system reimagining august board meeting (plan revisions)
TRANSCRIPT
SYSTEM REIMAGININGDiscussion on Proposed Changes to
the Draft System Reimagining Plan
August 2014Special Board Meeting
Today’s Discussion
Review of project outreach and feedback Review of process to refine Draft System
Reimagining Plan• Public Input• Operational Assessment
Discuss recommended plan revisions based on community feedback and identified operational issues for development of Final Plan
2
Meetings, Events, and BriefingsCommunity Outreach 18 Public Community
Meetings
13 Transit Center events connecting with riders
65+ Community, Neighborhood and Organization Briefings
Website Interactive Map3
Project Website
23,000+ Interactive Network Map Views
4,700+ Reimagining Presentation Views
1,100+ Feedback Comments
4
System Reimagining Project TimelineAnalysis of Existing Conditions
Defining Goals
Developing Draft Plan
Public Outreach on the Plan
Implement Plan
We Are HereJuly – August 2014
CompletedSummer 2014
Completed Spring 2014
CompletedFall 2013
Completed Summer 2013
June 2015
Planned Board Presentation September 2014 – Final Plan
presented for Board Approval
Refine andFinalize Plan
5
Summary of Feedback Survey & Meeting Responses from May 5 – August 4
Total number of responses: 1,109
Comments received from 120 zip codes
Three hotspots of strongly negative feedback related to specific proposals for new service:
• Weslayan/West University Place (21%)
• Jones Road/Jersey Village (3%)
• Louetta Road/Vintage Lakes (3%)Weslayan
21% Jones/Jersey Village
3%
Louetta / Vintage Lakes
3%Other73%
Survey Responses: 3 Major Segment Issues(percent of 1,109 comments)
6
Summary of Feedback
35%33%
36%
28%
36%
12%16%
12% 11% 11%
53% 51% 52%
61%
53%
Better for Me Better for my friends andfamily
Better for myneighborhood
Better for the Houstonregion
Likely to help me ridetransit for more trips
Survey Responses - Excluding 3 Segment Issues (~810)Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree or Strongly Agree
Excluding Weslayan, Jones Road/Jersey Village, and Louetta/Vintage Lakes Comments
8
Summary of Feedback
89% 88% 90%
73%
89%
3% 5% 2%
14%
4%7% 7% 7%13%
7%
Better for Me Better for my friends andfamily
Better for myneighborhood
Better for the Houstonregion
Likely to help me ridetransit for more trips
Survey Responses - 3 Segment Issues Only (~305)Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree or Strongly Agree
Weslayan, Jones Road/Jersey Village, and Louetta/Vintage Lakes) Comments Only
9
51% 48%51%
40%
51%
9%13%
9%12%
9%
40% 38% 40%
48%
40%
Better for Me Better for my friends andfamily
Better for myneighborhood
Better for the Houstonregion
Likely to help me ridetransit for more trips
All Responses (1109)Disagree or Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree or Strongly Agree
Summary of Feedback - Overall
10
Feedback & Refinement Process Summarize: Feedback grouped into general comments
and specific, actionable feedback on the plan • General Positive (“I like this plan!”, etc.)
• General Negative (“I don’t like this plan!” etc.)
• Specific Suggestion about routing, frequencies, and spans (“Consider moving/changing this route like this,” “Don’t change this route/don’t run service on this street,” etc.)
• Neutral/not network design issue (“METRO needs to get new buses,” “Build more rail”)
• Implementation Detail - Implementation items (e.g. stop locations) to be cataloged and resolved in implementation phase
11
Does the proposed change improve or worsen the plan’s ability to meet the goal of maximum ridership?
• Links major centers of activity• High density along route• Maximize high-frequency service (every 15 minutes or better all day)• Route is simple and straight• Parallel frequent routes are well spaced (1/2 mile or more apart)
Does the proposed change improve or worsen the level of basic access to the transit system (coverage goal) including to areas of social-service concern?
• Does the change provide coverage to more people and/or jobs?• Does the change address walking distances for mobility-impaired
persons (seniors and physically disabled)?• Does the change provide better access to a destination of interest to
disadvantaged persons, such as social services, clinics, etc.?
Assessment Process for Specific FeedbackRidership Service
Coverage Service
12
Propose Recommended Revision to the Draft Plan Comments were put into one of three groups:
• Consider: The comment or suggestion may improve the plan
• Defer: The comment is a high-cost item that could be a priority in the future, but should not be considered within current plan budget
• No: Comment or suggestion does not improve the plan and should not be pursued
• Proposed plan recommendations have also been made to address identified operational and facility capacity issues
13
Why Reimagine? Draft Reimagining Plan The community has asked
for improvements to the local bus system
Simpler, more frequent, 7-days a week service connecting more people to more places with faster trips
Ridership has declined on the local bus system
Projected to drive local bus ridership increase of 20+% after 2 years
To create an integrated network of bus and rail service
Stronger connections between the bus and rail network allowing for more seamless operations
Establishes a strong foundation and clear tools to continue to improve the system as resources allow
Need to provide a strong foundation for future growth
The transit system has not evolved with the growing Houston region
A much better match with where and when people live, work, play and learn
Why Reimagine the Transit Network?
14
Plan DevelopmentPlan and recommended changes reflect Board direction:
80% Maximum Ridership 20% Maximum Coverage
Simple, straight routes arriving frequently focused on places where
transit can be most productive
Particular focus on maintaining service for existing riders
Projected at 80% Ridership/20% Coverage no more than 0.5% of existing boardings would occur more than ½ mile
from proposed service; Draft Plan delivered at 0.04%15
Local Service Types
Red (Frequent)
Blue(Ridership)
Green(Coverage)
Orange(Peak Only)
Base Headway(14-16 hours, 7 days)
(includes weekday peaks)
10 to15 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes no service
Peak Headway(2-3 hours in weekday AM
and PM peak travel periods)
7 to 15 minutes
12, 15 or 20 minutes 30 minutes 15 minutes
Late EveningHeadway
(Last 3-4 hours of service)
20 or 30 minutes 30 minutes no service no service
Overall DailySpan of Service
18 to 20hours
18 to 20hours
14hours
WeekdayAM & PM
peaks
14 hours represents reduction in span on some coverage routes
16
Discussion Areas for Potential Changes to the Draft Plan
Northwest Transit Center Katy Freeway/Memorial
Corridor Hiram Clarke/Southwest Far Northwest Weslayan/Buffalo
Speedway Far Northeast Span on Coverage Routes Other individual route
revisions
Where possible related changes have been grouped together For each group we will present
• Public feedback and operational issues leading to consideration of change
• Draft Plan Map• Map showing recommended
changes• Impacts of the change
For several areas we have also provided additional alternatives for discussion
17
Northwest Transit Center Northwest TC Operational Issues:
• 12 existing bus bays at Northwest TC• Draft Plan included 17 local routes plus Park & Rides• Expansion of Northwest Transit Center will be a multi-
year project; interim solution necessary for June 2015
Other Operational Issues• Northbound IH 610 frontage road will not be completed
by June 2015• Anticipated loads on 16 White Oak Quitman in Draft
Plan require 40 foot bus which cannot be operated through Cottage Grove neighborhood streets
18
Northwest TCRecommended Option (Part 1)
Develops Hempstead Mini Terminal (MT) at Hempstead/Post Oak
18 Long Point combined with 20 Cavalcade, as crosstown 20 Long Point Cavalcade
Route split at Kashmere TC to create 63 MLK Lockwood
46 Antoine combined with 14 Washington to create 46 Antoine Washington
47 Post Oak extended to Hempstead MT
20
Northwest TCRecommended Option (Part 2)
16 White Oak Quitman and 89 Dacomaterminated at Hempstead MT
16 White Oak Quitman rerouted via 11th, TC Jester, and IH 10 frontage roads
88 Cottage Grove added as small bus route
21
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Required to allow operations on target implementation
timeline for 2015; can be revised after NWTC improvements completed
+ Provides direct connection to Red Line LRT on 20 Long Point at Cavalcade Station
+ Improves Frequent Network connections at Kashmere TC− 16 White Oak Quitman, 89 Dacoma, and new 88 Cottage
Grove connected to Hempstead Mini Terminal instead of Northwest TC
Estimated Cost Impact: $400,000 per year (0.2% of local budget)
Northwest TCProposed Network Revisions
22
Katy Freeway/Memorial Corridor Public Feedback:
• Midday and evening service to Downtown from outer Memorial Drive should be maintained
• Draft Plan service in Katy Freeway/Memorial corridor is confusing
• Access to existing retail at Beltway 8 & Westview is important
Ridership Consideration:• Frequent link between Memorial City, Northwest TC, and
Downtown has high ridership potential
Operational Issues:• Routing in Town & Country/City Centre not feasible • Park Row extension not complete until 2016
23
Katy Freeway/Memorial CorridorRecommended Option (Part 1)
160s Memorial City Flyer composed of trips on: 161 Wilcrest Flyer (30 base/20 peak) 162 Memorial Flyer (60 base/20 peak), 160 Memorial City Flyer (60 base) All 160s stop at Northwest TC
25
Katy Freeway/Memorial CorridorRecommended Option (Part 2)
85 Memorial Villages and 87 Westviewrerouted and coordinated to provide higher frequency to retail at Beltway 8
86 Katy Freeway renamed, simplified, and rerouted to cover Sherwood Forest
33 Dairy Ashford truncated south of IH 10 until Park Row completed
26
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Adds frequent service between Memorial City, Northwest
TC, and Downtown and expansion over Draft Plan+ Adds increased frequency along Westview between
Gessner and Brittmoore serving retail destinations+ Straightens and simplifies routes with consistent, seven-
day pattern on outer Memorial
Cost Impact: saves $325,000 per year (0.2% of local budget)
Katy Freeway/Memorial CorridorRecommended Option
27
Hiram Clarke / Southwest Public Feedback:
• Connection to Post Oak/Chimney Rock is preferred by Ridgemont neighborhood
• Proposed 82 route in Draft Plan viewed as confusing
Ridership Consideration:• Opportunity to better match proposed service levels
to ridership and travel demand
28
Hiram Clarke / SouthwestRecommended Option
45 Chimney Rock long line rerouted to Ridgemont loop
Terminus of 41 Fondrenmoved to Missouri City P&R
Remaining segments create 82 Briargate and 83 West Airport, better matching ridership demand
30
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Better matches service to existing ridership patterns+ Straightens and simplifies routes reinforcing network grid+ Addresses areas with shorter span in Draft Network than
existing
Cost Impact: even
Hiram Clarke / SouthwestRecommended Option
31
Far Northwest Public Feedback:
• Strong opposition to routes running on Jones and Louetta with little support
• Acres Homes community requested maintaining number 44 on Acres Homes/Montgomery route
Budget Consideration:• Extension of routes to West Little York Park &
Ride makes less sense without connecting local route to the north
32
Far NorthwestRecommended Option
95 Jones removed from plan 94 Acres Homes Montgomery
renumbered to 44 and extended to University Park via modified route
Connection of 25 Tidwell West, 28 W Little York Irvington, and 40 Gessner moved to Tidwell & Fairbanks N Houston
34
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Increases service to University Park area (retail,
hospital, office, college) with direct connection from 44 Acres Homes Montgomery bus
+ Route numbering change meets community request− Eliminates direct connection between FM 1960 and
Gessner corridors
Cost Impact: saves $435,000 per year (0.2% of local budget)
Far NorthwestRecommended Option
35
Weslayan / Buffalo Speedway Public Feedback:
• Most residents do not consider Weslayan Street suitable for bus traffic
• Proposed 48 Weslayan route does not serve the heart of Greenway Plaza along Richmond
• 10 Kirby should extend further south down Kirby Drive to connect to more destinations
36
Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayRecommended Option
48 Weslayan becomes 48 Buffalo Speedway to TMC TC via University
10 Kirby extended down Kirby to South Main
81 Willowbend rerouted via Stella Link
38
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ 48 serves Greenway Plaza on Richmond+ Connects Northwest TC and Greenway Plaza
directly to TMC+ Extends service further south on Kirby Drive+ Better serves Rice Village area− Eliminates simple, straight route connecting West
Loop TC to Greenway Plaza area− Reduces service on Stella Link below existing levels
Estimated Cost Impact: $75,000 per year (0.04% of local budget)
Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayRecommended Option
39
Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayAlternative Option
48 Weslayan deviated to Buffalo Speedway between Bellaire and Richmond
41
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ 48 serves Greenway Plaza on Richmond+ Maintains service level on Stella Link justified by ridership− Introduces deviation between West Loop TC and
Greenway area− Does not connect Northwest TC and Greenway Plaza
directly to TMC− Does not extend service further south on Kirby Drive− Does not better serve Rice Village
Estimated Cost Impact: $110,000 per year (0.06% of local budget)
Weslayan / Buffalo SpeedwayAlternative Option
42
Far Northeast Public Feedback:
• Flex zone anchor at Mesa TC does not allow good connections to Downtown
• Mixed support and opposition to flex service concept with some desire to maintain existing service
Ridership Consideration:• Ridership at stops along Mesa Drive north of Mesa TC
justifies fixed route
Operational Issue:• No layover locations available near Little York & Eastex
Freeway
43
Far NortheastRecommended Option
78 Collingsworth and 79 Ley combined into 78 Collingworth Ley and extended north of Mesa TC
Flex Routes 377 and 378 revised to balance uncovered fixed route boardings and zone size
Fixed route segments of 377 and 378 moved to Lockwood
61 Jensen short line layover and 398 Jensen Flexconnection point moved to Jensen & Tidwell
45
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Simplifies and straightens routes− Smaller area covered by flex zones; though no reduction
in coverage of existing boardings
Operations Impact:+ Balances existing boardings within flex zones and
reduces size of zones which will improve reliability+ Moves 377 zone closer to hub at Kashmere
Estimated Cost Impact: $130,000 per year (0.1% of local budget)
Far NortheastRecommended Option
46
Far NortheastFixed Route Option 1 –Cost Neutral
Hourly fixed routes within ½ mile of all current boarding locations
76 Wayside (2 buses) 79 Hirsch (1 bus) Rerouted 15 Lyons
long line
48
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Closer to existing service that riders are used to− Does not provide coverage and walk distance benefits
of flexible service
− Leaves stops with 386 daily boardings outside 1/4 mile (no stops in the areas outside ½ mile of fixed route)
Estimated Cost Impact: even• Assumes small buses; longer routes may require 40
foot buses which would add cost
Far NortheastFixed Route Option 1 –Cost Neutral
49
Far NortheastFixed Route Option 2 –Coverage Neutral
Fixed routes (30 minute peak headway, 60 base) serve nearly all existing stop locations
61 Jensen branch, 76 Wayside, 79 Laura Koppe Rerouted 15 Lyons long
line
51
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Closer to existing service that riders are used to+ No existing boardings in the area outside 1/4 mile of
fixed route− Does not provide coverage and walk distance benefits
of flexible service
Estimated Cost Impact: $915,000 per year (0.5% of local budget)
Far NortheastFixed Route Option 2 –Coverage Neutral
52
Span of Service on Coverage Routes Public Feedback:
• 14 hour span on some coverage routes is not sufficient• Early morning/late evening service is necessary to allow people
to access jobs
Coverage and Ridership Considerations:• 1,018 boardings + alightings after 8pm in areas with shorter
proposed spans (0.25% of daily total)• 664 of those are over 1 mile from proposed late evening service• Ridership on many existing late evening trips in the affected
areas is extremely low Note: Span on all ridership-oriented routes is 18 hours or
matched to existing, whichever is greater
53
Network and Ridership Impacts:+ Exceeding 14 hours would likely decrease system level
ridership by allocating more service toward coverage+ Most closely aligns service levels with ridership demand+ Requirements to add additional span of service can be
determined by service standards (e.g., if average load on first or last trip exceeds a certain percentage of seated capacity)
Coverage Impacts:− Reduction in late evening coverage versus existing service
Cost Impact: No change from Draft Plan
Span on Coverage RoutesRecommended Option
55
Coverage and Ridership Impacts:+ Provides service in all areas at all times it is currently
provided− Allocates high level of resources to very low ridership
services Estimated Cost Impact: $5,050,000 per year (2.7% of
local budget)
Span on Coverage RoutesOption 1 –Maintain Existing Span on All Coverage Routes
57
Span on Coverage RoutesOption 2 –Additional Span on Targeted Coverage Routes
Goal of this scenario is to leave no late evening boardings or alightings more than 1 mile from late evening service Span on highlighted
routes would match existing span
59
Coverage and Ridership Impacts:+ Provides service in most areas at most times it is
currently provided (938 of 1,018 boardings + alightings after 8pm in areas with shorter span in Draft Plan)
+ Leaves no existing late evening boardings or alightings outside 1 mile of late evening service
− Allocates resources to very low ridership services Estimated Cost Impact: $2,512,000 per year (1.4% of
local budget)
Span on Coverage RoutesOption 2 –Additional Span on Targeted Coverage Routes
60
Other Recommended Changes Minor adjustments to individual routes with minimal cost
impacts Examples:
• Adjust routing on 77 Market Pleasantville within Pleasantville neighborhood to serve additional existing bus stops
• Move TMC-Eastwood frequent segment from 2 Brays Bayou to 4 Beechnut to simplify patterns and legibility to customers
• Adjust routing on 47 Post Oak and 12 Memorial to better connect through Uptown/Galleria Area
• Move short line terminus of 46 Antoine Washington from Victory Drive to SH 249, expanding access to frequent network
61
534,000
643,000
1,126,000
998,000
1,160,000
1,000,000
FrequentAccess
FrequentAccess
Peop
le W
ithin
1/2
Mile
Jo
bs W
ithin
1/2
Mile
Draft
Existing
The Reimagined Network Plan connects a million people to a million jobs on the frequent network
+117% Increase
Existing
Source: 2010 US Census Data; American Community Survey
+56% Increase
Recommended
Draft
Recommended
Impact of Recommended Changes on Frequent Access
62
Population and Jobs Total METRO Service Area Population: 3.5 Million Employment: 1.8 Million
Source: 2010 US Census Data; American Community Survey
1,631,000
1,219,000
2,112,000
1,451,000
1,665,000
1,270,000
2,175,000
1,500,000
1,651,000
1,258,000
2,112,000
1,480,000
Population
Jobs
Population
Jobs
With
in1/
4 M
ile
With
in
1/2
Mile
Existing
+1%
0%
+3%
+2%
Impact of Recommended Changes on Total Coverage
DraftRecommended
ExistingDraftRecommended
ExistingDraftRecommended
ExistingDraftRecommended
63
1,066
84
1,093
81
WeekdayBoardings
WeekdayBoardings
Out
side
1/4
Mile
O
utsi
de1/
2 M
ile
Typical weekday Local Boardings: 207,000
0.5% of Daily Boardings
Source: 2010 US Census Data; American Community Survey
Recommended
Recommended Changes have Minimal Impact on Uncovered Boardings
94% of existing customers can board the bus at the same location as today versus 93% in the Draft Plan
0.04% of Daily Boardings
Draft
Recommended
Draft
Recommended
64
Overall Cost Adjustment Levers Plan will be implemented within existing bus service
budget
Operating costs of plan are estimated using sophisticated tool but include assumptions on speed, layover, span, etc.
Actual costs will be refined after scheduling of the new routes is completed
Final revisions will be made through scheduling process to hit target budget
68
Overall Cost Adjustment Levers “Levers” for adjusting cost to align with budget:
• Frequency changes within service color type, e.g., 15 peak to 20 peak on blue routes
• Temporarily changing route color (e.g., red to blue, blue to green) until additional resources are available
• Deferring routes providing new coverage
• Adjusting spans of frequency
• Adjusting Sunday and holiday service levels
• Identifying additional utilization of alternative service (e.g., smaller buses)
69
Deferred Changes Desirable Ridership or Coverage benefits but
significant added cost beyond likely scope of the budget; potential to implement as resources allow
Examples:• Additional span of service (e.g., 24-hour service on
key routes)• Additional frequent service (e.g., Kirby)• Service expansion into areas not currently covered• New grid routes (e.g., north-south route in Spring
Branch area)• Additional Quickline services (e.g., Richmond,
Westheimer)
70
Changes Not Recommended Specific comments which do not effectively serve either
the ridership or coverage goal, or which are substantially at odds with the overall nature of Reimagining; may have considerable cost
• Maintain service on closely-spaced streets (e.g., Navigation, Alabama)
• Maintain service which largely duplicates other routes (e.g., 53 Briar Forest)
• Maintain existing deviations (e.g., Chiswick on 98 Briargate)• Maintain existing underperforming fixed routes (e.g., 59 Aldine
Mail Route)• Maintain recommended replacement of select, low-performing
Park & Ride routes where proposed local service provides comparable service (e.g., 261, 274, 285)
71