1

Bus Network Redesign UpdatePlanning & Capital Programs CommitteeJuly 7, 2020

Rob Smith, AVP Service Planning & Scheduling

2

• Timeline updates for completion of project• Public involvement/online survey results

Today’s Briefing

Project Schedule

4

• We have been reviewing alternative schedules for completing the work more quickly

• We believe there are three schedule changes that can help move the implementation date for major changes back to January 2022 (instead of May)

Accelerated Schedule for Bus Network Redesign

5

1. With the limited public engagement opportunities afforded by the pandemic, we would close the current public involvement phase of the bus network redesign

• We do not believe there will be an opportunity for face-to-face discussions in the near future, and we believe this is critical for reaching rider groups we are not reaching through electronic means

• We will continue to engage various groups throughout the bus network redesign process

Three Key Changes to Speed the Process

6

Three Key Changes to Speed the Process2. We would immediately move to consider policy decisions on the

appropriate ridership/coverage balance• Following a Board policy decision on the ridership/coverage balance,

the team would immediately transition to development of two draft bus network plan scenarios

• The first would be a plan implementable with funding available as of January 2022, and would form the core of January 2022 service change proposals

• The second would build on the first with additional elements that would be implemented beyond 2022 should funding become available

7

3. Development of January 2022 service change proposals and the bus network design would be completed during 2021 in tandem

• The Draft Plan and proposed January 2022 changes would be ready for a Call for Public Hearing in March 2021

• Extended public involvement would follow for both – hopefully with more options for useful input

• Both the Final Bus Network Plan and January 2022 service changes would be brought back for Board adoption/approval in August 2021

Three Key Changes to Speed the Process

8

Timing Bus Network Redesign Timetable New Bus Network Redesign Timetable Old

20Q1Oct-Dec 2019

Project KickoffWork on Draft Choices Report

Project KickoffWork on Draft Choices Report

20Q2Jan-Mar 2020

Network Concept DesignPublic Involvement, Round 1

Network Concept DesignPublic Involvement, Round 1

20Q3Apr-Jun 2020

Public Involvement, Round 1 Public Involvement, Round 1

20Q4Jul-Sep 2020

Sep: Ridership/Coverage Balance * Public Involvement, Round 1

21Q1Oct-Dec 2020

Develop Draft Bus Network Plan Ridership/Coverage Balance *Final Draft Plan *

21Q2Jan-Mar 2021

Mar: Complete Draft Bus Network Plan *Mar: Initiate Service Change * Public Involvement, Round 2

21Q3Apr-Jun 2021

Combined Public Involvement Public Involvement, Round 2

21Q4Jul-Sep 2021

Aug: Approve Service Changes *Aug: Approve Bus Network Plan *

Approve Bus Network Plan *Initiate Service Change Process *

22Q1Oct-Dec 2021

Prepare for Implementation Public Involvement, Service Changes

22Q2Jan-Mar 2022

Implementation January 2022 Approve Service Changes *

22Q3Apr-Jun 2022

Implementation May 2022

* Board decision points; Board briefings and discussions normally monthly

Alternative Bus Network Redesign Timelines

Public Involvement/ Online Survey

10

• The first phase of the public involvement effort was designed to solicit feedback on the two concept bus networks:– A ridership network concept that allocates 85% of resources

to ridership routes and 15% to coverage routes– A coverage network concept that allocates 60% of resources

to ridership routes and 40% to coverage routes• Because of pandemic-imposed limitations – especially no in-

person meetings – we were not able to obtain as broad a perspective from our customer base as we originally anticipated

Public Involvement

11

• Our original plan for the early round of public involvement included these key elements:1. Regional Transit Summits bringing together stakeholders from

throughout the DART Service Area2. Media3. Webinar4. Pop-up events5. Transit Center Surveys6. Web survey

• Because of the pandemic, face-to-face meetings were cancelled, including the Regional Transit Summit

Public Involvement, Round 1

12

• We redirected initial work on development of a diverse, representative group of stakeholders for the Transit Summit, focusing that effort on recruitment of participants for electronic events

• This included individual phone calls to leaders of community organizations, and later to individuals to help take surveys in Spanish

• Information was distributed to community media outlets, organizations, and promotional videos

• Press releases also promoted outreach efforts

Revised Public Involvement

13

• A recruitment list was developed with over 300 verified contacts

• It includes stakeholders representing neighborhood associations, client service foundations, chambers of commerce, governmental staff members, social service agencies, advocacy groups, and many others

• The bulk of the first phase work has been completed, though we expect to continue to conduct online discussions with DART Cities and various interest groups

Revised Public Involvement

14

• Special City events include one already conducted in Richardson

• Garland has put together a group to provide input to the process, and the first meeting is planned for July

• We will also seek to get input as we conduct public involvement activities for October service changes

• Based upon participation so far, we are exploring other means to expand engagement with the African-American community, and will pursue continuing meetings and other contacts

Continuing Events

15

• With the inability to meet in person, scheduled events included:1. Webinars2. Telephone Town Halls3. Facebook Live event4. Web Survey5. City Council presentations by DART staff6. Special events for DART Cities as requested (ongoing)

Revised Public Involvement

16

Webinars and Telephone Town Halls• Combination of

webinars (audio/visual) and telephone town halls (audio only)

• 2 Spanish-language sessions

• We also conducted a well-attended Facebook Live event

Date Forum Attendees

Thu 23 Apr Noon Webinar 96

Fri 24 Apr Noon Telephone Town Hall 16

Sat 25 Apr 10am Telephone Town Hall 11

Sat 25 Apr 7pm Webinar in Spanish 2

Mon 27 Apr Noon Telephone Town Hall in Spanish 1

Mon 27 Apr 8pm Webinar 25

Wed 29 Apr Noon Webinar 50

Overall Over 200

17

Webinar Questions/Comments(Edited for Clarity)

• Shorter routes to essential locations

• Going short distances on the system takes too long

• Better, more frequent service to Downtown

• Questions about expanding GoLink: Vickery Meadow, Carrollton (unserved areas in particular)

• Mountain Creek needs service now

• How much travel time would customers save under the ridership concept?

• Will DART look at having late night service on buses or rail, even on weekends?

• Can DART increase service to popular entertainment and tourist areas?

• More shelters and benches are needed throughout the system

• More real time displays for bus information

• Are we addressing bus stop spacing?

ROUTE ISSUES BUS STOPS & FACILITIES

• Service needs to be more reliable

• There needs to be a better mechanism for customers to report problems with service

• Our tech information – signs, apps, etc. – are out of sync

• Headsign information is often wrong

SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES

18

Webinar Questions/Comments(Edited for Clarity)

• Will DART consider a hybrid approach with express buses on major streets?

• How is DART addressing the spatial mismatch between where people live and where they work?

• What are the differences between fixed-route, GoLink, and other DART services? Is the study addressing all of them?

• Driverless car options and impacts on service

• Collin County homeless issues

• Can we reduce fares?

• How are we integrating traffic signal priority, dedicated rights of way, and other methods to speed up buses?

• Why isn’t there public transportation in Mesquite? What about Lancaster, Duncanville, Cedar Hill, or DeSoto?

• What are the impacts of service changes on congestion?

• How is DART dealing with competition from Uber and Lyft?

• Is DART considering bus rapid transit in this study?

• What areas are seeing ridership declines?

• What areas have high Senior populations?

• Can DART address crime in areas that causes people to be uncomfortable riding the bus?

• How does public transit work in a state that focuses on development of infrastructure to incentivize car usage?

GENERAL SERVICE ISSUES

19

Online Web Survey• As part of the engagement, we

conducted an online web survey at DARTzoom.org to obtain input on preferences and priorities

• We will keep the survey open during project activities, but results that will be reported to the Board will cover responses entered through June 14th

• We are still receiving information from the consultant team, but have some initial thoughts to share here

20

• 585 recorded responses• 78 surveys were completed in Spanish (13%)

Participation

21

Age

• The age group with the largest representation is 45 to 64 years, with 36%

• This distribution skews a little older than the NCTCOG’s 2014 on-board survey results, but otherwise is similar

22

Ethnicity

• Half of survey respondents identified as White, while only 15% identified as African American/Black

• White and Hispanic respondents were over-represented relative to their rider shares, while African-American respondents were under-represented

• The relatively strong response among Hispanics indicates that providing Spanish language options and specific telephone outreach to Hispanic and Latino individuals had a positive impact on the response rate

23

Household Income

• Almost a quarter of respondents who provided income data have a combined household income of $100,000 or more

• Higher income respondents were over-represented relative to their share of DART ridership

24

Zip Code Area Respondents

75234 Farmers Branch 28

75228 Ferguson Road 20

75204 Uptown/Cityplace/East Dallas 18

75212 West Dallas 16

75227 Far East Dallas/Pleasant Grove 14

75206 M Streets/Village 14

75219 Oak Lawn 13

75075 South Central Plano 13

Residence LocationsMost Common Zip Codes

25

Residence Locations

Participation

Highest

Higher

Medium

Lower

Lowest

26

Transit Use

• Light rail and bus see much more use among respondents than all other forms of transit

• 10% of survey respondents use paratransit services at least once a month

27

Network Concept Preference

• The overall distribution of preferences between the two Concepts is fairly divided:

• 40% have some preference for High Coverage

• 43% have some preference for High Ridership

• 17% are halfway between the two

28

Network Concept Preference:Age

• Those under the age of 45 generally prefer the High Ridership Concept, while those 45 and older tend to prefer the High Coverage Concept

29

Network Concept Preference:Ethnicity

• A majority of Hispanic respondents “strongly prefer” the High Coverage Concept

• African-Americans also have an overall preference for the High Coverage Concept

• The majority of White respondents prefer the High Ridership Concept

30

Network Concept Preference:Household Income

• Respondents from households that make less than $50,000 per year generally prefer the High Coverage Concept, while those that make $50,000 or more per year generally prefer the High Ridership Concept

31

Walk/Wait Preference

• Half of respondents prefer a longer walk to a bus stop with a shorter wait for the bus

• A majority of respondents across almost all age, income, and ethnic categories generally prefer waiting less

• For those 65 and older, the preference is fairly evenly split, although there is a slight preference for a longer walk with a shorter wait

• For respondents who make less than $50,000, more still prefer a longer walk with a shorter wait, but by smaller margins

32

Budget Priorities

• The definite number one priority is higher frequency service with shorter waits between buses, with the lowest priorities being more service at night and midday

• Those who typically use transit at any frequency prefer more service on weekends compared to those who have not ridden in the past month

33

• Support for the ridership concept– Many comments about more frequent service, broader

service hours, and more service to locations with more density

• Requests for more coverage– Generally to specific locations

• Requests for shorter travel times– Comments on how much longer transit takes vs. driving,

bus travel speeds

Open-Ended Survey CommentsGeneral Themes

34

• Concerns about safety and comfort– Safety at bus and rail stations, more cleaning– Shelters, better lighting, benches, restrooms

• Concerns for vulnerable populations– Equity and service for vulnerable populations– Fares are too high or should be free

Open-Ended Survey CommentsGeneral Themes

35

• A large share of participants in the public involvement process supported higher-frequency service when prioritizing how to spend dollars on service

• However this did not always translate to support for the high ridership network concept

• Some rider groups preferred the high coverage concept despite wanting to see more frequent service

• As we look ahead to the next step of Board policy decisions on the appropriate ridership/coverage balance, perhaps the greatest challenge is balancing the desire for frequency while maintaining service coverage

• There may not be resources to fully support both high frequency and high coverage in the near term

Looking Ahead

36

• At the next Planning Committee meeting in August, we suggest transitioning to start discussion on the appropriate balance of ridership and coverage that will frame development of the draft bus network plan

• The options to be considered include three options:– 85% ridership/15% coverage concept with no GoLink– 60% ridership/40% coverage concept with expanded GoLink– Option between 85% and 60% ridership, 15% and 40% coverage

Looking Ahead