The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-02-11 - tj pdc.org Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization ofthe Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission POB 1505,401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax. info@tjpdc.org email Joint City/County Work Session on Regional Transit Agenda Monday, February 11, 2008 12 - 2 pm I. Welcome: Overview of Background, Work Session Goals, and Expected Outcomes (J 5 minutes total) The purpose of this work session is to solicit direction from decision makers regarding the extent to which a Regional Transit Authority should be implemented in this area, to help focus the next phase of the consultant study. 1. Review of Re!!:ional Vision for Transit and Proiect Activities To Date: Vision: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority will provide fast, frequent, dependable, and seamless transit service throughout the area. Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Study: The RT A Study is examining three core elements for establishing a regional transit authority: management and governance, service and operations, and cost estimation and funding (operating and capital). The project includes a fourth task that addresses the development of a transition and cost allocation plan, once a service strategy and preferred governance structure are selected. 2. Work Session Goals: Goal: Sufficient guidance to finish RTA study and prepare for 2009 legislative session. 3. Expected Outcomes: Expected Outcomes: During this work session, decision makers are expected to reach ajoint consensus on the desired governance structure, range of revenue options to further investigate and draft legislation for, and begin to explore interim steps to take between now and the establishment of an RTA. II. Brief Review of RT A Reports and MPO Policy Board Recommendations (approximately 1 hour total) Comments and questions by decision makers are expected and encouraged at any time during this segment. 1. Task la and Ib Report- Re!!:ional Transit Mana!!:ement and Governance: "What type of management and governance would best meet our regional transit needs?" Discuss the types, composition and authority of different institutional structures that could serve as the regional transit organization, as well as any legislative actions that may be required, and the additional revenues, if any, that may be available with each. 2. Task 2a and 2c Report - Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas: "Where will our ridership come from?" Discuss the corridors and development areas that may have greater potential for the use of transit. 3. Task 2b, 2d, and 2e Report- Transit Service Strate!!:ies: "What scale of service should we provide?" Discuss the varying scales of service that could be provided in the future. 4. Addendum - Transit Service Strate!!:ies: Report closes the transit "loop" by adding a more direct service connecting the Pantops area with the northern portions of the Route 29 corridor, service on Rio Road east of Belvedere, and more frequent service on the CTS routes operated in the City of Charlottesville. 5. Review of Recommendations from the MPO Policy Board: Mode: initially focus specifically on regional transit, but not preclude the possibility of other transportation modes, and Service: significant investment, expansion, enhancement, and reorganization of the existing transit service both in the County and City, and Governance: the RT A governance structure shall not preclude the future inclusion of other interested partners (i.e. UV A, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, JAUNT), and shall maximize existing revenues and include potential mechanisms for generating new revenues, and Jurisdiction: the RTA will initially be comprised of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, but shall not preclude the future participation of other jurisdictions. 6. Revenue / Taxin!!: Options: Decision makers will discuss several mechanisms under existing statutory authority available for creating alternative sources of revenues to support transportation projects in the region. 7. Desired Outcomes: Decision makers will reach a consensus regarding the long-term preferred governance structure and level of service for transit in this region, and help define remaining questions to be answered in the next phase of the study. III. Public Comment Period: each person will be allowed to speak for 1 minute (approximately 15 minutes total) IV. Identify Next Steps: (Y2 hour total) Moving forward, decision makers will discuss possible incremental strategies that will set the stage for regional transit in this area, until legislation is passed which authorizes additional revenue options and the desired governance structure. These decisions will guide the consultant in the completion of a cost allocation and implementation plan, which are the final work products in this study. As the overall regional transit discussion moves forward, there will be several additional opportunities during which public input and involvement will be actively solicited. Februrary 11, 2008 Joint Work Session City of Charlottesville County of Albemarle On February 11, 2008, the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors met jointly in a work session to review regional transit opportunities and challenges. Officials reached consensus to pursue a Regional Transit Authority (RTA), though some thought the scope should be broadened beyond public transit such that the localities could also raise funds for road construction. An RTA will require enabling legislation from the General Assembly which will be pursued in the 2009 session. With the legislature's blessing, the City and County would be able to raise money from a variety of funding sources to pay for operations and capital equipment. Other localities like Richmond and Fredericksburg are expected to seek approval for similar transportation authorities next year and Charlottesville officials plan to work with them to present a united front to the General Assembly. Officials are also watching closely to see ifthe transportation authorities approved for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads in 2007 survive court challenges this year. The work session was facilitated by Harrison Rue, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). Presentations were also made by Frank Spielberg of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), the lead consultant for the community's RTA project, and Geoff Slater of Nelson Nygaard. Officials received preliminary information on the operational and capital costs for different transit service strategies. The consultants are recommending significantly expanded bus service in both Charlottesville and Albemarle, though on a percentage basis, the County would pick up a much greater portion of the operational costs than it covers today. One of the recommended service options is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system running along the Route 29 corridor to downtown Charlottesville. The baseline operational costs for public transit provided today by the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) is $5.9 million annually. The expanded transit service options presented to officials ranged from $8.8 million to $16.7 million annually. Capital costs range from $4.6 million for a small increase in bus service in the County to $138 million for a fully-implemented bus rapid transit system in a dedicated travel lane on Route 29. Next the consultants will finalize their report and recommendations. Additional public meetings on the plans for creating a Regional Transit Authority will be held in 2008. .. ~ .""'lIl '""" ""f J,o ,~. "'* .... ... ;4 "'" . . . . . . . Joint Work Session Booklet Regional Transit Opportunities and Challenges for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area Monday, February 11, 2008, 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Martha Jefferson Outpatient Care Center Kessler Conference Room 595 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22911 . . . . . . . . . . . Please direct comments and questions about the work session to: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization 401 East Water Street - PO Box 1505 - Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505. (434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax inlo@ljpdc.org ,mail- http://www.ljpdc.org/transportation/mpo.asp website - tjpdc.org ... tjpdc.org Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission POB 1505,401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax. info@tjpdc.orgemail Joint City/County Work Session on Regional Transit Agenda Monday, February 11,2008 12 - 2 pm I. Welcome: Overview of Background, Work Session Goals, and Expected Outcomes (15 minutes total) The purpose of this work session is to solicit direction from decision makers regarding the extent to which a Regional Transit Authority should be implemented in this area, to help focus the next phase of the consultant study. 1. Review of Recional Vision for Transit and Proiect Activities To Date: Vision: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority will provide fast, frequent, dependable, and seamless transit service throughout the area. Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Study: TheRTA St1!dy is ..:\:amining three core elements Jl:H' establishi.ng a regional transit authority: managelnent and governance, service and operations, and cost estimation and funding (op..:rati.ng and capital). The project includes a rourth task that addresses the development of a mmsition and cost allocati.on plan, once a service strategy and preferred governance sttUcture are s..:hx:ted. 2. Work Session Goals: Goal: Sufficient guidance to finish RT A study and prepare for 2009 legislative session. 3. Expected Outcomes: Expected Outcomes: During this work session, decision makers are expected to reach a joint consensus on the desired governance structure, range of revenue options to further investigate and draft legislation for, and begin to explore interim steps to take between now and the establishment of an RT A. II. Brief Review of RTA Reports and MPO Policy Board Recommendations (approximately 1 hour total) Comments and questions by decision makers are expected and encouraged at any time during this segment. 1. Task la and Ib Report- Re!!:ional Transit Manal!ement and Governance: "What type of management and governance would best meet our regional transit needs?" Discuss the types, composition and authority of different institutional structures that could serve as the regional transit organization, as well as any legislative actions that may be required, and the additional revenues, if any, that may be available with each. 2. Task 2a and 2c Report - Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas: "Where will our ridership come from?" Discuss the corridors and development areas that may have greater potential for the use of transit. 3. Task 2b, 2d, and 2e Report - Transit Service Stratecies: "What scale of service should we provide?" Discuss the varying scales of service that could be provided in the future. 4. Addendum - Transit Service Strate!!:ies: Report closes the transit "loop" by adding a more direct service connecting the Pantops area with the northern portions ofthe Route 29 corridor, service on Rio Road east of Belvedere, and more frequent service on the CTS routes operated in the City of Charlottesville. 5. Review of Recommendations from the MPO Policy Board: Mode: initially focus specifically on regional transit, but not preclude the possibility of other transportation modes, and Service: significant investment, expansion, enhancement, and reorganization of the existing transit service both in the County and City, and Governance: the RT A governance structure shall not preclude the future inclusion of other interested partners (i.e. UV A, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, JAUNT), and shall maximize existing revenues and include potential mechanisms for generating new revenues, and Jurisdiction: the R T A will initially be comprised of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, but shall not preclude the future participation of other jurisdictions. 6. Revenue / Taxinl! Options: Decision makers will discuss several mechanisms under existing statutory authority available for creating alternative sources of revenues to support transportation projects in the region. 7. Desired Outcomes: Decision makers will reach a consensus regarding the long-term preferred governance structure and level of service for transit in this region, and help define remaining questions to be answered in the next phase of the study. III. Public Comment Period: each person will be allowed to speak for 1 minute (approximately 15 minutes total) IV. Identify Next Steps: (!0 hour total) Moving forward, decision makers will discuss possible incremental strategies that will set the stage for regional transit in this area, until legislation is passed which authorizes additional revenue options and the desired governance structure. These decisions will guide the consultant in the completion of a cost allocation and implementation plan, which are the final work products in this study. As the overall regional transit discussion moves forward, there will be several additional opportunities during which public input and involvement will be actively solicited. - tj pdc.org Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission POB 1505,401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.~pdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax . info@~pdc.org email Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority DRAFT Transit Vision The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority will provide fast, frequent, dependable, and seamless transit service throughout the area. Goals · Provide direct links between and among the four major destinations in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County: Downtown, UV AlMedical Center, Pantops, and the Rt. 29 North corridor. · Provide competitive choices for travel throughout the region - for residents, commuters, employees, students, and visitors. · Improve routes and choices for underserved communities and individuals. · Attract 'choice' riders - those who currently drive for most trips. · Increase access to medical, employment, tourist, recreation, education, service and retail destinations throughout the region. · Integrate transit fully with other modes of transportation - walking, wheeling, carpooling, driving alone, and regional bus and rail. · Serve as a tool to help make the area 'Livable for a Lifetime.' · Reduce traffic congestion, pollution, energy consumption, and personal travel costs. Working methods · Create a unified regional transit plan to identify 1) routes, 2) level of service 3) phasing, 4) vehicle technology, 5) funding requirements, and 6) operating responsibilities. · Secure a sustainable, stable funding source for new equipment, physical improvements, operations, and maintenance. · Work with localities, businesses and developers to plan for mixed-use Transit Oriented Development (around existing service) and Transit-Ready Development (for future system expansion). · Design routes and schedules so that service to existing areas is maintained or improved. · Coordinate physical improvements around bus waiting areas and transit stations. · Maximize service efficiency through: o Innovative use of technology for vehicle tracking/on-time performance/real-time info. o Increased coordination of service planning and operations. o Seamless marketing, communications, and education for user-friendly customer expenence. · Promote and provide opportunities to utilize public-private partnerships Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 1 a and 1 b Technical Report Regional Transit Management and Govemance Transit Authority Organization October 2007 1. Executive Summary In August 2006, the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle both signed Resolutions of Intent to establish a Regional Transit Authority (R T A) to serve the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The development of an RTA is intended to: . Develop a seamless regional transit. . Potentially develop dedicated funding sources. . Provide for more effective regional transit planning. . Provide for more efficient coordination and integration of transit services. . More effectively address regional congestion and air quality issues. . More effectively integrate transit and land use. The development of an RTA is a well established approach for the provision of regional transit service. There are also other types of institutional structures that could produce similar results. Including the development of an RTA, these options include: 1. Legislatively-Enabled Regional Transit Authority , 2. Continued CTS Operation with a Regional Transit Coordinating Council 3. Joint Powers Agency 4. J oint Powers Board 5. Transportation District 6. Service District Each of the six options would represent different approaches to the development of a "regional transit entity." All would be similar in that they all would be able to provide and expand regional transit service. Differences would largely be related to policy representation, the organizations that could be included in the regional transit entity, whether or not new funding could be leveraged, and whether or not enabling legislation would be required. The major features of each option would be as follows (see also Table 1): . A Regional Transit Authority (RTA) would be the most "robust" of the alternatives in that it would provide for the widest range of options and would have the fewest limitations. It would be a true regional entity that could include the city, county, UVa, and other organizations such as JAUNT, and whose sole focus would be the provision of transit service. It would be a legal entity that would have all of the powers necessary to operate and expand transit service and facilities. In a similar manner as in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, an RTA could provide for the 1 Executive Summary Transit Authority Organization October 2007 development of new dedicated transportation funding sources. The creation of an RTA would require a strong regional consensus and subsequent enabling legislation. . Continued operation by CTS in conjunction with a Regional Transit Coordinating Council would be the easiest of all options to implement, and could include the city, county, as well as UVa and JAUNT. The Regional Transit Coordinating Council would provide a stronger regional perspective ty.an at present, but the Coordinating Council's role would be technically to advise the city rather than to detennine policy. As a result, neither the county nor other partners would have the direct policy level involvement. This approach, as with most others, would not provide the opportunity for new revenue sources. . A Joint Powers Agency would be a new kgally-recognized agency that would be comprised of the city and the county and could exercise "any power, privilege or authority exercised or capable of exercise by the political subdivisions in the Joint Powers Agency." For transit, a Joint Powers Agency would have all of the powers necessary to operate a regional transit system. Joint Powers Agencies can only be comprised of political subdivisions, which would exclude UVa and JAUNT. AJoint Powers Agency would not provide any new revenue opportunities, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Joint Powers Board could be a "virtua1-RTA" in which the city continued to operate service but, subject to certain protections, permitted CTS to be governed by a regional board. The Joint Powers Board could include the city, the county, UVa, JAUNT, and other organizations and stakeholders. A Joint Powers Board would be relatively easy to set up, but would have no legal standing of its own. As a result, the city and other parties would need to exercise their own powers on behalf of the Joint Powers Board. A Joint Powers Board would not have the ability to generate its own revenues, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Transportation District would be very similar to a Joint Powers Agency. The only significant differences would be that a Transportation District is required to include the Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on its board, and that condemnation powers would be limited to slow-take versus quick- take. A Transportation District could formally include only the city and county (and not UVa or JAUNT), would provide the county with direct policy level involvement, and would be relatively easy to implement. A Transportation District in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area would not provide any new revenue opportunities, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Service District would be similar to a Joint Powers Agency and Transportation District in that it could include only the city and county (and not UVa or JAUNT), would provide the county with policy level involvement, and would be relatively easy to implement. A major difference, however, is that a Service District could generate additional revenue through the ability to levy higher property taxes within the service district. The development of a Service District would not require enabling legisla tion. 2 Executive Summary Table 1: Summary of Institutional Options <( I- IX: '0 Q) :0 ttl C W >. Q) .2: ro ~ ~ ...J >- .c c o ~ "g ~::: 5 o~<..) 'Ottlc) ~.=:s c .c ttl 'E'i:5 o U) ..... <..)1-8 N<..)<..) >- u c Q) c) <( en ~ o a.. c: '0 ...... C") 'E ttl o co ~>- Q)-- ;:c_ o :::l en a..o(j; <..).c E~O o >- en .....,~:::s .<..)- -.:t _ a. t5 'C en is c o 16 t o a. en c ttl .= .0 :g en is Q) u .~ Q) U) cD -- c ~ :::l <..) .,....: Policy level representation county Policy level representation for city Policy level representation for UVa Policy level representation for JAUNT Policy Input for County Policy Input for Others Regional Perspective Construct, operate, and maintain other regional transportation modes Permits withdrawal Method of withdrawal = Advantage . = Disadvantage = Depends upon perspective of individual party -... ()rdlilance Ordinance Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 2a and 2c Technical Report Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Regional Transit Authority Plan Schedule of Deliverables - Revised May 7,2007 Primary Target Delivery Date Task Responsibility (months from notice to proceed) 1a Technical Report that presents the required and desired E&K 2.0 characteristics of the new regional transit entity. A Power point presentation E8K 2.0 1b E&K 3.0 Technical Report that describes regional transit entity alternatives. 1c Staffing plan with an organizational chart, suggested salary ranges for VHB 3.0 each position in the organizational chart, brief Job descriptions 1d Technical Report that presents and describes institutional options including projected benefits, costs, and impacts, and that clearly VHB 2.0 presents the locally preferred institutional approach Task 1 Task report that includes a concise executive summary E&K 3.0 2a Technical Report identifying the area and corridors that appear to VHB 2.0 have potential to support transit service 2b Technical Report describing the several strategies together with VHB 2.5 appropriate graphics illustrating each service strategy 2c Maps of the areas meeting these criteria together with a Technical VHB 2.5 Report 2d Map and summary matrix documenting services proposed for current 3.5 CTS service areas VHB 2e Technical Report identifying the capital equipment appropriate for the VHB 3.5 proposed transit operation 2f Technical Report on recommended service standards VHB 3.0 3a Technical Report that documents the amount of prior investment in E&K 3.5 CTS made by each member of the RT A 3b Deliverable: Technical Report that documents the proposed future service plan and operating costs under the recommended E&K 5.0 organizational structures 3c Technical Report that describes how the development of an RTA could impact existing funding sources, and that describes potential E&K 5.5 new revenue sources that could supplant existing local funding from the city and county 3d Technical Report that presents vehicle, facility and equipment needs, E&K 4.3 and associated costs 3e Technical Report that documents alternative regional cost allocation E&K 5.5 formulas and the formula preferred by the involved entities. 3f Technical Report that identifies potential new funding source, and describes the legal and administrative steps that would be required to E&K 5.5 implement them 3g Technical Report that identifies how changes in'the organization for transit and changes in the quantity of service provided could impact E&K 5.0 state and federal funding. 4a Technical Report documenting a transit plan and schedule VHB 10.0 4b Technical Report describing methods to achieve greater coordination in the planning and provision of transit service short of forming a VHB 10.0 formal authority. 4c Documentation of DOT requirements and a plan proposed for recordkeeping and cost allocation that will satisfy the requirements of VHB 6.0 the Circulars. Contents Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 1. Executive Summary Formation of a regional transit authority (RTA) is intended to promote the development of regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The decision whether to develop an Authority or some other form of regional organization for transit will depend, in part, on the nature and extent of transit services to be operated in each of the participating jurisdictions. This report documents the current status of transit in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. It then reviews the factors that suggest a greater probability of the use of transit, develops a composite index of transit use and identifies those corridors and areas most likely to support transit services within the relatively near future (two to seven years). Conditions existing in the study area today are described, including the patterns of development and transit service. Those geographic areas that are most conducive to public transportation, based on a range of transit-supportive factors, are then identified. There are eight factors in the transit potential index: . Residential density . Employment density . Congestion . Parking availability . Roadway connectivity . Persons with lower incomes . Transit-oriented plans and development policies . Residential concentration of university employees The areas having the greatest potential for use of transit services, based on the composite transit index, are illustrated below. The ratings ranged from low to high and are associated with a service frequency level and headway. For example, areas with a "High" transit potential rating support "Very Frequent" service with headways less than 15 minutes (see Table 1). Table 1: Transit Service Frequency Transit Potential Ratin Hih Moderate Hi h Moderate Low Moderate Low Service F re Ve Fre uent Fre Moderate Infre uent Commuter Headwa < 15-minute headwa s 15-minute 30-minute 60-minute or demand-res onse Peak Period Executive Summary N tI1 ~ (D n C o. <: (D CFl c 8 8 Il' ~ o ZV o '" i , ""'... " , '--...- ~ ~ , . " ~ ,~,- , , , " , '" r i! , '. -.. .., ...."" , ..' ... .,.' -' ~ .. ...._" .. , .. , "4f .". .. ..... .. .. , .. '. .'... .- ( . ). ~ :I QI i- (") o c:: ~ ~ .. .. .. .. .. .... .. '--, .. I , ...., .. '. I I , , . , .... .. " , , ,,' /fj" , I: ,. , ....- ~~ il:l t g ~ )> ~ GO ~ JI N g ~ .~ tJ ] il " ::r 5 GO ~ ~ ;; GO il i!i ~ il & i " ~ Q ("):!! o c:: c::~ ~~ ~~ QI I 0: II )>::0 0 CCD ::r -CC _ ::r -. - DI ogc::1. :!. DI CD 2- ~-3- cn::;l~m -Dl-< C;jCD:: Q.cn - '< _. CD - ~f] r ~ 3 lD r .~3:3:o S';;:"o ~Q~~c: III ~ 8. 8. ~ <"0/11 N'< aro' <II is. (\)(\)~ 0 lDo::l-'::03 ~ ~ 0 ; i g g > ~ g III }. ~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ::r ~ ;:oCll-<o ~ 1>>)( c: <II .. ::I :i' ~ Q -< iZ'~~ ~:~~ o=~o c ~ _.C/) ::!" - ... -. (I) ..~ :r CD . ...., '"' Il' ;:l ~. .... CFl C "0 "0 o '"' o. <: (D (') o '"' '"' 5: o '"' Ul Il' ;:l 0- >- '"' (D Il' Ul ...., (D n ::r 8. n e. :;d (D "0 o ~ o n .... o 0- (D '"' N o o --.) Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 2b, Task 2d & Task 2e Technical Report Service Strategies Service Strategies Report Novernber 2007 Regional Transit Authority Plan Schedule of Deliverables - Revised May 7, 2007 Primary Target Delivery Date Task Responsibility (months from notice to proceed) 1a Technical Report that presents the required and desired E&K characteristics of the new regional transit entity. 2.0 A Power point presentation E8K 2.0 1b E&K 3.0 Technical Report that describes regional transit entity alternatives. 1c Staffing plan with an organizational chart, suggested salary ranges for VHB 3.0 each position in the organizational chart, brief Job descriptions 1d Technical Report that presents and describes institutional options including projected benefits, costs, and impacts, and that clearly VHB 2.0 presents the locally preferred institutional approach Task 1 Task report that includes a concise executive summary E&K 3.0 2a Technical Report identifying the area and corridors that appear to VHB 2.0 have potential to support transit service 2b Technical Report describing the several strategies together with VHB 2.5 appropriate graphics illustrating each service strategy 2c Maps of the areas meeting these criteria together with a Technical VHB 2.5 Report 2d Map and summary matrix documenting services proposed for current VHB 3.5 CTS service areas 2e Technical Report identifying the capital equipment appropriate for the VHB 3.5 proposed transit operation 2f Technical Report on recommended service standards VHB 3.0 3a Technical Report that documents the amount of prior investment in E&K 3.5 CTS made by each member of the RTA 3b Deliverable: Technical Report that documents the proposed future service plan and operating costs under the recommended E&K 5.0 organizational structures 3c Technical Report that describes how the development of an RTA could impact existing funding sources, and that describes potential E&K 5.5 new revenue sources that could supplant existing local funding from the city and county 3d Technical Report that presents vehicle, facility and equipment needs, E&K 4.3 and associated costs 3e Technical Report that documents alternative regional cost allocation E&K 5.5 formulas and the formula preferred by the involved entities. 3f Technical Report that identifies potential new funding source, and describes the legal and administrative steps that would be required to E&K 5.5 implement them 3g Technical Report that identifies how changes in the organization for transit and changes in the quantity of service provided could impact E&K 5.0 state and federal funding. 4a Technical Report documenting a transit plan and schedule VHB 10.0 4b Technical Report describing methods to achieve greater coordination in the planning and provision of transit service short of forming a VHB 10.0 formal authority. 4c Documentation of DOT requirements and a plan proposed for recordkeeping and cost allocation that will satisfy the requirements of VHB 6.0 the Circulars. Contents Service Strategies Report November 2007 1. Executive Summary Formation of a regional transit authority is intended to promote the development of regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The decision whether to develop an Authority or some other form of regional organization for transit will depend, in part, on the nature and extent of transit services to be operated in each of the participating jurisdictions. This document identifies potential service strategies that might be implemented if a regional transit entity is formed. As existing fixed-route transit services are largely focused on Charlottesville, the four options discussed in this report envision a significant expansion of transit service in Albemarle County. A baseline is described that represents the services proposed to be operated by CTS in the fall of 2008. The description of the baseline includes the routes to be operated weekdays and evenings, Saturdays and Sundays, the proposed frequency of service on each route, and indication of the jurisdiction (city or county) that is expected to provide funding for the route, and an estimate of the cost of providing the service. Similar information is then presented for four alternatives: . Option 1 - New local service in Albemarle County . Option 2 - New local service plus creation of a transit center at Barracks Road Shopping Center and a new Crosstown route . Option 3 - New local service, Barracks Road Transit Center, High Frequency Route 29 Trunk route, and local circulators . Option 4 - New local service, Barracks Road Transit Center, Bus Rapid Transit and local circulators The alternatives presented are intended to define different levels of the scope and extent of transit services in the Charlottesville-Albemarle region at some time in the near future. These have been developed in order that realistic estimates of the costs of providing services having differing characteristics in terms of types of operation, extent or operations, and quality of service could be considered. Given that all alternatives would serve the same general market area, that each would strive to retain service to existing customers, and that the roadways available for operation of transit routes are limited, the options have many common features and may appear to reflect a possible phased implementation. Although the more extensive alternatives might involve a phased implementation the several options should not be viewed as a staged program. To permit comparisons, the operating costs for all options, including the baseline, have been developed using current CTS unit operating costs escalated to 2010. No cost additions or potential savings that might result from creation of a regional transit entity 1 Executive Summary Service Strategies Report November 2007 Summary of Operating Costs for Service Options (adjusted for projected 2010 unit costs) Day Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 FREE Trolley City $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 Route 1A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Route 1 B City $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 2A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 ~115,000 $115,000 Route 2B County $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 3A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Route 3B City $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 4 City $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Route 5 County $765,000 $iS5,OOO $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 RO\jte 6 (Baseline Route 6B) City $221,000 $510,000 $510,000 $510,000 $510,000 Route 8A (Baseline Route 6A) City $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 Route 8B City $248,000 $248,000 $248,000 $248,000 Route 7 City $1,531,000 $1,531,000 $1,531,000 Route 10A (Baseline Route 10) County $276,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Route 10B County $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 HolIYrnead Route County $765,000 $765,000 $266,000 $266,000 Rio Road East County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Biscuit Run Route County $765,000 $765,000 $829,000 $829,000 Route 29 Circulator County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Crosstown Route County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Priority Transit A Split $1,935,000 $1,658,000 Priority Transit B Split $1,37'1,OQO $1,077 ,000 Subtotal $4,912,000 $7,779,000 $8,331,000 $9,671,000 $9,100,000 Night Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 F~E:E: Trolley City $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 Route 5 County nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa Route 7 City $191,000 $191,000 $191,000 Route 21 City $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 22 City $106,000 $106,020 $106,000 $106,022 $106,000 Route 23 City $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 24 County $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Priority.Transit A Split $198,000 $340,000 Priority Transit B Split $128,000 $170,000 Subtotal $828,000 $828,000 $828,000 $963,000 $1,147,000 Sunday Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 f~.E:E: Trolley City $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 Route 7 City $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 Subtotal $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 Express Bus Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Rivanna Express County $71,000 $71,000 $71,000 Airport County $71,000 $71,000 $71,000 Subtotal $0 $0 $142,000 $142,000 $142,000 Other Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Other City $55,000 $75,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 Subtotal $55,000 $75,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 Total $5,899,000 $8,786,000 $9,460,000 $10,935,000 $10,548,000 Absolute Difference with Baseline $2,887,000 $3,561,000 $5,036,000 $4,649,000 Percent Difference with Baseline 48.9"10 60.4"10 85.4"10 78.8"10 3 Executive Summary ~ V> n ~. ~ ~ f: "" ~. o z 1--- >> ~ ~ ~ ~"'; ~ [ . .. 0& 1( H i- ~ : ~ t I I I I I I I I I I :u .. } 0 c :l' 0 :u '" :u J: " :u " " " '" " '" ." $? ~ 0 .... <n (; 0 ~. 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;;; ;:r .. i o. .. " .. s ~ s s s c S S S S .. !!! Q, ~ .. .. ~ :u 3 .. .. .. ;; .. .. .. .. -; :::. '0 3 o. '0 0 " " .... '" " ~ .. 0 0> 0> '" .. OJ '" ~ 2- " ,. " .. ~ <0 Q, " " i ;I- ~ " c Q, i'D :;. 0 " m .. " '" ;; ~ '" '< '" ~ 0 '" !!l 0 " i'D c c 0 c 0 c; iii' S c; S ~ .. .. '" ." 0-' -cCC ....c: -.... o (I) ::s~ ~CD )>:::0 0 C CD _ (Q )> -::r -::r -. Al oga:::!. ::::!'Al CD 0 ~-3= cn:;l!:m -Al-< C:JCD:: CL (J) - '< _. CD - - - 'Tj ~. i'! V> ~ ii. o ~ ~ Jl f1' ... ~ o "0 :1. o :I "" ~ "0 g z o ~ 3 rr ~ tv o o ..., Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 2b, Task 2d & Task 2e Technical Report Service Strategies Addendum -Option 4A Addendum to Service Strategies Technical Report The Service Strategies Technical Report was reviewed with the MPO Board at a meeting on November 21,2007. At that meeting the members of the Board expressed support for the more extensive options - Option 3 and Option 4 - but requested that an additional option be developed that would include: · A more direct service connecting the Pantops area with the northern portions of the Route 29 corridor · Provide service on Rio Road east of Belvedere · Provide more frequent service on the CTS routes operated in the City of Charlottesville The materials in this addendum present the requested option. The additional services are added to Option 4 - Priority Transit, as presented in the Service Strategies Technical Report. For convenience the new service is named Option 4A. The option is illustrated in Figure A1. The projected operating costs for Option 4A would be approximately $16.7 million per year. These costs by route are summarized in Table A1. Changes from base Option 4 are shown in red. The allocation of revenue hours between the City and the County is estimated to be: Jurisdiction City County Total Revenue Hours No. Percent 108,229 45.0% 132,385 55.0% 240,613 100.0% The expanded service would also require a larger fleet of buses. The capital costs for Option 4A are summarized in Table A2, with changes from base Option 4 shown in red. The cost for buses would vary depending on the type of equipment purchased but is estimated to be between $19 and $30 million. The remainder of the capital cost for this Option, as in base Option 4, is for implantation of the BRT facilities. While a slightly larger facility for bus storage and maintenance might be required to house the larger fleet, the costs of such expansion have not been estimated. 1 Table A2: Option 4A Capital Cost Summary Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Day Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (Hgh) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1A Existing City 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 1 B Existing City 0.5 $190.000 $280,000 Route 2A Existing City 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 2B Existing Spin 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 3A Existing City 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 3B Existing City 05 $190,000 $280,000 Route 4 Existing City 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 5 Existing County 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B City 4 $1,520,000 $2,240,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 1 $380,000 $560,000 Route 8B A'oposed City 1 $380,000 $560,000 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 2 $760,000 $1.120,000 Route 10B A'oposed County 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Hollyrread Route A'oposed County 0 $0 $0 Rio Road East A'oposed County 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Biscuit Run Route A'oposed County 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Route 29 Circulator A'oposed County 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Crosstow n Route A'oposed County 4 $1,520,000 $2,240,000 Pantops-Hollyrread A'oposed County 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 A'iority Transit A A'oposed Split 6 $2,880,000 $5,400,000 A'iority Transit B A'oposed Split 4 $1,920,000 $3,600,000 Subtotal 43 $17,340,000 $27,480,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Night Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (Hgh) FREE Trolley Ex is ting City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Route 21 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 22 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 23 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 24 Existing County 0 $0 $0 A'iority Transit A A'oposed Split 0 $0 $0 A'iority Transit B A'oposed Split 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Sunday Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (Hgh) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Express Bus Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (Hgh) Rivanna Express A'oposed County 1 $480,000 $900,000 Piney M:luntain A'oposed County 1 $480,000 $900,000 Subtotal 2 $960,000 $1,800,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Other Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (Hgh) Other Ex is ting City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Other Capital Costs Status Funding No. Cost (Low) Cost (Hgh) Bus Stops A'oposed Split 162 $11,000 $2,185,000 BRT Stations A'oposed Split 10 $600,000 $3,000,000 Road h'proverrents (niles) A'oposed Split 6.6 $23,100,000 $103,620,000 Subtotal $23,711,000 $108,805,000 Total 45 $42,011,000 $138,085,000 3 ~ \ rJei' , " = Ii: ~ ~ ~ ~ :.. '" of > g h .... ~i 0 "Cl ~ ~ IS' t l:S "'" > ~ of ~ :i ~i f"b l ~ I I $ I CD :::0 :I: ::::u ~. ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ ! ~ 3 m Q. " .. " o !!t S !j- ~ O!! "Ccc ~r:: g a ~)> )>~ )>::0 0 cCD ::r -CC ..... ::r -. , I>> ogO::1 :::::!'I>> CD 0 ~-3= cn::;l!:m -1>>-< C:JCD= Q.cn - '< _. CD - III 'ife~ ~ ~ [H ~ ~ ~.'" -< 0 c; ~ ~ ~ :; J: ij ;:n : ~ :; ~ it 3 ell ~ : s' Q. ~ oS I I I :::0 ::::u ;;a :::tI :::0 ::::u i i i i i i (J) U. .... W p.,J I I ." 0 : i .... .. g ~. ~ " '< '" " o S. ~ ~ !i 0 r . ". .. ~ ~ i ! ~ ~ - tjpdc.org Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission POB 1505,401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax. info@tjpdc.org email TO: Charlottesville City Council (Meeting January 7, 2008), and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (Meeting January 9, 2008) Melissa Barlow, Director of Transportation Programs December 20, 2007 Regional Transit Authority (RT A) Plan Discussion FROM: DATE: RE: The RT A Study examines three core elements for establishing a regional transit authority: management and governance, service and operations, and cost estimation and funding (operating and capital). The major goal of the RTA Study is to determine how best to implement the adopted transit vision for the Charlottesville-Albemarle region. Three reports and one addendum are attached for your review. These reports form the foundation upon which the RTA study will proceed. 1. Task la and Ib Report - Re2ional Transit Mana2ement and Governance - This report identifies a broad range of transit governance options. Some of the governance options include the ability to generate revenue or to add UV A, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, or JAUNT as a member; some are permitted currently, while others would require General Assembly action. 2. Task 2a and 2c Report - Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas - This report summarizes existing and likely near-term conditions and identifies a broad range of transit service options, looking at eight factors that influence transit potential. 3. Task 2b. 2d. and 2e Report - Transit Service Strate2ies - This report outlines four potential Service Options for expanding the baseline transit service. The primary purpose of this report is to illustrate how different options for expanded transit services might be operated within the Charlottesville - Albemarle area. 4. Addendum - Transit Service Strate2ies - At the request of the MPO Policy Board, this addendum to the Service Strategies report closes the transit "loop" by adding a more direct service connecting the Pantops area with the northern portions ofthe Route 29 corridor, service on Rio Road east of Belvedere, and more frequent service on the CTS routes operated in the City of Charlottesville. These reports are intended to facilitate discussion about the potential scale of services and governance that policymakers and the public wish to pursue, and the likely level of investment needed. The selected strategies will guide development of more detailed plans for implementation, cost-sharing, phasing, etc. Frank Spielberg, the lead consultant for the project, and Harrison Rue, TJPDC Executive Director, will be presenting and facilitating discussion. The MPO Policy Board discussed the above reports and adopted the attached resolution, summarizing the service and governance options on which the group would like to focus. This resolution represents the commitment to transit that the MPO Policy Board would like to see this region pursue. We would like you to be prepared to provide your comments and questions regarding the reports at your respective meetings on January 7th and 9th, however no action is requested of the Board or Council at this time. Rather, a combined workshop is being planned within six weeks to provide a forum for answering any questions that you provide, and to enable collaborative discussion to occur between the City and the County to reach a consensus to guide and focus future work products from the study. A draft agenda for that proposed joint work session is attached for your review and input. . ~{IJltISSe IlmzgeJl Brlls/fiJl, IJle. Charlottesvi lie-AI bemarle Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 1a and 1b Technical Report Regional Transit Management and Governance October 23, 2007 Submitted by: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 10 High Street, Suite 903 Boston, MA 02110 As a subcontractor to: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Submitted to: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 401 East Water Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Transit Authority Organization October 2007 Task 1a Technical Report that presents the required and desired characteristics of the new regional transit entity. A Powerpoint presentation 1 b Technical Report that describes regional transit entity alternatives. 1 c Staffing plan with an organizational chart, suggested salary ranges for each position in the organizational chart, brief Job descriptions 1 d Technical Report that presents and describes institutional options including projected benefits, costs, and impacts, and that clearly presents the locally preferred institutional approach Task 1 Task report that includes a concise executive summary 2a Technical Report identifying the area and corridors that appear to have potential to support transit service 2b Technical Report describing the several strategies together with appropriate graphics illustrating each service strategy 2c Maps of the areas meeting these criteria together with a Technical Report 2d Map and summary matrix documenting services proposed for current CTS service areas 2e Technical Report identifying the capital equipment appropriate for the proposed transit operation 2f Technical Report on recommended service standards 3a Technical Report that documents the amount of prior investment in CTS made by each member of the RT A 3b Deliverable: Technical Report that documents the proposed future service plan and operating costs under the recommended organizational structures 3c Technical Report that describes how the development of an RTA could impact existing funding sources, and that describes potential new revenue sources that could supplant existing local funding from the city and county 3d Technical Report that presents vehicle, facility and equipment needs, and associated costs 3e Technical Report that documents alternative regional cost allocation formulas and the formula preferred by the involved entities. 3f Technical Report that identifies potential new funding source, and describes the legal and administrative steps that would be required to implement them 39 Technical Report that identifies how changes in the organization for transit and changes in the quantity of service provided could impact state and federal funding. 4a Technical Report documenting a transit plan and schedule 4b Technical Report describing methods to achieve greater coordination in the planning and provision of transit service short of forming a formal authority. 4c Documentation of DOT requirements and a plan proposed for recordkeeping and cost allocation that will satisfy the requirements of the Circulars. Transit Authority Organization October 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tasks 1a and 1b: Regional Transit Management and Governance 1. Executive Summary .... .................. .............. ........................ .................... ..... 1 2. Introduction................................................................................................... 4 3. Typical Powers of Regional Transit Authorities........................................ 5 4. Desirable Charlottesville-Albemarle RT A Characteristics ....................... 7 5. Advantages and Disadvantages of an RTA or Similar Entity................. 10 6. Existing Transit Governance and Organization ......................................11 7. Institutional Options................................................................................... 14 7.1. Option 1: Legislatively-Enabled Regional Transit Authority (RTA) ................................. 15 7.2. Option 2: Continued Operation by CTS with a Transit Coordinating Council.................. 20 7.3. Option 3: Joint Powers Agency: City and County.......................................................... 23 7.4. Option 4: Joint Powers Board: City and County plus UVa and/or JAUNT ..................... 25 7.5. Option 5: Transportation District ..................................................................................... 27 7.6. Option 6: Service District................................................................................................. 30 8. Summary,......................................................,............................ ,................33 Transit Authority Organization October 2007 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Institutional Options ................................................................................. 3 Table 2: H3202 Funding Authorizations ...................................................................................19 Table 3: Summary of Institutional Options ...............................................................................35 Transit Authority Organization October 2007 1. Executive Summary In August 2006, the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle both signed Resolutions ofIntent to establish a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to serve the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The development of an RTA is intended to: . Develop a seamless regional transit. . Potentially develop dedicated funding sources. . Provide for more effective regional transit planning. . Provide for more efficient coordination and integration of transit services. . More effectively address regional congestion and air quality issues. . More effectively integrate transit and land use. The development of an RTA is a well established approach for the provision of regional transit service. There are also other types of institutional structures that could produce similar results. Including the development of an RTA, these options include: 1. Legislatively- Enabled Regional Transit Authority 2. Continued CTS Operation with a Regional Transit Coordinating Council 3. Joint Powers Agency 4. Joint Powers Board 5. Transportation District 6. Service District Each of the six options would represent different approaches to the development of a "regional transit entity." All would be similar in that they all would be able to provide and expand regional transit service. Differences would largely be related to policy representation, the organizations that could be included in the regional transit entity, whether or not new funding could be leveraged, and whether or not enabling legislation would be required. The major features of each option would be as follows (see also Table 1): . A Regional Transit Authority (RTA) would be the most "robust" of the alternatives in that it would provide for the widest range of options and would have the fewest limitations. It would be a true regional entity that could include the city, county, UVa, and other organizations such as JAUNT, and whose sole focus would be the provision of transit service. It would be a legal entity that would have all of the powers necessary to operate and expand transit service and facilities. In a similar manner as in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, an RTA could provide for the Executive Summary Transit Authority Organization October 2007 development of new dedicated transportation funding sources. The creation of an RTA would require a strong regional consensus and subsequent enabling legislation. . Continued operation by CTS in conjunction with a Regional Transit Coordinating Council would be the easiest of all options to implement, and could include the city, county, as well as UVa and JAUNT. The Regional Transit Coordinating Council would provide a stronger regional perspective than at present, but the Coordinating Council's role would be technically to advise the city rather than to determine policy. As a result, neither the county nor other partners would have the direct policy level involvement. This approach, as with most others, would not provide the opportunity for new revenue sources. . A Joint Powers Agency would be a new legally-recognized agency that would be comprised of the city and the county and could exercise "any power, privilege or authority exercised or capable of exercise by the political subdivisions in the Joint Powers Agency." For transit, a Joint Powers Agency would have all of the powers necessary to operate a regional transit system. Joint Powers Agencies can only be comprised of political subdivisions, which would exclude UVa and JAUNT. A Joint Powers Agency would not provide any new revenue opportunities, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Joint Powers Board could be a "virtual-RTA" in which the city continued to operate service but, subject to certain protections, permitted CTS to be governed by a regional board. The Joint Powers Board could include the city, the county, UVa, JAUNT, and other organizations and stakeholders. A Joint Powers Board would be relatively easy to set up, but would have no legal standing of its own. As a result, the city and other parties would need to exercise their own powers on behalf of the Joint Powers Board. A Joint Powers Board would not have the ability to generate its own revenues, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Transportation District would be very similar to a Joint Powers Agency. The only significant differences would be that a Transportation District is required to include the Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on its board, and that condemnation powers would be limited to slow-take versus quick- take. A Transportation District could formally include only the city and county (and not UVa or JAUNT), would provide the county with direct policy level involvement, and would be relatively easy to implement. A Transportation District in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area would not provide any new revenue opportunities, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Service District would be similar to a Joint Powers Agency and Transportation District in that it could include only the city and county (and not UVa or JAUNT), would provide the county with policy level involvement, and would be relatively easy to implement. A major difference, however, is that a Service District could generate additional revenue through the ability to levy higher property taxes within the service district. The development of a Service District would not require enabling legislation. 2 Executive Summary Transit Authority Organization October 2007 Table 1: Summary of Institutional Options ovemance Policy level representation for both city and county Policy level representation for UVa and JAUNT Policy Input for County Policy Input for Others Regional Perspective owers and Functions <( I- >. 0::: .c '0 c: >. U (l) .2 0 "E :s :0 c: en CO ro '0 (l) CO is c: &~ c: 1f 0 UJ ::l CD c: U >. o ~ 0 ~ :;;:; en .2 .;:: U Q; >. ro en a; CO (l) c: c: > '0 .= O'l ~ ~ t:: is (l) .5 ::l ::l ~ ~ ::l 0 0 0 0 0 (l) c: ::; ro c... u c... u (l) c.. 0 c: u; ~ c: .c en .~ '0, '3: ~ c: 06 c: 06 0 c: ~ (l) 0 (f) '0 ~ '0 ~ ~ (l) --' u 0 -, -, en I- (f) ::l I- 0 Q.. Q.. ::l U .....: N u u ("') "'" 0.. ..0 <.0 Construct, operate, and maintain transit Construct, operate, and maintain other regional transportation modes Condemn property & Issue bonds reation Method of creation axing andRlVenue~ Reduce reliance on city and county general funds ExpenditLu'e& FunclingObligations Primary Control Secondary Control ithdrawal Permits withdrawal Method of withdrawal = Advantage = Disadvantage = Depends upon perspective of individual party Potential for new funding 3 Executive Summary City County Board City Board Board Board Board Members TBD Members Members Members Members Difficult NA Legislation NA NA NA Transit Authority Organization October 2007 2. Introduction In August 2006, the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle both signed Resolutions ofIntent to establish a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to serve the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The development of an RTA is intended to bring the region's independent transit agencies together to: . Develop a seamless regional transit. . Potentially develop dedicated funding sources. . Provide for more effective regional transit planning. . Provide for more efficient coordination and integration of transit services. . More effectively address regional congestion and air quality issues. . More effectively integrate transit and land use. This document describes typical RTA powers, the powers and functions that stakeholders have described as desirable for an RTA, and provides an overview of the institutional structure of existing providers. It then presents initial institutional options for the development of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA), as well as for alternative institutional structures that could produce the desired outcomes. 4 Introduction Transit Authority Organization October 2007 3. Typical Powers of Regional Transit Authorities Most transit agencies have all or most of the powers required to operate, maintain, and construct transit services. These powers typically include: . Construct and acquire transportation facilities. . Operate or contract for the operation of transportation services. . Enter into contracts and agreements. . Issue bonds. . Provide operating and capital funding for services operated by others (for example, in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, these could include JAUNT and UVa). . Acquire land through purchase, lease, gift, condemnation, or otherwise, either for its own use or on behalf of other agencies in connection with an adopted mass transit plan. . Regulate fares, determine schedules and routes. . Enter into contracts and agreements with adjoining counties, to provide transportation services to and from those areas, and to operate related facilities. . Apply for and receive loans and grants of money and property. Some transit agencies can exercise all of these powers on their own behalf. In other cases, transit agencies must rely on other entities to exercise powers on their behalf. The most common examples include bonding authority or condemnation powers, where many agencies rely on their "parent" organizations to sell bonds or condemn property on the transit systems behalf. This is currently the case with Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), where CTS cannot sell bonds or condemn property on its own, but where Charlottesville can on CTS' behalf. Similarly, the new Williamsburg Area Transit Authority will not have the ability to sell bonds, but a "Cooperative Service Agreement" between the participating jurisdictions will provide the equivalent ability, with the participating jurisdictions backing the bonds. In addition to the above, some transit agencies have the ability to levy taxes and fees to fund their services. In Virginia, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority were recently granted legislative authority (HB 3202) to levy a large array of local option taxes and fees 1. The jurisdictions that comprise the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (Arlington County, Fairfax County, and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax) impose a 2% sales tax on retail motor fuel sales with the proceeds to be used for transportation purposes. The tax is also imposed, by the state enabling legislation, in the jurisdictions comprising the Potomac-Rappahannock Transportation District (prince William County, Stafford 1 Note that in the NVTA area, the constitutionality of the taxes and fees is being challenged in court. On AUi,'Ust 27, 2007, the Circuit Court of Arlington County upheld the constitutionality of the taxes and fees. That judgment is now being appealed. 5 Typical Powers of Regional Transit Authorities Transit Authority Organization October 2007 County, and the cities of Fredericksburg, Manassas and Manassas Park). Outside of Virginia, many areas dedicate a portion of the local or state sales tax to transit. With the development of a new RTA, or another type of regional transit entity, in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, it will be necessary that the new organization have all of the powers necessary to operate, maintain, and construct transit services. It is also desirable that any new entity have stable and predictable sources of funding. As with other transit entities, these powers could either be held by the new organization, or be provided by other entities on behalf of the new transit organization. 6 Typical Powers of Regional Transit Authorities Transit Authority Organization October 2007 4. Desirable Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA Characteristics A series of stakeholder meetings were conducted at the beginning of the study with representatives of Charlottesville (including CTS), Albemarle County, the University of Virginia, and JAUNT. There was a large degree of consensus on desired RTA characteristics in many areas: RTA Composition . The RTA should be comprised of at least the city and the county. . The opportunity should be provided for the inclusion of UVa and JAUNT. . Even if UV a is not an initial member, the option for future inclusion should be maintained. Regional Transit Service Area . The RTA's service area should consist of either (1) the city and the county, or (2) the city and the county's designated development areas. Board Composition . All RTA members should have direct representation on the board. . IfUVa and JAUNT are not members of the RTA, ex-officio membership on the board could be considered. Local Control . The RTA should provide each participating member with a very high degree of control over the services that are provided to its constituents. Cost Sharing . Cost sharing among RTA partners should be equitable and should consider the relative levels of service provided in each area. Financing . Both the city and the county are healthy financially, and if desired, could likely increase funding for transit. . If a dedicated funding source for transit is to be developed, most of those who discussed the subject considered a sales tax on gasoline to be the preferred mechanism. 7 Desirable Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA Characteristics Transit Authority Organization October 2007 . State and federal subsidies should be shared equitably between the city and the county. One area in which viewpoints varied significantly was with respect to board composition. There were different perspectives in terms of the size of the board, the relative representation among the participating members, whether or not stakeholders should be included on the board, and whether board members should be elected or appointed members: . Size of board: Views ranged from a board size as low as four members with only city and county representatives to a large board with stakeholder representation. . Proportional representation: Views ranged from equal representation between the city and county to proportional representation based on service, ridership, and/or funding. . Stakeholder participation: Some believed that stakeholders should be included on an RTA board while others believed that they should not, and would be represented through their elected officials. (However, there was general consensus that, at a minimum, there should be an advisory board of stakeholder representatives.) . Elected versus Appointed Board: Views differed on whether board members should be elected or appointed, and whether or not the participating entities should have the option to appoint either elected or appointed members, or whether one or the other should be required. Other entities expressed specific issues or concerns that would need to be addressed as part of the development of an RTA or similar regional transit entity: City of Charlottesville . The current process for developing county services is cumbersome and could be improved. . More county involvement would be beneficial, especially as the county continues to grow, and if the county provides additional funding. Albemarle County . The current process for developing county services is cumbersome and needs to be improved. . As the county continues to grow, transit needs will increase. To effectively address these needs, the county needs a more direct role in the development and provision of transit service. . The county's direct role should be through board level representation. 8 Desirable Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA Characteristics Transit Authority Organization October 2007 University of Virginia . The current system works well for UVa. The University has complete control over its own services; the services work well, and through student fees, the University has sufficient funds for all desired services. The University is hesitant to make changes to a system that performs well. . UVa needs to maintain the ability to operate charter/ special event service (which cannot be operated with federally-funded buses). JAUNT · JAUNT's service area consists of Charlottesville and five counties, and the geographical differences may not mesh well within an RTA consisting of Charlottesville and a single county. · The splitting of JAUNT into two components--one that serves the RTA's service area and a second that served other areas-would be problematic because of the cross-boundary nature of many trips. · The current situation under which Charlottesville and Albemarle County contract directly with JAUNT for the provision of paratransit service works well, and could continue with the development of a new RTA. · Alternatively, the new RTA could contract with JAUNT for paratransit service in the RTA area. However, JAUNT would prefer to continue the direct relationship with the city and the county. 9 Desirable Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA Characteristics Transit Authority Organization October 2007 5. Advantages and Disadvantages of an RTA or Similar Entity Based on the views expressed by the stakeholders and other considerations, the advantages of an RTA, or other similar entity can be summarized as follows: . Would provide a direct role for the city and county in regional transit decisions and improvements · Would provide a stronger regional perspective, which could lead to a stronger regional system. · Would likely streamline planning for service improvements, and replace the current staff level planning process that is considered by many to be cumbersome. . Could provide for greater coordination with other providers. . Could provide additional funding for transit, either through the implementation of new funding sources, or increased funding from the county. (This funding could potentially replace existing funding from the city and county./ In summary, the development of an RTA or other similar entity will increase the opportunities to improve regional transit and to develop new revenue sources. However, for this to occur, the city and the county will need to be committed to working together to realize these opportunities. Disadvantages would generally relate to the time and effort that will be required to form the new institution. The city will also have a lesser degree of control, as with an RTA, it would share control with the county and potentially other organizations such as UVa. An additional potential disadvantage would be that if the RTA is primarily dependent upon annual appropriations from the city and the county, then as with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the annual appropriations process could become more cumbersome. 2 Note that the creation of an RTA, in itself, would not produce new sources of revenue. Instead, as in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, RTA legislation would need to explicitly authorize the imposition of new revenue sources. However, the state, through DRPT has designated the City of Charlottesville as the designated recipient of federal funds for the area, and this designation could be changed to a new RT A. 10 Advantages and Disadvantages of an RTA or Similar Entity Transit Authority Organization October 2007 6. Existing Transit Governance and Organization Transit service in Charlottesville and Albemarle County is now provided by CTS, University Transit Service CUTS), and JAUNT. CTS provides transit service to the general public, UTS provides service that is focused on University needs, and JAUNT provides paratransit and limited commuter service from outlying areas. Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) CTS is operated by the Transit Division of Charlottesville's Public Works Department (PWD). The Transit Division Manager reports to the Public Works Director, who reports to the City Manager, who reports to the City Council. The Transit Division Manager effectively acts as the CTS general manager and works with the Public Works Director and the City Manager to prepare and present policy items to City Council, which effectively acts as CTS' policy board. Nearly all interface between CTS, Albemarle County, UTS, and JAUNT is at a staff level. There is very little policy level interface between the three entities. The Transit Division performs most direct CTS-related functions related to operations and vehicle maintenance. However, many non-vehicle maintenance and administrative functions are performed by other city divisions or departments: . The PWD's Facilities Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the new Downtown Transit Station, and assists with maintenance of CTS' operation and maintenance base in the City Public Works yard. . The PWD's Fleet Division provides fuel for CTS vehicles. . The PWD's Public Services Division picks up trash at CTS stops within the city. . The Parks and Recreation Department assists with the cleaning and maintenance of CTS stops at and around the downtown pedestrian mall. . The Parks and Recreation Department maintains the grounds (mowing and snow plowing) at the Downtown Transit Station and at CTS's stops around the Downtown Pedestrian Mall. . The City's Human Resources Department provides payroll and personnel services. . The City's Finance department processes accounts payable and receivable, and audit servlCes. . The City's Information Technology Department is responsible for CTS computers, its web site, and supports CTS' real-time travel information. . The City Attorney's Office provides legal services. University Transit Service (UTS) UTS service is provided by UVa's Department of Parking and Transportation (P&1), whose Director reports to the University's Associate Vice President for Business 11 Existing Transit Governance and Organization Transit Authority Organization October 2007 Operations, who reports to the Vice President for Finance, who in turn reports to the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. P&T's Director acts as the UTS general manager, and the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer sets policy. (For UTS, unlike most transit systems, service decisions are considered to be management decisions, and are made by the Director.) A Transportation and Parking advisory committee that includes two students and approximately 11 faculty and staff from both the academic and hospital agency provides policy advice. UTS is a division and a cost center within P&T. Different UTS functions are performed and charged as follows: . The UTS division manages UTS service and performs vehicle operation functions, training, and some administrative costs such as customer service. All costs are billed to the UTS cost center. . Vehicle maintenance is performed by P&T's Vehicle Maintenance Shop, which bills UTS vehicle maintenance costs to the UTS cost center. . Administrative support, including IT support, procurement, budget, payroll, audit, accounts payable/receivable, procurement, HR, and other administrative services, are provided by P&T's Administrative Division. Administrative costs are split between P&T's six cost centers based on each cost center's proportion of direct costs. . Planning responsibilities are shared between P&T and the University's Office of the Architect. P&T's Director liaises with CTS' Transit Division Manger on UTS/CTS Issues. JAUNT JAUNT is a stock corporation that is owned by Charlottesville and Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson Counties.3 JAUNT is governed by a Board of Directors appointed by Charlottesville and the four counties. The Board has the responsibility for overseeing the agency, including setting policies and appointing the Executive Director. In the City of Charlottesville and Urban Albemarle County, JAUNT offers complementary demand-responsive service to people with disabilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All residents of Albemarle County are eligible to use JAUNT services, but the fare structure benefits seniors and people with disabilities. Transportation is available within Albemarle County transporting the general public in and around their own communities. Service is offered Tuesday and Thursday in the Scottsville/Esmont area and Wednesday in Crozet. Predetermined Routes are available in Crozet, Earlysville, Keswick, Stony Point, Esmont, and Scottsville. JAUNT 3 JAeNT also serves Buckingham County. However, Buckingham County is not an owner. 12 Existing Transit Governance and Organization Transit Authority Organization October 2007 directly performs major functions related to its services, including vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle maintenance, and administration. JAUNT provides complementary paratransit service in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, but does so under contract to the city and county, rather than through CTS. Liaison between JAUNT, CTS, and UTS is generally between JAUNT's Executive Director, CTS' Transit Division Manager, and UVa's P&T Director. 13 Existing Transit Governance and Organization Transit Authority Organization October 2007 7. Institutional Options The following sections present five institutional alternatives for the development and operation of expanded transit services in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. These options are: 1. Legislatively-Enabled Regional Transit Authority 2. Continued CTS Operation with a Regional Transit Coordinating Council 3. Joint Powers Agency 4. Joint Powers Board 5. Transportation District 6. Service District Each option is presented in terms of: . An overview of its governance. . Its powers and functions. . The steps that would be needed to create the new institution. . Potential taxing and funding powers and opportunities. . Funding and expenditure obligations for the involved jurisdictions. . The ability of implementing jurisdictions to subsequently withdraw. . A summary of advantages and disadvantages of the option. Each of the options would produce different variations of a "regional transit entity." Continued operation by CTS with a Transit Coordinating Council (Option 2), would require the lowest degree of change and the lowest level of control for parties other than the city. A Regional Transit Authority (Option 1), would require the greatest degree of change, and would provide the greatest range of powers and abilities, the potential to generate new revenue, and could be configured to include the immediate or future inclusion of UV a and/or JAUNT. It would also require special enabling legislation. Joint Powers Agencies, Transportation Districts, and Service Districts (Options 3, 5, and 6)-are specifically permitted under existing Virginia Statute and would be very similar with respect to the powers that could be exercised. All could be comprised of only the city and the county (and not UVa or JAUNT). The one major difference is that a Service District could impose additional property taxes within its district specifically to fund transit, while a Transportation District or Joint Powers Agency would not have the ability to generate new revenues. 14 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 The "Joint Powers Board" option (Option 4) would consist of the development of a regional policy board that would oversee city operated transit service (and potentially UVa operated transit service). The city would continue to operate regional service, but the city, subject to certain protections, would cede policy control to the Joint Powers Board. This option would not result in the development of a new legal entity but would instead represent the development of a "virtual RTA." In effect, the city (and possibly the University and/or JAUNT) would agree to perform services on behalf of the joint powers board. 7.1. Option 1: Legislatively-Enabled Regional Transit Authority (RT A) A legislatively-enabled RTA could provide powers that are tailored to the desires of the implementing organizations, plus the ability to generate revenue from new sources. To date, the Virginia Legislature has created three Transportation Authorities that have differing powers related to transportation, with the differences in powers generally reflecting the desires of the authorities: . The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NOVA) was created in 2002 to administer new funds that were expected to be generated from a local sales tax for transportation. NOVA was also provided with the power to construct and operate transportation facilities and services. The sales tax failed to pass and NOVA became, in effect, a transportation planning agency. The recently passed transportation bill (H 3202) gives NOVA broad authority to levy a number of new taxes, to implement tolls, program and implement transportation projects, and to issue bonds. . The Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA) was created in 2006 to merge two existing transit systems, one of which was privately operated. The merger was designed to provide more seamless transit service and to maximize state and federal funding opportunities. The powers granted to WATA are generally the same as those granted to Transportation Districts, with the major difference being that Williamsburg and area counties are permitted to include private institutions in the transportation authority. The parties that formed the WATA did not seek the authority to impose local taxes or fees, and thus WATA does not have this ability. . The recent transportation bill (H 3202) creates a Hampton Roads Transportation Authority. This authority has "all of the powers given to transportation district commissions," plus broad powers to levy new taxes and fees, to impose tolls on new and expanded transportation facilities, to issues bonds, and to use revenues for transportation improvements. The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority is, in many respects, a toll road authority, but with broad powers relating to all transportation modes. The development of a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA would first require a regional consensus on desired powers and funding authority, followed by the introduction of 15 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 legislation and legislative approval. Previously granted approval to the three existing transportation/ transit authorities in Virginia may set precedents that could frame the development of a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA. 7.1.1. Composition and Governance The three existing Transportation Authorities are composed of combinations of cities and counties, and in the case of Williamsburg, private institutions. Their governing boards are comprised of representatives from its members, and except in Williamsburg, DRPT, the House of Delegates, and the Senate: . The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority is governed by a 16 member Board that is comprised of: D The chief elected officer, or designee, from each of the member jurisdictions (i.e., one representative per jurisdiction, irrespective of size). D Two members from the House of Delegates. D One member from the Senate. D Two citizens appointed by the Governor. D The Director ofDRPT, or his designee (ex-officio). D The Chair of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or designee (ex- officio) . . The Williamsburg Area Transit Authority is governed by one member from Williamsburg, one member from York County, and two members from James City County. In addition, those members may elect up to three members "to represent the interests of higher-education facilities (i.e., College of William and Mary) and nonprofit tourist-driven agencies in the Williamsburg area (i.e., Colonial Williamsburg), provided that such member facilities and organizations contribute significant financial resources to the Authority." The Williamsburg Area Transit Authority's Board does not include representatives from DRPT, the House of Delegates, the Senate, or the Commonwealth Transportation Board. By agreement of the RTA members, all board members will be non-elected officials. . The Hampton Roads Transportation Authority is governed by an 18 member Board that is comprised of: D The chief elected officer, or designee, from each of the member jurisdictions (i.e., one representative per jurisdiction, irrespective of size). D One member from the Commonwealth Transportation Board who is from the Hampton Roads area. D Two members of the House of Delegates. D One member of the Senate. D Two citizens appointed by the Governor. D The Director ofDRPT, or designee (ex-officio). D The Chair of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or his designee (ex- officio) . 16 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 In the Charlottesville-Albemarle area, RTA legislation would need to specifically include the ability for UVa to become a member, if this is so desired. The same would be required for JAUNT to become a member. 7.1.2. Powers and Functions The three Transportation/Transit Authorities generally have the same powers as Transportation Districts (many or most of which are not exercised), plus additional powers. The powers of Transportation Districts (which are also described below) are generally as follows: . Prepare transportation plans. . Construct and acquire the transportation facilities included in the transportation plan. . Operate or contract for the operation of transportation services. . Enter into contracts and agreements. . Issue bonds. . Provide operating and capital funding for services operated by others (for example, JAUNT, if JAUNT were not part of the RTA). . Acquire land through purchase, lease, gift, condemnation, or otherwise, either for its own use or on behalf of other agencies in connection with an adopted mass transit plan. . Regulate fares, determine schedules and routes, and franchising agreements within its boundaries. . Enter into contracts and agreements with adjoining counties and cities that are within the same Planning District, and with adjoining Transportation Districts, to provide transportation services to and from those areas, and to operate related facilities. . Apply for and receive loans and grants of money and property. . Regulate traffic signals and other vehicle control devices. An RTA could contract for service from an existing transit provider, including the City ofCharlottesville/CTS, UTS, and JAUNT. In this manner, an RTA could set regional transit policies and determine services but avoid the need to develop new operational capabilities. A new RTA could also assume ownership of existing CTS and UTS equipment and personnel, if so desired. Additional powers, beyond those of Transportation Districts, that have been granted to Authorities include: Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NOVA) . H 3202 provides the ability, following approval by the governing bodies of six of its nine member jurisdictions, to levy a wide range of taxes and fees for transportation 17 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 purposes. These taxes and sources are described in the "Taxing and Funding Authority" section. (NOVA recently voted to impose these taxes and fees.) . H 3202 also allows the authority to impose, collect, and set tolls on new or expanded transportation facilities. . Subject to certain conditions specified in H 3202, to determine the use of the new taxes, fees and toll revenues. . It is not clear whether the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority has condemnation powers (it has the authority to "construct or acquire, by purchase, lease, contract, or otherwise, the transportation facilities specified in the plan.") . H 3202 provides the authority to issue bonds. Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA) . WATA has generalized powers for oversight of Williamsburg area programs involving public transit, congestion mitigation, priority setting and advocacy. . WATA's enabling legislation does not provide it with the ability to condemn property or to sell bonds. However, a "Cooperative Services Agreement" between the founding parties will provide the ability to sell bonds, with those parties backing the bonds. Hampton Roads Transportation Authority (HRT A) . HRTA can acquire, construct and operate, highways, bridges, tunnels, railroads, rolling stock, transit and rail facilities and other transportation-related facilities. . H 3202 provides the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority the same condemnation powers as transportation districts ("slow-take" condemnation). . H 3202 provides the ability to issue bonds in the same manner as transportation districts. . H 3202 provides the ability, following approval by the governing bodies of seven of its 12 member jurisdictions that represent 51 % of the population, to levy a wide range of taxes and fees for transportation purposes. These taxes and sources are described in the "Taxing and Funding Authority" section. . H 3202 also authorizes the Authority to impose, collect and set tolls on new or expanded transportation facilities. . Subject to certain conditions specified in H 3202, determine the use of the new taxes, fees and toll revenues. The conditions, among other things, specify the initial projects to be undertaken. . It is not clear whether the Hampton Roads Transportation Authority has bonding authority. (Its enabling legislation does not specifically provide it, but other legislation pertaining to authorities may provide the necessary authority). 7.1.3. Creation The development of each of the three Transportation Authorities described herein was by legislation. Similarly, the creation of a Charlottesville-Albemarle Transit Authority 18 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 would require legislation. This legislation would define the Authority, its governance and its powers and duties. 7.1.4. Taxing and Revenue Authority H 3202 provides a number of tax and fee revenue opportunities for the Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads Transportation Authorities. These new sources are listed in Table 2, and differ slightly for the two regions: Table 2: H3202 Funding Authorizations Northern Virginia Hampton Roads Transportation Transportation Authority Authority Region-Wide 4 Sales Tax on Gasoline -- 2% Grantor's Tax (property transfer tax) 40~/$1 00 40~/$1 00 Motor Vehicle Rental Tax 2% 2% Transient Occupancy Tax 2% -- Safety Inspection Fee $10 $10 Initial Vehicle Registration Fee 1% 1% Sales Tax on Auto Repairs 5% 5% Reqional Reqistration Fee $10 $10 Local Option Commercial Real Estate Up to 25~ Up to 10~ Local Registration Fee $10 $10 Commercial/Residential Impact Fee TBD TBD Annual Revenue (millions) $200 - $215 $425 - $445 . H 3202 authorizes a 2% sales tax on motor fuels in the Hampton Roads region (this tax is already collected in Northern Virginia). . The bill authorizes a 2% transient occupancy tax in Northern Virginia but not in the Hampton Roads area. . The commercial real estate tax can be up to 25~ per $100 in Northern Virginia, but only up to 1 W in the Hampton Roads area. In both regions, the governing bodies of a specified number of local jurisdictions have to vote to impose the new regional taxes. As described above, in Northern Virginia, the approval of six of the region's nine cities and counties is required, and in Hampton Roads the approval of 7 of 12 localities representing at least 51 % of the population is required. In both cases, approval by sufficient majorities would mean that the new taxes 4 A 2% sales tax on gasoline for transportation purposes is already levied in the portions of Northern Virginia that are members of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission. 19 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 and fees would be levied in all jurisdictions. For the local option taxes, approval and imposition is on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. In the Williamsburg area, WATA does not have any special taxing authority. The founding parties did not believe that new revenues were necessary nor did they believe that there was sufficient local support to gain legislative approval for local taxes and fees. For a Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA, if new revenues are desired, the specific new sources that could be available would be specified in the enabling legislation, and would likely be some or all of those authorized in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. 7.1.5. Expenditure/Funding Obligations Expenditure decisions for Transportation Authorities are made by their Boards, which are configured as defined by their enabling legislations. The relationship between a new Charlottesville-Albemarle RTA and participating organizations would likely be determined during formation negotiations and legally defined by the Authority's enabling legislation. This could specify financial commitments and limitations, and could determine whether the individual organizations could withdraw. 7.1.6. Withdrawal Enabling legislation for the three existing Transportation Authorities creates the Authorities, defines their membership and provides no means for withdrawal. Therefore, withdrawal would likely require new legislation. 7.1.7. Advantages and Disadvantages The major advantages of an RTA are that it would be a true regional entity that could include the city, county, UVa, and other organizations such as JAUNT, and whose sole focus would be the provision of transit service. Furthermore, with dedicated revenue sources (if this authority is sought and granted by the legislature), the RTA could operate independently of the city and county, and reduce direct city and county expenditures for transit. The disadvantages would be that an RTA would be the most difficult of the options to implement, as it would require enabling legislation. It would also lessen the city's level of direct control over service. 7.2. Option 2: Continued Operation by CTS with a Transit Coordinating Council As described above, CTS is currently the Charlottesville-Albemarle's de-facto regional transit provider. Regional services are currently provided through agreements between 20 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 Albemarle County and CTS and UVa and CTS. Most local officials believe that this current arrangement meets most current needs, but that a more "robust" institution will be needed to effectively address future transit needs that will occur as the area continues to grow. It may be possible to provide the desired improvements through the development and use of a "Transit Coordinating Council" (fCC). 7.2.1. Governance/Management At present, all coordination between CTS, the county, UV a, and JAUNT is through the MPO or on an ad-hoc basis. CTS, the county, UVa, and JAUNT staff know each other well, and work well together. All stated during the stakeholder interviews that coordination and joint initiatives were important and desirable, but were often deferred to meet more immediate day-to-day needs. In addition, CTS's planning capabilities are very limited-CTS does not have the staff to perform comprehensive regional transit planning, and as a result, CTS planning efforts are often more reactive than proactive. Potential solutions to these issues could be to: 1. Increase CTS' planning capabilities by hiring a service planner. 2. Develop a Regional "Transit Coordinating Council" (fCC) that would be responsible for the development of regional transit initiatives. TCe's are used in a number of areas, including Michigan and the San Francisco Bay Area. In the San Francisco Bay, which has dozens of different transit operators, the RTCC is composed of the general managers of the region's largest transit operators and coordinates routes, schedules, fares and transfers among operators, provides input to the MPO on transit policy and funding, and conducts legislative advocacy. The MPO's executive director chairs the panel, and MPO staff provide day-to-day support. In the La Crosse, Wisconsin/La Crescent, Minnesota area, the Transit Coordinating Council was established to study, develop, recommend, and advise the MPO on a wide range of transit related programs and issues. That TCC is comprised of area policy board members, DOT representatives, transit managers, and transit stakeholders. In the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area, a TCC could be developed to provide a formal mechanism to address, determine, and coordinate regional transit needs and activities. The TCC would include regional representation and would advise the Charlottesville City Council, which would retain it role as CTS' policy board. As at present, once regional initiatives had been developed by the TCC and adopted by the City Council, CTS and the county or UVa (or other entities) would negotiate and execute individual agreements. 21 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization 7.2.2. 7.2.3. 7.2.4. 7.2.5. October 2007 Creation A TCC could be developed through an agreement between participating parties. The agreement would define the role and responsibilities of the council. Powers and Functions CTS, as a department of the City of Charlottesville, has at is disposal all the powers available to the city. For the provision of transit services, these include: . Construct and acquire the transportation facilities. . Operate or contract for the operation of transportation services. . Enter into contracts and agreements. . Issue bonds. · Provide operating and capital funding for services operated by others.. · Acquire land through purchase, lease, gift, condemnation, or otherwise, either for its own use or on behalf of other agencies in connection with an adopted mass transit plan. . Regulate fares, determine schedules and routes. . Enter into contracts and agreements with adjoining counties, to provide transportation services to and from those areas, and to operate related facilities. . Apply for and receive loans and grants of money and property. These powers include all of those needed to provide service throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The city cannot condemn property outside of its borders; however, as necessary, Albemarle County could condemn property within the county on behalf of CTS. Taxing and Revenue Authority The development of a TCC would not impact any existing revenue sources, nor would it provide any new revenue. Expenditure/Funding Obligations Charlottesville and Albemarle County directly control the services that are provided, and thus the related costs. For the most part, annual expenditure and funding decisions are made on a year-by-year basis (with the exception that city and county would need to fulfill any prior multi-year funding commitments). 22 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 7.2.6. Withdrawal All regional transit services are now operated via agreements between the city and the counties. All parties are free to terminate the agreements at any time. 7.2.7. Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of this option are that it would be very easy to implement, would provide an expanded role to the county and to other transit stakeholders. It would thus provide a broader regional perspective than the status-quo. The major disadvantage would be that the involvement of the county via a Transit Coordinating Council would not provide the county with the direct policy level control that it desires. It would also not provide the potential for the development of new revenue sources to fund expanded transit service. 7.3. Option 3: Joint Powers Agency: City and County Virginia statute (Section 15.2-1300) enables "political subdivisions" to jointly exercise powers, and through this statute, Charlottesville and Albemarle County could establish a Joint Powers Agency. Then, through a "joint exercise of power," the Joint Powers Agency could exercise any of the powers jointly held by the city and county, which would include all those necessary to operate transit service. 7.3.1. Composition and Governance A Joint Powers Agency can be comprised of "political subdivisions" which would include Charlottesville and Albemarle County. It could not include UVa or JAUNT. Governance of the Joint Powers Agency would be as agreed upon by the implementing organizations. As part of the formation agreement, members would determine the policy representation of each party, as well as roles and responsibilities in a similar manner as for a legislatively-enabled RTA. 7.3.2. Powers and Functions Joint Powers Agencies can exercise "any power, privilege or authority exercised or capable of exercise by the political subdivisions in the Joint Powers Agency." For transit, the city and the county have all of the powers necessary to operate a regional transit system: . Construct and acquire the transportation facilities. . Operate or contract for the operation of transportation services. . Enter into contracts and agreements. 23 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 . Issue bonds. · Provide operating and capital funding for services operated by others. · Acquire land through purchase, lease, gift, condemnation, or otherwise, either for its own use or on behalf of other agencies in connection with an adopted mass transit plan. . Regulate fares, determine schedules and routes. · Enter into contracts and agreements with adjoining counties, to provide transportation services to and from those areas, and to operate related facilities. . Apply for and receive loans and grants of money and property. 7.3.3. Creation The creation of a Joint Powers Agency would require the negotiation and execution of an agreement between the city and county and approval of the agreement by ordinance. The agreement must specify the following: . Its duration. . Its purpose or purposes. · The manner of financing the joint undertaking and for establishing and maintaining budgets. · Methods to be employed in the case of partial or complete termination of the agreement and for disposing of property upon such partial or complete termination. . All other necessary and proper matters. The agreement may also contain: · Provision for an administrator or a joint board responsible for administering the undertaking. The precise organization, composition, term, powers and duties of any administrator or joint board shall be specified. · The manner of acquiring, holding (including how title to such property shall be held) and disposing of real and personal property used in the undertaking. · How issues of liability will be dealt with and the types, amounts and coverages of 1nsurance. Finally, through a Joint Powers Agreement, the city and county could appropriate funds and may sell, lease, give, or otherwise supply Joint Powers Agency with property, personnel and services. 7.3.4. Taxing and Revenue Authority A Joint Powers Agency would not have any revenue generating powers of its own, and would need to receive funding through its members. It would be eligible to receive state and federal funding, either directly or through its members. 24 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 7.3.5. Expenditure/Funding Obligations Expenditure obligations for the city and county under a Joint Powers Agreement would be as agreed upon by the two parties and defined in the Joint Powers Agreement. Expenditure decisions would be made by the board of the Joint Powers Agency. 7.3.6. Withdrawal As described above, withdrawal mechanisms would need to be agreed upon by the city and the county as part of the formation process, and defined in the Joint Powers Agreement. 7.3.7. Advantages and Disadvantages The major advantages of a Joint Powers Agency would be that it would provide Albemarle County with direct policy level involvement in the provision of CTS transit service, and would be relatively easy to implement. Disadvantages would be that UVa and JAUNT could not be directly included in aJoint Powers Agency (because they can only include "political subdivisions"), and it could not have any dedicated revenue sources. As with all other options, it would also lessen the city's level of direct control over service. 7.4. Option 4: Joint Powers Board: City and County plus UVa and/or JAUNT Virginia law does not provide for the creation of Joint Powers Agencies that include parties that are not "political subdivisions," such as UVa and JAUNT. However, it may be possible to create the equivalent through the development of a "Joint Powers Board" that directs transit service provided by the City on the board's behalf. In effect, the city would agree to perform services, cooperate with, or lend its powers to the Joint Powers Board. Precedents for this type of arrangement exist within Charlottesville and elsewhere in Virginia. In Charlottesville, the Charlottesville Industrial Development Authority CCIDA) has an independent board but is operated by the city's Office of Economic Development. Other city departments also provide support in a similar manner as for CTS, but on a contractual basis. In Danville, the Blue Ridge Power Agency is a "Joint Action" Agency that is comprised of eight cities and towns, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and two electric cooperatives. 25 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization 7.4.1. 7.4.2. 7.4.3. 7.4.4. October 2007 Composition and Governance As with most other options, the composition of the Joint Powers Board would be determined by the participating agencies as part of the formation process. This agreement would define the policy representation of each party, as well as roles and responsibilities in a similar manner as for a Joint Powers Agency. Once formed, the new board could also operate in a similar manner as with a Joint Powers Agency, except that participating members would need to execute most powers on its behalf. For example, the new board would direct transit activities, and CTS' Transit Division Manager and staff would report to the Joint Powers Board rather than the City Manager. However, CTS staff would continue to be city employees. Powers and Functions A Joint Powers Board would have the powers that its participating members would agree to provide on its behalf. These powers would be defined as part of the formation agreement, and could be provided on an ongoing basis, or on a case-by-case basis. Through its participating members, a Joint Powers Board could theoretically exercise all of the powers necessary to provide transit. For example, if the city were to continue to provide the actual service, the city could enter into contracts on behalf of the Joint Powers Board. Similarly, city and county could condemn property on the Joint Powers Board's behalf. They could also sell bonds on behalf of the Joint Powers Board, or via a "Cooperative Services Agreement" as in the case of the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority. Creation The creation of a Joint Powers Board would require the negotiation and execution of an agreement between the executing members that set forth the terms of the agreement. These terms would most likely be the same as for a Joint Powers Agency. Taxing and Revenue Authority As with a Joint Powers Agency, a Joint Powers Board would not have any revenue generating powers of its own, and would need to receive funding through its members. It would be eligible to receive local, state, and federal funding, either directly or through its members. 26 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 7.4.5. Expenditure/Funding Obligations Expenditure obligations for individual members of a Joint Powers Board would be as agreed upon by the parties and defined in the Joint Powers Agreement. Expenditure decisions would be made by the Joint Powers Board within the authority granted to it by its members. 7.4.6. Withdrawal As with a Joint Powers Agency, withdrawal mechanisms would be agreed upon by the city and the county as part of the formation process, and defined in the formation agreement. 7.4.7. Advantages and Disadvantages The major advantages of a Joint Powers Board would be that it could be among the easiest to implement, as CTS would continue to operate all service. It would also provide Albemarle County with direct policy level involvement in the provision of regional transit service. As desired, the Joint Powers Board could also include UVa, JAUNT, and other stakeholders. Disadvantages would be that the Joint Powers Board would have no legal standing of its own, and the city and county and other involved parties would need to exercise all powers on its behalf. A Joint Powers Board could not have any dedicated revenue sources, and as with other options, it would lessen the city's level of direct control over servIce. 7.5. Option 5: Transportation District The Transportation District Act of 1964 provides the authority for local jurisdictions to create Transportation Districts to provide transportation facilities and services. This act could be used to create a new "Transportation Commission" comprised of the city and the county. However, a Transportation District could not include members that are not cities or counties, such as UV a or JAUNT. 7.5.1. Composition and Governance Transportation Districts can be comprised only of combinations of cities and counties: · Transportation Districts can be created by a single city or county, or by combinations of cities and/or counties. 27 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 . Transportation Districts are governed by a Commission, the composition of which is determined by the participating jurisdictions, plus the Chair of the Commonwealth Transportation Board or his designee.S . The governing Commissions determine an equitable funding allocation among the participating jurisdictions that must take into consideration the cost of facilities in each jurisdiction, population, transportation benefits, and "all other factors." 7.5.2. Powers and Functions Transportation Districts can: . Prepare transportation plans. . Construct and acquire the transportation facilities included in the transportation plan. . Operate or contract for the operation of transportation services. . Enter into contracts and agreements. . Issue bonds. . Provide operating and capital funding for services operated by others (for example, VRE). . Acquire land through purchase, lease, gift, condemnation, or otherwise, either for its own use or on behalf of other agencies in connection with an adopted mass transit plan. . Regulate fares, determine schedules and routes, and franchising agreements within its boundaries. . Enter into contracts and agreements with adjoining counties and cities that are within the same Planning District, and with adjoining Transportation Districts, to provide transportation services to and from those areas, and to operate related facilities. . Apply for and receive loans and grants of money and property. . Regulate traffic signals and other vehicle control devices. These powers can extend beyond transit, and could include other types of transportation, such as toll roads. In this case, the development of a broader transportation district could provide additional funding opportunities, such as the use of toll revenues to fund transit. A new transportation district could contract for service from an existing transit provider, including the City of Charlottesville. In this manner, the transportation district could set regional transit policies and determine services but avoid the need to develop new 5 By statute, the names of transportation agencies created under this act are to be the name of the Transportation District, with the term "Commission" appended to the end. In practice, this is not adhered to--for example, neither the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) nor the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission use the term "district" in their name, and the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads uses the term in the middle of its formal name and operates under the name Hampton Roads Transit (HRT). 28 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 operational capabilities. A new transportation district could also assume ownership of the existing CTS system and employ existing personnel. 7.5.3. Creation The Transportation District Act provides local jurisdictions with the authority to create Transportation Districts, without additional legislation. To do so, the governing body of each jurisdiction needs to adopt and me with the Secretary of the Commonwealth an ordinance that: 1. Sets forth the name of the Transportation District. 2. Fixes the boundaries of the Transportation District. 3. Names the cities and counties that are included within the Transportation District. 4. Contains a finding that "the orderly growth and development of the county or city and the comfort, convenience and safety of its citizens require an improved transportation system, composed of transit facilities, public highways and other modes of transport, and that joint action through a Transportation District by the counties and cities which are to compose the proposed Transportation District will facilitate the planning and development of the needed transportation system." 7.5.4. Taxing and Revenue Authority Virginia tax code (Section 58.1-1720) levies a 2% sales tax on fuel in every city and county which is a member of certain Transportation Districts, all of which are in Northern Virginia and the George Washington Region: 1. Those with a rapid heavy rail commuter mass transportation system operating on an exclusive right-of-way and a bus system controlled by the Transportation District. 2. Any Transportation District which is subject to ~15.2-4515 C and which is contiguous to the Northern Virginia Transportation District (meaning PRTC and any successors). As a result, a new Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation District would not be able to impose the 2% gasoline sales tax without new legislation. A new Transportation District could be named the designated recipient of federal funds for the Charlottesville area. Such a change would require the mutual agreement between the city and the new Transportation District, and the approval of DR PT. 29 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 7.5.5. Expenditure/Funding Obligations Expenditure decisions for the new transportation district would be made by its board, which would be configured as determined by the jurisdictions forming the district. Expenditure and funding requirements could also be incorporated into the agreements negotiated between the participating jurisdictions during formation of the district, and could incorporate measures of financial and service equity. 7.5.6. Withdrawal A city or county may withdraw from the Transportation District by resolution or ordinance. As described above, this withdrawal does not relieve the county or city from any obligation or commitment made or incurred while a district member. 7.5.7. Advantages and Disadvantages The major advantages and disadvantages of a Transportation District would be similar as for a Joint Powers Agency. Significant advantages would be that it would provide Albemarle County with direct policy level involvement in the provision of CTS transit service, and would be relatively easy to implement. Disadvantages would be that UVa and JAUNT could not be directly included in a Transportation District (because they can only include cities and counties), and Transportation Districts cannot have any dedicated revenue sources. As with most other options, it would also lessen the city's level of direct control over service. An additional characteristic of a Transportation District is that its governing board must include the Chair of the CTB, or his designee, whereas the board of a Joint Powers Agency would not. 7.6. Option 6: Service District Virginia Code (~15.2-2400 to ~15.2-2405) provides for the creation of "Service Districts" within one or more localities "to provide additional, more complete or more timely service of government than are desired in the locality or localities as a whole." Services that these Districts can provide include transportation and transportation services, such as public transportation and transportation demand management. 7.6.1. Composition and Governance Service Districts can be created by a single city or county, or by combinations of cities and/ or counties. A Service District could not include UVa or JAUNT. 30 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 Service Districts are governed by a "development board or other body" which is delegated powers and responsibilities as agreed upon by the participating jurisdictions and set forth in the local ordinances which together create the Service District. Presumably, UVa and JAUNT, and other parties, could be included on the board, in either an official or ex-officio role, even though they could not be a "member" of the service district. 7.6.2. Powers and Functions Service Districts can construct, maintain, and operate the facilities and equipment that are necessary to provide a wide range of services. These permitted facilities and services include "transportation and transportation services within a Service District, including, but not limited to: public transportation systems serving the District; transportation management services." In more detail, powers include: . Construct, maintain, and operate facilities and services. . Acquire facilities, equipment, and real estate. . Contract for services. . Enter into contracts and agreements. . Accept funds and reimbursements from any source, including persons, authorities, Transportation Districts, localities, the State, and the Federal government. . Employ a workforce. . Negotiate and contract with others "with regard to connections" to other systems. Service districts do not have condemnation or bonding authority. To acquire property through condemnation, the city or the county would need to exercise its own condemnation powers on the service district's behalf. A service district could serve an area smaller than the entirety of the city and the county. For example, it could be created to serve all of Charlottesville, but just the county's defined development areas. 7.6.3. Creation Participating jurisdictions can create Service Districts following duly-advertised public hearings, and the adoption of ordinances that: 1. Set forth the name and describe the boundaries of the proposed Service District and specify any areas within the District that are to be excluded. 2. Describe the purposes of the District and the facilities and services proposed within the District. 31 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 7.6.4. 7.6.5. 7.6.6. 7.6.7. 3. Describe a proposed plan for providing such facilities and services within the District. 4. Describe the benefits that can be expected from the provision of such facilities and services within the District. Taxing and Revenue Authority Service Districts are empowered to levy and collect property taxes (but are not required to do so). There are no limits to the amounts that can be imposed, other than that Service Districts cannot impose property taxes for non-service related expenditures, such as schools, police, or general government expenditures. Expenditure/Funding Obligations Expenditure decisions for a Transportation Service District would be made by its Board, which would be configured as determined by the city and the county. As with the development of a transportation district, expenditure and funding requirements could be incorporated into the agreements negotiated between the two during formation of the district. They could also incorporate measures of financial and service equity. Withdrawal The Virginia law does not include any language on withdrawal from Service Districts. This implies that a member of a Service District can withdraw at any time. Presumably, a withdrawing Service District member would be responsible for a proportionate share of its debts and obligations incurred during that member's tenure. Advantages and Disadvantages In most respects, the advantages and disadvantages of a Service District would be similar as for a Joint Powers Agency or a Transportation District. However, one major difference would be that a Service District could levy higher property taxes within the service district to fund it services, whereas a Joint Powers Agency or Transportation District would not have any similar revenue opportunities. As with a Joint Powers Agency and a Transportation District, a Service District would provide Albemarle County with direct policy level involvement in the provision of transit service, and would be relatively easy to implement. Disadvantages would be that UVa and JAUNT could not be directly included in a Service District (because they can only include cities and counties). As with most other options, it would also lessen the city's level of direct control over service. 32 Institutional Options Transit Authority Organization October 2007 8. Summary Each of the six options would produce different variations of a "regional transit entity," and each would have different advantages and disadvantages. Based on the "desirable characteristics of an RTA" that are described at the beginning of this document, an initial assessment of advantages is also provided in Table 2. In summary: . A Regional Transit Authority (RTA) would be the most "robust" of the alternatives in that it would provide for the widest range of options and would have the fewest limitations. It would be would be a true regional entity that could include the city, county, UVa, and other organizations such as JAUNT, and whose sole focus would be the provision of transit service. It would be a legal entity that would have all of the powers necessary to operate and expand transit service and facilities. In a similar manner as in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, an RTA could provide for the development of new dedicated transportation funding sources. The creation of an RTA would require a strong regional consensus and subsequent enabling legislation. . Continued operation by CTS in conjunction with a Regional Transit Coordinating Council would be the easiest of all options to implement, and could include the city county, as well as UVa and JAUNT. The Regional Transit Coordinating Council would provide a stronger regional perspective than at present, but the Coordinating Council's role would be technically be to advise the city rather than to determine policy. As a result, neither the county nor other partners would have the direct policy level involvement. This approach, as with most others, would not provide the opportunity for new revenue sources. . A Joint Powers Agency would be a new legally-recognized agency that would be comprised of the city and the county and could exercise "any power, privilege or authority exercised or capable of exercise by the political subdivisions in the Joint Powers Agency." For transit, a Joint Powers Agency would have all of the powers necessary to operate a regional transit system. Joint Powers Agencies can only be comprised of political subdivisions, which would exclude UVa and JAUNT. AJoint Powers Agency would not provide any new revenue opportunities, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Joint Powers Board could be a "virtual-RTA" in which the city continued to operate service but, subject to certain protections, permitted CTS to be governed by an regional board. The Joint Powers Board could include the city, the county, UVa, and other organizations and stakeholders. A Joint Powers Board would be relatively easy to set up, but would have no legal standing of its own. As a result, the city and other parties would need to exercise their own powers on behalf of the Joint Powers Board. A Joint Powers Board would not have the ability to generate its own revenues, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Transportation District would be very similar to a Joint Powers Agency. The only significant differences would be that a Transportation District is required to include the Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on its board, and that condemnation powers would be limited to slow-take versus quick-take. A 33 Summary Transit Authority Organization October 2007 Transportation District could formally include only the city and county (and not UVa or JAUNT), would provide the county with direct policy level involvement, and would be relatively easy to implement. A Transportation District in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area would not provide any new revenue opportunities, and would not require enabling legislation. . A Service District would be similar to a Joint Powers Agency and Transportation District in that it could include only the city and county (and not UV a or JAUNT), would provide the county with policy level involvement, and would be relatively easy to implement. A major difference, however, is that a Service District could generate additional revenue through the ability to levy higher property taxes within the service district. The development of a Service District would not require enabling legislation. 34 Summary Transit Authority Organization October 2007 Table 3: Summary of Institutional Options Reduce reliance on city and county general funds Expenditure & Fundillg~~s Primary Control Secondary Control ithdrawal Permits withdrawal NA Method of withdrawal NA = Advantage = Disadvantage = Depends upon perspective of individual party ovemance Policy level representation for both city and county Policy level representation for UVa and JAUNT Policy Input for County Policy Input for Others Regional Perspective Powersal'ldFUnctiOn$. Construct, operate, and maintain transit Construct, operate, and maintain other regional transportation modes Potential for new funding 35 Summary <( I- >. 0:: .0 '0 "0 c: >. Q.l .Q u "E 'C ::c c: en ctl ]1 '(3 Q.l ctl 0 c: c: :if 0 w ~=: ::l CD c: '0 >. 0 en 0 'C o~ u ~ :;; Q) ~ ~ en Q) ctl Q.l 1:: .~ "0 t= CJ) :;: :;: c: ~ t:: 0 Q.l .S ::l ::l 10 ::l 0 0 0 0 0 Q.l c: :5 10 Cl.. u Cl.. U Q.l Cl. u 1:: en E c: ~ en .~ '0, .~ ~ 1:: oc:s 1:: oc:s 6 c: ~ Q.l 0 en .0 ~ '0 ~ ~ Q.l :s --' u 0 -, -, en I- en I- 0 Q. Q. ::l U ......: N uu M --i Ci ui cD City County Board Members Difficult Legislation NA NA . 11IIIiI\\(' l/illI,,-:<'1I 1;1'11.\//111 lilt Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 2a and 2c Technical Report Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas October 19, 2007 Submitted by: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700 Vienna, VA 22182 Submitted to: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 401 East Water Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Regional Transit Authority Plan Schedule of Oeliverables - Revised May 7,2007 Primary Target Delivery Date Task Responsibiiity (months from notice to proceed) 1a Technical Report that presents the required and desired E&K characteristics of the new regional transit entity. 2.0 A Powerpoint presentation E8K 2.0 1b E&K Technical Report that describes regional transit entity alternatives. 3.0 1c Staffing plan with an organizational chart, suggested salary ranges for VHB 3.0 each position in the organizational chart, brief Job descriptions 1d Technical Report that presents and describes institutional options including projected benefits, costs, and impacts, and that clearly VHB 2.0 presents the locally preferred institutional approach Task 1 Task report that includes a concise executive summary E&K 3.0 2a Technical Report identifying the area and corridors that appear to have potential to support transit seNice VHB 2.0 2b Technical Report describing the several strategies together with appropriate graphics illustrating each seNice strategy VHB 2.5 2c Maps of the areas meeting these criteria together with a Technical Report VHB 2.5 2d Map and summary matrix documenting seNices proposed for current CTS seNice areas VHB 3.5 2e Technical Report identifying the capital equipment appropriate for the proposed transit operation VHB 3.5 2f Technical Report on recommended seNice standards VHB 3.0 3a Technical Report that documents the amount of prior investment in E&K 3.5 CTS made by each member of the RTA 3b Deliverable: Technical Report that documents the proposed future seNice plan and operating costs under the recommended E&K 5.0 organizational structures 3c Technical Report that describes how the development of an RTA could impact existing funding sources, and that describes potential E&K 5.5 new revenue sources that could supplant existing local funding from the city and county 3d Technical Report that presents vehicle, facility and equipment needs, and associated costs E&K 4.3 3e Technical Report that documents alternative regional cost allocation E&K 5.5 formulas and the formula preferred by the involved entities. 3f Technical Report that identifies potential new funding source, and describes the legal and administrative steps that would be required to E&K 5.5 implement them 3g Technical Report that identifies how changes in the organization for transit and changes in the quantity of seNice provided could impact E&K 5.0 state and federal funding. 4a Technical Report documenting a transit plan and schedule VHB 10.0 4b Technical Report describing methods to achieve greater coordination in the planning and provision of transit seNice short of forming a VHB 10.0 formal authority. 4c Documentation of DOT requirements and a plan proposed for recordkeeping and cost allocation that will satisfy the requirements of VHB 6.0 the Circulars. Contents Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Task 1: Regional Transit Management and Governance Report 1: Advantages/Disadvantages of RT A and Organizational Frameworks Report 2: labor Analysis and Staffing Plan Task 2: Regional Transit Service and Operations Report 1: Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas 1. Executive Su mmary ...... ....... .......... ............ ......................... ............... .......... 1 2. Introd uction................................................................................................... 3 3. Existi ng Cond itions ......................................................................................4 3.1. Land Use.......................................................................................................................... 4 3.2. Transit Service ........................ ........................................................................ .................. 9 4. Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors ..................................................16 4.1. Areas for Priority Transit Service ....................................................................................16 4.2. Transit Corridor Identification ..........................................................................................49 Report 2: Service Strategies Report 3: Service Standards 11 Contents Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Transit Service Frequency ...........................................................................................1 Table 2: Transit Index Stratifications........................................................................................18 Table 3: Transit Service Supported by Residential Density...................................................... 19 Table 4: ITE Residential Densities for Transit Service ............................................................. 20 Table 5: Residential Density Index...........................................................................................20 Table 6: ITE Non-residential Densities for Transit Service ....................................................... 23 Table 7: Employment Density Index......................................................................................... 23 Table 8: Congestion Index .......................................................................................................25 Table 9: Parking Score Index................................................................................................... 27 Table 10: Roadway Connectivity Index.................................................................................... 30 Table 11: Median Income Index............................................................................................... 33 Table 12: Land Use Policy Transit Index for the Study Area.................................................... 40 Table 13: Residential Concentration of UVA Employees Index................................................ 44 Table 14: Composite Index ........................ ................. ..... .................................. ......................46 Table 15: Transit Service Frequency .......................................................................................49 Table 16: Corridor Analysis...................................................................................................... 50 111 Contents Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Major Employers in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area ..............................................8 Figure 2: CTS and UTS Daytime Service Fall 2008.................................................................12 Figure 3: CTS Nighttime Service Fall 2008 ..............................................................................13 Figure 4: CTS Sunday Service Fall 2008 ................................................................................. 14 Figure 5: Park and Ride Lots ...................................................................................................15 Figure 6: Residential Density Index.................. ..... ......................................... ..........................21 Figure 7: Employment Density Index .......................................................................................24 Figure 8: Congestion Index ................................ ................. ........ .............................................26 Figure 9: Parking Availability Index .......................................................................................... 29 Figure 10: Connectivity Index............................................... ...................................... ..............32 Figure 11: Median Income Index.............................................................................................. 34 Figure 12: Albemarle County Development Areas ...................................................................41 Figure 13: Albemarle County Land Use Designations.............................................................. 42 Figure 14: Development Plans Index ....................................................................................... 43 Figure 15: UVA Employee as a Percent ofTotal Population .................................................... 45 Figure 16: Composite Index ..................... ................................................................................47 Figure 17: Composite Index with Transit Routes...................................................................... 48 Figure 18: Transit Corridors ................ .......................................... .............. .............................51 lV Contents Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 1. Executive Summary Formation of a regional transit authority (RTA) is intended to promote the development of regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The decision whether to develop an Authority or some other form of regional organization for transit will depend, in part, on the nature and extent of transit services to be operated in each of the participating jurisdictions. This report documents the current status of transit in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. It then reviews the factors that suggest a greater probability of the use of transit, develops a composite index of transit use and identifies those corridors and areas most likely to support transit services within the relatively near future (two to seven years). Conditions existing in the study area today are described, including the patterns of development and transit service. Those geographic areas that are most conducive to public transportation, based on a range of transit-supportive factors, are then identified. There are eight factors in the transit potential index: . Residential density . Employment density . Congestion . Parking availability . Roadway connectivity . Persons with lower incomes . Transit-oriented plans and development policies . Residential concentration of university employees The areas having the greatest potential for use of transit services, based on the composite transit index, are illustrated below. The ratings ranged from low to high and are associated with a service frequency level and headway. For example, areas with a "High" transit potential rating support "Very Frequent" service with headways less than 15 minutes (see Table 1). Table 1: Transit Service Frequency Transit Potential Ratin Hih Moderate Hi h Moderate Low Moderate Low Fre uent Fre uent Moderate Infre uent Commuter Headwa < 15-minute headwa s 15-minute 30-minute 60-minute or demand-res onse Peak Period 1 Executive Summary r-- o o N ,.... (l) ..t::J o ,.... u o ,.... ,.... o 0... (l) ~ -a u 'a ...c u (l) f-< en C'l (l) -< '""0 t:: C'l en ,.... o '""0 'C ,.... o U (l) " 'P ,.... o 0... 0... ::I VJ ,~ en t:: C'l ,.... f-< - Q) ._~ _ (I)" =Q)C~ >'C t!~ U) C'IS F"" Q)e ~ ~ CD C; 'C -.gCO "'-OJ: ~~Q- (J Q)~ "tl( t:' CD tlI c: VI -g .. .. :=l -/1 ~ ~ dl,.giii ~ 01 ~ ; ~ tlI ~ ~ = ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i J. i ~ ~ ~ c6 I 5 ~ t! ~ j ~ ~, :!! ~ f .11:D8~1 I s.cc>>= .ii) ~ c: '5 8.~= 0 )(c>>"" ECI)U)t.I.. o "C co CI) ,,,c:a1:S ....,- m ~ ~ 1; J r Ii N ~ . ~ ~ f, ~ ~ . il ':" I n ~ ~ ,., . ~ . ~ . u i tk ~- on o <1z b C'l 8 8 ::I VJ (l) " 'p ::I u (l) :>< ~ N Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 2. Introduction Formation of a regional transit authority (RTA) is intended to promote the development of regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The decision whether to develop an Authority or some other form of regional organization for transit will depend, in part, on the nature and extent of transit services to be operated in each of the participating jurisdictions. Task 1 of this study includes a technical report on regional transit management and governance, including the costs and benefits of an Authority and other institutional structures. Several potential institutional structures for a regional transit entity are addressed. Task 2 of this study identifies potential regional transit services and operations and is composed of two reports. This document (fask 2, Report 1) reviews those corridors and areas most likely to support transit services within the relatively near future (two to seven years). Conditions existing in the study area today are described, including the patterns of development and transit service. Those geographic areas that are most conducive to public transportation, based on a range of transit-supportive factors, are identified. The second report for Task 2 identifies potential service strategies if a regional transit entity is formed. Recommendations are identified for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. In this report, eight performance measures are used to assess the potential for transit: residential density, employment density, street connectivity, availability of parking, income, projected traffic congestion, land use policies, and the residential concentration of UV A employees. These measures are intended to determine how transit-oriented an area is, as places with greater density of residents and employees, land use policies which encourage higher density, areas with connected streets, less parking availability, lower incomes, and high amounts of congestion are generally considered more transit-oriented than areas lacking some of the above characteristics. The study area for this project includes the entire City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Data analysis is conducted for the urbanized area defined by the Traffic Analysis Zones (fAZ). TAZ's are used by transportation planners to assess and analyze traffic data. The urbanized areas of Albemarle County are subdivided into TAZ's, however a portion of the county containing the most rural areas is not. 3 Introduction Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 3. Existing Conditions The existing conditions documented in this report include current residential and non- residential development patterns within the study area and a summary of regional transit services. The project study area consists of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County and includes all designated growth areas within Albemarle County. Existing conditions analysis will be used to identify current deficiencies and possible future service enhancements for the study area, setting the stage for service recommendations presented in Task 2, Report 2. 3.1. Land Use Development patterns in Charlottesville and Albemarle County vary substantially. Land use ranges from dense activity centers, such as the University of Virginia and the Downtown Mall, to rural areas characterized by farmland, large residential lots and open space. The built environment reflected by the urban and rural development patterns is comprised of two general land use types; residential and non-residential. Each has unique characteristics and is presented separately. 3.1.1. Residential Residential development is an important indicator of transit potential, as it serves as the location where many people begin (or end) their trips. This section discusses residential development in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. City of Charlottesville Charlottesville's overall land area has stayed the same since the annexation of 258.4 acres of Pen Park in 1988 which brought the City's size to approximately 10.9 square miles or 6,940 acres.1 The City is currently precluded from annexing additional land from Albemarle County; however the state mandated moratorium on annexation ends in 2010. The 2000 Census reports a City population of 45,049, compared to 40,341 in 1990. Since 1990, the annual population growth rate has been small, averaging only 1.1 % per year. There are approximately 17,591 housing units according to the Census, 54% of which are single family units accounting for a citywide density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre. Citywide, there has been a substantial increase in the number of dwelling units constructed since 2000, with many more in the development pipeline.2 A new "University" zoning district was created in 2003, and since its adoption has resulted in 1 City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan, 2007, page 4 2 City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan, 2007, Chapter 3 page 27 4 Existing Conditions Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 numerous mixed-use and high density projects near the University including both owner- occupied (condominiums) and renter-occupied (apartment buildings) housing units Albemarle County Between 1990 and 2000, the annual population growth rate in Albemarle County was 1.5%, according to the US Census. The population grew from 68,040 in 1990 to 79,236 in 2000. As part of its growth management strategy, Albemarle County has designated "Development Areas" in order to channel growth on the periphery of Charlottesville, the Route 29 North corridor, Crozet and Rivanna. All of these designated growth areas are located with the study area for this project. Although the designated Development Areas only account for approximately 5% of the total land in the County3, they support almost half of the development. As of 1995, approximately 47% of residential dwellings within the county were located in the more transit-oriented designated Development Areas, while 52% were in the rural areas. It is important to note that rural areas are generally difficult to serve with traditional fixed-route transit services due to low-density development patterns. Rural area residents may not live within walking distance of a transit line, and therefore would require a park and ride lot or other similar facility in order to have access to a fixed-route transit line. Paratransit services, such as those operated by JAUNT, are more appropriate for low density, rural settings. Comparative AnalYsis Compared with the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County has an abundance of undeveloped land. Therefore, it is likely that growth in the County will significantly outpace that of the City in both percent and absolute terms. This will have a profound implication on the future provision of transit services. If Albemarle County establishes strong development policies that require compact development that is oriented toward pedestrians and limits parking, especially along major corridors such as Route 29 and on the border with the Charlottesville, the County will be able to support transit services that attract "choice riders." Projects and plans such as Places 29 and the Albemarle Place development are geared toward making this vision a reality. However, if the prevailing land use pattern continues, there will be few opportunities outside of the Route 29 North corridor for improving transit service in the County. 3,1,2. Non-Residential Non-residential development is an important indicator of transit potential, as commute trips tend to be one of the easier trips to serve by transit since they are often clustered both spatially (around major employment centers) and temporally (7:00 am - 9:00 am and 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm). This section discusses non-residential development in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Figure 1 illustrates the major employers in the reglOn. 3 Albemarle County Rural Area Plan, 2005, page 1 5 Existing Conditions Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 The Ciry of Charlottesville Charlottesville's major employment centers are concentrated in the areas near the Downtown Mall, the West Main Street corridor, the Emmet Street corridor, and the University of Virginia Grounds. Barracks Road Shopping Center and Seminole Square are two large commercial areas on the Route 29 corridor. The city's major employers include the University of Virginia Health System (4,500 employees), Martha Jefferson Hospital (1,500 employees), Lexis Nexus (600 employees), Wachovia Bank (300 employees) and SLN Securities (250 employees). Additionally, the Martha Jefferson Hospital is in the process of moving to the Pantops area in Albemarle County with construction of the new hospital to commence in 2009 with completion expected in 2012. The buildings that will be vacated in the move are expected to be filled by a mixed-use dense master-planned community, which represents an opportunity to bring additional transit-oriented development to an area very close to downtown Charlottesville. Albemarle Counry The areas located on Route 29 just north of the City of Charlottesville have some of the highest concentrations of employment densities in the study area due to the presence of Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Rio Hill Shopping Center and numerous office buildings such as the Rio West Professional Center, Berkmar Crossing, Republic Business Center, Sperry Marine Corporation, and the Comdial Corporation. The Piney Mountain Community is home to Badger Fire Protection Inc. and General Electric Fanuc. The Hollymead Community (including Hollymead Town Center) also boasts commercial development such as the Forest Lakes Shopping Center and will contain the new North Pointe development as well. Hollymead is also home to office development such as the Forest Lakes Medical Office, the Hollymead Professional Center, and the National Ground Intelligence Center, as well as industrial development including MicroAir and Universal Test Equipment. In addition, Hollymead is also the location of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County Airport. The Pantops area is located to the east of Charlottesville, along the Route 250 corridor. This area contains numerous commercial and office centers, including the Pantops Shopping Center, the headquarters of State Farm, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Major employers include the University of Virginia (20,000+ employees), State Farm Insurance (1,500 employees), GE Fanuc (1,300 employees), Comdial Corporation (900 employees) and Sperry Marine Corporation (650 employees). Inferred from the discussion above is that with a few notable exceptions (UV A Hospital and Martha Jefferson Hospital), current non-residential development patterns have resulted in the City of Charlottesville being the center of many smaller specialty shops, 6 Existing Conditions Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 businesses and offices, while development in Albemarle County has been concentrated in several specific corridors and areas (such as Fashion Square Mall, Albemarle Square, Walmart/Sam's Club, Rio Hill Shopping Center, Hollymead Town Center and Pantops, to name a few) in the form of large scale buildings and big-box retail establishments. The county's stated policy is to change these development patterns to more walkable, human-scale type development, particularly along transit supportive corridors. This development will be channeled into specific growth corridors, such as along Route 29 north of Charlottesville, Hollymead, Piney Mountain, Rivanna, Crozet, and the areas surrounding the City of Charlottesville. 7 Existing Conditions r--- o o N ..... 11) ..D. B u o ~ ~ < ~ "i:: ~ e ~ ..c rIJ ~ .... .... 0 - .;..; '"' ..... ~ 0 ..t:: 0... U 11) p::: ~ <<l ..t:: u .... '(3 =: ..c ..... u rIJ 11) '"' I-< ~ >. <JJ 0 ~ - 11) S" ..... .0:; "'CI ~ C ~ '"' <JJ 0 ..... ";- 0 "'CI ~ 'C ..... .:.; 0 u ~ 11) '"' > ::l '0 OJ) ..... ..... 0 ~ 0... 0... ;j C/J .t; <JJ C ~ ..... I-< OJ - ~ _ U) "C ;..9!;.a cnL..~(J) QJca~ - E- ~ - -- o OJ W'E: 't::f!go ca .II' .- .s:::. .c ..... C)...., u ~~ >- 'E ~ ::l 0 I/) 0 ell .~ (,) $ 0 0 0 (I) (I) 0 0 0 0 ~ (I) 1:: ~ g g an g 0 :g ell N N c:: ~ It) ..... , , , ell C. , I Cll 0 0 ..... -E .I: ..c E 0 ..... 0 :J (,) <( 0 g 0 an g UJ ..... ..... N I D ~ 0 . . . .. =It ~ :... CI) o~ · (ij' .E :Ee- w I / ! <1z . . .!!! 1::;:: 3:: :> om l~ ~j. o . . . . t .. .1. . . . <JJ ~ ~ ('j . . . . . .- .II . 10 o . . . . o <JJ C o '0 ;.:eJ c o U bJJ C '0 <JJ '~ ~ 00 Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 3.2. Transit Service There are several transit service providers operating in the Charlottesville-Albemarle study area, including: Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), University Transit Service (UTS),JAUNT and RideShare. Additionally the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission operates a ride matching service providing assistance to people trying to form carpools and vanpools. Together they provide a critical service in the region by reducing traffic congestion and providing mobility to people that either cannot or choose not to drive. 3.2.1. Charlottesville Transit Service CTS is a component of Charlottesville's Department of Public Works and provides public transportation throughout Charlottesville and in the urbanized areas of Albemarle County. Currently, service extends south to Piedmont Virginia Community College (pVCC), north on Route 29 to Wal-Mart and east on Route 250 past the Pantops neighborhood. CTS service is operated in three time periods: Daytime (see Figure 2), Nighttime (see Figure 3) and Sundays (see Figure 4). CTS currently operates 18 fixed routes including 12 exclusively during the daytime, four exclusively at nighttime (Monday - Saturday) and two during the daytime, nighttime and on Sundays. Daytime service operates under a hub-and-spoke framework, meaning bus routes generally run from many outlying areas to a central location where connections can be made. Route 7 and the Free Trolley serve as the backbones of the system providing service along Charlottesville's main arteries while the majority of other routes connect outlying neighborhoods to the Downtown Transit Station. This fixed-route service is designed to operate on a "pulse", meaning that all routes are scheduled to arrive and depart from a common location, the new Downtown Transit Station, at either a 0: 15 or 0:45 after the hour. "Pulse" schedules facilitate transfers for transit systems with infrequent service (>30 minutes per trip) and where most routes converge at a single location. The standard fare is $0.75, though elderly persons (65 and older) and persons with disabilities are eligible to receive a reduced fare of $0.35. Tickets can also be purchased in books at a discounted price. 3.2.2. University Transit Service UTS operates seven fixed-routes on and near the University of Virginia Grounds. UTS service is designed primarily to serve those who have University IDs, including students, staff and faculty, as well as all guests of the University, but UTS carries all who wish to ride. No fare is charged. 9 Existing Conditions Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 UTS fixed-route service is divided into three types of routes: full service, holiday service and commuter service. . Full Service: operates during the spring and fall semesters and includes all of the routes except the Holiday Special. . Holiday Service: operates during any student holiday (i.e., Winter, Spring, and Summer Break) and during the summer and includes all of the routes except the Grounds Loop, though the Blue Route and Orange Route operate on reduced schedules. No service is provided on weekends. . Commuter Service: operates between Christmas and New Years Day, when clinics are open and the University is closed. Since the University is out of session during these periods, this service is intended to provide employees access to work. Routes in operation include the Holiday Special, Green Route, Stadium/Hospital Shuttle and the Central Grounds Shuttle. Service is not provided on weekends. For students, faculty, and staff who have disabilities and who are unable to use the UTS fixed route buses, the Parking and Transportation Service provides UTS Demand and Respond Transportation Service CUTS DART). The service area is limited to that of the UTS fixed-route services, and typically the service has the same hours of operation as the UTS fixed routes. However, UTS DART is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, if necessary. The Parking and Transportation Service contracts with Yellow Cab and JAUNT to operate the vehicles for UTS DART. 3.2.3. JAUNT JAUNT, Inc. is a regional transit agency that provides fixed-route and demand-response service in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, and Buckingham Counties. JAUNT provides complementary demand-response service in Charlottesville and portions of Albemarle County, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Eligible persons include those who cannot use CTS fixed-route transit service, due to a disability. To use this service, riders must be certified by JAUNT. This service is operated from 6:15 am to 11:50 pm Monday to Saturday and 7:30 am to 10:00 pm Sunday. JAUNT also operates fixed-route service largely to connect rural communities to the Charlottesville urban area. This includes six commuter routes linking various rural urban centers within the five county service area to the City of Charlottesville. Most routes operate Monday-Saturday with reduced service on Sunday. Most commuter routes operate Monday-Friday and are listed below: . Albemarle County: Unking Crozet along Route 250 north, and Scottsville along Route 20 south 22, Stony Point along Route 20 north, the Earlysville area and Keswick along Route 250 east. Service Monday-Saturday 6am - midnight and 10 Existing Conditions Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Sundays 7:00 am-10:00 pm. Fixed routes are available, but residents must call to make a reservation. . Fluvanna County: Two Monday-Friday routes which both originate in Fork Union and serve Palmyra, with one traveling past Lake Monticello on Route 53, and the other staying on Route 15 to travel on Route 250. . Louisa County: Links Mineral and the Town of Louisa, traveling on Route 22, Route 15, and Route 250 with service Monday to Friday. . Nelson County: Two routes operate on the Route 29 corridor with one connecting Lovingston and UV A, and the other connecting Roseland to downtown Charlottesville and UV A. . Buckingham County: Seven day a week service linking Ducks, Buckingham Courthouse, and Dillwyn, traveling on Route 20 to UV A and Martha Jefferson Hospital. Demand-response and deviated fixed routes are also available throughout Albemarle County Monday-Saturday 6am - midnight and Sundays 7:00 am-10:00 pm. There are also routes to Charlottesville from the outlying counties that pick up throughout Nelson, Fluvanna and Louisa Counties. In general, these deviated fixed routes pick up between 8 AM and 9:30 AM and return between 2 PM and 3 PM. 3.2.4. Ride Share RideShare is a program of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (fJPDC) which aims to reduce traffic congestion and increase mobility. Services include carpool and vanpool matching services as well as Park-and-Ride lot development and marketing, and general Travel Demand Management (fDM) consultation. RideShare works with commuters, employers, and local governments. In addition, RideShare operates the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program which provides free transportation from work in emergency situations for persons enrolled in the program. Members are eligible for five free trips per year. Park and Ride lots are located throughout the Charlottesville metropolitan area (see Figure 5). Some lots are publicly owned by VDOT or other government agencies, while others are provided by private businesses. The lots exist to facilitate ridesharing with some lots (pantops, Walmart) providing park and ride for bus service as well. Ten park and ride lots are located in designated growth areas, mostly north and east of the City of Charlottesville along US 29,1-64, and US 250. Lots are also located in Crozet, Scottsville, and other locations outside of Albemarle County. 11 Existing Conditions c- o o '" u ..0 8 o - Q) .- >- _ U)"C =Q)C::s > i: I! t:: U)CI~w Q) E-~ ~ Q) CI.t: -.cCO .. - 0 ftS _ .- .c .c - cn- o Q)::S o::cC tnco t-Q ~Q .,.,N - tn(i t-u.. o co en <II ., <::> jj) :; 0 >- 0 ~ >- ~ 0 Q: !:. III >- '" >- ~ .~ !:. c .!! III '5 .Ci, '0 ~ .. ts ~ 0 ~ 0. .:: - '" '" .... '" <0 r-- E Q: .!l1 " ~ ., .!! .!! .!! .!! ~ " 'C = <Ii = :;; ., :; :; c .. 0 0 " " " " " .. .J::. a:: 5 a:: > ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....J () 0 LL ll: ll: Q: CI:: Q: CI:: CI:: ll: I1J I1J I I I I I I I I . ~ ~ ::::I 0 '" <::> <::> '" =a ... " U C3 'E j 0. " " ~ ~ '" " '3 .s if E >, -5 << ~ ~ '" ~ r-< ~ ~ -< "0 '" ;:: ~ :; << '" .g C3 r-< ;; 'iJ '" U ~ " 0 " N v 0 v ~ bJJ u ~ > ;:l "5; " OJ) ] 0 ~ 0. 0. " if> ~ ,:: ~ H '" -\z l'- o o '" v -" 8 o :t::~ .! cn"C =a>>Cj >_ ca+, cn....(I) !E~~ o Q) caot: -.cCO ; ::: .2 ~ ~ ~ Q+' o &~ ......(1) en .c .!:! I- C) ~ , '\ ._ L ""'Z(I) en ~ t/l '> >- ~ ~ .!!! (t) "<t <5 ...- N 1tI := ~ I'- N N N N E .g .2! ~ .2! (I) .2! '0 Q) 'S c: I'll j j j ~ J;; S ~ 0 0 0 0 0 () ~ u. 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: .. 0 I I I I I l:t:: /1z , .. .~ , .. ," il II c .. .~~~ cO:; . K / . I ..'" .. " f 00 <:> <:> N ~ ::; 0 0.. ~ ~ " 'jj OJ -! t Ib 2 f8 .c '" u v " f-< .~ ~ < 1: b.O -0 Z ~ ;; v, '" : 0 ~ ,., 'B 0 -0 U 0 0 C; .;.; "', U U " b{J v ;; " .~ > '... b.O ">:1 0 ~ '" 0.. 0.. ~ V) 0 ~ r, ~ t- o o N U .n B o :!::~ .!!! 0"0 =CI)Cj >"C~...., IftS....tn =E-~ o CI) cftS 0;: -,e 0 :;:::::.2.c .c '"" Q"'" o &~ f/) I- o ~Q)CO ftSCJO "'0 .- 0 C~N ~Q)= f/)f/){1. ~~ ~l , ...~ -. '" 00 ~ C> 0 C> ~ N u :;;I "" '"B r.. -! OJ '" u I~ '5 'E tS ~ OJ '" '" " ~ u -< "0 -0 C ::l ;; '" ~ '" ~ F-< 0 ~ u is ~ u OJ u ~ > E IOJJ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl C '" ~ ~ th '> >- ~ th ~ .... (J) e 11l ~ l"- E I- oS! '0 (J) C 11l .! :l ~ J:: !!! 0 () ::J Ll. 0::: . 0 I I 0:: /'(z ! jf CO / . / ~.......", +.. ... " "" C .8 'is c o U 01) 'R ] ;! c- o o N " .D B o - (I) .- ~ - (I) " =(I)C:::::I >- cu- (I)....tn ... cu I- BE-b .2 .! ! 'i: "_00 cu_.-.c .c '"" C)- o (1):::::1 ~< ~~ ~..J - CD CU-c 0.. ._ ~ <II 1S -..l ~ ~ (11 '5 a:: ~ :3 C\!l ~ ~ ,;,: (11 't: ... .a (11 I1l ... ~ Cl. ::J () . I 0 , ~ o:! ~~ " if u '2 en ..c 0 u " ~ t-< " 0( ~ -0 l: =: -< -0 'D C C " '" 0 ~ :: " 0 'D ~ ,'" 0 .0 ~ 'B c u 1: 0 " --{z u > " blJ E ~ '~ 0 ~ Q ~ 'x ~ ~ u:l if> :: '" t-< '" .. . Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4. Transit SUQ}Jortive Areas and Corridors To understand the nature of transit services that might be provided by a regional entity, areas and corridors are identified as a precursor to route planning. These areas and corridor currently offer characteristics or support policy initiatives that will lead to development that is amenable to transit service or that are likely to have such characteristics in future. Transit-oriented development (TaD) and transit-ready development (TRD) both incorporate specific strategies to support alternative means of transportation other than single occupant vehicles. While TaD is generally planned near an existing transit line, TRD is generally planned for future transit services. The objective is to create a transit- oriented development prior to development rather than retrofitting an area after development has occurred, which is often costly and controversial. The proposed Biscuit Run development is a prime example of a potential transit-ready development. In general, the following characteristics can be observed in transit ready development: . Compact, Connected Street Network . Mixed Land Uses . Functional Bike and Pedestrian Networks . "Park-Once" Business Districts . Balanced and Integrated Customer Delivery System . Transit Facilities Integrated into Neighborhoods 4.1. Areas for Priority Transit Service Many factors are known to increase transit use. To identify those areas that are most amenable to transit, an index was developed that evaluates each Transportation Analysis Zone's (TAZ) ability to support transit. A TAZ is an area designated by transportation officials for tabulating traffic-related data. The index is composed of both quantitative and qualitative measures (Table 2). Quantitative measures include: 1) residential density, 3) employment density, 3) street connectivity, 4) income, 5) a review of projected traffic congestion and 6) residential concentration of UV A employees. Qualitative measures include: 1) parking availability and 2) area plans and development policies articulated in the comprehensive plans for Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville. Each TAZ was assigned a rank for the eight variables on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least transit supportive and 5 is the most transit supportive. An average of each of the variables provides a composite ranking of the areas ability to support transit. All indices were developed for 2007 or 2010, depending on data availability. For example, residential units by TAZ provided by VDOT for 1998 and 2025 were used to estimate residential units by TAZ in 2010. However, parking availability was determined for the existing year 16 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 (2007), since a comprehensive forecast of parking availability in 2010 does not exist. Detailed descriptions of each factor are described in Section 4.1.1 to Section 4.1.7. The composite index will be used in Section 4.1.8 to identify priority areas for transit service. In general, the eight factors in the transit potential index are related to transit ridership for the following reasons: . Higher residential densities are more transit supportive since limited transit resources can be oriented toward a greater portion of the population, resulting in more cost-effective service. . As with residential densities, higher employment densities are more transit supportive since limited transit resources can be oriented toward a greater portion of the population, resulting in more cost-effective service. . Under certain circumstances congestion can support transit by encouraging people to forgo travel by automobile for transit. While transit is rarely as fast as travel by automobile, certain treatments such as exclusive transit lanes and signal priority technology can improve the travel time of transit relative to automobile. . Limited parking availability, or restrictions on parking (time limits, fees, permit restrictions) can encourage the use of transit by increasing the burden of travel by automobile. . Connectivity refers to the directness of the roadway network and the number of potential routes to travel between two points. Street patterns with a high level of connectivity are considered to be supportive of public transportation because they provide safe, direct, and convenient routes for walking to transit stops. In addition, greater connectivity increases the "catchment" area of a transit stop - that is the area within a short walk to the transit stop, typically considered to be between a 1/4 and 1/2 miles. Larger "catchment" areas increase the number of potential transit riders. . Persons with lower incomes are more likely to use transit since it is less expensive than owning and maintaining an automobile. . Transit-oriented plans and development policies can encourage transit use by limiting the barriers to successful transit implementation and encouraging dense development with high connectivity, limited parking and a pedestrian-oriented environment. . The residential concentration of university employees is a measure unique to areas where significant employment is focused on a university. UV A employees are more likely to ride transit since the University is served by high-quality and high- frequency transit service. Additionally, UV A has a high employment density, is pedestrian-oriented and has limited parking availability. 17 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Table 2: Transit Index Stratifications __Tr,ln~itS~ Metric 1 (less) 2 3 of 5 (more) Residential Density (Households per o to 3.9 4.0 to 6.9 7.0 to 8.9 9.0 to 14.9 15.0 + Acre) Employment Density o to 49.9 50.0 to 69.9 70.0 to 99.9 100.0 to 149.9 150.0+ (Employees per Acre) Congestion (Volume 0.00 to 0.80 0.81 to 1.20 1.01 to 1.50 1.51 to 2.00 2.01 + to Capacity) Parking Availability Freel Available Pay Parking No Parking Parking Connectivity (Intersections per Sq 0.0 to 49.9 50.0 to 99.9 100.0 to 249.9 250.0 to 499.9 500.0 + Mile) Income > $74,400 $65,100 to $58,900 to $49,600 to <$49,600 $74,400 $65,100 $58,900 Transit-Oriented Area 3-6 DU per Acre Plan 6+ DU & Plan 6+ DU and Communities or Plans & Development Rural Designation 3-6 DU per Acre & Neighborhood Village Neighborhood Policies Designation Designation Designation UV A Employees & as 0.0% 0.1% - 5.0% 5.1% - 10.0% 10.1% - 25.0% 25.1% + % ofTAZ Population * DU = Dwelling Units 4.1.1. Density Analyses Every trip has an origin and a destination. For transit service to be successful, at least one end of a trip must be easily accessible to the transit user. The density of land use located within walking distance of transit service (1/4 mile or less) is recognized as the quantifiable proxy for analyzing accessibility. As most trips involve a home-work or home-retail pair there are two density types important in predicting transit success for a given geographic area: 1) residential, and 2) non-residential. Residential Density Transit professionals recognize that the most significant characteristic in predicting transit service success is the density of potential riders residing within 1/4 mile or less walking distance of service locations. Therefore, this is the initial variable that will be used to identify potential transit corridors in the study area. 18 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 A number of studies have been conducted over the previous 30 years attempting to quantify the relationship between residential density and transit ridership, and while these studies vary somewhat in providing discrete density ranges that support the various transit modes, they are consistent in the assertion that a threshold exists where a certain dwelling unit per acre is required to effectively support transit. Areas with higher residential densities justify greater levels of transit service that will be supported (such as the frequency and type of service provided). The most widely recognized studies are described below. Boris Pushkarev and Jeffery Zupan conducted a two-year study entitled Urban Densities for Public Transportation. They argue that increasing residential densities, as well as the size and compactness of employment clusters, will reduce auto trips without reducing individual mobility. Additionally, this increased attractiveness to specific geographic locations will induce the public to shift from auto trips to public transportation, as well as provide increased opportunity for trips on foot4. The specific density ranges articulated in this study are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Transit Service Supported by Residential Density Mode Frequency (20-hour service day) Dwelling Units per Acre Bus Bus Bus 1 bus/hour 1 bus/30 minutes 1 bus/10 minutes Every 5 min. durin eriods* 4 7 15 9-12 Li ht Rail * Peak period is 7:00 am - 9:00 am and 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm Peter Newman and Jeffery Kentworthy conducted a study of 32 major cities around the world in 1989. They concluded that neighborhoods with fewer than 12-16 dwelling units per acre have a marked increase in automobile trips, decreasing the economic feasibility of bus serv:ice. Therefore, they recommend 12-20 dwelling units per acre for frequent bus service (<20 minute headways)s. Similarly, the Snohomish, Washington Planning Department found that 7-15 residential dwelling units per acre are required to support frequent (30 minutes or less) local bus service6, while the World Watch Institute recommends 4-7 dwelling units per acre for basic local bus service7. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) synthesized the results of these various studies and developed guidelines for successful transit service outlined in Table 4.8 This 4 Pushkarev, P. and Zupan, J. (1977) Combining Transport and Community Development. Regional Plan News no. 99 New York, New York. S Newman, P. and Kentworthy, J. (1989) Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook, Grower Publishing. 6 Snohomish County Transportation Authority (1989) A Guide to Land Cse and Public Transportation for Snohomish County, Washington. 7 Lowe, M. (1992) City Limits, World Watch. 8 Institute of Transportation Engineers (1989) A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion. 19 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 analysis suggests that the minimum residential land use density required to support a fixed-route bus service with a 60-minute frequency between arrivals (headway) is approximately four housing units per acre. Table 4: ITE Residential Densities for Transit Service Mode Frequency (20-hour service day) D\\ clling U nits an Acre Bus 1 bus/hour 4-5 Bus 1 bus/30 minutes 7 Bus 1 bus/10 minutes 15 Light Rail 10 minutes 35-50 After reviewing each of the above studies, the consultant team developed the residential density index in Table 5 for the Charlottesville-Albemarle study area. Areas with less than four dwelling units per acre are least supportive of public transportation, while areas with over 15 dwelling units per acre were considered most supportive of transit service. Table 5: Residential Density Index Corresponding Residential Density (Dwelling Units per Acre) 0-3.9 4.0-6.9 7.0-8.9 9.0-14.9 15.0+ Index Score 1 2 3 4 5 Actual and projected household densities exist at the TAZ level for 1998 and 2025 and were provided by VDOT. Household densities in 2010 were estimated by calculating an annual growth rate between 1998 and 2025. One issue that arose when estimating 2010 household densities was that there are slight differences in TAZ boundaries between 1998 and 2010, especially along Route 29 north of Charlottesville. To compensate for this issue, the number of households per T AZ in 1998 was apportioned to the 2025 TAZ boundaries based on area. With 1998 household data converted to the 2025 TAZ boundaries, it became possible to apply the annual household growth rate to estimate 2010 households per TAZ. As shown in Figure 6, the areas with high residential densities are located in or around the UV A Grounds, downtown Charlottesville and on Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville and south of the Greene County line. Outside of these areas; and in the majority of Albemarle County, most TAZs rate poorly in regards to residential density. 20 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors c- o o '" u -" B o (I) :t: >- _ m"C =(I)5::J >- .w- m ... FIo; en (I) as . =i'i~ ..2..cc5 "'-O,c !<'o,:; o ~< - ~ ." 'C c: III ::l >. 0.... ~ m [ij' <II t:l III ~ 'C ~ ra ! t:: C !\l ~ ~ g g C 0 c: u m ~ 'iV € ~ ~ ...J ::! :::l U t-" · I 0 0> O'! 0> 0> "" <"l u:i .0 ...... + , 0 o 0 00.0 o "" r-.: a) .... I -g~~~ .... 1:._ 0 CUCDtn..:- E"Cs::o +:; ":: CD N tn VI C --- W~ ~ ! -@ ~ CIl is or( _.,-, 8 ~ o en ,', " >l i m ~ i ~ ~ ~~ .> ~i on i~ ~; U 13~ 8~ ~; j" -~ il!i. o. ~~ o. n ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ;~ ~:t ~R~ 1l.1...... '7 ..:,~ <'t j ~ :0 0 >< " Co. " ~ o:! "0 0 ..s u 'jj e- " '2 ; '5 '" '" C ~ " U 0 -< ~ ] " > -< Ci 00 e " ci 0 ; " Co. :s .<1Z Co. " ~ '" V) 0 " ~ ~ ~ 0 t':: u " .e 0 Co. Co. " V) N :: '" 1.':: Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Non-residential Density Analysis Many transit trips are composed of a residential trip end and a non-residential (retail, commercial or office) trip end. The residential trip end is traditionally viewed as the most important predictor of transit success. However, with the ever increasing provision of park-and-ride infrastructure located on the periphery of urban areas, non- residential density is becoming an important predictor as well. Historically, this agglomeration of non-residential uses was focused on the Central Business District (CBD). However, as urban areas are becoming more polycentric, non-residential development in a specific region is typically obtained in several clusters of development, and is no longer confined to the CBD. Park-and-ride lots, guaranteed ride home programs, van pools, car pools and other transportation demand management techniques allow commuters that are located in residentially dispersed, rural or suburban areas to congregate in one location (e.g. a park- and-ride lot), making transit provision economically feasible for the municipality. This is, of course, predicated on the fact that the destination for a large number of suburban commuters is in the same geographic area. The Institute of Transportation Engineers CITE) developed guidelines quantifying the amount of non-residential development that must be provided for successful transit service based on square footage of development as outlined in Table 6.9 The square footage was converted to employees per square acre by assuming that each employee requires 500 square feet of development square footagelO. For example, if a cluster of non-residential development is 5,000,000 square feet, it is assumed that 10,000 employees would be traveling to the cluster (5,000,000/500). The 500 square feet of development used in calculating the employees per development cluster is conservative (when only considering office land use, 250-300 square feet per employee is typically used) because retail and industrial land use (both of which have fewer employees per square foot than found in office only) are being combined into one non-residential category. Table 5 displays the non-residential densities required to support various service frequency and service types, as calculated by ITE. 9 Institute of Transportation Engineers (1989) A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion. 10 The 500 square feet per acre is based on industry standards 22 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Table 6: ITE Non-residential Densities for Transit Service Frcqucncy Employccs pcr Acrc Non-Rcsidcntial Mode (20-hour scrvicc day) Square Feet Bus 1 bus/hour 50 - 80 5 - 8 million Bus 1 bus/30 minutes 80 - 200 8 - 20 million Bus 1 bus/l0 minutes 200 - 500 20 - 50 million light Rail Every 10 minutes 500+ 50 million or more This analysis suggests that the minimum employment density required to support a fixed-route bus service with a 60-minute headway is approximately 50 employees per acre (or roughly 5 million square feet of concentrated, non-residential development). Using the ITE non-residential density ranges as a starting point, the consultant team developed the employment density index in Table 7. For example, TAZs with employment densities below the ITE threshold for transit service (less than 50 employees per acre) were given the lowest score of"l". TAZs with employment densities above 150 employees per acre were given a score of"5". Table 7: Employment Density Index Index Score 1 2 3 4 5 Employment Density 0-49.9 employees/acre 50-69.9 employees/acre 70-99.9 employees/ acre 100-149.9 employees/acre 150+ employees/acre Corresponding Square Footage (millions) 0.00 - 4.99 5.00 - 6.999 7.00 - 9.99 10.00 -14.99 15.0 + Figure 7 shows projected employment density ranges in 2010. Employment densities were calculated based on the same methodology used to project 2010 residential densities. Overall, there are few TAZs in the study area that have employment densities sufficient to support transit service. Those with high employment density are located on the UV A Grounds and around the Downtown Mall and already are served by high frequency transit service. 23 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors t- o o N ~ .0 B o ~>- .! (I)-c '_Q)C~ >'i:l,!:;: (I) ca I- 'U CDe >- =5Q)'ii:e -,cCo .. - 0 ! <( 'ri~ o ~< .... '"tiC: SCD~ cu E.- 0 E ~U)~ OC:o .- - CD N .... a. C - .liE w ~ <lI 't:l (II c: f ::l >. 0 u ~ m ~ c( 0> III ~ r/l III >. 'C .. 0> 0> -t: III e "E c: 41 0> ai ai 0 ::l ::l Q, E a:: 0( 0 0 I ai 10 Q) , c5 ... c: U 10 ..... a I- "0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ a ci ci 0 c: 'i;j' 0 c:i III ... 0 It) ~ ...J ~ ::::> i:3 0 c:i ..... ... .... I 0 0- I 8 . E :; w 0 en ,', " :r. " c ~ ~, o. '" ~ .. j ~ ~ ~~ !i U rl i~ ~" H ~:; g:t " ' ~i )J1 ~J ~I!. ? ~~. ~i . 0 !l.'.: ~ ~. .~ l! H t:t i!!~ ~.L$ 7.,... " >< " Co. "'0 ~ ..s " or: "8 .~ "'" '2 '" " -e c:: :..; " "'" ~ ~ @ '" c '" ~ " " < e ., < ci "'" >, " @ 0 > ~ c.. E ~ e OJ 0 0 ci Co. ~ ~ Co. .<:1Z ~ " Vl :..; '" ~ v > ~ " f-< Co. '" ~ Vl ~ ..,. ~ N Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.1.2. Review of Travel Forecasts/Highway Corridor Congestion The 2025 regional travel model developed by VDOT for the long range plan (Un JAM 2025) was reviewed to discern how future year traffic congestion might support transit service. Knowing where congestion is likely in the future can help guide where transit is needed in the short term. Each T AZ was rated based on the peak hour volume to capacity 01 IC) ratios in Table 8. These scores were derived by assigning the volume capacity ratio of the links in the regional travel model with the greatest volume to the TAZ. Therefore, a TAZ with one link carrying 10,000 vehicles per day and a V IC ratio of 1.5 and another link carrying 15,000 vehicles per day at a VI C ratio of 1.1 would be assigned a score of "2", since the link with the higher daily traffic volume has a lower V I C ratio. Table 8: Congestion Index Index Score 1 2 3 4 5 Volume to Capacity (V I C) Ratio 0.00-0.80 0.81-1.20 1.21-1.50 1.51-2.00 2.01+ As Figure 8 shows, a significant number of TAZs are projected to have severe traffic congestion. The heaviest congestion levels are focused in Charlottesville, along Route 29 North and along the 1-64 corridor. Interestingly, traffic congestion is also likely to support transit service in many rural areas of Albemarle County that would not traditionally be considered transit supportive areas. 25 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors e- X N ~ " .D 8 0 J!2 II) ~ ~ tV '" C '0 )( 0 CD :!::>. '" c: LL ..... 0 :;] CD 5 >. 0 ~ " _ en "C UJ ~ III =CD;= .- .-.. tV .s 0 0 0 0 5! ca .. >< II) '" III >. .., ~ ~ ~ ~ >'i:~(i) UI ~ :!l l!! C c: C 0 N c (I) :;] :;] 0 (l)ca~ U N ~ a:: ~ 0 0 0 g g g g + S E-~ ! (1)'"0 0 ... c: (,) III i (; i "C 0 .2 ~ ~ Q 0 :x; ... ;0 '" '0 CD ca.~ me c: 'iij' 0 ~ <II N III ... i:3 CD :;: 0 0 N lXl -.ceo 0 c- -I :2 ::J tl)1lI I 8 "-o,c - I 0 c a: I .! 4( 'm:; u. 0 '. 0 0 ::; (.) > 0 o ~< 0 UJ ~ l:: ~ 8 ~ ~ :S 01( I \ , \ '-.... \ --, . ,.- .. ,...# ...,''',. ... '.. j 'J. g ~ 'l'. ! b ,u'(; ~: m> ~l ~IU H'e ?~ Q;! r," ,,~ ~'l> Nfl ~m i~ ~~ 5 ~2 j! ~: !~ ~""': . Z_("'-I ~ l::: ~ & <3 ~ .$!! " " ~ ~ -.; ~ '"B m 0 v 2 " -B >< Q) c " :S ~ ~ '" ~ .s 01( " ~ <= '" < ~ .~ " <<: > " E :; " ., 0 ~ '" Co. ~ <= ----{z Co. h 0 ~ 0 en ~ U ~ cici ~ v " ~ " ~ ,:; .5 ~ ~ Co. Co. ~ en '" ~ N ~ ,:; Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.1.3. Availability of Parking The availability of parking is highly correlated, and can directly influence, the propensity to choose to travel via a private automobile. The easier it is for individuals to park a private automobile at their destination, the easier it is for them to forgo riding transit. Conversely, limited parking availability can increase transit ridership. In order to evaluate the level of transit-supportiveness associated with parking availability, each TAZ was scored on a scale from 1 Oeast supportive) to 5 (most supportive). This qualitative analysis utilized aerial photographs of the Charlottesville area, visitor parking information obtained from the City of Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, local parking statutes, the Charlottesville Parking Master Plan, and general knowledge of the Charlottesville area. The Parking Index Score is described and shown below in Table 9 Many TAZ's in the study area, especially outside of Charlottesville, have substantial unrestricted parking and were given the lowest transit supportive rating of "1". TAZs received a score of "2" if there is a mix of restricted and unrestricted parking, a score of "3" if there is parking controls such as permit requirements, time limits, or user fees, and a score of "4" if there is constrained parking given the presence of implemented parking controls. The highest rating for transit supportive, a "5", was reserved for areas which do not have parking generally available, including areas where commercial parking facilities become quickly ftlled, permit restrictions are in effect longer than the standard work day, and limited availability of guest parking for residents of the zone are in place. Table 9: Parking Score Index Index Score 1 2 3 4 5 Parking- Availability Unrestricted Parking Mix of Unrestricted Parking and Controlled Parking Parking Controls (permits, time limits, user fees) Constrained Parking even with Controls No Parking Available A review of Charlottesville's city parking statutes and the Parking Master Plan revealed that the city maintains a residential permit parking program in several areas surrounding the Downtown Mall and the University Grounds. These permits allow full-time residents the exclusive right to park on the block on which they reside during restricted hours. In most areas, permit parking for residents is in effect during the typical weekday working hours, however in some areas near the UV A the restrictions are in effect on weekends and/or during overnight hours. The Parking Master Plan noted that the Downtown Mall area and the University /Hospital area are both over capacity, and are expected to have a deficit of 27 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 approximately 10,000 parking stalls by 2015.11 These two areas are characterized by pay parking structures, on-street pay stalls and near UV A there is permit parking that is only available to University affiliated users. The Parking Master Plan specifically notes that restrictions of parking are most prevalent in the vicinity of UV A Hospital. According to the Master Plan, the Court Square area should be the site of parking development efforts as additional stalls would benefit many of the adjacent neighborhoods. The University of Virginia maintains several lots and garages for paid visitor parking. There are also remote park-and-ride lots for students and limited amounts of permit parking adjacent to other buildings for faculty, staff, and visitors. University of Virginia parking permits are generally in effect during school hours only, though several lots prohibit overnight parking. Visitors to the University can generally expect to park in one of the visitor lots or garages, as other visitor parking is extremely limited. The major municipal and commercial parking garages and lots in Charlottesville are located near the Downtown Mall and "the Corner". These lots operate most of the day and evening and serve visitors to these commercial areas. Several large parking structures provide parking capacity in the Downtown Mall area; however the Corner occasionally does not have enough capacity to meet demand. The TAZ's outside the City of Charlottesville are mostly characterized by un-restricted parking. Therefore these areas were not deemed transit supportive with respect to parking availability. Several exceptions do exist, however. These areas include the Charlottesville - Albemarle County Airport, PVCC, and the area near Albemarle County High School. The airport requires payment for passenger parking, while the High School and Community College restrict parking with permit schemes and limited visitor parking. It should also be noted that the land evaluations are increasing along the Route 29 corridor, making the future development of parking structures in this area likely. Figure 9 evaluates the availability of parking at the TAZ level. The areas where parking is the most transit-supportive are the Central Grounds area of the University of Virginia, the Corner commercial district, and the Downtown Mall area. These areas are closely clustered, are relatively pedestrian oriented, and contain a higher than average amount of development compared to the amount of available parking. There are few areas in Albemarle County where parking is sufficiently constrained to support transit service. 11 City of Charlottesville Parking Master Plan, 2000, Rich and Associates 28 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors c- o o N U .n B o - CD .- >- _ CI)"C =COC::J >-l!- ~iF(/) - E-~ '0 CO ca'E: -.cco .. _ 0 ! < om ~ o ~< ~ ..... .- WI _ .-.. c:: . - ..-... .- .a 0 ~cuo ... - ns .- N a.~~ <C ~ C) aI " '0 ~ ~ '" c >. ::l ~ .. " ~ 0 ~ c.. '0; m '" .b ~ aI :is :lS .. '" III '0 6 ~ aI ~ C c .!l! .!l! '" 0 ::> ::l c; '(;j () " ~ a: <( 0 0 ~ '" :l2 5 c (.) m .>c c l;j ~ ~ ~ ~ i :l2 c.. co '(ij' l:ll ~ tv ... 0 --' :2 ::> C3 c u: z . I I 0 ~ I I .. I D.. o U ~~ U ~t: zi j~ ~I '~Ji' u; ~~ i" Qt t:.~ ;i Nll! ~~ ~~ ~l Q ~i i~ *~~ ".... z~<,,j ~ Ii:: 8 ~ ~ CII :is 4:( ",' \ , .. ..4.... .. , .... , .. .. . " >( 0. " 0:: " "3 .s 0 c :E :-g '5 " ~ :E v " "0 :::l ~ ~ " -< -< ~ '^ ~ "0 bJ) <> <<: c .5 u ~ ~ > " E " ., 0 ] Po. --1z <> 0. .;.; 0. 0 " u ~ Vl u 'f .~ :e ~ 0 ... b 0. 0. " Vl C ~ b '" N Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.1.4. Connectivity Analysis Connectivity refers to the ability to travel efficiently. Measures of connectivity attempt to capture both the directness of the route and the number of potential routes between two points. Street patterns with a high level of connectivity are considered to be supportive of public transportation because they provide safe, direct, and convenient routes for walking to transit stopS12. In addition, greater connectivity increases the "catchment" area of a transit stop - that is the area within a short walk to the transit stop, typically considered to be between a % and 1/2 miles. In many urban environments, a grid pattern street network with short blocks provides high levels of connectivity that are supportive of public transportation. In contrast, many suburban areas are characterized by curvilinear roads and long blocks, often ending in cul-de-sacs or dead ends. These areas have low levels of connectivity and are less supportive of public transportation. There are several methods for measuring connectivity13. One measure is the number of intersections per square mile. For this analysis we assume that sidewalks are provided, or that traffic volumes are low enough (such as is found on local roads) to allow a "shared" environment between vehicles and pedestrians. A GIS analysis produced the number of intersections per square mile within each TAZ in the region. TAZs were then ranked on the previously defined scale of 1-5 and plotted on a regional map. Table 10 shows the range of intersections per square mile that relate to each score. Table 10: Roadway Connectivity Index Index Score 1 2 3 4 5 Intersections per Square Mile* 0-49.9 50.0-99.9 100.0-249.9 250.0-499.9 500.0+ * One square mile is equivalent to 640 acres The Charlottesville-Albemarle area is characterized by areas with both high and low levels of connectivity, as illustrated in Figure 10. In general, the TAZs with higher levels of connectivity (a score of "4" or "5'') are concentrated along Main Street in downtown Charlottesville and around the University of Virginia and decreases with distance from these areas. Albemarle County is generally characterized by the lowest level of connectivity, though the areas surrounding Charlottesville and Route 29 (south of Rio 12 Cervera, R. and Kockelman, K (1997) Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research D, 2,199-219. 13 Dill,]. (2004). Measuring Network Connectivity for Walking and Bicycling, TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM. 30 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Hill Shopping Center) are an exception. In addition, moderate levels of connectivity are also found along Route 29 in the Hollymead area. 31 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors r-- o o N " ,r, 8 o ~~ ~ (1)'0 =l>>i2 &J 'i: ...... en (Dca >- =E"i:= o CI) c ... 'i:.cOO .! ~ '0, ~ o 1.4:. ~ .- >.-. ........ 00 CDO eN c- o o .!! ~ i 't:l l:r 1/1 5 en >- 0 ~ ... !l! co III Gl -t; 11l ~ 't:l Cl. ~ ~ l!! 5 5 ~ Er:~8S.2 -g .~ ~ } ~ i j ~ ~ U I-' f '. I ~ 0 ..~. Ol '" ... <>> a> N ..,. + Ol a> . , ..,. , 0 0 0 , 0 0 It) :5 0 10 ..... N I I o Co. ~ Ii '2 .c u " r-< OJ "0 .s C> :E u OJ c c o U ~ ~ -< "0 o ~ '" '" 15 ] 15 :..J " .5 15 Co. Co. ~ Vl <~z .:'-~...".~-.~~, :il ~ ~ 15 ~ 15 :..J "0 @ ~ ~ < " > ." 15 Co. Co. ~ Vl o ~ ~ N '" Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.1.5. Median Income Household income is an important variable for identifying populations that are more inclined to use transit, as lower income households are less likely to have access to a private vehicle. The 2000 US Census14 reported that the median household income in 1999 for Charlottesville was approximately $31,000 and for Albemarle County was approximately $51,000. When inflating income levels to 2010, based on an annual growth rate of approximately 3.0%, the median household income in the study area is approximately $62,000. Although the definition of low income households can differ among governmental agencies, this analysis assumes that 80% of the median household income in the study area (approximately $49,600) is the threshold for the highest level of a transit dependent population. Due to the relatively recent increase in operating expenses associated with private automobile use (e.g. gas and oil prices), 80% of medium income seems to be a reasonable delineation between households that do not have the resources to absorb this additional cost and thus become (if they are not already) more transit dependent. Consequently, TAZs that have a medium household income below $49,600 were considered the most transit dependent, and received the highest transit supportive score ("5"), while those over $74,400 (120% area median income) received the lowest score. As can be seen in Figure 11, the TAZs with the lowest income, and thus generally transit supportive, are located in much of Charlottesville and its periphery in Albemarle County and along Route 29, north of the City. The highest income levels, and therefore least supportive of transit are largely located in Albemarle County and the northern portion of Charlottesville. Table 11: Median Income Index Index Score 1 2 3 4 5 Median Income More than $74,400 Between $65,100 to $74,400 Between $58,900 to $65,100 Between $49,600 to $58,900 Less than $49,600 Percentage of Study Area Median Income More than 120% Between 105-120% Between 95-105% Between 80-95% Less than 80% 14 US Census 2000 web site accessed 8/17/2007 33 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors r-- o o N u .0 8 o ~>. ~ fI)"C .- CD 5 ::s >- .v- I.~U) ~cat-~ t:l i 1i .- .2.cc6 1.-0_ .! e( .ij) ~ o lie( i::' ';) 1\I " ~ C ::I S ~ GI c e M ::I 0 <0 0 (It () ~ + I ~ .5 ('oj l"- e t- It) (5 .. (It (It 01 ~~ t: c:: ~ ~ ~o 14: c:: as .- 't:J cP :E (1)..- EO 0.... (.)0 C~ I/) ! tG ~ U') ftI ! ~ ~ tE. <( ~ I:: ... C lD ~ j ~ ~ . I ~ c:: ~ 8 -@ m GI ~ C( ~ l: '" U V> => " o u Il ~ ~ ~ o i ~ <; ~ ~ ;! ~ ., <1;0 ~~ uS ~! i!i" ~i .." t-J~ ~ ~ r.le) ~8 "{~J ~1. ~'j ~j l~ ~~'". Z-N ~ 05 0 0. ] u 05 0< >< "3 " U "0 "D 2 .s c .c ~ u " ~ b e 0 d < ~ " .s u < > c E "D '" ., 0 c :a -:; 0. ~ --1z 0. " " 05 ::s Vl "D ~ Ie 05 ~ u ,: u > ~ 0 0. 0. " Vl "" '" ~ ,: Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.1.6. Supportive Land Use Policies While some areas/corridors might not have sufficient residential or employment densities to support transit service based on a strictly quantifiable analysis, transit- supportive policies and plans should also be considered. Currently, several new developments in Albemarle County are using transit-ready development principles, including new developments along Route 29 north of Charlottesville which are part of the "Places 29" development planning process, and Biscuit Run south of Charlottesville. Strong growth management programs that concentrate development around established activity centers and that promote land conservation are beneficial to transit. Therefore, geographic areas identified in planning studies and regionally adopted land use plans, such as Places 29 and the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, will be evaluated for transit supportability based on the proposed residential and commercial density. Areas that are designated to have higher residential densities and/or have regional trip generators such as high commercial or retail activity as compared to the surrounding rural land use, will also be considered for connection to the regional transit system. Thus, the analysis is a qualitative exercise aimed at identifying transit corridors from a regional policy level. Per Virginia State law (Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223), both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County are governed by Comprehensive Plans, which serve as long-range plans for development of these communities. Albemarle County updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2005. In addition, other studies, such as the ongoing Places 29 study, and master plans for Rivanna, Crozet and the Pantops are components of the County Comprehensive Plan. Places 29 is part of the Master Planning process for areas north of Charlottesville, including two neighborhoods adjacent to the City, Hollymead, and Piney Mountain. The Places 29 project had a goal of integrating transportation and land use planning and developing a single, consistent plan for the areas along Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville. Charlottesville is currently revising its Comprehensive Plan. The county's Comprehensive Plan divides the county into designated development areas. . . and rural areas. . . The intent is to focus development into the urban areas to create quality living areas, avoid sprawl, improve access to services and protect the rural areas. Master planning the development areas encourages the best use of the finite space designated for development while creating attractive, livable urban communities for the people who live and work there. Master plans for each community become part of the County's Comprehensive Plan which is the county's guiding document for land use and resource protection issues. - Albemarle County Department rf Community Development 35 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan Charlottesville adopted its comprehensive plan in 2001 and a revised zoning ordinance in 2003. Currently, the City is in the process of updating the comprehensive plan, which will be based on the principles of "sustainability". For the City of Charlottesville, sustainability is defined as the protection of the historic context of the City and the protection of the quality of life and social fabric imbedded there in. All of the policies, goals and objectives that the Comprehensive Plan will consider are therefore evaluated within the context of sustainability and the impacts on the community. One of the main principles in supporting sustainability noted in the Comprehensive Plan is the enhancement of transportation connectivity. A number of modes, including pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle and transit, are considered when analyzing connectivity. Two of the guiding principles that the Plan calls for in addressing sustainable connectivity is the provision of safe public transportation and achieving mixed-use development that promotes transit use. Currently, the City of Charlottesville is seeing increases in density near transit lines with several projects currently under review. The analysis of the Comprehensive Plan will therefore be based on the ability of a land use to generate, or attract, transit trips by evaluating both residential and non-residential land use designations. The City of Charlottesville stratifies residential land use into three sub-categories: . Low Density - refers to single family housing types with a designated density of 3 to 7 dwelling units per acre. . Medium Density - refers to housing structures that are inhabited by two-family's (typically duplexes) with a designated density of 7 to 12 dwelling units per acre. . High Density - refers to multi-family units (condos, apartment buildings etc) with a designated density of more than 12 units per acre. There are five main categories of non-residential land use types including: . Commercial - wholesale trade, retail trade, consumer service and eating establishments. . Commercial-Office - includes medical and dental offices, legal and accounting firms and service businesses. . Neighborhood Commercial- commercial uses that primarily serve neighborhood needs for convenience goods and services and are limited in size. Typical uses include bakeries, service stations, laundry mats, etc. . Industrial - including all land and buildings used for manufacturing and warehousing. . Mixed Use - includes land in the Economic Development Corridors and Historic Overlay Districts and provides a mixture of residential, retail, office and commercial use. 36 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Albemarle County established a growth management strategy with the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan in 1996, directing development outside the City of Charlottesville to several specific functional locations called Development Areas. Additionally the Places 29 study, which is nearing completion, is a part of the planning process for the areas along the Route 29 corridor north of the City of Charlottesville. These Development Areas allow various land use designations to meet local market demands. All of the Development Areas are located within the RTA study area. A typology of Development Areas is described below and illustrated in Figure 12: . Urban Area (Neighborhoods). There are seven "neighborhoods" directly adjacent to the City of Charlottesville identified as Urban Areas. These neighborhoods permit a full array of both land use and density of residential and commercial parcels required to provide a self-sufficient neighborhood with an urban developmental character. . Communities. There are three areas designated as "Communities" including Crozet (approximately 10 miles west of Charlottesville), Hollymead (approximately 1 mile north of Charlottesville), and Piney Mountain (approximately 2 miles north of Charlottesville). These areas are small urban centers and are designed to have a "town-like" feel. . Village. Rivanna (approximately 5 miles east of Charlottesville) is the only area designated as a Village. Villages are designed to combine the feeling of "county living" with the amenities of a Development Area. In addition, the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan has several land use designations. Two of these categories - Neighborhood Density and Urban Density - are particularly supportive of public transportation. The Neighborhood Density designation permits between three and six dwelling units per acre, while the Urban Density designation permits between six and 34 dwelling units per acre (Figure 13). The remaining areas in the county are designed to follow rural development patterns, meaning low density, with minimal infrastructure improvements (i.e. sewer, power, road widening etc). Resource protection is the basic theme behind the County's growth management approach. Thus, planning efforts aim to channel growth into development areas to facilitate economical service delivery in those areas, to promote a sense of neighborhood-style development as the preferred design in those areas, and to conserve rural land use. The Albemarle Comprehensive Plan states 15 that "public transit stops will be located within each Development Area" and that "a network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and bus routes will connect new neighborhoods as well as existing residential 15 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, 2002, pah'e 10 37 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 areas and nonresidential districts." Additionally, it is noted that the public emphasis regarding transportation network development" . . .is placed on linkage between developments not just within each development.,,16 Additionally, the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (UnJAM 2025) also promotes the expansion of fixed-route transit service by combining the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Plan for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area with the Rural Area Transportation Long-Range Plan for the five-county Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. According to the County Comprehensive Plan17 the main objective of the UnJAM 2025 plan is the creation of a balanced transportation network through the provision of connections throughout the region and offering transportation choices to residents and workers in urban areas. Planned and Approved Developments The Charlottesville-Albemarle area is developing at a fast rate, and numerous transit- supportive projects are either awaiting approval or have been granted approval and are in the construction phase. In Charlottesville, development is largely completed as in fill or redevelopment projects as there is little vacant land. In contrast, developmental projects in Albemarle County are largely "Greenfield" developments. Five major projects are discussed below. These projects are largely included in the existing plans and policies. . Biscuit Run -located south of Charlottesville in Albemarle County, between Route 20 and Old Lynchburg, this proposed mixed-use development would include 3,100 dwelling units of various types, as well as commercial and office space. Potential proffers from the project could include funds to construct the Sunset-Fontaine connector road and to enhance transit connections. . Albemarle Place -located at the intersection of Route 29 and Hydraulic Rd., this mixed-use development would add 800 residential dwelling units, 350 hotel rooms, and 660,000 square feet of retail and office space in the center of "downtown" Albemarle. Development is expected to begin in late 2008. . Hollymead - located on both sides of Route 29 near the airport, construction on this mixed-use project has already begun and much of the Town Center has already been completed. One recently approved Guly 2007) section would add 960 housing units and more than 440,000 square feet of non-residential space, including a large hotel. Some proposed developments in the area are still under review, including 500,000 square feet of retail, mixed use up to 200,000 square feet, 275,000 square feet of office/retail, 120 residential units and 23,000 square feet of office and 56 residential condominiums. . Belvedere - Located within the general alignment of Northern Free State Road in Albemarle County, this project will include approximately 775 dwelling units, and 70,000 square feet of retail/ office/institution land use. This project is expected to be completed in 2011. 16 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, 2002, page 20 17 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, 2002, page 169 38 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 . North Pointe - The North Pointe project is a 260+ acre mixed-use development proposed to be built along the eastern side of Route 29 north of Airport Road and across Route 29 from the University of Virginia Research Park. North Pointe will include approximately 850 residential units, approximately 600,000 square feet of retail and 80,000 square feet of office as well as 1-2 hotels. Gross residential density is 3.3 units per acre. The index that was developed and used to estimate the ability of area plans and policies to support transit was developed using separate methodologies for Charlottesville and Albemarle County. In Charlottesville, zoning data was obtained from the Planning Department. Each zoning category was assigned a rank of 1, 3 or 5 based on its perceived strength at supporting transit service. Scores of 2 and 4 were reserved for TAZ's which had average characteristics of multiple score categories. Table 12 shows how each zoning category was classified. In general, those zoning categories deemed most supportive of transit service, such as high density residential, Downtown and University uses, were given a "5". Those deemed least supportive of transit service, such as low density residential and non-residential, as well as industrial land uses, were given a "1", The next step was to convert zoning categories into TAZs. To do this, rankings were apportioned to the TAZ level by area. For example, if 25% ofTAZ #1 was zoned B-1 (a rank of "1") and the remaining 75% ofTAZ #1 was zoned R-3 (a rank of "5"), then the resulting rank for TAZ #1 was "4", since 25% of "1" and 75% of "5" equals a rating of "4" . Albemarle County data was retrieved from the county website. Two data sources were used from the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan: Development Area designations and zoning categories. Areas designated as "Rural" were given the lowest rating, while areas that are assigned a residential density of six persons per acre or more and designated as an "Urban Area" were given the highest rating (fable 12). Areas planned for between three and six dwelling units per acre and that are located in an "Urban Area" were given a "3". 39 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 Table 12: Land Use Policy Transit Index for the Study Area Index Score City of CharlotteSYille Albemarle County B-1 (commercial), Highway, IC (industrial), M-l (industrial), MR, 1 Planned Unit Development, R-l Rural Designation (residential), R-IS (residential), R- ISU (residential), R-IU (residential) 2 -- Planned for 3-6 dwelling units/ acre B-2 (commercial), Cherry Ave, Emil Street Corridor, 3 Neighborhood Commercial Planned for 3-6 dwelling units/acre Corridor, R-2 (residential), R-2U and located in "Urban Area" (residential), University Medium Density 4 -- Planned 6+ dwelling units/ acre and located in "Community/Village" Central City, Downtown, Downtown Extended, Downtown 5 North, High Street, R-3 Planned 6+ dwelling units/ acre and (residential), University High located in "Urban Area" Density, URB, UV, West Main North, West Main South The resulting area plans index is illustrated in Figure 14. Spatially, the areas with the development plans that most support public transportation are located in Downtown Charlottesville, the University of Virginia, Route 250 and around Barrack's Road Shopping Center. Strong development plans can also be found in to the south of Downtown Charlottesville and the University. 40 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors r-- o o C'.l .., v ..Cl o ... u o ~~ ~ en "C == C::s >.!ca... en'-'-(/) CUCU~~ -E-_ - cu ca.- ..2.cca '--o..c: cu ..... .- .c ..... a)'" U cu::::J e::::<t ...... c: (1) (1) _ E t/) ~ C.mE .2~(1) (1)<C.c > - (1) <C C ~ ...... C ::::J o o 1/'1 -g ~ Z'.,g ro <t .~ 0 ~ C E ~ --... ~ Q) E .91 ~ Ctl E 0 (]) :J - Iiioi o c () ro (1) - (/) ;:::Cl.c !!1 (1) (1) c.~ E (1)(/)-0 .oCe -<IJ<IJ ~~E <IJ~<( ~ l:l.('>j ::lEo 000 (I)()('>l _"'I' ~ (1J :::l @ 0::<<; rn {\l ~ -< .... c: ~ 8 -. - ... 0.. ~ (J:l Vl .., .., 0 0 :::J @ 0 n. - 0::"( 'U v ~ ';:1 ~ .., ~ 0 ~ Q u u '2 C> 'U c:: ..c c: '" u v ::l en F-< 0 -<") '" v U> U ~ <tl .., '" :J @ <r:; v ~ .., ;:: 0:::0;( v <r:; :;- {\l <b 'p 'U 8 .., c:: i::::::... 0 '" ~ taW n. en .c e S n. .., < ;:l 0 <b () C/J 'U N :So .~ ";:1 Vl .., ...-l lI::C c:: 0 '" u ~ .., '"' F-< v ~ :;- 'p .... .., P.. 0 n. n. ;:l C/J ... .... "~ 7 en c:: '" .., F-< r--- o o N .... <l) ..c o "'-' u o (/J = 0 .... ... (\l = Oll .... (/J Q) Q Q) "'-' (/J .... p 0 A. '"0 <l) p::: = c;J (\l u ~ '2 C .-e: = u <l) ::l t-< 0 '" U <:"l <l) Q) .... "'i:: -< (\l ""0 E c <:"l Q) '" .c .... < 0 :-El .... r"i .... 0 .... u Q) <l) ... :> ~ 'P .... .... 0 ~ A. A. ::I VJ .;:: '" C <:"l .... t-< cu ~ >t _ en "'C ~..!;.a en~~(/) CUcal-~ -E-_ '0 CI> ns .i: -.cCO '--0_ ns .A' .- - .c ~ a)- U CU~ 0:::< t/) ~(I)5J!! ;:e~;:U~ o CUeS:: ~ a. "C s:: (I) o::J ...""",S::el""", I- ..... co .- ~ 0 ~..Jm< c ~=-. m~ III 0 ::So C( ,/..'."...,;.\ S""\ .F', \,.-.. ,'< 1;.. ..-,,! '- ,---- ~~~;.... - ,..."~,i:.'-". I'..... ",..(;.~ "~;'<::~('\ -', . ,"' ".:.i .> ) ,", ~~ /., .-.. "\ )': "'.,J ,/ QI '"C:=-. ~~ ~o C( ('~) CI)-o,,-, Q) ~ .!!! 0 ~ 0 o,g~ ~ C) 0 -... :J .!! .0 => Cl l'll..c.O Coq- (J .Q> <D ~ C') 4) Q) I .... I (l)Z~:J~ ::J 't' c l'll ...J 17i C1l ~ o i:: 1tI .c: U D .//"'. .' !'''' I)~\ Ii '. f..-'> ;). ,,,/ <. ii: ' \\~//'-"/ t~~j ,c. ~ 1 \ ',_ I \ 'I , )_.,~...- o c Um C1J- (/J "Lc..c <:I! CIJ CIJ C .2: E (])(/)1J .ol::c -CIJ~ ~~k:: (])~<t: Q c.. ('oJ :;Eg o 0 (f)U('oJ '" .... o ""0 'C .... o U ""0 C <:"l '" <:"l <l) .... -< <l) :> 'E o A. A. ::I VJ .;:: '" C <:"l .... t-< ~ r-- o o N u .0 8 o - CD ._~ _ fI) "C =CDt:::s > 'i: t! :;: ~caFw - E- ~ OCDCU:e -.cCO 1.-0 .! <( .ij) ~ o li~ ... s:: cP Ern"- c.c'-"'" ocag --N cP~__ > cP C e:- rG III Q) "0 ll/l'~ I/) c: c >. ::J ca b~ ~ 0 e:- o:: .!! s: Q) Ol c:~ ~ ca l! 'i 50. l/) 1\I ... .. ~ ca e c c: C Ql <II 4; Qe 0 'tl E a:: <( ::I ::I ell 0 1; 1; j,!o 0 0 ;0 ... c () Q) e ::i ~ ~ 'tl 0 ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ ~ s: EJi c: 'iij' 0 0 Ol .8> ,j ::i ... (3 0 0 0 ::i ::i 'i ::l j ...J ...J <!C I 0 I "1;:: . ell ~.g ~ 0 5~.!!! cnOn- ,\1 i } i ~ j.! 1 .. :: '~ o !l ~ ~ '" N ~ 1 I :€! lit-: z_ , , r' "' I , ''"~'.\,;;'..~# ,..it , ",' ~ " 0 0. " .,;: "0 .s 05 " '" "D U ~ '2 c 05 .c '" u is: u u "D 1-< C c ~ ~ " ~ < e .. P- o 10: "D 0 < ~ "il u > > '" 05 " , 05 "D Q <jZ .. 0. ~ :i "" ~ " 0 Vl U " u .~ " le > E ~ 0 ~ ,: "" "" ~ Vl :s << '" b " Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.1.7. Residential Concentration of UV A Employees As the University of Virginia is served by high-frequency transit service, areas where high concentrations of UV A employees reside are particularly important when considering transit service. Therefore, a special analysis was conducted to determine the residential concentration of UV A employee's. UV A provided geocoded residential data for over 17,000 employees. The number of UV A employees residing in each T AZ was determined using geographic information systems (GIS). The number of UV A employees by TAZ was then divided by the total population in the TAZ to provide an estimate of the percent of the population by TAZ that are UV A employees. Table 13 shows that TAZs with a lower percent of the population employed by UV A received the lowest transit support score. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 15 and show that there is little pattern. However, in general TAZs with the highest rates are located outside of Downtown Charlottesville. Table 13: Residential Concentration ofUVA Employees Index Index Score 1 2 3 4 5 UV A Employees as Percent of Total Population (2007) 0.0% 0.1% - 5.0% 5.1% - 10.0% 10.01 % - 25.0% 25.1 % + 44 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors r-- o o N ~ .0 o U o :1:>- ~ fI) "C .- CD 5 ::s >- ov- I. ~ ,^ CI.I ca F VI' CDe >- =SCD1i:e -.cco 1.-0 .! e( .ij) ~ o lie( s:: tn 0 ea....+i U) 0 ea -- Q)..::J...... Q) C 0.0 ~Q)oo .2~Q.N Q.Q)-- eo..j! w ~ ~ :J ~."""..., .,,- , . " '.. \ i..-"', 1 \ . , i,____.- \ -' 1 .-- .. ,.." "'rt.'. c ,8 " ;3 tl. 0 P- Oi 0 f-< ... 0 05 E " 0. ~ o:! " P- "3 '" '2 '" .c '" u " b " >> ~ 0 u ~ < "D "" ;; ~ 05 ~ 05 u u > ~ 0 0. 0. ~ Vl :: ~ ,:; ~ rG l/l -g '$. ::I III >> 0 ;f. C1I ~ :: 0 ~ lD ~ 0 .0 :>. C1I >- 0 ~ C1I "0 ~ 0 l'l ~ C .::; 0 It) - I + 0 ::I ::I -a. E a:: ..: 0 0 E I I ~ ;f. c () lD ~ ~ a ~ ,2, € >. N W 0 0 - - '$. - ~ 0 ..-i ~ "" i5 ~ 0 .0 ::l () 0 .... ('oj I . 0 ::l . I . . ~ . "' '2 ~ ;; 'l5 ?: 'j!! Gl ,~ 3 ~ ::J o rf) 11 ., ~ III m ~~ H~ Ea ~~j ~~l iH :;:gf P.:.!O u~ UJ ~,~ FI! ~ ~ ~ It,ll " iH N'~~' ~.: t- l... '='b;~ ~ii.:( ~".. ~~~ J!.<<J.... ;;~.15 ...." I; ".'" t: ~; li~ ~ ~fo !l!t...Sll [l . .~. ~""N.o 0 ~ 05 u "D C ~ ~ u ; 'p .. 05 0- e- e- ~ Vl ;; ,: uo "" Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.1.8. Composite Index A composite ranking of the eight indices was developed for an overall identification of areas in Charlottesville and Albemarle County that are most supportive of transit. The index was developed by taking the average of all of the indices for each TAZ. Based on this methodology, few TAZs scored above a "4", even though some were known to be highly supportive of transit. Therefore, the raw scores were revised based on the ranges shown in Table 14. For example, an averaged raw score of less than 1.5 equates to a composite index score of "1", which indicates low support for transit. Table 14: Composite Index Index Score Raw Score Transit Support 1 < 1.5 Low 2 1.5 to 2.1 Low/Medium 3 2.2 to 2.8 Medium 4 2.8 to 3.5 Medium/High 5 > 3.5 High Figure 16 shows the results of the composite index in 2010. In general, those TAZs that are currently most supportive of transit are located in and around Downtown Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. There is a moderate level of support for transit along Route 29 North and Route 250 headed toward the Pantops Shopping Center. Figure 17 compares the composite ratings with transit service currently planned for fall 2008. Most areas with high or moderate/high transit support ratings already have transit service, with the exception of the Madison Park area at the intersection of Old Ivy Road and Route 250 Bypass. 46 Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors r-- o o N u ..0 8 o ~~ ~ fI)"C =CD5= >~l:~ cnca~'" S E-~ '0 CD ca,;: -.cco 1._0 .! e( .ij) ~ o lie( ~ fA >c o CI) Q..-c E c: o o ~ tG 1;1 ~ E i (Q lD_: ~ ~ ~ ! c: c "'0::<(2:5 ~ ,2. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :; B ~ · I : 0 1:1I c: :G l< CII Ql IX: "CII c; ~ C:G ~ - C Q> Jl! '8 'iij If ~ ~ &.:t: 0 ...JO E ~ ...J 8~ I .c .>l> J: 4) ~ f! f! 4) Q> '8 '8 ::i! ::i! .c ~ I . ",2 05 c. o:! 05 "3 ~ 2 05 .c > e :;l 'p ~ 0 05 0 u -<1~ c. ] 0. ~ ~ 05 Vl u " , ' ,- ~-<, u ::; C ~ 05 bJJ ,: 05 ~ C. 0. " Vl C r-- ~ "" ,: I ~ i ~ II 1 ~ ~ ~ '~ i Q to . ~ N '~ f t ~! !: r-- o o N u .0 8 o '" " E 0 ~ ~ 05 '" 0. ~ o:! -= "3 .; '2 .c ~ u " u "0 f-< .s ~ .~ u < '" "D 0 :; E' 05 0 u ] t': 05 .... u ~ u " > OJ) ~ ii: 0 "" "" ~ Vl Ie ~ ,: ==>0 ~ fI)"C .- CD 5 ::s >"i:l:;';: CI) ca t- v, ~i1i:E -.cco 1._0 .! e( .ij) ~ o lie( ~ tG -g ~ 5 ~ '" ~ lD tG UJ "'Ccg>'''C t!CI>tGi!!'Ec Cllg&<(SS ~~.~~~~ j ~ ~ => ~ ~ .. I I : 0 CII C :;: >C I. ~ - !! :e, .. 411 f!! J: .5~ GlQ)q; .! Jl '8 ro ~ 'iii.f~i~~.<:: 8.:t:.3.3:i::i::f e ~ 8~. . S.cc>>= ";:t:= c: :; O~=O Q.><C>>n:: E c>> = fI> O"Cm :J 0.5 m " j ~ ~ !: j,l 1 .. .. .. '~ ~ ~ .. .Q i ~ t i' . ~~ '" d ~z 3<,~:~~~\ 05 ~ 05 u "D :; ~ !; < " > E o 0. 0. " Vl ~ ,: 00 "" Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.2. Transit Corridor Identification In Section 4.1, each TAZ was evaluated for its ability to support transit service based on eight factors. The culmination of these factors resulted in the development of a transit composite index that ranked each TAZ in the study area and was used to identify the following five potential future transit corridors (illustrated in Figure 18). These corridors were deemed to be generally supportive of transit, and should be studied further to determine specific transit routes if an RTA is formed and transit route expansions are desired. Six corridors were identified and are shown below. Potential future routes serving these corridors will be identified in Task 2, Report 2. . West Main St/Market St . Route 29 North . High St/Route 250 East . Ridge St/ Old Lynchburg Rd . Avon St/Route 20 . Route 250 West The eight variables used in ranking individual TAZ's for transit supportability are each recognized as important transit supportive characteristics, and focused generally around three main themes: residential and employment density analysis, presence of growth management policies, and automobile related factors such as congestion and parking availability. The factors were ranked on a scale of 1 (least transit supportive) to 5 (most transit supportive) for each TAZ in the study area. A composite rating was then produced for each TAZ based on an average score of the eight indices. The ratings ranged from low to high and are associated with a service frequency level and headway. For example, areas with a "High" transit potential rating support "Very Frequent" service with headways less than 15 minutes (see Table 15). Table 15: Transit Service Frequency Transit Potential Ratin Service Fre Fre uent Fre uent Moderate Infre uent Commuter Headwa < IS-minute headwa s IS-minute 30-minute 60-minute or demand-res onse Peak Period Moderate Hi h Moderate Low Moderate Low The index developed for this analysis provides an estimation of transit supportability in each TAZ in the study area. The composite index is important for providing a sketch outline of where transit service should be considered in order to provide a well connected, regional system. It should be noted that an entire corridor does not need to be transit supportive, as long as a transit supportive "anchor" is located at the terminal 49 Transit Corridor Identification Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 points, such as Rivanna, Crozet or Hollymead, etc. Thus, the transit corridors were developed to include the connection of non-contiguous pockets of transit supportive areas. This frequency analysis is not definitive, but does give an idea of the level of transit service the corridor could support based on residential density. 4.2.1. West Main Street/Market Street The West Main Street/Market Street corridor runs from UV A to the Downtown Mall. This corridor serves high-density residential areas around the University of Virginia and segments of the eastern section of downtown Charlottesville. Both the Amtrak and Greyhound stations are located along this segment, as well as a plethora of small, specialty type retail destinations (such as at the "Corner" and the Downtown Mall) and major employment centers (such as UV A Hospital). Along with Route 29 North, this corridor generates significant transit ridership. Currently, CTS operates Routes 3, 7, and the Free Trolley along the corridor with headways ranging from 15 to 60 minutes and service during both the day and evening time periods. UTS also operates several routes in portions of this corridor, including the Blue Route, the Orange Route, the Green Route and the Central Grounds Shuttle. As shown in Table 16, the corridor can support frequent service (15-minute headways). Table 16: Corridor Analysis Supported Transit Corridor Arca Scrvicc Frcqucncy West Main St / Market St Entire Corridor Very Frequent UV A to Walmart Frequent Route 29 North Hollymead area Moderate Piney Mountain area Infrequent High Street Moderate High St / Route 250 East Pantops Moderate Village of Rivanna Infrequent Avon St / Route 20 Entire Corridor Moderate Ridge St / Old Lynchburg Downtown Mall to Mill Creek Infrequent Rd Biscuit Run Moderate Route 250 West Entire Corridor Commuter Rio Road East Entire Corridor Moderate 50 Transit Corridor Identification r-- o o N u .0 8 o 0 0. u r:G "3 '2 '" .c ... u 0 b "0 ~ 'S u 0 E .~ 0 ... 0. 0. ~ Vl v, ;; ,: ... G) .- >- _ CI)"C =G)C~ >'t:l!(j) ~cat- =E-~ o CD ca..: -.ceo "'_0 .! e( .ij) ~ o lie( o ... ... .- 0 0" c._ C'G ... ... ... 1-0 o -" ..., ... , . ... ..... , , '....''''. , , , , '---- , .# , ,- . - ,- . .... ,'-. h ". . . , , - .. '.. ., # # , - .. ., " ,. "" , ~ c:: :::! <3 -! m CD :5! C( .. . , # , ..... .... , , , , '........... -- ." Il: us Ti) ~ l) ~ ~ .>: 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 3- ~ ~ ." t; j 000",> Il: Il: - W 0 ." ." It> tiS ~ ~ ~ .s:: 0) Il: ;; 0) 1:J 0 0 :E Ci: Ci: Il: >- ftj .., l: W f '" ! ~ ~ tV G) c: "<5 '" & ~ g l!! ::i: .go~o.g - C:'<i'.c~ aJ! !3::i::so'l:l:S I : 088 .s:: 1:: o Z Ol N ., ;; o Il: I Iii c: o ~ . . ~~ C::c:: ~ :::! ~ 0 i:tO ...- ## ,- , .... .. # , , .... , , ," .. , , -,' # ## . # # .. -," ~ c:: ~ o .S! loo; ClI i ~ C( co .!! :i 10 10 N --1z 10 N o c o ';;; u ~ '5 ::8 05 ~ 05 u Ie ~ ,: :;:; Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.2.2. Route 29 North The Route 29 North corridor stretches from the University of Virginia to the Piney Mountain Community and serves as the major transit corridor in the region, connecting the university with substantial retail and office development along Route 29. The corridor is anchored by several institutional and commercial uses. The southern portion of this corridor is characterized by strip-type development, deep setbacks and large parking lots. Traveling northward on the corridors the intensity of development is gradually reduced, until reaching the Piney Mountain area where much land remains undeveloped. Major developments in the corridor include Barracks Road Shopping Center, Fashion Square Mall, Shoppers World, Albemarle Square, Rio Hill Shopping Center, the North Fork Business Park, Hollymead Town Center, Walmart/Sam's Club and the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport. In addition to the high commercial square footage generated by this agglomeration of retail and commercial land use, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the continued development of a mixed-use "Town Center" and several layers of residential neighborhoods with allowable densities ranging from 6 to 34 dwelling units an acre in the Hollymead and Piney Mountain Communities. Development in this corridor will be guided by Places 29, an ongoing project developing a corridor master plan. This plan will feature compact development organized into neighborhood and employment centers and will "be connected by an attractive, efficient, and accessible multimodal transportation system.,,18 However, project implementation is expected to take many years. The Route 29 North corridor is currently served by high frequency transit service. CTS Route 7 provides service on weekdays, weeknights and Sundays, between UV A and Fashion Square Mall during both the day and evening hours with 15-30 minute headways. Service from Barracks Road Shopping Center to the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club is provided by CTS Route 5 during the day (6:15 am to 7:15 pm) with 30-minute headways. CTS does not operate transit service north ofWalmart/Sam's Club. As ridership on the Route 29 North corridor continues to grow, this corridor should be targeted for significant transit improvements, potentially including higher frequency service, route extensions to Piney Mountain and bus rapid transit. Table 16 shows that frequent service could be supported on Route 29 between UVA and Walmart, moderate transit service in the Hollymead area and infrequent transit service in the Piney Mountain area. 18 Places 29 Vision Statement and Guiding Principles, 2006, page 1 52 Transit Corridor Identification Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 4.2.3. High Street/Route 250 East The High Street/Route 250 East corridor runs from the Downtown Mall to the Village of Rivanna. This corridor is largely composed of strip-type development, and is anchored by several retail and institutional centers. The corridor is bounded by Pantops neighborhood on the west end and the Village of Rivanna on the east. The Pantops Neighborhood is focused on Pantops Shopping Center. Major employers include the State Farm Regional Office Building, the Albemarle County Service Authority Office Building and the Social Security Administration. Additionally, the Peter Jefferson Place mixed-use project is approved for 980,000 square feet of office development, 145,000 square feet of retail development and 296 residential units. Martha Jefferson Hospital is scheduled to relocate from its facility on East High Street to Route 250 in the next few years. Overall, allowable densities in the corridor range from 6-34 dwelling units an acre. The Village of Rivanna is mostly residential units, although two businesses are located in the Village. The density for the Village is set at 3-6 dwelling units per acre for the majority of the area, however there is a more dense, mixed-use designation allowing for 6-34 dwelling units an acre that is intended to be developed with a mixture of retail businesses, services, public facilities and civic spaces and will serve as the focal point for the Village. Part of this corridor is currently served by CTS Route 10, which only operates during the day at 60-minute headways. While improved service frequency may increase ridership, it may take many years for transit ridership to grow. Currently, there is no transit service available for residents of Rivanna. High Street and the Pantops areas should be considered for moderate transit service while the Village of Rivanna and the rest of the corridor should be considered for commuter service to UVA (Table 16). 4.2.4. Avon St / Route 20 The Avon St/Route 20 (Scottsville Rd) corridor runs from the Downtown Mall south along Avon St and Route 20. This corridor includes the PVCC campus, Shoffner Industrial Park, Monticello High School, Mill Creek neighborhood, Mill Creek Industrial Park and the Biscuit Run tract. Biscuit Run is currently zoned for the development of 900 residential lots, however, the developer has requested a mixed-use community with varying levels of density which would result in mixed-used development with a maximum of 3,100 units located on the approximately 1,300 acres. This corridor is currently suburban/rural in feel in both density of residential units and the fractured, cul-de-sac roadway network. However, the introduction of a large mixed- 53 Transit Corridor Identification Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report 4.2.5. 4.2.6. October 2007 use community in the corridor has the potential to alter the built environment and provide demand for fixed route service to the Biscuit Run development and the residual densification of adjacent parcels along the corridor that will inevitably result. Currently, segments of this corridor are served by CTS Routes IB, 3A and 6A with 30- 60 minute headways during daytime service and Route 23 providing evening service to PVCC on 60-minute headways. There is currently no service on Route 20 south of PVCc. The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan calls for a density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. Between the Downtown Mall and the Mill Creek development, infrequent (hourly) service is possible. However, upon development of Biscuit Run as a mixed-use development, this corridor may support frequent (30-minute) service (Table 16). Ridge St/Old Lynchburg Rd The Ridge Street/ Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631) corridor runs from the Downtown Mall to the west side of the proposed Biscuit Run development. It includes Willoughby Square shopping center and the Albemarle County Office Building South. CTS operates Route 2B and 6A along portions of this corridor at between 30 and 60 minute headways during the day and Route 22 during the night. Currently, there is no service on 5th Street south of the Southwood mobile home park. However, when the proposed Biscuit Run tract is developed, this could serve as an anchor for significantly increased transit serve. Albemarle County could consider constructing a park-and-ride lot in this area and providing express commuter service to UV A. The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan calls for a density of 0-3 dwelling units per acre on much of the corridor, though Biscuit Run may be rezoned for 3-6 dwelling units per acre. This corridor supports a moderate level of transit service with 30-minute headways (Table 16). Route 250 West This corridor runs from UV A to Crozet, with low density development in between. However, there are several commercial areas located along Route 250 just west of Route 29 including the Farmington Country Club, which employs over 220 individuals, the Institute of Textile Technology, the Townside East Retail, the Ednam Professional Center and several other businesses and institutional uses. Densities are programmed to range from 3-34 dwelling units an acre. Crozet has a historic downtown that consists of a number of small businesses, offices, a library and a fire and rescue squad. The Crozet Shopping Center and the Blue Ridge Building Supply Company are some of the largest commercial land uses in the area. Additionally, Crozet Station, a mixed use community in the downtown area is planned, and a residential, planned community entitled "Old Trail Village" with a proposed build- 54 Transit Corridor Identification Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Technical Report October 2007 out of 2,000 homes and 250,000 square feet of retail will result in an increase of demand of transportation infrastructure along the Route 250 corridor. Currently, there are no fixed-route transit services offered west of Alderman Road, located in Neighborhood 6. While local bus service is not warranted on this corridor, Crozet should be considered for express commuter bus service to UV A. This corridor supports commuter services during peak periods (Table 16). 4.2.7. Rio Road East Corridor The Rio Road East Corridor runs from Route 29 at Fashion Square Mall to the Belvedere development off of Rio Road. Key destinations along this corridor include Fashion Square Mall, Albemarle Square Shopping Center, Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC) and the Belvedere development. Currently, there are no fixed-route transit services on this corridor. As Table 16 shows, this corridor could support moderate transit service, with 30-minute headways. 55 Transit Corridor Identification . !({lItI"(' "<11(-:('11 /)1'1",/1111 1111 Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 2b, Task 2d & Task 2e Technical Report Service Strategies November 2, 2007 Submitted by: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700 Vienna, VA 22182 Submitted to: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 401 East Water Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Service Strategies Report November 2007 Regional Transit Authority Plan Schedule of Deliverables - Revised May 7,2007 Primary Target Delivery Date Task Responsibility (months from notice to proceed) 1a Technical Report that presents the required and desired characteristics of the new regional transit entity. E&K 2.0 A Power point presentation E8K 2.0 1b Technical Report that describes regional transit entity alternatives. E&K 3.0 1c Staffing plan with an organizational chart, suggested salary ranges for VHB 3,0 each position in the organizational chart, brief Job descriptions 1d Technical Report that presents and describes institutional options including projected benefits, costs, and impacts, and that clearly VHB 2,0 presents the locally preferred institutional approach Task 1 Task report that includes a concise executive summary E&K 3,0 2a Technical Report identifying the area and corridors that appear to have potential to support transit service VHB 2.0 2b Technical Report describing the several strategies together with appropriate graphics illustrating each service strategy VHB 2.5 2c Maps of the areas meeting these criteria together with a Technical Report VHB 2.5 2d Map and summary matrix documenting services proposed for current CTS service areas VHB 3,5 2e Technical Report identifying the capital equipment appropriate for the proposed transit operation VHB 3,5 2f Technical Report on recommended service standards VHB 3,0 3a Technical Report that documents the amount of prior investment in CTS made by each member of the RTA E&K 3,5 3b Deliverable: Technical Report that documents the proposed future service plan and operating costs under the recommended E&K 5,0 organizational structures 3c Technical Report that describes how the development of an RTA could impact existing funding sources, and that describes potential E&K 5,5 new revenue sources that could supplant existing local funding from the city and county 3d Technical Report that presents vehicle, facility and equipment needs, and associated costs E&K 4,3 3e Technical Report that documents alternative regional cost allocation E&K 5.5 formulas and the formula preferred by the involved entities. 3f Technical Report that identifies potential new funding source, and describes the legal and administrative steps that would be required to E&K 5.5 implement them 3g Technical Report that identifies how changes in the organization for transit and changes in the quantity of service provided could impact E&K 5.0 state and federal funding. 4a Technical Report documenting a transit plan and schedule VHB 10.0 4b Technical Report describing methods to achieve greater coordination in the planning and provision of transit service short of forming a VHB 10.0 formal authority. 4c Documentation of DOT requirements and a plan proposed for recordkeeping and cost allocation that will satisfy the requirements of VHB 6,0 the Circulars. Contents Service Strategies Report November 2007 The primary purpose of this report is to present four concepts illustrating how expanded transit services might be operated within the Charlottesville - Albemarle area. Understanding the potential scale of services that may be offered to the community provides information that is useful in determining the appropriate organizational structure. To provide readers with a sense of the possible budget impacts that will likely be associated with each option, cost estimates have been prepared based on assumed service plans. These service plans do not reflect detailed route-by-route analysis. Actual route operations, and therefore operating costs, would likely vary slightly from those presented here. Further, the cost estimates are based on the recent CTS budgets and the current organizational structure. The unit costs of operating transit under a new organization may be either more or less than as provided by CTS. To provide readers with a basis for assessing how costs for service for the various options differ from current conditions, a cost estimate for a Baseline, the proposed CTS Fall 2008 service plan, is included. This attempts to properly reflect the Fall 2008 plan but may not reflect all CTS proposed services in exact detail. Costs presented will not necessarily be fully consistent with the CTS budgets for operation of transit in the year beginning in Fall 2008. 11 Contents Service Strategies Report November 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Task 1: Regional Transit Management and Governance Report 1: AdvantageslDisadvantages of RT A and Organizational Frameworks Report 2: Labor Analysis and Staffing Plan Task 2: Regional Transit Service and Operations Report 1: Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas Report 2: Service Strategies 1. Executive Su mmary ...... ....... ........ ................................................................ 1 2. Introd uction................................................................................................... 4 3. Basel ine ......................................................................................................... 6 3.1, Daytime Routes ....................., ,........................ ,.., .......................... ,............................, ..... 7 3,2. Nighttime Routes ................., .,............................. ......., .....................,........,..............., ...... 9 3.3, Sunday Routes ..................... ......................................, ....................... ,............., ,..., ,....... 10 3.4. Other Services,.."............................................................................."............................ 11 3.5. University Transit Service (UTS)..........................................,...................,...................... 11 3.6, JAUNT...,.........................,............,.,...............................................,.......,............."........ 11 3. 7. RideShare..............................."............"..,...................................................."......"....... 12 4. Service Strategies .......................... ............................................................19 4.1. Option 1 ...... ............ .................. .............., ,.......... .......................................,................. ,.. 22 4.2. Option 2......, ,.., .,..., .,.." ,............. ,............ ,........." ,....... .................................................... 36 4.3. Option 3 .........."....,..........,.,............................................,.............",......".............."....... 44 4.4. Option 4 .............................,..............................,...................................,.......,................. 54 111 Contents Service Strategies Report November 2007 4.5. Summary.........,.................................................................................................".....,..... 63 Report 3: Service Standards lV Contents Service Strategies Report November 2007 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Revenue hours by Jurisdiction ..............................,...................................................... 6 Table 2: Summary of Baseline Routes................,.................................................................... 14 Table 3: Capital Cost Unit Costs ............,..............,..........,..................................,.................... 21 Table 4: Option 1 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction ..........................................................,........, 27 Table 5: Option 1 Summary of Operating Characteristics ........................................................ 27 Table 6: Option 1 Capital Cost Summary....,............................................................................ 28 Table 7: Option 2 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction .......................................................,............ 38 Table 8: Option 2 Summary of Operating Characteristics ................,....................................... 39 Table 9: Option 2 Capital Costs Summary ....................................,.......................................... 40 Table 10: Option 3 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction ,..................,..................................,........,.. 47 Table 11: Option 3 Summary of Operating Characteristics ......................................................48 Table 12: Option 3 Capital Costs Summary .....................,....................................................... 49 Table 13: Option 4 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction ..............................................,...........,....,.. 58 Table 14: Option 4 Summary of Operating Characteristics .......................,............,................. 59 Table 15: Option 4 Capital Costs Summary ...............................................................,............. 60 Table 16: Operating Cost Summary..................,....,............................................,..................., 65 Table 17: Summary of Capital Costs....................................,.................................,................. 66 v Contents Service Strategies Report November 2007 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Baseline Daytime Service (FaIl200B) ..........,............................................................15 Figure 2: Baseline Nighttime Service (FaIl200B) ...............................,.....................................16 Figure 3: Baseline Sunday Service (FaIl200B) ...............,...................................,....................17 Figure 4: Baseline Park and Ride Lots (FaIl200B)...................................................................1B Figure 5: Option 1 .............,.....,......................."..................................................,.................... 29 Figure 6: Option 1- Route 6..,.........................................................................,.......................30 Figure 7: Option 1 - Route BA and Route BB......................,........,....................,...................... 31 Figure B: Option 1 - Route 10A and Route 1 OB......................,............................................,... 32 Figure 9: Option 1 - Hollymead Route ..................................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Option 1 - Rio Road East .......,.........................................,......,............,................. 34 Figure 11: Option 1 - Biscuit Run Route.................,....,....,.......,.........................,.................... 35 Figure 12: Option 2 ........................, ,...., ......................... ,...., ....... .............................., ,............. 41 Figure 13: Option 2 - Route 29 Circulator...,......................................,...................,.................42 Figure 14: Option 2 - Crosstown Route .........................,.............................,..................,.....,.. 43 Figure 15: Option 3 ...".............................................................................."...........,................. 50 Figure 16: Option 3 - High-Frequency Trunk ......................................... .......... ,........ ,......,....... 51 Figure 17: Option 3 - Hollymead Route ...........................................,.......................,............,.. 52 Figure 1B: Option 3 - Biscuit Run Route ............................,.....................................................53 Figure 19: Option 4 ..........................................................................................."............",...... 61 Figure 20: Option 4 - Priority Transit ...................................................................,................... 62 Figure 21: Allocation of Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction ......................................,...........,........ 63 vi Contents Service Strategies Report November 2007 1. Executive Summary Formation of a regional transit authority is intended to promote the development of regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The decision whether to develop an Authority or some other form of regional organization for transit will depend, in part, on the nature and extent of transit services to be operated in each of the participating jurisdictions. This document identifies potential service strategies that might be implemented if a regional transit entity is formed. As existing fixed-route transit services are largely focused on Charlottesville, the four options discussed in this report envision a significant expansion of transit service in Albemarle County. A baseline is described that represents the services proposed to be operated by CTS in the fall of 2008. The description of the baseline includes the routes to be operated weekdays and evenings, Saturdays and Sundays, the proposed frequency of service on each route, and indication of the jurisdiction (city or county) that is expected to provide funding for the route, and an estimate of the cost of providing the service. Similar information is then presented for four alternatives: . Option 1 - New local service in Albemarle County . Option 2 - New local service plus creation of a transit center at Barracks Road Shopping Center and a new Crosstown route . Option 3 - New local service, Barracks Road Transit Center, High Frequency Route 29 Trunk route, and local circulators . Option 4 - New local service, Barracks Road Transit Center, Bus Rapid Transit and local circulators The alternatives presented are intended to define different levels of the scope and extent of transit services in the Charlottesville-Albemarle region at some time in the near future. These have been developed in order that realistic estimates of the costs of providing services having differing characteristics in terms of types of operation, extent or operations, and quality of service could be considered. Given that all alternatives would serve the same general market area, that each would strive to retain service to existing customers, and that the roadways available for operation of transit routes are limited, the options have many common features and may appear to reflect a possible phased implementation. Although the more extensive alternatives might involve a phased implementation the several options should not be viewed as a staged program. To permit comparisons, the operating costs for all options, including the baseline, have been developed using current CTS unit operating costs escalated to 2010. No cost additions or potential savings that might result from creation of a regional transit entity Executive Summary Service Strategies Report November 2007 are reflected in these cost estimates. In addition, the cost estimates do not reflect a cost sharing formula that would need to be negotiated if a regional transit entity is formed. Maps illustrating each of the options and descriptions of routes comprising each option are included in the body of this report. The proportion of service that would be operated in each jurisdiction under each of the options is summarized in the chart below. 100% III 80% -~- ... :l 52% 49% 48% 0 57% :I: CI) 79% :l 60% e ~ &! .... 40% 0 - e CI) ~ CI) 20% Q. 0% Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 ------ D Albemarle County D City of Charlottesville The projected services and the associated operating costs for each alternative are summarized in the table on page 3. 2 Executive Summary Service Strategies Report November 2007 Summary of Operating Costs for Service Options (adjusted for projected 2010 unit costs) Day Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 FREE Trolley City $760,000 $760.000 $760,000 $760,000 $760,000 Route 1A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Route 1 B City $149,000 $149.000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 2A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Route 2B County $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 3A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Route 3B City $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 4 City $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Route 5 County $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 Route 6 (Baseline Route 6B) City $221,000 $510,000 $510,000 $510,000 $510,000 Route 8A (Baseline Route 6A) City $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 Route 8B City $248,000 $248,000 $248,000 $248,000 Route 7 City $1,531,000 $1,531,000 $1,531,000 Route 10A (Baseiine Route 10) County $276,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Route 10B County $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Hollymead Route County $765,000 $765,000 $266,000 $266,000 Rio Road East County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Biscuit Run Route County $765,000 $765,000 $829,000 $829.000 Route 29 Circulator County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Crosstown Route County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Priority Transit A Split $1,935,000 $1,658,000 Priority Transit B Split $1,371.000 $1,077,000 Subtotal $4,912,000 $7,779,000 $8,331,000 $9,671,000 $9,100,000 Night Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 FREE Trolley City $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 $213,000 Route 5 County nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa Route 7 City $191,000 $191,000 $191,000 Route 21 City $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 22 City $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 23 City $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 24 County $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Priority Transit A Split $198,000 $340,000 Priority Transit B Split $128,000 $170,000 Subtotal $828,000 $828,000 $828,000 $963,000 $1,147,000 Sunday Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 FREE Trolley City $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 Route 7 City $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 Subtotal $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 Express Bus Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Rivanna Express County $71,000 $71,000 $71,000 Airport County $71,000 $71,000 $71,000 Subtotal $0 $0 $142,000 $142,000 $142,000 Other Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Other City $55,000 $75,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 Subtotal $55,000 $75,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 Total $5,899,000 $8,786,000 $9,460,000 $10,935,000 $10,548,000 Absolute Difference with Baseline $2,887,000 $3,561,000 $5,036,000 $4,649,000 Percent Difference with Baseline 48.9% 60.4% 85.4% 78.8% 3 Executive Summary Service Strategies Report November 2007 2. Introduction Formation of a regional transit authority is intended to promote the development of regional transit services and to provide travelers with an attractive alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways throughout the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The decision whether to develop an Authority or some other form of regional organization for transit will depend, in part, on the nature and extent of transit services to be operated in each of the participating jurisdictions. Task 1 of this study includes a technical report on potential regional transit management and governance options. It reviews and evaluates several potential institutional structures for a regional transit entity. Task 2 of this study identifies potential regional transit services and operations and is composed of two reports. The first report reviews those corridors and areas most likely to support transit services. As transportation patterns are integrally related to land use, the existing built environment and policies guiding future development are critical to the success of transit. This document (Task 2, Report 2) identifies potential service strategies if a regional transit entity is formed. As existing fixed-route transit services are largely focused on Charlottesville, the four options discussed in this report envision a significant expansion of transit service in Albemarle County. Option 1 and Option 2 expand traditional fixed-route transit service into the Albemarle County and currently underserved areas of Charlottesville. Option 3 and 4 are intended to be even more attractive to "choice riders" - persons who would choose to ride transit out of preference, not because they lack alternatives. Recommendations that succeed in attracting choice riders to transit must provide a level of service competitive with travel by automobile. This includes considering convenience, travel time, modal transfers and financial cost. For example, to attract "choice riders" Option 3 proposes a high- frequency transit service along the Route 29 /W est Main Street corridor. Option 4 goes further, introducing priority transit service, such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), light rail or streetcar to the Route 29 /West Main Street corridor, to increase reliability, reduce travel time and facilitate transfers. The alternatives presented are intended to define different levels of the scope and extent of transit services in the Charlottesville-Albemarle region at some time in the near future. These have been developed in order that realistic estimates of the costs of providing services having differing characteristics in terms of types of operation, extent or operations, and quality of service could be considered. Given that all alternatives would serve the same general market area, that each would strive to retain service to existing 4 Introduction Service Strategies Report November 2007 customers, and that the roadways available for operation of transit routes are limited, the options have many common features and may appear to reflect a possible phased implementation. That is not the intent. The alternatives are designed to permit assessing the extent of services in each of the participating jurisdictions and the impacts on each of various cost and revenue allocation strategies. This will permit the appropriate policy makers to identify the scope of investment that would be feasible for each jurisdiction. Understanding the level-of- investment deemed appropriate by each entity that might participate in a regional transit organization, and the commitment of each, will permit policy makers to better assess, and to better present, the benefits that might be obtained from the various institutional structures and funding strategies that might be adopted. Once a decision has been reached on the appropriate scope and nature of the Charlottesville-Albemarle County transit system and on the organizational structure for funding, management and organization of that system, the steps for implementation of the organization, the funding programs, and the general approach to phasing of the services changes will be identified. That work is part of Task 4. Section 3 of this report describes the Baseline service, which is the fixed-route transit service that CTS plans to implement in Fall 2008. Section 4 summarizes the four service options. A general description of each option is provided, followed by differences as compared to the Baseline. Cost estimates are provided for both operating and capital costs. Operating costs are assumed to be $69.25 per revenue hour in FY 2010, which is the earliest time period when a regional transit entity is likely to be formed. This is based on applying an annual inflation rate of three percent to CTS' FY 2008 operating cost per revenue hour ($65.27). A low cost and high cost estimate were assumed for all capital purchases, which include buses, bus stops/shelters, transit stations and road improvements. Many multijurisdictional transit entities allocate costs based on revenue vehicle-hours operated in each jurisdiction. For this analysis costs are either allocated to the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, or a split 50/50 between the two entities. Existing transit service costs are allocated to the existing entity that funds them. New transit service costs are allocated based on the jurisdiction they are intended to primarily serve. Cost estimates do not reflect a cost sharing formula that would need to be negotiated if a regional transit entity is formed. In addition, roadway construction costs, such as the Sunset-Fontaine connector, are not included. 5 Introduction Service Strategies Report November 2007 3. Baseline The Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), a component of Charlottesville's Department of Public Works, provides public transportation throughout Charlottesville and urbanized areas of Albemarle County. Currently, service extends south to Interstate 64, north on Route 29 to Walmart and east on Route 250 past the Pan tops neighborhood. CTS service is operated in three time periods: Daytime (Monday - Saturday), Nighttime (Monday - Saturday) and Sunday. CTS operates 18 fixed routes including 12 exclusively during the daytime, four exclusively at nighttime (Monday - Saturday) and two during the daytime, nighttime and on Sundays. Daytime service operates under a hub-and-spoke framework in which the route network converges on the Downtown Transit Station, much like the radial spokes on a wheel converge at a hub. Route 7 and the FREE Trolley serve as the backbones of the system providing service along Charlottesville's main arteries while other routes connect neighborhoods to the Downtown Transit Station. In the Baseline, 79.3 percent of revenue hours are considered "City" service and 20.7 percent of revenue hours are considered "County" service. This fixed-route service is designed to operate on a "pulse", meaning that all routes are scheduled to arrive and depart from a common location, the new Downtown Transit Station, at either 15 or 45 minutes past the hour. "Pulse" schedules facilitate transfers for transit systems with infrequent service (>30 minutes per trip) and where most routes converge at a single location. The baseline service strategy discussed in this report is based on the service that CTS plans to operate beginning in fall 2008. Four routes are targeted for change between fall 2007 and fall 2008 - Route 4A, Route 4B, Route 6A and Route 6B. This section discusses each of the routes in the Baseline. Overall, the estimated operating cost of the Baseline is $5,899,000. In the Baseline, 79.3 percent of revenue hours are considered "City" service and 20.7 percent of revenue hours are considered "County" service (Table 1). A summary of the Baseline is provided on page 14. There are no additional capital costs associated with the Baseline service. Table 1: Revenue hours by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction City County Total Revenue Hours No. Percent 67,551 79.3% 17,653 20.7% 85,204 100.0% 6 Baseline Service Strategies Report November 2007 3.1. Daytime Routes During the daytime, from Monday to Saturday, CTS operates 18 fixed routes (see Figure 1 on page 15). The FREE Trolley is a circulator service that travels between the Downtown Transit Station and the University of Virginia (UV A), circulating through the University Grounds. Major stops include UV A Hospital, Scott Stadium and the "Corner." This route operates on IS-minute headways. During the day, three buses are dedicated to the Trolley, which travels approximately 85,700 revenue miles and 11,000 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $760,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Definitions: . Interlining is a transit concept in which some buses operate a trip on one route and then switch to another route to continue their service. Passengers may remain on the bus and obtain a "one-seat" ride rather than transferring. . Headway refers to the amount of time provided between consecutive buses running the same route. . Peak Period is weekdays from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Route 1A provides service from the Downtown Transit Station to Chesapeake Street and East Market Street, making stops in residential neighborhoods and at the Martha Jefferson Hospital, located on East High Street. Route lA requires 1/2 of a bus to operate and is interlined with Route lB. It operates on 60-minute headways and travels approximately 18,800 revenue miles and 1,700 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, Route lA operating cost is estimated to be $115,000. It is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route IB connects Piedmont Virginia Community College with the Downtown Transit Station via Route 20, serving many residential areas in between. Route IB requires 1/2 of a bus to operate and is interlined with Route lA. It operates on 60-minute headways and travels approximately 28,400 revenue miles and 2,100 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $149,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 2A travels between the Downtown Transit Station and the Locust Avenue and Park Street corridors, stopping at Martha Jefferson Hospital and residential areas. It operates on 60-minute headways. This route requires !j2 of a bus to operate, travels approximately 24,700 revenue miles and 1,700 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $115,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. 7 Baseline Service Strategies Report November 2007 Route 2B runs between the Downtown Transit Station and the County Office Building South along 5th Street and Old Lynchburg Rd, stopping at Willoughby Square and other locations. This route is interlined with Route 2A and operates on 60-minute headways. Route 2B requires 1/2 of a bus to operate, travels approximately 30,200 revenue miles and 2,100 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $149,000. Funding for this route is split equally between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Route 3A provides service to mostly residential areas between the Downtown Transit Station and Belmont Park. This route requires Vz of a bus to operate, travels approximately 20,400 revenue miles and 1,700 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $115,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 3B runs from the Downtown Transit Station to Greenleaf Park, along West Main Street and Rose Hill Drive. It stops at the Charlottesville Health Department, Greenleaf Park, and provides service to several residential neighborhoods. This route requires Vz of a bus to operate and is interlined with Route 3A. It operates on 60-minute headways and travels approximately 27,600 revenue miles and 2,100 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $149,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. CTS plans to modify Route 4A and Route 4B in fall 2008. Route 4A and Route 4B will be merged to form Route 4. The combined route will travel between the Downtown Transit Station and UV A Hospital, through the neighborhoods south of West Main Street, including service along Cherry Avenue and Jefferson Park Avenue. During the peak period it will operate on 30-minute headways and during off-peak hours it will operate on 60-minute headways. In order to reduce the number of buses caravanning on West Main Street, Route 4 will no longer operate on this road. The new Route 4 requires two buses to operate, travels approximately 60,100 revenue miles and 5,800 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $400,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. In order to reduce inefficient service duplication on West Main Street, beginning in Fall 2008 Route 4 will no longer travel on West Main Street. The FREE Trolley, Route 3 and Route 7 will continue to operate on West Main Street. Route 5 operates between Barracks Road Shopping Center and Walmart, traveling along Georgetown Road, Commonwealth Drive and Rio Road. Major stops include Fashion Square Mall, Albemarle Square, Rio Hill Shopping Center and Sam's Club. This route operates at 30-minute intervals and requires three buses to operate. Annually, it travels approximately 140,700 revenue miles and 11,100 revenue hours. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $765,000. This route is funded by Albemarle County. 8 Baseline Service Strategies Report November 2007 CTS plans to modify Route 6A in Fall 2008. Currently, Route 6A travels between the Downtown Transit Station and Brookwood Drive, providing service to residential areas south of the Water Street. In Fall 2008 this route will extended to include the Prospect Road segment of Route 4, so that it resembles Route 22. This route operates at 30- minute intervals during peak periods and at 60-minute intervals during the off-peak. The new Route 6A will require one bus to operate and will travel approximately 33,500 revenue miles and 2,400 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $167,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 6B operates between the Downtown Transit Station and K-Mart, traveling via Preston Avenue. Other major stops include the Seminole Square Shopping Center and Washington Park. This route operates at 30-minute intervals during the peak and 60- minute intervals during the off peak. It requires one bus to operate, travels approximately 40,500 revenue miles and 3,200 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $221,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 7 is the backbone of CTS. It provides frequent service along West Main Street and Route 29 North, between the Downtown Transit Station and Fashion Square Mall. Major stops include the "Corner", Barracks Road Shopping Center, K-Mart and Seminole Square Shopping Center. During the day, Route 7 operates on IS-minutes headways, requires six buses to operate and travels approximately 198,900 revenue miles and 22,100 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $1,531,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 10 provides service between the Downtown Transit Station and the new Martha Jefferson Campus at 60-minute intervals. It makes stops at the Pantops Shopping Center, Wilton Farm, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), State Farm, the Westminster/Canterbury neighborhoods, among other locations. This route requires one bus to operate and travels approximately 54,300 revenue miles and 4,000 revenue hours per year. In FY 2010, its operating cost is estimated to be $276,000. This route is funded by Albemarle County. 3.2. Nighttime Routes Between 6:45 pm and 11 :48 pm, Monday to Saturday, CTS operates six fixed routes (Figure 2). At night, the FREE Trolley operates on IS-minute headways along the same alignment as daytime service. This route requires two buses to operate and travels approximately 35,000 revenue miles and 3,100 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $213,000, which is in addition to the cost of operating the FREE Trolley during the daytime. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. 9 Baseline Service Strategies Report November 2007 Albemarle County is considering funding nighttime service on Route 5 in Fall 2008. However, at this time the details of the proposed service are not available. Route 7 operates along the same alignment as during the day, on 30-minute headways. It requires two buses to operate and travels approximately 37,300 revenue miles and 2,800 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $191,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 21 provides service between the Downtown Transit Station and Belmont Park along the same alignment as daytime Route 3A. Other stops include Belmont Market, Belmont Park and the Sunrise Trailer Court. This route operates on 30-minute headways, requires one bus and travels approximately 38,700 revenue miles and 1,500 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $106,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 22 provides service between the Downtown Transit Station and Blue Ridge Commons. Other stops include Friendship Court, Crescent Halls and Tonsler Park. This route requires one bus to operate, operates on 30-minute headways and travels approximately 30,100 revenue miles and 1,500 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $106,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 23 provides service between the Downtown Transit Station and Piedmont Virginia Community College, making stops at many residential locations. This route requires 1/2 of a bus to operate and is interlined with Route 24. It operates on 60-minute headways, travels approximately 8,400 revenue miles and 1,500 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $106,000. This route is funded by the City of Charlottesville. Route 24 provides service between the Downtown Transit Station and Pantops Shopping Center. Other major stops include Wilton Farm Apartments and Martha Jefferson Hospital. It operates on 60-minute headways. Route 24 is interlined with Route 23 and requires 1/2 of a bus to operate and travels approximately 8,400 revenue miles and 1,500 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $106,000. This route is funded by Albemarle County. 3.3. Sunday Routes In Fall 2007, CTS began operating the FREE Trolley and Route 7 on Sundays, between 7:45 am and 5:45 pm (see Figure 3). The Sunday FREE Trolley operates on the same route as it does during the Daytime and Nighttime service periods, but on 30-minute headways. This route requires one 10 Baseline Service Stratet,>1es Report November 2007 vehicle to operate and travels approximately 5,900 revenue miles and 500 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $36,000. Route 7 also travels the same route as it does during the Daytime and Nighttime service periods, but on 30-minute headways. This route requires two buses to operate and travels approximately 13,200 revenue miles and 1,000 revenue hours per year. The operating cost in FY 2010 is estimated to be $68,000. 3.4. Other Services CTS operates several other services, including the Holly Trolley, Foxfield Shuttle, Fireworks Shuttle, First Night Virginia Shuttle and the UV A Football Shuttle irregularly during the year. The estimated combined cost of these services is $55,000. As many as eight vehicles are required during peak service. 3.5. University Transit Service (UTS) The University Transit Service (UTS) operates seven fixed-routes on and near the University of Virginia Grounds. UTS service is designed primarily to serve individuals who have a valid University ID, including students, staff and faculty, as well as all guests of the University, but anyone may ride a UTS bus No fare is charged. While UV A is not anticipated to join a regional transit entity, it is a vital component of the transportation network. UTS routes are shown in Figure 1 on page 15. UTS fixed-route service is divided into three types of routes: full service, holiday service and commuter service. . Full Service: operates during the spring and fall semesters and includes all of the routes except the Holiday Special. . Holiday Service: operates during any student holiday (such as Winter, Spring, and Summer Break) and during the summer and includes all of the routes except the Grounds Loop, though the Blue Route and Orange Route operate on reduced schedules. No service is provided on weekends. . Commuter Service: operates between Christmas and New Years Day, when clinics are open and the University is closed. Since the University is out of session during these periods, this service is intended to provide employees access to work. Routes in operation include the Holiday Special, Green Route, Stadium/Hospital Shuttle and the Central Grounds Shuttle. Service is not provided on weekends. 3.6. JAUNT JAUNT, Inc. is a regional transit agency that provides fixed-route and demand-response service in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, and Buckingham Counties. JAUNT 11 Baseline Service Strategies Report November 2007 provides complementary demand-response service in Charlottesville and portions of Albemarle County, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Eligible persons include those who cannot use CTS fixed-route transit service, due to a disability. To use this service, riders must be certified by JAUNT. This service is operated from 6:15 am to 11:50 pm Monday to Saturday and 7:30 am to 10:00 pm Sunday. JAUNT also operates fixed-route service largely to connect rural communities to the Charlottesville urban area. This includes six commuter routes linking various rural urban centers within the five county service area to the City of Charlottesville. Most routes operate Monday-Saturday with reduced service on Sunday. Most commuter routes operate Monday-Friday and are listed below: . Albemarle County: Linking Crozet along Route 250 north, and Scottsville along Route 20 south 22, Stony Point along Route 20 north, the Earlysville area and Keswick along Route 250 east. Service Monday-Saturday 6am - midnight and Sundays 7:00 am-l0:00 pm. Fixed routes are available, but residents must call to make a reservation. . Fluvanna County: Two Monday-Friday routes which both originate in Fork Union and serve Palmyra, with one traveling past Lake Monticello on Route 53, and the other staying on Route 15 to travel on Route 250. . Louisa County: Links Mineral and the Town of Louisa, traveling on Route 22, Route 15, and Route 250 with service Monday to Friday. . Nelson County: Two routes operate on the Route 29 corridor with one connecting Lovingston and UV A, and the other connecting Roseland to downtown Charlottesville and UV A. . Buckingham County: Seven day a week service linking Ducks, Buckingham Courthouse, and Dillwyn, traveling on Route 20 to UV A and Martha Jefferson Hospital. Demand-response and deviated fixed routes are also available throughout Albemarle County Monday-Saturday 6am - midnight and Sundays 7:00 am-l0:00 pm. There are also routes to Charlottesville from the outlying counties that pick up throughout Nelson, Fluvanna and Louisa Counties. In general, these deviated fixed routes pick up between 8 AM and 9:30 AM and return between 2 PM and 3 PM. 3.7. Ride Share RideShare is a program of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (fJPDq which aims to reduce traffic congestion and increase mobility. Services include carpool and vanpool matching services as well as Park-and-Ride lot development and marketing, and general Travel Demand Management (fDM) consultation. RideShare works with commuters, employers, and local governments. In addition, RideShare operates the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program which provides free transportation from work 12 Baseline Service Strategies Report November 2007 in emergency situations for persons enrolled in the program. Members are eligible for five free trips per year. Park and Ride lots are located throughout the Charlottesville metropolitan area (see Figure 4). Some lots are publicly owned by VDOT or other government agencies, while others are provided by private businesses. The lots exist to facilitate ride sharing with some lots (pantops, Walmart) providing park and ride for bus service as well. Ten park and ride lots are located in designated growth areas, mostly north and east of the City of Charlottesville along US 29, I-64, and US 250. Lots are also located in Crozet, Scottsville, and other locations outside of Albemarle County. 13 Baseline Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 2: Summary of Baseline Routes Revenue Revenue Operating Day Revenue Funding Headway Peak Buses Miles Hours Costs FREE Trolley City 15 3,0 85,745 10,975 $760,000 Route 1 A City 60 0.5 18,758 1,663 $115,000 Route 1 B City 60 0.5 28,367 2,149 $149,000 Route 2A City 60 0.5 24,744 1,663 $115,000 Route 2B Split 60 0.5 30,209 2,149 $149,000 Route 3A City 60 0,5 20,354 1,663 $115,000 Route 3B City 60 0,5 27,630 2,149 $149,000 Route 4 City 30/60 2,0 60,070 5,776 $400.000 Route 5 County 30 3,0 140,729 11,052 $765,000 Route 6A City 30/60 1.0 33,501 2,407 $167,000 Route 6B City 30/60 1.0 40,471 3,190 $221,000 Route 7 City 15 6,0 198,936 22,104 $1,531,000 Route 10 County 60 1.0 54,278 3,991 $276,000 Subtotal 20.0 763,791 70,931 $4,912,000 Revenue Revenue Operating Night Revenue Funding Headway Peak Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley City 15 2,0 34,998 3,070 $213,000 Route 5 County n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Route 7 City 30 2,0 37,301 2,763 $191,000 Route 21 City 30 1,0 38,682 1.535 $106,000 Route 22 City 30 1.0 30,086 1,535 $106,000 Route 23 City 60 0,5 8.443 1,535 $106,000 Route 24 County 60 0.5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Subtotal 7.0 157,952 11,973 $828,000 Revenue Revenue Operating Sunday Revenue Funding Headway Peak Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley City 30 1.0 5,928 520 $36,000 Route 7 City 30 2,0 13,230 980 $68,000 Subtotal 3.0 19,158 1,500 $104,000 Revenue Revenue Operating Other Revenue Funding Peak Buses Miles Hours Cost Subtotal City 3,150 800 $55,000 Total (1) 944,050 85,204 $5,899,000 (1) Peak vehicle requirement is 28 buses during community events such as the Football Shuttle 14 Baseline r-- o o N u .0 5 > o Z ... Q) .- >- _ en"C =CDCj >i:l!~ en ftI .... v, Q) E-~ ~ Q) ftI 0;: -.cco .. - 0 ftI A .- .c .c ~ C)... o Q)::S ~c( ~cPClO CO '" .- Q ~"'iN =tn- cn-- .- .." ca LLmLL ~ cc" 11 tI00~ o a: ~ ::0 0 ~ ~ _.0 IX: ~ ':; ..... &1 ~ '" >. c: .. J ~ III '$ ..... .~ ~ ~ 5 & ; ~ '" .., . on <0 0- '" t- .. ~ i ~ '" '" ., .. ~ -;:; .. 5 'g 'g 'g 'g l: o UJ ~ '" j a:: ~ > i!! 0 0 0 () 0 u. IX: Q: Q: Q: Q: Q: Q: Q: (/) (/) I I I I I I I I . l- t- ::l () '" <:> <:> N co '" c J " " 'E I~ " (fJ .8 " .5 >. '" ~ " .5 11 ~ '" 05 i:l< " c.. ,:.; ~ '\ u ~ i'J '--Tz u 0< . ::; ::l ~ ~ ] u b.C "r ~ 0:1 V) u u E u ~ Vl -l!... H .. ~..~"\ ". ~"'~ r-- o o N u .0 5 > o Z ~~ .se en 'C =CDC::::J i:~~u; (1)E_~ ~ CI) ca'l: -,gco :G< - ,2 .c .c g) ... o &~ N~....cP~ (I) :: .c .~ Q ~CI)C)~N ::s tn.- ~- 0) as Z ~~ -= u: m v, u: ~ rJ) 'S; >- -t: rJ) ~ N (t) '<t Q) 0 ..- Cll ~ ~ r--. N N N N E ~ ~ Q) Q) ~ -g -.:: ell ~ :i :i co :::I :::I :::I ~ .c: S 0 0 0 0 0 () ~ u. a::: a::: a::: a::: a::: . 0 I I I I I 0:: ~s . if ....J~ .~ i;l . ~' '"\. ~ ~ 0 0 " N = '" e " " "E " ell jI " 'E .E b.C Z " .5 OJ ., 00 ~ '" ~ ~ 0 N c. u .:! " "-{z u C .~ '" u ~ '5c ~ ~ E en u ,~ ~ ::2 Vl r-- o o N ~ u .0 5 > o Z - CD ._~ _ U>"C =(I)C;:, >"CftI+' U>ca~CI) !E-~ o (I) ca'i: -..cco .. - 0 ca < .- .c .c a- U (I);:' ~c( M~>-cP~ Q) = CI .~ C) :;!-g~N 0) VI ::s CD = u:~u)u): ~ co <:> <:> N .. '" ~ " " 'E If " '" >. '" "0 C ::l '" " .S ] '" 05 ~ 0. .;.; o:! " :; ~ OSJ ED ~ ~ Vl u u .~ Vl ~ th ~ ~ -t: th ell (5 ('lJ ~ r-.. E ... ~ ~ -a CI) c ('lJ S 3 .s;;; ~ 0 () ;:, I.L a:: .. 0 I I 0:: .jI., H .. "'\ 11.. """" .--1 z " . ,.,5 u ~ ;8 ~ 05 c- o:! " 'f Vl u u .~ Vl r-- o o N u .0 5 > o Z - ~ .- >- _ fI) "C =CDC::s >1:t!~ ~ ca ~ v, = E-~ o CD m.;: -.cco "'-0 ftJ.A'-.c .c - 0)- o Q)::S 0::< otS~ ~...I ~ Q) ca" a. ._ 0:: Ul 0 ...J .91 Q) I'D ~ U ~ I/) ii: Q) O/l 4: ~ C .>Jt. I'D L: "- -e III III J:: Cl. :) U . I co o o N .. '" e:. "' o ... " "0 ~ "0 C '" -c '" ~ " .5 11 '" i:Q ~ " ~ bl) ~ -. . II .. :! -1z ;:: Service Strategies Report November 2007 4. Service Strategies This section details four potential service options for CTS under a Regional Transit Authority. The first two options significantly increase traditional fixed-route transit service in Albemarle County and to underserved areas in Charlottesville. Option 3 and Option 4 are intended to be even more attractive to "choice riders." Option 3 increases service frequency on the Route 29/West Main Street corridor. Option 4 introduces priority transit service to this corridor. For each option, capital and operating costs are provided. These options create a greater balance between service operated in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Four transit strategies are presented in this section. Key points to note are: . Routings and frequencies shown are illustrative. They are developed in order to prepare estimates of capital and operating costs to facilitate decisions about the intended scale and scope of investment. . Concepts are not designed for any specific year and do not represent a phased implementation. . Costs are estimates only and would need to be refined in subsequent phases. . Routes and frequencies could easily change based on service requirements or land development patterns. ost estimates are provided for both operating and capital costs. Operating costs are assumed to be $69.25 per revenue hour in FY 2010. This is based on applying an annual inflation rate of three percent to CTS' FY 2008 operating cost per revenue hour ($65.27). A low cost and high cost estimate were assumed for all capital purchases, which include buses, bus stops/shelters, transit stations and road improvements. A range of costs for each is provided in Table 3. Each of the four service options presented in this section requires purchasing buses. The low-end vehicle cost is based on a standard low-floor diesel bus while the high-end vehicle cost is based on a hybrid-electric vehicle1. Low-end vehicle costs range from $380,000 for a 30-ft bus to $480,000 for a 40-ft bus. High-end vehicle costs range from $560,000 for a 30-ft bus to $900,000 for a 40-ft bus. Bus stop costs are estimated for roadways that are not currently served by transit. Low- end bus stops were estimated to cost $70 each, which includes the cost of a pole, sign 1 As part of its Capital Improvement Program process, CTS currently intends to replace diesel buses with hybrid-electric buses. 19 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 and labor. High-end bus stop were estimated to cost $13,500 each, which includes the costs of a large shelter, landing pad, bench, trash can, pole, sign and real-time information. The number of bus stops to be installed was estimated based on six bus stops per mile of roadways without transit service. The cost of constructing a transit station at Barracks Road Shopping Center could vary greatly, based on the size of the facility, as well as the level of funding provided by the owners of the development. For the analysis in this report, it was assumed that a low-end bus station would cost $43,000, which includes six small shelters, posted transit information, benches and trashcans. A high-end bus station was assumed to cost $76,000, which would also include six large shelters, real-time information, posted transit information, benches and trashcans. A fully developed transit center with a fully enclosed and environmentally conditioned waiting area would cost several million dollars. Roadway improvements and transit stations are necessary in Option 4. This option introduces priority transit service, which for cost estimation was assumed to be Bus Rapid Transit, though it could also be served by light rail or street car. Low-end station costs range from $60,000 (based on mixed-traffic operations in Los Angeles) to $300,000 (based on median arterial service in Cleveland). Road improvements can range from $3.5 million per mile (Kansas City Max) to $15.7 million per mile (Cleveland Euclid corridorl. In addition, each of the transit service options included in this report make use of the proposed Sunset-Fontaine Connector. These costs are not included. Several costs were not included in this analysis: . Complementary paratransit service - each of the four service options includes additional fixed-route transit services in areas that do not currently have transit. Complementary paratransit service in these areas is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Providing service to meet these ADA requirements should no effect on cost for services within the city and would likely have minor effect on costs in the County. However, paratransit costs should be considered after decisions about scope of plan and organization are made. . Overhead costs currently provided by the City of Charlottesville that would need to be transferred to the transit entity. . Accessibility improvements, such as sidewalks, crosswalks and other improvements within a 1/4 to 1fz mile radius around transit stops or stations. 2 Kittleson and Associates (2007). TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide" Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. 20 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report Table 3: Capital Cost Unit Costs Capital Cost 30-ft Bus 35-ft Bus 40-ft Bus Bus Stops Barracks Road Transit Station BRT Station Cost BRT Road Improvements (per mile) 21 Service Strategies November 2007 Low High $380,000 $560,000 $400,000 $750,000 $480,000 $900,000 $70 $13,489 $42,790 $75,934 $60,000 $300,000 $3,500,000 $15,700,000 Service Strategies Report November 2007 4.1. Option 1 Option 1 represents a significant expansion of traditional fixed-route service in Albemarle County and limited service expansion in Charlottesville. All Baseline CTS routes are a part of Option 1, unless specifically noted. This option would add five new local routes and modify three existing routes as shown in Figure 5 on page 29. Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $8,786,000 in FY 2010, which is a 48.9 percent increase over the Baseline. This option requires nine additional 30-ft buses, three additional 35-ft buses and over 220 additional bus stops, with a total cost of between $4,635,000 and $10,271,000. In the Baseline, 79.3 percent of revenue hours serve Charlottesville and 20.7 percent of revenue hours serve Albemarle County. In Option 1, 56.6 percent of revenue hours serve Charlottesville and 43.4 percent revenue hours serve Albemarle County. The changes between Option 1 and the Baseline are described below. Route 6 (Baseline Route 6B) The Transit Supportive Areas and Com'dors report indicates that there is moderate-high potential for transit service on the Route 29 North corridor. Route 6 is an enhanced version of the Baseline Route 6B. Route 6 would become a regional route, traveling from the Downtown Transit Station along Preston Avenue to Barracks Road Shopping Center, Albemarle Place (upon completion) and Seminole Square before returning to the Downtown Transit Station along Preston Avenue. Route 6 is illustrated in Figure 6. Route 6 Characteristics: . Corridor: Route 29 North (supports IS-minute headways) . Funding Source: City of Charlottesville & Albemarle County . Headway: 30-minute . Vehicle Requirements: 2 . Annual Revenue Miles: 61,200 . Annual Revenue Hours: 7,400 . Operating Costs: $510,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 2 30-ft buses . Capital Costs: $760,000 to $1,120,000 Route 8A (Baseline Route 6A) The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is low-moderate potential for transit service on the Ridge St/ Old Lynchburg Rd corridor. In Option 1, Baseline Route 6A would be renamed Route 8A and would be interlined with a proposed Route 8B (see below). Route 6A travels between the Downtown Transit Station and Prospect Avenue, serving largely residential areas such as Friendship Court, Crescent 22 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Halls and Blue Ridge Commons. There would be no additional costs associated with this route. Route 8A is illustrated in Figure 7. Route 8A Characteristics: . Corridor: Ridge St / Old Lynchburg Rd (supports 60-minute headways) . Funding Source: City of Charlottesville . Headway: 30-minute peak/60-minute off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 1 . Annual Revenue Miles: 33,500 . Annual Revenue Hours: 2,400 . Operating Costs: $167,000 (incremental costs over the Baseline: $0) . Vehicles to Purchase: 0 . Capital Costs: $0 Route 8B Route 8B is a proposed neighborhood route operating between the Downtown Transit Station and Charlottesville High School. It travels along Park Street and Melbourne Road and makes mostly residential stops. This route would be interlined with Route 8A. Route 8B is illustrated in Figure 7. This route does not operate in a defined corridor. Route 8B Characteristics: . Corridor: Not in a corridor . Funding Source: City of Charlottesville . Headway: 30-minute peak/60-minute off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 1 . Annual Revenue Miles: 31,300 . Annual Revenue Hours: 3,600 . Operating Costs: $248,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 0 . Capital Costs: $0 Route lOA (Route 10 in the Baseline) The Transit Supportive Areas and Com'dors report indicates that there is moderate potential for transit service on the High St/Route 250 East corridor. Route 10 currently travels from the Downtown Transit Station to Pantops, Wilton Farm, State Farm, DMV and the Martha Jefferson Campus on 60-minute headways. The existing route requires one bus. In Option 1, Route 10 would be renamed Route lOA and interlined with a proposed Route lOB. This route requires two vehicles. One bus would be provided by the existing Route 10 but a second bus would be purchased. This route would be interlined with Route lOB. Route lOA is illustrated in Figure 8. 23 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Route lOA Characteristics: . Corridor: High St / Route 250 East (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 30-minute peak and 60-minute off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 2 . Annual Revenue Miles: 78,600 . Annual Revenue Hours: 5,800 . Operating Costs: $400,000 (incremental costs over baseline: $124,000) . Vehicles to Purchase: 1 30-ft bus . Capital Costs: $380,000 to $560,000 Route lOB The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate potential for transit service on the Avon St/Route 20 corridor. This route would travel between the Downtown Transit Station, the Mill Creek neighborhood and Biscuit Run (once developed) along Avon Street Extended. It would make stops in mostly residential areas. Route lOB would be interlined with Route lOA. Route lOB is illustrated in Figure 8. Route lOB Characteristics: . Corridor: Avon St / Route 20 (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 30-minute peak and 60-minute off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 2 . Annual Revenue Miles: 46,200 . Annual Revenue Hours: 5,800 . Operating Costs: $400,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 2 30-ft buses . Capital Costs: $760,000 to $1,120,000 Hollymead Route The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate potential for transit service in the Hollymead area. This County funded route would circulate in the Hollymead area and making local stops on Route 29 to Barracks Road Shopping Center (an alternate terminus could be Albemarle Place, when complete). Major stops including Hollymead Town Center, Walmart/Sam's Club, Fashion Square Mall, Rio Hill Shopping Center, K-Mart and Seminole Square. The Hollymead Route is illustrated in Figure 9. Hollymead Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Route 29 North (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 30-minute peak/ off-peak 24 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 . Vehicle Requirements: 3 . Annual Revenue Miles: 119,400 . Annual Revenue Hours: 11,100 . Operating Costs: $765,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 3 30-ft buses . Capital Costs: $1,140,000 to $1,680,000 Rio Road East Route The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate potential for transit service on the Rio Road East corridor. The Rio Road East Route would travel between Fashion Square Mall and the Belvedere development on Rio Road. Another major stop is the Charlottesville-Albemarle Tech School. The Rio Road East Route is illustrated in Figure 10. Rio Road East Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Rio Road East (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 30-minute peak/ off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 1 . Annual Revenue Miles: 39,900 . Annual Revenue Hours: 4,000 . Operating Costs: $276,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 1 30-ft bus . Capital Costs: $380,000 to $560,000 Biscuit Run Route The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate potential for transit service on the Ridge St/Old Lynchburg Rd & Avon St/Route 20 corridors. This route would run between the proposed Biscuit Run development and Barracks Road Shopping Center, traveling along Old Lynchburg Road, Sunset Road, Fontaine Avenue, Jefferson Park Avenue and Emmet Street, with major stops at the Fontaine Research Park and University of Virginia Grounds. The current route is envisioned to travel along the proposed Sunset-Fontaine Connector which would pass through the Research Park. The Biscuit Run Route would interline with Route 5, providing a seamless connection between Biscuit Run and Walmart. Therefore, passengers boarding the Biscuit Run Route would be able to travel to locations on Route 5, such as Fashion Square Mall, without making a transfer. At Barracks Road Shopping Center, the bus operating the Biscuit Run Route would become Route The Biscuit Run Route would use the proposed Sunset-Fontaine Connector road near Fontaine Research Park. If this road is not constructed, an alternative routing would need to be designated. 25 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 5. This route may not begin operation until substantial development has been completed or unless a significant subsidy is provided by the developer. The Biscuit Run Route is illustrated in Figure 11. Biscuit Run Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Ridge St / Old Lynchburg Rd & Avon St / Route 20 (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 30-minute peak/ off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 3 . Annual Revenue Miles: 110,500 . Annual Revenue Hours: 11,100 . Operating Costs: $765,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 3 35-ft buses . Capital Costs: $1,200,000 to $2,250,000 Vanpool Service The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's (fJPDq Rideshare program currently operates 22 park and ride lots throughout the region, serving all major corridors (see Error! Reference source not found.). Additional marketing efforts would be employed to increase vanpool usage. The cost to manage this service is estimated to be $20,000. Other Capital Costs In addition to vehicle purchases, bus stops would need to be installed along all roadways that do not currently have transit service. There is a need for approximately 220 bus stops ranging from $15,000 for installing signs and poles only to $2,981,000 for installing bus shelters and real-time information, among other amenities. Summary Option 1 includes five new routes and modifications to three existing routes. The recommendations largely affect service in Albemarle County, increasing the County's contribution to the operating costs from 20.7 percent in the Baseline to 43.4 percent (fable 4). Table 5 summarizes the operating characteristics and Table 6 summarizes the capital costs of Option 1. Overall, Option 1 has operating costs of $8,786,000. This represents an operating cost increase of $2,887,000 (48.9%) over the Baseline. Capital expenditures to support this option would include eleven additional vehicles (eight 30-ft buses and three 35-ft buses) and over 220 bus stops at a cost of between $4,635,000 and $10,271,000. 26 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 4: Option 1 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction Revenue Hours Jurisdiction No. Percent City 71,627 56.6% County 54,993 43.4% Total 126,619 100,0% Table 5: Option 1 Summary of Operating Characteristics Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Day Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 3.0 85,745 10,975 $760,000 Route 1 A Existing City 60 0,5 18,758 1,663 $115,000 Route 1 B Existing City 60 0,5 28,367 2,149 $149,000 Route 2A Existing City 60 0,5 24,744 1,663 $115,000 Route 2B Existing Split 60 0.5 30,209 2,149 $149,000 Route 3A Existing City 60 0,5 20,354 1,663 $115,000 Route 3B Existing City 60 0,5 27,630 2,149 $149,000 Route 4 Existing City 30/60 2,0 60,070 5,776 $400,000 Route 5 Existing County 30 3.0 140,729 11 ,052 $765,000 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B Split 30 2,0 61,154 7,368 $510,000 Route 7 Existing City 15 6.0 198,936 22,104 $1,531,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 30/60 1,0 33,501 2,407 $167,000 Route 8B Proposed City 30/60 1,0 31,314 3,582 $248,000 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 30/60 2,0 78,554 5,776 $400,000 Route 10B Proposed County 30/60 2,0 46,208 5,776 $400,000 Hollymead Route Proposed County 30 3,0 119,362 11,052 $765,000 Rio Road East Proposed County 30 1.0 39,910 3,991 $276,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 30 3.0 110,520 11,052 $765,000 Subtotal 32.0 1,156,064 112,346 $7,779,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Night Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 2,0 34,998 3,070 $213.000 Route 5 Existing County n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Route 7 Existing City 30 2,0 37,301 2,763 $191,000 Route 21 Existing City 30 1.0 38,682 1,535 $106,000 Route 22 Existing City 30 1.0 30,086 1,535 $106,000 Route 23 Existing City 60 0.5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Route 24 Existing County 60 0,5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Subtotal 7.0 157,952 11,973 $828,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Sunday Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 30 1,0 5,928 520 $36,000 Route 7 Existing City 30 2,0 13,230 980 $68,000 Subtotal 3.0 19,158 1,500 $104,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Other Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Vanpool Proposed County n/a n/a n/a n/a $20,000 Other Existing City n/a n/a 3.150 800 $55,000 Subtotal 3,150 800 $75,000 Total 1,336,324 126,619 $8,786,000 27 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 6: Option 1 Capital Cost Summary Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Day Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1 B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2B Existing Split 0 $0 $0 Route 3A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 3B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 4 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B Split 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 0 $0 $0 Route 8B Proposed City 0 $0 $0 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Route 10B Proposed County 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Hollymead Route Proposed County 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Rio Road East Proposed County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 3 $1,200,000 $2,250.000 Subtotal 12 $4,620,000 $7,290,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Night Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County nfa nfa nfa Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 21 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 22 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 23 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 24 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Sunday Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Other Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Van pool Proposed County 0 $0 $0 Other Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Other Capital Costs Status Funding No. Cost (Low) Cost (High) Bus Stops Proposed Split 221 $15,000 $2,981.000 Subtotal 221 $15,000 $2,981,000 Total 233 $4,635,000 $10,271,000 28 Service Strategies r-- o o N u .0 5 > o Z ~ o 0. ~ u "M u :il " Vl ~ 'g Vl ~~ J! fI)"C =CDC~ ~1:I!::: ,,. ca I- v, CD E-~ ~ CD ca,;:: -,aco :a :; .2 .s= .s= - CD" o &~ -~~----~~.--""---- ill '5 4> 0 ~ ~ Ir '~ '" >. Q: 11! c '" ." .. ~ 'e: ~ - N M "<t on <D ,... <Xl ;2 :g e T"" .. i ~ ~ i i i ~ CIl ~ E "0 '" ~ '8 ;>. c:: co c:: '" ~ .. .:: > 0 ....J (.) o . 0 u. 0:: 0:: 0:: Ir 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0:: - 'S I I I I I I I I I . a. 0 00:: . . ..... cP C ... 0 ::I.. CDQ. i.LO '" '5 II & uJ !! ii 0:: & '8 o II> ~ i1i I I ~ J ! II ~ .. ~<l " l~ P ~ ~ ~.... ~ -..,~, 1", I:: U "S ; ,p ~ ,ff if },..,:..,,\ \ ] .~~~\",I . N~ ~~ U d! ... c .S! Q., o .0 " ;; OJ) ii: ~ i Ii! ~ ~ & --1:z ~ " u 'r Vl ~ "g Vl 0- N Service Strategies Report November 2007 Figure 6: Option 1 - Route 6 Seminole . Square . Landmarh Charlottesville Route 6 Albemarle County Alb.marl. . Place (future) . Kmart Ba"acks Road Shopping Center . Washington Park . City of Charlottesville . Downtown Mall . Downtown Transit Station .-\ N o 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 1: Route 6 30 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report Figure 7: Option 1- Route 8A and Route 8B ~ N . Generators CharlottesviUe Routes -- Route SA - Route 88 Charlottesville High School powntown Transit Station o 0.25 0.5 November 2007 1 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 1: Route 8A and Route 88 31 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report Figure 8: Option 1 - Route lOA and Route lOB . Landmarks Charlottesville Charlottesville Route - Route 10A - Route 10B Biscuit Run (future) . ~ N o 0.5 November 2007 . State Farm Maftha Jefferson Insurance Campus Albemarle County 1 2 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 1: Route 10A and Route 108 32 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report Figure 9: Option 1 - Hollymead Route - Landmarks Charlottesville -- Hollymead Route Charlottesville Albemarle _ Airporl .~ N Albemarle County o 0.5 1 November 2007 2 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 1: Hollymead Route 33 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report Figure 10: Option 1 - Rio Road East A1b6marl6 Squar6 . Fashion Square . Charlottesville ~ N Albemar/e County o 0.1 0.2 November 2007 . Landmarks Charlottesville Route - Rio Road East 0.4 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 1: Rio Road East 34 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Figure 11: Option 1 - Biscuit Run Route Fontaine Research Park . Scott Stadium . Charlottesville . Landmarks CharlottesviUe Route - Biscuit Run Sunset -Fontaine Connector ,\ N Albemarle County Biscuit Run (future) . o 0.5 1 2 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 1: Biscuit Run Route 35 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 4.2. Option 2 As with Option 1, Option 2 represents a significant expansion of traditional fixed-route service in Albemarle County and some service expansion in areas of Charlottesville. All Baseline CTS routes are a part of Option 2, unless specifically noted. All of the local routes described in Option 1 would be included as well as two additional local routes, two commuter routes and the development of a second transit hub at Barracks Road Shopping Center. Local routes are illustrated in Figure 12. Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $9,460,000 in FY 2010, which is a 60.4 percent increase over the Baseline. This option requires 11 additional 30- ft buses, three additional 35-ft buses and over 220 additional bus stops, costing between $6,398,000 and $13,267,000. In the Baseline, 79.3 percent of revenue hours serve Charlottesville and 20.7 percent of revenue hours serve Albemarle County. In Option 2, 52.4 percent of revenue hours serve Charlottesville and 47.6 percent revenue hours serve Albemarle County. The differences between Option 2 and the Baseline service are described below. The owners of Barrack's Road Shopping Center have expressed an interest in developing a transit hub on their property. While details would need to be developed, it is envisioned that bus routes would be reoriented along Wise Street and that the station would include bus shelters, information and other facilities (an alternate terminus could be Albemarle Place, when complete). !! rracks Road Transit Station The owners of Barrack's Road Shopping Center have expressed an interest in developing a minor transit hub on their property. While details would need to be developed, it is envisioned that the station would include additional bus shelters, traveler information and other facilities. A second transit station is justified because Barrack's Road Shopping Center is a high-volume destination served by several modes. It is intended facilitate the development of a multi-hub transit system. This transit station would facilitate transfers among Route 5, Route 6, Route 7, Biscuit Run Route, Hollymead Route, Crosstown Route. Bus routes would be reoriented to travel on an east-west axis along Wise Street, instead of the Baseline north-south axis. Capital costs are likely to include six bus shelters, real-time information displays, trash cans, and information kiosks, ranging from $43,000 to $76,000. These costs could be shared with the development owners. Route 29 Circulator The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate-high potential for transit service on the Route 29 North corridor. Originally identified through 36 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 the Places 29 process, this route would provide a circulator service around the Route 29 commercial corridor, stopping at locations such as Rio Hill Shopping Center, Albemarle Square, Fashion Square Seminole Square, K-Mart and Albemarle Place, upon completion. The Route 29 Circulator is illustrated in Figure 13. Route 29 Circulator Characteristics: . Corridor: Route 29 North (supports IS-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 30-minute peak/ off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 1 . Annual Revenue Miles: 43,100 . Annual Revenue Hours: 4,000 . Operating Costs: $276,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 1 30-ft bus . Capital Costs: $380,000 to $560,000 Crosstown Route Only part of this route is located in a defined corridor. The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate potential for transit service on the High St/Route 250 East corridor. This route would connect the Pantops area with Barracks Road Shopping Center, traveling as an express bus along portions of Route 250. Major stops would include Pantops Shopping Center, Wilton Farm, State Farm, DMV and the Martha Jefferson Campus. The Crosstown Route is illustrated in Figure 14. Crosstown Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Part of High St / Route 250 East (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 60-minute peak/ off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 1 . Annual Revenue Miles: 52,300 . Annual Revenue Hours: 4,000 . Operating Costs: $276,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 1 30-ft bus . Capital Costs: $380,000 to $560,000 Commuter Routes Two express bus routes would be established to serve commuters to the University of Virginia from Piney Mountain and east of Rivanna, utilizing existing park-and-ride lots. Each route would operate two trips during the morning peak and two trips during the evening peak. These routes would cost approximately $142,000 to operate and would require between $960,000 and $1,800,000 for the purchase of two 40-ft buses. 37 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Option 2 routes described in Option 1: . Route 6 (Baseline Route 6B) . Route 8A (Baseline Route 6A) . Route 8B (High School Route) . Route lOA (Route 10 in the Baseline) . Route lOB . Hollymead Route . Rio Road East Route . Biscuit Run Route Other Capital Costs In addition to vehicle purchases, bus stops would need to be installed along all roadways that do not currently have transit service. There is a need for approximately 220 bus stops ranging from $15,000 for installing signs and poles to $2,981,000 for installing bus shelters with real-time information. The cost to construction a second transit station at Barracks Road Shopping Center is estimated to range from $43,000 to $76,000. Summary Option 2 includes seven new local routes, two commuter routes and modifications to three existing routes. The recommendations largely affect service in Albemarle County, increasing the service operated in the County from 20.7 percent in the Baseline to 47.6 percent of the systems revenue hours (fable 7). Table 8 summarizes the operating characteristics and Table 9 summarizes the capital costs of Option 2. Overall, Option 2 has operating costs of $9,460,000. This represents an operating cost increase of $3,561,000 (60.4%) over the Baseline. Capital expenditures to support this option would include 16 additional vehicles (eleven 30-ft buses, three 35-ft buses and two 40-ft buses) and over 220 bus stops at a cost of between $6,398,000 and $13,267,000. Table 7: Option 2 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction City County Total Revenue Hours No. Percent 71,627 52.4% 65,015 47.6% 136,641 100,0% 38 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 8: Option 2 Summary of Operating Characteristics Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Day Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 3.0 85,745 10,975 $760,000 Route 1A Existing City 60 0.5 18,758 1,663 $115,000 Route 1 B Existing City 60 0.5 28.367 2.149 $149,000 Route 2A Existing City 60 0.5 24,744 1,663 $115,000 Route 2B Existing Split 60 0,5 30,209 2,149 $149,000 Route 3A Existing City 60 0,5 20,354 1,663 $115,000 Route 3B Existing City 60 0,5 27,630 2,149 $149,000 Route 4 Existing City 30/60 2,0 60,070 5,776 $400,000 Route 5 Existing County 30 3,0 140,729 11,052 $765,000 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B Split 30 2,0 61,154 7,368 $510,000 Route 7 Existing City 15 6,0 198,936 22,104 $1,531,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 30/60 1,0 33,501 2,407 $167,000 Route 8B Proposed City 30/60 1,0 31,314 3,582 $248.000 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 30/60 2,0 78,554 5,776 $400,000 Route 10B Proposed County 30/60 2.0 46,208 5,776 $400,000 Hollymead Route Proposed County 30 3.0 119,362 11,052 $765,000 Rio Road East Proposed County 30 1.0 39.910 3,991 $276,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 30 3.0 110.520 11,052 $765,000 Route 29 Circulator Proposed County 30 1.0 43,103 3,991 $276,000 Crosstown Route Proposed County 60 1.0 52,282 3,991 $276,000 Subtotal 34.0 1,251,449 120,328 $8,331,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Night Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 2,0 34,998 3,070 $213,000 Route 5 Existing County n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Route 7 Existing City 30 2,0 37,301 2,763 $191.000 Route 21 Existing City 30 1,0 38,682 1,535 $106,000 Route 22 Existing City 30 1,0 30,086 1,535 $106,000 Route 23 Existing City 60 0,5 8,443 1,535 $106.000 Route 24 Existing County 60 0,5 8,443 1,535 $106.000 Subtotal 7.0 157,952 11,973 $828,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Sunday Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 30 1.0 5,928 520 $36,000 Route 7 Existing City 30 2,0 13,230 980 $68,000 Subtotal 3.0 19,158 1,500 $104,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Express Bus Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Rivanna Express Proposed County 60 1 16,830 1,020 $71,000 Piney Mountain Proposed County 60 1 24,480 1,020 $71,000 Subtotal 2.0 41,310 2,040 $142,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Other Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Other Existing City n/a n/a 3,150 800 $55,000 Subtotal 3,150 800 $55,000 Total 1,473,019 136,641 $9,460,000 39 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 9: Option 2 Capital Costs Summary Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Day Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1 A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1 B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2B Existing Split 0 $0 $0 Route 3A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 3B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 4 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B Split 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 8A" Baseline Route 6A City 0 $0 $0 Route 8B"" Proposed City 0 $0 $0 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Route 10B Proposed County 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Hollymead Route Proposed County 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Rio Road East Proposed County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 3 $1.200,000 $2,250,000 Route 29 Circulator Proposed County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Crosstown Route Proposed County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Subtotal 14 $5,380,000 $8,410,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Night Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County nfa nfa nfa Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 21 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 22 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 23 Existi ng City 0 $0 $0 Route 24 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Sunday Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Express Bus Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Rivanna Express Proposed County 1 $480,000 $900,000 Piney Mountain Proposed County 1 $480.000 $900,000 Subtotal 2 $960,000 $1,800,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Other Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Other Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Other Capital Costs Status Funding No. Cost (Low) Cost (High) Bus Shelters Proposed Split 221 $15,000 $2,981,000 Barracks Road Transit Stati Proposed Split 1 $43,000 $76,000 Subtotal 222 $58,000 $3,057,000 Total 237 $6,398,000 $13,267,000 40 Service Strategies r-- o o N U .0 8 > o Z 05 0. u <>:: u or Vl u u .~ Vl =:>> .!! en" -CDC:;, >'i:l'!!~ en ca .... v, CD E-~ ~ CD ca 't: -.cco ~ ::: .2 oJ: oJ: ~ C)..... o ~~ NN ....c CD 0 ...- ~...., me. .- 0 u. ~..._'._._..._"-"...._--"----'-- .. j ~ ~ i " Q ~ 11 il i J G:: " '" ~ >- '" .. ~ '" .. Jl i w !; i i:! '&; ~ ~ ... '" ~ i ~ N '" ... It> '" J, "' ~ 3 ~ ~ .. .. '" .. .. .. II .. II '" .. .. ~ g g g g g g g s ~ f '" ~ 'S .. &: 0 ,9 0 0 ~ 0 ~ "- II: II: '" II: II: '" '" '" x II: ill '" 0 I I I .~ I I I I I I I I I I I .. & I o ,. 'J " JI " " f' ..,J '" c .S P.. o ~ " ;; b.C ~ .. ! ~ ~ ! p~ ~ If ~ u .~ 1'! Vl u u .~ Vl ~ d ,~ ~. 1\ it --12 ;; Service Strategies Report November 2007 Figure 13: Option 2 - Route 29 Circulator . Landmarks Charlottesville Route - Route 29 Circulator ^ f!~o Hill" Shoppmg Center . Albemarle County . Albemarle Place (future) . Charlottesville I~ N o 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 2: Route 29 Circulator 42 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Figure 14: Option 2 - Crosstown Route . Landmarks Charlottesville - Crosstown Albemarle County Barracks f}oaiJ T,.~~n Charlottesville Martha JeffefS()n Campus ,~ N o 0.25 0.5 - - 1 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 2: Crosstown Route 43 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 4.3. Option 3 Option 3 introduces a high frequency transit service along the Route 29 North and West Main Street/Market St corridors as a means of better attracting "choice riders" - people who ride transit out of preference, not because they lack alternatives. Recommendations that succeed in attracting choice riders to transit must provide a level of service competitive with travel by automobile. This includes considering service reliability, travel time, modal transfers and financial cost. Option 3 largely aims to attract choice riders by reducing travel time on the Route 29 and West Main Street corridors. Trips originate at the Downtown Transit Station, with every other trip traveling to Fashion Square Mall and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Between the Downtown Transit Station and Fashion Square Mall, bus stops will be served by transit every 10 minutes (30-minutes at night). Between Fashion Square Mall and the airport, service frequency will be 20 minutes (60-minutes at night). This service would replace Route 7. All Baseline CTS routes are a part of Option 2, unless specifically noted. This option would add nine new local routes, two commuter routes and modify three existing routes as shown in Figure 15. Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $10,935,000 in FY 2010, which is a 85.4 percent increase over the Baseline. This option requires 18 additional buses (six 30-ft buses, three 35-ft buses and two 40-ft buses) and over 220 additional bus stops, costing between $8,101,000 and $17,649,000. In the Baseline, 79.3 percent of revenue hours serve Charlottesville and 20.7 percent of revenue hours serve Albemarle County. In Option 3, 48.5 percent of revenue hours are in Charlottesville and 51.5 percent revenue hours are in Albemarle County. The differences between Option 3 and the Baseline service are described below: High-Frequency Route The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate/high to high potential for transit service on the Route 29 North and West Main St corridors. A high-frequency trunk route with two variations is proposed in Option 3: one traveling from Fashion Square Mall to the Downtown Mall and an extended route traveling from Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport to the Downtown Transit Station. This route would replace Route 7. While the High-Frequency route would continue to make local stops, in order to provide faster travel times, it would no longer deviate from Route 29 into various shopping centers, with the exception of Fashion Square Mall and Barracks Road Shopping Center. The Route 29 Circulator described in Option 2 would cover these areas. This route would operate on 10-minute headways (30-minutes at night) between the Downtown Transit Station and Fashion Square Mall and then on 20-minute headways (60-minutes at night) to the Airport. The High-Frequency routes are illustrated in Figure 16. 44 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 High-Frequency Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Route 29 North & West Main St / Market St (supports <15 minute headways) . Funding Source: Split . Headways o Downtown Transit Station to Fashion Square: 10-minute peak/off-peak; 30- minutes at night o Fashion Square to Airport: 20-minute peak/off-peak; 60-minutes at night . Vehicle Requirements: 12 buses . Annual Revenue Miles: 499,500 . Annual Revenue Hours: 52,400 . Operating Costs: $3,632,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 12 35-ft bus . Capital Costs: $4.8 million to $9.0 million Eliminate Route 7 Since the enhanced trunk service would largely duplicate Route 7, it would be eliminated. This would make six buses available for use on Route lOA, Route lOB, Hollymead Route, Rio Road East route and the Biscuit Run route and would reduce operating costs by $1,531,000 during the day and $191,000 during the night. Hollymead Route The Transit Supportive Areas and Com'dors report indicates that there is moderate-high to high potential for transit service on the Route 29 North corridor. With the initiation of a high-frequency transit service on the Route 29/West Main Street corridor, the Hollymead Route would become a circulator route in the Hollymead area and would not travel south of Hollymead Town Center. This route would be timed to minimize wait time with transfers to the High-Frequency route at Hollymead Town Center. The Hollymead Route is illustrated in Figure 17. Hollymead Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Route 29 North (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: IS-minute peak/ off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 1 . Annual Revenue Miles: 41,400 . Annual Revenue Hours: 3,800 . Operating Costs: $266,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 0 (vehicle provided by Route 7) . Capital Costs: $0 (vehicles provided by Route 7) 45 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Biscuit Run Route The Transit Supportive Areas and Corridors report indicates that there is moderate-high to high potential for transit service on the Ridge St/ Old Lynchburg Rd corridor. The Biscuit Run route would run between the proposed Biscuit Run development and the University of Virginia, traveling along Old Lynchburg Road, Sunset Road, Fontaine Avenue, Jefferson Park Avenue, Emmet Street, McCormick Road and Alderman Road and then returning to Biscuit Run. Unlike Option 1 and Option 2, it would not continue to Barracks Road Shopping Center. Major stops include the Fontaine Research Park and University of Virginia Grounds. The current route is envisioned to travel along the proposed Sunset-Fontaine Connector which would pass through the Research Park. However, it would need to be rerouted if this road is not constructed. The Biscuit Run Route is illustrated in Figure 18. Biscuit Run Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Ridge St / Old Lynchburg Rd (supports 30-minute headways) . Funding Source: Albemarle County . Headway: 20-minute peak/off-peak . Vehicle Requirements: 3 . Annual Revenue Miles: 117,300 . Annual Revenue Hours: 12,000 . Operating Costs: $829,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 2 30-ft bus . Capital Costs: $760,000 to $1,120,000 Additional Option 3 routes described in Option 2: . Route 6 (Baseline Route 6B) . Route 8A (Baseline Route 6A) . Route 8B (High School Route) . Route lOA (Route 10 in the Baseline) . Route lOB . Rio Road East Route . Route 29 Circulator . Crosstown Route . Commuter Routes Other Capital Costs In addition to vehicle purchases, bus stops would need to be installed along all roadways that do not currently have transit service. There is a need for approximately 250 bus stops ranging from $18,000 for installing signs and poles only to $3,413,000 for installing bus shelters and real-time information, among other amenities. The cost to construction 46 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 a second transit station at Barracks Road Shopping Center is estimated to range from $43,000 to $76,000. Summary Option 3 includes nine new routes and modifications to three existing routes. The recommendations largely affect service in Albemarle County, increasing the proportion of revenue vehicle-hours operated in the County from 20.7 percent in the Baseline to 51.5 percent (Table 10). Table 11 summarizes the operating characteristics and Table 12 summarizes the capital costs of Option 3. Overall, Option 3 has operating costs of $10,935,000. This represents an operating cost increase of $5,036,000 (85.4%), aover the Baseline. Capital costs are estimated to be between $8,101,000 and $17,649,000. Table 10: Option 3 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction City County Total Revenue Hours No. Percent 76,667 48,5% 81,260 51,5% 157,927 100,0% 47 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 11: Option 3 Summary of Operating Characteristics Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Day Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 3 85,745 10,975 $760,000 Route 1 A Existing City 60 0,5 18,758 1,663 $115,000 Route 1 B Existing City 60 0,5 28,367 2,149 $149,000 Route 2A Existing City 60 0.5 24,744 1,663 $115,000 Route 2B Existing Split 60 0.5 30,209 2,149 $149,000 Route 3A Existing City 60 0,5 20,354 1,663 $115,000 Route 3B Existing City 60 0,5 27,630 2,149 $149,000 Route 4 Existing City 30/60 2,0 60,070 5,776 $400,000 Route 5 Existing County 30 3,0 140,729 11,052 $765,000 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B City 30 2,0 61,154 7,368 $510,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 30/60 1,0 33,501 2,407 $167,000 Route 8B Proposed City 30/60 1,0 31,314 3,582 $248,000 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 30/60 2,0 78,554 5,776 $400,000 Route 10B Proposed County 30/60 2,0 46,208 5,776 $400,000 Hollymead Route Proposed County 15 1,0 41,445 3,838 $266,000 Rio Road East Proposed County 30 1,0 39,910 3,991 $276,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 20 3.0 117,335 11,973 $829,000 Route 29 Circulator Proposed County 30 1.0 43,103 3,991 $276,000 Crosstown Route Proposed County 60 1.0 52,282 3,991 $276,000 High-Frequency A Proposed Split 20 7.0 278,971 27,937 $1,935,000 High-Frequency B Proposed Split 20 5.0 175,573 19,802 $1,371,000 Subtotal 38.0 1,435,956 139,669 $9,671,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Night Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 2.0 34,998 3,070 $213,000 Route 5 Existing County n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Route 21 Existing City 30 1,0 38,682 1,535 $106,000 Route 22 Existing City 30 1.0 30,086 1,535 $106,000 Route 23 Existing City 60 0.5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Route 24 Existing County 60 0.5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 High-Frequency A Proposed Split 60 4.0 28,612 2,865 $198,000 High-Frequency B Proposed Split 60 4.0 16,332 1,842 $128,000 Subtotal 13.0 165,596 13,917 $963,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Sunday Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 30 1.0 5,928 520 $36,000 Route 7 Existing City 30 2.0 13,230 980 $68,000 Subtotal 3.0 19,158 1,500 $104,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Express Bus Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Rivanna Express Proposed County 1 16,830 1,020 $71.000 Piney Mountain Proposed County 1 24,480 1,020 $71,000 Subtotal 2.0 41,310 2,040 $142,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Other Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Other Existing City n/a n/a 3,150 800 $55,000 Subtotal 3,150 800 $55,000 Total 1,665,170 157,927 $10,935,000 48 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 12: Option 3 Capital Costs Summary Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Day Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1 B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2B Existi ng Split 0 $0 $0 Route 3A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 3B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 4 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B City 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 0 $0 $0 Route 8B Proposed City 0 $0 $0 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 0 $0 $0 Route 10B Proposed County 0 $0 $0 Hollymead Route Proposed County 0 $0 $0 Rio Road East Proposed County 0 $0 $0 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 29 Circulator Proposed County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Crosstown Route Proposed County 1 $380,000 $560,000 High-Frequency A Proposed Split 7 $2,800,000 $5,250,000 High-Frequency B Proposed Split 5 $2,000,000 $3,750,000 Subtotal 18 $7,080,000 $12,360,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Night Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County n/a n/a n/a Route 21 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 22 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 23 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 24 Existing County 0 $0 $0 High-Frequency A Proposed Split 0 $0 $0 High-Frequency B Proposed Split 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Sunday Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Express Bus Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Rivanna Express Proposed County 1 $480,000 $900,000 Piney Mountain Proposed County 1 $480,000 $900,000 Subtotal 2 $960,000 $1,800,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Other Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Other Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Other Capital Costs Status Funding No. Cost (Low) Cost (High) Bus Shelters Proposed Split 253 $18,000 $3,413,000 Barracks Road Transit Station Proposed Split 1 $43,000 $76,000 Subtotal 254 $61,000 $3,489,000 Total $8,101,000 $17,649,000 49 Service Strategies r-- o o N v .0 5 > o /': ~ o 0. .,:! u .~ :;; b Vl " u E v Vl ~~ ~ (I)"t'S =Q)C::::J >'i:I!~ en ftI I- v, Q) E-~ ~ Q) CUoc -.cco :u :::: .2 .J:. .J:. - Q)" o &~ . . It)M ....1: Q) 0 ... .- ::s..., .~8" u. ~ o a:: i f -;; ';: ':: -= ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i III III i a: 'D 5! · : OJ 1 ~ ~ ~ I I .. ~ '5 :i ~ [;' 1ll 0 :> '" u 0 " .. ,.. a: !l '" 5 u ~ ... a: F.l ~ .. i 0 ." i u. a: " e .<:. 9 li go a: l!l a: () :: I I I I I .: ~ I i " .. ! JI ... () :; . 0 II: ~ iO J H '" " $ ., '" c .9 P- O )! ~ u .~ g Vl u u E v Vl ~ l: :l bJ) ii: ~ " & :r ~ /{z o <f) Service Strategies Report Figure 16: Option 3 - High-Frequency Trunk Charlottesville :: Albemarle . Airport .. .. ... ~ Hollymead. : Town Center .- # .- # .- # t # # # # . . # # # Sam's Club # .. Wal-Mart .. # Rio Hill l Shopping Center. . # # . Albemarle . Square Fashion Square . Landmarks Charlottesville Routes - High Frequency A . . . High Frequency B Seminole Square · Kmart . ~ N Charlottesville Scott . Stadium UVA Hospital Downtown Transit Station o 0.5 1 November 2007 Albemarle County 2 Miles - Regional Transit Study Option 3: High-Frequency Trunk 51 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report Figure 17: Option 3 - Hollymead Route . Landmarks Charlottesville Route Hollymead . Charlottesville Albemarle Airport . Hollymead Town Center Albemarle County o 0.25 November 2007 0.5 I Miles Regional Transit Study Option 3: Hollymead Route 52 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Figure 18: Option 3 - Biscuit Run Route . Landmarks CharlottesviUe Route - Biscuit Run Sunset-Fontaine Connector Charlottesville ~ N Albemarle County Biscuit Run (future) . o 0.25 0.5 - - 1 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 3: Biscuit Run Route 53 Service Strategies Option 4 introduces a Priority Transit service to the Charlottesville-Albemarle area as an attractive alternative to travel in a private vehicle. This service could be Bus Rapid Transie (BRT), light rail or streetcar, although for the purposes of this option, capital and operating costs are estimated based on a BRT system. This option seeks to attract "choice riders" by significantly improving the reliability of service, reducing travel time and improving modal transfers. Travel time is composed of both "in-vehicle" and "out-of-vehicle" travel time. In this option, reliability is improved and "in-vehicle" travel time is reduced by providing exclusive transit lanes that allow transit vehicles to operate at faster speeds. "Out-of-vehicle" travel time is reduced by improving headways on the trunk route (Route 29 and West Main Street) and by timing connections at stations. All Baseline CTS routes are a part of Option 3, unless specifically noted. This option would add nine new local routes, two commuter routes and modify three existing routes as shown in Figure 19. Service Strategies Report 4.4. Option 4 November 2007 Under a high capacity, high frequent transit service existing routes would be rerouted to feed into transfer stations along the trunk line. As an example, Route 4 might make a transfer at UV A Hospital. In this conceptual plan, existing routes were not revised to reflect this. Overall, the operating costs for this option are estimated to be $10,548,000 in FY 2010 which is a 78.8 percent increase over the Baseline. This option requires 18 additional buses (six 30-ft buses and 12 40-ft buses) and over 220 additional bus stops, costing between $31,751,000 and $122,965,000. While the capital cost estimates in Option 4 are significantly higher than Option 3, one benefit is that operating costs are lower, since vehicles can operate at higher speeds. In the Baseline nearly 79.3 percent of service is funded by Charlottesville and 20.7 percent of service is funded by Albemarle County. In Option 4, 48.5 percent of the revenue-hours of service are operated in Charlottesville and 51.5 percent of the revenue-hours of service are operated in Albemarle County. The differences between Option 4 and the Baseline service are described below: Priority Transit The Transit Supportive Areas and Conidors report indicates that there is moderate-high to high potential for transit service on the Route 29 North and West Main St corridors. The Priority Transit is a high-speed and high-frequency service provided by BRT, light rail or streetcar. As with the High-Frequency trunk service discussed in Option 3, the Priority 3 BRT is an integrated transit system typically utilizing flexible service, advance technologies to improve customer convenience and reduce delays and a branded image. 54 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Transit Service would be composed of two variations: one traveling from Fashion Square Mall to the Downtown Mall and an extended route traveling from Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport to the Downtown Transit Station. This route would replace Route 7. The main difference with the High-Frequency route in Option 4 is that this route would be operated in exclusive right-of-way and use advanced technologies that allow it to travel at a higher-speed than transit that operates in mixed traffic. Exclusive travel lanes are envisioned for Route 29, between Hydraulic Road and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The trunk service would operate in mixed traffic between Hydraulic Road and the Downtown Transit Station, but travel time and rider convenience would be improved based on signal preemption, real-time information, among other things. This route would operate on 10-minute headways (30-minutes at night) between the Downtown Transit Station and Fashion Square Mall and then on 20-minute headways (60-minutes at night) to the Airport. The Route 29 Circulator described in Option 2 would cover areas served by Route 7 in the Baseline but not served by the Priority Transit route. Capital costs for BRT systems are significant and can vary greatly. Costs can include land acquisition, construction and engineering. For instance, the six-mile long Kansas City Max corridor cost approximately $3.5 million per mile. This system contains 3.75 miles of transit lanes for the exclusive use of buses in peak hours created by eliminating on- street parking at peak times, traffic signal priority and real-time next bus arrival displays at all stations. Little other work to the roadway was required. The Cleveland Euclid Avenue BRT, has dedicated center of road bus lanes in some areas and exclusive side-of- road bus lanes in other areas with both center and sidewalk "stations." The approximate cost per mile was $15.7 million. New traffic signals, major street reconstruction and some utility work were included. It is envisioned that the Charlottesville-Albemarle BRT system would have exclusive transit lanes between the Airport and Hydraulic Road. Between Hydraulic Road and the Downtown Transit Station, the BRT system would make limited stops and would employ traffic signal priority technology, but would not necessarily have exclusive transit lanes. This Priority Transit Route is illustrated in Figure 20. Priority Transit Route Characteristics: . Corridor: Route 29 North & West Main St / Market St (supports <IS-minute headways) . Funding Source: Split . Headways o Downtown Transit Station to Fashion Square: 10-minute peak/off-peak; 30- minutes at night o Fashion Square to Airport: 20-minute peak/off-peak; 60-minutes at night . Vehicle Requirements: 10 buses . Annual Revenue Miles: 515,900 . Annual Revenue Hours: 46,900 55 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 . Operating Costs: $3,245,000 . Vehicles to Purchase: 10 40-ft buses · Capital Costs: $4.8 million to $9.0 million total (excluding BRT stations and roadway improvements discussed below) BRT systems have several characteristics that distinguish them from standard bus systems. Several of these characteristics are described below: . Branded image - BRT systems are given unique appearances that brand them as a special service. This includes unique vehicles and shelters. . Exclusive or shared right-of-ways - BRT operates on an exclusive or shared right-of-way that allows buses to avoid congestion and increase travel speeds. . Limited stops - To increase the travel speed, the number of bus stops are limited. Ten potential stations include: Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport, Hollymead Town Center, Walmart/Sam's Club, Fashion Square, Greenbrier Drive, Albemarle Place, Barracks Road Shopping Center, UV A Hospital, Amtrak Station and the Downtown Transit Station. . Faster fare collection - In typical bus systems, fares are collected by the bus operator upon boarding the vehicle, which increases the trip duration. BRT reduces travel time by collecting fare before boarding, much like in a subway system. This is known as "proof-of- payment" fare collection. · Traffic signal preference - Buses are often equipped with transponders that allow them to extend green time at a traffic signal. In addition, treatments such as queue jumps allow buses to "jump" ahead of other vehicles queued at the traffic signal. Eliminate Route 7 As with Option 3, the Priority Transit route would largely duplicate Route 7 and would be eliminated. This would make six buses available for use on Route 1 OA, Route lOB, 56 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Hollymead Route, Rio Road East route and the Biscuit Run route and would reduce operating costs by $1,531,000 during the day and $191,000 at night. Additional Option 3 routes described in Option 2: . Route 6 (Baseline Route 6B) . Route 8A (Baseline Route 6A) . Route 8B (High School Route) . Route lOA (Route 10 in the Baseline) . Route lOB . Hollymead Route . Rio Road East Route . Biscuit Run Route . Route 29 Circulator . Crosstown Route . Commuter Routes Other Capital Costs The major capital costs associated with Option 4 are roadway improvements for a BRT service. BRT can take many forms, from operation in mixed-traffic (such as the Kansas City Max which cost $3.5 million per mile) to exclusive bus lanes (such as Cleveland's Euclid Corridor which cost $15.7 million per mile). With 6.6 miles of roadway improvements between Hollymead and Barrack's Road Shopping Center, the cost would range from $23.1 million to $103.6 million. Ten BRT stations would also be constructed at a cost of between $0.6 million and $3.0 million. In addition to vehicle purchases, bus stops would need to be installed along all roadways that do not currently have transit service. There is a need for approximately 160 bus stops ranging from $11,000 for installing signs and poles only to $2,185,000 for installing bus shelters and real-time information, among other amenities. Summary Option 4 includes seven new routes and modifications to three existing routes. The recommendations largely affect service in Albemarle County. The proportion of vehicle- hours of service operated in the County increases from 20.7 percent in the Baseline to 51.5 percent (Table 13). Table 14 summarizes the operating characteristics and Table 15 summarizes the capital costs of Option 4. Overall, Option 4 has operating costs of $10,548,000. This represents an operating cost increase of $4,649,000 (78.8%) over the baseline. Capital expenditures to support this option would include 18 additional vehicles, lObus stations and roadway improvements at a cost of between $31.8 million and $123.0 million. 57 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 13: Option 4 Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction City County Total Revenue Hours No. Percent 73,878 48.5% 78,471 51,5% 152,350 100.0% 58 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 14: Option 4 Summary of Operating Characteristics Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Day Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 3 85,745 10,975 $760,000 Route 1A Existing City 60 0.5 18,758 1,663 $115,000 Route 1 B Existing City 60 0.5 28,367 2,149 $149,000 Route 2A Existing City 60 0.5 24,744 1,663 $115,000 Route 2B Existing Split 60 0,5 30,209 2,149 $149,000 Route 3A Existing City 60 0,5 20,354 1,663 $115.000 Route 3B Existing City 60 0,5 27,630 2,149 $149,000 Route 4 Existing City 30/60 2.0 60,070 5,776 $400,000 Route 5 Existing County 30 3,0 140,729 11,052 $765,000 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B City 30 2,0 61,154 7,368 $510,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 30/60 1,0 33,501 2,407 $167,000 Route 8B Proposed City 30/60 1,0 31,314 3,582 $248,000 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 30/60 2,0 78,554 5,776 $400,000 Route 10B Proposed County 30/60 2.0 46,208 5,776 $400,000 Hollymead Route Proposed County 15 1,0 41 ,445 3,838 $266,000 Rio Road East Proposed County 30 1,0 39,910 3,991 $276,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 20 3,0 117,335 11,973 $829,000 Route 29 Circulator Proposed County 30 1.0 43,103 3,991 $276,000 Crosstown Route Proposed County 60 1.0 52,282 3,991 $276,000 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 20 6.0 278,971 23,946 $1,658,000 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 20 4.0 155,158 15,555 $1,077,000 Subtotal 36.0 1,415,541 131,432 $9,100,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Night Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 2,0 34,998 3,070 $213.000 Route 5 Existing County n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Route 21 Existing City 30 1,0 38,682 1,535 $106,000 Route 22 Existing City 30 1,0 30,086 1,535 $106,000 Route 23 Existing City 60 0.5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Route 24 Existing County 60 0,5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 40 3,0 57,225 4,912 $340,000 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 40 2.0 24,499 2,456 $170,000 Subtotal 10.0 202,374 16,578 $1,147,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Sunday Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 30 1,0 5,928 520 $36,000 Route 7 Existing City 30 2,0 13,230 980 $68,000 Subtotal 3.0 19,158 1,500 $104,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Express Bus Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Rivanna Express Proposed County 1 16,830 1,020 $71,000 Piney Mountain Proposed County 1 24,480 1,020 $71,000 Subtotal 2.0 41,310 2,040 $142,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Other Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Other Proposed City n/a n/a 3,150 800 $55,000 Subtotal 3,150 800 $55,000 Total 1,681,533 152,350 $10,548,000 59 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 15: Option 4 Capital Costs Summary Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Day Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 1 B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 2B Existing Split 0 $0 $0 Route 3A Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 3B Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 4 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B City 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 0 $0 $0 Route 8B Proposed City 0 $0 $0 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 0 $0 $0 Route 10B Proposed County 0 $0 $0 Hollymead Route Proposed County 0 $0 $0 Rio Road East Proposed County 0 $0 $0 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 29 Circulator Proposed County 1 $380.000 $560,000 Crosstown Route Proposed County 1 $380,000 $560,000 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 6 $2,880,000 $5,400,000 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 4 $1,920,000 $3,600,000 Subtotal 16 $7,080,000 $12,360,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Night Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing County nfa nfa nfa Route 21 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 22 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 23 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 24 Existing County 0 $0 $0 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 0 $0 $0 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Sunday Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing City 0 $0 $0 Route 7 Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Express Bus Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Rivanna Express Proposed County 1 $480,000 $900,000 Piney Mountain Proposed County 1 $480,000 $900,000 Subtotal 2 $960,000 $1,800,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Other Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Other Existing City 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Other Capital Costs Status Funding No. Cost (Low) Cost (High) Bus Stops Proposed Split 162 $11,000 $2,185,000 BRT Stations Proposed Split 10 $600.000 $3,000,000 Road Improvements (miles) Proposed Split 6,6 $23,100,000 $103,620,000 Subtotal $23,711,000 $108,805,000 Total 18 $31,751,000 $122,965,000 60 Service Strategies r-- o o N u .0 E u 5 z 05 0. o:! u 'So u E Vl u u t: u Vl ~>- S 0"0 =CI)C:J >i:l!~ o ftS ... V" CD E >t ~Q)c;~ -.aCO :u :::: .2 s:. s:. "'" c:D" o ~~ . . .. ;; s ~ :oJ ~ :i i 0 -g \l ~ ." I '" '" " '" ... '" !! " !!' ~ 'D UJ !i u i '" i! 'i <5 5! " " '" ~ t-': !! l - '" '" .. '" to GO ! " i ~ CD " .. " " .. " " 0 " '" ,~ ,2 "' "' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !; ~ !; a: ~ ~ e ~ " ! ~ 6 ~ 0 0 '0 g ,2 .. <II ~ ... 0 a: a: a: a: A:: A:: A:: :z: a: A:: {) C . & I I I I I I I I I I I I I I cn~ .... cP S ~ .- ::SolJ .~ 8" u. ~ :G ~ ,ji ! If ~ ,0 " " .... c .51 E.. o ~ I~ a~ ~ u r Vl u u '~ u Vl ~ " ~ OS; ~ '" \ & , (~ ~ ~ /{z :::; Service Strategies Report Figure 20: Option 4 - Priority Transit o Stations . Landmarks Charlottesville Routes - High Frequency A · · · High Frequency B Charlottesville h' Albemarle . Airport .. · .. ~ HolfymeadJ : Town Center #. . # . , I , , , , , . . # , Sam's Club # ., Waf-Mart 0 , Rio Hill ' Shopping Center _ ,. , I _ Albemarle o Square Fashion Square ~ N 0.5 1 - , Charlottesville University of 0 Virginia o Downtown Transit Station November 2007 Albemarle County 2 Miles Regional Transit Study Option 4: Priority Transit 62 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 4.5. Summary This report discussed four potential service options for the Charlottesville-Albemarle expanded regional transit service. Compared with the Baseline, in which only 21 percent of transit service is provided in Albemarle County, the four options described in the report significantly increase transit service in the County. Table 16 provides a comparison of costs in FY 2010. Compared with the Baseline, Option 1 increases operating costs by 48.9 percent, Option 2 increases operating costs by 60.4 percent, Option 3 increases operating costs by 85.4 percent and Option 4 increases operating costs by 78.8 percent. Capital costs (fable 17) range from a low of $4.6 million (Option 1) to $123.0 million (Option 4). Figure 21: Allocation of Revenue Hours by Jurisdiction 100% ~ 80% j 52% 49% 48% 0 57% :I: Gl ..79% . j 60% c Gl > & .... 40% 0 - C Gl U .. GI 20% Q. 0% Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 ,-n L[]Albemarle County 0 City of Charlo~tesville Several costs were not included in this analysis: · Complementary paratransit service - each of the four service options includes additional fixed-route transit services in areas that do not currently have transit. Complementary paratransit service in these areas is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. These ADA requirements should no effect on cost for services within the city and would likely have minor effect on costs in the County. However, paratransit costs should be considered after decisions about the scope of the regional transit plan and organization are made. . Overhead costs currently provided by the City of Charlottesville that would need to be transferred to the transit entity. 63 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 . Accessibility improvements, such as sidewalks, crosswalks and other improvements within a % to 1/2 mile radius around transit stops or stations. 64 Service Strategies Service Strategies Report November 2007 Table 16: Operating Cost Summary Day Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 FREE Trolley City $760,000 $760,000 $760.000 $760,000 $760,000 Route 1A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115.000 $115,000 Route 1 B City $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 2A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Route 2B County $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 3A City $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 Route 3B City $149,000 $149,000 $149.000 $149,000 $149,000 Route 4 City $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Route 5 County $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 $765,000 Route 6 (Baseline Route 6B) City $221,000 $510,000 $510,000 $510,000 $510,000 Route 8A (Baseline Route 6A) City $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 $167,000 Route 8B City $248,000 $248,000 $248,000 $248,000 Route 7 City $1,531,000 $1,531,000 $1,531,000 Route 10A (Baseline Route 10) County $276,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Route 10B County $400,000 $400.000 $400,000 $400,000 Hollymead Route County $765,000 $765,000 $266,000 $266,000 Rio Road East County $276.000 $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Biscuit Run Route County $765,000 $765.000 $829,000 $829,000 Route 29 Circulator County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Crosstown Route County $276,000 $276,000 $276,000 Priority Transit A Split $1.935,000 $1,658,000 Priority Transit B Split $1,371,000 $1,077,000 Subtotal $4,912,000 $7,779,000 $8,331,000 $9,671,000 $9,100,000 Night Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 FREE Trolley City $213,000 $213,000 $213.000 $213,000 $213,000 Route 5 County nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa Route 7 City $191,000 $191,000 $191,000 Route 21 City $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 22 City $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 23 City $106,000 $106.000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Route 24 County $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 $106,000 Priority Transit A Split $198,000 $340,000 Priority Transit B Split $128,000 $170,000 Subtotal $828,000 $828,000 $828,000 $963,000 $1,147,000 Sunday Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 FREE TrOlley City $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 $36,000 Route 7 City $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 Subtotal $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 $104,000 Express Bus Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Rivanna Express County $71,000 $71,000 $71,000 Airport County $71,000 $71,000 $71,000 Subtotal $0 $0 $142,000 $142,000 $142,000 Other Service Funding Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Other City $55,000 $75,000 $55.000 $55,000 $55,000 Subtotal $55,000 $75,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 Total $5,899,000 $8,786,000 $9,460,000 $10,935,000 $10,548,000 Absolute Difference with Baseline $2,887,000 $3,561,000 $5,036,000 $4,649,000 Percent Difference with Baseline 48.9% 60.4% 85.4% 78.8% 65 Service Strategies r-- o o N u .0 5 2: z I~oooooooooooo ~ ~ ~ (fl (fl 1Ft ~ (fl ,tit (fl .gw (,OJ- :I: ~ .,: .. w c ,. - ?ll:oooooooooooo OO(fl(fl(flIflIflWWlFtthOIflW ~ . .~ 1~000000000000 ~lfllflffl(flIflIfl.VtIflW.gERIfl J: . ~ .., W j :t 0 0 0 0 0.0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 Ofo'tlfllflfltlhWmW640(flW ~ . i 00000000.00 (fl(flIfl(flClOOO.OO OOOOOQ gggggg .-It'lItl'<ttOt''I ..,.:VtIfl.6ric>i (fl VtW... '"' 00000000.00 Vt(flVtVtCl 0 0.0 0 0 0000.00 ~! !~'~ ~ ww'"' 000-00.00.0.00 Ifl (fl fR"W 00-0.0'00 0'0 0.0,0 co t~:~:~:~ ~ ;;; Ifllfl::g.zi ~ 000,0:0.0:0;0:00 Ifllfltlt!ut:~~n58 8'8 g gggggg J'-MMCOOO IflIflIflNN",: WW'"' ~IKKKKKKKKKRKKKRRRR.f. ~ ~~!8ffi~~~ ..: 1l'l",..:,..:fhNtI)./fl N tfl WIfl Ifl ~ ):0000000000000..00.0.0000 OIflIflIflVtIflIflIflIflIflOIflWW-OOOOOOO o~ i ii!i!ii ~ooooooooooooooo.o:oo ~IflIflIflERERER(flIflIfl~IflIflIfl&~&.~:~ a ~aa~~ Ii ;!~~~~~~a~gggg~ggggg : ~ i i~!i! o u 05 0. .;j u r Vl ~ "E u Vl '3 .~ u ""' o C '" e e ;:l '" ~ " :a '" f-< CUOClClClClClClOOOO !:1fl/fiEl'l-(flWtflIhVt(fl691fl ! .. iD~ ID . 2" a& 0: . .~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~C(al<(lD<m e-- "I- .......... C\I N M M '<t <n:tO.~ (l) W <II <II <II <II <II <II <II <Il.CU <II a[~~~~'~~~~l~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~<Il~2~~~~ ! ~ ~ ~:.g & .~ .~ ~~~~~~i~~ ~ '; '; i~'5~ ~'f'c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8,& & ~~o 000000000 ~WcWv.J.~WWWWtjI. i~oooooooooo 0.9 v.J.c.WWW(fl(flWWtjI. I~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 gWCW(fl(fl(fl(fl i~ooooooo o.9~c(fl(flWWW o ;~ :: ~~ 0 00000,0 gwcww'w~w i~ooooooo o.9(flc~W(fl(fl(fl o o o . :Ii o o o ~ :;i ~~~~~~~~ 'i: o o o ~. ;t Ii ;~~~~~~~~ o~ 0000000 WWWWWt.4~ . ~ _N<'l I-"'.....N.NN ltj$22'22 ~ ~~&,& & lil I~ 0 0 0 ~WWtjI. i:ooo O.9~t.4tj1. I~ 0 0 0 ,2lWWtjl. i~ooo gWWtjI. o~ ~~ 000 ~WWtjI. i~ooo g~~tjI. o~ lil lil lil o '"' ..cooo OIWWVI- 'i: lil Ii ~~~~: lil ,~~~ a ! .. "' '~ ... .. t:~ ~ 0.0." ~ ~,f 1lI~..... {! W . !3~8 .....0: ~~ 0 0 0 f~~ ~ ~~ S .. '"' j 000 O~g_Etg ~~g ~~s. ~I~H ~~s .., '"' ~40.00 0000 ..Jqqo ~~g ~~s. 11n~ iiS N W ~:l:000 .9~~i ~~: c :8~~~: ~ j~.~a '" . 0 0 0 !:WWtjI. ! .. . J! ::g ~ Q,lij 2i )(.i::: _ ::::I w!l:::<ClIJ ~oo fWVI- ~g~ggg j;~ ~@i ti g~! .. Ii ~~ ~: .. c .2 -oD.~g~ggg ..J~ ~~E WSa ~iKlil i:Klil o~ ..cooooo f~~wwi ~'"' .. g : .., c .2oa.~gg~~g ..J~i i ~~: 'i: igga~g J:~~ ~ ~ : Ii !~ggaag ~~ ! N C o g~a: ~ 00 O>w W 'i: igaaag J: g i ~ ~ c o -00. ~ g ~ aa g ..J~ ~ Ii :a~a: o~ Klil "00000 !:WWWWVI- ! .. .l! 15 . . o u B ~ t S . I ~ E ~ K E$ ~~ 0:.. 8 ~ g o o o ~ 8 !' ~ o o o ~ :: o o ~ it o o o ~ ::i o o N t o o o ~ ;t lil ! u r Vl u u E u Vl '" '" o I (/Ud"(' II(/,('-!.('II 1)111,,/111I III! Regional Transit Authority Plan Task 2b, Task 2d & Task 2e Technical Report Service Strategies Addendum -Option 4A December 3, 2007 Submitted by: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 8300 Boone Blvd., Suite 700 Vienna, VA 22182 Submitted to: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 401 East Water Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Addendum to Service Strategies Technical Report The Service Strategies Technical Report was reviewed with the MPO Board at a meeting on November 21, 2007. At that meeting the members of the Board expressed support for the more extensive options - Option 3 and Option 4 - but requested that an additional option be developed that would include: . A more direct service connecting the Pantops area with the northern portions of the Route 29 corridor . Provide service on Rio Road east of Belvedere . Provide more frequent service on the CTS routes operated in the City of Charlottesville The materials in this addendum present the requested option. The additional services are added to Option 4 - Priority Transit, as presented in the Service Strategies Technical Report. For convenience the new service is named Option 4A. The option is illustrated in Figure AI. The projected operating costs for Option 4A would be approximately $16.7 million per year. These costs by route are summarized in Table AI. Changes from base Option 4 are shown in red. The allocation of revenue hours between the City and the County is estimated to be: Jurisdiction City County Total Revenue Hours No. Percent 108,229 45,0% 132,385 55,0% 240,613 100,0% The expanded service would also require a larger fleet of buses. The capital costs for Option 4A are summarized in Table A2, with changes from base Option 4 shown in red. The cost for buses would vary depending on the type of equipment purchased but is estimated to be between $19 and $30 million. The remainder of the capital cost for this Option, as in base Option 4, is for implantation of the BRT facilities. While a slightly larger facility for bus storage and maintenance might be required to house the larger fleet, the costs of such expansion have not been estimated. 1 Table A1: Option 4A Summary of Operating Characteristics Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Day Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 3 85,745 10,975 $760,000 Route 1 A Existing City 15/30 0.5 18,758 4,813 $333,000 Route 1 B Existing City 15/30 0.5 28,367 6,411 $444,000 Route 2A Existing City 15/30 0.5 24,744 4,813 $333,000 Route 2B Existing Split 15/30 0.5 30,209 6,411 $444,000 Route 3A Existi ng City 15/30 0.5 20,354 4,813 $333,000 Route 3B Existi ng City 15/30 0.5 27,630 6,411 $444,000 Route 4 Existing City 15/30 2.0 60,070 11,552 $800,000 Route 5 Existing County 15/30 3.0 140,729 15,642 $1,083,000 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B City 15/30 2.0 61,154 10,938 $757,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A City 15/30 1.0 33,501 4,813 $333,000 Route 8B Proposed City 15/30 1.0 31,314 6,074 $467,000 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 County 15/30 2.0 78,554 11,916 $825,000 Route 10B Proposed County 15/30 2.0 46,208 11,552 $800,000 Hollymead Route Proposed County 15 1,0 41,445 3,838 $266,000 Rio Road East Proposed County 15/30 1.0 39,910 11,552 $800,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed County 15 3.0 117,335 15,964 $1,106,000 Route 29 Circulator Proposed County 15/30 1.0 43,103 5,649 $391,000 Crosstown Route Proposed County 15/30 1.0 52,282 11,552 $800,000 Pantops-Hollymead Proposed County 30 To be determined 11,052 $765,000 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 20 6.0 278,971 23,946 $1,658,000 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 20 4.0 155,158 15,555 $1,077 ,000 Subtotal 36.0 1,415,541 216,241 $15,019,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Night Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 15 2,0 34,998 3,070 $213,000 Route 5 Existing County 30 n/a n/a 3,454 $239,000 Route 21 Existing City 30 1,0 38,682 1,535 $106,000 Route 22 Existing City 30 1,0 30,086 1,535 $106,000 Route 23 Existing City 30 0,5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Route 24 Existing County 30 0,5 8,443 1,535 $106,000 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 40 3,0 57,225 4,912 $340,000 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 40 2,0 24,499 2,456 $170,000 Subtotal 10.0 202,374 20,032 $1,386,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Sunday Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost FREE Trolley Existing City 30 1,0 5,928 520 $36,000 Route 7 Existing City 30 2,0 13,230 980 $68,000 Subtotal 3.0 19,158 1,500 $104,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Express Bus Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Rivanna Express Proposed County 1 16,830 1,020 $71,000 Piney Mountain Proposed County 1 24,480 1,020 $71,000 Subtotal 2.0 41,310 2,040 $142,000 Headway Peak Revenue Revenue Operating Other Service Status Funding (min) Buses Miles Hours Cost Other Proposed City n/a n/a 3,150 800 $55,000 Subtotal 3,150 800 $55,000 Total 1,681,533 240,613 $16,706,000 (1) "Split" funding indicates that funding responsibility is split 50/50 between Charlottesville & Albemarle Co. 2 Table A2: Option 4A Capital Cost Summary Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Day Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Route 1 A Existing Oty 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 1 B EXisting Oty 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 2A Existing Oty 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 2B Existing Split 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 3A Existing Oty 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 3B Existing Oty 0.5 $190,000 $280,000 Route 4 Existing Oty 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 5 Existing OJunty 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Route 6 Baseline Route 6B City 4 $1,520,000 $2,240,000 Route 8A Baseline Route 6A Oty 1 $380,000 $560,000 Route 8B Proposed Oty 1 $380,000 $560,000 Route 10A Baseline Route 10 OJunty 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Route 10B Proposed OJunty 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Hollymead Route Proposed OJunty 0 $0 $0 Rio Road East Proposed OJunty 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Biscuit Run Route Proposed OJunty 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Route 29 Orculator Proposed OJunty 2 $760,000 $1,120,000 Crosstow n Route Proposed OJunty 4 $1,520,000 $2,240,000 Pantops-Hollymead Proposed OJunty 3 $1,140,000 $1,680,000 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 6 $2,880,000 $5,400,000 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 4 $1,920,000 $3,600,000 Subtotal 43 $17,340,000 $27,480,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Night Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Route 5 Existing OJunty 0 $0 $0 Route 21 Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Route 22 Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Route 23 Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Route 24 Existing OJunty 0 $0 $0 Priority Transit A Proposed Split 0 $0 $0 Priority Transit B Proposed Split 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Sunday Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) FREE Trolley Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Route 7 Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Express Bus Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Rivanna Express Proposed OJunty 1 $480,000 $900,000 Piney Mountain Proposed OJunty 1 $480,000 $900,000 Subtotal 2 $960,000 $1,800,000 Additional Vehicle Cost Vehicle Cost Other Service Status Funding Vehicles (Low) (High) Other Existing Oty 0 $0 $0 Subtotal 0 $0 $0 Other Capital Costs Status Funding No. Cost (Low) Cost (High) Bus Stops Proposed Split 162 $11,000 $2,185,000 BRT Stations Proposed Split 10 $600,000 $3,000,000 Road improvements (miies) Proposed Split 6.6 $23,100,000 $103,620,000 Subtotal $23,711,000 $108,805,000 Total 45 $42,011,000 $138,085,000 3 ::=~ tn"C .- CI,) C ;j >- C'I:I- tn......CI) Cl,)C'I:It- - E- ~ - -- o CI,) 'w .i: -.cco "'-0 C'I:I .A' .- .c .c '"" C)- (.) CI,);j 0::<( CI,) oc-<C <C~ f 5 :::J; O')Q. U:O "C " 1i: c '" ~ .~ ~ " " ~ ~ E " 0 " 0 :; -'" Q; jg <>: 0 '" <>: e 0 .~ " "C >- <>: .. <>: " .~ g> w c (3 I .0 ~ "0. 2 1i: "C " ~ ~ ~ E '" " ~ ~ <>: 0> .. '" c. - N '" " "' <0 <Xl " .. N ~ g-.~ 2 c E 0 .. f- " " ~ ~ " " ~ ~ E 0 "5 " ~ ~ "C ~ 11 " " "5 "5 " -'" <>: .~ " e is ~~~ Cii ~ .c .! 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " .2 0 'C () u. <>: <>: <>: <>: <>: <>: <>: <>: I <>: lD <>: () a. :> I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~. - 0 a: ~ ~ ,@ c! ~~ e" CIl is :So <C < ..,. = . .s ~ .... c. 0 CIl ~~ .... e" ~~ 0 < '" '" Qi <C ~ '!? ~ 100 " 0 '5 = <>: & -.. ~ ~ t? t <P ... tj pdc.org I Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission POB 1505,401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.~pdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax. info@tjpdc.org email Review Draft Resolution of Consensus of Scope For the Regional Transit Authority WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle intend to establish a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to serve the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area and develop a Regional Transit Authority Plan; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a Regional Transit Authority in the Charlottesville- Albemarle Area requires that the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle actively participate in creating a unified scope ofRTA governance and services; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Board has reviewed the initial three (3) technical reports regarding Regional Transit Management and Governance, Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas, and Service Strategies; and WHEREAS, the MPO Policy Board recommends that the RTA have the following characteristics: · Mode: initially focus specifically on regional transit, but not preclude the possibility of other transportation modes, and · Service: significant investment, expansion, enhancement, and reorganization of the existing transit service both in the County and City, and · Governance: the RTA governance structure shall not preclude the future inclusion of other interested partners (i.e. UV A, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, JAUNT), and shall maximize existing revenues and include potential mechanisms for generating new revenues. and · Jurisdiction: the RTA will initially be comprised of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, but shall not preclude the future participation of other jurisdictions. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THATthe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Policy Board presents this summary resolution of the Board's recommendations, to establish a Regional Transit Authority to serve the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area. Adopted this _ day of _ 2007. - tj pdc.org Draft as of 12/09/07 Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission POB 1505,401 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.~pdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone. (434) 979-1597 fax . info@~pdc.org email Proposed Joint City/County Work Session on Regional Transit Opportunities and Challenges DRAFT Agenda I. We1come: Overview of Background, Work Session Goals, and Expected Outcomes (15 minutes total) The purpose of this work session is to solicit direction from decision makers regarding the extent to which regional transit should be further developed for this area. The work session is intended to: l. Inform participants about work to date and recommendations from the MPO Policy Board. 2. Engage in group discussions about the regional transit investment and governance required to meet future needs. 3. Collaboratively reach a consensus regarding the preferred governance and level of service. 4. Identify specific questions and concerns about consensus decisions to be addressed through further detailed study. II. Brief Review of Regional Transit Authority Vision and Working Methods (approximately 12 hour total) 1. Review of Regional Vision for Transit and Proiect Activities To Date: Vision: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority will provide fast, frequent, dependable, and seamless transit service throughout the area. Overview _ Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Study: The purpose of the RTA Study is to examine three core elements for establishing a regional transit authority: management and governance, service and operations, and cost estimation and funding (operating and capital). The project includes a fourth task that addresses the development of a transition and cost allocation plan, once a service strategy and preferred governance structure are selected. 2. Identifying Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas: "Where will our ridership come from?" Discuss the corridors and development areas that may have greater potential for the use of transit. 3. Potential Service Strategies: "What scale of service should we provide?" Discuss the varying scales of service that could be provided in the future. 4. Regional Transit Management and Governance: "What type of management and governance would best meet our regional transit needs?" Discuss the types, composition and authority of different institutional structures that could serve as the regional transit organization, as well as any legislative actions that may be required, and the additional revenues, if any, that may be available with each. III. Public Comment Period: each person will be allowed to speakfor 3 minutes (approximately 15 minutes total) IV. Open Discussion (approximately 1 hour total) V. BREAK (10 minutes total) VI. Identify Next Steps: (12 hour total) Building upon the group consensus decisions, the consultant will move forward to develop the next round of work products to include a staffing plan, service standards, and a cost estimation and funding proposal. This information will be brought back before the group for a decision in late Spring 2008. A cost allocation and implementation plan will be the final work product in this study. VII. Public Comment Period: each person will be allowed to speak for 3 minutes (approximately 15 minutes total) As the overall regional transit discussion moves forward, there will be several opportunities during which public input and involvement will be actively solicited.