroll Tax Yes, Payroll Tax Yes, Payroll Tax Administrative Staff (FTE) 1.8 4.6 2.8 Full -time drivers (FTE) 2 7 5 Part -Time Drivers (FTE) 1.8 3.5 3.5 Full -Time Employee Equivalents (FTEs) 5.6 15.1 11.3 Operating Budget /Service Hr. $63 $64 $94 $80 Ridership/Service Hr. 6 10 10 20 Budget /Population $15 $93 $167 $138 Pffl - ��,/� °k Woo�N i<< q a,A as9 Page ES -2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLA UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on the review of existing transit conditions, stakeholder interviews, passenger and community surveys, and the peer review, Chapter 8 provides key findings and unmet transit needs. The primary needs identified are summarized below: • There is strong public support for local transit in Woodburn. • The existing transit services should be improved first before introducing new services. • Transit service hours should be provided earlier in the morning and later in the evening. • There is a need to provide transit service on the weekends. • Woodburn should continue to coordinate local transit with regional transit services. • The fixed route service needs to reliably operate on- schedule. • Improvements to bus stops (new shelters, benches, information at stops, etc.) are needed. • There are needs for additional regional connections beyond Woodburn (specifically via 1 -5 to the South Portland suburbs and Salem). • There is a need for Dial -A -Ride service to some surrounding communities (such as Hubbard). • There is a need to improve local and regional transit marketing information in both English and Spanish • There is a need to improve access to transit (sidewalks and crossings) in some areas. • Other modes of transportation (such as bicycling and taxis) should continue to be promoted to continue building a multi -modal transportation system. • The transit program should make better use of existing resources to track and report performance information about transit services. • Additional support is needed to enhance the customer service and reliability of the fixed route and Dial -A -Ride services. Based on the unmet transportation needs and review of existing services, a high -level vision statement and series of goals, objectives and performance standards were developed specifically for transit service in Woodburn. These policies and guidelines will assist in the monitoring of existing services and identify where improvements should be made in the future. The new vision statement is shown below and goals, objectives and performance standards are included in Chapter 9. "To provide a clean, safe, reliable, efficient, sustainable, and affordable public transportation service for people traveling within Woodburn with a focus on those who do not have other transportation options; and to strive to provide residents, visitors, and workers traveling to and from Woodburn with efficient and convenient regional connections. " Potential service strategies were developed to address the needs assessment and subsequent goals and objectives. Other strategies were also developed that are not service - related but were identified to help improve the management, operation and overall function of transit services in Woodburn. Based on how well each strategy meets the stated objectives and rough order -of- magnitude cost estimates, the strategies organized into high, medium and low priority. The strategies and prioritization process are provided in Chapter 10. Chapter 11 provides funding projections for the next 20 years and a detailed review of potential funding sources that could be used to support transit. Potential funding sources were evaluated in three separate categories: 1) Public and Private Partnership Funding, 2) Federal and State Page ES -3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Grants, and 3) Taxes and Fees. Woodburn should start exploring less contentious funding sources first, such as additional state and federal grants, a local employer transit pass program and possibly advertising. To implement the larger vision presented in the TPU, a local, dedicated source of funding will need to be identified. Finally, a "flexible" service plan was developed in Chapter 12. This included the development of three service scenarios that vary based on the level of funding that can be achieved. The three scenarios are: • Status Quo with Limited Funding Increase. This scenario assumes that Woodburn is able to continue to meet current operating cost increases with existing funding sources, but that a limited amount of new funding will be obtained to meet basic service needs. Most service strategies presented in this scenario are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing services without major changes in operating or capital costs. Several strategies, however, have either capital cost or operating cost impacts and will require some additional funding. • Moderate Service and Funding Increase. This scenario assumes that Woodburn will begin to secure a moderate level of additional funds for transit service by focusing on new funding sources like additional state and federal grants, an employer transit pass program, or other less contentious sources as discussed in Chapter 11. This scenario assumes that a 90% increase in total funding could result from these additional sources. • Significant Service and Funding Increase. This scenario assumes that a significant new dedicated source of funding will be identified, such as a payroll tax or an ongoing grant such as the Business Enterprise Tax Credit (BETC). If this were to occur, significant changes in the transit network can start to take place. It is assumed that with an additional funding source, Woodburn could increase funding for transit service by 350- 390%. Figure ES- below lists a prioritized set of strategies that can be implemented with no additional revenues and if additional revenues are acquired over time. Capital and operating costs associated with expansion strategies are also included, as well as next steps and implementation considerations. Page ES -4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure ES -2 Prioritized Strategies With and Without Additional Funding Prioritized Strategies with Prioritized Strategies with Additional Est. Ann. Est. Limited to No Additional Revenue Operating Capital Revenue Costs Costs • Streamline existing fixed route • Dedicate full -time staff to dispatch, $30,000 to include some minor customer service and transit operations adjustments to minimize management (assumes hiring of one more complexity of the route. part -time person) • Strengthen physical • Acquire two new Dial -A -Ride vehicles to $160,000 connections and scheduling replace an aging vehicle and keep up with with regional providers service demand. • Maximize use of existing • Develop a new identity and marketing $60,000 scheduling and transit materials to promote existing services, management software improve the image of transit, and better integrate with regional providers. • Institute process for regular • Expand service hours to 7:00 AM -7:00 PM $137,700 data collection and reporting on on the fixed route and Dial -A -Ride to make fixed route and Dial -A -Ride transit more available, primarily to workers. • Convene regular regional • Expand the local fixed route to provide $173,000 $200,000 - transit forum with nearby transit additional route coverage and add a new core $300,000 providers to discuss regional loop route that would operate in both transit needs and issues directions providing 30- minute frequency to major local destinations. • Promote regional • Install new bus shelters at the top boarding $80,000 carpool /vanpool program locations and destination in Woodburn. • Install bike racks on buses to enhance the $800 - multi -modal nature of the transportation $1,600 system. • Introduce fixed route and Dial -A -Ride $77,000 service on Saturday from 9:00 AM — 5:00 PM. • Provide new peak -only intercity service to $216,000- None- Salem and Wilsonville. $410,000 $600,000 • Purchase a new low -floor transit vehicle to $300,000 - better accommodate seniors, people with $400,000 disabilities and passengers with large loads children. • Introduce "flexible" fixed route service on $29,500 Sunday from 9:00 AM — 4:00 PM. • Provide new midday intercity service to $260,000 None Salem and Wilsonville Next Steps and Implementation Considerations • Integrate TPU into Transportation System Plan as required by state law • Begin exploring additional funding options (Advertising, State and Federal grants, etc.) • Integrate key elements of the TPU into Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan • Gauge public support and political willingness for a new local dedicated source of funding for transit 2 Assumes peak -only service is already operational. If peak -only service is provided by "SMART' Route 1X, midday service would require new vehicles since Route 1X does not operate during the midday period. Page ES -5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1. Introduction This Transit Plan Update is being developed for the City of Woodburn for its fixed route and Dial - a -Ride services. The Transit Plan is being updated to fulfill several important objectives: • Update the Transportation System Plan completed in 2005. The last review of the transit services operated in Woodburn was conducted in 2005 as part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). The TSP is required for all jurisdictions in Oregon and includes elements related to roadway network, bicycle and pedestrian network, and the transit system This document will serve as the transit element for the next TSP update and allow the City to make land use code and guideline revisions to build a safe and efficient multi -modal transportation network. • "Flexible" Transit Plan. Recommendations in this Transit Plan will be developed in a way that allows the transit system to grow over the next 20 years. The Transit Plan will also offer guidance on where transit infrastructure investments should be made over the next 20 years, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and connectivity to regional transit services. The Draft Final Report includes the following sections: • Literature Review (Chapter 2). This chapter reviews previous planning efforts, summarizes key elements of the plans and identifies relevant findings. • Community Profile and Demographic Overview (Chapter 3). This chapter provides a brief overview of the Woodburn area and presents demographic trends that will impact transit demand. • Overview of Existing Transportation Services (Chapter 4). This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of existing public transit services in the Woodburn area (Woodburn Transit System, CARTS, and CATS), as well as other social service and private transportation providers. • Passenger Survey (Chapter 5). This chapter summarizes the key findings from an on- board passenger survey that was conducted on the Woodburn Transit bus and Dial -A- Ride vans. • Peer Review (Chapter 6). This chapter compares public transit services in the Woodburn area with several other communities with similar characteristics. • Community Input (Chapter 7). This chapter provides an overview of the stakeholder process including input from the Project Development Team (PDT) and a community survey. Key findings from this input were summarized in Chapter 8. • Key Findings and Unmet Transportation Needs (Chapter 8). This chapter summarizes the key findings from Chapters 2 through 7 and summarizes the unmet transportation needs. • Goals, Objectives and Performance Standards (Chapter 9). Based on the key findings and unmet transportation needs in Chapter 8, and the previous goals and objectives developed in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), this chapter offers several goals, objectives and performance standards for Woodburn. 3 TSPs are required by the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.712 and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administrative rule known as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Page 1 -1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Potential Service Strategies (Chapter 10). This chapter provides a set of potential service strategies to address the goals and objectives developed in Chapter 9. Strategies are then prioritized based on how well they meet the established objectives and the capital and operating cost associated with implementing each strategy. • Funding Projections and Strategies (Chapter 11). This chapter provides an funding projections for transit, assuming no new sources of funding, and a comprehensive list of potential new funding sources, advantages and disadvantages associated with each source, and an assessment of how likely it will be for Woodburn to obtain these new sources. • Flexible Service Plan (Chapter 12). This chapter provides a series of potential scenarios for how transit could be provided over time. Service strategies are suggested for different funding levels: status quo, moderate increase and significant increase. • Appendix. A number of supporting materials are included in the Appendix, including survey materials, stakeholder survey notes, and notes from the public meetings. Page 1 -2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 2, Literature Review This chapter provides an overview of several important planning documents that have been completed in the past few years that have direct relevance to the update of this plan. While the focus of this literature review is on transit and transportation services, other elements that could have an impact on the development of this plan are also noted. Woodburn Transportation System Plan (2005) The City of Woodburn updated its 1996 TSP in 2005. This overview focuses on the City's transportation goals as they relate to transit and transit needs and planned improvements. Transportation Goals Excerpts from the City's five transportation goals and associated policies that relate to transit are quoted below in italics. Goal 1: Develop a multimodal transportation system that avoids or reduces a reliance on one form of transportation and minimizes energy consumption and air quality impacts. 1. Develop an expanded inteacity bus transit system that provides added service and route coverage to improve the mobility and accessibility of the transportation disadvantaged and to attract traditional auto users to use the system. 2. Develop a plan for providing travel options between Woodburn and Portland or Salem, including intercity bus service and potential bus /carpool park -and -ride facilities. 3. Develop a bikeway system that provides routes and facilities that allow bicyclists to travel from residential areas to schools, parks, places of employment, and commercial areas.... Ensure all new collector and arterial streets are constructed with bicycle lanes. 4. Identify sidewalk and off - street pathway improvements to improve pedestrian mobility within neighborhoods and between residential areas and schools, parks, places of employment, and commercial areas.... Goal 2: Develop a street system which will handle projected year 2020 traffic demands in the Woodburn area, and interconnects residential areas with employment centers, schools, parks, churches, and regional transportation facilities. 6 Identify the need for additional public parking provisions in Woodburn, including park - and -ride facilities, as well as a plan to support increased carpooling and transit use in the future. Goal 3: Develop transportation improvements that address overall traffic safety in the Woodburn area. 3. Identify street and railroad crossings in need of improvement, as well as those that should be closed or relocated. Goal 4: Develop a set of reliable funding sources that can be applied to fund future transportation improvements in the Woodburn area. 1. Evaluate the feasibility of the full range of funding mechanisms for transportation improvements. 2. Evaluate the feasibility of instituting an added City gas tax for transportation improvements. Page 2 -1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. Identify a traffic impactfee structrare for new development in the Woodburn area to fund transportation improvements. Goal 5: Develop amendments to City land use standards and ordinances to reduce travel demand and promote use of modes of transportation other than the automobile. 1. Identify a range ofpotential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that can be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system by shifting single - occupant vehicle trips to other modes and reducing automobile reliance at times ofpeak traffic volumes. Public Transit Needs and Alternatives (within Woodburn) The 2005 TSP identified deficiencies in the existing transit system as: • Times of operation (9 AM to 5 PM) that do not serve a "broad range" of employment - related travel • The one -way loop does not efficiently serve travel in the opposite direction, especially for short trips Although not detailed here, the TSP also identified gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian systems, both of which are complementary to transit. It also identified serving several areas of anticipated high employment and residential growth as current /future transit needs (see below). The TSP recommended the following intracity and intercity transit improvements, listed below in order of priority and summarized in Figure 2 -1. • Increase service frequency on the existing fixed bus routes (Alternative 1). This option would extend service hours to 7 AM to 7 PM with buses operating every 30 minutes, requiring one extra bus. • Convert the single one -way loop to a two -way loop (Alternative 2). This option would also extend service hours to 7 AM to 7 PM, but preserve hourly service frequency. It would also require one extra bus. • Create two routes in the east /west direction, with either one- or two -way operations (Alternatives 314). This option would create separate east and west transit routes with a common connection in downtown. The proposed east -west boundary between the two routes was Front Street or Settlemier Avenue. Service frequency would be 30 minutes, operating from 7 AM to 7 PM and the routes could be operated with one -way (Alt. 3) or two -way circulation (Alt. 4). The TSP notes that the service alternatives could be implemented in conjunction with providing Saturday service or expanding service coverage to meet current /future transit needs as growth occurs: • Serving the Parr Road corridor (running east -west in the south part of the City), possibly via an extension of Evergreen Road • Serving the Crosby and Butteville Road corridors (west of 1 -5, north of Highway 214) • Serving the employment center southwest of the 1 -5 /Oregon 214 interchange • Serving Woodburn Industrial Park located in the Progress and Industrial corridors (between 1 -5 and Highway 99, north of Highway 214) Page 2 -2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Intercity Transit Service The TSP recommended a maximum 300 -space park- and -ride facility in the northeast quadrant of the 1 -5 /Highway 214 interchange, currently planned as part of the interchange reconstruction project. It suggested that more spaces be provided than the anticipated intercity transit demand to accommodate carpooling to Portland and /or Salem, and incorporating a stop for the Woodburn intracity bus route. A new transit facility is currently planned at this location as well. The TSP also suggested providing morning and evening commute hour shuttle service to either the Portland metro area or Salem, with a potential mid -day connection. Intercity service options suggested in the TSP include: • Provide service to downtown Salem (and east to State offices): Incorporate a stop at the planned Park & Ride for the SMART express route between Wilsonville and Salem (details provided in Chapter 4) • Providing service to Portland. Connect to TriMet via the Tualatin Park - and -Ride, directly into downtown Portland, to the Westside Express Service (southern terminus at Wilsonville SMART Central), or to future north -south MAX light rail service. Figure 2 -1 below provides a summary table of projects included in the 2005 TSP, along with the project time frame, Woodburn's estimated share of capital costs, and estimated annual operating costs, if applicable. Figure 2 -1 TSP Planned Transit Improvements Project Time Frame Est. Capital Cost Est. Operating Cost 1 -5 Interchange Transit Center / Park and Ride 2005 -2010 $1,750,000 N/A Increase transit frequency to 30 minutes 2010 -2020 $180,000 $352,000 Convert transit route to two -way operations 2010 -2020 $180,000 $352,000 Separate route into two routes with one- way or two -way operations 2010 -2020 1 $360,000/ $700,000 $352,000/ $704,000 Note: Table above is based on information directly from the Woodburn Transportation System Plan, 2005 Other Transit Recommendations Other recommendations in the TSP are to "investigate transferring the paratransit system to a local social service agency" as part of a greater emphasis in putting resources into the fixed route system, and to "conduct a more detailed study of transit system improvements by pursuing a separate `Transit Development Program' study." Transportation Demand Management Recommendations TDM recommendations in the TSP, aimed at decreasing single- occupant vehicle trips, include to: Provide transit fare subsides when the transit system is improved to incorporate the peak periods • Establish carpool matching programs for ride - sharing • Schedule shift changes to occur outside of peak travel periods Page 2 -3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Allow employees to work at home 1 day a week • Establish neighborhood commercial and mixed -use nodes within the City. As part of these developments, direct sidewalk connections, bus stop provisions, and proper building orientation provide opportunities for trips to be made by way of walking, cycling, or driving very short distances. Comprehensive Plan (1978, revised 1996 -1999) The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1978 and updated between 1996 and 1999. The Transportation Goals and Policies were amended in 1997, and those relevant to this plan are quoted below in italics: Goal K -1: Establish a framework for the development of facilities to move persons and goods in as safe, effective, and efficient manner as possible under projected year 201 traffre conditions. Policy K -1 -4: Develop a public transit system that will provide service and facilities to improve the mobility and accessibility of the transportation disadvantaged Policy K -1 -5: The City shall encourage pedestrian safety and foster pedestrian activity, sidewalks shall be provided on all arterial, service collector, and access streets. Where possible, sidewalks should be detached from the curb, separated by a minimum 4 -foot wide parkway strip. Policy K -1 -6: The City shall encourage large businesses in Woodburn to set up carpool and vanpool matching programs based on employees' residential location and work shift. Goal K -2: Develop a transportation system that avoids or reduces a reliance upon any one form of transportation. Policy K -2 -1: Encourage the development of transit services by route expansion, increasing levels of service and appropriate street design to facilitate movement of transit vehicles. Downtown Development Plan Update (2008) The Woodburn Downtown Development Plan updates a 1998 plan and envisions downtown as a "thriving, safe, and vital center for the community." The plan has five subareas and provides three overall goals aimed at "improving the appeal of downtown as a good place to work, shop, walk around, and have a business:" • Enhance Old Town and the Settlemier neighborhood as a Healthy Heart' for Downtown • Create a `Complete Downtown' with new development in the Gateway Subarea • Sustain a ,Successfid Business C'ommunity A premise of the Downtown Development Plan is that "a balanced multi -modal infrastructure is an essential component to a vibrant downtown core." Its transportation framework includes bicycle /pedestrian, parking, and streetscape improvements; bicycle /pedestrian and streetscape enhancements could be beneficial for transit. Specific transit elements of the plan include: • Establishing a downtown Amtrak passenger rail stop along Front Street in downtown Woodburn, potentially as a public - private partnership at the "Y" property adjacent to Locomotive Park (Action Item D3, 6+ years) • Refocusing local and regional transit service in the Gateway subarea (between Front Street and Mill Creek) to support the plan's vision of a mixed -used district Page 2 -4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Establishing a free shuttle between the Woodburn Company Stores and Downtown Woodburn, hourly during peak shopping and entertainment hours (Action Item D2, 6+ years, $300,000 annual budget) Salem - Keizer Transit Specialized Transportation Plan for Polk and Marion Counties (2007) The plan focused on improving CARTS service and its coordination with other services operating in Marion and Polk Counties. Three themes present in the plan included to: • Improve CARTS services by increasing service frequency, refining route timing, and restructuring some current service, including the service between Silverton and Woodburn, which is now a deviated fixed route • Develop a marketing program for CARTS, including several strategies for increasing awareness of and improving informational resources, such as web site enhancements and a comprehensive information brochure • Enhance coordination among transit service providers, including coordinated marketing, such as a single map with all urban and rural transit services in the region, local funding support and cost sharing for CARTS, and service enhancements such as a stop on SMART Route 1X between Salem, Woodburn, and Wilsonville (see Chapter 4 for additional details) Marion and Polk Counties Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan (2009) Building upon the 2007 Specialized Transportation Plan, this plan identified unmet transportation needs and recommended strategies to address them. A selection of the needs and strategies that most closely relate to transit service in Woodburn are listed in the table below. Figure 2 -2 Unmet Needs and Corresponding Service Strategies Unmet Transportation Needs Strategies • Limited Service, including lack of • Add weekend service, extend evening hours, and improve weekend /evening service on CARTS frequencies and insufficient frequency • Unserved or underserved areas, • Implement shopper shuttle between North Marion County and including from North Marion County to Portland Portland • Offer a stop in Woodburn on Route 1X to provide better north -south access between Salem, Woodburn, and Wilsonville • Service Quality, including travel time, • Improve travel time, maintain consistent routing and stop locations, reliability, clarity, and scheduling and establish clear policies for deviations • Marketing and customer information • Develop a single map with all urban and rural services illustrating connections to neighboring services • Enhance web -site, including regional trip planning • Increase multi - lingual marketing efforts, especially Spanish. • Coordination and duplication • Develop and implement connectivity improvements, such as shared marketing, information sharing, signage, coordinated transfers, etc. Page 2 -5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 3. Community Profile and Demographic Overview Woodburn is the third most populous city in Marion County, following Salem and Keizer, with an estimated 2007 population of nearly 23,000 people. Woodburn comprises over seven percent of Marion County's population and is one of the fastest growing cities in both Marion County and Oregon. Located centrally in the Willamette Valley, one of Oregon's most productive agricultural areas, Woodburn is17 miles north and 30 miles south of the population centers of Salem and Portland, respectively. Woodburn has strong agricultural roots, including farming, food processing, and nurseries, but also a growing retail base, including the Woodburn Company Stores outlet mall that opened in 1996, Walmart, Safeway, Mega Foods, and Grocery Outlet. A variety of health care services are also available in Woodburn, including Wellspring Medical Center (a division of the Silverton Hospital Network), the Legacy Medical Group, and Salud Medical Center. Woodburn's location along major transportation corridors provides it with excellent commercial access, including to the Port of Portland, and makes it desirable for industrial and distribution facilities. Interstate 5 and Highway 99E run north -south on either edge of the City. Highway 214 runs east -west and roughly bisects the City. Several railroad lines pass through or near the City and provide freight service, although Amtrak service does not stop in Woodburn. Woodburn's downtown and historic center, though bypassed by these major transportation facilities, contributes to Woodburn's small -town feel and contains a number of civic and public institutions, including City Hall, the Chemeketa Community College Woodburn campus, and the Woodburn Aquatic Center. A number of small businesses in downtown are Latino -owned and operated, including numerous dining establishments. Woodburn is a culturally diverse city, including a large Hispanic population and Russian, Asian Indian, and Mennonite ethnic groups. There is also a strong retirement presence in Woodburn including Senior Estates, a subdivision started in the 1960s that now has over 1,500 residences located on a golf course. Woodburn's attractions include the World Berry Center Museum, the Woodburn Tulip Festival, and La Fiesta Mexicana. Figure 3 -1 shows the major transportation corridors serving Woodburn and places the City in the context of surrounding communities. 4 Population Research Center, Portland State University. Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010 -2030, September 2008 5 Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, 6 Natural Borders. A Human Geographic Issue Management System for Natural Resource Managers in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. http: / /www.naturalborders.com /methods /wiIlamette /contents.htm Page 3 -1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 -1 Woodburn and Surrounding Communities a I Dundee YAMlHLL � COUNTY { It 4- - St ul • • A MARION { COUNTY { • � -As ? 1 14 ♦ Gervais 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 i 1 i i 1� Scotts Mills N 2 14..._ s Nolso l ftalyd toes or tio6 associates Source: Oregon GeosparclEnterprse Office Page 3 -2 51 Aurora 1 ..r r r 770 Z I = i I ♦ 11 1 CLACKAMAS �. COUNTY + i Angel �® Scotts Mills N 2 14..._ s Nolso l ftalyd toes or tio6 associates Source: Oregon GeosparclEnterprse Office Page 3 -2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Demographic Profile This section provides a review of current demographic information and future trends in the context of public transportation needs in the Woodburn area. A particular focus of this plan is on key population segments that typically have the greatest propensity to need and use transit services. Likewise, population and employment density also tend to offer strong indication as to where transit demand likely will be greatest. Therefore, transit "markets" in a community tend to be associated with the following demographic characteristics: • Densely populated neighborhoods • Concentrated employment centers • Older adults • Youth • Low income persons • Households with zero vehicle ownership • Persons with disabilities The presentation of relevant data in this section is based largely on a series of density maps that show the distribution of each market with a relatively high propensity to use public transit. Experience shows conclusively that the density of people, jobs and service will drive transit demand more than any other factors. It should be noted that our analysis defines transit markets based on a single characteristic, thus some individuals will be included in one or more demographic group. For example, an older adult who is also disabled and is classified as low income will be included in three separate demographic groups. Population and Employment Density The demand for transit service is generally highest in areas where both population and employment density are high. Figure 3 -2 shows the population density for Woodburn in 2000 along with the existing Woodburn Transit System bus route.' The route generally corresponds to areas of dense population. However, the City's relatively dense southeast neighborhood is not directly served by the fixed route transit service and is also separated from it by railroad crossings on its west and north sides with limited crossings. ' Current data from the American Community Survey is not yet available at the block or block group level for communities Woodburn's size, therefore the population density map presents U.S. Census Data from 2000. Page 3 -3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 -2 Population Density, 2000 >A WOW"AV Population, 2000 by Census Block, per Square Mile 0 0 1 - 1 1,350 - 5.282 - 5,283 - 8.398 - 8,399 - 41,154 City Boundaries Woodburn Transit System U 0.25 0.5 . oMlles NNS29 Nygaard consul ping .......... Data Source: Census 2000 SF1 GIs Data Source: Oregon Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, City of Woodburn Page 3 -4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Seniors and Youth Older Adults (65 years and above) and young people (five to 17 years old) typically utilize public transportation more frequently than the general population. Older adults often exhibit higher demand for transit as they become less capable or willing to drive themselves, or can no longer afford to own a car. Young people without driver licenses or regular access to a personal automobile need transit service for school and after school activities, part -time jobs and general mobility particularly during the summer months. It should be noted that older adults and youth do not always utilize public transportation in the same ways. For example, older adults tend to use public transportation during the middle of the day for shopping and medical appointments, while youth tend to use public transportation to get to and from school, for after school activities and on weekends. It should also be noted that national trends show that a lower proportion of younger adults are embracing "car culture" - or the need to own their own vehicle - that defined earlier generations. While there are complex societal reasons for this shift, many younger adults cite higher insurance, maintenance and fuel costs as reasons for not owning their own vehicle. In addition, many younger adults embrace digital media and technology, such as texting and talking on a cell phone without a hands -free device, which are illegal while driving in Oregon but very conducive to transit passengers. Figure 3 -3 below shows the age distribution of people in the City of Woodburn compared to Marion County, Oregon, and the United States as a whole based on the 2006 -2008 American Community Survey. Woodburn has a good mix of ages, although seniors, young children, and youth comprise higher shares of the population in Woodburn than the other geographies and represent a relatively larger transit market in Woodburn. The senior and youth share of the population in Woodburn is also among the highest of other cities in Marion County, based on older data from the 2000 U.S. Census that includes smaller cities. Figure 3 -3 Age Distribution Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 -2008 American Community Survey 8 http: / /w\Nw.iihs.org /laws /cellphonelaws.aspx 9 Population Research Center, Portland State University Page 3 -5 Woodburn Marion County Oregon United States Age Group # Persons % # Persons % # Persons % # Persons % Under 5 2 9.7% 24,039 7.7% 237 6.4% 20 6.9% 5-17 4 22.0% 58,700 20.5% 625,602 17.9% 53 18.9% 18 -24 1 7.8% 28 9.2% 334 8.9% 29 9.8% 25 -34 3 16.3% 45 14.5% 520 13.9% 40,125 13.3% 35 -44 3 14.2% 42 13.6% 512 13.7% 43,140 14.3% 45 -59 3 13.9% 59 19.3% 819 21.9% 62,076 20.6% 60 -64 743 3.3% 14 4.7% 196 5.3% 14 4.8% 65 -74 1,354 6.1% 18 6.0% 250 6.7% 19 6.5% 75 and over 1 8.8% 18 6.0% 238 6.4% 18 6.1% Total 22 100.0% 310 100.0% 3,735 100.0% 301 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 -2008 American Community Survey 8 http: / /w\Nw.iihs.org /laws /cellphonelaws.aspx 9 Population Research Center, Portland State University Page 3 -5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Walking distance to the fixed route bus (up to approximately half a mile may be an issue for residents of Senior Estates who could otherwise ride the bus. Railroad tracks separate the southeast part of the City from the existing bus route on both the north and west, with limited crossing points. "Fearless" youth trying to catch the bus are more likely to attempt illegal and possibly dangerous crossings of the tracks. Page 3 -6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 -4 and Figure 3 -5 show the population density of older adults (over 65) and youth (17 and under) in 2000, respectively. While the largest concentration of seniors is in the area of Senior Estates, between 1 -5 and Settlemier Avenue /Boones Ferry Road on both sides of Highway 214, youth are more widely distributed around the city, though most heavily concentrated in the southeast quadrant of the City. The patterns of youth population density closely resemble the general population density patterns shown in Figure 3 -2 above. 10 Current data from the American Community Survey is not yet available at the block or block group level for communities Woodburn's size, therefore these population density maps present U.S. Census Data from 2000. Page 3 -7 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 -4 Older Adult (65 +) Population Density in 2000 by Census Block So Nelsen 1 Nygaard Data so me C-- -° 5r1 D t Dala urce: Oregon Geospatial Dala Clearinghouse, Cily o1 Wovdbum Figure 3 -5 Youth (17 and under) Population Density in 2000 by Census Block Youth (17 and Under), 2000 I by Census Block, per Square Mile 0 0y 1-372 s� 373 -1,654 - 1,655 -3,170 f - 3,171 - 14,742 N City Boundaries Woodburn Transit System 0 025 0.5 . Miles Nelsonimypaard c —.lr — g „--- Data Source: C-sus 2000 SF1 GIS Data Source_ Oregon Geospatial Data Cleannghouse, City of Woodbum Page 3 -8 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Persons with Disabilities Persons with disabilities often are frequent consumers of transit services, as well as vocal proponents for public transportation. Figure 3 -6 below shows that nearly 16% of the population in Woodburn (age five or older) has one or more disabilities, slightly less than Marion County and Oregon as a whole. This equates to over 3,000 individuals in Woodburn. While many individuals with a disability are full- functioning members of society and do not require special transportation, a certain percentage of the disabled population has what is defined by the Census as a "Go- outside - home" disability. This definition includes only people who indicated that they travel outside the home and that it was difficult for them to shop or visit a doctor's office, indicating that they are likely to require transportation assistance to meet their basic travel needs. About 5.5% of the population in Woodburn (age 16 or older) has a go- outside -home disability, nearly identical to the other geographic regions shown in Figure 3 -6. In terms of total individuals, about 900 people in the City of Woodburn have a go- outside home disability. Figure 3 -6 Disability Status, 2005 -2007 Source: American Community Survey, 2005 -2007 Low Income Households with low incomes also tend to be higher consumers of public transportation, largely because the cost of owning a private vehicle and all other associated costs (fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc.) are difficult for some people to afford. National statistics now show that around 20% of total household expenditures are spent on transportation, and most of those costs are for private vehicles." As income increases, households are more likely to own vehicles for one or more of the workers in the household. They are also less likely to use transit for non -work purposes, but may still choose to use it as an alternative to commuting. Figure 3 -7 shows the percentage of Woodburn households by income category. Lower shares of Woodburn households are in the highest income categories of over $100,000 per year (totaling about 5% of households compared to 13% to 20% in the other geographic regions). Woodburn has a lower share of very low- income households (earning less than $10,000 per year) than the county, state, or nation (about 3% compared to 6% to 7 %). However, a higher share of Woodburn households fall into low- moderate income categories ($20,000 - $24,999 and $35,000 - $39,999) income categories than other geographic regions (9% to 10% each compared to about 5% to 6 %). One factor related to household income is household size and Woodburn households are slightly larger than Marion County as a whole (on average about 3 people compared to 2.6 people per household). In terms of poverty status, which is based on family size, on average nearly 17% of Woodburn residents were below the poverty level in the previous 12 -month period between 2006 -2008. By comparison, 15.5% of Marion County residents were below the poverty level over the same time frame. " Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2007 Page 3 -9 Woodburn Marion County Oregon United States Total with a disability (age 5 +) 3,224 46,506 562,966 41,101,667 % with one or more disabilities 15.9% 16.8% 16.5% 15.1% Total with a go- outside -home disability (age 16 +) 914 12,286 155,329 12,296,665 % with a go- outside -home disability 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% Source: American Community Survey, 2005 -2007 Low Income Households with low incomes also tend to be higher consumers of public transportation, largely because the cost of owning a private vehicle and all other associated costs (fuel, insurance, maintenance, etc.) are difficult for some people to afford. National statistics now show that around 20% of total household expenditures are spent on transportation, and most of those costs are for private vehicles." As income increases, households are more likely to own vehicles for one or more of the workers in the household. They are also less likely to use transit for non -work purposes, but may still choose to use it as an alternative to commuting. Figure 3 -7 shows the percentage of Woodburn households by income category. Lower shares of Woodburn households are in the highest income categories of over $100,000 per year (totaling about 5% of households compared to 13% to 20% in the other geographic regions). Woodburn has a lower share of very low- income households (earning less than $10,000 per year) than the county, state, or nation (about 3% compared to 6% to 7 %). However, a higher share of Woodburn households fall into low- moderate income categories ($20,000 - $24,999 and $35,000 - $39,999) income categories than other geographic regions (9% to 10% each compared to about 5% to 6 %). One factor related to household income is household size and Woodburn households are slightly larger than Marion County as a whole (on average about 3 people compared to 2.6 people per household). In terms of poverty status, which is based on family size, on average nearly 17% of Woodburn residents were below the poverty level in the previous 12 -month period between 2006 -2008. By comparison, 15.5% of Marion County residents were below the poverty level over the same time frame. " Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2007 Page 3 -9 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As shown in the last row of Figure 3 -7, median household income is less in Woodburn than Marion County, Oregon and the United States. Moreover, housing costs are higher in Woodburn than Marion County overall, increasing the relative cost -of- living for Woodburn residents. The median rental housing cost is $768 in Woodburn, compared to $704 in Marion County. The median housing cost for owned homes with a mortgage is $1,511 in Woodburn, also higher than $1,466 in Marion County. Figure 3 -7 Household Income, Past 12 Months, 2008 inflation- adjusted dollars Income Woodburn Marion County Oregon United States Number % Number % Number % Number % Less than $10,000 237 3.2% 6,654 5.9% 102,356 7.0% 8,045,626 7.2% $10,000 to $14,999 405 5.5% 6,534 5.8% 82,405 5.6% 6,139,558 5.5% $15,000 to $19,999 531 7.2% 7,182 6.4% 80,564 5.5% 5,951,218 5.3% $20,000 to $24,999 741 10.0% 7,417 6.6% 81,834 5.6% 5,969,858 5.3% $25,000 to $29,999 483 6.5% 7,168 6.4% 83,171 5.7% 5,921,704 5.3% $30,000 to $34,999 323 4.4% 6,993 6.3% 84,107 5.7% 5,977,646 5.3% $35,000 to $39,999 669 9.1% 6,272 5.6% 76,872 5.2% 5,521,646 4.9% $40,000 to $44,999 365 4.9% 6,179 5.5% 75,421 5.1% 5,549,466 4.9% $45,000 to $49,999 386 5.2% 4,926 4.4% 67,360 4.6% 4,880,035 4.3% $50,000 to $59,999 934 12.7% 11,110 9.9% 133,695 9.1% 9,398,215 8.4% $60,000 to $74,999 861 11.7% 12,685 11.3% 158,264 10.8% 11,711,656 10.4% $75,000 to $99,999 1,048 14.2% 13,672 12.2% 181,846 12.4% 13,992,314 12.5% $100,000 to $124,999 117 1.6% 7,398 6.6% 105,751 7.2% 8,736,798 7.8% $125,000 to $149,999 178 2.4% 3,077 2.8% 57,349 3.9% 5,021,306 4.5% $150,000 to $199,999 55 0.7% 2,582 2.3% 49,213 3.4% 4,858,631 4.3% $200,000 or more 47 0.6% 2,011 1.8% 44,464 3.0% 4,710,621 4.2% Total Households 1 7,380 1 100.0%1 111,860 1 100.0% 1 1,464,672 1 100.0% 1 112,386,298 1 100.0% Median HH Income $44,144 $46,340 $49,863 $52,175 Source: American Community Survey, 2006 -2008 The bottom map in Error! Reference source not found. shows the geographic distribution of low- income residents in Woodburn, based on the data from the 2000 U.S. Census. Two of the City's highest concentrations of low- income individuals are located between Harrison Street and Highway 99 and 214, and between Front Street and Highway 99 on both sides of Cleveland Street. Households without access to a vehicle Households that do not have regular access to a personal vehicle generally have a higher dependence on public transportation. This indicator may represent households without the economic means of owning a vehicle, as well as households with individuals that are unable to drive, such as senior citizens and persons with disabilities. The top map in Error! Reference source not found. shows the geographic distribution of carless households in Woodburn, based on the data from the 2000 U.S. Census. The neighborhood south of Cleveland Street in the eastern part of the City and in Senior Estates on both sides of Highway 214 have the highest concentrations of households without access to a vehicle. Page 3 -10 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLA 11,P DATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 -8 Density of Households without Access to a Vehicle (top) and Low Income Population (bottom) in 2000 by Block Group Page 3 -11 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Population and Employment Trends Population Projections The most recent population projections for the City of Woodburn forecast that the City will grow much more quickly than Marion County as a whole between 2007 and 2030, and at the highest rate of the five largest cities in the County. Figure 3 -9 shows the medium growth (most likely) scenario, which projects that the City would grow from about 23,000 people in 2007 to over 37,000 people by 2030. This represents average annual growth of 2.1 %, or a nearly 63% increase between 2007 and 2030, and is nearly double the growth rate for Marion County as a whole. Woodburn is projected to grow slightly less in a low growth scenario, 1.8% annually or nearly 50% from 2007 -2030 to about 34,000 people. The high growth scenario forecasts 2.6% annual growth, or about 82% from 2007 -2030 to nearly 42,000 people. It should be noted that the current economic downtown may delay or slow the rate of anticipated growth. Figure 3 -9 City of Woodburn Projected Population, 2007 -2030 (Medium Growth) Source: Population Research Center, Portland State University, September 2008 Older Population Projections According to 2004 county -level projections by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, the population of older adults in Marion County and statewide is forecast to grow dramatically as the baby boom generation turns 65 starting in 2011, similar to national trends. As shown in Figure 3 -10, the population age 65 and older is projected to grow by over 98% in Marion County and over 116% in Oregon between 2000 and 2030. Older adults are projected to increase from over 12% of the population in both Marion County and statewide to 17% in Marion County and over 19% statewide. In Woodburn in 2000, older adults made up 18% of the population. The implications of an aging population include higher disability rates, which could increase demand for specialized transportation. Although the trend is likely to be similar for Woodburn, projections are not available at the city level and current data show a decline in the older population between 2000 and 2006 -2008. Based on the 2006 -2008 American Community Survey estimate listed in Figure 3 -3 above, older adults appear to currently represent a lower number (3,320) and share of the population (about 15 %) today than in 2000. Figure 3 -10 Projected Older Population Change, 2000 -2030 2000 Medium Growth Forecast % Change Place 2007 2010 2020 2030 2007 -2030 Annual Average Marion County 311,070 323,266 368,364 410,431 31.9% 1.2% Woodburn 22,875 24,866 31,243 37,216 62.7% 2.1% Source: Population Research Center, Portland State University, September 2008 Older Population Projections According to 2004 county -level projections by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, the population of older adults in Marion County and statewide is forecast to grow dramatically as the baby boom generation turns 65 starting in 2011, similar to national trends. As shown in Figure 3 -10, the population age 65 and older is projected to grow by over 98% in Marion County and over 116% in Oregon between 2000 and 2030. Older adults are projected to increase from over 12% of the population in both Marion County and statewide to 17% in Marion County and over 19% statewide. In Woodburn in 2000, older adults made up 18% of the population. The implications of an aging population include higher disability rates, which could increase demand for specialized transportation. Although the trend is likely to be similar for Woodburn, projections are not available at the city level and current data show a decline in the older population between 2000 and 2006 -2008. Based on the 2006 -2008 American Community Survey estimate listed in Figure 3 -3 above, older adults appear to currently represent a lower number (3,320) and share of the population (about 15 %) today than in 2000. Figure 3 -10 Projected Older Population Change, 2000 -2030 Source: (1) Population Estimates from Office of Economic Analysis, Dept. of Administrative Services, State of Oregon. April 2004. Page 3 -12 2000 2030 Change 2000 -2030 Place Overall 65+ %65+ Overall 65+ % 65+ Overall 65+ State of Oregon (1) 3,436,750 439,760 12.8% 4,891,225 950,922 19.4% 423% 1162% Marion County (1) 286,300 35,239 12.3% 410,022 69,798 17.0% 43.2% 98,1% Woodburn (2) 20,076 3,636 18.1% N/A Source: (1) Population Estimates from Office of Economic Analysis, Dept. of Administrative Services, State of Oregon. April 2004. Page 3 -12 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (2) Woodburn 2000 Population data from the 2000 U.S. Census Employment Projections An analysis by ECONorthwest provides the most complete recent employment projections for Woodburn, for 2020. It projected that employment in Woodburn would grow faster than the region, as it did from 1990 -2000, due to its location on the periphery of the Salem and Portland metropolitan areas and the likelihood that Woodburn's location and available development sites would be attractive assuming limited expansion of the Portland area Urban Growth Boundary. Figure 3 -11 shows 2000 total employment by sector, along with the share each sector comprised of the total. For 2020, it lists the projected share of employment for each sector along with the medium growth scenario, based on average 2.65% annual growth. The most significant projected changes in employment sectors are a decline in agricultural employment and increases in industrial and retail employment. Figure 3 -11 City of Woodburn Projected Employment, 2000 -2020 Sector 2000 2000 Share 2020 Projected Share 2020 (Medium Growth) 2000 -2020 Change Agriculture 1,368 13% 5% 876 -492 Industrial 1,171 11% 16% 2,804 1,633 Retail 3,256 31% 34% 5,959 2,703 Service 1,472 14% 14% 2,804 1,332 Education 778 7% 7% 1,402 624 Government 275 3% 3% 527 252 Other 1,696 20% 18% 3,155 1,087 Total 1 8,518 1 100% 100% 1 17,527 7,139 Source: ECONorthwest, Woodburn Population and Employment Projections, 2000 -2020, April 2002. Note: 2000 employment is total employment. The City of Woodburn's 2005 Transportation System Plan utilized employment projections for traffic modeling purposes. This analysis projected that several areas of the most significant employment growth would be both east and west of 1 -5 south of Highway 214 and in the Woodburn Industrial Park area (including the Progress and Industrial Road corridors). Major Employers A number of Woodburn's major employers are shown in Figure 3 -12. The top five largest employers listed in the Woodburn Community Profile (dating to 2000) are listed below along with their industry and number of employees; Agric -Pac, listed as the largest employer, is no longer located in Woodburn. • Waremart, warehouse distribution: 700 • Fleetwood Homes, manufactured: 675 • Silvercrest, manufactured home: 395 • Conroy Packing, frozen berries: 250 12 ECONorthwest, Woodburn Population and Employment Projections, 2000 -2020, April 2002. 13 See Woodburn Transportation System Plan, 2005, pages 4 -2 and 4 -3 and Figure 4 -1. 14 Woodburn Community Profiles, Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority, 2000. Accessed at http://www.orinfrastructure.org/profilesNVoodburn/#employers. Page 3 -13 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Commute Patterns About 59% of Woodburn residents drive alone to work based on the 2006 -2008 American Community Survey. A significant share of residents carpool (34 %) compared to 17% for Marion County as a whole or about 11 % statewide. However, only 0.2% of residents use public transit to get to work, compared to 2.2% for Marion County overall. About 2.5% of residents walk to work and 2.6% worked at home. On average, Woodburn residents travel about 25 minutes to get to work. According to the Oregon Employment Department, 20% of Woodburn residents worked in the City in 2006. Figure 3 -12 shows the number of Woodburn residents who work in different locations in Woodburn, in relation to local transit routes. (The map is based on -2008 Local Employment Dynamics (LED) data from the U.S. Census, and it should be noted that the dots do not represent precise work locations.) In general there appears to be transit coverage for most worksites in Woodburn, with the exception of some sites in the far northeast and far southeast parts of the City. Figure 3 -12 Local Commute Shed (where residents work), 2008 Nelsse Ny$ sartl Dais Source: US Ce sm Laval Employment Dynamics 20M GIS Data Source : Crry of Woodburn eoe�ol� leg a�zo��a�ee 15 Mid - Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG), 2009 Page 3 -14 � � � '� � NatrkAlM.bles■ — l V > U Woodburn •' y / /� S 99 a� Company Stores I / -- © • - Woodburn As • / %\ Wellspring Q a Medical • SaludMedialCen[a Grocery Center Outlet O / s �h&st Heafth T Mid - Valley Plaza • s • fi Food. ©Safeway.;' WtrCo W$ m I rt� • _ u _ 4 6 • Sr • ��' p • + • fi S • ; •{� Marlon Co Health fkpartrnent • • — f�/ • a atacog — 0119 4 • • K Q y fi • fi • Woodburn Transit System 1j 4� • • • — Bus Route • a • • • O Bus Stops + C • sr ® Transit Center 'P' a • f • Greyhound Stop Plaza Plaza TD Transfer Points Libra MIS -YWIa s9 Ci D h Boun • � © r O0 t cho Action _ � • Food Senilkes I Employees © Library 9 C Hal fi ofAmeda 0 1 -3 Shopping PP g 4 e • + • • O 4 -11 Medical °+r • N O 12-30 • Major Employer • �q' • O 31 -57 t College O e 58-126 Z High School n sa t aoo Feet Other Nelsse Ny$ sartl Dais Source: US Ce sm Laval Employment Dynamics 20M GIS Data Source : Crry of Woodburn eoe�ol� leg a�zo��a�ee 15 Mid - Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG), 2009 Page 3 -14 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLA UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 -13 shows the number of Woodburn residents working across the region in 2008, based on U.S. Census LED data. The most significant concentrations of work locations include the Salem metro area and southwest part of the Portland metro area. In terms of specific cities where Woodburn residents were employed in 2006, 8% worked in Salem, 7% in Portland, 6.2% in Wilsonville, and 4.5% in Tualatin. Page 3 -15 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 3 -13 Regional Commute Shed (where residents work) con 16.6 .... ei.- i Page 3 -16 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nearly 19% of people working in Woodburn are residents of the City. Figure 3 -14 shows the residential locations of people who work in Woodburn. Outside of Woodburn, the densest concentrations in Marion County are in the Salem - Keizer area and Silverton. Nearby concentrations of employees coming from north of Woodburn are Wilsonville, Canby and Molalla. A significant share of workers also comes from around the Portland metropolitan area. Figure 3 -14 Regional Labor Shed (where workers live) rest i el e Hil1l b row , - �••• � • i�"i� ';' •• ��_� � • •• S •• • �•Por�tlaSnd�•0 go �•• "•�jlr� Gresham • • •• • • •• •1 MLL'.' OI�i1A`H� • see" • • 10 •M •B@averrdiil N •' �• WASHINGTON '•• _' • • ' • Gaston COUNTY • • �• • • • • • • • Mlhvariki' • VappyValley •� •• • • 10 • 9 r 17 Iy keloU t • ` • �• 24 • • • • +i I Durham f • a3 t J hnso�n(Ity-+- ., DarM • • • • • Tualatin INe t Lill n ladsstorte • • She od' Yamhlll 19 w • • • 9 • M • • 99e I . 41 0 • • • . • • ' , • C LACKAMAS YAMPIILL COUNTY • oAc� • 00 J) j,TY• • 0 9 0 'Canby • • • • • c°1 °lette • - 0 • • • 213 • • • • • on • • • . • Aurora • • . • • • • • McMlhnville is • • " �• • • • • • _ • • •• • • • • Hu as r • • • • • • • • 33 • • • .. 00 urn • • • • ' �+ IW Amhy • • • • • • • • • 21 •• • •• • • •• • • • • • G 1 • • ; • • • 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Mt. gel • • • • • • ye •• • MA IO,NLCOUNTY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • POLK COUNTY 2i • • • Sill verton • • �• • • • 13 • • • • # Employees • • •••• • •• • • -• • • 1 -3 •• • • • • • 4 -11 • • • • % t • • 0 12 -30 51 Salem 0 0 N 31 -57 • • • • 58-142 • 22 • • •• 2 4 Miles • 1YelsonIlYygaard ca nxulung �xuaia �vx Source: US Census Local Employment Dynamics, 2008 — MWVCOG, 2009. Based on 2006 Oregon Employment Department data. Page 3 -17 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planned Developments Figure 3 -15 shows the current zoning for the City of Woodburn. It shows the current commercial areas, including the Highway 99 and Highway 214 corridors, on both sides of I -5, and downtown Woodburn. Industrial uses are located southwest of I -5 and Highway 214, along Front Street including the far northeast corner of the City, and southeast of Highway 99 and Highway 214 in the far southeast corner of the City. Areas throughout the city are zoned for medium density residential uses. Between 2000 and 2007, Woodburn added 1,019 residential units, of which 82.7% were single - family homes." Figure 3 -15 also shows areas identified in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan for commercial, industrial, and residential growth, in the southwest part of the City. A "Southwest Industrial Reserve" is planned for areas on both sides of 1 -5. On the east side of 1 -5, low and medium - density residential areas, a commercial node, and parks /open space are identified between the planned industrial uses and the existing City Limits. Figure 3 -15 Current Zoning and Planned Land Use " Population Research Center, Portland State University, 2008. Page 3 -18 Nelson I Nygaard Source: Oregon Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, City of Woodbum 15 so ... TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 4. Existing Transportation Services This chapter presents a comprehensive review of public transportation services and operations in the Woodburn area. Key findings discussed in this chapter include: • Service availability. Both local and regional transit services are available only on weekdays with hourly service only during the day (9:00 AM — 5:00 PM). • Regional coordination. Regional services are largely not marketed using a coordinated approach, local services do not appear to be timed with regional services, and some regional services travel through Woodburn but do not stop. • Taxi Service. Several taxi providers have recently started operating in Woodburn, catering in particular to the Latino community. • Dial -a -Ride service. Fifty -five percent (55 %) of Woodburn Transit Dial -a -Ride passengers are seniors while 45% are disabled. Sixty percent (60 %) of trips are shopping trips, while 40% are for medical purposes. Overview of Existing Services Woodburn Transit System (Bus and Dial -a -Ride) Woodburn Transit System owns and operates the primary public transportation services in Woodburn. It operates a single bus that runs on an hourly fixed route within the City, shown graphically in Figure 4 -1. The bus operates weekdays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and makes stops throughout Woodburn, starting and ending at the downtown transit center, located adjacent to the City of Woodburn Public Works building at 190 Garfield Street. The bus has common stops with CARTS at the downtown transit center and with both CARTS and Canby Area Transit (CAT) at Mid - Valley Plaza, although service hours and arrival and departure times are not coordinated. Woodburn transit buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts but do not have bike racks. Woodburn Transit provides Dial -a -Ride vans for seniors, people with disabilities or other transportation - challenged individuals who are not able to use the fixed -route bus. (The service is also known as the Dial -a -Ride Shopper Van.) Priority for demand responsive service is given to individuals eligible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rides are available for medical appointments and shopping, and trips must be reserved at least 24 hours in advance. The vans are all equipped with wheelchair lifts. Medical trips outside of Woodburn are fulfilled using volunteer drivers if available (see RSVP program below). Woodburn Transit one -way fares are $1.00 for the fixed route and $1.50 for the Dial -a -Ride service. A 20 -ride pass for the fixed route service can be purchased for $15, a 25% discount or $0.75 per ride. No other discounted fares are offered on Woodburn Transit. More detailed information on both services is presented later in this chapter Page 4 -1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -1 Woodburn Transit System Overview r; Library ' Served ►'ls.\ � 9i 0 o r a _Canby I WEEN Patdck Indusift ■ V Served by CARTS COWRY RD ' Wlwdbum-HS &CAT V Wellspring French _ a? Medical Grece Pralrle= _ Salud Medical Cerder Center Outlet MS �L T I - -Mega Food Safeway h + JAW Is w 4 Route 15 is a ilex route g 99 4t h av (deviated fixed route) with a HJSET g ' I four fixed stops in Woodbu m p_ ai WIN Go Health Department is �. 1 We6e{rSr , g g vat �sr 1X does nat stop in Woodburn III is Library ' Served ►'ls.\ � 9i 0 o r a _Canby I WEEN Patdck Indusift ■ V Served by CARTS COWRY RD ' Wlwdbum-HS &CAT V Wellspring French _ a? Medical Grece Pralrle= _ Salud Medical Cerder Center Outlet MS �L T I - -Mega Food Safeway h + JAW Is w 4 Route 15 is a ilex route g 99 4t h av (deviated fixed route) with a HJSET g ' I four fixed stops in Woodbu m p_ ai WIN Go Health Department is �. 1 We6e{rSr , g g vat �sr ,- III is I r ST Mt. An gel Food Servkes of America /Silverton • 0 - - 500 1,000 i Feet RTS Woodbum Transit System O Transit Center ♦ Medical Bus Route Greyhound • Major Employer o Bus Stops Transfer point + College Area Transit r High School i == Canby CARTS © Shopping g Other School To Salem SMART /SAMTD © Library Other Nctsoa�ll�aar� Source: Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office Page 4 -2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Regional Transit Providers Several regional transit agencies provide service to or near Woodburn. Each service is described below. Figure 4 -1 illustrates these services within Woodburn and Figure 4 -2 shows them in a regional context. Chemeketa Area Regional Transit System (CARTS) Chemeketa Area Regional Transit System (CARTS) provides public transportation services to small cities and rural areas in Marion and Polk Counties. CARTS is operated by Oregon Housing and Associated Services (OHAS). The following CARTS routes serve Woodburn and /or other communities in North Marion County: CARTS Route 10 serves Woodburn, making four daily weekday round trips to Gervais, Brooks, the main Chemeketa Community College campus in Keizer, and the Salem downtown transit center. In Woodburn the bus stops at both the downtown transit center and Mid - Valley Plaza (referred to as North Park Plaza on CARTS schedules) on trips to and from Salem, although service hours and arrival and departure times are not coordinated with WTS. Timed connections are possible to the Canby Area Transit (CAT) Orange line at Mid - Valley Plaza (see below). • CARTS Route 20 serves Silverton and Mt. Angel from Salem. • CARTS Route 25, or North Marion County Flex- Route, provides service in Silverton, Mt. Angel, and Woodburn.' The service makes five weekday trips to /from Woodburn, with stops in Woodburn at Mid - Valley Plaza (North Park Plaza), Walmart, the downtown transit center, and Chemeketa Community Colllege. The bus will also provide curb -to -curb service in Woodburn for individuals who are 60 or older or who have a disability. One -way fares for both fixed- and flex -route CARTS services are $2.00 for the general public and $1.25 for youth (6 -18), seniors (60 +) and people with disabilities. CARTS provides information on its website in both English and Spanish. Service does not operate on the following holidays: New Years Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and the Friday following Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. All CARTS buses are ADA- accessible and have bike racks. Canby Area Transit (CAT) Canby Area Transit (CAT) provides weekday service within Canby and to Oregon City, Wilsonville, and Woodburn from Canby Transit Center. (Saturday service was discontinued in September, 2009.) The service connecting Canby and CARTS and CAT Buses laying over at Mid - Valley Plaza, with bus shelter Woodburn started on August 1, 2006. in the background Route 1 (the Orange line) provides 18 http:// www. ohas- oregon. org /transcartsroute25nmcflex.html 19 Americans with Disabilities Act Page 4 -3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY service to Oregon City Transit Center from Canby every 30 minutes (every 60 minutes outside of peak hours). Nine trips on the Orange line serve Mid - Valley Plaza in Woodburn, hourly during peak hours and about every two hours off -peak. The route provides connections to the Woodburn Transit bus route and CARTS Routes 10 and 25. A transfer to TriMet WES Commuter Rail (serving Beaverton Transit Center) is possible in Wilsonville and to TriMet buses at Oregon City Transit Center for direct service to downtown Portland. It is estimated that the Orange line between Canby and Woodburn carries about 3,400 passengers per month. CATS service is fareless, including to and from Woodburn, with the exception of the Purple line between Canby and Wilsonville. On the purple line, operated jointly by CAT and SMART (see next section), riders traveling within Canby can ride for free. Riders traveling between Wilsonville and the intersection of Knights Bridge Road and North Aspen Street pay the SMART fare ($1.25). All buses are ADA- accessible and have bike racks South Metro Area Rapid Transit (SMART) South Metro Area Rapid Transit (SMART) provides public transit service in the Wilsonville area, south of Portland on the 1 -5 corridor. SMART operates six fixed bus routes on weekdays and two on Saturdays. Three routes (4, 5, and 6) operate exclusively within Wilsonville. Route 5 connects with TriMet Route 96, with service to downtown Portland, at Commerce Circle in Wilsonville. Route 2X travels to the Tualatin Park & Ride and Barbur Boulevard Transit Center in Portland connecting with TriMet Routes 12, 64, and 94. Route 3 travels to the Canby Transit Center allowing for direct transfers with CAT Routes 1 and 3. Route 1X provides service between Wilsonville and the Salem Transit Mall during commute times. This SMART 1X bus on 1 -5. A service map and branding on route runs along the 1 -5 corridor through but without the vehicles help to market the service stopping in Woodburn. SMART jointly operates service on the Canby and Salem routes with Canby Area Transit or Salem - Keizer Transit, respectively. All SMART routes connect with TriMet WES Commuter Rail at SMART Central at Wilsonville Station. WES provides weekday service to Tualatin, Tigard, and Beaverton. SMART operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 8:30 PM and on Saturdays (routes 2X and 4 only) from 8: 00 AM to 6:00 PM. The service is free within Wilsonville, $2.50 between Salem and Wilsonville ($1.25 senior /disabled), and $1.25 between Wilsonville, Canby, and Portland ($0.60 senior /disabled). Salem - Keizer Transit Cherriots, CherryLift, and Cherriots Rideshare Cherriots is the fixed route bus service operated by Salem - Keizer Transit (SKT) within the Salem - Keizer urban area. Routes run every 15, 30 or 60 minutes Monday through Friday from 6:15 AM to 10:15 PM, leaving the Salem Transit Mall at Courthouse Square in Downtown Salem at 15 and 45 minutes after the hour. The one -way fare is $1.25 for the adults, $0.60 for seniors, the disabled, and Medicare card holders, and $1.00 for youth. It should be noted that a fare increase on Cherriots is currently being considered. The one -way fare for Route 1X, jointly operated by SMART and Cherriots, is $2.50. All buses are ADA - accessible and have bike racks. Cherriots' website provides information in both English and Spanish. Page 4 -4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CherryLift is the complementary ADA paratransit service offered by SKT within the Cherriots service area for individual with a disability that prevents them from using Cherriots service. A 24- hour advance reservation is required to ride CherryLift. Service hours and days parallel those of Cherriots. The fare is $2.50 each way and can be paid in either cash or using a CherryLift ticket. CherryLift does not accept Cherriots passes. CherryLift is operated by Wheels, a program of OHAS. Cherriots also runs a Rideshare program, including a carpool or vanpool matching service. Vanpools consist of 7 to 15 people and vehicles may be owned by a vanpool company, owned by the riders' employer or privately owned by an individual. 20 http : / /www.cherriotsrideshare.org Page 4 -5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -2 Regional Transit Providers c on .ul t ind ass oil a cci Page 4 -6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Social Service Providers Social service providers include a wide array of schools, churches, nonprofits and human service agencies. While not comprehensive, this section describes several of the additional transportation services provided within Woodburn. Marion County Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) The Woodburn Transit Dial -a -Ride Service arranges for volunteer drivers organized through the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) to take elderly and disabled residents to medical appointments in Woodburn, Salem, and Portland with 24 -hour notice. RSVP volunteers also deliver meals for meal sites and drive patients to medical appointments within the county and beyond. RSVP does not own any vehicles and does not formally coordinate with any transportation providers. Volunteer drivers are reimbursed for their mileage as well as training and volunteer recognition expenses. Reservations can be made by calling the City of Woodburn and donations are accepted for the service. Silverton Hospital CareVan The Silverton Hospital CareVan, operated by Silverton Hospital, provides door -to -door transportation to and from medical appointments at Silverton Hospital and its facilities in Woodburn, including Woodburn Family Practice, Woodburn Internal Medicine, Woodburn Urgent Care, Tukwila Center for Health and Medicine, and Wellspring Medical Center, also a conference center and restaurant. Service is available Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM. No fare is required but donations are appreciated. Same -day requests are considered on a space - available basis. 24 -hour advance notice is requested. Trip Link Trip Link is the Medicaid brokerage that arranges non - emergency transportation for Oregon Health Plan Plus qualified persons in Marion and Polk Counties. Trips are arranged through a call center which operates Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. TripLink contracts with 28 transportation providers to serve Medicaid transportation trips to any destination within Oregon. Private Providers Private transportation options in the area include rail service provided by Amtrak, regional bus service provided by Greyhound, HUT Airport Shuttle to Portland Airport, and a number of taxi services. Amtrak Amtrak, a nationwide rail service, is available at 500 13th Street NE in Salem and is served by CARTS. Two Amtrak routes serve Salem. Cascades service connects the Pacific Northwest from Eugene to Seattle or Vancouver, B.C., with four northbound and five southbound trips. The Coast Starlight provides one daily northbound and southbound trip along the west coast from San Diego, California, to Vancouver, B.C. Greyhound Greyhound, a nationwide bus service, stops in Woodburn and Salem. The Woodburn ticket office is located at La Caseta D Woodburn at 479 N Front Street. The Salem Greyhound Station is Page 4 -7 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY located at 450 Church Street NE, less than a quarter mile away from the Salem Transit Mall. Destinations include cities in the Pacific Northwest, California, and Mexico. Two trips in each direction stop in Woodburn, while four daily northbound and southbound trips are available from the Salem Station. HUT Airport Shuttle HUT provides connections from Salem and Woodburn to Portland International Airport (PDX). The shuttle operates seven days a week and departs every 2 hours from 3:30 AM to 11:30 PM from the Best Western Hotel on Newburg Highway in Woodburn. Advance reservations are required for a pickup in Woodburn. The shuttle makes return trips from PDX every two hours from 4:45 AM to 12:45 AM. The trip takes approximately an hour. The fare is $30 to /from Woodburn (up to two children 12 or under ride for free). One vehicle is equipped with a wheelchair lift and should be requested in advance. Taxis A number of taxicab services have recently started operations in Woodburn, including small operators catering to the Latino community. Companies based or operating in Woodburn include: • Woodburn Taxi and Delivery Service: Operates three cabs • Chavez Taxi: Spanish - language speaking • Taxi Cinco de Mayo: Operates one SUV /Van • Servicio de Taxi Mendoza: Single operator • Servicio de Taxi Allstar: Single operator Larger taxicab companies in Marion and Polk Counties are based in Salem and provide some service to smaller communities. These companies provide service to Salem, Portland, as well as the rest of Marion and Polk counties. They do not have vehicles equipped with ramps or lifts to accommodate disabled passengers. • Salem - Keizer Yellow Cab and Checker Cab: Based in Salem, operates 17 to 20 cabs • A -Cab Taxi Company: Based in Salem, operates eight to nine cabs Page 4 -8 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Woodburn Transit Bus Detail This section provides details on Woodburn Transit Bus operations, expanding on the brief overview provided at the beginning of this chapter. Service Hours and Frequency Figure 4 -3 below describes service hours and frequency for the Woodburn Transit Bus. Service is provided hourly on weekdays only between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. The service does not operate on the following major holidays: Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, July 41n Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Years Day. Figure 4 -3 Bus Service Hours and Frequencies Service Days / Hours Service Frequency Weekdays, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (last trip starts at 4:00 pm) Hourly (starting on the hour) Sources: City of Woodburn Fare Structure Figure 4 -4 below shows the fare structure for the Woodburn Transit Bus. A one -way fare is $1.00 for adults and youth. Children under the age of six ride for free. Discount passes good for 20 rides cost $15.00 ($0.75 per ride - a 25% discount) can be purchased from the bus driver. Figure 4 -4 Bus Fare Structure Source: City of Woodburn Downtown Transit Center and other Capital Facilities Woodburn Transit System has recently completed a downtown transit center at the intersection of First and Arthur Streets. The new transit center provides a facility where Woodburn Transit can safely load and unload passengers off - street and where buses can stop and layover as needed. The transit center also provides a location for transfers between Woodburn Transit and other regional transit providers, including CARTS, Cherry Lift, and CATS. The transit center is equipped with a new transit shelter. A new transit shelter is also being installed in coordination with the current Highway 214 upgrade project (stop #25) to better serve the Salud Medical Center and neighboring community. Bus stop signs at timepoints are numbered sequentially from #1 at the current downtown transit center to #25 on Highway 214 east of Front Street. Pictured below is the new downtown transit center along with an example of a timepoint sign. The numbered stop point sign also shows the approximate stop times. Bilingual transit information for both Woodburn Transit and CARTS is posted at the downtown transit center stop (see middle photo), although no bilingual passenger information is available on the Woodburn Transit website and only limited bilingual information is printed on the route schedule (printed or online). All bus stop signs include the days of service and a phone number, as shown in the photo on the right below. Page 4 -9 One -Way Fare 20 -Ride Pass Adults /Youth $1.00 $15.00 Children 5 and under Free N/A Source: City of Woodburn Downtown Transit Center and other Capital Facilities Woodburn Transit System has recently completed a downtown transit center at the intersection of First and Arthur Streets. The new transit center provides a facility where Woodburn Transit can safely load and unload passengers off - street and where buses can stop and layover as needed. The transit center also provides a location for transfers between Woodburn Transit and other regional transit providers, including CARTS, Cherry Lift, and CATS. The transit center is equipped with a new transit shelter. A new transit shelter is also being installed in coordination with the current Highway 214 upgrade project (stop #25) to better serve the Salud Medical Center and neighboring community. Bus stop signs at timepoints are numbered sequentially from #1 at the current downtown transit center to #25 on Highway 214 east of Front Street. Pictured below is the new downtown transit center along with an example of a timepoint sign. The numbered stop point sign also shows the approximate stop times. Bilingual transit information for both Woodburn Transit and CARTS is posted at the downtown transit center stop (see middle photo), although no bilingual passenger information is available on the Woodburn Transit website and only limited bilingual information is printed on the route schedule (printed or online). All bus stop signs include the days of service and a phone number, as shown in the photo on the right below. Page 4 -9 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Left: New downtown transit center, with new shelter, while under construction. Middle: Bilingual transit information for both Woodburn Transit and CARTS. Riaht: Woodburn Transit Bus Stoa Sian (non- timeaoint) Fleet Woodburn Transit System rotates four buses into service for the fixed bus route. The Champion buses are the primary vehicles but the system attempts to rotate all buses into service at least one day per week. The buses are stored at the public works maintenance yard, which is enclosed and locked, and maintained by the public works maintenance technician. Vehicles are washed at least weekly. The vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts located at the rear of the bus. Figure 4 -5 shows the year, make /model, mileage and general condition of vehicles used to provide bus service, as of April 2010. In general, the system expects 10 years of service from each vehicle or about 250,000 to 300,000 miles. This falls between general guidelines from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for small buses built on a mid -duty chassis (7 years and 200,000 miles) and full -size transit buses built on a heavy -duty chassis (10 years and 600,000 miles). Figure 4 -5 Bus Fleet Vehicle Number Year Make / Model Capacity Condition Odometer 1385 2009 Champion Bus 35 / 2 w/c Excellent 7,344 1350 2006 Champion Bus 35 / 2 w/c Good 28,028 1394 2002 Eldorado Bus 25 / 2 w/c Good 145,206 1374 2001 Blue Bird Bus 29 / 2 w/c Good 43,638 Source: City of Woodburn. Note: w/c = Wheelchair Ridership Summary The solid blue line in Figure 4 -6 below shows total ridership by month for the Woodburn Transit bus between July 2008 and March 2010. Transit ridership decreased significantly between July and December 2008, likely due to the general economic downturn but also due to normal Page 4 -10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY seasonal variation (i.e., higher ridership in spring and summer months and lower ridership in winter months). In February and March, 2010, ridership was slightly higher than one year ago, signaling that ridership levels may be recovering as the economy begins to improve. Figure 4 -6 Ridership by Month, July 2008 — March 2010 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 c 2,500 M a 2,000 a 1,500 1,000 500 0 ♦�. —+—Total Elderly/ Disabled Linear (Total) . . �� l• . �d 0 53% ` o% m oo mo o ° oo �o� o� oo �o� o o o� �o� goo � � tti I? p� �o Q e 4 a Fe �a Q� 4 0 �JC lJ P�pO hyQ p- Source: City of Woodburn On average, less than four percent of riders were classified by drivers as either seniors or disabled between July 2008 and March 2010, indicated by the dashed green line in Figure 4 -6. Children under six are included in the ridership count and passes are not tracked separately from single rides. And although wheelchair boardings are not tracked, anecdotal information from drivers suggest that wheelchair boardings are extremely rare. And because of the time it takes to load a wheelchair on the fixed route bus, Dial -a -Ride vehicles are usually dispatched for trips involving a wheelchair. Daily and Weekly Variation Ridership data was analyzed for the first full week of each month between March 2009 and March 2010 to identify daily and weekly patterns in ridership. While there is considerable variation, as illustrated in Figure 4 -7, the following general patterns are present: • On average, daily ridership ranged from about 100 to 120 passengers per day. The fewest number of passengers was 52, on a Friday in early June. The highest number of passengers was 205, on a Tuesday in early August. • Tuesdays and Wednesdays tend to be busier days, while Thursdays tend to be the least busy days. • There is considerable weekly variation, including seasonal differences. The sampled week with the least ridership, December 2009, had nearly half the passengers of the busiest month, August 2009. Even within the same season, there can be considerable variation. For example, although June and August 2009 had nearly the same total ridership, the Page 4 -11 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY sampled week in June 2009 had over 200 fewer riders than August 2009, which had the highest weekly ridership in the sample (804 passengers). Figure 4 -7 Ridership by Day of Week, First full week of month, March 2009 - March 2010 250 200 150 v c a , 100 50 0 On -Board Ridecheck Methodology I'm 11 l • Mar -09 • Apr -09 • May -09 • Jun -09 • Jul -09 • Aug -09 • Sep -09 [ Oct -09 10 Nov -09 I Dec -09 Jan -10 Feb -10 Mar -10 In order to identify Woodburn Transit's key boarding and alighting locations, transit generating land uses, and evaluate the route's ability to maintain schedule adherence, Nelson \Nygaard conducted a ridecheck on -board transit vehicles for a regular eight -hour service period (9:00 AM — 5:00 PM). The ridecheck entailed counting every passenger that entered and de- boarded the fixed route bus for each of its eight daily runs. Infants were not counted as passengers, but were noted on the ridecheck form. Appendix C summarizes all ridecheck data obtained and indicates key boarding and alighting locations and the maximum load carried. Although the ridecheck tallies all boardings and alightings for a typical service day, it should be noted that the counts occurred during the Public Works Department's "Free Public Transportation Week." This did not create an abnormal spike in ridership; however, the drivers noted that several new passengers used the fixed route service that day. Boarding Locations Figure 4 -8 summarizes the ten highest boarding locations during the ridecheck, ranging between 5 and 13 daily boardings. The top boarding locations were at the Woodburn Transit Center and North Pacific Hwy / Alexandra Avenue. Although Walmart was identified in the on -board passenger survey (see Chapter 5) as the most popular shopping destination, it only generated six boardings during the ridecheck. Likewise, Figure 4 -9 maps all boardings and alightings along the Page 4 -12 ho c � lea TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLA UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY bus route. Country Club Road exhibited low demand for service, while the stops along Young Street observed relatively high boarding and alighting counts, hinting at potential demand for service south of Cleveland Street. Figure 4 -8 Top Boarding Locations Time Point ID Location / Intersection Daily Boardings 1 B Garfield Street / S 1 st Street 13 - North Pacific Hwy / Alexandra Ave 11 24 Mid - Valley Plaza at Hwy 214 (Mt. Hood Ave.) 9 1A S 1 st Street/ Garfield Street 8 10 Woodburn Company Stores 8 - Lawson Street / North of Stack Allison Way 6 13 Wal -Mart Commercial Center at Stack Allison 6 Way - Young Street / Bryan Street 6 26 Young Street / Gatch Street 5 23 North Pacific Hwy / East of Lincoln Road 5 (Goodwill) Salud Medical Center at Hway 214 (Mt. Hood 5 Ave.) Page 4 -13 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -9 Boardings and Alightings POP M R W LINCOLN ST !; Alrbo111 BIN .. - I t1.6 a. roc late. Source: Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office Page 4 -14 i� sr 1 Mt. Angel �$ n gg / Silverton wDSr C� Alightings Boardings CeM • 0 • 0 Woodburn ® Transit Center + ■ 1-3 • 1-3 Transit Greyhound gar • 4 CAT Transfer point 7-9 7 - 9 9 - -- CARTS �~ 0 500 to+ 1,00 eet • 10+ -- SMART/ SAMTD Rte 1x To Salem Oal wes Antd.Wy 19,2010 Alrbo111 BIN .. - I t1.6 a. roc late. Source: Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office Page 4 -14 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On -Time Performance Analysis During the on -board ridecheck, each run was timed to test schedule adherence. The time was noted each occasion the bus departed a timed stop. If no passengers signaled to get off the bus or if no individuals were waiting for pick up, the time was recorded was based on when the bus passed by the timed stop. Figure 4 -10 below details the difference between the scheduled time and the actual time the bus left a timed stop over the eight -hour period. The route exhibited significant delay between 9:45 AM and 12:00 PM being at times 23 minutes behind schedule (24 minutes was the farthest behind schedule during the eight -hour period). This corresponds with the high number of boarding events occurring at the same time (See Appendix C). Between 1:00 PM and the end of the final run, the bus slowly reduced its delay but never achieved on -time performance. Figure 4 -10 On -Time Performance Chart — Scheduled versus Actual 024 023 021 020 018 017 015 014 012 011 010 008 007 005 004 002 001 000 Page 4 -15 a ¢ a a a a a TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dial -a -Ride Overview This section provides details on Woodburn Dial -a -Ride operations, expanding on the brief overview provided at the beginning of this chapter. Service Hours and Reservations Dial -a -Ride service is offered Monday- Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. Reservations can be made between 8 AM and 5 PM Monday- Friday. The transit operations supervisor has primary responsibility for dispatching. The City of Woodburn has been using the Mobilitat Easy Rides paratransit dispatching and scheduling software since 2001, which contains information for over 2000 clients of the Dial -a -Ride service and volunteer driver program. Eligibility Dial -a -Ride service is available to seniors (60 or older) and people with disabilities, with priority given to individuals eligible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that fixed -route transit operators provide comparable service to disabled passengers who cannot utilize the fixed -route bus system. Service is provided within the entire City, without regard to distance from fixed route bus service (generally, the ADA requires that service be offered within a 3 /4 mile distance of a fixed route). Eligibility is primary determined over the phone, with decisions made by Public Works staff. The City relies primarily on a self- certification questionnaire but it may request additional documentation or professional verification if necessary. Certifications are classified as indefinite or temporary. If an individual is denied certification, they may appeal to the Public Works Program Manager, utilizing a grievance process implemented by the Woodburn City Council for this purpose. Visitors who are certified from their home of record are eligible to use the Dial -a -Ride service for up to 30 days, as required by the ADA. An ADA- certified individual is allowed one personal care attendant (additional attendants are allowed space permitting). Fares The one -way fare on Dial -a -Ride is $1.50, which is only 50% higher than the fixed -route one -way fare of $1.00. It should be noted that the ADA stipulates that the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user of the complementary paratransit service shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying the full fixed route fare, although transfer charges that would apply on the fixed route system can be included in the fixed -route fare. Fleet As of April 2010, Woodburn Transit has a fleet of four lift - equipped vehicles for dial -a -Ride service. As many as two to three vehicles may be in service at a given time and there is one full -time driver, and four part -time drivers each working up to 19 hours per week. The transit operations supervisor may also drive as necessary. Vehicles are stored at the public works maintenance yard and maintained by City maintenance staff on a regular maintenance schedule, including the Page 4 -16 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PL UPDA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY lifts. Figure 4 -11 lists the vehicles used for Dial -a -Ride service. ODOT guidelines specify a typical useful life of four years or 100,000 miles for modified vans or minivans. Figure 4 -11 Woodburn Transit Dial -a -Ride Fleet Bus # Year Make / Model Capacity Condition Odometer 1371 2008 Ford Cutaway Van 10 +2 w/c Excellent 14,573 1337 2006 Chevy Uplander Minivan 5 +1 w/c Good 49,893 1395 2005 Ford Cutaway Van 10 + 2 w/c Fair 47,179 1390 2002 Chevy Venture Minivan 5 + 2 w/c Fair 75,790 Source: City of Woodburn Rider and Trip Characteristics Ridership by Type Over the period July 2008 to March 2010, seniors comprised 55% of Dial -a -Ride passengers while 45% were persons with disabilities. In Figure 4 -12, the solid blue line shows total Dial -a- Ride passengers for each month, which has remained relatively consistent, except for November / December 2008 and February 2009. The orange- shaded region at the bottom of the chart indicates senior ridership while the light blue- shaded region above it shows disabled ridership; senior and disabled passengers generally appear to follow a similar ridership pattern. Figure 4 -12 Monthly Dial -a -Ride Ridership by Type, July 2008 — March 2010 700 600 500 c 400 v a 300 0 x 200 100 0 Page 4 -17 O� O� 04i Ob 0`` � oe c , le a fa t PQ c 4 HO C � PJpo �eQ C� 'o � 'QP la c ��a mat TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the period March 2009 — March 2010, 40% of categorized Dial -a -Ride trips were for medical purposes, while 60% were for shopping. Figure 4 -13 shows the purpose of Dial -a -Ride trips between March 2009 and March 2010, with the green (left) bars representing medical trips and the red (right) bars showing shopping trips. Figure 4 -13 Monthly Dial -a -Ride Ridership by Trip Purpose, March 2009 — March 2010 450 400 350 300 v Y 250 v a 200 0 xs 150 100 50 Page 4 -18 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Origin and Destination Patterns To better understand major origin- destination patterns on the Dial -a -Ride service, all trips taken during the month of May 2010 were evaluated. Based on this data, the top destinations on the Dial -a -Ride include: • DAVITA Dialysis (1840 Newberg Highway) • Country Meadows Assisted Living (155 S. Evergreen Road) • Walmart (3002 Stacy Alison Way) • Senior Meal Site (950 N. Boones Ferry Road) • French Prairie Senior Care Center (601 S. Evergreen Road) • Goodwill (948 N. Pacific Highway) • Safeway (1550 N. Pacific Highway) • Tukwilla Medical Center (693 Glatt Circle) • Mega Foods /Bi -Mart (1660 Mt. Hood Avenue) • 120 E. Lincoln (includes multiple institutions such as Chemeketa Community College, Community Action Agency, etc.) It is interesting to note that while some trips were taken to the major medical centers in Woodburn (Wellspring and Salud Medical Centers), the medical facilities were not major destinations on the Dial -a -Ride. It is also important to note that in order to protect privacy, the list above does not include specific residential locations. Figure 4 -14 below provides a graphic illustration of all origin and destination pairs on the Dial -a- Ride for the month of May 2010. While specific origins or destinations are difficult to discern, the graphic clearly shows that the primary travel patterns are east -west along Highway 214 and to a lesser degree, north -south on Highway 99 (N. Pacific Highway). It is also interesting to note that comparatively few trips are taken to or from downtown Woodburn or in the neighborhoods south of Highway 214, east of Boones Ferry Road, and west of Highway 99. Page 4 -19 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -14 Dial -a -Ride Origin- Destination Matrix 5 fie`- 11�Nr�7� �i r i 1 J Major Destinations OD Pairs Number of Trips Number of Trips • 9 1 -2 10 -17 3 -5 18 -25 �6 -9 N • 26 -33 X10 -16 - 34 63 -17 - 22 - y 0 025 • 0.5 / Miles - �1 NelsonINygaard '..— D i., ...... a , Source: City of Woodburn Page 4 -20 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Transit Revenue Sources Figure 4 -15 below lists revenue by funding source for Woodburn Transit in FY 2007 -08 and FY 2008 -09 for both bus and Dial -a -Ride services. Figure 4 -15 graphically shows the share of total revenue derived from each funding source for each fiscal year. Fares comprise about 8% of revenues in both fiscal years. Local property taxes comprise the largest revenue source in both years (between 42% and 44 %) while federal grants comprise between 36 -40% of the total revenues. Property taxes are allocated to transit from the general fund and are not from a dedicated transit levy. The remaining revenues are from other sources such as investment income, contracted service for the annual "midnight madness" sale at the Woodburn Company Stores, and donations for rides outside of the City. Figure 4 -15 Transit Revenues, FY 2008 and FY 2009 Source: City of Woodburn, Budget Listing. Notes: (1) Includes investment interest and other miscellaneous income Page 4 -21 FY 2007 -08 FY 2008 -09 Funding Fixed Route Total Fixed Route Total Source Bus Dial -a -Ride (% of Total) Bus Dial -a -Ride (% of Total) Fares $19,770 $6,848 $26'919 $21,063 $6,850 $27,913 ( %) ( %) Local $144,388 $150,954 (Property (44 %) (42 %) Tax) Local (Other $12,904 $12,567 Revenues) (1) (4 %) (3%) State $26,250 $24,940 (Grants) (8%) (7 %) Federal $118,349 $143,108 (Indirect (36%) (40%) Grants) TOTAL $328,510 $359,482 Source: City of Woodburn, Budget Listing. Notes: (1) Includes investment interest and other miscellaneous income Page 4 -21 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -16 Woodburn Transit System Revenue Sources, FY 2007 -08 and FY 2008 -09 FY 2007 -08 State 7 State (Grant'. 7% Fed (Indi G ra 40% American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 F ax) On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). According to the Federal Transit Administration, the Act includes: ...appropriations and tax law changes totaling approximately $787 billion to support government wide efforts to stimulate the economy. Goals of the statute include the preservation or creation of jobs and the promotion of an economic recovery, as well as the investment in transportation, environmental protection and other infrastructure providing long -term economic benefits. The City of Woodburn is slated to receive approximately $270,000 in ARRA funds from FY 2009 through 2011, which are to be used for transit planning or capital investments, but not operations. This planning study is one of the initiatives funded through an ARRA grant. In addition ARRA funds were used to purchase the new Champion bus in 2009, the purchase and installation of radios meeting ITS standards for all transit buses and vans, and for partial funding of the new downtown transit center. FY 2008 -09 Local(Other Revnues) Page 4 -22 Local (Other Revenues) ( ProP L e cal Tax hY ) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Performance Summary This section provides a summary of how Woodburn Transit fixed -route bus and Dial -a -Ride services performed over the past five fiscal years (2004/05 — 2008/09). Explanation of Service Measures The performance data collected includes service inputs, service outputs and service consumption. Service inputs is summarized as total annual operating costs, while service outputs include revenue service hours and revenue service miles. Service consumption includes ridership and farebox revenues. The performance data is then expressed in terms of three categories of common performance indicators: Cost efficiency. These indicators are the ratios of service inputs to service outputs, and measure the efficiency of resource allocation within the agency. • Operating Cost per Revenue Hour. This indicator is a good measure of cost efficiency, calculated by dividing total operating costs by the number of annual service hours Cost effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service inputs to service consumption and measure how well the service is utilized by the community. • Operating Cost per Passenger. This indicator is the ratio of total operating costs to total ridership (consumption of service). • Farebox Recovery Ratio. This indicator is the ratio of fare revenue to total operating costs. A general rule of thumb for a small city transit system is to maintain a 10 % -15% farebox recovery ratio for fixed route operation and 10% for demand response service (Dial -a- Ride). • Average Fare per Passenger. This measure indicates the average fare compared to the established fare. • Average Subsidy per Passenger. This indicator is closely related to operating cost per passenger, but also factors in fare revenues. This indicator is often used by policy makers who want to know how much each passenger is being subsidized. Service effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service consumption to service outputs and measure how well the capacity of service is being utilized by the consumer in relation to the amount of service available. • Passengers per Revenue Hour. This indicator is the ratio of annual ridership to the number of annual service hours. • Passengers per Revenue Mile. This indicator is the ratio of annual ridership to the number of annual service miles. Fixed -Route Bus Performance Review Figure 4 -17 provides a summary of performance data and indicators for Woodburn Transit Bus service over the past five fiscal years. The performance indicator trends are shown graphically in Figure 4 -18. An assessment of how well Woodburn Transit Bus service has performed with regard to the three categories of performance indicators (cost efficiency, cost effectiveness, and service efficiency) is provided below. Page 4 -23 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Operating Cost per Revenue Hour. The operating cost of the fixed -route service was about $85 per revenue hour of service provided in the 2008 -2009 fiscal year, a 47% increase from $57 per hour in 2004 -2005. • Operating Cost per Passenger. On a per passenger basis, the fixed -route operating cost was $6.15 per trip in 2008 -2009, an increase of over 42% from 2004 -2005. • Farebox Recovery Ratio. The percentage of operating costs recovered from fares was about 12% in 2008 -2009. Farebox recovery ranged from 10% - 13% over the five -year period. This falls within a general rule -of -thumb of 10% - 15% for a small city system. The median farebox recovery for 16 rural fixed -route providers in Oregon was 8% in 2006. Among urban systems in Oregon, SMART (Wilsonville) recovered 2% of fixed -route costs through fares in 2006 while Salem - Keizer Transit recovered 11 % of fixed -route costs. • Average Fare per Passenger. The average fare per passenger was $0.75 in 2008 -2009. This includes passes, which have a per -ride fare of $0.75 and children under 6, who ride for free but are included in the boarding count. This represents an over 36% increase from an average fare of $0.55 in 2004 -2005. • Average Subsidy per Passenger. The average subsidy, or the difference between the cost of service covered by fare revenue and the actual cost per trip was $5.40 in 2008- 2009, an over 43% increase from 2004 -2005. • Passengers per Revenue Hour and Passengers per Revenue Mile. The fixed -route bus carried nearly 14 passengers per revenue hour in 2008 -2009 and 0.84 passengers per mile. These indicators of efficiency have both increased 3.3% since 2004 -2005, the same rate as ridership increased (given that the service frequency and the route structure have remained constant over the past five years). 21 Jennifer Dill, Margaret B. Neal, et al. Needs, Costs, and Funding Alternatives for Transportation Services for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in Urban and Rural Oregon, Final Report, Portland State University, October 7, 2008 Page 4 -24 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -17 Fixed Route Bus Performance Data and Indicators (FY 2004105 - FY 2008/09) Source: City of Woodburn. Note: Revenue miles were estimated using a route distance of 16.425 miles, 8 daily trips, and 255 service days per year. Page 4 -25 Change FY FY FY FY 07/08 FY FY FY 04/05- 05/06- 06/07- - 04/05- FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 07/08 08/09 05/06 06/07 07/08 08109 08109 Operating Data Ridership 27,309 25,442 23,427 31,244 28,197 -6.8% -7.9% 33.4% -9.8% 3.3% Revenue 2,040 2,040 2,040 2,040 2,040 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hours Revenue 33,507 33,507 33,507 33,507 33,507 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Miles Operating $117,821 $135,629 $133,172 $152,592 $173,458 15.1% -1.8% 14.6% 13.7% 47.2% Costs Farebox $14,925 $13,613 $16,347 $19,770 $21,063 8.8% 20.1% 20.9% 6.5% Revenue Performance Indicators Cost Efficiency Operating Cost per $57.76 $66.48 $65.28 $74.80 $85.03 15.1% -1.8% 14.6% 13.7% 47.2% Revenue Hour Cost Effectiveness Operating Cost per $4.31 $5.33 $5.68 $4.88 $6.15 23.6% 6.6% - 14.1% 26.0% 42.6% Passenger Farebox Recovery 12.7% 10.0% 12.3% 13.0% 12.1% - 20.8% 22.3% 5.6% -6.3% -4.1% Ratio Average Fare per $0.55 $0.54 $0.70 $0.63 $0.75 -2.1% 30.4% -9.3% 18.0% 36.7% Passenger Average Subsidy per $3.77 $4.80 $4.99 $4.25 $5.40 27.3% 4.0% - 14.8% 27.1% 43.4% Passenger Service Efficiency Passengers per 13.39 12.47 11.48 15.32 13.82 -6.8% -7.9% 33.4% -9.8% 3.3% Revenue Hour Passengers per 0.82 0.76 0.70 0.93 0.84 -6.8% -7.9% 33.4% -9.8% 3.3% Revenue Mile Source: City of Woodburn. Note: Revenue miles were estimated using a route distance of 16.425 miles, 8 daily trips, and 255 service days per year. Page 4 -25 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -18 Fixed Route Bus Performance Indicator Trends (FY 2004105 — FY 2008109) Indicator of Cost Effectiveness 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% —0—Farebox Recovery Ratio 12.1% 12.7% 12.3% 13.0% 10.0% Typical standard: 10% FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 Indicator of Cost Effectiveness $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Operating Cost per Passenger $4.31 $5.33 $5.68 $4.88 $6.15 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 Indicator of Cost Efficiency $100 $90 $80 $70 $66.48 $60 $57.76 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Page 4 -26 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Indicator of Service Efficiency 18 16 14 13.39 12 10 12.47 8 6 4 2 0 Passengers per Revenue Hour m FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06107 FY 07108 FY 08/09 Indicator of Service Efficiency Passengers per Revenue Mile 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.84 0.70 FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 06107 FY 07108 FY 08109 Page 4 -27 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Performance Summary: Dial -a -Ride Figure 4 -19 provides a summary of performance data and indicators for Woodburn Dial -a -Ride over the past five fiscal years. The performance indicator trends are shown graphically in Figure 4 -20. An assessment of how well Woodburn Transit Bus service has performed with regard to the three categories of performance indicators (cost efficiency, cost effectiveness, and service efficiency) is provided below. • Operating Cost per Revenue Hour. Although revenue hours were estimated, this indicator has risen by about 60% over the five year period. • Operating Cost per Passenger. The cost of Dial -a -Ride service is nearly $26 per trip, an about 90% increase from 2004 -2005. • Farebox Recovery Ratio. The Dial -a -Ride system recovered slightly less than 4% of its operating costs from fares in 2008 -2009. It is lower than the median farebox recovery ratio of 6% for 23 rural demand - response providers in Oregon, based on 2006 data from the National Transit Database. The low average fare per passenger (see below) is one factor in the low farebox recovery ratio. • Average Fare per Passenger. The average fare per passenger was $1.00 in 2008 -2009, roughly the same as 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008 and is two - thirds of the stated fare for the service, which can be explained by the fact that some passengers purchase tickets in bulk and therefore pay a discounted fare. In 2004 -2005, ridership was higher but farebox returns were lower than 2008 -2009, implying that fares were lower. • Average Subsidy per Passenger. The subsidy per passenger trip is about $25, nearly the full cost of the trip given the relatively low farebox recovery. • Passengers per Revenue Hour and Passengers per Revenue Mile. These indicators of service efficiency have remained relatively stable over the five year period. While passengers per revenue hour have declined overall by about 15 %, passengers per revenue mile have increased slightly. Dill and Neal, 2008. Page 4 -28 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -19 Dial -a -Ride Performance Data and Indicators (FY 2004105 - FY 2008109) Source: City of Woodburn Notes: (1) Revenue Hours were not available for all years and were based on April 2009 - March 2010 for all years. Therefore passengers per revenue hour prior to FY 08/09 may not be completely accurate (2) Revenue Miles were not available for 2004 -2005, so data from 2005 -2006 was substituted. Change from 2004 -2005 therefore reflects 2005- 2006 Page 4 -29 Change FY FY FY FY 07108 FY FY FY 04105- 05/06- 06/07- - 04105- FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06107 07/08 08/09 05106 06/07 07108 08/09 08109 Operating Data Ridership 8,048 8,317 6,883 6,693 6,841 3.3% - 17.2% -2.8% 2.2% - 15.0% Revenue 3,629 3,629 3,629 3,629 3,629 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hours (1) Revenue 25,661 25,661 24,520 23,628 21,655 N/A -4.4% -3.6% -8.4% - 15.6% Miles (2) Operating $109,793 $144,402 $146,199 $185,226 $177,490 31.5% 1.2% 26.7% -4.2% 61.7% Costs Farebox $3,889 $3,704 $6,115 $6,848 $6,850 4.8% 65.1% 12.0% 0.0% Revenue Performance Indicators Cost Efficiency Operating Cost per $30.26 $39.80 $40.29 $51.05 $48.91 31.5% 1.2% 26.7% -4.2% 61.7% Revenue Hour Cost Effectiveness Operating Cost per $13.64 $17.36 $21.24 $27.67 $25.95 27.3% 22.3% 30.3% -6.2% 90.2% Passenger Farebox Recovery 3.5% 2.6% 4.2% 3.7% 3.9% - 27.6% 63.1% - 11.6% 4.4% 8.9% Ratio Average Fare per $0.48 $0.45 $0.89 $1.02 $1.00 -7.9% 99.5% 15.2% -2.1% 107.2% Passenger Average Subsidy per $13.16 $16.92 $20.35 $26.65 $24.94 28.6% 20.3% 31.0% -6.4% 89.6% Passenger Service Efficiency Passengers per 2.22 2.29 1.90 1.84 1.89 3.3% - 17.2% -2.8% 2.2% - 15.0% Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.32 3.3% - 13.4% 0.9% 11.5% 0.7% Mile Source: City of Woodburn Notes: (1) Revenue Hours were not available for all years and were based on April 2009 - March 2010 for all years. Therefore passengers per revenue hour prior to FY 08/09 may not be completely accurate (2) Revenue Miles were not available for 2004 -2005, so data from 2005 -2006 was substituted. Change from 2004 -2005 therefore reflects 2005- 2006 Page 4 -29 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 4 -20 Dial -a -Ride Performance Indicator Trends (FY 2003104 — FY 2007108) Indicator of Cost Effectiveness QFarebox Recovery Ratio 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% a 2.6% ° 3.7% ° 3.5 /0 3.9 /o 4% 2% 0% Indicator of Cost Effectiveness $35 $30 $25 $20 $17.36 $15 $13.64 $10 $5 $0 Operating Cost per Passenger $25.95 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Indicator of Cost Efficiency $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $39.80 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Page 4 -30 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Indicator of Service Efficiency 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 000 Passengers per Revenue Hour 1.90 1.84 1.89 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 Indicator of Service Efficiency 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Passengers per Revenue Mile FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Page 4 -31 0.32 0.31 0.28 0.28 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 Page 4 -31 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 5. Passenger Survey This chapter presents the results of the on -board passenger survey that was conducted on Woodburn Transit System fixed -route bus and Dial -a -Ride. A summary of key findings is presented first and then a review of survey results separately for bus and Dial -a -Ride. A copy of both surveys is found in Appendix A. Key Findings: Bus Access to the bus is important. Overall, walking played a very important role in all trips made on the bus. The large majority of passengers reach the bus stop and their final destination by walking. While every trip begins and ends by walking, the average time people spent walking to and from the bus stop averaged about 5 minutes. This is just one indicator that pedestrian access to and from the bus is an important component of most trips made on the bus. • Transit is primarily used for shopping. Roughly 40% of all trips began at home and ended at a retail center. The bus is therefore an integral part of how riders complete their daily errands. • High proportion of regular users. About 67% of all passengers use Woodburn Transit two or more days per week, and 45% use the bus five days per week. Likewise, almost 3/4 of existing passengers (72 %) have ridden Woodburn Transit for more than one year. Relatively low level of transit dependence. While 87% of existing passengers do not have a vehicle available to them, only 5% of passengers said that they would not have made this trip if the bus were not available. Because Woodburn is relatively small and walkable, walking is the preferred alternative to transit as 57% of passengers said they would just walk if the bus were not available. Only 10% said that they would have someone drive them. • High customer satisfaction. Existing passengers on Woodburn Transit are highly satisfied with the service overall — about 90% said the overall service quality was either "good" or "very good." • Expansion of service to southeast Woodburn. When existing passengers were asked where they would like to see Woodburn Transit go that it doesn't currently go, 13% said that expansion of service south of Cleveland Street was important. Surprisingly, 20% of passengers requested service to destinations already well- served by bus, hinting at the general lack of knowledge about Woodburn Transit's services. • Weekend service. When asked to provide specific and general comments, nearly half of respondents said that weekend service would encourage them to ride the bus more often. • Expanded service span is a need. Likewise, about a third of existing passengers said that expanded service — both early morning and late night — would encourage them to ride the bus more often. Key Findings: Dial -A -Ride Relatively low proportion of regular riders. Just over half (57 %) of existing passengers use Dial -a -Ride two or more times per week. However, roughly two thirds (63 %) of riders have ridden Dial -a -Ride for two years or more. Page 5 -1 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN • Highly transit dependent. About a third (34 %) of passengers who use Dial -a -Ride would not have been able to travel if the service were not available. This compares to just 5% of passengers who use the bus. • Difficulty using the bus. About 72% of existing passengers on Dial -a -Ride have a disability that prevents them from using the fixed route service. Still, this indicates that over % of current Dial -a -Ride users could use the fixed route bus. • High customer satisfaction. Similar to passengers who use the fixed route service, the large majority of Dial -a -Ride passengers (96 %) rate the services provided by Dial -a -Ride as "good" or "very good." Based on 161 completed surveys, it is estimated that the response rate is approximately 71% of total potential transit riders in Woodburn - a very respectable response rate for these types of surveys. See Appendix C for more information on how this response rate was calculated. Figure 5 -1 below lists the number of surveys collected per day for both English and Spanish survey takers. N; 23 The original number of surveys counted was 163, however two surveys were discarded from the analysis —one being a copy and the other with miscellaneous notes scribbled on it. Page 5 -2 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 5 -1 Number of Passenger Surveys Collected by Survey Day Survey day English surveys collected Spanish surveys collected Total number of surveys collected May 19, 2010 20 30 52 May 20, 2010 4 25 29 May 21, 2010 7 22 29 May 24, 2010 4 17 21 May 25, 2010 5 11 16 May 26, 2010 8 8 16 TOTAL 48 113 161 It should be noted that the week of survey administration was the city of Woodburn's annual free public transportation week to honor the work of the Public Works Department. According to Transit Division staff, this did not significantly affect ridership and therefore should not skew the survey results. vomw Summary of Survey Results Trip Purpose and Origin - Destinatic To determine trip purpose, riders were asked to identify their starting point and destination. The primary destinations for survey respondents were work, home, and shopping, followed by medical and recreation. Figure 5 -2 below shows the starting point (listed vertically) and destination (listed horizontally) for each respondent's trip. The largest combinations were home to shopping and home to work. Figure 5 -3 graphically displays the relationship between all origins, destinations and the route. Major trip generators include Walmart, downtown Woodburn, the Woodburn Company Stores, and Nuevo Amanecer. Figure 5 -2 Where are you coming from and where are you going? Going to 4 Coming from 4 Home Work Recreation / Social School /College Shopping Medical I Dental Total Home 5 18 3 5 53 14 98 Work 9 1 - - 1 - 11 Recreation / Social 2 - 1 1 4 School 3 - - 1 4 Shopping 4 1 2 - 7 Medical / Dental 5 - - - - 1 6 Total 28 19 4 6 58 15 130 24 Only entries with both an origin and destination were used for this analysis. 31 entries were discarded. Page 5 -3 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 5 -3 Trip Origins and Destinations s C Mk-Yalley plea _ (T A M I ABLAMLA . Flex route (deviated fixed route) with four fixed stops In Woodburn aq +i s It0A6EST NelsesINy18ard e on'ulrin6 ....c lar ee Source: City of Woodburn Page 5 -4 Mt. Angel -o a t /SUyerton © � � s< % 500 1,000 Feet ew I Number of Trips Woodburn ® Transit Center / C- i Transit System 4 Q Origins _ Bus Route 0 Greyhound Transit Center �� i � Q Destinations i LNumberof 0 Bus Stops D Transfer point trips (two trips or more) Canby Area Transit - -- CARTS v� 1 SMART ` Note: Data oodected during a m weelydaypedod Net— May 19, 20f0 and tttay 26, 2010. To Sa lern rauen inscuuofed to rc ta double f� � ver od one Be eao nave oourdrg- NelsesINy18ard e on'ulrin6 ....c lar ee Source: City of Woodburn Page 5 -4 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Mode of Access to Transit Service Figure 5 -4 shows the modes (or means of travel) that passengers used to access transit. Over 91 % of riders walked to the bus stop, while 5% transferred from either CAT or CARTS regional bus services. Only 2% were dropped off and only 1 % used their bike to access transit. None of the respondents drove alone to a bus stop and parked. Likewise, when getting from the bus to their destination, shown in Figure 5 -5, a significant majority (81 %) walked, while 9% transferred to either CAT or CARTS regional bus service. Only 4% of riders were picked up at the stop or drove alone back to their destination. It is assumed that the same people who biked to the bus stop also biked to their destination (1 %). The majority of those that walked to the bus stop at the trip origin (58 %) started their trip within a 5 minute walk or less to the bus stop. Likewise, of those that walked from the bus stop to their destination, about 70% arrived at their destination within 5 minutes or less. Figure 5 -4 How did you get to the bus stop? Dropped offbv CE 2 0 Biked 1% N =157 Figure 5 -5 How will you go from this bus to the end of your trip? NVIL Getpicki 2% Drove alone the parked 2% Biked 1% N =151 Page 5 -5 Other Transferred from Other Transferred from Cn, CATorCARTS Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Frequency of Use The survey results show a significant number of regular transit users (Figure 5 -6). About 22% of respondents indicated they use transit five days per week, while about 45% use the service 2 to 4 times a week and 8% ride once per week. About a fifth were more infrequent users, either 1 to 4 days per month (15 %) or less than one day per month (4 %). First time riders comprised just 6% of respondents, many of whom taking advantage of "Free Public Transportation Week ". These trends indicate that while there are some new riders attracted to the service, ridership on the bus has likely reached a peak without new service levels or expansion of service to attract new riders. Figure 5 -6 Less than 1 day per month 4% 1 -4 days pe month 15% N =154 How often do you ride Woodburn Transit? week 45% is perweek 22% per In terms of longevity, shown in Figure 5 -7 below, over 70% of respondents have ridden Woodburn Transit's bus service for over a year, with 49% using the service for over 2 years and 23% for 1 to 2 years. About 22% have been riding for less than 1 year and, confirming the previous chart's figure, 6% are first time riders. Figure 5 -7 How long have you been riding Woodburn Transit? Firsttime 6% han 1 year 22% More than 2 years 49% N =158 1 to 2 years 23% Page 5 -6 Firsttime Onceperweek roi 8% Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Transit Dependence Only about 5% of current passengers can be considered "highly transit - dependent." When asked how they would have traveled if transit service had not been available (see Figure 5 -8), 5% of respondents said they would not have been able to make the trip. The largest share of passengers (57 %) would have walked, while 12% said that they would have used a taxi service, a surprisingly high number for a small community like Woodburn. Smaller shares of passengers would have asked someone to drive them (10 %), hitchhiked (8 %), biked (4 %), carpooled /vanpooled (2 %) or driven alone (1 %). Figure 5 -8 If there was no bus service available, how would you make this trip? Someonewould 1 . Drive alo 1% Hitchhike 8% Would notma thistrip 5% Bik 4°i N =155 Taxi Other 12% 1 % Carpool or mpool 2% sk6h�, When asked if a car was available to them for this trip (see Figure 5 -9), the vast majority of respondents (87 %) said that a car was not available, while another 9% indicated that a car was available but with some inconvenience to others. These responses make it clear that the majority of riders depend on Woodburn Transit for transportation but that the size of the community doesn't necessarily preclude them from walking, getting a ride with others or using a taxi. Figure 5 -9 Was a car available to you for this particular trip? Yes, but with inconvenience to oth 9% N =153 Yes 4% Page 5 -7 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Trip Information Sources Figure 5 -10 offers a look at how transit users get information about Woodburn Transit. The majority of users (73 %) obtain trip information from written schedules. Other sources include the Transit Division's customer service telephone line (8 %) and transit information listed on the internet (7 %). Surprisingly, 12% of respondents indicated in the "Other" response category that friends and family as well as transit drivers were the second most used source of information for the bus system. Figure 5 -10 Where do you get information about Woodburn Transit? Other 19 0 / Inte T 120 100 In 80 a� Q 60 a� 0 ztt 40 NEI 0 1 Page 5 -8 VeryGood Good Average Below Average Poor Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BLI RN Figure 5 -12 and Figure 5 -13 show respondents' ratings for individual aspects of Woodburn Transit on a chart and in a table. Several aspects received a higher rating than the overall service. Seating on the bus, cleanliness on the bus, and driver skill /safety received the highest ratings. Driver courtesy, bus stop condition, safety at the bus stop all received relatively high ratings (between 80 - 90% good or very good). However, many respondents felt that service is not available early or late enough - about 20% rated the service start at below average or poor. Other areas of concern indicated by respondents were information at bus stops, route directness, regional connections, and service frequency. These areas observed some of the higher levels of below average and poor marks ranging between 6% and 8 %. Seating or Cleanliness of b Driverskill /s. ------------------------------ Overall bus se ------------------------------- Drivercou Safety at bus Condition ofbus Fare ( Conven ience of stop loca Rider inform Frequency of Se System easy to under: Information at bus: Connections to regional rc D i rectn ess of i Bus arrives on Service early en( Service late en, ■ Very Good ❑ Good ❑ Average o BelowAverage m Poor %of respondents Page 5 -9 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 5 -13 How would you rate the following items? (Table) Item Very Good Good Average Below Average Poor N Service late enough 39% 10% 31% 9% 10% 145 Service early enough 41% 14% 32% 6% 7% 147 Bus arrives on time 43% 20% 34% 3% 1 % 152 Directness of route 49% 17% 28% 3% 4% 141 Connections to regional routes 50% 16% 27% 3% 4% 141 Information at bus stops 51% 17% 25% 5% 3% 150 System easy to understand 59% 12% 27% 2% 1 % 147 Frequency of Service 50% 20% 23% 4% 2% 141 Rider information 53% 19% 24% 3% 1 % 150 Convenience of stop locations 52% 23% 22% 1 % 3% 147 Fare (cost) 59% 17% 20% 3% 2% 151 Condition of bus stop 66% 17% 14% 2% 1% 149 Safety at bus stop 63% 20% 13% 0% 4% 151 Driver courtesy 73% 16% 9% 2% 1 % 151 Overall bus service 68% 21% 9% 1 % 1 % 149 Driver skill /safety 77% 14% 7% 1 % 1 % 150 Cleanliness of buses 74% 17% 8% 0% 1 % 151 Seating on bus 79% 12% 8% 0% 1% 151 Page 5 -10 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 5 -14 Where would you like to see Woodburn Transit go that it doesn't go? Community 1 Location Count Percent of Responses Places already served by bus 12 20% Southeast Woodburn (Brown, Stark, Cleveland, Wilson) 8 13% Salem 7 12% Gervais 6 10% Centennial Park 5 8% Hubbard 4 7% Bank of America 3 5% DMV 3 5% Portland 2 3% Valor Middle School 2 3% Woodburn High School 2 3% Aurora 1 2% Carl Road area 1 2% North Settlemeir 1 2% Tukwila 1 2% Miscellaneous 2 3% Total 60 100% When asked to identify three ways that Woodburn Transit could be improved to increase their use of the system, the largest number of respondents identified Saturday service (29 %), followed by more frequent service (20 %), and later evening service (19 %). A smaller number selected more Sunday service (16 %) and early morning service (14 %). Only 2% chose easier transfers and less than 1% of respondents identified "other." "' I ow ' Figure 5 -15 What improvements would help you choose to ride Woodburn Transit more often? Other Easiertransfers Laterevening 0% 2% More service fruent 19% bus 20% % Sundayservice 16% "--Earlier morning service 14% N =133 Saturdayservice 29% Riders who felt that service should start earlier or end later were asked to specify when service should start or end. While the number of responses is too small to draw firm conclusions, the Page 5 -11 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN responses indicate that a small number of riders (15% of all respondents) would like service to start 1 to 2 hours earlier. As indicated in Figure 5 -16, 61 % of those who would like service to start earlier would like a start time of 7:00 AM. Another 25% would like service to start at 8:00 AM. Figure 5 -16 How early should Woodburn Transit operate? Earlierthan 6:00 AM 3% N =28 obi Ift A larger number of riders (21 %) would like service to end 1 to 2 hours later than it currently does. As shown in Figure 5 -17, of the riders who felt service should end later, 71 % each said it should run until 6:00 to 7:00 PM. An additional 19% said it should continue until 8:00 PM. Figure 5 -17 How late should Woodburn Transit operate? 11:00PM 5:30 PM 2% 2% 10:00 PM 4% 6:00 - 6:45 PM 29% 9:40 PM 2% _ 8:00 PM 19% N =48 Page 5 -12 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN The survey asked respondents to provide suggestions for improving service or general comments, which are categorized in Figure 5 -18. Some respondents wanted several routes to run in Woodburn with expanded coverage and made specific recommendations for new stop locations. They also suggested improved amenities at stops, including shelters, benches, and route /time information posted at every stop. Other common suggestions were to add weekend service, increase frequency (including suggestions for multiple buses running simultaneously), and have service hour expanded earlier and later (mostly later). They provided suggestions for extending routes or adding coverage, but also wanted routes to be more direct, i.e. faster. Several comments were made related to facilitate transfer opportunities to regional transit providers such as CAT and CARTS. The most common comment made was praise for the quality of service and how integral it is to quality of life. Figure 5 -18 Other Suggestions / Comments 40%h." Suggestion / Comment Category Count General praise for service 22 Provide weekend service 15 Make improvements to bus stops 14 Expand service span, earlier or later 12 Increase service frequency 12 General praise for drivers 6 Improve transfers opportunities 4 Provide multiple routes 4 Additional bus stop placement 2 Complaint about drivers 2 Hire bilingual drivers 2 On -time service / Adhere to the schedule 2 Pedestrian crossing risk at Salud Medical Center 2 Ask for senior volunteers 1 Improve call center contact 1 Increase capacity on bus 1 Increase transportation options 1 Install bike racks on bus 1 Keep the bus clean 1 Make bus improvements for elderly and disabled passengers 1 Notify customers of schedule changes 1 Pedestrian crossing risk at Hwy 214 1 Provide free fare weeks 1 Provide real -time scheduling 1 Page 5 -13 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN On -Board Passenger Survey - Dial -a -Ride Methodology Onboard passenger surveys were conducted on Woodburn Dial -a -Ride (DAR) vehicles over a six day period beginning May 19, 2010. Nelson \Nygaard developed a one -page, double -sided questionnaire with 10 questions and a space for comments. Questionnaires were printed in Spanish and English. Bus drivers were responsible for administering and collecting the survey. Drivers handed the survey forms to passengers when they boarded the bus. Passengers were asked to complete the survey form while on the bus if they could, but were also allowed to take the survey home with them and return it at a later time. A total of 23 completed surveys were received, 17% of which were in Spanish. 41W ' Based on 23 returned surveys, it is estimated that the response rate among Dial -a -Ride passengers is 58 %. A more detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate this response rate is included in Appendix C. Figure 5 -19 displays the number of passenger surveys both in Spanish and English by day. Figure 5 -19 Number of Passenger Surveys Collected by Survey Day Survey day English surveys collected Spanish surveys collected Total Number of surveys collected May 19, 2010 N/A N/A N/A May 20, 2010 11 2 13 May 21, 2010 3 1 4 May 24, 2010 2 0 2 May 25, 2010 2 0 2 May 26, 2010 1 1 2 TOTAL 19 4 23 Page 5 -14 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Key Findings and Issues Frequency of Use The survey results show a significant number of passengers ride DAR regularly (Figure 5 -20). About 9% of respondents indicated they use DAR five days per week, while 48% use the service 2 to 4 times a week. 13% of respondents specified that they use the service once per week. About 30% of respondents use DAR four days or less per month. None of the respondents were first time riders. Figure 5 -20 How often do you ride Dial -a -Ride? it Less than 1 day per month 4% 1 to 4 days pe month 26% 101pal to 4 days per week 48% Figure 5 -21 How long have you been riding Dial -a -Ride? I ess than 1 year More than 2 yea 63% N =22 1 to 2 years 23% Page 5 -15 Once per week 13% ri rlays narwaek Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Transit Dependence Nearly one out of three current passengers can be considered "highly transit - dependent." When asked how they would have traveled if Dial -a -Ride service had not been available (see Figure 5 -22), 34% of respondents said they would not have been able to make the trip. The largest share of passengers (42 %) would have had someone drive them while 8% would have walked. About 4% of passengers would have taken a taxi and 4% would have carpooled or used a vanpool service. About 8% used other means of travel. One respondent indicated their reliance on family members for mobility needs. Figure 5 -22 If Dial -a -Ride were not available, how would you have made this trip? Other 8% Carpool o Vanpool 4% Woul thistrip 34% Someone would drive me 42% N =23 When asked if a car was available to them for this trip (see Figure 5 -23), the majority (55 %) indicated that a car was not available, while only 27% of respondents said that a car was available. An additional 18% said that a car was only available with inconvenience to others. The results from Figure 5 -22 and Figure 5 -23 show that the vast majority of Dial -a -Ride passengers depend on the service. Figure 5 -23 Was a car available to you for this particular trip? Yes, but with inconvenie to other 18% N=22 Page 5 -16 Walk T 8% Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN As displayed in Figure 5 -24, the vast majority of riders (72 %) stated that they have a disability that prevents them from using The Bus. This means that about one in four passengers could use the fixed route service, even if they prefer to use the Dial -a -Ride. Figure 5 -24 Do you have a disability that prevents you from using the regular bus route? N =18 "qq� Riders' Attitudes and Opinions' As shown in Figure 5 -25, riders overall have a very positive opinion of DAR with 95% rating the service as good or very good. Only one respondent rated DAR as average, which constituted roughly 5% of total respondents, and no one rated the service as below average or poor. Figure 5 -25 Overall, how would you rate Dial -a -Ride service? 20 18 16 14 12 Q 10 0 8 6 4 2 0 Page 5 -17 Very Good Good Average Below Average Poor Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 5 -26 and Figure 5 -27 show respondents' ratings for individual aspects of Dial -a -Ride service on a chart and in a table. The only aspect receiving a higher rating than overall service was seating on bus. Other than these two items, driver skill /safety, driver courtesy, safety on the bus, and cleanliness of vehicles received the highest ratings. Convenience of service also received high ratings, although with fewer good responses and one average response. Service hours of operation were the only aspect of the service rated as good or very good by fewer than 80% of respondents. Over 25% of respondents rated DAR service hours as average and 5% rated it as below average. While still rated good or very good by the large majority of respondents, bus arrival time and ease of understanding the system scored slightly lower than the system as a whole. Dispatch courtesy /skill and service availability were to only two items to receive a below average score. Figure 5 -26 How would you rate the following items about Dial -a -Ride? (Graph) ■Very Good 11 Good []Average 11 Below Average E2 Poor % of respondents Page 5 -18 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 5 -27 How would you rate the following items about Dial -a -Ride? (Table) Item Very Good Good Average Below Average Poor N Service available late or early enough 59% 9% 27% 5% 0% 22 Arrives on time 59% 23% 18% 0% 0% 22 System easy to understand 62% 24% 14% 0% 0% 21 Rider information 60% 30% 10% 0% 0% 20 Convenience of service 81% 10% 10% 0% 0% 21 Driver courtesy 76% 14% 10% 0% 0% 21 Fare (cost) 68% 23% 9% 0% 0% 22 Cleanliness of vehicles 57% 38% 5% 0% 0% 21 Safety on the bus 76% 19% 5% 0% 0% 21 Dispatch courtesy /skill 68% 27% 0% 5% 0% 22 Driver skill /safety 77% 18% 5% 0% 0% 22 Overall service 82% 14% 5% 0% 0% 22 Seating on bus 81% 19% 0% 0% 0% 21 The survey asked respondents to provide suggestions for improving service or general comments, summarized in Figure 5 -28 below. The largest number of comments was general statements of praise for the Dial -a -Ride service. One comment in particular stated the need to keep the service because it was hard to secure a car to get around the city. A commonly repeated issue was the lack of weekend service, especially on Saturdays. Likewise, one respondent asked for longer service hours, while another respondent brought up the issue of on- time service. All other comments or suggestions were related to drivers, ranging from praise or dissatisfaction of driver attitude to hiring more staff to operate vehicles. Figure 5 -2$ Other Suggestions / Comments about Dial -a -Ride IM Suggestion / Comment Category Count General praise for service 5 Provide Dial -a -Ride service on weekends 3 Longer service span 1 More drivers 1 Drivers are upbeat and friendly 1 Improve driver attitude /Not serious enough 1 Adhere to the schedule /on -time service 1 Page 5 -19 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 6. Peer Review This chapter provides a comparative analysis of transit operations between Woodburn Transit System and the following five transit systems: • Canby Area Transit (CAT)— Canby, OR • South County Transit /Link —Galt, CA • Fresno County Rural Transit Agency— Sanger, CA • Skagit Transit —Mount Vernon, WA • Yamhill County Transit Area — McMinnville, OR 4t Peers were selected because they were similar to Woodburn in several ways. Several criteria were used in selecting peers, including population size, service area size, land use environment, level of transit dependency, cultural makeup of the community, and relationship to the agricultural sector. With the exception of the city of Galt, all systems being compared operate fixed route and demand responsive service. Identifying a city that is comparable to Woodburn and that also operates the transit system provided a unique challenge in this analysis. That being said, operating characteristics and performance data from each transit system being reviewed has been isolated down to the identified peer city. Canby Area Transit was the exception since they operate the transit system. Localizing data from the larger transit system allows for accurate comparison. This is a necessary step because many cities the size of Woodburn are part of a regional transit network. There are two main objectives of this comparison: • Providing a snapshot of current transit operations in similar communities while informing how Woodburn Transit System may provide service in the future; and • Create a benchmark for estimating operating cost, productivity and vehicle requirements for potential shifts in demand response and fixed route operations. Data for the peer review analysis was obtained from a number of sources, including personal interviews with each transit provider, state Department of Transportation agencies, respective agency comprehensive annual financial reports, and the National Transit Database (NTD). Population data was obtained from American Community Survey 2006 - 2008 Population Estimates (U.S. Census Bureau) and July 2009 data from Portland State University's Population Research Center. Page 6 -1 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN In order to provide an accurate comparison between peer transit systems, service areas and their corresponding data were localized. In most cases, peer agencies were able to identify operational and service cost data for the specific city being analyzed within the larger agency's service area. Skagit Transit estimated that Mt. Vernon represents 47% of fixed route revenue miles and ridership and 65% of paratransit revenue miles and ridership within the broader service area. All proceeding performance measures are based on these assumptions approved by the Skagit Transit. Five peer transit systems or sub - components of larger transit systems were chosen for the peer analysis. Some of the key population characteristics of the peer community, and service characteristics of the transit services that serve that community, are highlighted below and are summarized in Figure 6 -1. • Service History. Almost every fixed route system began service before introducing demand responsive services. Woodburn is the exception to this pattern. What's more interesting is that each system is relatively new compared to Woodburn. All peer transit services, both demand response or fixed route, began in the mid -1990s or later. Canby exhibits the most recent transit service addition, starting service in 2002. • Mixture of Service Types. Three agencies —Canby Area Transit, Skagit Transit (Mt. Vernon), and Yamhill County Transit Area (McMinnville) — provide fixed route and demand responsive service to their respective peer cities. Both California based agencies currently offer only general public Dial -a -Ride service, though both operated fixed route service at one time until changing demographics, the attractiveness of Dial -a -Ride service, and declining fixed route ridership forced its elimination. In addition, Skagit Transit offers regional express bus service to cities surrounding Mt. Vernon. • Population and Density. Woodburn's service population is very similar to Galt and Sanger, while its population density closely resembles that of neighboring Canby and, again, Sanger. Mt. Vernon and McMinnville both serve a larger population than Woodburn, while Canby serves the smallest population. • Vehicles. Vehicle utilization, or the ratio of available vehicles to operated vehicles, is an indicator of demand and capability to fund operation. The higher the spare vehicle ratio, the greater the demand for service. Woodburn Transit System and Fresno Rural Transit Agency (with service in Sanger) are the only two agencies to utilize all available vehicles for both fixed route and demand response service. The systems with the highest and lowest number of available vehicles are Skagit Transit and Sanger, respectively. • Service Days and Hours. Like Woodburn Transit System, fixed route service within Canby and Sanger and demand response service to Canby and McMinnville is only provided on weekdays. All other peers offer weekend service with Mt. Vernon providing the only Sunday service (for demand response only). In all, Canby Area Transit observes the closest service days and hours to Woodburn. • Fare Structure. Canby Area Transit is the only peer agency that offers free transit service. This is made possible by a local transit tax that covers a large share of operating expenses. Most general fares for fixed route fall between $0.75 and $1.00. The fare range Page 6 -2 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN for demand response service is much more varied, with the lowest general fare in Sanger at $0.75 and the highest in Galt at $2.50. Like Canby, Skagit Transit offers free demand response service in Mt. Vernon. Most services offer free rides for children, while only Sanger offers discounted fares for seniors and those with disabilities on both the fixed route and demand response services. • Employees. Due to the difficulty and effort associated with obtaining data on the number of employees that work just within the selected peer communities, only Canby and McMinnville 25 were directly compared. Canby observes a disproportionately large staff compared to Woodburn. On the other hand, McMinnville has the largest staff with 13.5 full time equivalent employees. Woodburn has the lowest of all peers. 25 Yamhill County Transit Area was able to localize the number of employees that work solely on the McMinnville serving fixed route and demand response systems. Page 6 -3 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 6 -1 Peer Systems — General Characteristics city Service Area Characteristics and Service Overview Canby •- Canby Area Transit (CAT) Fresno County Rural Transit Agency South County Transit/Link Mt. Vernon Skagit Transit McMinnville O . Yamhill County Transit Area Woodburn O . Woodburn Transit System Year Fixed Route service began 2002 1979; Discontinued in 2008 1990; Discontinued in 2008 1993 1994 1978 Year Demand Response (ADAIGP) service began 2002 1997 1990 1995 1995 1976 Service Area Description Canby city (and regional connections) Localized population within Fresno County Localized population within Sacramento County Localized population within Skagit County Localized population within Yamhill County Woodburn city Service Area Population 15,230 22,828 23,363 31,290 32,760 23,350 Service Area (Sq. Miles) 3.8 4.8 5.9 11.1 9.9 5.2 Population Density (Persons / Sq Mile) 4,039.8 4,805.9 3,980.1 2,818.9 3,309.1 4,490.4 Service Types Fixed or Deviated Fixed Route ✓ ✓* ✓ ✓ ✓ ADA Demand Response ✓ ✓ Demand Response (General Public) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Vehicles by Type Number of operated Fixed Route vehicles 6 1 N/A 12 3 1 Number of available Fixed Route vehicles 8 1 N/A 23 4 4 Fixed Route spare ratio 33% 0% N/A 91% 33% 300% Number of operated Demand Response vehicles 4 2 5 17 4 2 Number of available Demand Response vehicles 6 2 13 17 5 4 Demand Response spare ratio 50% 0% 160% 0% 25% 50% Page 6 -4 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Figure 6 -2 Peer Review — Service and Fare Characteristics Page 6 -5 Mt. Vernon McMinnville city Canby (OR) Sanger(CA) Gait (CA) (WA) (OR) Woodburn (OR) Fresno County Service Area Characteristics Canby Area Rural Transit South County Yamhill County Woodburn Transit and Service Overview Transit (CAT) Agency Transit/Link Skagit Transit Transit Area System M -F: 5:00 AM - M -F: 7:00 AM - Fixed Route Service Hours and Days M -F: 5:30 AM - 9:00 M -F: 7:00 AM - 5:30 N/A 9:00 PM 4:30 PM M F: 9:00 AM 5:00 PM PM PM Sat -Sun: 8:00 AM Sat: 6:30 AM - 6:15 PM 7:50 PM M -F: 7:00 AM - 4:00 M -F: 6:30 AM - M -F: 7:00 AM - Demand Response Service Hours and Days M -F: 6:30 AM - 7:30 PM 6:30 PM 9:00 PM M -F: 7:00 AM - M -F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM PM Sat: 8:00 AM — Sat: 8:30 AM - Sat -Sun: 8:00 AM 4:30 PM 5:OOPM 5:30 PM — 6:00 PM Fare Fixed Route (General Public) Free $0.75 N/A $1. 00 (local) / $2.00 (express) $1.00 $1.00 Fare Fixed Route (Senior /Disabled) $0.50 N/A $0.50 (local) / $1.00 (express) Fare Fixed Route (Students) - N/A - Fare Fixed Route (Children) Free N/A $0.50 - Free Fare Demand Response (General) Free $0.75 $2.50 Free $1.50 $1.50 Fare Demand Response (Seniors /Disabled) $0.50 $1.75 - - Fare Demand Response (Students) - $1.75 Fare Demand Response (Children) - Free Free - - Free Employees (FTE) 10.5 45.7 N/A 46.0 13.5 5.5 Page 6 -5 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Key Findings: Revenue and Funding All of the peer agencies receive dedicated revenue from federal or state sources, and several have revenues from a dedicated sales or payroll tax. As a result of dedicated revenues, most peer agencies are able to maintain a relatively low one -way fare for fixed route and demand response, ranging from $0.75 -$1.00 for fixed -route service and $0.75 -$2.50 for demand response service. Fares on Woodburn's bus and Dial -a -Ride are comparable with the other peer agencies. The 12.1 % farebox recovery rate for Woodburn's fixed route service is comparable to the other peer agencies, which range from 5.8% to 26.2 %. However, Woodburn's demand response farebox recovery rate is well below the other peers at 3.86 %. It should be noted that fixed route service in Canby and demand response service for both CAT and Skagit Transit are free, therefore there are no farebox recovery figures to compare. One striking finding is the difference in funding sources between CAT and Woodburn Transit System. Although both agencies receive various grants for operational assistance, CAT operation is largely supported by a local payroll tax that is dedicated to transit. This tax makes up roughly 50% of CAT's dedicated revenue. The data also shows that CAT is far less dependent on grants for operational assistance. Operational support from Canby's local tax explains the dedicated revenue share of operating expenses that exceeds 100 %. Fares for each peer agency is provided in Figure 6 -2, while Figure 6 -3 shows operating expenses and the share of revenues from fares and dedicated sources. X' Key Findings: System Performance Measures The following performance measures are used in the industry to assess service effectiveness (productivity), cost efficiency, and cost effectiveness. Included in this list are brief definitions of each performance measure and how Woodburn Transit System compares to peer systems. Only systems comprised of both fixed route and demand response service are included in the comparison, therefore South County Transit (City of Galt) was omitted. All system performance data is provided in Figure 6 -4. Cost efficiency. These indicators are the ratios of service inputs to service outputs, and measure the efficiency of resource allocation within the agency. • Operating cost per revenue hour. Defined as annual operating costs divided by annual vehicle service hours (revenue hours). This measure highlights an agency's cost efficiency, normalizing operating costs (primarily labor and fuel) to the number of hours the service is provided, which is useful when comparing operations between agencies and when analyzing the impact of service expansion or contraction. Woodburn's cost per hour ($61.91) is on par with three of its peers (Canby, Sanger and Galt). Skagit Transit has the highest cost per hour ($109.32), while YCTA has the lowest cost per hour figure amongst all peers ($32.55). Cost effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service inputs to service consumption and measure how well the service is utilized by the community. • Operating cost per trip. Defined as annual operating costs divided by annual ridership. For ADA paratransit services, it is common to include rider companions and attendants in the number of trips (i.e. total boardings). This measures cost effectiveness by allocating Page 6 -6 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN operating costs on a per passenger basis which is often useful when analyzing growth trends or when comparing modes. All peers perform within an evenly distributed range. WTS exhibits the second highest cost per trip figure on this range ($10.02), falling between Skagit Transit ($12.39) and FCRTA ($8.04) it is only slightly above average relative to all peers. • Farebox Recovery Ratio. This indicator is the ratio of fare revenue to total operating costs. A general rule of thumb for a small city transit system is to maintain a 10 % -15% farebox recovery ratio for fixed route operation and 10% for demand response service (Dial -a- Ride). As seen in Figure 6 -2, YCTA observes the most favorable farebox performance for both fixed route (26.2 %) and demand response (10.56 %) service. Using the above stated standard, Woodburn's fixed route service is about average among its peers with 12.1 %, while Dial -a -Ride falls below the standard at 3.9 %. ANNOL Service effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service consumption to service outputs and measure how well the capacity of service is being utilized by the consumer in relation to the amount of service available. • Ridership. For the purposes of this analysis, ridership performance is defined by passenger trips per capita. This measures the number of boardings (unlinked passenger trips) relative to the service area population, providing an easy metric to evaluate how services compare among different communities. Woodburn's observes the lowest ridership level (1.5), while CAT and Skagit Transit exhibit the highest (14.7 and 8.8, respectively). Trips per Revenue Hour. Defined as annual boardings (again including attendants and companions for paratransit) divided by annual vehicle service hours. This measure is one of the most reliable measures of system productivity. For demand - response services, it reflects the level of shared rides and slack time built into the schedule. Overall, CAT yields the most productive service among its peers (10.4), which is considered a very productive for a demand responsive service. For this indicator, FCRTA (8.0), Skagit Transit (8.8), and YCTA are highly higher than WTS (6.2), which has the lowest demand response productivity level of any peer. Operating Cost per Capita. Defined as the annual operating cost divided by the total service area population, this measures productivity by evaluating the cost of service on a per capita basis. Along with FCRTA, WTS exhibits relatively low cost per capita ($13.15 and $15.03, respectively). Skagit Transit and CAT display very high figures for this indicator likely due to the cost of expansive regional express bus service (in Skagit Transit) and a large share of total revenue hours dedicated to fixed route service (76% of CAT service is fixed route). Key Findings: Fixed Route Performance Data and Indicators Figure 6 -5 summarizes peer operating and performance data for fixed route service only. As the primary indicator of service productivity (trips per revenue hour), WTS has the second highest of any of the peers that operate fixed route (13.8 passengers per hour). On the other hand, WTS observed relatively low ridership per capita compared to the peers (1.2). This suggests that while WTS is making effective use of the service they provide, the amount of service is much Page 6 -7 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN lower compared to peer cities. In terms of cost efficiency on the fixed route system, WTS is on the high side compared to its peers at $85.03 per service hour, but still within a reasonable range of what could be expected. Finally, the operating cost per trip, another indicator of cost effectiveness, is around $6.15 per passenger, which average among its peers. Key Findings: Demand Response Performance Data and Indicators Most peer transit agencies accommodate the elderly and senior populations with "curb -to- curb" service within 3 /4 of a mile from a fixed route stop, as required by the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because of their lack of fixed route service, FCRTA offers curb -to -curb service to anywhere in the transit service area, while SCT /Link offers the service anywhere within the city of Galt. WTS and CAT solely operate their demand response service for seniors and disabled patrons, while the other systems offer demand response service for the general public. • Flexible fixed route. Many communities across the country have implemented fixed route service that is allowed to deviate from the fixed route to better serve a community. These services are essentially a hybrid between a fixed route and demand response. This type of transit service has been implemented in many places across the country and is currently in operation on CARTS' Route 25 between Woodburn and Silverton. • Vanpool programs. Vanpools are not new for commuting purposes, but are increasingly being reconsidered by many transit agencies as more flexible and efficient at meeting community transportation needs. Especially in the agricultural communities in California, which are similar to Woodburn, farmworker vanpool programs have been very successful. Page 6 -8 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Figure 6 -3 Peer Operating Expenses and Revenue Sources, FY 2008/09 Fresno Funding Characteristics Canby Area (CAT) County Rural Agency South Yarnhill . Woodburn Fixed Route Operating Expenses $1,147,740 $138,096 $1,795,837 $297,019 $173,458 Fixed Route Farebox Revenues $8,017 $265,550 $77,848 $21,062 Fixed Route Farebox Recovery (Fares / Operating Cost) 5.8% 14.8% 26.2% 12.1% Demand 41%&' Response Operating Expenses $286,935 $162,112 $565,823 $1,609,838 $294,024 $177,493 Demand Response Farebox Revenues $13,361 $47,337 $31,049 $6,849 Demand Response Farebox Recovery (Fares I Operating Cost) 8.24% 8.37% 10.56% 3.86% Dedicated Revenues $1,638,974 N/A N/A N/A N/A $270,648 Dedicated Local Revenue as % of Total Operating Expenses 56.6 % 80% A 60% N/A 0% Dedicated Local Payroll tax Local Sales Local Sales Local sales None None Revenue Source revenue (local Tax, California Tax, California tax (60% of transit tax) Transportation Transportation revenue) Development Development Act, Local Act, Local Transportation Transportation Funds Funds 26 Skagit Transit (Mt. Vernon) data is from the 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 27 Includes some revenue dedicated to capital expenditures; however the share devoted to operating expenses still exceeds 100% as capital expenses for FY 2008/2009 only amounted to $107,641 Page 6 -9 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 6 -4 Performance Data and Indicators (Fixed Route and Demand - Response), FY 2008/09 28 South County Transit is not featured in Figure 7 -3 because it doesn't not provide fixed route service to Galt. 29 FCRTA data is from FY 2007 -2008, allowing to analyze the performance data for the fixed route service that was eliminated in 2008 Page 6 -10 Canby Area Fresno County Rural Transit South County Skagit Yamhill County Transit Woodburn Transit Age Age ncy29 Transit/Link Transit Area System McMinnville Mt. Vernon city Galt City and city (Localized Sanger city Herald area (Localized population (Localized of population within population within Sacramento within Skagit Yamhill Woodburn Service Area Description Canby city Fresno County) County County) County) city Passenger Trips 224,223 37,328 54,760 274,792 143,414 35,038 Revenue Hours 21,605 4,659 15,353 31,154 18,158 5,669 Operating Expenses $1,434,675 $300,208 $1,201,199 $3,405,675 $591,043 $350,951 Ridership (Trips /Capita) 14.7 1.6 2.4 8.8 4.4 1.5 Productivity (Trips / Revenue Hour) 10.4 8.0 3.6 8.8 7.9 6.2 Cost Efficiency (Operating Cost/ Revenue Hour) - .40 $64.44 $78.24 `` $109.32 $32.55 $61.91 Cost Effectiveness (Operating Cost / Trip) $6.40 $8.04 $21.93 $12.39 $4.12 $10.02 Operating Cost per capita 1 $94.20 1 $13.15 1 $51.41 $108.84 $18.04 $15.03 28 South County Transit is not featured in Figure 7 -3 because it doesn't not provide fixed route service to Galt. 29 FCRTA data is from FY 2007 -2008, allowing to analyze the performance data for the fixed route service that was eliminated in 2008 Page 6 -10 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Figure 6 -5 Performance Data and Indicators (Fixed Route), FY 2008109 Population 15,230 22,828 31,290 23,363 32,760 23,350 Routes 4 1 11 1 3 1 Passenger Trips 213,225 15,740 236,561 29,724 108,922 28,197 Revenue Hours 16,486 2,775 16,360 8,436 9,125 2,040 Operating Expenses $1,147,740 $138,096 $1,795,837 $635,376 $297,019 $173,458 Ridership (Trips per capita) 14.0 0.7 7.6 1.3 3.3 1.2 Productivity (Trips Revenue Hour) 12.9 5.7 14.5 3.5 11.9 13.8 Cost Efficiency (Operating Cost 1 Revenue Hour) $69.62 $49.76 $109.77 $75.31 $32.55 $85.03 Cost Effectiveness V A (Operating Cost 1 Trip) $5.38 $8.77 $7 :5 $21.38 $2.73 $6.15 Operating Cost per capita $75.36 $6.05 $57.39 $27.20 $9.07 $7.43 - FCRTA data is from FY 2007 -2008, allowing to analyze the performance data for the fixed route service that was eliminated in 2008 31 Skagit Transit's performance data (Mt. Vernon isolated) is from the WSDOT Public Transportation Summary (2007) 32 SCT /Link discontinued the fixed route in November 2008. Data provided are estimated for the year based on four months between July 2008 and October 2008. Page 6 -11 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 6 -6 Performance Data and Indicators (Demand Response), FY 2008109 33 Data is from FY 2007/2008 Page 6 -12 General General General General Population Served ADA Public Public Public Public ADA Population 15,230 22,828 32,760 23,363 23,350 15,230 # Vehicles 6 2 17 5 5 4 Passenger Trips 10,998 21,588 38,231 25,036 34,492 6,841 Revenue Hours 5,119 1,884 14,795 6,917 9,033 3,629 Operating Expenses $286,935 $162,112 $1,609,838 $565,823 $294,024 $177,493 Ridership (Trips /Capita) 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.3 Productivity (Trips / Revenue Hour) 2.1 11.5 2.6 3.6 2.1 1.9 Cost Efficiency APOI (Operating Cost/ Revenue Hour) $56.05 $86.Q5 $108.81` $81.80 $32.55 $48.90 Cost Effectiveness 01 (Operating Cost/ Trip) $26.09 $ I $22.60 $8.52 $25.95 Employees (FTE) 2.0 35.0 20.0 18 4.5 1.5 33 Data is from FY 2007/2008 Page 6 -12 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Comparison of Local Peer Transit Providers In addition to the five peer agencies shown above, which are good overall peer transit providers, it is also helpful to understand how Woodburn compares to its closest regional transit providers. As such, Figure 6 -7 provides a comparison of key performance data and staffing for three nearby cities compared to Woodburn. Figure 6 -7 Comparison of Woodburn to its Neighbors While all three peer cities are more closely associated with the Portland metropolitan region and have a payroll tax that provides a dedicated source of funding, it is interesting to note that Woodburn has the highest service area population but provides the fewest number of annual service hours. Ridership on the peer cities are also seven to nine times that of Woodburn. The annual operating cost per capita in Woodburn compared to the three cities is also significantly lower ($15 per person compared to $93 -$167 per person). Page 6 -13 Canby Wilsonville Sandy Characteristic Woodburn (OR) (OR) (OR) Annual Operating Budget (approx.) $350,000 $1,400,000 $3,000,000 $1,100,000 (F /R and demand response) Annual Service Hours (approx.) 5,600 22,000 32,000 13,800 Annual Ridership (approx.) 35,000 225,000 305,000 275,000 Cost / Passenger (approx.) $10 $6 $10 $4 City Population (approx.) 24,000 15,000 18,000 8,000 Dedicated revenue source? No Yes, Yes, Payroll Yes, Payroll Tax Tax Payroll Tax Administrative Staff (FTE) 1.8 4.6 2.8 Full -time drivers (FTE) 1 Ar% 2 7 5 Part -Time Drivers (FTE) 1.8 3.5 3.5 Full -Time Employee Equivalents` Es) 5.6 15.1 11.3 Operating Budget/Service Hr. $63 $64 $94 $80 Ridership /Service Hr. 6 10 10 20 Budget/Population $15 $93 $167 $138 While all three peer cities are more closely associated with the Portland metropolitan region and have a payroll tax that provides a dedicated source of funding, it is interesting to note that Woodburn has the highest service area population but provides the fewest number of annual service hours. Ridership on the peer cities are also seven to nine times that of Woodburn. The annual operating cost per capita in Woodburn compared to the three cities is also significantly lower ($15 per person compared to $93 -$167 per person). Page 6 -13 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 7. Community Input In addition to the on -board passenger survey (Chapter 5), this chapter provides an overview of other community input that was gathered as part of this transit plan update. A summary of key findings and unmet transportation needs that resulted from this additional community input, as well as other key findings identified previous chapters of this report, is included in Chapter 8. Focus Groups and Stakeholder Interviews To better understand community perceptions of public transit, a series of focus groups and "stakeholder" interviews were conducted with individuals that have a direct stake in the transit services provided in Woodburn. Stakeholders were selected based on an initial list of individuals provided by City staff. ANIML A total of 19 individuals participated in the stakeholder meetings. Most of the stakeholders were interviewed in one of five small focus group meetings held on May 13 2010. The five separate focus groups, which were structured around different segments of the community, included: (1) medical institutions, (2) educational facilities, (3) organizations that serve seniors and people with disabilities, (4) the business community and (5) other community organizations. Three telephone interviews were conducted with those individuals that could not attend a focus group meeting on May 13 While all of the stakeholders have an interest in the transit services provided in Woodburn, many of them also represent organizations or businesses that are regional in nature. All individuals who were interviewed were first sent a questionnaire that provided them with a brief background on the study and a list of questions that would guide the discussion. At the start of each focus group meeting or stakeholder interview, participants were asked to describe the services offered by their business, organization, etc. and to discuss what they viewed as the top transportation issues or challenges in Woodburn. They were then asked to discuss their views on local transit services in Woodburn as well as regional transit services and gaps in regional connections. Finally, stakeholders were asked to share potential solutions to meeting unmet transit needs in the community, and to then prioritize those needs. A summary of all focus group meetings and stakeholder interviews is included in Appendix D, along with the questionnaire that was sent out prior to the meetings. It is important to note that the feedback received from all stakeholders reflects the views, opinions, and perceptions of those interviewed and that the resulting information was not verified or validated for accuracy of content. It should also be noted that a total of 25 individuals or organizations were invited to participate in the focus group meetings, but several individuals or organizations did not respond or were unable to be reached. Figure 7 -1 below presents a summary of agencies or organizations interviewed and whether or not they were interviewed as part of a focus group or via a telephone interview. Page 7 -1 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 7 -1 Stakeholders Interviewed Position Agency /Organization Focus Group or Telephone Director of Community Outreach and Governmental Affairs Wellspring Medical Center Medical Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Services Manager NorthWest Senior & Disability Services Senior /Disabled Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Staff Legacy Medical Group Medical Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Staff (2) Marion County Health Department Medical Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Director Chemeketa Community College Woodburn Campus Education Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Superintendant Woodburn School District Education Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Principal St. Luke's School Telephone Interview (May 11th, 2010) Staff Woodburn Company Stores Business Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Executive Director Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce Telephone Interview (May 11th, 2010) Resident Woodburn Senior Estates Senior /Disabled Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Staff North Marion Adult Center Senior /Disabled Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Staff City of Woodburn RSVP Program Senior /Disabled Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Staff Meals on Wheels Senior /Disabled Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Commissioner Marion County Telephone Interview (May 17th, 2010) Staff (2) Farmworkers Housing Development Corporation Other Community Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Transit riders (2) n/a Other Community Focus Group (May 13th, 2010) Project Development Team (PDT) The Project Development Team (PDT) includes representatives from the City of Woodburn, including the Public Works Director, Transit Program Manager and the Transit Operations Supervisor. Other departments in the City will participate in PDT meetings as needed throughout the project, such as the Community Development or Finance Departments. The Project Development Team's role is to provide input and guidance throughout this planning project. As such, the PDT will meet regularly throughout the project to review key project milestones. An initial meeting was held in Woodburn with the PDT on April 19 2010, during which time members were asked as to their perceptions of key unmet transportation needs and other issues they consider relevant to this transit plan update. This feedback is incorporated into the assessment of key findings included in Chapter 8. Community Survey To better understand how the community views public transit services offered in Woodburn, and to solicit feedback on ways to improve transit services, a community survey was conducted. The survey included a total of 12 questions with the option to provide additional comments. The initial questions were included to better understand how often people use transit in Woodburn, and what factors might encourage them to start using transit or use it more often. Several Page 7 -2 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN questions were also asked to better understand how and where people travel to work, school, shopping and medical services. Finally, several questions were asked about household size, vehicle ownership and household income. The survey was produced in English and Spanish and was also made available online as well as in hard copy. Copies of the English and Spanish surveys are provided for reference in Appendix A. The community survey started on May 13, 2010 and was distributed throughout the community primarily through the individuals who participated in the stakeholder meetings. Surveys were also posted at key activity centers around town, including Wellspring Medical Center, Salud Medical Center, the library, City Hall and the Chamber of Commerce. An article in the Woodburn Independent also ran on May 20, 2010 and a follow -up article was published on June 30, 2010 to solicit more survey responses. In total, 174 completed surveys were received. Fifty -three of the returned surveys were Spanish versions. Although the survey did not supply a statistically significant survey sample, some key findings were obtained. The following list provides a summary of these key findings. • 80% of respondents had not used Woodburn's transit system in the last 6 months. • Of the 20% of respondents that have utilized WTS' services in the last 6 months, the vast majority (92 %) rode on the fixed route service., • Nearly three - quarters of the respondents drive alone to access jobs or school. Twelve percent indicated that they either walk or bike to work or school, while only 6% use public transit for these trip purposes. • Forty -five percent of respondents access health care within Woodburn, while Salem (29 %) and Silverton (10 %) are other cities with medical destinations used by respondents. Salud Medical Center is the primary health care choice for respondents (27 %), while Woodburn Family Medical is another popular option (16 %). • When asked which city is their primary shopping destination, Woodburn (57 %) and Salem (33 %) were the most common responses. Wal -Mart, Safeway, and Mega Foods were identified as the top three shopping choices in Woodburn. • Nearly 80% of respondents' households own two or more automobiles. Thirteen percent of respondents indicate they own one car, while 5% must rely on some other form of transportation. Survey takers were also asked to identify how willing they are to use public transportation over their current mode or use public transportation more often if certain factors that affect transit service quality were adjusted. Perhaps the most interesting element from the community survey, the results are summarized in Figure 7 -2. Providing express service into the Portland and Salem areas (60 %), increasing service frequency (59 %), and providing more direct and faster service (58 %) were identified as the top factors where respondents would strongly consider mode shift to transit. Improved pedestrian access to bus stops (54% would strongly consider), improved passenger facilities (53% would strongly consider), and earlier / later service (52% would strongly consider) were slightly less influential factors, but if improved could increase the chance to riding public transportation. The results from this section of the survey indicate that about 40% of all respondents felt that one or more of the factors Page 7 -3 Transi P lan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Figure 7 -2 Factors that Influence Greater Use of Public Transportation Express bus service to Salem or Portland ■ Consider Strongly ❑ Consider Somewhat ❑Wouldnotconsider More frequenttransit service Faster, more direct transit service Improved access to bus stops / better sidewalks Earlieror later service on transit Improved passenger facilities Weekend transitservice Better connections to regional services (CATS or CARTS) Improved marketing information about transit Expanded dial -a -ride within Woodburn Other 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% % of respondents a> Page 7-4 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 8. Key Findings and Unmet Transit Needs Based on the review conducted in previous seven chapters, key findings and unmet transit needs in Woodburn generally fall into one of the following four categories: • Existing transit services in Woodburn. Needs in this category relate to findings or improvements to the existing transit services provided in Woodburn; • Expansion of transit service beyond Woodburn. This category relates to needs or findings related to transit services outside of Woodburn, or the need to improve regional mobility; • Awareness of existing services (local and regional). This category relates to findings or improvements to the way transit services within Woodburn are promoted and marketed to current and potential transit users; and • Improve existing services first. A number of stakeholders said that before adding new transit service (such as extended hours or weekend service), issues with the existing services should be addressed. This includes issues related to marketing of the service, connections with regional services, and making the best use of available resources (such as dispatch and scheduling software). • Expanded service hours on the bus. Both existing passengers and stakeholders strongly support the need to expand service hours on the fixed route bus. Nearly one in five existing passengers rated this element of the service as either "below average" or "poor" on the on -board survey. Passengers said that the service should start as early as 7:00 or 8:00 AM, and end as late as 7:00 or 8:00 PM. This need was confirmed by feedback from the drivers, as well as by the stakeholders - many of which do not regularly use transit themselves but have received feedback from within their organization. It should also be noted that expanding service hours was identified as a need in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) completed in 2005. Weekend service. Similar to expanded service hours, one of the top service improvements on the fixed route bus, as suggested by existing passengers and stakeholders, was weekend service, with the priority being Saturday service. While it was recognized that any service expansion should start with Saturday service, many stakeholders and existing passengers felt that transit service seven days a week would allow people to use transit for the full range of trips. It should be noted that two of the Page 8 -1 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN communities evaluated in the peer review offer Saturday service (McMinnville and Mt. Vernon, WA) and one peer community offers service on Sunday (Mt. Vernon). The transit services in Canby, Sanger (CA) and Galt (CA) are not operated on the weekends. • Better coordination with regional services. The regional transit services that provide connections to Woodburn (Canby Area Transit and CARTS) are both viewed as critical components of the transit system in Woodburn. While existing passengers view expanded service hours or weekend service as the priority, existing passengers and stakeholders both agree that connections to the regional services need to be as seamless as possible. This might mean better timed connections — either at Mid Valley Plaza or the Downtown Transit Center — or better physical connections between services (Woodburn Transit does not serve the same stop as CAT and CARTS at Mid Valley Plaza, for example). Many of the peer systems are operated by regional transit agencies, and thus for these services coordination is not as much of an issue. Still, regional services are the foundation of several of the cities, such as Mt. Vernon (WA) and Sanger (CA) and thus the only local service provided in those cities are regional in nature. The services provided in Canby are also largely regional with connections to Woodburn, Oregon City and Wilsonville, but CAT provides two local routes as well. • Improve on -time performance on fixed route. It was noted by the drivers, and confirmed during the on -board ridecheck, that the fixed route bus often has difficulty staying on schedule. This is especially a problem when there are heavy boardings and /or passengers that need additional time to board (e.g., groceries or strollers). Drivers noted that there is no time at the end of the route for recovery and a break, so if the bus gets behind schedule on one run they can remain behind schedule for an extended period of time. Most fixed route transit services provide about 10% of the total round trip travel time for layover and driver breaks to account for the variability in travel time that often occurs on transit. For a route that operates hourly, this would require a 5 -6 minute recovery time every hour. Recovery time is also important when timed connections to other routes should occur, such as to CARTS or CAT. • More frequent transit service. Based on the community survey, more frequent transit service was one of the top factors that would encourage people to consider using transit — or use it more often. It should be noted, however, that about 80% of the people who completed the community survey have not used the system in the past six months and are not regular users of the system. • Bus stop improvements. Many existing passengers indicated that bus stops need improvement in Woodburn, including bus benches, shelters and schedule information. While several new bus shelters are being installed in Woodburn, existing passengers said that additional stops need better amenities. • Future growth in Woodburn. According to the City's comprehensive plan, most of the future growth in Woodburn is expected largely in the southwest quadrant of the city centered along Evergreen Road. • Fares on Dial -a -Ride. Current fares on Dial -a -Ride are $1.50 one way and $3.00 per round trip. The regular fare on the fixed route bus is $1.00 for a one -way trip. As mandated by the ADA, fares on a complementary paratransit service, which must be provided for eligible seniors and people with disabilities, cannot be more than twice the fixed route fare. Page 8 -2 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN • Service for seniors. Based on the community survey, one individual suggested that Woodburn provide better transportation geared towards seniors — including enhancing the volunteer driver program. Expansion of transit service beyond Woodburn Need for a more cohesive regional transit system. As illustrated in the demographic overview (Chapter 3), Woodburn is at the center of a much larger region stretching from Salem on the south to the Portland metro area on the north. According to recent employment data, about 80% of people who work in Woodburn live outside of the city, with the majority of those workers coming from the Salem area. Similarly, 80% of workers who live in Woodburn work outside of the city — with the majority traveling north to the Portland area. Strengthening these regional connections with transit was viewed by many stakeholders as a priority for this planning effort. Improved service connecting Salem /Keizer and Portland. CARTS Route 10 currently provides two round trips daily between Woodburn and Salem. While many stakeholders recognize that this is an important regional connection, they also said that the level of service provided is not sufficient to meet regional mobility needs. Several stakeholders said that service as late as 10:00 PM would be needed to meet the full range of trips that need to be made, such as by students and workers. Results from the community service confirmed the need for regional connections to the Portland area and Salem. CAT's Orange route provides the only connection from Woodburn north to the Portland area. To travel between Woodburn and downtown Portland, for example, would require at least one transfer and well over two hours on the bus. And while Route 1X (jointly operated by Salem Area Mass Transit District and SMART in Wilsonville) travels along 1 -5 connecting Salem to Wilsonville, no stops are made in Woodburn. Service to the southwestern suburbs of Tualatin and Tigard would require at least two transfers and over two hours of travel time. These services were viewed as very important among stakeholders and somewhat important among existing passengers (though understandably, existing passengers felt that improvements to the local service are the priority). In addition, the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and planning efforts conducted for north Marion County (for CARTS and Salem Area Mass Transit District), recommend better service to Salem and Portland. • Extension of Dial -a -Ride to surrounding communities. Some stakeholders mentioned the need for improved mobility to some of the surrounding communities for seniors and people with disabilities. In particular, the need to serve the communities of Hubbard and Gervais was a priority, but also the need for longer connections to the Portland and Salem areas. Improved service to Mt. Angel / Silverton. Although CARTS operates Route 25, a flex route between Silverton and Woodburn, a number of stakeholders said that this was an important connection. In particular, service to the Silverton Hospital was seen as important. It should be noted this CARTS route does not appear to be widely publicized and may not yet be widely known since it started operating relatively recently, replacing a previous dial -a -ride service. Page 8 -3 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Awareness of existing services (local and regional) • Improved marketing of local transit services. The majority of stakeholders and many existing passengers expressed the need for improved marketing of the local transit services. While the bus stops in Woodburn are clearly marked, and marketing information is available at several locations, many of the stakeholders said that they just didn't know about the transit services that are available. • Improved schedule information at bus stops. Existing passengers overwhelmingly said that improvements to bus stops are needed. They also said that posted information about the bus route would be helpful, especially a schedule and map. • Transit information in Spanish. Both stakeholders and existing passengers said that better information in Spanish is important. It is assumed that this information needs to be available in traditional hard -copy formats as well as on -line. • Joint marketing with regional services. As discussed above, the need for improved regional connectivity is important. Related to this need is the desire to better advertise and market regional transit connections that serve Woodburn. While most stakeholders were familiar with CARTS and CAT, several said that they wouldn't know where to go to get more information. While both agencies have a web site, it was noted that this information should be readily accessible at stops where these services connect. 40001b" 'X Transportation that supports transit • 1 -5 interchange project is needed. Many stakeholders said that one of the primary transportation needs in the community is to improve the I -5 /Highway 214 interchange. While funding for the proposed $90 million project is still in limbo, recent meetings with ODOT and elected officials suggest that the project could start moving forward in mid 2012. This is an important project for transit services as well, especially since it has the potential to improve transit operations on Highway 214 and would include a new park and ride and transit facility. • Improved sidewalks and crossings are needed in some areas. When stakeholders were asked about general transportation needs in the community, a number of people mentioned the need for improved sidewalks and connectivity across major roadways. In particular, crossing Highway 214 at Park Avenue across from Salud Medical Center was mentioned as a particularly difficult crossing. When asked how existing passengers would have made their trip if transit were not available, 57% said they would walk. Safe and accessible sidewalks are critical for making public transit attractive, and Woodburn's Comprehensive Plan includes policy statements that support this goal. Sidewalks also encourage more walking trips, which in turn promote healthy lifestyles and build a greater sense of community. Similarly, the community survey confirmed that the need for better access to bus stops is a key factor that would influence people to use transit (or use it more often). • Continue expanding the bike network. Some stakeholders mentioned the need to continue expanding the bike network in Woodburn, and this was discussed in the Transportation System Plan as well. The City should be commended for including bike lanes on reconstructed roads, such as Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road. Some existing riders also suggested that bike racks should be installed on the fixed route bus. Page 8 -4 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Taxis are playing an increasingly important transportation role. While taxis are usually more adept at meeting specific transportation needs, costs for these premium services are more than for public transportation and they are usually not viable for regular trips. Still, when existing passengers were asked how they would have made their trip if transit were not available, 12% said that they would take a taxi. It will be important, however, to ensure that taxis and public transportation complement each other rather than compete since both fulfill an important mobility role in Woodburn. Page 8 -5 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 9. Goals, Objectives and Performance Standards This chapter provides a set of goals, objectives and performance standards specific to the provision of transit service in Woodburn. Because the Transit Plan Update will serve as the transit element of the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP), a logical place to start developing transit - specific goals and objectives is the TSP, last updated in 2005. However, because a detailed evaluation of transit in Woodburn has not been completed in many years, the goals and objectives included in this plan will be used to update the goals and objectives in the next TSP update. Differences from existing objectives or policies in the TSP will be noted. AV Vision for Transit in Woodburn The City of Woodburn does not have a formal vision statement specifically for the transit services it provides. However, the City does have an overall vision statement, which can help define how transit services should be provided for residents, commuters, and visitors. That vision statement, with the relevant reference to transit in bold, is provided below: "Woodburn will be a safe, vibrant, full service community. Woodburn will be a community of unity, pride, and charm. It will be a sustainable, technologically advanced community with a functional multi -modal transportation system. Woodburn will thrive as a regional focus for the advancement and enjoyment of the arts, culture, leisure and recreational activities. Woodburn will be a great place to live, work, and visit. " This is a broad vision statement but it represents several specific issues related to transit. First, it states that Woodburn will support a "functional multi -modal transportation system," which suggests that transit must be a component of this multi -modal system. Second, the vision suggests that for Woodburn to thrive, it must function as part of a larger region. Finally, it says that Woodburn will be a "great place to live, work, and visit," which suggests that mobility for local trips as well as regional trips (for both residents and visitors) is important. All stakeholders interviewed for this plan were asked to provide their feedback on what they felt should be the role of transit in Woodburn. Overwhelmingly, stakeholders said that the service should first meet the needs of those who do not have other transportation options before meeting the needs of others, which can be construed to mean "focus on those that do not have other transportation options." And while stakeholders suggested that the existing transit service be improved before expanding service, they also felt that strong connections to regional services were important. Based on the City's vision statement, and input from stakeholders, a suggested vision statement for transit is as follows: "To provide a clean, safe, reliable, efficient, sustainable, and affordable public transportation service for people traveling within Woodburn with a focus on those who do not have other transportation options; and to strive to provide residents, visitors, and workers traveling to and from Woodburn with efficient and convenient regional connections. " Page 9 -1 Transit Plan Update • Draft Fi nal Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Transit Goals and Objectives The Transportation System Plan, completed in 2005, outlines five broad transportation goals for Woodburn, along with a series of action items (policies) for each goal. Although the goals are helpful for guiding the overall transportation system and several of the policies relate directly to transit, they are not specific enough to provide strong direction for Woodburn's transit system in the future. Therefore, the following goals and objectives are tailored to the provision of public transportation and include objectives that offer very specific guidelines for how to improve the service over the next 20 years. The objectives presented here are derived from the previous chapter that outlined unmet transit needs. It should be noted that some of the policies in the TSP are reiterated here as objectives, since they remain applicable to this plan. Any suggested changes to the policies in the TSP will be noted below. Goal 1: Enhance local mobility for primary user groups and potential new user groups in Woodburn. 1.2. Major destinations. Provide service to all key destinations in Woodburn, including major employers, shopping and medical facilities. 1.3. Reasonable fares. Offer reasonable fares to seniors, people with disabilities and low income individuals. 1.4. Low - income neighborhoods. Provide service to all low- income neighborhoods and neighborhoods with a high proportion of households without access to a vehicle. 1.5. Multimodal connections. Ensure multimodal connections between transit and bicycle /pedestrian facilities. 1.6. Transit amenities. Provide high - quality transit amenities (benches, shelters, information, lighting) - especially at high volume stops and key destinations in the community. Goal 2: Provide the most efficient transit service to existing markets while also focusing on serving new markets. This goal focuses on the need to make the most efficient use of existing resources by maximizing the use of the fixed route service which can most efficiently move people around Woodburn. It was discovered from the Dial -a -Ride on -board passenger survey that about 28% of the people do not have a disability that prevents them from using the fixed route bus. While some of these Page 9 -2 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN individuals could use the fixed route bus, other obstacles prevent them from using the fixed route bus, such as how far they live from a stop and the ability to navigate the steps of the bus. This goal also relates to the need to offer efficient boarding and alighting times on both services and to maintain existing vehicles. Objectives: 2.1. On -time performance. Ensure that actual arrival and departure times on the fixed Objectives: 3.1. Community value. Ensure that the community understands the value of transit and the role transit plays in the transportation system. 3.2. Business community support. Build support for transit among local businesses. 3.3. Marketing. Improve local marketing materials to more effectively communicate available transit services. 3.4. Transit image. Enhance the image of transit in Woodburn. 3.5. Information availability. Ensure that transit information is posted at transit centers, stops and at key activity centers. 3.6. Alternate languages. Provide all printed and web -based marketing materials and transit information in both English and Spanish. Provide basic information in Russian. Page 9 -3 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN 3.7. Customer service. Ensure that a customer service representative is available during all hours that the fixed route and Dial -a -Ride bus is in operation, and provide after -hours information and Dial -a -Ride scheduling via a telephone recording system. 4.5. New funding sources. Explore the feasibility of new funding sources that are dedicated to transit operation and provide a steady and reliable source of revenue. 4.6. Transit reserve. Strive to build a transit reserve fund for unexpected fluctuations in transit revenues and to help fund capital purchases. w V4# 0 %koh._% Goal 5: Improve coordination with regional transit providers, explore the feasibility of new regional transit service, and explore other transportation options like carpool and vanpool. The need to travel regionally was identified as a priority. This need will be more prevalent as Woodburn and the rest of northern Marion County and southern Clackamas County grow. As such, this goal is to better coordinate services with existing regional transit providers, as well as to provide more direct service to Salem and the Portland Metro area via 1 -5. Objectives: 'VF 5.1. Schedule coordination. Coordinate transfers between Woodburn Transit and regional transit providers. 5.2. Expanded intercity service. Explore the feasibility of expanded intercity transit connections along 1 -5 between Woodburn and the Salem and Portland areas that provides added service and route coverage to improve the mobility and accessibility of the transportation disadvantaged and to attract traditional auto users to use the system. ( NOTE: modified policy from TSP Page 9 -4 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN 5.3. Other travel options. Explore the feasibility of other travel options between Woodburn and the Salem and Portland areas, including park and ride, carpool and vanpool programs. Also consider improved local and regional transportation options for seniors such as an expanded volunteer driver program. ( NOTE: modified policy from TSP Performance Standards The Value of Performance and Design Standards • Ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Are the services operated within the law? • Facilitate the simple, straightforward evaluation of the service. Can transit service be monitored and evaluated with the existing staff resources and technology? • Provide a clear rationale for service increases (increased frequency or service span), service expansion (route extensions or new routes to areas not currently served) and service reductions (what services should be reduced when budgets are cut or if resources have to be reallocated to increase or expand service elsewhere). Service standards will help the City justify critical decisions affecting service delivery. • Provide benchmark measures that can be written into approved service and operating policies. • Provide criteria for the design and operation of safe and effective transit service. How should new service be introduced and how should services be operated? While specific standards can vary, industry practice generally uses the following categories for service performance and design: • Efficiency standards. • Service quality /reliability and quality /performance standards. • Service design standards. While the recommended service and design standards will help guide the transit services provided in Woodburn, it is recognized that City staff do not have resources to collect extensive operations data. For this reason, this plan recommends a very basic set of performance and design standards that should be relatively easy for the City to collect and analyze. It should also be noted that establishing a process for ongoing collection of operating data will make it easier for the City when applying for state and federal grants. Page 9 -5 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Recommended Efficiency Standards Efficiency standards use operational data to measure the performance of a transit system. Monitoring operational efficiency and productivity requires the following data to be collected: Although data are generally calculated on a systemwide basis, data should be collected separately for the fixed route and Dial -a -Ride services so that planning decisions can be made regarding these services separately. Data should be collected and entered into a basic spreadsheet or database on a daily basis and evaluated and reported on a monthly basis. Four service efficiency standards and recommended benchmarks are as follows: Figure 9 -1 Woodburn Transit Service Efficiency Standards Performance Fixed Route Benchmark Dial -a -Ride Benchmark Comment Standard Based on recent service trends, Operating Cost per Maintain under $7.00 Maintain under $25.00 peer review and assuming equal Passenger (or faster) growth in ridership compared to operatina costs It should be noted that these efficiency standards comply with the basic performance indicators required by the National Transit Database (NTD) and are largely consistent with operating and cost data already collected by the City. Recommended Service Quality /Reliability Standards Service quality and reliability standards are developed to ensure that the transit services provided in Woodburn meet certain standards for attracting and maintain ridership and customer satisfaction. Figure 9 -2 presents recommended service quality and reliability standards, which are based on the goals and objectives presented earlier in the chapter. Page 9 -6 My Ift "*W Based on a 3% increase in Operating Cost per $65.00 - $70.00 (2015) operating costs per year. Revenue Hour $70.00 - $75.00 (2020) Operating cost per revenue hour should be averaged for the system as a whole. Passengers per Minimum of 15.0 (2015) 4.0(2015) Based on recent service trends, Revenue Hour Minimum of 20.0 (2020) 5.0(2020) peer review, and industry standards Farebox Recovery Minimum of 15% (2015) Minimum of 7% (2015) Based on recent service trends, Ratio Minimum of 20% (2020) Minimum of 10% (2020) peer review and industry standards It should be noted that these efficiency standards comply with the basic performance indicators required by the National Transit Database (NTD) and are largely consistent with operating and cost data already collected by the City. Recommended Service Quality /Reliability Standards Service quality and reliability standards are developed to ensure that the transit services provided in Woodburn meet certain standards for attracting and maintain ridership and customer satisfaction. Figure 9 -2 presents recommended service quality and reliability standards, which are based on the goals and objectives presented earlier in the chapter. Page 9 -6 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 9 -2 Woodburn Transit Service Quality /Reliability Standards Performance Standard On -time Performance Passenger Complaints Passengers Carried Road Calls /Revenue Mile Operated Fixed Route Benchmark 90% of all arrival times should be within 5 minutes of scheduled time. No trip should depart prior to scheduled departure time. Dial -a -Ride Benchmark All Dial -a -Ride trips shall arrive at pick -up points no earlier than 10 minutes before and no later than 10 minutes after the scheduled pick up time, 95% of the time. Objective is to minimize passenger complaints, but no more per than 1 per 1,000 passenger trips. No more than 1 road call per 10,000 revenue miles Bus Trips No scheduled trips on Cancelled cancelled. No more than 5% of scheduled trips should be cancelled by passengers within one hour of scheduled trip, and no more than 2% of trips due to last- minute cancellations. 100% of all ADA- eligible trips should be accommodated. Comment This performance standard can be monitored on the fixed route service by occasional point checks at key time points. Dial - a -Ride performance can be measured from regular data collected on all trips. Requires the systematic recording of passenger complaints via telephone, email or from drivers. Road calls are the number of times a vehicle must be taken out of service while in operation. A high number of road calls indicates the need for a more aggressive vehicle replacement program or changes to maintenance procedures. Service cancellation can be eliminated or minimized through increased bus reliability and the maintenance of sufficient spare vehicles. Operator training efforts should be adjusted to address specific types of preventable accidents. Because cancellations and no- shows are an unproductive use of resources, occurrences should be tracked to identify customers and reasons. Actions should be taken to minimize the occurrences in the future. According to the ADA, a trip is denied if the trip cannot be accommodated one hour before or one hour after the desired pick -up time. rn Transit should be While the objective should be no preventable accident, a benchmark has been established to allow for some flexibility due to driver training and turnover. The number of preventable accidents should not exceed 1 for every 100,000 revenue miles, or one approximately every two years. Page 9 -7 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Recommended Service Design Standards Service design standards are important planning tools for transit providers to justify service expansion and to guide how existing and future services should be designed. Recommended service design standards for Woodburn are summarized below in Figure 9 -3. Figure 9 -3 Woodburn Transit Service Design Standards Performance Standard Fixed Route Benchmark Dial -a -Ride Benchmark Introduction of New Service New service should be introduced if anticipated hourly productivity (passengers per revenue hour) is expected to meet or exceed the established performance standard, If new service is introduced, it should be evaluated at six months and again at one year. If the service is not meeting performance standards after a year, measures should be taken to modify the service or consider for elimination. Access to the Bus 90% of residents in the City of Woodburn should be within a 10 minute (1/4 mile) walking distance to a fixed route bus stop. Sidewalks should be available in the immediate area of a fixed route bus stop and in good condition. Minimum Bus Stop Design All bus stops should include a bus stop sign with appropriate information about the fixed route bus. Bus stops with more than 10 daily boardings or alightings should be considered for a bus bench or shelter. Priority should be given to stops located in areas that have high concentrations of seniors or people with disabilities. Passenger Loads Maximum passenger loads should not exceed 1.5 passengers per seat, or exceed vehicle specifications for maximum load. Recovery Time The fixed route service should include a minimum of 10% recovery time to ensure on- time performance. Timed Transfers The fixed route service and schedules should be designed to provide convenient connections to regional transit services. Minimum Bus Specifications All Woodburn Transit buses should meet Federal, State and local safety, emissions, accessibility and mechanical requirements. Service Extensions Limited service may be provided to areas within a '/2 mile buffer of the City of Woodburn. Extensions beyond this area will require sufficient financial contributions to support the proposed level of service. 0 34 To calculate the estimated productivity for an area where new service is proposed, total population within ' / 4 mile of the bus stops should be determined and then multiplied by a standard mode split figure. In a community like Woodburn, the mode split is estimated at 1 %. This estimate can then be doubled to assume a round trip, and annualized by multiplying by 255 (assuming weekday operation only). This figure can then be divided by the estimated number of annual revenue hours to arrive at an estimated productivity. Page 9 -8 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 10. Potential Service Strategies This chapter provides a set of potential service strategies based on the needs assessment outlined in Chapter 8 and subsequent goals and objectives outlined in Chapter 9. Also included in this chapter are strategies that are not service - related but were identified to help improve the management, operation and overall function of transit services in Woodburn. Potential Transit Service Strategies The following strategies are presented as options for improving the transit system in Woodburn. It is important to note that the priorities in this section are not in priority order. At the end of this chapter, the service strategies are prioritized based on how well they satisfy the 28 objectives listed in Chapter 9. A simple rating system was used to identify whether the strategy fully meets an objective, partially meets an objective or does not meet an objective. Each potential service strategy is first described in text and then summarized in a standardized table that is common among all strategies. The table includes a description of which service the strategy pertains to (fixed route or Dial -a- Ride), a brief description of the strategy, operating cost impacts, capital needs and what objective is addressed from Chapter 9. For the purposes of prioritizing these services, operating costs on the fixed route service are estimated at $85.00 per revenue hour and $50.00 per revenue hour on the Dial -a -Ride. Non - service strategies are discussed in text and one -time costs or ongoing costs are estimated. This strategy expands service hours on the fixed route and Dial -a -Ride services by four hours per weekday to better serve different markets in Woodburn. Service would start at 7:00 AM and end at 7:00 PM. This expansion of service hours assumes hourly service on the fixed route and one Dial -a -Ride vehicle available during this time. No capital needs are anticipated to expand service hours (with the exception of updating marketing materials). This strategy supports three of the objectives presented in Chapter 9. Service Description Annual Capital Objectives Addressed Operating Needs Cost Impact Fixed Route Expand weekday service hours from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM to 7:00 AM - 7:00 $86,700 None 1.1 (Service Hours), 1.2 (Major destinations), 4.4 Dial -a -Ride $51,000 None PM (four additional hours daily). (Fixed route share) Total $137,700 None Page 10 -1 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN 2. Streamline Local Fixed Route This strategy recommends minor short -term changes to the existing fixed route, assuming a single hourly loop, and aims to reduce complexity, improve timing of regional connections, and improve on -time performance. Figure 10 -1 shows the recommended changes to the fixed route, which include: • Market the counter - clockwise loop from the downtown transit center to Mid - Valley Plaza, i.e., stops 1A through 25, as the beginning of the route instead of the end of the route. Adjusting the schedule to start service at 9:00 AM would entail renumbering stops, conducting outreach to passengers, and possibly coordinating minor schedule adjustments with CAT and CARTS. Depending on the timing of more significant service changes (see Strategy 3), in the short -term it may be most feasible to implement this change with the fewest operational changes simply by starting service at 8:45 AM, and leaving the stop numbering intact (it should be noted that Woodburn Transit System has already started providing service at 8:45 AM to meet the CAT connection at Mid - Valley Plaza). The benefits of the change include: - Make the fixed route loop easier to understand by operating it more like a "figure 8." - Provide a connection at Mid - Valley Plaza from the CAT 8:25 AM arrival (without requiring passengers to use CARTS to travel between Mid - Valley Plaza and the downtown transit center) and to the CAT 8:59 AM departure. - Provide a larger separation between bidirectional service along Hwy 99 and Hwy 214 near Mid - Valley plaza. V& 14 066, • Upon installation of a traffic signal at 5 Street and Hwy 214 (estimated for Fall 2011), utilize 5 Street to Harrison Street as part of the fixed route loop between existing timepoint #25 and 1A. The existing routing on Hwy 214 and Settlemier Avenue following timepoint #25 is somewhat duplicative since the Settelmier /Hwy 214 intersection is served (timepoint #5) when the route serves destinations in the western part of Woodburn. The suggested route would achieve slight time savings and help improve schedule performance and would provide a more convenient stop location to the Nuevo Amanecer apartments, a major source of ridership. Page 10 -2 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Service Description Annual Operating Cost Impact Capital Needs Objectives Addressed Fixed Route Fixed route (a) starting at 8:45 AM, (b) $5,500 Update of 1.2 (Major destinations), remarketed as a figure 8, (c) rerouted to marketing 1.4 (Low- income 5 1 " Street between Hwy 214 and materials; neighborhoods), 2.2 Harrison Street following timepoint #25. public (Service complexity), 2.3 outreach; (Bi- directional service) changes to stops. I Page 10 -3 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN 3. Expand Local Fixed Route This strategy provides an expansion of Woodburn's fixed route bus service and consists of a core route with bidirectional service on a streamlined version of the current loop and a long, hourly loop providing similar coverage to the current loop but expanded to the neighborhood south of Cleveland Street and east of Ogle Street. Several additional options are also discussed. The running time for these routes was estimated based on the average speed for the existing fixed route, approximately 16.4 miles over an hour or about 16 miles per hour (mph). This estimate and the routing should be verified and refined as necessary by driving the route. This strategy assumes two buses would be in service, assumed to be double the existing fixed route operating cost. There would be one -time costs to update marketing materials, conduct public outreach, add new stops, and replace signage on existing stops, as well as the purchase of an additional fixed route bus — ranging from $200,000 to $300,000 depending on manufacturer and configuration (also see Strategy 8 which discusses the cost of a low -floor bus). Key elements of this strategy include: Provide bidirectional service on a 30- minute core /short service loop. The approximately 7.5 mile, 30- minute route, shown in Ashh, NWO N Page 10 -4 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 10 -2, runs once an hour in the clockwise direction and once an hour in the counter- clockwise direction for an overall service frequency of 30 minutes. The loop is constrained by the need to maintain a 30 minute running time in each direction. The core route differs from the existing loop in the following respects, described in clockwise order starting from the downtown transit center: - Uses Hayes Street between the downtown Transit Center and Walmart and does not serve Parr Road, Settlemier Avenue / Boones Ferry Road, or Senior Estates. - Makes a stop at the Woodburn Factory Stores but does not make the loop through the residential areas west of Woodland Avenue; the long loop (see below) continues to serve the full loop. - Runs east along Hwy 214, south along Hwy 99, and west along Lincoln Street to return to the downtown transit center. AHM Restructure and expand the existing loop, providing a long, hourly service loop operating in the counter - clockwise direction. With the short loop above providing bidirectional service in the core of Woodburn, the eastern part of the existing loop can be restructured to reduce complexity of the route and serve the southeast residential area south of Cleveland Street and east of Ogle Street. The loop is constrained by the need to maintain a 60 minute running time and is conceived to operate in the counter - clockwise direction. The route differs from the existing loop in the following respects, described in counter - clockwise order starting from the downtown transit center: Uses Front Avenue south from the downtown Transit Center, but then serves the southeast residential area. The route uses Boones Ferry Road, Dahlia Street, Country Lane, Parr Road, Brown Street, Cleveland Street, and Gatch Street; the intersection of Settlemier Avenue and Ogle Street was considered but deemed infeasible for transit vehicles due to the sharp turning angle and railroad crossing. The route follows Young Street east of Gatch Street. As a result of the above routing, the route no longer serves Settlemier Avenue between Parr Road and Hwy 214. The primary impact would be to the residential area along Smith Drive, south of Hayes Street and East of Boones Ferry Road. Some residents would have a slightly longer walk to the downtown transit center, but residents would be able catch a bus on Hayes Street where bidirectional service would provide faster travel times in either the west or east directions. The total walking distance to transit ranges from about 0.25 to 0.40 miles. - Lincoln Street would no longer have service, but would be served by the core loop in both directions. Young Street would no longer have service between Front Street and Gatch Street, however most destinations would be within a 0.25 mile walk of transit service. It is likely that some of the current boarding activity along Young Street is from residents accessing stops from south of Cleveland Street. Page 10 -5 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Service Description Annual Operating Cost Impact Capital Needs Objectives Addressed $200,000- $300,000 Bidirectional "core" or small loop $173,000 plus update 1.2 (Major destinations), of marketing 1.4 (Low- income Fixed Route materials; neighborhoods), 2.2 Restructured 'long" loop, expanded to None, public (Service complexity), 2.3 serve the neighborhood in southeast (Assumed to outreach; (Bi- directional service), Woodburn be the existing add stops 4.4 (Fixed route share) fixed route bus). and replace signage. Page 10 -6 Transit Pl Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 10 -2 Fixed Route Expansion Mid Valle Plaza _ flN 4 - IVA " m 8 Page 10 -7 �r s / Served CUTS Valor G reyhountl MS S � r sr Food Servkes + Library t 99 : fAmedca a r Nall Served b CARTS Woodbum Transit System ® Transit Center ♦ Medical R - Long Loop Route Greyhound • Major Employer + D Transfer point j College �4J - Bidirectional j High School r tr * t: a Loop Route 8hoPPin9 g Other School 8 © Library Other Page 10 -7 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Other Expansion Considerations • Long Term Coverage Expansion in Southwest Woodburn. The City of Woodburn TSP notes several corridors for transit expansion as growth occurs (see Chapter 2), primarily in the southwest part of the City east of 1 -5 and outside of City limits west of 1 -5. The suggested long loop could be converted to bidirectional operation and expanded to serve these areas. A potential route would continue southwest from the Woodburn Company Stores area to serve Butteville Road, Parr Road, and connect to a possible extension of Evergreen Road to meet Parr Road. • Service to Employment Areas. The TSP identifies potential for service expansion to the employment center southwest of the 1 -5 /OR -214 interchange (Do It Best and Winco Foods) and to the Woodburn Industrial Park located in the Progress and Industrial corridors. Woodburn Transit would be able to serve employee market assuming Strategy #1 is implemented. Do It Best is within walking distance of the existing route although Winco Foods is approximately a half mile walk. If sufficient demand exists, a stop could either be added along the existing route to serve these destinations as well as possible, or sufficient time would need to be identified for one or more trips to "flex" to serve Winco foods at shift times where the greatest demand exists. The Woodburn Industrial Park area already has stops near walking routes to the existing service. An approximately 1.75 mile deviation would be required to serve the Progress Road and Industrial Avenue corridors in the clockwise direction and would require approximately 6 to 7 minutes of running time. An additional possibility for serving these employment areas is to develop a separate employee- oriented shuttle, which is discussed under strategy 11 below. • Service beyond Woodburn. Another long -term option would be to implement a route that connects major employers and residential areas in Woodburn, with communities outside of Woodburn like Gervais, Hubbard, Donald and Aurora. 4. Strengthen Connections with Regional Providers It is recommended that the local fixed route service continue to make connections with regional providers and that these connections be strengthened over time. Better physical connections are already being made at the new downtown transit center, but improvements are recommended at Mid Valley Plaza. It is suggested that over time, a new location for CAT and CARTS be explored closer to Highway 214, where easier physical connections to Woodburn Transit can be made. It is assumed as part of this plan that Woodburn Transit would remain operating on Highway 214 and not deviate into Mid - Valley Plaza (as CARTS and CAT currently do). Another recommendation is to improve timed connections with regional providers. Currently, CARTS and CAT are fairly well timed to each other, but only some CARTS trips are timed to meet Woodburn Transit. Because CARTS operates only four round trips daily on the Woodburn to Salem route, timing the local fixed route to these trips is important for regional mobility. No operating cost increases are assumed as part of this strategy. However, an update to marketing materials and notification of better connections may have a small impact on capital costs. Page 10 -8 Transit Plan Update • Draft F Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Service Description IR Annual Capital Objectives Addressed Operating Needs Cost Impact Fixed Route In coordination with strategy 2, this would None Update of 1.2 (Major destinations), improve schedule coordination with marketing 2.2 (Service complexity), Dial -a -Ride CARTS and CAT at the Mid - Valley Plaza $42,000 materials 5.1 (Schedule and with CARTS at the downtown transit coordination) center. 5. Introduce Service on Saturday A&# This strategy introduces fixed route service on Saturdays. This new service on Saturday would be the same as the streamlined local fixed route (strategy 2) or the restructured long route (strategy 3) and would operate on hourly headways from approximately 9:00 AM — 5:00 PM. It is estimated that this service would operate for 8 hours every Saturday, or about 416 hours per year (assuming service on 52 Saturdays). At $85.00 per revenue hour, the annual operating cost associated with this service would be about $35,000. In addition to the fixed route service, it would also be necessary to operate Dial -a -Ride during the same period. Assuming two vehicles are available at $50.00 per revenue hour, this would result in an additional cost of approximately $42,000. No additional capital needs are required to operate this service, though it would impact the useful life of existing vehicles. It is recommended that this service be provided with one of the 10 -12 passenger Dial -a -Ride vehicles. If service were improved by using two buses, the cost would be double ($70,000 annually). " - Service Description Annual Capital Objectives Addressed Operating Needs Cost Impact Fixed Route Introduce new fixed route service on $35,000 None 1.1 (Service hours), 1.2 Saturday. (Major destinations), 4.4 (Fixed route share) Dial -a -Ride Complementary paratransit.. $42,000 6. Introduce Service on Sunday This strategy introduces a new "flexible" fixed route service on Sunday. A flexible fixed route service operates on a fixed route with set stops, but also has enough time built into the schedule to "flex" to make deviations off of the fixed route. Because a flexible fixed route can provide curb - to -curb service, as the Dial -a -Ride does currently, it also meets the complementary paratransit requirements of the ADA. This new service on Saturday would be similar to the streamlined local fixed route (strategy 2) or the restructured long route (strategy 3) but would operate on 90- minute headways from approximately 10:00 AM — 4:00 PM. The extra time would allow for the route to make deviations within a defined deviation distance from the fixed route (such as a 1/4 mile). Because deviations must be requested, passengers must call into Woodburn Transit at least one hour before their requested pickup time, even if the bus can accommodate their request sooner. Over the long- term, service could be improved by using a second bus and providing service every 45 minutes. Page 10 -9 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN It is estimated that this service would operate for 6 hours every Sunday, or about 348 hours per year (assuming service on 52 Sundays and 6 holidays). At $85.00 per revenue hour, the annual operating cost associated with this service would be about $29,500. This cost assumes one driver (or two part -time drivers) and a customer service /dispatch person. No additional capital needs are required to operate this service, though this would impact the useful life of existing vehicles. 7. Develop New Identity and Marketing Materials _ This strategy includes the development of a new, consistent identity for Woodburn Transit and development of marketing materials. While "Woodburn Transit" could be retained, a new logo and branding scheme should be developed. Keeping with the overall vision established in the previous chapter, the new branding should convey the message that transit is a clean, safe, reliable, and environmentally sustainable form of transportation. New marketing materials should also be developed to accompany the new identity for Woodburn Transit. Materials should include a new transit map (with schedules) and transit brochure that includes information about the local fixed route and Dial -a -Ride services, as well as regional connections and the volunteer driver program. In addition, a brochure should also be developed to provide more information about the Dial -a -Ride services, fares, procedures and policies. Finally, a dedicated website should be developed that provides information exclusively for Woodburn Transit. A separate website could also be developed for the volunteer driver program to enhance visibility of this program. A good local example of well -done marketing materials is SMART in Wilsonville. SMART CENTRAL AT WILSIONVILU 5TA110 9 I To further promote transit in the community, a marketing plan specific to transit should be developed. The marketing plan could include design standards (standard colors, fonts and images to be used in all marketing materials), suggestions for outreach to the community (such as presentations to service organizations, churches or schools), and identification of special events (such as Woodburn's Free Fare Week). It is estimated that the development of a marketing plan, new identity, marketing materials and website would cost approximately $60,000, which includes all printing costs for brochures, maps and website development. Other outreach activities related to marketing would be absorbed into the transit director's position or another existing City position. Service Description Annual Capital Objectives Addressed Operating Needs Cost Impact Page 10 -10 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Fixed Route Develop a new identity for Woodburn None $60,000 3.1 (Community value), / Dial -a -Ride Transit, including marketing materials, Operating Needs 3.2 (Business community logo, etc. All new materials would be Cost Impact support), 3.3 Fixed Route available in both English and Spanish, with None $300,000 (Marketing), 3.4 (Transit limited information available in Russian. image), 3.5 (Information Purchase a new 40' low -floor bus for the None $400,000 availability), 3.6 fixed route bus. (Alternate languages) 8. New Low -Floor Transit Vehicle This strategy includes the purchase of a single low -floor vehicle for the fixed route service. Low -floor vehicles offer several distinct advantages over standard high -floor buses. First, low -floor buses offer much faster boarding and alighting, especially for the elderly or people with a mobility device. Low -floor buses also facilitate boarding for children, passengers carrying large loads, strollers, etc. Low -floor buses also have more reliable and easier to operate ramp mechanisms for boarding and alighting passengers in a wheelchair or mobility device. Low -floor buses also tend to be more "modern" and thus enhance the image of transit in the community. Disadvantages associated with low -floor vehicles, however, do exist: 1) ramp access may be somewhat more difficult on uneven surfaces and on stops without a curb, 2) maintenance costs may be somewhat higher than a high -floor vehicle, and 3) seated and standing capacity of a low - floor vehicle is typically lower than a high -floor vehicle of comparable length. While costs vary by manufacturer and seating configurations, it is estimated that a 30' low -floor bus with 28 seats would cost approximately $300,000. A 40' low -floor vehicle with seated capacity of 36 -40 would be in the range of $400,000. Although the useful life of a low -floor vehicle can vary by manufacturer and configuration, the typical life span of a medium- to heavy - duty transit vehicle is 12 years. Some research suggests, however, that low -floor buses may have a shorter life span. Service Description Annual Capital Objective Addressed Operating Needs Cost Impact Fixed Route Purchase a new 30' low -floor bus for the None $300,000 1.6 (Transit amenities), fixed route bus. 2.1 (On -time Purchase a new 40' low -floor bus for the None $400,000 performance), 2.4 (Easy - fixed route bus. access vehicles), 3.4 (Transit image) 35 Federal Transit Administration, Useful Life of Transit Buses and Vans, Report No. FTA VA -26- 7229 -07.1, April 2007. Page 10 -11 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN 9. Install New Bus Shelters Safe and comfortable passenger amenities are an important element of any successful transit service. As such, bus shelters are recommended for all major stops in Woodburn. Based on existing ridership data, any stop that has over 5 boardings per day should be targeted for a new shelter, which would mean approximately eight shelters throughout the city. In addition, the new transit facility at I -5 is assumed to need four new bus shelters (one for each bay). Because several shelters already exist throughout the city, this strategy assumes the purchase of eight new sh While costs vary by manufacturer, it is conservatively estimated that the capital cost of purchasing a basic shelter is approximately $10,000, including installation. Thus, the capital cost for eight shelters is estimated at $80,000. The shelters will also require ongoing maintenance and other amenities such as a trash receptacle. Maintenance costs, while not insignificant, are assumed to either be absorbed in other departments that do street or park maintenance or be handled by nearby businesses or organizations. Some transit agencies institute an "adopt a shelter" program, which relies on local businesses or organizations to donate their time to maintain the shelter. Shelters can also be a good source of advertising revenue, which can help offset the initial capital investment and /or ongoing maintenance costs. Finally, shelters also provide an ideal location for posting transit information (maps, schedules, fares, phone numbers, etc.). 10. Provide Limited Demand Response Service beyond Woodburn Demand response service beyond Woodburn, specifically to Hubbard, was suggested as an important mobility need — especially for seniors. It was also noted that CARTS service was discontinued to Hubbard in 2009, while Gervais and other communities east and south of Woodburn are still served by CARTS. Because Canby Area Transit provides fixed route service on the Orange line (but does not deviate from Highway 99), this strategy only outlines Dial -a -Ride service for seniors and people with disabilities. It is assumed that demand for such a service is minimal, and is therefore one day per week is assumed to be adequate, at least initially. Trips would be reserved at least 24 hours in advance and would be subscription only - if no trips are requested the service would not operate. Fares for this trip should be higher than the local fare and are recommended to be at least $0.50 more per trip. Page 10 -12 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Assuming a single round trip takes about 45 minutes (including loading and unloading), and two round trips are required per day (to allow for longer appointments), this would be 1.5 additional service hours per week and 78 additional revenue hours per year. At $50.00 per revenue hour, this additional service would cost approximately $3,900 per year. Because this is a subscription service and would not operate if there is no demand, this estimated cost could be lower. Service Description Annual Capital Objective Addressed Operating Needs Cost Impact Dial -a -Ride A new demand response service would be $3,900 None 1.4 (Low- income available one day per week to Hubbard to neighborhoods) bring people to Woodburn for shopping, medical services, etc. 11. Provide Peak -Only Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville The need to provide better regional connections north to Wilsonville and south to Salem via 1 -5 was determined to be an important service priority. The future transit center and park- and -ride at 1 -5 and Highway 214 would serve as an ideal base location for this new service. " 4111h, ANW This strategy focuses on peak -only intercity service between Woodburn and Wilsonville and Woodburn and downtown Salem. This service is expected to operate from approximately 6:30 AM — 9:30 AM and again from 3:30 PM — 6:30 PM. Because it operates only during peak travel periods, it is intended to attract regular commuters both to and from Woodburn. This service could be provided in several different ways, as discussed below: Service by existing Route 1X. Route 1X operates between Wilsonville Station and downtown Salem via 1 -5. This express route is jointly operated and funded by SMART and the Salem Area Mass Transit District (Cherriots). While a deviation to Woodburn is possible, the purpose of Route 1X is to provide fast, non -stop service between the two cities. Therefore, the deviation to Woodburn, which could take anywhere between 5 -10 minutes, may not be an acceptable option for SMART and SAMTD. However, if an agreement between the three parties could be reached, it is recommended that three morning trips and three evening trips stop in Woodburn. To help pay for the service, Woodburn could subsidize one third of the cost of providing this service during peak hours, or two round trips per day . Each morning and evening trip is estimated to take approximately 50 minutes in each direction, or 1:40 in both directions, and thus a total 3 hours and 20 minutes per day, or 860 annual revenue hours. If SAMTD and SMART were reimbursed for this trip at the cost of roughly $100 per revenue hour, this would cost Woodburn approximately $86,000 annually. No additional capital costs are assumed with this service. It is important to note that this strategy is presented for planning purposes only. It is only assumed that Route 1X would stop in Woodburn if a service and cost sharing agreement could be reached between all three parties. This has not been verified or reviewed by SMART or SAMTD. • New operation. Woodburn could provide a new service along 1 -5 to downtown Salem and Wilsonville Station. To provide meaningful connections in both directions, it is recommended that this service be operated with two vehicles operating in opposite Page 10 -13 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN directions as separate routes. It is recommended that timed connections be made with the WES train in Wilsonville. For costing purposes, it is assumed that the service to Salem would operate for 3.5 hours in the morning and 3.5 hours in the evening (making a total of six round trips). This would be an estimated 1,800 annual revenue hours. Assuming $85.00 per revenue hour, this service would cost approximately $150,000 annually. In addition, a new vehicle would be required for this service. A full -sized transit vehicle with capacity for approximately 40 people would likely be needed for this service. This vehicle is estimated to cost $300,000. Service FIDescription WAnnual Capital Objective Addressed Operating Needs Cost Impact Fixed Route Route 1X connecting Woodburn with $86,000 n/a 3.4 (Transit image), 4.4 Salem and Wilsonville. (Fixed route share), 5.2 New intercity service offering three $150,000 $300,000 (Expanded intercity morning and three evening round trips service) between Woodburn and downtown Salem (weekday only) New intercity service offering three $130,000 $300,000 morning and three evening round trips between Woodburn and WES station in Wilsonville (weekday only) Peak -only employer shuttle $130,000 None 12. Provide All -Day Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville If ridership on the previous strategy proves to be successful, additional midday service between Woodburn and Salem and Wilsonville could be provided to offer additional regional mobility and improved options for employees commuting to or from Woodburn. Midday service would appeal to workers, visitors and residents traveling outside of Woodburn for other services. Because ridership is typically stronger during peak commute periods, it is assumed that peak -only service Page 10 -14 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN would be provided before offering midday service. Because Route 1X does not provide midday service, the only option for midday service is to provide a new service. Assuming 6 hours (five round trips) on the service between Woodburn and Salem, this amounts to approximately 1,500 annual revenue hours. At $85.00 per revenue hour, this is estimated to cost $130,000 annually. No capital needs are assumed since this strategy would only be implemented once peak -only service is operational. Assuming 6 hours (six trips) on the service between Woodburn and Wilsonville, this amounts to approximately 1,500 revenue hours, or $130,000 annually. No capital needs are assumed. Service Description Annual Operating Capital Objective Cost Impact Needs Addressed Fixed Route New midday service operating hourly $130,000 None 3.4 (Transit between Woodburn and downtown Salem (assumes image), 4.4 (Fixed (weekday only) Strategy 11 route share), 5.2 implemented (Expanded first) intercity service) New midday service operating hourly $130,000 None between Woodburn and VVES station in ,, so (assumes Wilsonville (weekday only) *61hh, Strategy 11 implemented first) 13. Improved Service Frequency This strategy focuses on providing additional service frequency on the fixed route bus. Because the current fixed route operates on hourly headways with a single bus, improving frequency on this route would be to provide service with two buses, or every 30 minutes. National research shows that a doubling of service frequency from hourly service to service every 30 minutes can sometimes result in a 100% increase in ridership, but more often is closer to 50 % The cost of improving frequency on this route would essentially double the operating cost, which is currently $173,000 annually. If service is provided earlier and later (Strategy 1), those costs would also be doubled. A new fixed route vehicle would also be necessary, which could range from $200,000 - $300,000 depending on manufacturer, size and seating configuration. As noted in Strategy 7, a new low -floor bus would cost approximately $400,000. BE 36 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, Chapter 9. Page 10 -15 Transit Plan Update • Dra Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Service Description Annual Operating Cost Impact Capital Needs Objective Addressed Fixed Route Add additional service on the local fixed $173,000 One 2.2 (Service route to operate every 30 minutes on vehicle, complexity), 4.4 weekdays. $200,000- (Fixed route share) $300,000 depending on type. 14. Install Bike Racks on Buses Providing bike racks on the fixed route buses improve overall mobility and provide additiona options for people who use both modes to complete their trip. While some transit agenci allow bikes on the bus, most transit agencies using either front- or rear - loading bike racks. Front - loading bike racks are by far the most popular in the transit industry since they have advantage of easy loading and better visibility the driver and passenger. Front - loading bike racks cost approximately $ per unit 37 . Assuming the need for two to four units, the total cost for bike racks would be between $800 and $1,600. Service Description Annual Capital Objective Operating Needs Addressed Cost Impact Fixed Route Install double, front - loading bike racks on all None $800 - $1,600 1.5 (Multimodal fixed route buses. connections), 3.4 (Transit image) 37 Integration of Bicycles and Transit, Federal Highway Administration Page 10 -16 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN 15. New Dial -a -Ride Vehicles It is important to have enough vehicles to meet in- service needs as well as to have adequate spare vehicles in case of in- service breakdowns. Currently, there are times when existing vehicles are not adequate to meet service needs and one of the back -up vehicles is being retired. As such, this strategy includes the purchase of two additional Dial -a -Ride vehicles just to meet current service needs. To maintain fleet consistency, it is recommended that two new Ford Cutaway Vans with a capacity of 12 -14 seated passengers and 2 wheelchairs be purchased. It is estimated that each vehicle costs $97,000 Service Description Annual Capital Objective Operating Needs Addressed Cost Impact Dial -a -Ride Purchase two additional Dial -a -Ride vehicles None $194,000 2.5 (Vehicle for in- service and backup needs. Maintenance), 3.4 (Transit image), 4.1 (Scheduling efficiency), 4.3 (Cost effectiveness), 5.1 (Schedule - coordination) Page 10 -17 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Non Service Strategies The following strategies do not relate to the direct provision of transit service, but rather strategies that will help improve the overall function and effectiveness of the service. 16. Convene Regular Regional Transit Forum This strategy would involve initiating a new regional transit forum to regularly meet with nearby transit providers and discuss regional mobility needs. Objectives of this group could be to share successes among transit providers, discuss ways to better coordinate services, and to talk about initiatives planned for each provider. This group could invite representatives from ODOT or other organizations to discuss programs related to funding, coordination, senior /disabled transportation, etc. It is assumed that the staff time associated with this group could be absorbed into the transit director position and thus no additional costs are associated with this strategy. 17. Maximize Use of Scheduling and Transit Management Software Woodburn uses Mobilitat Easy Rides as its paratransit scheduling software. Easy Rides allows Woodburn to schedule trips, dispatch trips as they are occurring, and develop comprehensive reports of service data and performance. Given the size of Woodburn's Dial -a -Ride program, this software should be more than adequate for the foreseeable future. Making the best use of the existing software, however, was a key need identified by transit operations staff. Doing so can help improve the efficiency of operating the Dial -a -Ride system, improve service for passengers, and allow Woodburn to better understand and report on this service. While some additional training is assumed, this strategy by itself does not incur any additional operating or capital costs. It should be noted that it is assumed that this strategy would go hand in hand with the next strategy — to dedicate one full -time employee to dispatch and customer service. This strategy addresses the following objectives: • 2.1 On -time performance • 3.7 Customer service • 4.1 Scheduling efficiency • 4.3 Cost effectiveness Page 10 -18 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN 18. Dedicate One FTE to Dispatch, Customer Service and Transit Operations Management The Transit Operations Supervisor is in charge of dispatch, customer service and daily scheduling of drivers. Current staffing limitations require the Transit Operations Supervisor to also operate transit vehicles on a regular basis. This time away from the primary duties of the Transit Operations Supervisor creates inefficiencies and interruptions in the supervision of daily operations. In addition, it is imperative that the customer service line be available at all times during regular operating hours. This strategy addresses the following objectives: • 2.1 On -time performance • 3.7 Customer service • 4.1 Scheduling efficiency • 4.3 Cost effectiveness V%16, 1 1 19. Institute Process for Regular Data Reporting Related to strategy 17 above, this strategy focuses on the need to establish a regular process for collecting and reporting data on both the fixed route and Dial -a -Ride services. Becoming more familiar with the Easy Rides software will certainly improve this process and is assumed as part of this strategy. On a monthly basis, a standard report should be generated that details key operating data and performance indicators for both services. These data could be compared to previous year data and how they compare to the performance standards listed in Chapter 9. It is recommended that the transit supervisor research other similar reporting systems in nearby communities and meet with other organizations to determine an appropriate (and reasonable) format that doesn't overwhelm staff time. It is assumed that the cost of developing these standard reports would be a function of both the full -time operations manager and transit supervisor. This strategy addresses the following objectives: • 2.1 On -time performance • 4.1 Scheduling efficiency • 4.3 Cost effectiveness • 4.5 New funding source Page 10 -19 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN 20. Promote Regional Carpool /Vanpool Program This strategy focuses on the promotion of existing rideshare programs to meet mobility needs that are not easy or cost effective to meet with transit. The new park- and -ride at 1 -5 and Highway 214 will serve as an ideal location for people who are interested in ridesharing. Cherriots Rideshare provides information and ridematching services (carpool, vanpool and transit) for people who work in Marion, Yamhill and Polk Counties. This program also offers an Emergency Ride Home program for those who choose to use transit, carpool, vanpool or other modes other than driving. Woodburn should actively promote these services and ensure that all major employers in the community are aware of these services. If a new dedicated website for transit were developed, links to the Cherriots Rideshare website should be prominently placed. Similarly, a link to Woodburn's transit services should be placed on Cherriots Rideshare's webpage. Another opportunity to explore is the feasibility of a vanpool program focused on agricultural workers. Agricultural workers are often economically challenged and have few transportation choices. Because most of these worksites are located outside of Woodburn throughout the Willamette Valley, it would be impractical to serve them with traditional public transit. Establishment of a vanpool program in California's Central Valley has shown to be both popular among agricultural workers and a cost effective way of meeting these needs. This strategy addresses the following objectives: Other travel options Page 10 -20 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Summary of Service Strategies and Priorities The service and non - service strategies presented above are not listed in any order of priority. However, some of these strategies are more important, and easier to implement, than others. Because the goals and objectives presented in Chapter 9 were developed based on the needs identified in Chapter 8, this section evaluated the strategies with how well they meet the objectives. Some strategies will be better at meeting an objective than others, and many strategies will meet numerous objectives. As such, each strategy was evaluated for how well it met the objectives on a scale from 1 to 3. A rating of 1 indicates that a strategy somewhat addresses the objective, and a rating of 3 indicates that a strategy directly addresses an objective. Operating and capital cost impacts are also an important factor when determining priority as strategies are easier to implement if they have little or no cost associated with them. Operating cost and capital cost impacts are rated on a high ($$$), medium ($$), low ($), or no cost ( -) scale based on what impact the strategy would have on existing funding levels. Figure 10 -3 below presents the methodology for prioritizing strategies based on the score they received for meeting the various objectives and the capital and operating cost impact. Strategies were prioritized as high, medium or low based on cost impacts and how well they satisfy objectives. h . Figure 10 -3 Framework for Prioritizing Strategies Ability to Meet Capital Cost Impact Operating Cost Impact Overall Priority Objectives Score 5+ -, $ or $$ -, $ or $$ H $$$ $$$ M 3 -4 AdN4 -or$ - or$ H $$ $$ M $$$ $$$ L 3 or less -, $ or $$ -, $ or $$ M $$$ $$$ L Figure 10 -4 presents a summary of the prioritized strategies. A more detailed table showing how each strategy meets each objective is included in the Appendix. Page 10 -21 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 10 -4 Prioritized Strategies Page 10 -22 C N E N J N Q E N 2 a O - O O i � o U � 0 U a _ ra Strategy Description in v 0 0' 2 Streamline Local Fixed Route 6 H 4 Strengthen Connections with Regional Providers 5 $ H 7 Develop New Branding and Marketing Materials 7 $ H 9 Install New Bus Shelters 5 $ H 15 New Dial -a -Ride Vehicles 8 $$ H 18 Dedicate One FTE to Dispatch, Customer Service and Transit 5 $$ H Operations Management 1 Expand Service Hours 5 $$$ M 3 Expand Local Fixed Route 6 $$ $$ M 5 Introduce Service on Saturday 4 $$$ M 6 Introduce Service on Sunday 4 $$$ M 8 Purchase New Low -Floor Transit Vehicle 6 $$$ M 11 Provide Peak -Only Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville 4 $$$ $$$ M 12 Provide All -Day Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville 4 $$$ $$$ M 14 Install Bike Racks on Buses 3 $ M 16 Convene Regular Regional Transit Forum 4 M 17 Maximize Use of Scheduling and Transit Management Software 4 $ M 19 Institute Process for Regular Data Collection and Reporting 4 $ $ M 20 Promote Regional Carpool/Vanpool Program 1 $ $ M 10 Provide Limited Demand Response Service Beyond Woodburn 1 $ L 13 Improve Service Frequency 4 $$$ $$$ L Page 10 -22 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 11. Funding Projections and Strategies Funding Projections Future revenue projections for Woodburn Transit were developed by project consultants to get a better sense of how revenues are keeping pace with operating expenses. To support this analysis, City financial /budget documents and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) documents were reviewed and key assumptions were discussed with City staff. Figure 11 -1 presents a rough projection of revenues in five -year increments for FY 2010/11 -FY 2030/31 for Woodburn's transit system. All figures are presented in 2010 dollars. Figure 11 -1 provides a baseline estimate of future funding, assuming that baseline funding for Woodburn Transit will not change substantially over the next 20 years. Assumptions about how these figures were estimated are included below. It is important to note that it is highly probable that Woodburn Transit's funding sources and total revenues will change over the next 20 years. The purpose of this section is to present a high level assessment of future funding potential given existing levels of service, funding sources and relative funding levels. Figure 11 -1 Total Revenue Projection, Woodburn Transit, 2010 dollars, FY 2010/11 to FY 2030/31 Fiscal Year Property Tax Federal Grants State Grants Fixed Route Fares Dial -a -Ride Fares Misc. Total Revenue 2010/11 $160,000 $134,000 $28,000 $25,000 $7,000 $10,000 $364,000 2015/16 $186,000 $134,000 $28,000 $31,000 $12,000 $11,000 $402,000 2020/21 $219,000 $134,000 $28,000 $38,000 $14,000 $12,000 $445,000 202526 $260,000 $134,000 $28,000 $38,000 $14,000 $13,000 $487,000 2030/31 $360,000 $134,000 $28,000 $38,000 $14,000 $16,000 $590,000 Source: ECONorthwest Note: Total revenue does not include a beginning fund balance, which was about $114,000 in Fiscal Year 2011. All revenue figures are in 2010 dollars. The projection of future revenues in Figure 11 -1 estimates that some revenue sources will grow and some will remain constant and is based on the following assumptions: Property Taxes. Historical City property tax collection data was obtained and compared to budget documents showing the amount of property taxes allocated to transit. In recent years, a constant 2.0% of City property tax revenue has been allocated to transit. We assumed this percent of total revenue would remain constant for the duration of the 20- year forecast. To forecast total City property taxes, recent historical growth was considered (5.6% average annual growth from FY 2003/04 to 2009/10) and current and future market conditions. It is expected that growth in assessed value will slow in the near term, and gradually increase to a stable level of 3.5% per year. Page 11 -1 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN • Federal Grants. Funding from federal grants varies significantly from year to year, and is affected by a host of economic and political factors. Without evidence to suggest future changes in grant allocations, and as suggested by ODOT staff, it was assumed that federal grant funding would remain relatively constant over the forecast period. We used ODOT's allocation of Section 5311 federal grants for FY 2010/11 in the amount of $133,500 for each year of our forecast period. It is probable that federal grant funding will vary, both as a result of year -to -year variation in available funding and because the City may apply for new federal grants. It should be noted that it is possible for Woodburn to receive more 5311 funding each year depending on its population and how many transit trips and passenger miles are provided. However, because Woodburn is grouped together with other "rural" communities in the 5311 program, and these funds are allocated based on population, ridership and service miles in all other communities, forecasting future funding changes beyond a baseline amount is highly speculative. Therefore, as a conservative estimate, it is assumed that federal funds remain stable. • State Funding. Like federal grants, state funding is affected by economic and political conditions that are difficult to predict. Currently, Woodburn transit receives funding from the State Special Transportation Fund (STF). The Fund is allocated to districts based on the share of population within transit districts. As a conservative estimate, it was assumed that funding from this source would remain constant over the forecast period, at the level budgeted for FY 2010/11. It is probable, however, that Woodburn's access to state grant funding will vary, both as a result of year -to -year variation in available funding and because the City may apply for new state discretionary grants. • Fixed Route Fares. As a baseline estimate, it is assumed that fixed route ridership will remain constant for future years (not accounting for service improvements), but fare increases for transit service are recommended over the long -term (see section later in this chapter on fares). The FY 201/11 budget amount was used and fares were then increased from $1.00 to $1.25 in FY 2014 -15, and increased again to $1.50 in FY 2019 -20. These fare increases have a minimal impact on overall transit revenues. • Dial -a -Ride Fares. It was assumed that Dial -a -Ride ridership remains constant for future years, but potential rate increases are recommended on Dial -a -Ride. The FY 2010/11 budget amount was used and then fares were increased from $1.50 to $2.00 in FY 2011/12, to $2.50 in FY 2014/15, and to $3.00 in FY 2019/20. It should be noted that as the complementary paratransit service in Woodburn, fares on Dial -a -Ride cannot be more than twice the fixed route fare. These fare increases have a minimal impact on overall transit revenues. • Miscellaneous Revenues. The City also receives miscellaneous income for transit service from interest, donations, and other sources. For the initial 2011 budget, miscellaneous income accounted for 2.8% of total revenues. It was assumed that miscellaneous income would continue to account for 2.8% of revenue in future years. Operating Costs versus Funding Projections As shown in Figure 11 -1, revenues (assuming no additional sources) are projected to increase to approximately $588,000 by FY 2030/31, a 62% increase between FY 2010/11 and FY 2030/31 (or about 2.4% annually). However, operating costs are expected to increase at a slightly higher rate. Based on data from the past five years, operating costs on the fixed route service increased by about 54% between FY 2004/05 and FY 2008/09 - a change of about 10% per year. While Page 11 -2 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN these increases are not unique to Woodburn 38, the long term sustainability of providing existing levels of transit given projected funding becomes more and more difficult. At a standard 3% increase in annual operating costs, by FY 2030/31 estimated annual operating costs will exceed annual revenues by about $80,000. If operating costs increase at 5% per year, annual operating costs will exceed revenues by nearly $440,000 per year. Figure 11 -2 Estimated Operating Costs versus Revenues, FY 2010/11 to FY 2030/31 NOTE: Operating costs are assumed to increase 3% annually. Potential New Funding Sources While the scenarios presented in Figure 11 -2 are merely projections of total future revenues and operating costs, they suggest that just to sustain existing operating service levels, not including capital needs, it will be necessary to identify additional sources of funding or continue making larger and larger contributions from the general fund. And while it is likely that existing federal and state sources will grow over time (rather than remain stable as suggested above), predicting these increases is difficult to do. The main point is that existing sources will likely not keep pace with operating cost increases, which further puts pressure on the general fund to sustain transit services. This analysis also suggests that Woodburn lacks long -term stable funding sources for transit. As the community grows, demand for transit service will increase, as will expectations about the level of service. This suggests that financial needs for both capital and operations will increase. This section identifies a range of potential funding sources for consideration by City staff and elected officials. Most local governments are finding current resources through taxes or user charges inadequate to fund all the needed transportation projects /services in a timely manner. Three approaches to funding transit service include: pay -as- you -go funding, debt financing, and public /private ventures. Because this evaluation is for transit service, our discussion focuses primarily on pay - as- you -go and public /private ventures methods. While transit services do require capital investments in vehicles, bus stops, and other supporting infrastructure, the bulk of service costs are for operations. This is the case in Woodburn and it is where the city's biggest challenges lie. 38 National figures for all bus transit providers reveals that annual revenue hours increased by about 6% between 2004 and 2008, while operating costs rose by 30% during the same period. Source: National Transit Database. Page 11 -3 FY 10/11 FY 15/16 FY 20/21 FY 25/26 FY 30/31 Operating Costs (3% increase) $ 372,000 $ 432,000 $ 500,000 $ 580,000 $ 672,000 Operating Costs (5% increase) $ 387,000 $ 494,000 $ 630,000 $ 804,000 $1,027,000 Projected Revenues $ 364,000 $ 402,000 $ 445,000 $ 487,000 $ 590,000 Difference (3% operating cost increase) $ (9,000) $ (30,000) $ (55,000) $ (93,000) $ (82,000) Difference (5% operating cost increase) $ (23,000) $ (92,000) $ (185,000) $ (317,000) $ (437,000) NOTE: Operating costs are assumed to increase 3% annually. Potential New Funding Sources While the scenarios presented in Figure 11 -2 are merely projections of total future revenues and operating costs, they suggest that just to sustain existing operating service levels, not including capital needs, it will be necessary to identify additional sources of funding or continue making larger and larger contributions from the general fund. And while it is likely that existing federal and state sources will grow over time (rather than remain stable as suggested above), predicting these increases is difficult to do. The main point is that existing sources will likely not keep pace with operating cost increases, which further puts pressure on the general fund to sustain transit services. This analysis also suggests that Woodburn lacks long -term stable funding sources for transit. As the community grows, demand for transit service will increase, as will expectations about the level of service. This suggests that financial needs for both capital and operations will increase. This section identifies a range of potential funding sources for consideration by City staff and elected officials. Most local governments are finding current resources through taxes or user charges inadequate to fund all the needed transportation projects /services in a timely manner. Three approaches to funding transit service include: pay -as- you -go funding, debt financing, and public /private ventures. Because this evaluation is for transit service, our discussion focuses primarily on pay - as- you -go and public /private ventures methods. While transit services do require capital investments in vehicles, bus stops, and other supporting infrastructure, the bulk of service costs are for operations. This is the case in Woodburn and it is where the city's biggest challenges lie. 38 National figures for all bus transit providers reveals that annual revenue hours increased by about 6% between 2004 and 2008, while operating costs rose by 30% during the same period. Source: National Transit Database. Page 11 -3 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Pay -as- you -go funding requires governments to pay for infrastructure costs directly from current revenues. Revenue sources commonly used for this approach include taxes, fees and user charges, interest earnings, and grants. These specific approaches are obviously quite different. Local governments, for example, clearly have a preference for grants or transfers such as state and federal funding programs. Only when grants are exhausted must local governments look to the resources of their own citizens, who then typically pay either through taxes or user charges. There are no easy mechanisms to create stable funding for transit services. Finding stable funding sources that do not use the resources of local citizens is becoming increasingly difficult. In addition to doing research about funding sources used by transit districts nationally, several transit districts in Oregon were contacted to assess their funding sources. The majority of revenue was from taxes, either property taxes or payroll taxes, and federal or state grants. The major revenue sources for these districts is summarized below: • Basin Transit in Klamath Falls' major funding sources include a dedicated property tax levy (43% of revenue) and federal and state grants (31 % of revenue). Revenues from other sources accounted for less than one -fifth of revenues, with fare revenues accounting for 10% of revenue. Advertising accounted for 1 % of revenue. • Wilsonville's South Metro Area Regional Transit's funding sources are the payroll tax (77% of revenue) and federal and state grants (18% of revenue). Farebox and other revenue sources accounted for less than 5% of revenue. • Sandy Transit's major funding sources were federal and state grants (51 % of revenue), payroll tax (29% of revenue), and Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit (21 % of revenue). Farebox and other revenue sources accounted for less than 2% of revenue. • Tillamook County Transit District's major funding sources were property tax (48% of revenue), timber tax (17% of revenue), federal and state grants (17% of revenue), and farebox (11 % of revenue). Other revenue sources accounted for 5% of revenue. Funding mechanisms that are ultimately applied for transportation projects should be evaluated to determine their suitability. A standard set of criteria was used to assist in evaluating existing and potential funding programs: • Legal Authority refers to the ability of municipalities and counties to engage in various types of financial and contractual commitments. Many financing programs are governed by state and federal statutes. Others are permitted under municipal home rule, these programs require enabling ordinances be adopted by the city. All of the funding mechanisms described in Appendix A have been applied by other Oregon communities. While it is not within the scope of expertise to offer a legal opinion on funding mechanisms, it is believed that, except as noted, all of the mechanisms described could be implemented without special action, provided they were carefully prepared to conform to the requirements of existing enabling legislation. • Financial Capacity provides a measure of the revenue - generating potential of a particular financing mechanism. Where possible, estimates of the financial capacity of programs are provided. • Stability is a measure of the predictability and reliability of a funding mechanism. This criteria addresses the amount of variability in revenues and the long -term viability of mechanisms to fund transportation maintenance and improvements. • Administrative Feasibility is an evaluation of the administrative requirements that each funding mechanism would impose on the City. Administrative requirements vary Page 11 -4 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN significantly from program to program. Some programs will require considerable staff time to establish and administer. • Equity is a polite name for "Who pays ?" Cities and their citizens will usually prefer to spread the costs to the federal government, the state, or nonresidents. Funding options that make users pay costs proportionate to the level of use are generally perceived to be fairer. Options based on factors having little or no relationship to use are generally less equitable. Political Acceptability refers to public acceptance of individual funding programs. In theory, if an evaluation shows a funding source to be legal, sufficient, stable, fair, and efficient relative to other sources, then it should be politically acceptable. In practice, local history and special interests often make it more complicated. Many local funding programs will require local review; some require voter approval. Recent trends in Oregon and nationwide provide an unfavorable precedent for many funding options. Voters are unlikely to approve mechanisms that are perceived as "taxes ". The public is much more likely to support programs such as impact fees or systems development charges that place the financial burden on new residents. Am Ideally, funding programs would meet all of the criteria. In practice, some criteria are given more emphasis than others. Political acceptability is often given more emphasis than the other criteria because of local political realities. If a revenue measure must go through voter approval and conventional wisdom suggests that the voters will defeat it, policy makers look to other sources. The fact that criteria have different units of measurement and different importance to different people has led policy analysts to attempt to develop systems for scoring and weighting criteria so they can be added to a single score for each funding mechanism - -a score which can then be compared to scores for other mechanisms. - ,WNN . While this chapter does not attempt to score or weigh each criteria and funding source, Appendix A offers a best estimate of the impacts for each criterion leaving judgments about preferred mechanisms to local decision makers. Figure 11 -3 below provides a summary of potential sources and an evaluation of their potential for Woodburn and what level of funding could be expected for each source. The Appendix provides more detail on each program. Page 11 -5 Transit Plan Upd ate • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 11 -3 Potential Funding Sources and Evaluation Program Name � Description Potential For Woodburn Potential Funding Level Public and Private Partnership Funding Programs Advertising Transit systems can raise revenues by selling advertising to businesses and non - profit organizations. Opportunities for advertising on HIGH. Advertising may provide a small source of revenue for Woodburn but is LOW. Likely between 1 -3% of total buses include: (1) ads inside the bus, (2) ads on the outside of buses and (3) ads in stations or at stops. Successful advertising unlikely to result in a substantial source of revenue for the transit system. The City revenues. campaigns are usually facilitated by a third -party advertising vendor. Revenue from advertising is generally relatively small, generally may want to consider whether residents of Woodburn would be receptive to different accounting for less than 3% of revenues for small transit districts. Advertizing revenues can be used for operations, administration, types of advertising, including ads inside of buses, outside of buses, and at transit and capital expenses. stops. Some potential issues with advertising include: (1) controlling the content of the advertising can be difficult and (2) some districts prefer to have a specific look to the outside of their bus, without advertisement. Employer Transit Pass Employer transit pass programs are partnerships between a transit agency and private employers, which offers employers the MODERATE. Employers located in Woodburn with a large share of employees living LOW. Likely between 1 -3% of total Program opportunity to purchase a transit pass for all employees, often at discounted rates. The pass benefits the employees by allowing them in the City are more likely to be interested in an employer transit pass program revenues. to use the transit system free of charge. The company may be able to take a tax deduction on the cost of the transit pass. The benefit because their employees are most likely to benefit from the program. to the transit agency is an increase in ridership and in revenues from the purchase of the pass. Implementing an employer transit pass program might be a relatively easy way to raise a limited amount of revenue, while benefiting employers and employees. The City may want to conduct a survey, perhaps informal, of larger employers to gauge the interest in an employer transit pass program. School Transit Pass Schools and transit agencies sometimes partner to provide students with a transit pass, as a way for students to get to school. LOW. The current budget deficit at many school districts may make establishing a LOW. Difficult to determine exact amount. Program Typically public school districts purchase transit passes for students in middle and /or high school. The school district or university school transit pass program difficult in the next three to five years, unless the transit agrees to pay the transit district a fixed amount each year. TriMet offers high school students at the Portland Public School District a pass is funded through a grant, such as the Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit. pass for transit use during the school year. Implementing a student transit pass program might be a way for Woodburn Transit to School transit passes are transit - neutral in some communities, with the cost of providing the transit service funded by the State or provide service, while decreasing traffic related to school transportation. another source but providing no additional revenue to the transit district. Naming Rights Historically, the selling of naming rights to people or organizations that make a donation for a capital improvement was most common LOW. Selling naming rights may provide a small amount of revenue for the City of LOW. Likely less than 3% of total for large organizations, such as universities or hospitals. Selling naming rights has become more common among smaller Woodburn but is unlikely to produce a substantial amount of revenue over the long- revenues. organizations and some transit agencies sell naming rights to vehicles, stations, or transit corridors. term. Public- Private A public - private partnership is a mutually beneficial agreement between both entities that seeks to increase revenues or improve the LOW. Public- private partnerships and joint development efforts may present LOW. Difficult to determine exact amount Partnerships and Joint value of an asset. Public- private partnerships include: private entities that rent space for concessions, shared right -of -way with opportunities for revenue generation or saving on the costs of some types of and depends on specific project. Development organizations such as a utility, shared fueling facilities for alternative fuel vehicles, and other opportunities. development. The City of Woodburn should evaluate public - private partnership Transit funding from public - private partnerships are most likely to be for capital projects such as a mixed use development that opportunities as they arise. combined a transit station or center. Federal and State Grants U.S. Government section 5309 Transit This program (5309) provides money at the state and local level for capital assistance. The funds can be used to: . Purchase new and replacement buses, bus related equipment, and facilities, HIGH. The 5309 program provides opportunities for funding capital facilities. Allocation of these funds is generally through federal earmarks. Woodburn's best MODERATE. Capital projects only. capital investment: . Modernize existing rail systems; and opportunity at receiving 5309 grants would be to identify a capital project and work Bus and Bus Facilities . Create new fixed guideway systems. with Oregon's federal representatives in the Senate and House of Representatives to Applicable to both urbanized and rural areas, 5309 is a discretionary program designed to supplement fundirig for approved projects. get funds earmarked for the project. The Federal share of eligible capital costs is 80 percent of the net capital project cost, unless the grant recipient requests a lower percentage. The Federal share may exceed 80 percent for certain projects related to the ADA, the Clean Air Act (CAA), and certain bicycle projects. U.S. Government Section 5311 grants are made to states, who allocate funding to qualifying communities with population less than 50,000. HIGH. The City of Woodburn's allocation for 5311 grant funds by the State of Oregon HIGH (5311). Allocated on a formula Section 5311: Communities may use the funding for capital, operating, and administrative expenses for public transportation projects that meet the was about $133,000 in fiscal year 2010 and about $120,000 in fiscal year 2011. The basis. Capital and operating costs eligible. Nonurbanized Area needs of rural communities. City of Woodburn should coordinate with State staff to determine whether there are Formula Program additional steps that Woodburn should take to take full advantage of 5311 grant funds. The state must use 15 percent of its annual apportionment to support intercity bus service. In Oregon, this program (5311(f)), Sharon Peerenboom ( sharon.k.peerenboom aPodot. state. or. us) is the contact for the promotes intercity passenger services, connecting rural communities through incentive funding, information and equipment to make 5311 program. vehicles accessible. Emphasis is placed on connecting communities of 2,500 or more with the next larger market economy and connecting bus, rail and air. Biennial discretionary grants are offered to assist public and private providers to fill gaps in rural intercity Grant funds for the Intercity Program (5311 (f)) are available every two years. MODERATE (5311(f)). Capital and connections. Applications for the next grant cycle will be available at the end of the 2010 calendar operating costs eligible. Must be used for year, with grants made in Spring 2011 and money available after July 2011. The next intercity services only. Competitive grant. grant cycle will have about $1.8 million available for intercity programs in Oregon. A large share of this funding is likely to be allocated to existing programs. City staff should talk with Matthew Barnes ( matthew.m.barnes aPodot.state.or.us about Woodburn's intercity bus service and funding needs. 39 ECONorthwest focused research on grants that the City does not receive or grants where there are untapped opportunities. As a result, this table does not include an assessment of the Federal grant program 5310. Page 11 -6 Transit Plan Upd ate • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Program Name Description Potential For Woodburn Potential Funding Level U.S. Government The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (5316) was established to address the challenges of transporting low- income HIGH. Woodburn has a substantial number of low- income residents, with a poverty VERY LOW. Limited funding available Section 5316: Job workers to and from their employment. Often low- income workers must travel large distances to their jobs, sometimes at hours where rate of 16.7% in 2008, compared to the Portland Metropolitan Area average of statewide. Competitive grant and levels Access and Reverse normal public transit is not available. This grant makes federal money available to fund solutions and processes for transporting low- 11.4 %. depend on project. Could be used for Commute Program income workers to and from employment related locations. Woodburn has not applied for 5316 grant funds recently, if ever. However, total FY capital and operating but have different In relation to Woodburn, funds dedicated to areas with a population of less than 50,000 people are given straight to the State with the 2010 funding for nonurbanized areas less than 50,000 people in Oregon was match requirements. amount decided by a formula based on the amount of qualifying low- income individuals. Of the total 5316 annual budget, 20% is approximately $187,000. distributed in this manner. Grant money can cover up to 80% of project capital costs and 50% of operating costs. Up to 10% of grant money can be used to City staff should apply for the grant if the City provides or plans to provide qualifying support administrative costs and can cover up to 100% of total administrative costs. services to assist low- income residents with commuting. City staff should discuss the program and the City's service needs with Sherrin Coleman at ODOT (sherrin.k.coleman (@2dot.state.or.us U.S. Government The New Freedom Program (5317) helps local governments remove transportation barriers for the disabled and is intended to go HIGH. Woodburn has not applied for 5317 grant funds recently, if ever. City staff VERY LOW. Limited funding available Section 5317: New above and beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It provides funding to both state and local government for capital and should apply for the grant if the City plans to implement services or facilities to remove statewide. Competitive grant and levels Freedom Program operating expenses related to new public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the ADA. transportation barriers for disabled people. Total FY 2010 funding for nonurbanized depend on project. Could be used for Of all the money allocated to 5317, 20% is available to urban areas with under 50,000 people and 20% is available to rural areas. areas less than 50,000 people in Oregon was approximately $127,000. City staff capital and operating but have different Grant money can cover up to 80% of project capital costs and 50% of operating costs. Up to 10% of grant money can be used to should discuss the program with staff at the Public Transit Division of ODOT. match requirements. support administrative costs and can cover up to 100% of total administrative costs. Oregon State Grant: The State's Special Transportation Fund (STF) Program provides financial support to designated counties, transit districts and Indian HIGH. The City of Woodburn received about $18,700 from the STF Program in fiscal MODERATE. Must be used for programs Special Transportation tribal governments for special transportation services benefiting seniors and people with disabilities. The majority of the STF money year 2010. The City of Woodburn should apply for STF funds to fund services for that benefit seniors and people with Fund (75 %) is allocated on a population -based formula. The remaining funds are distributed by the Public Transportation Discretionary seniors and people with disabilities. disabilities. Could be used for capital and Grant Program. STF funds can be used for transit operations, administration, and capital expenses. The STF Discretionary Grant funds are distributed through a competitive grant operating. program to projects of statewide importance, as defined by the Oregon Transportation Commission. If Woodburn wants to apply for this grant, staff should discuss the Discretionary Grant process with the program manager Jean Palmateer (jean.m.palmateer @odot. state. or. us). Oregon State The Oregon Department of Energy offers the Business Energy Tax Credit to those who invest in energy conservation. Public agencies HIGH. The Business Energy Tax Credit provides opportunities for funding transit MODERATE TO HIGH. Could be a Program: Business can participate in the program through public - private partnerships, where the tax credit is passed from the public agency to the private based on the reduction in vehicle miles traveled. When combined with other programs significant source of funding. Could be Energy Tax Credit business based on a rate set by the Oregon Department of Energy. The amount of the tax credit and the costs that are eligible depend that increase ridership, such as employer provided transit passes, the value of the tax used for capital and operating. on the details of the project itself. credit to Woodburn could be increased. Other transit agencies in Oregon get funding from the Business Energy Tax Credit program. If the City of Woodburn is interested in pursuing the tax credit program, staff should discuss the program with staff at the Department of Energy Conservation Division about qualifying programs and setting up the pass- through option. Staff may also want to consider discussing the program with staff at other transit agencies that have used the program, such as staff from Sandy Area Metro, which received $580,000 in - revenue from the tax credit during the 2009 -2011 Biennium. ConnectOregon III ConnectOregon is a program that uses lottery- backed bonds to support multimodal transportation other than highway. The latest LOW TO MODERATE: The funds for ConnectOregon III have been allocated. If the LOW: Funds from ConnectOregon III have version, ConnectOregon III, approved by the Legislature for $95 million statewide. No less than 10 percent of ConnectOregon III Legislature authorizes another round of ConnectOregon funding, Woodburn Transit been allocated and it is not clear whether funds must be distributed to each of the five regions of the state, provided that there are qualified projects in the region. - may be eligible for funding, depending on the eligibility requirements of the next round another round of funding will be available. ConnectOregon III will continue to improve the connections between the highway system and other modes of transportation. 1 1", of funding. About 8% of the funding for ConnectOregon III was allocated to transit Also, most funds were allocated to larger projects, most of which was allocated to larger urban transit districts for capital urban transit districts. projects. Taxes and Fees Payroll Tax A payroll tax is a progressive tax imposed directly on the employer, with workers with higher earnings paying more. The tax is based LOW TO MODERATE. A payroll tax is a commonly used tax to fund transit districts in HIGH. While acceptance could be payroll for services performed within the transit district, including traveling sales representatives and employees working from home. Oregon, with rates ranging from 0.5% to 0.7% of payroll. Revenue from payroll tax will challenging, could provide a significant This tax applies to covered employees and self - employed workers. vary with employment and earnings. The revenue will be greater in economic source of funding. Could be used for Examples of the use of payroll tax to fund transit in Oregon include: expansionary times, when employment and earnings increase, and lesser in capital and operating. A 0.5% payroll tax Trimet:0.68% recessionary times when employment and earnings increase or become flat. on payroll in Woodburn would result in Wilsonville's SMART: 0.5% Although a payroll tax could generate significant revenues and is an equitable $1.5 million in revenue. Canby Area Transit's and Sandy Transit: 0.6% approach to funding transportation maintenance and improvements, local adoption would be a challenge. Its many advantages -- flexibility of revenues, administrative ease, and fairness -- suggest the City should evaluate voter opinion of this funding mechanism. 40 American Community Survey, 2006 -2008 Thee year estimates 41 According to the Oregon Employment Department, payroll for covered employment located in Woodburn was $301 million in 2008. Page 11 -7 Transit Plan Upd ate • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Program Name Description Potential For Woodburn Potential Funding Level Gasoline Tax Gas taxes are an attractive funding mechanism because motorists already pay federal, state, and local taxes on motor fuel so the levy LOW. Local gas taxes typically range from $.01 to $.03. Woodburn could expect to HIGH. While acceptance could be would not impose a new type of tax. Using a gas tax to fund transit has merit because gas taxes reduce the externalities associated generate about $120,000 annually per penny of gas tax, not including diesel sales. challenging, could provide a significant with automobile travel (e.g., congestion, pollution) and induce drivers to use vehicles that are more fuel- efficient. Other jurisdictions in Revenues from a local gas tax would be relatively stable. source of funding. Could be used for the Portland Metropolitan Area have a gasoline tax, including: Multnomah County, Washington County, Tigard, Milwaukie, and Canby. Although a local gas tax could generate significant revenues and is an equitable capital and operating. approach to funding transit operations and capital costs, local adoption would be a challenge. Its many advantages -- flexibility of revenues, administrative ease, and fairness -- suggest the City should evaluate voter opinion of this funding mechanism. System Development Systems Development Charges (SDCs) are fees paid by land developers intended to reflect the increased capital costs incurred by a LOW TO MODERATE. The basic principle for setting a transportation SDC is to LOW. Not common practice for transit Charges municipality or utility as a result of a development. Development charges are calculated to include the costs of impacts on adjacent charge each new development its proportional share of the cost of providing transit to providers. Would only provide a limited areas or services, such as increased school enrollment, parks and recreation use, or transit use. the new development and to accommodate increased demand for transit. The source of funding. One limitation of a transit SDC is that SDCs can only be used for capital improvements (ORS 223.297). The SDC could be applied to financial capacity of a systems development charge depends on the volume of residential, commercial, or industrial development. Charging SDCs for transit projects is not common practice but is legally permitted. development and the amount of the SDC. Fees are seldom set to recover the full cost of developing off -site road capacity to accommodate the new development. Woodburn could generate about $20,000 annually for every $100 of SDC and if an average of 200 residences were built per year. Woodburn does not have an SDC for transit impacts but it does have a transportation SDC. Property Access Fee, Property access fee, land value capture, and benefit assessment districts are approaches to sharing transit costs with owners of LOW. These types of fees are typically associated with larger transit systems, LOW. Typically only used in larger transit Land Value Capture, property located near a transit resource (e.g., a transit station) who benefit directly from the proximity to the transit resource. They especially rail systems. One potential down -side to either approach is that it may systems. or Benefit Assessment provides a way to use public taxing authority to help finance transit through taxes on nearby private development, where the property result in a disincentive to develop property in an area subject to the fee or tax. Districts value increased as a result of transit investments. These revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. The potential for using these fees is probably limited in Woodburn. Transit Access Fee A transit access fee is paid by households and businesses and is designed to support the transit agency over time. A transit access LOW. A transit access fee provides long -term stable opportunities for funding MODERATE. While acceptance could be fee could be assessed for all households within the transit district. Transit access fees are typically a monthly charge of between $1 to operations, administration, and capital expenses. A transit access fee could generate challenging, could provide a moderate $ 5 per household. These revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. $88,800 of revenue for every $1 of monthly fee. source of funding. Could be used for While a transit access fee could generate significant revenues and is an equitable operating or capital. approach to funding transit operations and capital costs, local adoption would be a challenge. Its many advantages -- flexibility of revenues, administrative ease, and fairness -- suggest the City should evaluate voter opinion of this funding mechanism. Tax Increment Tax increment financing (TIF) is the primary finance tool used within urban renewal areas. TIF is generated when an urban renewal MODERATE. TIF funds could provide a substantial source of revenue to fund capital LOW. Only intended for capital projects Financing area (URA) is designated and the assessed value of all property in the area is 'frozen.' Over time, the total assessed value in the area projects within the URA. The revenues generated by the program would increase over that benefit the urban renewal area. increases above the 'frozen base' from appreciation and new development. The value in the area greater than the frozen base is time as property values increase, and new development occurs in the Area. To called the incremental assessed value, and taxes generated on the incremental assessed value are received by the URA, rather than receive TIF funding, all projects must be approved in the Urban Renewal Plan, and other taxing districts. the total project costs cannot exceed the Maximum Indebtedness listed in the Plan TIF could only be used on capital transit projects that directly benefit the URA. Projects that benefit the broader area can only receive and limited by State statute. TIF funding proportional to the benefits the URA receives. 42 The average number of residences built per year (200) is based on Marion County's adopted population forecast for Woodburn documented in the report "Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010 - 2030." The estimate of number of new residences is also based on the Amercian Community's estimate of an average household size of 3.0 in Woodburn in 2006 through 2008. 43 This estimate is based on the American Community Survey's estimate of nearly 7,400 households in Woodburn in 2006 -2008. Page 11 -8 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Other Funding Considerations Fare Structure Changes Over time, fares could be increased as shown in Figure 11 -4. These fare modifications are the same as assumed previously in Figure 11 -1. Figure 11 -4 Fare Modifications, 2010 -2030 Service 2010 (current) 2010 (with fare modification) 2015 2020 2030 Fixed Route Adult Fare $1.00 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $2.00 Adult 20 -ride Pass $15.00 $15.00 $18.75 $22.50 $30.00 Senior /Disabled n/a $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 Senior /Disabled 20 -ride Pass n/a $7.50 $11.25 $15.00 $19.00 Dial -a -Ride Adult Fare $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $4.00 Page 11 -9 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN It should be noted that based on national research fare increases on a demand responsive service can be expected to lower ridership between 0.3 -0.6% for every percent increase in the fare. So a fare increase on the Dial -a -Ride from $1.50 to $2.00 (a 33% increase), can be expected to reduce ridership between 10% and 20 %. Assuming approximately 6,800 passenger trips (from FY 2008/09), this would be a reduction of roughly 680 to 1,360 passengers. If all remaining passengers paid $2.00 per trip, fare revenues would be approximately $11,000- $12,000 annually, or roughly a 6 -7% farebox recovery ratio (compared to 34% currently). It should also be noted that the reduction in passenger demand would decrease total operating costs, perhaps by as much as 10 -15 %, or an additional savings of $17,000 - $26,000 annually. Figure 11 -5 Fareless System Benefits and Costs 44 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, Chapters 6 and 12. Page 11 -10 Benefits 1 Incentives Costs 1 Disincentives City of • Increased ridership (and related benefits), both through existing • Loss of fare revenue, nearly Woodburn riders who increase their use of the system and new riders who $28,000 in FY 2008 -2009. previously used a different mode or did not make the trip. • Additional service demand, • Administrative savings related to processing fare revenue. particularly for Dial -a -Ride, Estimated at up to 10 hours per week. Assuming a conservative could increase service cost $20 hourly labor cost (wages and benefits), this equates to and /or decrease service about $10,400 saving annually. In reality, this would free up staff levels. time to carry out additional transit - related duties. • Increased bus operating efficiency due to faster boarding times. This could improve on -time performance or help the City add coverage. • Eliminate farebox maintenance /replacement costs (may not be a significant issue in Woodburn). • Eliminate cost of printing discount passes (minor). 44 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, Chapters 6 and 12. Page 11 -10 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN Transit • Monetary cost savings and /or mobility benefits. Potential impact on service Riders • Avoid double- charging if transfer to /from Woodburn Transit to a quality if increased demand non - fareless system. exceed City's ability to provide service given available funding resources. Effects of fareless transit service on ridership The average effect on ridership is approximately a 32% increase based on a limited number of fareless systems that are not part of a large central business district (such as the fareless zone in downtown Portland), although there is considerable variation between systems. The effect is roughly proportional to the impact of a change in fares. 45 Based on this data, a rough estimate of eliminating fares in Woodburn is that systemwide ridership could increase by about 45 passengers per day, or about 11,500 passengers per year, as shown in Figure 11 -6. Figure 11 -6 Possible Ridership Impact of Fareless Operation (1) Based on combined annual ridership for fixed route and Dial -a -Ride, 2008 -2009 Fiscal Year, assuming 255 service days (2) Assumes 32% increase, based on average of fareless system case studies documented in TCRP Report 95, Chapter 12. Examples of Fareless Systems The following are examples of fareless systems that are most comparable to Woodburn. • Sandy Transit, Canby Area Transit, and SMART (Wilsonville): All three agencies have been fareless since their service areas withdrew from the TriMet service district and are supported by a payroll tax. SMART now charges a fare for routes outside of Wilsonville, but remains fareless within the city. Both CAT and Sandy have considered charging fares but have elected not to do so, for reasons included in Figure 11 -5. • Commerce (CA): Serves a population of about 13,000. Fareless from 1962 to present. The system attracted 7 to 8 percent of the population daily when reviewed in the 1970s, twice the average at the time for comparable cities. It should be noted that Commerce is an industrial city, with a small population consisting of mostly lower income residents. About 81 % of operating funds are from local sources. • Logan (UT): Serves nearly 75,000 people. Fareless from 1992 to present. Ridership increase from 2,500 riders initially to 3,700 riders at a later point in time, an increase of 48 %. About 86% of operating funds are from a local sales tax. 45 McCollom, Brian; Richard Pratt, et al. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 12 — Transit Pricing and Fares. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004. The authors' survey found an elasticity of 0.32 for non -CBD systems, including just two systems that are fareless at all hours and for all passengers, with an elasticity of 0.36 and a standard deviation of +/- 0.28. 46 Local examples from agency websites /plans and personal communication. Commerce and Logan (UT) examples from TCRP Report 95. Page 11 -11 # of Daily Passengers Current Systemwide Daily Total 137 Estimated Increase with Fareless System (2) 44 Estimated Daily Total with Fareless System 181 (1) Based on combined annual ridership for fixed route and Dial -a -Ride, 2008 -2009 Fiscal Year, assuming 255 service days (2) Assumes 32% increase, based on average of fareless system case studies documented in TCRP Report 95, Chapter 12. Examples of Fareless Systems The following are examples of fareless systems that are most comparable to Woodburn. • Sandy Transit, Canby Area Transit, and SMART (Wilsonville): All three agencies have been fareless since their service areas withdrew from the TriMet service district and are supported by a payroll tax. SMART now charges a fare for routes outside of Wilsonville, but remains fareless within the city. Both CAT and Sandy have considered charging fares but have elected not to do so, for reasons included in Figure 11 -5. • Commerce (CA): Serves a population of about 13,000. Fareless from 1962 to present. The system attracted 7 to 8 percent of the population daily when reviewed in the 1970s, twice the average at the time for comparable cities. It should be noted that Commerce is an industrial city, with a small population consisting of mostly lower income residents. About 81 % of operating funds are from local sources. • Logan (UT): Serves nearly 75,000 people. Fareless from 1992 to present. Ridership increase from 2,500 riders initially to 3,700 riders at a later point in time, an increase of 48 %. About 86% of operating funds are from a local sales tax. 45 McCollom, Brian; Richard Pratt, et al. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 12 — Transit Pricing and Fares. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004. The authors' survey found an elasticity of 0.32 for non -CBD systems, including just two systems that are fareless at all hours and for all passengers, with an elasticity of 0.36 and a standard deviation of +/- 0.28. 46 Local examples from agency websites /plans and personal communication. Commerce and Logan (UT) examples from TCRP Report 95. Page 11 -11 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOODBURN All of the fareless systems have a dedicated, local transit funding contribution. Outsourcing Transit Operations Another means of providing transit service in Woodburn is through a contract provider. Because the decision whether to outsource services is not simply a matter of costs, the first provides a general assessment of costs and benefits generally associated with a contracted operation. Next, a high -level comparison of costs was conducted between in -house operation and a well - known transit provider in the region. General Costs and Benefits i Four basic categories of transit agency functions are used for reporting purposes to the National Transit Database 47: vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non - vehicle maintenance, and general administration. Transit agencies' decisions about whether and which of these functions to provide directly or contract out are highly dependent on local factors and characteristics. Figure 11 -7 provides a brief summary of benefits and costs for each model. Figure 11 -7 General Cost and Benefits of Service Delivery Models Benefits/incentives • More direct control over operations • More efficient coordination of marketing, outreach and service provision functions • Direct control over driver training and safety procedures Costs/Disincentives • Likely to have higher operating costs over long- term • Possibly difficult to find and retain qualified operations management staff • Difficult to quickly add staff and capital resources necessary for large service changes • Capital facility development and vehicle purchasing process may be slower Benefits/incentives • Likely to have slightly lower operating cost • Creates competition & more efficient operations management • Contractors bring extensive operations experience, institutional management practices, and monitoring systems • Contractors can draw from nationwide labor and expertise pool • Allows for development of monetary penalties/ incentives for performance & service quality • Ability to quickly bring on line new vehicles Costs/Disincentives • Less direct control over customer service • May require some duplication of staffing (or higher staffing levels) for contract and service performance monitoring • Less flexibility to respond directly to customer concerns about services or operators • May be difficult to solicit competitive bids for small system Source: Adapted from Transportation Research Board, Contracting for Bus and Demand - Responsive Transit Services, Special Report 258, 2001. 47 National Transit Database ( NTD): 2010 Glossary; Uniform System of Accounts (USOA), Chapter 6 Page 11 -12 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN High -Level Comparison of In -House and Contracted Service Costs As a general rule contracting service can realize efficiencies in labor costs and utilization, however a 1998 stud Y48 of contracting concluded that it is not always less costly overall than operating service directly, depending on factors such as whether a provider operates in a high labor cost area and the ability of contracting to bring about competition. It also found that efficient vehicle and labor utilization, such as scheduling vehicles to minimize non - revenue travel (deadheading), have a greater influence on cost efficiency than either wages or the specific contract arrangement. Of nearby transit providers, Sandy Transit, CAT, and CARTS contract service to Oregon Housing and Associated Services (OHAS), a Salem -based non - profit. SMART operates service in- house. AMM Contracting Transit Operations --- ------ A high -level cost estimate was obtained from OHAS, to assess the potential for cost savings in contracting transit operations and to determine whether the City of Woodburn should perform a more detailed analysis. These costs include only labor (wages and benefits) attributed to transit operations. This assumes for example that vehicles would continue to be owned by the City of Woodburn, maintenance would still be performed in- house, and a Transit Manager position would be required to provide contract oversight, grant management, and other administrative functions. Contracted costs were compared against existing labor costs using the following method: City of Woodburn labor /benefits /expenses were based on the "labor /benefits" category for both fixed route and Dial -a -Ride using 2008/2009 Actual Expenses from the City of Woodburn budget listed, excluding intra- governmental services. They were divided by total service hours for the same year to obtain an average labor cost of $41.24 per service hour. • OHAS provided a high -level estimate of $42 per service hour, based on its other contracted operations, although it indicated that significant use of part -time staff may yield a lower average cost in a more detailed analysis. Multiplying this average cost by the number of service hours in 2008 -2009, annual contracted costs would be about $4000 higher than actual 2008 -2009 Woodburn transit operations labor /benefits costs. Based on this preliminary estimate, shown in Figure 11 -8, Woodburn's transit operations are slightly less than 2% less expensive than contracted operations. Figure 11 -8 High -Level Cost Comparison with OHAS- Contracted Service Fixed Route and Dial -a -Ride Woodburn Transit (2008 - 2009)' OHAS 2 Transit Operations Labor /Benefits Expenses $233,793 $238,098 Annual Services Hours 5,669 5,669 Average Labor /Benefits Cost / Hour $41.24 $42.00 1 Labor /benefits expenses from Woodburn Transit Budget, 2008 -2009 Actual Expenses, including salaries, overtime, and benefits for fixed -route and Dial -a -Ride but excluding intra - governmental services. Woodburn Transit Annual Service Hours for fixed route and Dial -a -Ride, 2008 -2009. 2 OHAS provided a high -level cost estimate of $42 per service hour (combining Fixed Route and Dial -a -Ride) based on the other systems it operates in the region, but noted that the cost could run slightly lower assuming use of part -time staff. 48 William McCullough, Brian Taylor, and Martin Wachs, Transit Service Contracting and Cost Efficiency, UCTC Paper No. 365. 1998. (Also published in TRR 1618.) Accessed from http: / /www.uctc.net /papers /365.pdf Page 11 -13 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN At this level of analysis, it does not appear that there is a significant difference between in -house and contracted transit operations. It is recommended, however, that the City of Woodburn conduct a more detailed analysis using more recent operating expenses and service data and request a comprehensive quote from OHAS or other transit providers. As part of any future analysis, the City should: • Analyze whether contracting would yield additional cost savings, such information technology equipment and support, training, etc. • Ensure that labor costs, including full and part -time employees, are allocated as accurately as possible between fixed route and Dial -a -Ride operations, to ensure an accurate comparison (as well as improve its ability to accurately estimate costs for future service changes). Page 11 -14 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Chapter 12. Flexible Service Plan This chapter provides an overview of three service scenarios that vary by level of service and the amount of funding required to implement each. Each scenario includes a "package" of service strategies listed in Chapter 10 that can be implemented under each scenario. The service plan is "flexible" in that it gives the City a plan for future service improvements as funding for such services can be secured. The three scenarios are: Status Quo with Limited Funding Increase. While maintaining current service levels is not a desired outcome of the TPU, it is a prudent scenario given current economic conditions when many transit agencies are cutting service. It is assumed in this scenario that Woodburn is able to continue to meet current operating cost increases with existing funding sources, but that a limited amount of new funding will be obtained to meet basic service needs. Most service strategies presented in this scenario are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing services without major changes in operating or capital costs. Several strategies, however, have either capital cost or operating cost impacts and will require some additional funding. Moderate Service and Funding Increase. This scenario assumes that Woodburn will begin to secure a moderate level of additional funds for transit service by focusing on the less contentious funding sources first. These include advertising, additional state and federal grants, an employer transit pass program, or other less contentious sources as discussed in Chapter 11. While securing and maintaining these funds will likely require more existing staff time, this scenario assumes that a 90% increase in total funding could result from these additional sources. Significant Service and Funding Increase. This scenario assumes that a significant new dedicated source of funding will be identified, such as a payroll tax or an ongoing grant such as the Business Enterprise Tax Credit (BETC). If this were to occur, significant changes in the transit network can start to take place. As identified in the peer review (Chapter 6) and the review of potential funding sources (Chapter 11), some of Woodburn's peer transit agencies provide significantly more transit service largely because they have a dedicated source of funding for transit. It is assumed that with an additional funding source, Woodburn could increase funding for transit service by 350- 390%. It should be noted that this would bring Woodburn up to par with total revenues in Canby and Sandy, both of which have a somewhat comparable population but have a dedicated source of funding for transit. It should be noted that each of these scenarios are for planning purposes only and should be reevaluated over time as economic and funding conditions change and /or additional research on potential funding sources has been conducted. Status Quo Service with Limited Funding Increase This scenario is considered a short -term scenario to stabilize the existing service and address the top priority needs until more significant additional funding sources can be secured. The service improvement recommendations included in this scenario can be made over the next several years with a limited increase in annual operating costs but with more significant capital investments. The strategies included in this scenario are as follows and are summarized in Figure 12 -1: Page 12 -15 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN • Streamline existing fixed route. This includes some minor adjustments to the existing fixed route to minimize complexity of the route and improve connections to regional providers. This is strategy 2 in Chapter 10. • Strengthen connections with regional providers. This includes improvements to the scheduling of the fixed route to better facilitate connections with regional providers. This is strategy 4 in Chapter 10. • Purchase new Dial -a -Ride vehicles. Two new cutaway Dial -a -Ride vans are included to keep up with service needs and to replace an old vehicle. This is strategy 15 in Chapter 10. • Dedicate one full- time - employee to dispatch, customer service and transit operations management. This strategy is included to ensure that a single FTE be dedicated to managing the operations of the transit system, be available for customer service, and better manage Dial -a -Ride dispatch functions. This is strategy 18 in Chapter 10. • Develop a new identity and marketing materials. This involves the development of a marketing plan, new identity and marketing materials. This is strategy 7 in Chapter 10. • Maximize the use of existing scheduling software. This involves better training for staff to make the most out of the existing scheduling and dispatch software. This is strategy 17 in Chapter 10. • Institute a process for regular data collection and reporting. This involves instituting a regular reporting procedure for both the fixed route and Dial -a -Ride services. This is Strategy 19 in Chapter 10. • Convene a regular regional transit forum. This involves a regular meeting with nearby transit providers to discuss regional transit needs and issues. This is strategy 16 in Chapter 10. • Promote the regional carpool and vanpool program. This involves the promotion of the existing Cherriots Rideshare program. This is strategy 20 in Chapter 10. Figure 12 -1 Summary of Status Quo with Limited Funding Increase Scenario Strategy Number and Description Estimated Estimated (See Chapter 10 for detail) Annual Capital Cost Operating Cost Impacts Impacts Existing Service (FY 2010/11) $364,000 n/a Streamline Existing Fixed Route (Strategy 2) $5,500 None Strengthen Connections with Regional Providers None None (Strategy 4) New Dial -a -Ride Vehicles (Strategy 15) None $160,000 Dedicate One FTE to Dispatch, Customer Service $30,000 None and Transit Operations Management (Strategy 18) Develop New Identity and Marketing Materials None $60,000 (Strategy 7) Maximize Use of Scheduling and Transit None None Management Software (Strategy 17) Institute Process for Regular Data Collection and None None Reporting (Strategy 19) Page 12 -16 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Convene Regular Regional Transit Forum (Strategy None None 16) Promote Regional CarpoolNanpool Program None None (Strategy 20) Total (Existing and Status Quo) $399,500 $220,000 Ridership Impacts Although the streamlining of the local fixed route and improved regional connections are designed to make the use of the existing route slightly easier, it is difficult to determine with certainty what these minor changes will have on ridership. Therefore, it is assumed that ridership will respond favorably to this improvement, but that this increase will be fairly minimal. Moderate Service and ; Funding Increase This service scenario assumes that additional funding will be identified so that transit service can be increased by approximately 90% over existing service levels. In doing so, the next highest priority service improvements are possible. The moderate service and funding increase scenario includes the following strategies and is summarized in 49 Federal Transit Administration, Innovative Practices for Increased Ridership http: / /ftawebprod.fta. dot. gov/ BPIR/ BestPractices /BestPractices.aspx Page 12 -17 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 12 -2: Install bike racks on fixed route buses. This is strategy 14 in Chapter 10 Page 12 -18 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 12 -2 Summary of Moderate Service and Funding Increase Scenario Strategy Number and Description (See Chapter 10 for detail) Estimated Annual Operating Cost Impacts Estimated Capital Cost Impacts Existing Service (FY 2010/11) $364,000 n/a Strategies from Status Quo Scenario $35,500 $210,000 Expand Service Hours (Strategy 1) $137,700 None Expand Local Fixed Route (Strategy 3) $173,000 $200,000 - $300,000 Install New Bus Shelters (Strategy 9) None $80,000 Install Bike Racks on Buses (Strategy 14) None $800 - $1,600 Total (Existing, Status Quo and Moderate Scenario) $710,200 $490,800 - $591,600 This final scenario assumes that Woodburn will be able to significantly increase the amount of transit service provided in the city by securing a dedicated local funding source. In addition to the strategies discussed in the Status Quo and Moderate Service Increase scenarios, this scenario includes the following four additional strategies, which are summarized in Figure 12 -3: • Introduce service on Saturday. This introduces a new flexible fixed route service on Saturday. This is strategy 5 in Chapter 10. • Introduce service on Sunday. This introduces a new flexible fixed route service on Sunday (only once Saturday service has been initiated). This is strategy 6 in Chapter 10. • Provide peak -only intercity service to Salem and Wilsonville. This would include new direct intercity service to Salem and Wilsonville from the 1 -5 /Highway 214 transit center. This is strategy 11 in Chapter 10. • Provide midday intercity service to Salem and Wilsonville. This would add new midday service on 1 -5 between Salem and Wilsonville with service in Woodburn. This is strategy 12 in Chapter 10. so so Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 95, Chapters 6 and 12. Page 12 -19 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Figure 12 -3 Summary of Significant Service and Funding Increase Scenario Strategy Number and Description (See Chapter 10 for detail) Estimated Annual Operating Cost Increase Estimated Capital Cost Impacts Existing Service (FY 2010/11) $364,000 n/a Status Quo Strategies $25,500 $210,000 Moderate Increase Strategies $310,700 $280,800 - $381,600 Introduce Service on Saturday (Strategy 5) $77,000 None Introduce Service on Sunday (Strategy 6) $29,500 None Purchase New Low -Floor Transit Vehicle (Strategy 8) N/A $300,000 4400,000 Provide Peak -Only Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville (Strategy 11) $216,000 - $410,000 None or $600,000 Provide Midday Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville (Strategy 12) $260,000 None Total (Existing and all scenarios) $1,282,700 - $1,476,700 $790,800 - $1,591,600 Based on historical information in Woodburn when the bus operated on Saturday, ridership on Saturday is expected to be between 50 -80% of weekday ridership and Sunday, as a flexible fixed route service, may only be 25 -50% of weekday ridership. Because the service strategy on Sunday is recommended as a flexible fixed route, and thus ridership would include both general public as well as trips that may be taken on the Dial -a -Ride, it is estimated that ridership may be slightly higher than the 25 -50% estimate. In any case, assuming 137 passengers per weekday ride the fixed route, and approximately 27 passengers ride Dial -a -Ride on the weekday, this is a total of 164 passengers. Assuming ridership on Saturday is 80% of the weekday total, this would be a total of 130 passengers per Saturday, or about 6,800 annually. Sunday and holiday ridership is estimated at 50% of weekday totals, or about 4,700 annual passengers. Ridership on the intercity service is much more difficult to estimate since it could appeal to multiple trip purposes: work, shopping, medical, etc. Employment related trips, however, tend to be regular and the greatest market. As such, estimates are provided only for employment related trips with the understanding that other users would also be attracted to the service. As noted in earlier chapters, between 70 -80% of Woodburn workers work outside of the city, and an equal amount of employment in Woodburn comes from elsewhere. US Census data reveal that there are about 10,000 people in Woodburn in the workforce and about 5,000 workers. Based on these figures, very high level ridership estimates can be made: • Assuming 80% of residents work outside of Woodburn, and 25% of those people commute to either Salem or the South Portland suburbs, this is approximately 4,000 51 Research and Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, http: / /www.bts.gov /programs /economics and finance /transportation services index /html /public transit ridership.html Page 12 -20 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN individuals who might use an intercity transit service. Assuming a very conservative 1 -3% of these workers choose to use the new intercity service, this is about 40 -120 people who would use the service every day (or 80 -240 trips /day assuming all people make a round trip). • In addition, there are an estimated 5,000 jobs in Woodburn. Assuming 80% of these workers travel from outside of Woodburn, and 25% are coming from either Salem or the South Portland suburbs, this is approximately 1,000 workers who might use the service. Assuming 1 -3% of these workers use the new intercity service, this is another 10 -30 individuals per day (or 20 -60 trips assuming they all make a round trip). Funding Considerations and Potential Funding Sources: Status Quo Scenario The Status Quo scenario assumes a $20,000 increase in total annual operating costs, or about a 5% increase over existing levels. Capital improvements included in this scenario total $210,000. As described above in Chapter 11, there are a number of potential funding sources that may be tapped to meet existing and future service needs. Two potential sources that could be explored in the short -term include advertising and the development of an employer -based transit program. While both sources are not expected to generate significant revenue, if both were developed to their full potential, Woodburn could expect to generate approximately 2 % -6% of annual operating costs, or between $7,000 and $20,000 annually. It is also recommended as part of this scenario to make modifications to the fare structure. As noted in Chapter 10, increasing one -way fares on the Dial -a -Ride to $2.00 (from $1.50) and introducing a new $0.50 fare on the fixed route for seniors and people with disabilities is expected to generate roughly $12,000 to $13,000 in additional fare revenues. The capital costs associated with adding two Dial -a -Ride vehicles are eligible for funding through federal (5309 or 5311) grants or state STF/STO grants. A 10 -20% local match would still be required to obtain these federal or state grants. Funding Considerations and Potential Funding Sources: Moderate and Significant Service Scenarios Because transit service is largely funded through the City's general funds, predominantly through property taxes, this funding stream does not provide long -term stability and predictability. Chapter 11 presented a range of funding options, from partnerships between the City and private firms to federal and state grant opportunities to taxes and fees levied on residents and businesses in Woodburn. To fund the Moderate and Significant service scenarios, it is recommended that Woodburn consider alternative funding sources and develop a funding strategy to stabilize operations of the transit service. The following is a recommended set of actions: Page 12 -21 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN • Aggressively pursue grants. An interim step in the transition of funding sources is pursuing federal and state grants. This evaluation suggests that Woodburn has not fully tapped the potential of state and federal grants and has not pursued all grant possibilities in the last few years. Grants may provide the City with a funding stream to help the City through the transition from general fund revenue to a long -term, stable funding source. • Consider forming a transit district. Some transit agencies use property tax as a major source of funding. Forming a transit district would avoid the Ballot Measure 5/50 limits on city property taxes. Moreover, a transit district could provide service outside the incorporated boundaries of Woodburn. If the City pursues this strategy it should consider the potential to expand other nearby transit districts such as the Canby Transit District. Other Implementation Considerations In addition to the service and financial considerations discussed above, Woodburn should also ensure that the Transit Plan Update is integrated into other planning efforts. Integration of the TPU into these planning is required in order to access additional funding for transit. Integrate TPU into Transportation System Plan Per the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.712 and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) administrative rule known as the TPR, Woodburn is required to complete a. Transportation System Plan (TSP). Required elements of the TSP include the roadway, public transit, bike, pedestrian, air, rail, water, and pipeline systems. As the TSP is updated, Woodburn staff should work to integrate the key elements of the TPU into the TSP. Page 12 -22 Transit Plan Update • Draft Final Report CITY OF WOOD BURN Integrate key elements of the TPU into Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan Federal planning requirements specify that designated recipients of certain sources of funds administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must certify that projects funded through federal dollars are derived from a Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan. These sources of funds include the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC, Section 5316), New Freedom (Section 5317) and the Formula Program for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310). The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) serves as the designated recipient in non - urbanized areas of Oregon for funds subject to the coordinated plan. The most recent coordinated plan was conducted for Polk and Marion Counties and was completed in July 2009. To ensure that Woodburn has access to the sources of funds subject to the coordinated plan, Woodburn staff should ensure that the key findings, needs and strategies presented in this Transit Plan Update are integrated with the coordinated plan. Page 12 -23 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX B ON -BOARD PASSENGER SURVEY RESPONSE RATE ESTIMATION On -Board Passenger Survey Response Rate Estimations Fixed Route Bus Based on March 2010 ridership figures, a total of 2,407 trips were taken on the bus. The bus operated for 20 days during the month of March, so on average 120 trips were made each day. Assuming that 80% of passengers make a round trip daily, it is estimated that on average 72 people use the bus daily. This number, however, does not represent the total number of people who use transit in Woodburn. Based on frequency of use per week (see Figure 5 -5), it is assumed that approximately 25% of riders use the service every day (or 100% of the time), 45% use the bus approximately 2 -4 times per week (or approximately 60% of the time), 10% of riders use the bus once a week (or 20% of the time) and 25% use the bus about once per month or are new riders (assumed to be about 5% of the time). This means that only 60% of the passengers who ride 2 -4 times per week are included in the average of 72 passengers per day, and that another 40% of the daily estimate (or another 29 people) might ride another day. Similarly, 80% of the passengers who ride once a week were not included in the average of 72 passengers per day, which is another 57 potential riders. And finally, 95% of the passengers who ride less than once per month or are new riders might also ride another day, thus another potential 68 passengers. Thus, the estimated total number of transit users in Woodburn is estimated at 226. This figure is summarized below: 72 average daily passengers + 29 more passengers who ride on average 3 days /week + 57 more passengers who ride on average 1 day /week + 68 more passengers who ride on average once per month or are new riders = 226 total potential transit riders in Woodburn Based on 161 completed surveys, it is estimated that the response rate is approximately 71% of total potential transit riders in Woodburn. Dial -a -Ride Based on ridership from March 2010, a total of 597 trips were taken on Woodburn DAR. DAR operated 23 days during the month of March, so DAR averaged 26 daily trips. Assuming that all DAR customers requested a round trip, it is estimated that there are, on average, 13 people using the DAR service daily. This number, however, does not represent the total number of people who use Dial -a -Ride in Woodburn. Based on frequency of use per week (see Figure 5 -19), it is assumed that approximately 10% of riders use the service every day (or 100% of the time), 50% use the bus approximately 2 -4 times per week (or approximately 60% of the time), 15% of riders use the bus once a week (or 20% of the time) and 25% use the bus about once per month (assumed to be about 5% of the time). This means that only 60% of the passengers who ride 2 -4 times per week are included in the average of 13 passengers per day, and that another 40% of the daily estimate (or another 5 people) might ride another day. Similarly, 80% of the passengers who ride once a week were not included in the average of 13 passengers per day, which is another 10 potential riders. And finally, 95% of the passengers who ride less than once per month or are new riders might also ride another day, thus another potential 12 passengers. Thus, the estimated total number of transit users in Woodburn is estimated at 40. This figure is summarized below: 13 average daily Dial -a -Ride passengers + 5 more passengers who ride on average 3 days /week + 10 more passengers who ride on average 1 day /week + 12 more passengers who ride on average once per month or are new riders = 40 total potential Dial -a -Ride riders in Woodburn Based on 23 completed surveys, it is estimated that the response rate is approximately 58% of total potential Dial -a -Ride riders in Woodburn. APPENDIX C ON -BOARD PASSENGER SURVEY BOARDINGS AND ALIGHTINGS Ridecheck Boardings and Alightings (May 19, 2010) Stop ID Time Point ID Street Cross Street Total Daily Alightings (1) Total Daily Boardings (2) Max Load (3) 1 1A S 1st St. Garfield St. 5 8 19 2 S Front St. South of Oak 0 0 19 3 2 S Front St. South of Tout St. 1 2 19 4 3 S Front St. Parr Rd. and S Settlemeir Ave. 3 1 19 5 S Settlemeir Ave. Maple St. 0 0 19 6 4 S Settlemeir Ave. Garfield St. 0 0 19 7 N Settlemeir Ave. W Lincoln St. 3 0 16 8 5 N Settlemeir Ave. Church St. 0 1 16 9 6 Boones Ferry Rd. NE Prairie Middle School 0 1 16 10 7 Country Club Rd. Near Patriot St. 0 0 16 11 8 Country Club Rd. Before Astor Way 0 0 16 12 Country Club Rd. Umpqua Rd. 1 1 16 13 Country Club Rd. Princeton Rd. 0 0 16 14 Princeton Rd. Finzer Way 0 0 16 15 Rainier Rd. East of Princeton Rd. 0 0 16 16 Rainier Rd. Randolph Rd. 0 0 16 17 9 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) (Woodburn Crossing) Before Evergreen Rd. 1 0 16 18 10 Woodburn Company Stores Parking Lot @ Factory Outlets 13 8 16 19 N Arney Rd. American Ave. 0 1 16 20 Myrtle St. Between Palm & Olive Ave. 2 2 17 21 11 Willow Ave. South of Sycamore Ave. 1 1 18 22 Willow Ave. Camas St. 0 0 18 23 12 Linda St. West of Alder Lane 0 1 18 24 Woodland Ave. McNaught Rd. 0 0 18 25 Lawson St. Commercial Center, North of Stack Allison Way 6 6 16 26 Harvard Dr. W Hayes St. 3 1 16 27 Evergreen Rd. NE Boean Lane 0 3 18 28 13 Stack Allison Way Wal -Mart Commercial Center 13 6 15 29 Evergreen Rd. NE North of W Hayes St. 0 2 15 30 14 Oregon Way Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) 1 4 15 31 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) N Cascade Dr. 0 0 15 32 15 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) Front of Fire Station 1 0 14 33 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) Leasure St. 2 1 14 34 16 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) 5th Street & Meridian Dr. 5 1 10 35 17 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) Near Police Station 0 0 10 36 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) East of Park Ave. 2 2 9 37 18 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) Bi -Mart & Shop -N -Kart West of N Pacific Hwy 9 2 8 38 19 N Pacific Hwy James St. 1 0 8 39 Hardcastle Ave. Park Ave. 2 1 8 40 Park Ave. Lincoln St. 0 0 8 41 20 Lincoln St. Gatch St. 1 0 8 42 Doud St. North of Oswald St. 2 3 9 43 1B Garfield St. S 1 st St. 8 13 10 44 Young St. Faith Christian Fellowship Church 2 2 10 45 21 Young St. Gatch St. 4 5 12 46 Young St. Bryan St. 3 6 15 47 S Pacific Hwy South of Tomlin Ave. 1 4 16 48 22 S Pacific Hwy Aztec Dr. 0 0 16 49 23 N Pacific Hwy Goodwill Eaas of Lincoln 2 5 17 50 N Pacific Hwy Alexandra Ave. 1 11 26 51 N Pacific Hwy Mt. Jefferson Ave. 2 2 27 Stop ID Time Point ID Street Cross Street Total Daily Alightings (1) Total Daily Boardings (2) Max Load (3) 52 24 Hwy 214 (Mt. Hood Ave.) Mid - Valley Plaza 4 9 28 53 25 Hwy 214 (Mt. Hood Ave.) Salud Medical Center 9 5 24 54 Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) Meridian Dr. 5 0 19 55 Harrison St. N 3rd St. 0 0 19 56 N 1 st St. Grant St. 2 0 18 TOTAL 121 121 28 (1) Represents the total daily boardings (ons) for all trips at this stop. There were 121 total boardings on the bus on May 19, 2010. (2) Represents the total daily alightings (offs) for all trips at this stop. There were 121 total alightings on the bus on May 19, 2010. (3) Max. Load by stop represents the maximum number of passengers on the bus at any point in time throughout the day. This figure is used to determine where turnover on the route occurs and to determine the appropriate vehicle size. The maximum number of passengers on the bus at any point in time on May 19, 2010 was 28. APPENDIX D STAKEHOLDER MEETING NOTES APPENDIX E PRIORITIZED SERVICE STRATEGIES 0 Q U_ C N L O Q C U C U) U O CU X, U N U E L) C (n j (n C (6 ' (n Cl) U U O N � (n U i CU C N O C O C N E N J U O U � O Q U > O O M > N (6 ( (6 M O � N 0 N (6 O U - O `p i N p N Q E N 2 L C O (6 E O N (EE N Q E OU (6 C O N U (E E C O U U (6 O ' (6 (6 O y N p) U N 0 C N O U � N A U `o p c E (n E 2 � o CU (n U 2 E E c in � '� E o � a5 o V5 � X -0 � in ` (D Q L o � . a o Cn M w > c° M Q c) <n Li c) U_ z W w o v Strategy Description N M N N N N N M M M M M M M N 'Zt M Ln � LD LD U') cn U 0 0 1 Expand Service Hours 3 1 1 5 $$$ M 2 Streamline Local Fixed Route 1 1 3 1 6 H 3 Expand Local Fixed Route 1 1 3 1 1 6 $$ $$ M 4 Strengthen Connections with Regional Providers 1 1 3 5 $ H 5 Introduce Service on Saturday 2 1 1 4 $$$ M 6 Introduce Service on Sunday 2 1 1 4 $$$ M 7 Develop New Identity and Marketing Materials 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 $ H 8 New Low -Floor Transit Vehicle 2 1 2 1 6 $$$ M 9 Install New Bus Shelters 2 1 1 1 5 $ H 10 Provide Limited Demand Response Service Beyond Woodburn 1 1 $ L 11 Provide Peak -Only Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville 1 1 2 4 $$$ $$$ M 12 Provide All -Day Intercity Service to Salem and Wilsonville 1 1 2 4 $$$ $$$ M 13 Improve Service Frequency 1 1 1 1 4 $$$ $$$ L 14 Install Bike Racks on Buses 1 1 1 3 $ M 15 New Dial -a -Ride Vehicles 2 1 2 2 1 8 $$ H 16 Convene Regular Regional Transit Forum 1 1 1 1 4 M 17 Maximize Use of Scheduling and Transit Management Software 1 1 1 1 4 $ M 18 Dedicate One FTE to Dispatch, Customer Service and Transit 1 1 1 1 1 5 $$ M Operations Management 19 Institute Process for Regular Data Collection and Reporting 1 1 1 1 4 $ $ M 20 Promote Regional Carpool/Vanpool Program 1 1 $ $ M APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES This appendix evaluates potential funding sources using the criteria described in Section III. For each of the funding sources listed below, we provide a description including a discussion of existing application, how the source meets the criteria described in Section III, and the potential for applying the mechanism in Woodburn. The funding sources are described from a local government perspective. Public and Private Partnerships Advertising Description: Transit systems can raise revenues by selling advertising to businesses and non - profit organizations. Opportunities for advertising on buses include: (1) ads inside the bus, (2) ads on the outside of buses and (3) ads in stations or at stops. Successful advertising campaigns are usually facilitated by a third -party advertising vendor. Revenue from advertising is generally relatively small, generally accounting for less than 3% of revenues for small transit districts. Advertizing revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. Some potential issues with advertising include: (1) controlling the content of the advertising can be difficult and (2) some districts prefer to have a specific look to the outside of their bus, without advertisement. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the power to decide whether or not to allow advertise on their assets. Financial Revenues garnered from advertising are generally small. According to the Texas Transportation Capacity/ Institute, they typically account for 0.1 to 3 percent of total operating income. Stability: The key to maximizing advertising revenue is hiring an aggressive advertising firm. To encourage /guarantee maximum revenue, it is recommended that penalties for empty advertising space be negotiated into an advertising firm's contract and that, as much as possible, ads reference transit service. Funding is only as stable as the marketing firm operating the advertising. If clients are not booked, there is no funding. Traditionally, however, advertising has proved to be a reliable, if small, boost to transit budgets. Administrative Advertising is typically contracted out to an advertising agency. In such a case, a municipality Ease: would issue a RFP, select a firm, and then hand most of the responsibilities of day to day management over to the winning firm. Costs to Advertising has no substantial cost to residents. Residents / Equity Political Some residents may find the advertisements unattractive, but advertising on public Acceptability transportation has been becoming more and more accepted. Evaluation: Advertising may provide a small source of revenue for Woodburn but is unlikely to result in a substantial source of revenue for the transit system. The City may want to consider whether residents of Woodburn would be receptive to different types of advertising, including ads inside of buses, outside of buses, and at transit stops. 52 http: / /utcm. tamu .edu /tfo /transit/summary.stm 53 TCRP Report 31: Funding Strategies for Public Transportation, Volume II Casebook. p. 25 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_31-2-a.pdf 54 TCRP Report 31: Funding Strategies for Public Transportation, Volume II Casebook. p. 179 -188 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_31-2-e.pdf Employer Transit Pass Program Description: Some transit agencies offer employers the opportunity to purchase a transit pass for all employees, regardless of whether the employees use the pass. The pass benefits the employees by allowing them to use the transit system free of charge. The company may be able to take a tax deduction on the cost of the transit pass. The benefit to the transit agency is an increase in ridership and in revenues from the purchase of the pass. Employers located in Woodburn with a large share of employees living in the City are most likely to be interested in an employer transit pass program because their employees are most likely to benefit from the program. Employee Transit Pass revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. Legal Authority: The City has the authority to institute new transit programs. Financial Capacity/ The revenues generated by the program would increase over time, as more employers Stability: choose to participate. The long -term stability of the program might be affected by recessionary economic conditions, if many employers chose to discontinue participation in the program to save funds. An employer transit pass program, however, is not likely to become a significant source of revenue. Administrative Ease: The City would need to administer and promote the program. Costs to There is no direct, significant link between the costs of an employer transit pass program Residents /Equity and costs to residents. From the residents' perspective, more revenues from these types of sources mean less resident contributions. Political Acceptability High Evaluation: Implementing an employer transit pass program might be a relatively easy way to raise Administrative Ease: revenue, while benefiting employers and employees. The City may want to conduct a survey, perhaps informal, of larger employers to gauge the interest in an employer transit pass program. School Transit Pass Program Description: Some transit agencies offer schools the opportunity to purchase a transit pass for students. Typically public school districts purchase transit passes for students in 6 through 12 grades. Universities may also purchase passes for university students and staff. The school district or university agrees to pay the transit district a fixed amount each year. School Transit Pass revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. Examples of school districts in Oregon that offer transit passes for students includes: Lane Transit District (LTD) offers passes to students in grades 6 -12 a transit pass that is valid during the school year. TriMet offers high school students at the Portland Public School District a pass for transit use during the school year. The Student Pass program is a partnership between the school district and the City of Portland, and is funded through a State of Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit and Portland Public Schools. It is not subsidized by TriMet. The current budget deficit at many school districts may make establishing a school transit pass program difficult in the next three to five years, unless the transit pass is funded through a grant, such as the Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit. Legal Authority: The City has the authority to institute new transit programs. Financial Capacity/ The revenues generated by the program would be tied to school district and /or grant Stability: funding, as well as school enrollment. The long -term stability of the program might be affected by recessionary economic conditions that decrease school or grant funds. In addition, the long -term stability of the program would be affected by school enrollment, with substantial increases or decreases in enrollment affecting program funding. Administrative Ease: The City would need to administer and work in partnership with school district to develop the program. Costs to There is no direct, significant link between the costs of an school transit pass program and Residents /Equity costs to residents. From the residents' perspective, more revenues from these types of sources mean less resident contributions. Political Acceptability High Evaluation: Implementing a student transit pass program might be a way to raise revenue, while decreasing traffic related to school transportation. Naming Rights Description: Historically, the selling of naming rights to people or organizations that make a donation for a capital improvement was most common for large organizations, such as universities or hospitals. Selling naming rights has become more common among smaller organizations and some transit agencies sell naming rights to vehicles, stations, or transit corridors. It is not common for transit agencies to sell naming rights but it is a funding mechanism that has been used by large transit agencies, such as the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Revenues from this source can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. Legal Authority: The City has the authority to institute new transit programs. Financial Capacity/ The capacity for generating revenue through selling naming rights is probably Stability: relatively low for Woodburn. In addition the revenue from naming rights would be one -time revenue, rather than producing an on -going stream of revenue. Administrative Ease: The program would require staff time for coordination. There could also be staff or City Council involvement if the selling of naming rights was controversial. Costs to Residents would have no significant cost from the selling of naming rights. Residents /Equity Political Acceptability High Evaluation: Selling naming rights may provide a small amount of revenue for the City of Woodburn but is unlikely to produce a substantial amount of revenue over the long- term. Public- Private Partnerships and Joint Development Description: Public- Private partnerships are becoming increasingly popular as a way to increase revenues for public transit. A public - private partnership is a mutually beneficial agreement between both entities that seeks to increase revenues or improve the value of an asset. Public- private partnerships include: private entities that rent space for concessions, shared right -of -way with organizations such as a utility, shared fueling facilities for alternative fuel vehicles, and other opportunities. Transit funding from public - private partnerships are most likely to be for capital projects such as a mixed use development that combined a transit station or center. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the power to decide to enter into public - private partnerships. Establishing a partnership may require action on the part of the City Council. Financial Capacity/ Public- private partnerships can be profitable for transit agencies, however, there is Stability: a risk that the project will fail which would be costly. The degree of stability depends on the degree of risk the project takes on. Administrative Ease: Administrative costs can be high. Creating and maintaining a successful public - private partnership requires careful research and may require outside expertise. A long -term commitment from the private entity is necessary for successful outcomes. A high -level of communication is needed to ensure that both parties' needs are being met. Costs to A public - private partnership can be achieved with low costs and, theoretically, will Residents /Equity save money because the private firm is more cost - effective and efficient. Political Acceptability The political acceptability depends on the degree of risk the public can tolerate in a project. If the probability of success is high than the political acceptability could potentially be quite high. Evaluation: Public- private partnerships and joint development efforts may present opportunities for revenue generation or saving on the costs of some types of development. The City of Woodburn should evaluate public - private partnership opportunities as they arise. Federal and State Grants U.S. Government section 5309 Transit capital investment: Bus and Bus Facilities Description: This program (5309) provides money at the state and local level for capital assistance. The funds can be used to: Purchase new and replacement buses, bus related equipment, and facilities; Modernize existing rail systems; and Create new fixed guideway systems. Applicable to both urbanized and rural areas, 5309 is a discretionary program designed to supplement funding for approved projects. More specific eligible activities are: ... the purchasing of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park- and -ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment. To be funded, projects must first be included in a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Then applicants can submit their application over the TEAM system. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the authority to apply for federal grants. Financial Capacity/ The grant is available for capital investments, which typically occur during one fiscal Stability: year. Unless the City makes grant requests several years in a row, the grant will be potentially available on a year -by -year basis. Grants will be made for 80% of an approved projects cost, unless a lower amount is requested. "The remainder of net project costs shall be provided from an undistributed cash surplus, replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, or new capital... 1157 Between 20 and 22 percent of funding from this program will go toward buses and bus facilities. Administrative Ease: Grants require administration. Grants require staff time to write and submit applications and to provide audit and compliance reports upon receipt of grant funds. Costs to Receiving the grant decreases the cost of capital investments for residents of Residents /Equity Woodburn. Political Acceptability High Evaluation: The 5309 grant provides opportunities for funding capital expenses. ss United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants financing_3557. html Capital Investment Program Guidance and Application Instructions, Appendix A, p. 8 5 ttp: / /www.fta.dot. gov /documents /Final_ C_ 9300_1_Bpub. pdf Title 49 --Transportation, Title 111--General and Intermodal Programs, Chapter 53 --Public Transportation, p.190 http: / /frwebgate. access. gpo. gov /cgi- bin /getdoc .cgi ?dbname= browse_usc &docid= Cite: +49USC5309 U.S. Government Section 5311: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program Description: Section 5311 grants are made to states, who allocate funding to qualifying communities with population less than 50,000. Communities may use the funding for capital, operating, and administrative expenses for public transportation projects that meet the needs of rural communities. The goal of the program is to provide the following services to communities: • Enhance the access of people in nonurbanized areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services, and recreation. • Assist in the maintenance, development, improvement, and use of public transportation systems in nonurbanized areas. • Encourage and facilitate the most efficient use of all transportation funds used to provide passenger transportation in nonurbanized areas through the coordination of programs and services. The state must use 15 percent of its annual apportionment to support intercity bus service. In Oregon, this program (5311(f)), promotes intercity passenger services, connecting rural communities through incentive funding, information and equipment to make vehicles accessible. Emphasis is placed on connecting communities of 2,500 or more with the next larger market economy and connecting bus, rail and air. Biennial discretionary grants are offered to assist public and private providers to fill gaps in rural intercity connections. Grant funds for the Intercity Program (5311 (f)) are available every two years. Applications for the next grant cycle will be available at the end of the 2010 calendar year, with grants made in Spring 2011 and money available after July 2011. The next grant cycle will have aobut $1.8 million available for intercity programs in Oregon. A large share of this funding is likely to be allocated to existing programs. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the authority to apply for federal and state grants. Financial Capacity/ In Fiscal Year 2010, Oregon received $7.0 million in 5311 funds, with an allocation Stability: for Woodburn of $133,000. In Fiscal Year 2011, Oregon received $6.8 million in 5311 funds, with an allocation for Woodburn of $120,000. Administrative Ease: Grants require administration. Grants require staff time to write and submit applications and to provide audit and compliance reports upon receipt of grant funds. Costs to Receiving the grant decreases the cost of capital investments, operating, and Residents /Equity administrative costs for residents of Woodburn. Political Acceptability High Evaluation: The 5311 grant provides opportunities for funding capital expenses, with some allocation for intercity busy providers. U.S. Government Section 5316: Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Description: The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (5316) was established to address the challenges of transporting low- income workers to and from their employment. Often low - income workers must travel large distances to their jobs, sometimes at hours where normal public transit is not available. This grant makes federal money available to fund solutions and processes for transporting low- income workers to and from employment related locations. In relation to Woodburn, funds dedicated to areas with a population of less than 50,000 people are given straight to the State with the amount decided by a formula based on the amount of qualifying low- income individuals. Of the total 5316 annual budget, 20% is distributed in this manner. Grant money can cover up to 80% of project costs, up to 10% of grant money can be used to support administrative costs and can cover up to 100% of total administrative costs. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the authority to apply for federal grants. Financial Capacity/ In 2009, Oregon received $503,509 to distribute to communities with less than 50,000 Stability: people. In 2008, $428,977 and 2007, $395,978. In fact, money for this program has increased over the past 10 years. It is reasonable to expect that funding for this program will at least remain stable over the coming years. Administrative Ease: Grants require administration. Grants require staff time to write and submit applications and to provide audit and compliance reports upon receipt of grant funds. Costs to Receiving the grant decreases the cost of providing service to low- income workers in Residents /Equity Woodburn. Political Acceptability High Evaluation: The 5316 grant provides opportunities for funding transportation services specifically for low- income workers. 58 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration. http: / /www.fta.dot. gov/ funding /grants /grants_financing_7176. html U.S. Government Section 5317: New Freedom Program Description: The New Freedom Program (5317) helps local governments remove transportation barriers for the disabled. It provides funding to both state and local government for capital and operating expenses related to new public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Of all the money allocated to 5317, 20% is available to urban areas with under 50,000 people. Grant money can cover up to 80% of project costs, up to 10% of grant money can be used to support administrative costs and can cover up to 100% of total administrative costs. The grant requires a minimum 20% local funding match. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the authority to apply for federal grants. Financial Capacity/ Oregon was apportioned $335,189 in FY 2009 for small urban areas. This number has been Stability: steadily increasing over the past 4 years. Administrative Ease: Grants require administration. Grants require staff time to write and submit applications and to provide audit and compliance reports upon receipt of grant funds. Costs to Receiving the grant decreases the cost of capital investments to accommodate people with Residents /Equity disabilities. Political Acceptability High Evaluation: The 5317 grant provides opportunities for funding transportation capital investments for disabled individuals. 59 United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants financing_3549. html United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration" http: / /www.fta.dot. gov/ funding /grants /grants_financing_7187. html Oregon State Grant: Special Transportation Fund Description: The State's Special Transportation Fund (STF) Program provides financial support to designated counties, transit districts and Indian tribal governments for special transportation services benefiting seniors and people with disabilities. The majority of the STF money (75 %) is allocated on a population -based formula. The remaining funds are distributed by the Public Transportation Discretionary Grant Program. STF funds can be used for transit operations, administration, and capital expenses. The City of Woodburn received about $18,700 from the STF Program in fiscal year 2010. The City of Woodburn should apply for STF funds to fund services for seniors and people with disabilities. The STF Discretionary Grant funds are distributed through a competitive grant program to projects of statewide importance, as defined by the Oregon Transportation Commission. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the authority to apply for state grants. Financial Capacity/ The STF Program is funded by a $.02- per -pack cigarette tax. Stability depends on Stability: whether the public continues to buy cigarettes. Administrative Ease: Grants require administration. Grants require staff time to write and submit applications and to provide audit and compliance reports upon receipt of grant funds Costs to Receiving the grant decreases the cost of providing services to seniors and the Residents /Equity disabled. Political High Acceptability Evaluation: The STF grant provides opportunities for funding transportation services for seniors and the disabled. Oregon State Program: Business Energy Tax Credit Description: The Oregon Department of Energy offers the Business Energy Tax Credit to those who invest in energy conservation. Public agencies can participate in the program through public - private partnerships, where the tax credit is passed from the public agency to the private business based on a rate set by the Oregon Department of Energy. The amount of the tax credit and the costs that are eligible depend on the details of the project itself. The Business Energy Tax Credit provides opportunities for funding transit based on the reduction in vehicle miles traveled. When combined with other programs that increase ridership, such as employer provided transit passes, the value of the tax credit to Woodburn could be increased. Other transit agencies in Oregon get funding from the Business Energy Tax Credit program, such as the City of Sandy Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the authority to apply for state grants. Financial Capacity/ Up to 7% of an eligible project each year for 5 years. Financial stability depends on Stability: if the State maintains this program. Administrative Ease: The program would require staff time to write and submit an application and to provide audit and compliance reports upon receipt of program funds It would require the city to partner with a private entity so that the City can use the "Pass - through Option" i.e. pass along the tax credit in exchange for a lump -sum cash payment. Costs to There would be no significant cost to residents. Residents /Equity Political Acceptability High Evaluation: The Business Energy Tax Credit provides opportunities for funding transit based on the reduction in vehicle miles traveled. When combined with other programs that increase ridership, such as employer provided transit passes, the value of the tax credit to Woodburn could be increased. ConnectOregon III Description: ConnectOregon is a program that uses lottery- backed bonds to support multimodal transportation other than highway. The latest version, ConnectOregon III, approved by the Legislature for $95 million statewide. No less than 10 percent of ConnectOregon III funds must be distributed to each of the five regions of the state, provided that there are qualified projects in the region. ConnectOregon III will continue to improve the connections between the highway system and other modes of transportation. Legal Authority: The City of Woodburn has the authority to apply for state grants. Financial Capacity/ The funds for ConnectOregon I II have been allocated. If the Legislature authorizes Stability: another round of ConnectOregon funding, Woodburn Transit may be eligible for funding, depending on the eligibility requirements of the next round of funding. About 8% of the funding for ConnectOregon III was allocated to transit projects, most of which was allocated to larger urban transit districts for capital projects. Administrative Ease: Grants require administration. Grants require staff time to write and submit applications and to provide audit and compliance reports upon receipt of grant funds Costs to Receiving the grant decreases the cost of providing services to seniors and the Residents /Equity disabled. Political High Acceptability Evaluation: Funds from ConnectOregon 111 have been allocated and it is not clear whether another round of funding will be available for ConnectOregon II I and most funds were allocated to larger urban transit districts. Taxes and Fees Payroll Tax Description: A payroll tax is a progressive tax imposed directly on the employer, with workers with higher earnings paying more. The tax is based payroll for services performed within the transit district, including traveling sales representatives and employees working from home. Payroll Tax revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. This tax applies to covered employees and self - employed workers. Examples of the use of payroll tax to fund transit in Oregon include: • Trimet's payroll tax rate is 0.68 % • Wilsonville's SMART transit's payroll tax rate is 0.5% • Canby Area Transit's payroll tax rate is 0.6% • Sandy Transit's payroll tax rate is 0.6% • Lane Transit District's payroll tax rate is 0.66% A 0.5% payroll tax on payroll in VVoodburn would result in $1.5 million in revenue. Legal Authority: A payroll tax would require council approval. Given the nature of the funding source, it is likely council would put the measure out for a local vote. Financial Capacity/ Revenue from payroll tax will vary with employment and earnings. The revenue will be Stability: greater in economic expansionary times, when employment and earnings increase, and lesser in recessionary times when employment and earnings increase or become flat. Administrative Ease: The administrative costs of a payroll tax will vary, depending on whether they are collected as part of an established income tax. Costs to The payroll tax applies to all employers and self - employed workers in the transit district. The Residents /Equity cost of the tax would depend on the tax rate set by the City. Political Acceptability Low. Taxes are a difficult sell, particularly in difficult economic climates. Evaluation: A payroll tax is a commonly used tax to fund transit districts in Oregon. — http: / /www.oregon.gov /DOR /BUS /IC- 211- 503.shtml 62 According to the Oregon Employment Department, payroll for covered employment located in Woodburn was $301 million in 2008. Gasoline Tax Description: Gasoline taxes are sometimes used to fund transit, especially by regional transit agencies. Gas taxes are an attractive funding mechanism because motorists already pay federal, state, and local taxes on motor fuel so the levy would not impose a new type of tax. Using a gas tax to fund transit has merit because gas taxes reduce the externalities associated with automobile travel (e.g., congestion, pollution) and induce drivers to use vehicles that are more fuel- efficient. Gasoline Tax revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. Imposing a gas tax in the City of Woodburn, rather than a regional gas tax, may have unintended consequences. Some people would drive to gas stations located outside of Woodburn to purchase gas, increasing car use and decreasing the sales of gasoline for gas stations in Woodburn. However, other jurisdictions in the Portland Metropolitan Area have a gasoline tax, including: Multnomah County, Washington County, Tigard, Milwaukie, and Canby. Local gas taxes typically range from $.01 to $.03. Woodburn could expect to generate about $120,000 annually per penny of gas tax, not including diesel sales. Revenues from a local gas tax would be relatively stable. Legal Authority: A gasoline tax would require council approval. Given the nature of the funding source, it is likely council would put the measure out for a local vote. Financial Capacity/ The long -term feasibility of gas taxes as a stable funding source may decrease, as more Stability: fuel efficient and alternative energy cars become available. Woodburn's existing gasoline tax rate is $0.01 per gallon. Between July 2009 and June 2010, the City had about $120,000 in revenue from the gas tax. The City could reasonably expect to have $120,000 (in 2010 dollars) in revenue for a one - cent increase in the gasoline tax. Administrative Ease: Since the City has an existing gasoline tax ($0.01 per gallon), administration of the tax would add very little cost. Costs to A gasoline tax would have a cost to all people who purchase gasoline in Woodburn. A Residents /Equity gasoline tax will negatively impact low- income residents more because of the regressive nature of the tax. Political Acceptability Low to medium. Taxes are a difficult sell, particularly in difficult economic climates. Evaluation: Implementing a gasoline tax would provide opportunities to fund transit. Relatively few transit agencies, however, receive a substantial amount of funding through gasoline tax. System Development Charges Description: Systems Development Charges (SDCs) are fees paid by land developers intended to reflect the increased capital costs incurred by a municipality or utility as a result of a development. Development charges are calculated to include the costs of impacts on adjacent areas or services, such as increased school enrollment, parks and recreation use, or transit use. One limitation of a transit SDC is that SDCs can only be used for capital improvements (ORS 223.297). The SDC could be applied to residential, commercial, or industrial development. Charging SDCs for transit projects is not common practice but is legally permitted. Transportation SDCs are generally calculated based on the number of trips that will be generated by a specific use. Transit SDCs might best be used to fund large, costly projects, such as a transit center, rather than lower cost improvements (e.g., shelters). Woodburn could generate about $20,000 annually for every $100 of SDC and if an average of 200 residences were built per year. Woodburn does not have an SDC for transit impacts but it does have other SDCs. Legal Authority: The City has the legal authority to charge SDCs. Financial Capacity/ Funding from SDCs varies with the economy and development cycles. When the economy Stability: in a recessionary period, development is generally less common than in an economic expansionary period. Administrative Ease: A transit SDC could be administered with the City's other SDCs. Costs to The costs of a transit SDC would be born by people purchasing new houses or by Residents /Equity businesses building new commercial or industrial space. Political Acceptability Low to Medium. Evaluation: An SDC provides some opportunities for funding capital transit projects but will not fund operational expenses. 63 The average number of residences built per year (200) is based on Marion County's adopted population forecast for Woodburn documented in the report "Population Forecasts for Marion County, its Cities and Unincorporated Area 2010 - 2030." The estimate of number of new residences is also based on the Amercian Community's estimate of an average household size of 3.0 in Woodburn in 2006 through 2008. Transit Access Fee Description: A transit access fee is paid by households and businesses and is designed to support the transit agency over time. A transit access fee could be assessed for all households within the transit district. Transit access fees are typically a monthly charge of between $1 to $ 5 per household. These revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. A transit access fee provides long -term stable opportunities for funding operations, administration, and capital expenses. A transit access fee could generate $88,800 of revenue for every $1 of monthly transit access fee, Legal Authority: The City has the legal authority to levy fees. Financial Capacity/ Funding from a transit access fee would be relatively stable over time because it is applied Stability: to the entire district and for a reoccuring monthly amount. Administrative Ease: A transit access fee could be administered with the City's other fees, such as wastewater, city water, or stormwater fees. Costs to The costs of a transit access fee would be born by all households and businesses within the Residents /Equity transit district. Political Acceptability Low. Fees are difficult to sell, particularly in difficult economic climates. Evaluation: An transit access fee provides long -term stable opportunities for funding operations, administration, and capital expenses. 64 This estimate is based on the American Community Survey's estimate of nearly 7,400 households in Woodburn in 2006 -2008. Property Access Fee, Land Value Capture, or Benefit Assessment Districts Description: Property access fee, land value capture, and benefit assessment districts are approaches to sharing transit costs with owners of property located near a transit resource (e.g., a transit station) who benefit directly from the proximity to the transit resource. They provides a way to use public taxing authority to help finance transit through taxes on nearby private development, where the property value increased as a result of transit investments. These revenues can be used for operations, administration, and capital expenses. The approaches are : The property access fee could be applied to commercial properties within a certain radius of a transit station. The land value capture is applied by taxing the increment of property value over the pre- existing property value, to capture the benefit that accrues to private landowners by virtue of the public investment. A Benefit Assessment District functions similarly to land value capture, with a tax assessed on a district These types of fees are typically associated with larger transit systems, especially rail systems. One potential down -side to either approach is that it may result in a disincentive to develop property in an area subject to the fee or tax. Legal Authority: ECONorthwest cannot evaluate the legal authority required to levy this type of fee. Financial Capacity/ The financial stability depends on how the property access fee is implemented. Stability: Revenue growth would occur as taxable space increased. Long -run revenue growth would be limited if the fee rate was applied per square foot of commercial space and remained stable over time. Administrative Ease: Administrative costs would be high when developing and implementing the collection requirements. Collection and enforcement costs may also be high. It might be possible to connect collection of the fee or tax with property tax collection. Costs to The burden of the fee might be split among property owners, renters, employees, Residents /Equity and consumers, depending on the ability of property owners to shift the tax burden to others through price and wage changes. Political Acceptability Low. Evaluation: These fees could fund transit operations and capital costs but are unlikely to provide a substantial share of the transit districts' revenue. Assessing these fees may reduce development along transit corridors or near transit stations, which would run counter to the objective of increasing urban uses near transit facilities. Tax Increment Financing Description: Tax increment financing (TIF) is the primary finance tool used within urban renewal areas. TIF is generated when an urban renewal area (URA) is designated and the assessed value of all property in the area is 'frozen.' Over time, the total assessed value in the area increases above the 'frozen base' from appreciation and new development. The value in the area greater than the frozen base is called the incremental assessed value, and taxes generated on the incremental assessed value are received by the URA, rather than other taxing districts. TIF could only be used on capital transit projects that directly benefit the URA. Projects that benefit the broader area can only receive TIF funding proportional to the benefits the URA receives. Legal Authority: The City has authority to establish an Urban Renewal Area to generate Tax Increment Financing. Financial Capacity/ The revenues generated by the program would increase over time as property values Stability: increase, and new development occurs in the Area. To receive TIF funding, all projects must be approved in the Urban Renewal Plan, and the total project costs cannot exceed the Maximum Indebtedness listed in the Plan and limited by State statute. Administrative Ease: The City would need to create an Urban Renewal Agency to administer the program. Costs to The purpose of urban renewal is to generate new development and new tax revenues that Residents /Equity would not exist, but for investment of TIF from urban renewal. However, TIF generated by appreciation of existing property is revenue that would otherwise have been received by other taxing districts (e.g., the City, County, School District), and instead is allocated to the Urban Renewal Area. Political Acceptability High. Over 50 cities and counties in Oregon use urban renewal and TIF, including the City of Woodburn. Evaluation: TIF could provide funding for capital transit projects within the URA, which may enhance the other investments made in the URA.